Non-systemic position. How long does it take to fly to the nearest star? How far is the nearest star in light years?

Since ancient times, man has turned his gaze to the sky, where he saw thousands of stars. They fascinated him and made him think. Over the centuries, knowledge about them accumulated and systematized. And when it became clear that the stars are not just luminous points, but real cosmic objects of enormous size, a person had a dream - to fly to them. But first we had to determine how far away they were.

The closest star to Earth

Using telescopes and mathematical formulas scientists managed to calculate the distances to our (excluding solar system objects) cosmic neighbors. So, which star is closest to Earth? It turned out to be little Proxima Centauri. It is part of a triple system located at a distance of approximately just over four light years from the Solar System (it is worth noting that astronomers more often use another unit of measurement - the parsec). She was named proxima, which means “nearest” in Latin. For the Universe, this distance seems insignificant, but with the current level of space shipbuilding, it will take more than one generation of people to reach it.

Proxima Centauri

In the sky this star can only be seen through a telescope. It shines about one hundred and fifty times weaker than the Sun. It is also significantly smaller in size than the latter, and its surface temperature is two times lower. Astronomers consider this star and the existence of planets around it to be unlikely. And therefore there is no point in flying there. Although the triple system itself deserves attention - such objects are not very common in the Universe. The stars in them revolve around each other in bizarre orbits, and sometimes they “devour” their neighbor.

Deep space

Let's say a few words about the most distant object discovered so far in the Universe. Of those visible without the use of special optical devices, this is, without a doubt, the Andromeda Nebula. Its brightness is approximately a quarter magnitude. And the closest star to Earth in this galaxy is located from us, according to astronomers, at a distance of two million light years. Mind-blowing magnitude! After all, we see it as it was two million years ago - that’s how easy it is to look into the past! But let's return to our “neighbors”. The closest galaxy to us is a dwarf galaxy, which can be observed in the constellation Sagittarius. She is so close to us that she practically absorbs her! True, it will still take eighty thousand light years to fly to it. These are the distances in space! The Magellanic Cloud is not worth talking about. This satellite Milky Way is almost 170 million light years behind us.

The closest stars to Earth

There are fifty-one relatively close to the Sun. But we will list only eight. So, meet:

Proxima Centauri, already mentioned above. Distance - four light years, class M5.5 (red or brown dwarf).
The stars Alpha Centauri A and B. They are 4.3 light years away from us. Objects of class D2 and K1 respectively. Alpha Centauri is also the closest star to Earth, similar in temperature to our Sun.
Barnard's Star - it is also called "Flying" because it moves at a high speed (compared to other space objects). Located at a distance of 6 light years from the Sun. Object class M3.8. In the sky it can be found in the constellation Ophiuchus.
Wolf 359 is located 7.7 light years away. 16th magnitude object in the constellation Draco. Class M5.8.
Lalande 1185 is 8.2 light years away from our system. Located in Object class M2.1. Magnitude - 10.
Tau Ceti is located 8.4 light years away. M5,6 class star.
The Sirius A and B system is eight and a half light years away. Stars class A1 and DA.
Ross 154 in the constellation Sagittarius. Located at a distance of 9.4 light years from the Sun. M class star 3.6.

Only space objects located within a radius of ten light years from us are mentioned here.

Sun

However, looking at the sky, we forget that the closest star to Earth is still the Sun. This is the center of our system. Without it, life on Earth would have been impossible, and our planet was formed along with this star. That’s why it deserves special attention. A little about her. Like all stars, the Sun is composed primarily of hydrogen and helium. Moreover, the first one constantly turns into the last one. As a result, heavier elements are also formed. And the older the star, the more they accumulate.

In terms of age, the closest star to Earth is no longer young, it is about five billion years old. is ~2.10 33 g, diameter - 1,392,000 kilometers. The temperature on the surface reaches 6000 K. In the middle of the star it rises. The atmosphere of the Sun consists of three parts: the corona, the chromosphere and the photosphere.

Solar activity significantly affects life on Earth. It is argued that climate, weather and the state of the biosphere depend on it. It is known about the eleven-year periodicity of solar activity.

Using telescopes from the European Southern Observatory (ESO), astronomers managed to make another amazing discovery. This time they discovered definitive evidence of the existence of an exoplanet orbiting the star closest to Earth, Proxima Centauri. The world, named Proxima Centauri b, has long been sought by scientists all over the Earth. Now, thanks to its discovery, it has been established that the period of its orbit around its native star (a year) is 11 Earth days, and the surface temperature of this exoplanet is suitable for the possibility of finding liquid water. This stone world itself is slightly larger than the Earth and, like the star, has become the closest to us of all such space objects. In addition, this is not just the closest exoplanet to Earth, it is also the closest world suitable for the existence of life.

Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf star, and it is located at a distance of 4.25 light years from us. The star got its name for a reason - this is another confirmation of its proximity to Earth, since proxima is translated from Latin as “closest”. This star is located in the constellation Centauri, and its luminosity is so weak that it is completely impossible to notice with the naked eye, and besides, it is quite close to the much brighter pair of stars α Centauri AB.

During the first half of 2016, Proxima Centauri was regularly studied using the HARPS spectrograph mounted on the 3.6-meter telescope in Chile, as well as simultaneously with other telescopes from around the world. The star was studied as part of the Pale Red Dot campaign, during which scientists from the University of London studied the vibrations of the star caused by the presence of an unidentified exoplanet in its orbit. The name of this program is a direct reference to the famous image of the Earth from the distant reaches of the Solar System. Then Carl Sagan called this picture (blue spot). Since Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf, the name of the program was adjusted.

As this exoplanet search topic generated widespread public interest, the scientists' progress in this work was continuously published publicly from mid-January to April 2016 on the program's own website and through social media. These reports were accompanied by numerous articles written by experts from around the world.

“We received the first hints of the possibility of the existence of an exoplanet here, but our data then turned out to be inconclusive. Since then we have worked hard to improve our observations with the help of the European Observatory and other organizations. For example, the planning of this campaign took approximately two years,” Guilhem Anglada-Escudé, head of the research team.

