It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Radical space propulsion: warp drive for real?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:04 AM
And don't forget that there are two stages of this.

Stage 1 - Earth to Mars in 34 days (VASIMR would take 90)
Stage 2 - Earth to Mars in minutes

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Xeven
This would be the greatist achievement of all time. Such tech would allow humanity to survive forever. The ability to travel and colonize the galaxy and maybe even the universe would ensure we will survive the destruction of earth or just a plague on earth.

Not to mention how awesome it would be to travel and explore.

I hope though doubtfull as can be that this becomes reallity in my life time. Even if only robots are able to explore extra solar space in my life would be awesome.


Well if there is also rapid advance in life extention research you will live to see it, but if this advance gets us noticed by a galactic al quida or involved in a galactic war we'll be wiped out no matter where we go.

[edit on 1/11/2006 by bodebliss]

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:51 PM
theres always gotta be a downer.
just kidding, you make a very vaild point
this might just be what sets off the end of the earth if we attract the attention of (insert random sci-fi bad guy here)

[edit on 11-1-2006 by mrjones]

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:17 AM
I don't think so. According to Carl Sagan, it's very likely that two alien empires could colonize planets all around each other before meeting - there's so much space out there.

And if the aliens have the technology to travel like this, they would likely have the technology to terraform, and so wouldn't need Earth.

And even so, it's very likely that they come from a different atmosphere - and so Earth might be a toxic environment for them.

All in all, Carl Sagan and I say that there's a lot of space to go around, and so galactic wars probably aren't that big a deal.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:27 PM

I don't think so. According to Carl Sagan, it's very likely that two alien empires could colonize planets all around each other before meeting - there's so much space out there.

Yes but Sagan was saying that in light of current evidance, that the speed of light is insurmountable. If this turns out to be more then feasible within our lifetimes it's very possible that other O2 breathing aliens could be out there vying for the same worlds we are and some other non-O2 beings may take exception to us colonizing within solar systems they already have colonized even though they have no use for an O2 world they may still be territorial. I'm sure we would be terretorial if we start expanding within the next 200 years. That is not enough time to mature into a peacefull civilization. Galactic Wars could become a very real possiblity.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 08:11 AM
I'm not sure how we got into interstellar wars, but I think that it's a long way off to say the least. Our primary goals with this technology should be the acquisition of resources within our own solar system. With the ability to mine minerals from asteroids, there would be no need to strip mine for natural resources. With this ability, we would be able to set up plants and factories on the Moon to process the minerals, with no pollution to the Earth's atmosphere. We could even set up freighters to ship garbage into the Sun. We could use this to save the planet. That is if we don't blow it up first.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 07:46 PM
I'm a layperson, and someone who would never pretend to understand much if anything about physics (and even less so mathematics), but I've always imagined in a crude and haphazardly conceptual way, that if we were to expand the dimensional "circumference" (for lack of a better term) of an object in our universe beyond what it currently encompasses, we could then have it "contract" to a point elsewhere in space-time. In my mind I've always envisioned some sort of craft that is stationary rather than accelerating, the "expansion" of which isn't contingent upon mass or acceleration.

But if we were already in an accelerating craft of some kind, and it then produced a magnetic field independent of it's own (which would already be stronger because of its acceleration), in my mind's eye I see this happening more easily; like a short cut. (I imagine seeing a physical speed limitation transforming into a broader range of acceleration as we approach it). But I know nothing about all this and probably have no idea what I'm even imagining, though lol.

As a layperson, though, I can say that I can think of very, very few technologies which have not had military applications. If we are indeed on the brink of travel between the stars, I must say I'm concerned by that. I am a hopeful person, who believes in the capacity for good inherent in all human beings, whether they are aware of, or choose to utilize, that capacity or not. I believe we can and will be more than we are, now. It would be a shame if this was all we were capable of. However, we have yet to overcome even the most rudimentary of tribal (international), racial, cultural, etc. differences. We are still capable of wreaking immeasurable devastation on one another. The thought of directed energy weapons, combined with this new propulsion technology, when we have yet to eliminate these primitive issues, is something I find most unsettling.

I will hope for the best, though. This is very exciting regardless!

