this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
78 points (98.8% liked)
Space
1999 readers
66 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Along with the antenna, there's another problem to solve - power. The probes need a power source that, after the better part of a century, can still output enough power to send a signal home. That doesn't leave a lot of options. RTGs will not do for this, their power output is too low. It's theoretically possible to build a battery large enough, but it'll add tens of tons to the probe's mass. A nuclear reactor would probably be lighter, but has the same problem as an RTG, in that its fuel supply will decay along the way. And if you need to make course correction maneuvers on the trip (cause let's face it, we're not going to bullseye a dwarf planet sized target from lightyears away), the probe has to stay powered for the entire time, so the propulsion system doesn't freeze up. And now you need to worry about propellant losses.
EDIT: Finally got around to reading the article and I'd love to know what the author of this idea considers unrealistic if decelerating from 0.3c into orbit around a black hole >20 lightyears away sounds plausible.