Data from the Pale Red Dot campaign, combined with earlier observations from ESO and other observatories, showed a clear signal of the presence of an exoplanet. It has been very precisely established that from time to time Proxima Centauri approaches the Earth at a speed of 5 kilometers per hour, which is equal to normal human speed, and then moves away at the same speed. This regular cycle of changes in radial velocities repeats with a period of 11.2 days. Careful analysis of the resulting Doppler shifts indicated the presence of a planet with a mass at least 1.3 times that of Earth at a distance of 7 million kilometers from Proxima Centauri, just 5 percent of the distance from Earth to the Sun. In general, such detection has become technically possible only in the last 10 years. But, in fact, signals with even smaller amplitudes have been detected before. However, stars are not smooth balls of gas, and Proxima Centauri is a very active star. Therefore, accurately detecting Proxima Centauri b was only possible after obtaining a detailed description of how the star changes on time scales ranging from minutes to decades, and monitoring its luminosity with light-measuring telescopes.

“We continued to check the data to ensure that the signal we received did not contradict what we had discovered. This was done every day for another 60 days. After the first ten days we had confidence, after 20 days we realized that our signal was as expected, and after 30 days all the data categorically claimed the discovery of the exoplanet Proxima Centauri b, so we began to prepare articles on this event.”

Red dwarfs like Proxima Centauri are active stars and have many tricks up their sleeve to be able to mimic the presence of an exoplanet in their orbits. To eliminate this error, the researchers monitored changes in the star's brightness using the ASH2 telescope at the San Pedro de Atacami Observatory in Chile and the Las Cumbres Observatory telescope network. Information on radial velocities as the star's luminosity increased was excluded from the final analysis.

Despite the fact that Proxima Centauri b orbits much closer to its star than Mercury around the Sun, Proxima Centauri itself is much fainter than our star. As a result, the discovered exoplanet is located exactly in the region around the star suitable for the existence of life as we know it, and the estimated temperature of its surface allows the presence of liquid water. Despite this moderate orbit, conditions on its surface can be greatly influenced by ultraviolet radiation and X-ray flares from the star, which are much more intense than the effects that the Sun has on Earth.

The actual ability of this kind of planet to support liquid water and have Earth-like life is a matter of intense but mostly theoretical debate. The main arguments against the presence of life are related to the proximity of Proxima Centauri. For example, conditions can be created on Proxima Centauri b in which one side is always facing the star, causing eternal night on one half and eternal day on the other. The planet's atmosphere could also slowly evaporate or have more complex chemistry than Earth's due to strong ultraviolet and x-ray radiation, especially during the first billion years of a star's life. However, so far not a single argument has been conclusively proven, and it is unlikely that they will be eliminated without direct observational evidence and obtaining accurate characteristics of the planet's atmosphere.

Two individual works were devoted to the habitability of Proxima Centauri b and its climate. It has been established that today we cannot exclude the existence liquid water on the planet, in which case it can be present on the surface of the planet only in the sunniest regions, either in the region of the planet's hemisphere always facing the star (synchronous rotation), or in the tropical zone (3:2 resonant rotation). Proxima Centauri b's rapid motion around the star, Proxima Centauri's intense radiation, and the history of the planet's formation have made its climate completely different from Earth's, and it is unlikely that Proxima Centauri b has seasons at all.

One way or another, this discovery will be the beginning of large-scale further observations, both with current instruments and with the subsequent generation of giant telescopes, such as the European Extremely Large Telescope(E-ELT). In subsequent years, Proxima Centauri b will become main goal to search for life elsewhere in the Universe. This is quite symbolic, since the Alpha Centauri system was also chosen as the target of humanity's first attempt to move to another star system. The Breakthrough Starshot project is a research and engineering project within the Breakthrough Initiatives program to develop a concept for a fleet of light sail spacecraft called the StarChip. This type of spacecraft would be able to travel to the Alpha Centauri star system, 4.37 light-years from Earth, at between 20 and 15 percent of the speed of light, taking 20 to 30 years respectively, and about 4 more years to notify Earth of successful arrival.

In conclusion, I would like to note that many accurate methods for searching for exoplanets are based on the analysis of its passage across the disk of a star and starlight through its atmosphere. There is currently no evidence that Proxima Centauri b is passing across the disk of its parent star, and opportunities to see the event are currently negligible. However, scientists hope that the efficiency of observational instruments will increase in the future.

At some point in our lives, each of us asked this question: how long does it take to fly to the stars? Is it possible to make such a flight in one human life, can such flights become the norm of everyday life? There are many answers to this complex question, depending on who is asking. Some are simple, others are more complex. There is too much to take into account to find a complete answer.

The answer to this question is not so simple

Unfortunately, no real estimates There are no solutions that could help find such an answer, and this frustrates futurists and interstellar travel enthusiasts. Whether we like it or not, space is very large (and complex) and our technology is still limited. But if we ever decide to leave our “nest,” we will have several ways to get to the nearest star system in our galaxy.

The closest star to our Earth is , quite an “average” star according to the Hertzsprung-Russell “main sequence” scheme. This means that the star is very stable and provides enough sunlight so that life can develop on our planet. We know that there are other planets orbiting stars near our solar system, and many of these stars are similar to our own.

Possible habitable worlds in the Universe

In the future, if humanity wishes to leave the solar system, we will have a huge choice of stars to go to, and many of them may well have conditions favorable to life. But where will we go and how long will it take us to get there? Keep in mind that this is all just speculation and there are no guidelines for interstellar travel at this time. Well, as Gagarin said, let's go!

As already noted, the closest star to ours solar system is Proxima Centauri, and therefore it makes a lot of sense to start planning an interstellar mission with it. Part of the triple star system Alpha Centauri, Proxima is 4.24 light years (1.3 parsecs) from Earth. Alpha Centauri is essentially the brightest star of the three in the system, part of a close binary system 4.37 light-years from Earth - while Proxima Centauri (the faintest of the three) is an isolated red dwarf at 0.13 light-years from the dual system.

And although conversations about interstellar travel bring to mind all sorts of “faster than the speed of light” (FSL) travel, ranging from warp speeds and wormholes to subspace engines, such theories are either highest degree are fictional (like ), or exist only in science fiction. Any mission into deep space will last for generations.

So, starting with one of the slowest forms of space travel, how long will it take to get to Proxima Centauri?

Modern methods

The question of estimating the duration of travel in space is much simpler if it involves existing technologies and bodies in our Solar System. For example, using the technology used by 16 hydrazine monopropellant engines, it is possible to reach the Moon in just 8 hours and 35 minutes.