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I'm a layperson, and someone who would never pretend to understand much if anything about physics.....

we need weapons on them even starship voyager and enterprise have them the asgard have weapons look there will all ways be somebody or thing trying to attack . if it is not humans it wil be an evil alien civilisation or a a comet. why should we not arm a ship. you have to be prepared for everything if you go far out of our part of the solar system.

if you like it or not we don't know what is out there we know there are evil gods out there .. hell yes I am fan of stargate but introducing religion to our planet by visiting and using us and using religion to halter our development and scientific knowledge is pure evil. the theory of stargate sg1 serie is more likely then we are willing to accept. and today people mock you if you say that it might have a possible truth in it and they will then say you have been watching to much tv / stargate sg1 but the theory behind the serie stands and I see it more likely then all seeing and knowing gods. if they are all seeing why is mankind suffering? why do people die even if they believe in gods

but okay we have to be prepared if heading so far in space so yes directed energy weapons are needed. on board of a starship propelled by this hypedrive technology.

[mod edit - Please don't quote the entire post directly above yours

[edit on 16-1-2006 by dbates]

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:05 AM
it's a pretty big assumption that there are hostile species out there. Most If we postponed our missions because of the feeling that we need to build weapons, the we are just holding ourselves back.
Besides that, why wouldn't our current weapons work. I don't see the need for directed energy weaponry if we could pierce their hull with high velocity projectile weapons. Maybe even explosives could do the trick.

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:51 PM
The assumption is based on another assumption that this technology is easier to master then we thought. If we were to achieve FTL travel within the next 200 years, well Humans don't change that much in such a small amount of time. I think it's a huge assumption that there aren't any aggresive species out in the cosmos. Would you bet your life on it if you're one of the explorers? I wouldn't.

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:19 PM
Its probably a givin that there are some dangerous species out there but then again we will probably make some friends to. I'd think of it like the first day of school you arrive and theirs already people there that have been in school a lot longer than you but you keep to people in your age group after all human civilization has survived for thousands of years so we probably areb't that important right now that however could change once we leave our star system and become a competitor for resources but then again if thats the case then why hasn't our system been overrun by extra-terrestrials laying claim to our resources. So we are basing all of our current concepts of the outside universe based on our own past experiences between ourselves. We don't know what the situation is out there and our only option is really to go out there and find out for better or for worse.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:30 AM

Originally posted by danwild6
After all human civilization has survived for thousands of years so we probably areb't that important right now that however could change once we leave our star system and become a competitor for resources but then again if thats the case then why hasn't our system been overrun by extra-terrestrials laying claim to our resources.

If FTL travel is possible, the Stargate TV show model may not be far off target. In otherwords a web of galactic and inter-galactic treaties that protect underdeveloped star systems with potential for intelegent life. A universe where beings are hungry for the diversity that new civilizations bring(especially those beings with everlasting health).

Imagine this. Some creatures in the Crab Nebula showing their "COOL" by rocking to the latest jams from Earth.

WoW! Dig that Beat!

[edit on 1/19/2006 by bodebliss]

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:04 AM
That's assuming we're that far behind other alien species in our Galaxy. Currently, astrophysics believes our sun is a third generation star. With an expected lifespan of 17 billion years, that may appear to leave quite a bit of time for other intelligent life to develop...On the surface.

First, we have to address why it is believed Sol, our star, is a third generation star. The first stars in our current model of the galaxy were composed completely of helium and hydrogen. They were all giants, and all very short lived. Because they are composed of such light materials, they have to be extraordinarily massive before causing the fission reaction that begins a star's ultimate demise. They detonate, becoming, possibly, black holes or neutron stars, or possibly reacting in a different way due to their makeup.

Most importantly, though, there isn't the time, nor the material, to form any planets. First generation is stellar exclusively.

Next, we have second generation. When the first generation detonated, they created heavier elements. There was lithium, Beryllium, possibly even carbon, though these are still in very small amounts. There are still no heavy metals introduced into the universe, at least not in a significant quantity.

