How would an interstellar space ship avoid meteorites?

Question

How would an interstellar space ship avoid meteorites, and other debris? For an example, let's assume that the ship is traveling at 3/4 the speed of light. At these speeds, I assume it would be very difficult to detect and maneuver around small objects, such as asteroid belts, meteorites, even dust. At such high speeds, even running into pebbles could prove disastrous. Sure, we can tell where big things like stars are, and plot our trajectory to avoid these large objects, but what about the little stuff in between? This little problem has always nagged me.

Is this type of debris uncommon? Are the odds of hitting this astronomical? I feel like even our current space probes like the voyager are in possible danger of some sort of collision with a micrometeorite. I understand that space is very vast, so would it be the same as being worried about a meteor hitting you as you walk down the street? From my understanding, many small meteors do hit Earth, they just burn up in the atmosphere. I feel that navigating deep space would be impossibly treacherous. Any information at all would be much appreciated!

Answer 1

< Are the odds of hitting this astronomical? >



Yes -- precisely

Astronomically small chance of a collision.

But even a collision with a hydrogen nucleus would be catastrophic.



There is no solution to the problem --- except as in "star trek", where craft enter hyperspace. But of course hyperspace does not exist except in science fiction.



Getting back to your question --- we currently work on the assumption that space is big and the distance between particles is enormous. So the risk of collision is small.



That is NOT a solution to the problem. Sooner or later we will lose some satellite or space probe due to a collision. It may have already happened. The space shuttles used to get "sand blasted" by micro meteorites - that would pit the windows etc.



I see the situation as a lottery, a lottery that you don't want to win.



There is absolutely no way of detecting such particles and avoiding them by manoeuvering. At the speeds that spacecraft travel, it would mean scanning an impossibly large volume of space AND having the means of near instantaneously moving the space craft.



An idea to reduce the risk is to out all the critical systems inside a ball, the outer sections of which are sacrificial and designed to absorb impact damage. I think we are very far from being able to do this.

Answer 2

Backk near 1964, NASA wanted to know if astronauts could get to the Moon and back without likely experiencing collisions like you are talking about. A Saturn rocket upper stage with huge sensor wings was put in orbit to measure the frequencies... look up "Pegasus Satellite" to read more. The result was that space dust was much less dense than feared, but we know there are still bits and pieces out there (all the meteors that hit the Earth all the time, for example), and you are much more likely to win the Powerball lottery two weeks in a row than be hit by something that would harm the astronaut or the ship.

Answer 3

Meteorites are probably not the problem you need to worry about, from everything we now know they are probably extremely rare outside of solar systems. What does exist in interstellar space are atoms, mainly hydrogen and helium. When these impact the hull of the spacecraft travelling a near light speed would produce high energy X-rays, which are not compatible with terrestrial life forms. Rather than being torn apart by meteor impacts, you would be fried by radiation.



All this is purely hypothetical of course, remembering from basic physics that kinetic energy is proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. This number therefore builds up VERY fast as velocity increases. I sat down awhile back and worked out the kinetic energy (ignoring relativistic effects) to get an Apollo spacecraft to half of light speed, and the number came out to something incredible, something like thirty million times the energy to get to the moon if I remember correctly. I am including links to several YA questions and answers on this subject, I cannot vouch for their math but I am sure that the answer is a number with a LOT of zeroes! One of the answers indicated that the energy required for his particular answer was more than exists in the entire universe. This sounds in the right ball park, means you cannot get there from here! Don't even talk about antimatter, there is no known source for it, and making it on earth is incredibly expensive both in dollars and resources.

Answer 4

Options include:

1) Beaurocratic delays that prevent the vehicle from ever being launched.



2) launching vast numbers of vehicles on the basis that hopefully at least one might reach it's destination in one piece.



3) Utilising some of the enormous computer power needed to detect, guide weapons and carry out evasive manouvres at near light speed to instead run a simulation so that launching an actual physical vehicle becomes unnecessary.