There's also the European Space Agency's SMART-1 mission, which propelled itself toward the Moon using ion propulsion. With this revolutionary technology, a version of which was also used by the Dawn space probe to reach Vesta, the SMART-1 mission took a year, a month and two weeks to reach the Moon.

Ion thruster

From fast rocket spacecraft to fuel-efficient ion propulsion, we have a couple of options for getting around local space - plus you can use Jupiter or Saturn as a huge gravitational slingshot. However, if we plan to go a little further, we will have to increase the power of technology and explore new possibilities.

When we talk about possible methods, we are talking about those that involve existing technologies, or those that do not yet exist but are technically feasible. Some of them, as you will see, are time-tested and confirmed, while others still remain in question. In short, they present a possible, but very time-consuming and financially expensive scenario for traveling even to the nearest star.

Ionic movement

Currently, the slowest and most economical form of propulsion is the ion propulsion. A few decades ago, ion propulsion was considered the stuff of science fiction. But in recent years ion engine support technologies have moved from theory to practice, and very successfully. The European Space Agency's SMART-1 mission is an example of a successful mission to the Moon in a 13-month spiral from Earth.

SMART-1 used solar-powered ion engines, in which electrical energy was collected by solar panels and used to power Hall effect engines. To deliver SMART-1 to the Moon, only 82 kilograms of xenon fuel were required. 1 kilogram of xenon fuel provides a delta-V of 45 m/s. This is an extremely efficient form of movement, but it is far from the fastest.

One of the first missions to use ion propulsion technology was the Deep Space 1 mission to Comet Borrelli in 1998. The DS1 also used a xenon ion engine and consumed 81.5 kg of fuel. After 20 months of thrust, DS1 reached speeds of 56,000 km/h at the time of the comet's flyby.

Ion engines are more economical than rocket technology because their thrust per unit mass of propellant (specific impulse) is much higher. But ion engines take a long time to accelerate spacecraft to significant speeds, and the maximum speed depends on fuel support and power generation volumes.

Therefore, if ion propulsion were to be used in a mission to Proxima Centauri, the engines would need to have a powerful power source (nuclear power) and large fuel reserves (albeit less than conventional rockets). But if we start from the assumption that 81.5 kg of xenon fuel translates into 56,000 km/h (and there will be no other forms of movement), calculations can be made.

At a top speed of 56,000 km/h, it would take Deep Space 1 81,000 years to travel the 4.24 light years between Earth and Proxima Centauri. In time, this is about 2,700 generations of people. It's safe to say that interplanetary ion propulsion will be too slow for a manned interstellar mission.

But if the ion engines are larger and more powerful (that is, the rate of ion outflow will be much higher), if there is enough rocket fuel to last the entire 4.24 light years, the travel time will be significantly reduced. But there will still be significantly more human life left.

Gravity maneuver

The fastest way to travel in space is to use gravity assist. This technique involves the spacecraft using the relative motion (i.e., orbit) and gravity of the planet to change its path and speed. Gravity maneuvers are an extremely useful spaceflight technique, especially when using Earth or another massive planet (such as a gas giant) for acceleration.

The Mariner 10 spacecraft was the first to use this method, using the gravitational pull of Venus to propel itself toward Mercury in February 1974. In the 1980s, the Voyager 1 probe used Saturn and Jupiter for gravity maneuvers and acceleration to 60,000 km/h before entering interstellar space.

The Helios 2 mission, which began in 1976 and was intended to explore the interplanetary medium between 0.3 AU. e. and 1 a. e. from the Sun, holds the record for the highest speed developed using a gravitational maneuver. At that time, Helios 1 (launched in 1974) and Helios 2 held the record for the closest approach to the Sun. Helios 2 was launched by a conventional rocket and placed into a highly elongated orbit.

Helios Mission

Due to the high eccentricity (0.54) of the 190-day solar orbit, at perihelion Helios 2 was able to achieve a maximum speed of over 240,000 km/h. This orbital speed was developed due to the gravitational attraction of the Sun alone. Technically, Helios 2's perihelion speed was not the result of a gravitational maneuver but its maximum orbital speed, but it still holds the record for the fastest man-made object.

If Voyager 1 were moving towards the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri at a constant speed of 60,000 km/h, it would take 76,000 years (or more than 2,500 generations) to cover this distance. But if the probe reached Helios 2's record speed - a sustained speed of 240,000 km/h - it would take 19,000 years (or more than 600 generations) to travel 4,243 light years. Significantly better, although not nearly practical.

Electromagnetic motor EM Drive

Another proposed method for interstellar travel is EM Drive. Proposed back in 2001 by Roger Scheuer, a British scientist who created Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR) to implement the project, the engine is based on the idea that electromagnetic microwave cavities can directly convert electricity into thrust.

EM Drive - resonant cavity motor

While traditional electromagnetic motors are designed to propel a specific mass (such as ionized particles), this particular propulsion system is independent of mass response and does not emit directed radiation. In general, this engine was met with a fair amount of skepticism, largely because it violates the law of conservation of momentum, according to which the momentum of the system remains constant and cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed under the influence of force.

However, recent experiments with this technology have apparently led to positive results. In July 2014, at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, NASA advanced propulsion scientists announced that they had successfully tested a new electromagnetic propulsion design.

In April 2015, NASA Eagleworks scientists (part of the Johnson Space Center) said they had successfully tested the engine in a vacuum, which could indicate possible space applications. In July of the same year, a group of scientists from the space systems department of the Dresden University of Technology developed her own version of the engine and observed noticeable thrust.

In 2010, Professor Zhuang Yang from Northwestern Polytechnic University in Xi'an, China, has begun publishing a series of articles about its research into EM Drive technology. In 2012, she reported high input power (2.5 kW) and a recorded thrust of 720 mN. It also conducted extensive testing in 2014, including internal temperature measurements with built-in thermocouples, which showed the system worked.

Based on calculations based on NASA's prototype (which was estimated to have a power rating of 0.4 N/kilowatt), an electromagnetic-powered spacecraft could travel to Pluto in less than 18 months. This is six times less than what was required by the New Horizons probe, which was moving at a speed of 58,000 km/h.

Sounds impressive. But even in this case, the ship on electromagnetic engines will fly to Proxima Centauri for 13,000 years. Close, but still not enough. In addition, until all the i's are dotted in this technology, it is too early to talk about its use.

