|
|
|
|
|
|
by nsf39k
1677 days ago
|
|
|
The technology and infrastructure needed to reach Planet 9, build a mining outpost, then transport everything back at a profitable cost is likely decades if not centuries away. That’s not counting the fact that Planet 9 is so far away that getting there with current technology is a lengthy affair in itself (the New Horizons probe wouldn’t even be halfway to a theoretical Planet 9, and it’s been flying for over 15 years!) Not saying I don’t want this to happen - I would love nothing more than to have humanity push out into the solar system, but recycling or scavenging is infinitely more of an realistic option. |
|
|
The fastest man-made object ever launched was the New Horizons spacecraft. Headed on an intercept course for Pluto 30 AUs away, it took 9.5 years to get there. And that's without slowing down; if you actually wanted to land on Pluto you would need to spend even more time actually slowing down. The object in the OP is 225 AU away (which is dramatically closer than prior estimates of the distance of Planet 9 (300 AU)). All this means that, even moving as fast as we have ever launched a spacecraft, it would take at least 70 years for a probe to reach Planet 9, even without taking time to slow down. A probe launched today would return with its cargo no sooner than 2160. That's probably never going to be economical, even with future improvements to spacecraft propulsion (moving faster just means you need more and more fuel to slow down, at which point you are beholden to the tyranny of the rocket fuel equation).
It's easy to forget the scales here. We're used to Pluto being our reference point for "far edge of the solar system", and it's easy to conclude that Planet 9 is about as far as Pluto, but it's so much farther. Voyager 1 is a bit more than halfway that far.