[wongarsu]

With variations on nuclear propulsion we could plausibly get to up to around 12% the speed of light. At least that's the number quoted for Project Daedalus [1], which is using nuclear fusion for the first stage and nuclear-powered ion engines for the second stage. With the cruder but more realistically achievable right now Project Orion design (riding the shockwaves of nuclear bombs) you could still get to ~3% the speed of light

But even at 0.12c, we are looking at 400 years to get there. And we'd be zooming by at 12% the speed of light. If we want to slow down a bit that'd add hundreds of billions to the cost.

It might be worth waiting another century to see if we can come up with a faster design in that time. Not like closer targets like Alpha Centauri, where the thing stopping us is mostly just the absurd cost

[exitb]

> But even at 0.12c, we are looking at 400 years to get there. And we'd be zooming by at 12% the speed of light. If we want to slow down a bit that'd add hundreds of billions to the cost.

That’s the really hard part. If it’s almost science fiction to accelerate to 0.12c, it’s certainly much more difficult to slow down. At that speed we’d travel and pass this small system in mere minutes.

[NoGravitas]

You just turn around halfway and use your main drive to decelerate. Yes, that does double the travel time, but it's the only way to do it. The hard part is then finding ways to get to a faster speed at turnaround time.

[wongarsu]

In most realistic settings it's even easier. For example a Project Daedalus probe only accelerates for four years before running out of fuel. So you could decelerate in just four years. Maybe a bit more, since you only have the smaller second stage engines. But essentially you are accelerating for four years, coasting for 392 years and decelerating for another four years. Accelerating for the whole time and turning around in the middle would be faster, but we don't have the fuel for that

The issue is that in the original architecture without breaking you burn 50k tonnes of fuel to get 1k tonnes of payload up to 12% lightspeed. If you want to break all the way back to zero, you need to 50k tonnes of fuel to break. But that means you need to accelerate another 50k tonnes of fuel up to speed.

Which means you need 50 times for fuel to get from 0.11c to 0.12c, and you need to accelerate that fuel to 0.11c, so you need more than 50 times the fuel for the step from 0.10c to 0.11c, and an even larger factor more to accelerate from 0.09c to 0.10c, etc. So you don't just require another 50*50k = 2M tonnes of fuel, but an exponentially larger amount. The tyranny of the rocket equation

[andy_ppp]

There is no drive, it’s all orbital slingshots with current technology. None of the other stuff people are talking about here exists…

[fc417fc802]

Just aim for the desired exoplanet and pack a really beefy shielding system. It would make for a spectacular show.

[ghm2199]

I think the only way political will can fund nasa to realize these 1960 design ideas is an infinite capacity arch rival that threatens/render irrelavent either the dollar's supremacy or american power (and just those two, because apparently these days there is no "threat"/need to defend a higher cause, like the neo-liberal rules based system or democratic or human right values). Also that arch-rival that is probably/likely not china(practically speaking)