Nuclear thermal and nuclear electrical motion

Another possibility for interstellar flight is to use a spacecraft equipped with nuclear engines. NASA has been studying such options for decades. A nuclear thermal propulsion rocket could use uranium or deuterium reactors to heat hydrogen in the reactor, turning it into ionized gas (hydrogen plasma), which would then be directed into the rocket nozzle, generating thrust.

I'm a nuclear-powered rocket

A nuclear-electric powered rocket uses the same reactor to convert heat and energy into electricity, which then powers an electric motor. In both cases, the rocket would rely on nuclear fusion or fission to generate thrust, rather than the chemical fuel that all modern space agencies run on.

Compared to chemical engines, nuclear engines have undeniable advantages. Firstly, it has virtually unlimited energy density compared to rocket fuel. In addition, a nuclear engine will also produce powerful thrust relative to the amount of fuel used. This will reduce the volume of required fuel, and at the same time the weight and cost of a particular device.

Although thermal nuclear engines have not yet been launched into space, prototypes have been created and tested, and even more have been proposed.

Yet despite the advantages in fuel economy and specific impulse, the best proposed nuclear thermal engine concept has a maximum specific impulse of 5000 seconds (50 kN s/kg). Using nuclear engines powered by fission or fusion, NASA scientists could deliver a spacecraft to Mars in just 90 days if the Red Planet is 55,000,000 kilometers from Earth.

But when it comes to traveling to Proxima Centauri, it would take centuries for a nuclear rocket to reach a significant fraction of the speed of light. Then it will take several decades of travel, followed by many more centuries of slowdown on the way to the goal. We are still 1000 years from our destination. What is good for interplanetary missions is not so good for interstellar ones.

Nuclear propulsion

Nuclear propulsion is a theoretically possible "engine" for rapid space travel. The concept was originally proposed by Stanislaw Ulam in 1946, a Polish-American mathematician involved in , and preliminary calculations were made by F. Reines and Ulam in 1947. Project Orion was launched in 1958 and lasted until 1963.

Led by Ted Taylor of General Atomics and physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, Orion would harness the power of pulsed nuclear explosions to provide enormous thrust with very high specific impulse.

Orion was supposed to use the power of pulsed nuclear explosions

In a nutshell, Project Orion involves a large spacecraft that gains speed by supporting thermonuclear warheads, ejecting bombs from behind and accelerating from a blast wave that goes into a rear-mounted “pusher,” a propulsion panel. After each push, the force of the explosion is absorbed by this panel and converted into forward movement.

Although this design is hardly elegant by modern standards, the advantage of the concept is that it provides high specific thrust - that is, it extracts the maximum amount of energy from the fuel source (in in this case nuclear bombs) at minimal cost. Additionally, this concept can theoretically achieve very high speeds, some estimate up to 5% of the speed of light (5.4 x 107 km/h).

Of course, this project has inevitable disadvantages. On the one hand, a ship of this size will be extremely expensive to build. Dyson estimated in 1968 that the Orion spacecraft hydrogen bombs would have weighed between 400,000 and 4,000,000 metric tons. And at least three-quarters of that weight would come from nuclear bombs, each weighing about one ton.

Dyson's conservative calculations showed that the total cost of building Orion would be $367 billion. Adjusted for inflation, this amount comes out to $2.5 trillion, which is quite a lot. Even with the most conservative estimates, the device will be extremely expensive to produce.

There's also the small issue of the radiation it will emit, not to mention the nuclear waste. It is believed that this is why the project was scrapped as part of the partial test ban treaty of 1963, when world governments sought to limit nuclear testing and stop the excessive release of radioactive fallout into the planet's atmosphere.

Fusion rockets

Another possibility of using nuclear energy is through thermonuclear reactions to produce thrust. In this concept, energy would be created by igniting pellets of a mixture of deuterium and helium-3 in a reaction chamber by inertial confinement using electron beams (similar to what is done at the National Ignition Facility in California). So thermo nuclear reactor would explode 250 pellets per second, creating a high-energy plasma that would then be redirected into the nozzle, creating thrust.

Project Daedalus never saw the light of day

Like a rocket that relies on a nuclear reactor, this concept has advantages in terms of fuel efficiency and specific impulse. The speed is estimated to reach 10,600 km/h, far exceeding the speed limits of conventional rockets. Moreover, this technology has been extensively studied over the past few decades and many proposals have been made.

For example, between 1973 and 1978, the British Interplanetary Society conducted a study into the feasibility of Project Daedalus. Drawing on modern knowledge and fusion technology, scientists have called for the construction of a two-stage unmanned scientific probe that could reach Barnard's Star (5.9 light-years from Earth) within a human lifetime.

The first stage, the largest of the two, would operate for 2.05 years and accelerate the craft to 7.1% the speed of light. Then this stage is discarded, the second one is ignited, and the device accelerates to 12% of the speed of light in 1.8 years. Then the second stage engine is turned off, and the ship flies for 46 years.

Agree, it looks very beautiful!

Project Daedalus estimates that the mission would have taken 50 years to reach Barnard's Star. If to Proxima Centauri, the same ship will get there in 36 years. But, of course, the project includes a lot unresolved issues, in particular unsolvable using modern technology - and most of them are still not solved.

For example, there is practically no helium-3 on Earth, which means it will have to be mined elsewhere (most likely on the Moon). Second, the reaction that drives the apparatus requires that the energy emitted significantly exceeds the energy expended to start the reaction. And although experiments on Earth have already surpassed the “break-even point,” we are still far from the volumes of energy that can power an interstellar spacecraft.

Thirdly, the question of the cost of such a vessel remains. Even by the modest standards of the Project Daedalus unmanned vehicle, a fully equipped vehicle would weigh 60,000 tons. To give you an idea, the gross weight of NASA SLS is just over 30 metric tons, and the launch alone will cost $5 billion (2013 estimates).

In short, the rocket is on nuclear fusion Not only would it be too expensive to build, but it would also require a level of fusion reactor far beyond our capabilities. Icarus Interstellar, an international organization of citizen scientists (some of whom worked for NASA or ESA), is trying to revive the concept with Project Icarus. Formed in 2009, the group hopes to make the fusion movement (and more) possible for the foreseeable future.

