Talk:100 Year Starship

Not a Mars mission

This article needs to be totally rewritten. The 100 year mission is not planned for Mars. It is planned to be interstellar.

The misconception about Mars comes from an amazingly incompetent Fox reporter who misunderstood the original press release.

Current technology can get people to Mars in under two years. A one way trip or hundred year mission to Mars makes no sense.

No it is perfectly fine if you bothered to read any of the many linked sources, you just misunderstand that the "hundred year" doesn't refer to the length of the journey...

For a start even with the fastest feasible technology we can currently conceive (something between VASIMR and laser sailing), a hundred year trip would not get you anywhere near the nearest star. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you are working from ridulously outdated and inaccurate sources (at Wikipedia? I'm shocked!) that were incorrect at the time. Though the original poster has some misconceptions as well. The Fox reporter reported what was incorrect information given - some of which is reflected here. The first poster is correct, otherwise, and the first responder is incorrect in his assertion regarding what "100 years" refers to - as is undercut by the fact that the original article claims a Mars mission in the first half of this century, despite the responder's defense of the accuracy of the article. The actual significance of "100 years" is that PRIMARILY DARPA for now and NASA as going forward will invest in concerted technology development over the course of the next century to enable a manned interstellar mission commencing in the early 22nd century. Mars *IS* still an expected stepping stone to test new technologies and perform important experiments. Try this reference for some actually useful (and correct) information, as opposed to the "bastions" of truth - NYT and BBC. Yes, that's sarcasm. 65.202.226.2 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)mjd

I agree with the above. I understood that the "100 years" refered to an Inner Solar System Interplanetary Spaceship which would be built to last 100 years by using flexible design and new add on technologies as they became available - something which I had previously proposed myself. It would shuttle astronauts from Earth to Mars and the asteroids, and deliver a party of Astronauts to the surface of Mars from orbit on a one way mission, periodically returning to earth to provide supplies. This "Century Starship" initiative has been running around a year now it would be good to see some initial findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.131.6 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

100 years starship ins't about Mars

I want to know where I report this article for the Wikipedia yesterday I change this article with trustful information about the "100 year starship study" ( http://www.100yss.org/ ) like the official site say this study is about interstellar space travel and not about one way trip to Mars,and then today they rewritten all over again with this ridiculous information,that is nothing about 100 year starship study, well I go to report it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.220.142 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tagged the 'Challenges' section

There are several issues with the 'Challenges' section.

• First, it reds like an assay or reflection on the destiny of humanity, as supposed as actually describing the challenges of the mission in an encyclopedic manner.
• Next is this sentence: "Complex interstellar travel has been simplified through the accomplishments of the Skylab, International Space Station, Space Shuttle, Mir, and Soyuz." (Interstellar travel, even by an unmanned probe, is still not possible, never mind "simplified").
• Another bizarre entry: "Exoplanets and new stars are being discovered nearly every day and improving our knowledge of ourselves"
• This section (710 words) has only 2 lines mentioning physiological challenges to humans in space. There is plenty of info at Health threat from cosmic rays, Effect of spaceflight on the human body, Space medicine, Space adaptation syndrome, Spaceflight osteopenia, to name a few articles, and multiple psychological issues that I am sure are a challenge too.
• "The most important challenge is possibly what is unknown."(original research/ POV)
• "It is impossible to see all the dust and other matter out there that does not emit light, making the knowledge of it all more desirable." (Matter does not have to emit light in order to be detected, reflection and even diffraction are used too.)
• In the middle of a paragraph, the assay begins to deal with energy in general, fusion/fission, in a detached way as supposed as explaining the challenges of high speed propulsion.

In my opinion, we should first clearly identify the most relevant challenges (cited & referenced) and explain each in the correct context. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

I deleted this text because the sources didn't match the text at all:

among these a paper by Harold "Sonny" White of NASA's Johnson Space Center discussing an attempt to measure the warping of space time using a Michelson interferometer to investigate the possibility of faster-than-light travel.

The first is a bio that is redundant with the wikilink, the second is a wikilink presented as a reliable source against policy, and the third reads so differently from the text as to require a full rewrite. It's not FTL, it's apparent FTL; it's not clear whether the apparatus qualifies as an original Michelson interferometer; and there is a whole lot of data that is filtered through a tertiary popular article and then refiltered through an editorial resummary, which hampers verifiability. It also seems a little imbalanced to focus on this one paper and FTL when there are dozens of issues that would be appropriate to coverage of the symposia, which makes me wonder whether apparent FTL is a WP:COATRACK. I am going to research past the dead links to see if I can find a secondary or primary source for a list of papers and get the balanced view. I affirm the other editors who found other improprieties in this article, but it can be fixed over time.

When apparent FTL first came out there was this same problem with media's Star Trek comparisons vitiating the communication of the real science and I'd really appreciate better sources. But this is just my personal editing view. See my page here: Frieda Beamy (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And sure enough, I spoke prophetically: LeVar Burton was at the symposium.

Although the 100YSS website has dead links and is the self-published primary source, I found a list of twelve 2012 selected papers here that includes White. The titles and those of twelve selected 2011 papers might be admissible if using the WP:SELFPUB is not imbalanced. There are two more symposia, which I am adding to the article as a bare mention, but 2013 doesn't list any selected papers for some reason and 2014 is future. But as per above there are bigger problems to work on in this article than that. Frieda Beamy (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Queries

1.) 100 years project. But starting from when? 2.217.80.205 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 100 Year Starship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810105006/http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1799 to http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1799
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304221645/https://klews39.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/everetts-awakening/ to https://klews39.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/everetts-awakening/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the organization even in existence ? ? ?

I just visited the website.

All the pages only have a 2013 copyright on them.

The calendar's last event was Sept. 2017 and no other events are listed, not even through the end of this year (2020).

The last Press Release was in July 2019 about some awards, and nothing since.

As such, I ask, "Does it even still exist?"

Just curious. 2600:8800:785:8500:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm:

• Using the Wayback Machine, no activity has been detected on the website since October 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/changes/https://100yss.org/
• A Google search only shows results for 100YSS references related to Mae Jamison since 2015 but no other activities for the organization itself.
• No Twitter activities since September 2020.

The organization might formally still exist but it seems defunct.

2A01:CB04:753:FD00:85F9:867F:BCF8:33DA (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

RS such as the Washington Post continue to describe 100YS as an ongoing enterprise headed by Mae Jemison.[1] Perhaps 100YS has shifted its focus since the start of the pandemic in 2019, or undergone some reorganization -- there could be many explanations for the pieces of data you have provided. Until some RS explains this data, it would violate our policy on WP:SYNTH to publish bits of data, inviting readers to draw their own conclusions. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)