Talk:Starwisp

message: Surely you'd want to turn the maser on again when the probe is about 80% of the way to the star, so that the maser 'light' and the probe reach the star at the same time?
Csmiller 18:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right. The article currently only mentions turning the beam on again when the Starwisp "approaches" the target star, which isn't exactly in contradiction with this, but this will be a good detail to mention explicitly. :) Bryan 23:53, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: When to turn the maser on again

message: It is possibly best to link the article to beam-powered propulsion and to mention that higher velocities MIGHT be obtainable by hybridising the given propulsion concept with other types of propulsion.  
I'm also inclined towards thinking that the technical problems section is a bit to pessimistic as to what is physically possible with starwisp, but if this section were referenced better, I would be more prepared to accept it's validity (interstellar Hydrogen becoming a radiation hazard and 'turning radioactive' sounds a little to far fetched to me, perhaps whoever stated this was referring to the velocity difference between starwisp and interstellar Hydrogen?).  The issue concerning starwisps reflector bending and causing it to 'break'/'bent', etc... can be remedied via the use of adjusting reflectors (which change direction, and probably shape too).  
The use of mathematics to describe how radiation pressure provides starwisp with its acceleration would probably repeat radiation pressure, but would be an interesting thing to do.  
FINALLY, there is NO mention of nanotechnology - which is a shame, as this can improve the "size economics" of star wisp so that most of the mass of the probe would be the reflector.  
ConcernedScientist 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Other Wikipedia Articles

message: I've tagged the article because most of the content does not have sources. A lack of sourced material in this article is not a reason to add more. Dawnseeker2000  15:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone written about this other than the original two authors ? Need independent sources (eg on whether this proposal is practical or worthwhile) - Rod57 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs additional sources 

message: Considering that the "Breakthrough Starshot" proposal is basically "Starwisp", shouldn't there be a paragraph describing the connection and linking to that article on Wikipedia? Indeed, should this page be merged into Starshot? 2600:1000:B11C:E4B5:E17E:8927:427B:76AC (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Imo there could at least be a see also to that page. I'm opposing a merge though. --Fixuture (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

text: oppose merge : Very different concepts, almost no overlap. - Rod57 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Breakthrough Starshot? Merge? 

message: Did either proposal calculate the power required for a specific data bit rate ? and outline how the data would be collected, and transmitted by StarWisp, and detected back at Earth ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communications