Fusion ramjet

Also known as the Bussard ramjet, the engine was first proposed by physicist Robert Bussard in 1960. At its core, it is an improvement on the standard thermonuclear rocket, which uses magnetic fields to compress the hydrogen fuel to the fusion trigger point. But in the case of a ramjet, a huge electromagnetic funnel sucks hydrogen from the interstellar medium and dumps it into the reactor as fuel.

As the vehicle gains speed, the reactive mass enters a confining magnetic field, which compresses it until thermonuclear fusion begins. The magnetic field then directs energy into the rocket nozzle, accelerating the craft. Since no fuel tanks will slow it down, a fusion ramjet can reach speeds on the order of 4% of light speed and travel anywhere in the galaxy.

However, there are many potential downsides to this mission. For example, the problem of friction. The spacecraft relies on a high rate of fuel collection, but will also encounter large amounts of interstellar hydrogen and lose speed - especially in dense regions of the galaxy. Secondly, there is little deuterium and tritium (which are used in reactors on Earth) in space, and the synthesis of ordinary hydrogen, which is abundant in space, is not yet within our control.

However, science fiction fell in love with this concept. The most famous example is perhaps the Star Trek franchise that uses "Bussard Collectors". In reality, our understanding of fusion reactors is not nearly as good as we would like.

Laser sail

Solar sails have long been considered effective way conquest of the solar system. Besides the fact that they are relatively simple and cheap to manufacture, they have a big advantage: they do not require fuel. Instead of using rockets that need fuel, the sail uses radiation pressure from stars to propel ultra-thin mirrors to high speeds.

However, in the case of interstellar travel, such a sail would have to be propelled by focused beams of energy (laser or microwaves) to accelerate it to near light speed. The concept was first proposed by Robert Forward in 1984, a physicist at Hughes Aircraft Laboratory.

What is there a lot of in space? That's right - sunlight

His idea retains the advantages of a solar sail in that it does not require fuel on board, and also that laser energy does not dissipate over a distance in the same way as solar radiation. Thus, although the laser sail will take some time to accelerate to near light speed, it will subsequently be limited only by the speed of light itself.

According to a 2000 study by Robert Frisby, director of advanced propulsion concepts research at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a laser sail would accelerate to half the speed of light in less than a decade. He also calculated that a sail with a diameter of 320 kilometers could reach Proxima Centauri in 12 years. Meanwhile, the sail, 965 kilometers in diameter, will arrive in just 9 years.

However, such a sail will have to be built from advanced composite materials to avoid melting. Which will be especially difficult given the size of the sail. Costs are even worse. According to Frisby, the lasers would require a steady flow of 17,000 terawatts of energy, which is roughly what the entire world consumes in one day.

Antimatter engine

Science fiction fans are well aware of what antimatter is. But in case you forgot, antimatter is a substance made up of particles that have the same mass as regular particles but the opposite charge. An antimatter engine is a hypothetical engine that relies on interactions between matter and antimatter to generate energy, or thrust.

Hypothetical antimatter engine

In short, an antimatter engine uses hydrogen and antihydrogen particles colliding with each other. The energy emitted during the annihilation process is comparable in volume to the energy of the explosion of a thermonuclear bomb accompanied by a flow of subatomic particles - pions and muons. These particles, which travel at one-third the speed of light, are redirected into a magnetic nozzle and generate thrust.

The advantage of this class of rocket is that most of the mass of the matter/antimatter mixture can be converted into energy, resulting in a high energy density and specific impulse superior to any other rocket. Moreover, the annihilation reaction can accelerate the rocket to half the speed of light.

This class of rockets will be the fastest and most energy efficient possible (or impossible, but proposed). While conventional chemical rockets require tons of fuel to propel a spacecraft to its destination, an antimatter engine will do the same job with just a few milligrams of fuel. The mutual destruction of half a kilogram of hydrogen and antihydrogen particles releases more energy than a 10-megaton hydrogen bomb.

It is for this reason that NASA's Advanced Concepts Institute is researching this technology as a possibility for future missions to Mars. Unfortunately, when considering missions to nearby star systems, the amount of fuel required grows exponentially and the costs become astronomical (no pun intended).

What does annihilation look like?

According to a report prepared for the 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, a two-stage antimatter rocket would require more than 815,000 metric tons of propellant to reach Proxima Centauri in 40 years. It's relatively fast. But the price...

Although one gram of antimatter produces an incredible amount of energy, producing just one gram would require 25 million billion kilowatt-hours of energy and cost a trillion dollars. Currently, the total amount of antimatter that has been created by humans is less than 20 nanograms.

And even if we could produce antimatter cheaply, we would need a massive ship that could hold the required amount of fuel. According to a report by Dr. Darrell Smith and Jonathan Webby of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona, an antimatter-powered interstellar spacecraft could reach the speed of 0.5 times the speed of light and reach Proxima Centauri in just over 8 years. However, the ship itself would weigh 400 tons and require 170 tons of antimatter fuel.

A possible way around this would be to create a vessel that would create antimatter and then use it as fuel. This concept, known as the Vacuum to Antimatter Rocket Interstellar Explorer System (VARIES), was proposed by Richard Aubauzi of Icarus Interstellar. Based on the idea of in-situ recycling, the VARIES vehicle would use large lasers (powered by huge solar panels) to create antimatter particles when fired into empty space.

Similar to the fusion ramjet concept, this proposal solves the problem of transporting fuel by extracting it directly from space. But again, the cost of such a ship will be extremely high if it is built by our modern methods. We simply cannot create antimatter on a huge scale. There is also a radiation problem to be solved, since the annihilation of matter and antimatter produces bursts of high-energy gamma rays.

They not only pose a danger to the crew, but also to the engine so that they don't fall apart into subatomic particles under the influence of all that radiation. In short, an antimatter engine is completely impractical given our current technology.

Alcubierre Warp Drive

Science fiction fans are no doubt familiar with the concept of warp drive (or Alcubierre drive). Proposed by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994, the idea was an attempt to imagine instantaneous movement in space without violating Einstein's theory of special relativity. In short, this concept involves stretching the fabric of spacetime into a wave, which would theoretically cause the space in front of an object to contract and the space behind it to expand.

An object inside this wave (our ship) will be able to ride this wave, being in a “warp bubble,” at a speed much higher than the relativistic one. Since the ship does not move in the bubble itself, but is carried by it, the laws of relativity and space-time will not be violated. Essentially, this method does not involve moving faster than the speed of light in a local sense.