4) Lining the outsid of the craft with unobtanium which is impervious to absolutely every type of impact at whatever energy.



BTW, those who ponder "hyperspace" should ask themselves why hyperspace would be free of impactors, radiation and hyperthreats of any kind. I can't work why why, if it is so hyper, it does not have as many hyperthreats as hyperbenefits. Perhaps it is all just hype.



Cheers!

Answer 5

You have absolutely put precisely the reason travel to the stars by conventional means is impossible. At safe speeds, it takes too long. At speeds approaching light speed, you are correct - avoidance, even of the tiniest particles is impossible.



Yes space is empty, but in the course of travelling many trillions of kms to reach the nearest stars, it only needs one pea size particle to take your starship out. At those speeds any slightest change of direction would cause the most massive deceleration forces that would tear the ship and you apart instantly. You would have to detect the pea from billions of kms away in order to have the time to make any kind of speed and course alteration that would not kill you



So much energy would be required to get you to near light speed that you would only want to do it once, bearing in mind you would need the same energy to slow down when you were approaching destination. You would not want to have to carry more fuel for course and speed changes.



No, the size and alienness of the universe is no place for water-based, soft-bodied creatures travelling by physical means.



Travelling in interstellar space will require a paradigm shift in technology. Send the mind?

Answer 6

The way Arthur C. Clarke solved the problem in 'The Songs of Distant Earth' was to place a shield of ice in front of his ship. It could be re-formed easily if damaged, and it was thick enough (about 6 meters, if I remember right) to stop / vaporize any impacting rocks or debris.

In deep space, there's about 1 atom per cubic meter - which is *very* close to a perfect vacuum, but you'll still need to look out for rocks as big as a city out there. In a solar system, dust & debris is far more common; but outside a solar system, you wouldn't need to be *as* worried....

Answer 7

Sacrificial whipple shields, perhaps graphene aerogel discs supported by diamagnetism. A magnetic field such as the one supporting the graphene discs would help deflect charged particles and most of the interstellar material would be charged particles ( mostly solitary electrons and protons ). Of course, the space ship would experience drag but the drag could be used to brake the spaceship for the destination.

Answer 8

As far as we know, dark matter has no properties other than mass. So there's no reason whatsoever to think that "putting" it somewhere would bend space-time. Also, bending space-time doesn't bring objects closer together. At all. Also, putting a huge amount of mass at either side of the solar system would destabilize the entire solar system. Also, how do we GET dark matter? We can only detect it indirectly, and we certainly can't collect it with any kind of current technology. The fact is that your question belies a massive misunderstanding of physics. Your idea is so implausible as to be nonsensical.

Answer 9

I don't think there's anyway to avoid this stuff. There's not much out there, but a ship could get hit by a rock the size of a baseball - and at the terrific speed of 3/4 light it would be quite an event.



Maybe by the time we get to travel that fast we'll have computer controlled blasters that could vaporize stuff that was coming at us.

Answer 10

Most people have no idea just how _empty_ space is. Our idea of the Asteroid Belt is based on Star Trek and video games. In reality, from any one asteroid in the Asteroid Belt, you would need a telescope to even _see_ the nearest asteroid, let alone bump into it. And that's the densest part of the Solar System. In interstellar space, the number of atoms per cubic mile is probably one or two.

Answer 11

Dude, there is no such ship in real so it does,nt matter but in sci-fi films the space is so large that the pilot can mark a safe path for the ship with his intrastellar map.

Answer 12

Laser cannons, plasma shielding, missile batteries, but the primary defense will probably be thick armored hulls. By the time we're capable of star travel, will be able to mass produce materials stronger than diamond.

Answer 13

We don't even know what's really out there to answer such a question yet.

Answer 14

Luck.

Answer 15

Force fields, if we can ever invent them. That, or some fancy steerin'!

Answer 16

Quiet, you might scare the Mars-One people:-)