At this point, the stars created from first generation material are more stable, but still have a significantly shorter lifespan due to instability. While there is no current example of a first generation star that we're aware of or have detected, the second generation stars, it is expected, were what we would consider red giants and red super giants. Due to the shortened lifespan and volatile nature of the stars, it is not likely any life, other than possibly bacteria, could have come about. This is because of the extreme changing conditions caused by a rapidly expanding and condensing star. If you figure our planet moving a few thousand miles closer to the sun causes such climate change as summer and winter, imagine what tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of miles over the span of tens of millions of years would do to a climate.

At the end of those stars, we get stars far more diverse, such as our sun and, generally, our galaxy. Heavy metals and elements are created in the destruction of second generation stars and we get a lot of iron, carbon (interestingly enough, what all elements are moving towards through decay...'Nother subject, though
), and even uranium and such heavy, short lived elements. Now we have planets and stability.

It is at this point life can pass the bacteria phase of development using our current evolutionary model, assuming it's the norm. This means that we are in existence in the first possible generation of stars capable of supporting intelligent life.

Now the question is, how many stars support planets capable of generating intelligent life, how long it took for that life to develop into societies, quickly a species becomes dominant through its intelligence (if you'll recall, it is suspected Neanderthal was smarter than cro-magnon, our supposed ancestor, but cro-magnon, due to the war like nature, dominated the planet) how long would it take to develop FTL travel, typically, how long it would take to make first contact, how long it would take to create an interstellar government, how long it would take to create an interstellar union between other races capable of FTL travel who have established their own interstellar governments, how long it would take for that body to stumble upon enough planets containing intelligent life that they would create a "Prime Directive", and how long it would take for rogue factions to abandon that directive.

If science has it right, we are on the leading edge of what the universe will be capable of, so far as supporting intelligent life. If we're behind other races, it's not by a significant amount of time, I would conclude.

Then there's this proposition: what if we play the role of the Vulcans? We're one of the first, if not the first, race to develop FTL travel. It may sound arrogant, but some race in this generation of stars, if it's possible, has to be first. Why not a war-like, creative, intuitive race such as ours?

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:21 AM
vulcans???, try ;more like klingons, lol where is my BAThLeth, or how ever u spell it.

there might be even if were are among the first races, some other races that have got to be older than us, I mean we have gone though a couple of evolutions, how long where dinosaurs here compared to us and just how long ago was that from now?

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:40 AM


Two points to make in regards to that, and one will truly establish my dorkdom if the astrophysical time line hasn't already done that. In an episode of Enterprise, T'Pol mentions that the Vulcans were one of the first races to attain FTL travel. That's the point I was making
Sad, ain't it? What's even sadder is, I was watching Next Gen on G4 while typing that last post.

In Earth's case, we went through one major evolutionary break. Evolution was favoring a reptilian/avian dominant species. Looking at the fossil record...Well, Dinos weren't getting smarter over 230 million years. There's even suggestions they were getting dumber and more specialized to their role in the ecosystem. It took a global killer to cause mammals, who had higher mental capacities (again, all of this is suspected. Other than John Titor, no human has ever traveled in time to confirm these events...And for some reason John Titor is keeping quiet), to allow them to gain a foothold on the planet. This leads us to another question:

Does all life move towards intelligence?

Look, for example, at the human race. Time and time again, especially after establishing the technology we have today, but even in the past, we have come close to wiping ourselves out. Most species who go extinct on Earth didn't do it to themselves. It is only humanity, and our intelligence, that has enabled that possibility. On the other hand, if life maintains a monotonous, singular existence focused on eat, sleep and mate, it has a far better chance of existing longer. If you're to believe evolution, survival is based on those most able to adapt and exploit best their environment in a symbiotic relationship. What benefit, initially and at its potentially catastrophic conclusion, does intelligence have?

Naturally, I'm using the only example we have as the model. Earth could be completely unique...We may evolve super-slow, or we could be the only bastion of life in the universe. There are very few stars capable of supporting life as we know it here on earth due to their location and the star itself, but then, a far more hostile environment may spur faster evolution. In using this model:

Dinos, according to evolutionary theory, existed for 230 million years with very little change, especially between the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Mammals, on the other hand, a product of a global killer, supposedly evolved from rats into humanity in 65 million years. Something happened there, and, if evolution is to be believed, I would suspect it was the global killer. Now, if Earth is the model, that would mean that, in order to have intelligence, you would have to wipe out the specialized lower species in order to get the more adaptable species dominant.

