Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Slingshot dynamics for self-replicating probes and the effect on exploration timescales

  • Arwen Nicholson (a1) and Duncan Forgan (a1)

Interstellar probes can carry out slingshot manoeuvres around the stars they visit, gaining a boost in velocity by extracting energy from the star's motion around the Galactic Centre. These manoeuvres carry little to no extra energy cost, and in previous work it has been shown that a single Voyager-like probe exploring the Galaxy does so 100 times faster when carrying out these slingshots than when navigating purely by powered flight (Forgan et al. 2012). We expand on these results by repeating the experiment with self-replicating probes. The probes explore a box of stars representative of the local Solar neighbourhood, to investigate how self-replication affects exploration timescales when compared with a single non-replicating probe. We explore three different scenarios of probe behaviour: (i) standard powered flight to the nearest unvisited star (no slingshot techniques used), (ii) flight to the nearest unvisited star using slingshot techniques and (iii) flight to the next unvisited star that will give the maximum velocity boost under a slingshot trajectory. In all three scenarios, we find that as expected, using self-replicating probes greatly reduces the exploration time, by up to three orders of magnitude for scenarios (i) and (iii) and two orders of magnitude for (ii). The second case (i.e. nearest-star slingshots) remains the most time effective way to explore a population of stars. As the decision-making algorithms for the fleet are simple, unanticipated ‘race conditions’ among probes are set up, causing the exploration time of the final stars to become much longer than necessary. From the scaling of the probes' performance with star number, we conclude that a fleet of self-replicating probes can indeed explore the Galaxy in a sufficiently short time to warrant the existence of the Fermi Paradox.

Corresponding author
Hide All
I. Almár (2011). Acta Astronaut. (UK) 69, 899.

J. Benford , G. Benford & D. Benford (2010b). Astrobiology 10, 475.

R.N. Bracewell (1960). Nature 186, 670.

D. Cartin (2013). Int. J. Astrobiol., in press.

C.F. Chyba & K.P. Hand (2005). ARA&A 43, 31.

D. Forgan & R. Nichol (2010). Int. J. Astrobiol. 10, 77.

M. Horvat , A. Nakić & I. Otočan (2011). Int. J. Astrobiol. 11, 51.

G. Karam & R. Buhr (1990). IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16, 829.

C. Lineweaver (2001). Icarus 151, 307.

C.H. Lineweaver , Y. Fenner & B.K. Gibson (2004). Science 303, 59.

A. Loeb & E.L. Turner (2012). Astrobiology 12, 290.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Astrobiology
  • ISSN: 1473-5504
  • EISSN: 1475-3006
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 12 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 269 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.