It is "faster than light" only in the sense that the ship can reach its destination faster than a beam of light traveling outside the warp bubble. Assuming the spacecraft is equipped with the Alcubierre system, it will reach Proxima Centauri in less than 4 years. Therefore, when it comes to theoretical interstellar space travel, this is by far the most promising technology in terms of speed.

Of course, this whole concept is extremely controversial. Among the arguments against, for example, is that it does not take quantum mechanics into account and can be disproved (like loop quantum gravity). Calculations of the required amount of energy also showed that the warp drive would be prohibitively voracious. Other uncertainties include the safety of such a system, spacetime effects at the destination, and violations of causality.

However, in 2012, NASA scientist Harold White announced that, together with his colleagues, the Alcubierre engine. White stated that they had built an interferometer that would capture the spatial distortions produced by the expansion and contraction of spacetime in the Alcubierre metric.

In 2013, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory published the results of warp field tests conducted in vacuum conditions. Unfortunately, the results were considered “inconclusive.” In the long term, we may find that the Alcubierre metric violates one or more fundamental laws of nature. And even if its physics prove correct, there is no guarantee that the Alcubierre system can be used for flight.

In general, everything is as usual: you were born too early to travel to the nearest star. However, if humanity feels the need to build an "interstellar ark" that will contain a self-sustaining human society, it will take about a hundred years to get to Proxima Centauri. If, of course, we want to invest in such an event.

In terms of time, all available methods seem to be extremely limited. And while spending hundreds of thousands of years traveling to the nearest star may be of little interest to us when our own survival is at stake, as space technology advances, the methods will remain extremely impractical. By the time our ark reaches the nearest star, its technology will become obsolete, and humanity itself may no longer exist.

So unless we make a major breakthrough in fusion, antimatter, or laser technology, we will be content with exploring our own solar system.

What is the distance from Earth to the nearest star, Proxy Centauri?

Consider - 3.87 light years * for 365 days * 86400 (number of seconds in a day) * 300,000 (speed of light km/s) = (approximately) like Vladimir Ustinov, and our Sun is only 150 million km
Perhaps there are stars closer (the sun doesn’t count), but they are very small (a white dwarf, for example), but they have not yet been discovered. 4 light years is still very far away((((((
The closest star from the Sun, Proxima Centauri. Its diameter is seven times less than that of the sun, and the same applies to its mass. Its luminosity is 0.17% of the luminosity of the Sun, or only 0.0056% in the spectrum visible to the human eye. This explains the fact that it cannot be seen with the naked eye, and the fact that it was discovered only in the 20th century. The distance from the Sun to this star is 4.22 light years. Which by cosmic standards is almost close. After all, even the gravity of our Sun extends to approximately half this distance! However, for humanity, this distance is truly enormous. Distances on planetary scales are measured in light years. How far will light travel in a vacuum in 365 days? This value is 9,640 billion kilometers. To understand distances, here are a few examples. The distance from the Earth to the Moon is 1.28 light seconds, and with modern technology the journey takes 3 days. Between the planets of our solar system, distances vary from 2.3 light minutes to 5.3 light hours. In other words, the longest journey will take just over 10 years on an unmanned spacecraft. Now let's consider how much time we need to fly to Proxima Centauri. The current champion in speed is the unmanned spacecraft Helios 2. Its speed is 253,000 km/h or 0.02334% of the speed of light. Having calculated, we find out that it will take us 18,000 years to get to the nearest star. At the current level of technology development, we can only ensure the operation of a spacecraft for 50 years.
It's hard to imagine distances using numbers. If our sun is reduced to the size of a match head, then the distance to the nearest star will be approximately 1 kilometer
Proxima Centauri is approximately 40,000,000,000,000 km away... 4.22 light years.. Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away. of the year…
4 light years (approximately 37,843,200,000,000 km)
You are confusing something, dear colleague. The nearest star is the Sun. 8 minutes and a little with no light coming on :)
To Proxima: 4.22 (+- 0.01) light years. Or 1.295 (+-0.004) parsec. Taken from here.
to Proxima Centauri 4.2 light years is 41,734,219,479,449.6 km, if 1 light year is 9,460,528,447,488 km
4.5 light years (1 parsec?)
There are stars in the Universe that are so far from us that we do not even have the opportunity to know their distance or determine their number. But how far is the nearest star from Earth?
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 150,000,000 kilometers. Since light travels at 300,000 km/sec, it takes 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth.
The closest stars to us are Proxima Centauri and Alpha Centauri. The distance from them to the Earth is 270,000 times greater than the distance from the Sun to the Earth. That is, the distance from us to these stars is 270,000 times more than 150,000,000 kilometers! Their light takes 4.5 years to reach Earth.
The distance to the stars is so great that it was necessary to develop a unit for measuring this distance. It's called a light year. This is the distance that light travels in one year. This is approximately 10 trillion kilometers (10,000,000,000,000 km). The distance to the nearest star exceeds this distance by 4.5 times.
Of all the stars in the sky, only 6000 can be seen without a telescope, with the naked eye. Not all of these stars are visible from the UK.
In fact, looking up at the sky and observing the stars, there are a little over a thousand of them. And with a powerful telescope you can detect many, many times more.

> > How long will it take to travel to the nearest star?

Find out, how long to fly to the nearest star: the closest star to Earth after the Sun, distance to Proxima Centauri, description of launches, new technologies.

Modern humanity spends efforts on exploring its native solar system. But can we go on reconnaissance to a neighboring star? And how many How long will it take to travel to the nearest star?? This can be answered very simply, or you can go deeper into the realm of science fiction.

Speaking from the perspective of today's technology, real numbers will scare away enthusiasts and dreamers. Let's not forget that the distances in space are incredibly vast and our resources are still limited.

The closest star to planet Earth is . This is the middle representative of the main sequence. But there are many neighbors concentrated around us, so now it’s possible to create a whole map of routes. But how long does it take to get there?

Which star is the closest

The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, so for now you should base your calculations on its characteristics. It is part of the triple system Alpha Centauri and is distant from us at a distance of 4.24 light years. It is an isolated red dwarf located 0.13 light years from the binary star.

As soon as the topic of interstellar travel comes up, everyone immediately thinks about warp speed and jumping into wormholes. But all of them are either unattainable or absolutely impossible. Unfortunately, any long-distance mission will take more than one generation. Let's start the analysis with the slowest methods.

How long will it take to travel to the nearest star today?