So, in short, I think the point you raised gives more credibility to the belief that humans are at the forefront than to say they are far behind.

Assuming, of course, Earth is typical.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:46 AM
very good point, unless that global killer was done on purpose by higher beings trying to bring about Intelligent evolution, a sort of planetary/evolutianary chia pet, lol

I'm just eqging you on, sorry I'm bored and can't go to sleep, but I've heard something similar to what i said above, about aliens directing our evolution or so other whack job.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:54 AM
another point, on the sci-fi front, I've always found it very cheesy and would sometimes be put off by a movie or show claming to be in the future with FTL travel with mundane tech/props, like I love the new BSG, but seeing them carrying modern day weapons like p-90s and the berreta carbine, I think there was even a glock on one of the episodes there was a hummer in episode, I mean I know they dont have the biggest prop object, but at least make an effort to dress things up. another great show was space above and beyond, but with they also use pretty shotty props, I mean they had HK sniper riffle, the steyr pistol (I know I'm fixated on weapons). well to get to my point, how Ironic that if all this pans out we would be going around just like those shows, with the exception of our propulsion system most of our technology would be pretty un-impressive in comparison. If this all works out like they are hyping it up we would have some ships withing 20-30 years not much times to go all sci fi and all.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:58 AM
hehe Egg on, I can't sleep either, and I'm loving this conversation
I've also heard about that a lot here on ATS, though ATS isn't the first time I'd heard the idea.

The problem with the evolutionary instigator theory is that third generation star issue. How, from what we currently understand, could a species develop fast enough to be so enlightened as to know what the end result of a mammalian evolution on this planet would proceed as far as it has.

Then you also run into other complications. If we were being created, why. Did they do that to inspire intelligence in our development? If so, and we were being "Evolved" by another species, they have already intervened in the evolutionary cycle of earth. Why would they allow a more intelligent tangent to be wiped out by a war-like tangent? It doesn't figure. Having an intelligent T-Rex with opposible thumbs would be a far better warrior than a fragile sack of flesh with no natural defenses or abilities for war other than our technology? Wouldn't it make more sense to groom a brute to become a Beast (aka X-Men), a powerful, formidable species capable of technological development as well?

So, in short, why evolve a species away from a brute into a species capable of rebellion, naturally inquisitive and questioning, generally rejecting chains (physical or mental), and physically weak to fight their wars?

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:03 AM
Sci-Fi aspect: television doesn't have the budget to factor everything into it. It could be that projectile weapons are more effective than energy weapons. Who knows, we don't have effective energy weapons that we common folk are aware of.

On the 20 to 30 year front, that's when the technology may be possible, if Heim's right. The more I find out about this, the more I'm suspecting that the theory is controversial not for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread, but because the science is questionable. However, say it is accurate. Intertia kills. Beyond that, if inertia is not a problem due to the pseudo-bending of space by traveling in tunneling dimensions, we just opened a whole new field of science akin to aerodynamics for interdimensional space flight.

The technology to travel could be there, but there's a lot more to exploring space than just the engine.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:12 AM
al pacino's explanation of god in the devils advocate comes to mind, these guy are sitting back in their anti-matter powered saucer falling off their seats laughing at the hairless monkeys, lol. "GOD is an Absentee landlord"

the whole third generation star thing, is something that I never read too much about, it's a good point and I you've really answered something I've wonder alot about possible alien evolution as compared to Earth evolution. Remember the Next generation episodes about the progenitors (SP) a species that evolved eons before the other intellent life and began to "seed' planets for future generations so that they could spread Inteligence throughout the universe.

good point on the engine, and yeah the more I read and hear about this the more holes are comes to light. hopefully this works out, and if it does, it would most likely be done as unmanned flights for a good time to work out all the chinks and all. But this would be very benefitial to mankind, we really need to spread out, one of the biggest factors in ending the big crusades of the dark ages was the opening up of the new world, the civilization of that era got too big for it's "pond" and had to spread out, now we've reach a point we are stuck on our litttle blue pearl, and overpopulation and limited resources are feeding into our growing conflicts which will only get bigger and deadlier if we dont find a new GLOBAL outlet for humanities like spreading ourselves accross the cosmos.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in