4 ms·

If these are pretty common and pass by within range, perhaps we can seed them with scanners and transmitters, and start building a weird observation/relay netwo

If these are pretty common and pass by within range, perhaps we can seed them with scanners and transmitters, and start building a weird observation/relay network.

krisoft 7y ago
We can, but why would we? If you have a set of scanners/transmitters here on earth and want to attach it to one of these interstellar traveling rocks you need a rocket capable of matching their speed. These rockets are by definition also capable of leaving the solar system, otherwise they couldn’t match speed. So if all you care is a spreading observation/relay network, and not say the objects themselves then you are better off by just sending the scanners/transmitters out without complicated space balett and all the issues associated with it.
- newsbinator 7y ago
  Out of ignorance, I was guessing it takes a lot less fuel to put a payload in the path of an incoming interstellar traveling rock and let that get "crashed into" to embed on the surface. Although that's still complicated space ballet.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    We don't really have any "scanning and transmitting" technologies that can survive crashing at, say, 1km/s. You need at least 50 km/s of delta-v to catch the likes of 'Oumuamua, so if you could get within 1 km/s of its orbit you might as well spend the tiny extra bit to land gracefully.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      My impression is that a way to look at it is that at 50 km/s, everything is liquid, if not plasma.
      - dmurray 7y ago
        Things zip around at 50 km/s all the time and stay solid, that's not a problem. We can even imagine technologies that survive a 50 km/s impact. Like self-replicating nanobots based on tardigrades, stashed in the interior of an asteroid - plenty of people already think life has been spread in asteroid-planet collisions. But we definitely don't have those now.

4 ms·

If these are pretty common and pass by within range, perhaps we can seed them with scanners and transmitters, and start building a weird observation/relay netwo

by newsbinator 7y ago

If these are pretty common and pass by within range, perhaps we can seed them with scanners and transmitters, and start building a weird observation/relay network.

krisoft 7y ago
We can, but why would we? If you have a set of scanners/transmitters here on earth and want to attach it to one of these interstellar traveling rocks you need a rocket capable of matching their speed. These rockets are by definition also capable of leaving the solar system, otherwise they couldn’t match speed. So if all you care is a spreading observation/relay network, and not say the objects themselves then you are better off by just sending the scanners/transmitters out without complicated space balett and all the issues associated with it.
- newsbinator 7y ago
  Out of ignorance, I was guessing it takes a lot less fuel to put a payload in the path of an incoming interstellar traveling rock and let that get "crashed into" to embed on the surface. Although that's still complicated space ballet.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    We don't really have any "scanning and transmitting" technologies that can survive crashing at, say, 1km/s. You need at least 50 km/s of delta-v to catch the likes of 'Oumuamua, so if you could get within 1 km/s of its orbit you might as well spend the tiny extra bit to land gracefully.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      My impression is that a way to look at it is that at 50 km/s, everything is liquid, if not plasma.
      - dmurray 7y ago
        Things zip around at 50 km/s all the time and stay solid, that's not a problem. We can even imagine technologies that survive a 50 km/s impact. Like self-replicating nanobots based on tardigrades, stashed in the interior of an asteroid - plenty of people already think life has been spread in asteroid-planet collisions. But we definitely don't have those now.