It is easy to make calculations based on existing equipment and the limits of our system. For example, the New Horizons mission used 16 engines operating on hydrazine monopropellant. It took 8 hours 35 minutes to get to. But the SMART-1 mission was based on ion engines and took 13 months and two weeks to reach the earth’s satellite.

So we have several options vehicle. In addition, it can be used as a giant gravitational slingshot. But if we plan to travel that far, we need to check all possible options.

Now we are talking not only about existing technologies, but also about those that in theory can be created. Some of them have already been tested on missions, while others are only in the form of drawings.

Ionic strength

This is the slowest method, but economical. Just a few decades ago, the ion engine was considered fantastic. But now it is used in many devices. For example, the SMART-1 mission reached the Moon with its help. In this case, the option with solar panels was used. Thus, he spent only 82 kg of xenon fuel. Here we win in efficiency, but definitely not in speed.

For the first time, the ion engine was used for Deep Space 1, flying to (1998). The device used the same type of engine as SMART-1, using only 81.5 kg of propellant. Over the course of 20 months of travel, he managed to accelerate to 56,000 km/h.

The ion type is considered much more economical than rocket technology because the thrust per unit mass of explosive is much higher. But it takes a lot of time to speed up. If they were planned to be used to travel from Earth to Proxima Centauri, a lot of rocket fuel would be needed. Although you can take previous indicators as a basis. So, if the device moves at a speed of 56,000 km/h, then it will cover a distance of 4.24 light years in 2,700 human generations. So it is unlikely to be used for a manned flight mission.

Of course, if you fill it with a huge amount of fuel, you can increase the speed. But the arrival time will still take a standard human life.

Help from gravity

This is a popular method as it allows you to use orbit and planetary gravity to change the route and speed. It is often used to travel to gas giants to increase speed. Mariner 10 tried this for the first time. He relied on the gravity of Venus to reach (February 1974). In the 1980s, Voyager 1 used the moons of Saturn and Jupiter to accelerate to 60,000 km/h and enter interstellar space.

But the record holder for the speed achieved using gravity was the Helios-2 mission, which set off to study the interplanetary medium in 1976.

Due to the high eccentricity of the 190-day orbit, the device was able to accelerate to 240,000 km/h. For this purpose, exclusively solar gravity was used.

Well, if we send Voyager 1 at 60,000 km/h, we'll have to wait 76,000 years. For Helios 2, this would have taken 19,000 years. It's faster, but not fast enough.

Electromagnetic drive

There is another way - radio frequency resonant motor (EmDrive), proposed by Roger Shavir in 2001. It is based on the fact that electromagnetic microwave resonators can convert electrical energy into thrust.

While conventional electromagnetic motors are designed to move a specific type of mass, this one does not use reaction mass and does not produce directed radiation. This type has been met with a huge amount of skepticism because it violates the law of conservation of momentum: a system of momentum within a system remains constant and changes only under the influence of force.

But recent experiments are slowly winning over supporters. In April 2015, researchers announced that they had successfully tested the disk in a vacuum (which means it can function in space). In July they had already built their version of the engine and discovered noticeable thrust.

In 2010, Huang Yang began a series of articles. She completed the final work in 2012, where she reported higher input power (2.5 kW) and tested thrust conditions (720 mN). In 2014, she also added some details about the use of internal temperature changes that confirmed the system's functionality.

According to calculations, a device with such an engine can fly to Pluto in 18 months. These are important results, because they represent 1/6 of the time that New Horizons spent. Sounds good, but even so, traveling to Proxima Centauri would take 13,000 years. Moreover, we still do not have 100% confidence in its effectiveness, so there is no point in starting development.

Nuclear thermal and electrical equipment

NASA has been researching nuclear propulsion for decades now. Reactors use uranium or deuterium to heat liquid hydrogen, transforming it into ionized hydrogen gas (plasma). It is then sent through the rocket nozzle to generate thrust.

A nuclear rocket power plant houses the same original reactor, which transforms heat and energy into electrical energy. In both cases, the rocket relies on nuclear fission or fusion to generate propulsion.

When compared with chemical engines, we get a number of advantages. Let's start with unlimited energy density. In addition, higher traction is guaranteed. This would reduce fuel consumption, which would reduce launch mass and mission costs.

So far there has not been a single launched nuclear thermal engine. But there are many concepts. They range from traditional solid designs to those based on a liquid or gas core. Despite all these advantages, the most complex concept achieves a maximum specific impulse of 5000 seconds. If you use such an engine to travel to when the planet is 55,000,000 km away (the “opposition” position), it will take 90 days.

But if we send it to Proxima Centauri, it will take centuries to accelerate to reach the speed of light. After that, it would take several decades to travel and centuries more to slow down. In general, the period is reduced to a thousand years. Great for interplanetary travel, but still not good for interstellar travel.

In theory

You probably already realized that modern technologies quite slow to cover such long distances. If we want to accomplish this in one generation, then we need to come up with something breakthrough. And if the wormholes are still gathering dust on the pages fantasy books, then we have several real ideas.

Nuclear impulse movement

Stanislav Ulam was involved in this idea back in 1946. The project started in 1958 and continued until 1963 under the name Orion.

Orion planned to use the power of impulsive nuclear explosions to create a strong shock with a high specific impulse. That is, we have a large spaceship with a huge supply of thermonuclear warheads. During drop, we use a detonation wave on the rear platform ("pusher"). After each explosion, the pusher pad absorbs the force and converts the thrust into impulse.

Naturally, in modern world The method is devoid of grace, but it guarantees the necessary impulse. According to preliminary estimates, in this case it is possible to achieve 5% of the speed of light (5.4 x 10 7 km/h). But the design suffers from shortcomings. Let's start with the fact that such a ship would be very expensive, and it would weigh 400,000-4000,000 tons. Moreover, ¾ of the weight is represented by nuclear bombs (each of them reaches 1 metric ton).

The total cost of the launch would have risen at that time to 367 billion dollars (today - 2.5 trillion dollars). There is also the problem of the radiation and nuclear waste generated. It is believed that it was because of this that the project was stopped in 1963.

Nuclear Fusion

Here thermonuclear reactions are used, due to which thrust is created. Energy is produced when deuterium/helium-3 pellets are ignited in the reaction compartment through inertial confinement using electron beams. Such a reactor would detonate 250 pellets per second, creating a high-energy plasma.

This development saves fuel and creates a special boost. The achievable speed is 10,600 km (much faster than standard rockets). Recently, more and more people are interested in this technology.

In 1973-1978. The British Interplanetary Society created a feasibility study, Project Daedalus. It was based on modern knowledge fusion technology and the presence of a two-stage unmanned probe that could reach Barnard's star (5.9 light years) in one lifetime.

The first stage will operate for 2.05 years and will accelerate the ship to 7.1% of the speed of light. Then it will be reset and the engine will start, increasing the speed to 12% in 1.8 years. After this, the second stage engine will stop and the ship will travel for 46 years.

In general, the ship will reach the star in 50 years. If you send it to Proxima Centauri, the time will be reduced to 36 years. But this technology also faced obstacles. Let's start with the fact that helium-3 will have to be mined on the Moon. And the reaction that powers the spacecraft requires that the energy released exceeds the energy used to launch it. And although the testing went well, we still do not have the necessary type of energy that could power an interstellar spacecraft.

Well, let's not forget about money. A single launch of a 30-megaton rocket costs NASA $5 billion. So the Daedalus project would weigh 60,000 megatons. In addition, a new type of thermonuclear reactor will be needed, which also does not fit into the budget.

Ramjet engine

This idea was proposed by Robert Bussard in 1960. This can be considered an improved form of nuclear fusion. It uses magnetic fields to compress hydrogen fuel until fusion is activated. But here a huge electromagnetic funnel is created, which “rips out” hydrogen from the interstellar medium and dumps it into the reactor as fuel.

The ship will gain speed, and will force the compressed magnetic field to achieve the process of thermonuclear fusion. It will then redirect the energy in the form of exhaust gases through the engine injector and accelerate the movement. Without using other fuel, you can reach 4% of the speed of light and travel to anywhere in the galaxy.

But this scheme has a huge number of shortcomings. The problem of resistance immediately arises. The ship needs to increase speed to accumulate fuel. But it encounters huge amounts of hydrogen, so it can slow down, especially when it hits dense regions. In addition, it is very difficult to find deuterium and tritium in space. But this concept is often used in science fiction. The most popular example is Star Trek.

Laser sail

In order to save money, solar sails have been used for a very long time to move vehicles around the solar system. They are light and cheap, and do not require fuel. The sail uses radiation pressure from the stars.

But to use such a design for interstellar travel, it must be controlled by focused energy beams (lasers and microwaves). This is the only way to accelerate it to a point close to the speed of light. This concept was developed by Robert Ford in 1984.

The bottom line is that all the benefits of a solar sail remain. And although the laser will take time to accelerate, the limit is only the speed of light. A 2000 study showed that a laser sail could accelerate to half the speed of light in less than 10 years. If the size of the sail is 320 km, then it will reach its destination in 12 years. And if you increase it to 954 km, then in 9 years.

But its production requires the use of advanced composites to avoid melting. Don't forget that it must reach huge sizes, so the price will be high. In addition, you will have to spend money on creating a powerful laser that could provide control at such high speeds. The laser consumes a constant current of 17,000 terawatts. So you understand, this is the amount of energy that the entire planet consumes in one day.

Antimatter

This is a material represented by antiparticles that reach the same mass as ordinary ones, but have the opposite charge. Such a mechanism would use the interaction between matter and antimatter to generate energy and create thrust.

In general, such an engine uses hydrogen and antihydrogen particles. Moreover, in such a reaction the same amount of energy is released as in a thermonuclear bomb, as well as a wave of subatomic particles moving at 1/3 the speed of light.

The advantage of this technology is that most of the mass is converted into energy, which will create higher energy density and specific impulse. As a result, we will get the fastest and most economical spacecraft. If a conventional rocket uses tons of chemical fuel, then an engine with antimatter spends only a few milligrams for the same actions. This technology would be great for a trip to Mars, but it can't be applied to another star because the amount of fuel increases exponentially (along with the costs).

A two-stage antimatter rocket would require 900,000 tons of fuel for a 40-year flight. The difficulty is that to extract 1 gram of antimatter will require 25 million billion kilowatt-hours of energy and more than a trillion dollars. Right now we only have 20 nanograms. But such a ship is capable of accelerating to half the speed of light and flying to the star Proxima Centauri in the constellation Centaurus in 8 years. But it weighs 400 Mt and consumes 170 tons of antimatter.

As a solution to the problem, they proposed the development of a “Vacuum Antimaterial Rocket Interstellar Research System.” This could use large lasers that create antimatter particles when fired into empty space.

The idea is also based on using fuel from space. But again the moment of high cost arises. In addition, humanity simply cannot create such an amount of antimatter. There is also a radiation risk, as matter-antimatter annihilation can create bursts of high-energy gamma rays. It will be necessary not only to protect the crew with special screens, but also to equip the engines. Therefore, the product is inferior in practicality.

Alcubierre Bubble

In 1994, it was proposed by the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre. He wanted to create a tool that would not violate the special theory of relativity. It suggests stretching the fabric of spacetime in a wave. Theoretically, this will cause the distance in front of the object to decrease and the distance behind it to expand.

A ship caught inside a wave will be able to move beyond relativistic speeds. The ship itself will not move in the “warp bubble”, so the rules of space-time do not apply.

If we talk about speed, then this is “faster than light,” but in the sense that the ship will reach its destination faster than a beam of light leaving the bubble. Calculations show that he will arrive at his destination in 4 years. If we think about it in theory, this is the fastest method.

But this scheme does not take into account quantum mechanics and is technically annulled by the Theory of Everything. Calculations of the amount of energy required also showed that extremely enormous power would be required. And we haven’t touched on security yet.

However, in 2012 there was talk that this method was being tested. Scientists claimed to have built an interferometer that could detect distortions in space. In 2013, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory conducted an experiment in vacuum conditions. In conclusion, the results seemed inconclusive. If you look deeper, you can understand that this scheme violates one or more fundamental laws of nature.

What follows from this? If you were hoping to make a round trip to the star, the odds are incredibly low. But if humanity decided to build a space ark and send people on a century-long journey, then anything is possible. Of course, this is just talk for now. But scientists would be more active in such technologies if our planet or system were in real danger. Then a trip to another star would be a matter of survival.

For now, we can only surf and explore the expanses of our native system, hoping that in the future there will be new way, which made it possible to implement interstellar transits.