It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

How Do You Avoid Hitting Stars at Warp 5? A Pulsar Positioning System

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

How Do You Avoid Hitting Stars at Warp 5? A Pulsar Positioning System


gizmodo.com

OK, mind blowing: A scientist at the Observatoire de Paris basically invented GPS for interstellar travelers: Simply tune in the radio signals from four pulsars, crunch some numbers having to do with relativity (natch) and read your position within the galaxy—to within a meter.

It makes sense. GPS is, after all, a system of satellites pulsing regular radio signals, which are triangulated by a receiver which must, even this close to earth, account for some relativity. Like the GPS satellites, the pulsars' locations are known, and also like the satellites, the pulsars pulse (hence the name
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.technologyreview.com
arxiv.org




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Sorry if already posted but could not find when searching.

So we actually in theory have created a system to find an objects postion in space and time, anywhere in the galaxy within a meter.

More info on the mechanics behind it on the other sources.

Galaxy wide "GPS" well, guess GPS would make sense. (Galaxy Positioning System) /lol

Awsome.

Guess this is one more thing off the list on How to make interplanetary travel possible.


gizmodo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Another thread on the subject:

here

Cool that the "MSM" start writing about this stuff aswell.

-Zyk

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Zykloner]

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Zykloner]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
So if that takes care of the possibility of slamming into stars traveling at FTL, what about the orbits of planets? What about comets? Then there are those pesky other ships traveling at high velocity intersecting with your trajectory.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I do belive that its main purpose would be to just show where you are and where you need to go, just like in-car gps now.

I think this would be a problem in the wast universe without this kind of system. Maps arent that good when you move on all three axis in something that huge.


-Zyk



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
How much mass does small rock have when you collide with it at the speed of light ?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I think it's a great find I just think there is a lot we are not anticipating when we start talking about actually trekking the universe.

True it should be easy to avoid stars all together especially when they are visible from so far away. But like may said the smaller items would be the problem. At those speeds even a pebble would go through the entire ship placing a hole through it compromising the life support system in at least the point of entry and exit. Considering a tornado can put a piece of straw through a telephone pole I would hate to see what could be done at those speeds.

As for a location type GPS system I'm pretty sure even a 3-d computer map out of the surrounding area's could easily accomplish that as you would need the data both on and off the aircraft. If you lost contact with any system externally relaying data you would still need an on board system to at the very least help navigate to the nearest system that could/be willing to render assistance.

However by mapping out every single star you may not be able to locally contain a database large enough to hold all that info on just one ship. In the beginning sure you could but eventually the numbers would catch up to you.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by reugen
 


The theory of relativity says you got infinite mass at the speed of light, so if you hit a rock at that speed maybe it got infinite mass?

The theory of relativity also say that traveling at the speed of light requires infinite energy, so i guess you would hit it with infinite energy?

Thats with our primitive understanding of things as per today though.

-Zyk



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by reugen
 


I am no mathmatician . . . but A rough guesstimate . . . alot



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I think this guy just wanted his ideas published and nevermind the details.

I guess if you see one of these little 'details' coming at you, you just lean to one side real hard!



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I think we need to make a big distinction between warping across the galaxy and traveling at light speed.

True warping would be more similar to the space travel explained in the Dune series of books, which is basically folding space. Connecting any point in space to another. Traveling without moving.

I think this is right.

Has traveling at light speed been proven impossible?

The spice must flow.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by WickettheRabbit
 


I agree, even though i dont belive it is possible to travel faster than light.

The folding of space theory say that if you fold space, you dont have to travel faster than light to move across space faster than light since you move by teleportation in space.
Sorry if it didnt make any sense

-Zyk


[edit on 28-5-2009 by Zykloner]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
It's a nice idea, not hitting stars. But stars only make a portion of what is actually floating in space. There are plenty more including planets, comets, dwarf planets (ie: pluto), dust, meteors, a-hem Black Holes!, etc...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I do belive that this theory's most useful appliance would be to just see exactly where in the galaxy you are.

-Zyk



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by WickettheRabbit
 


That has more to do with mass than anything. It takes a lot of energy to propel a craft that has a lot of mass to it than it does for a single photon.

So in theory if you can somehow bend physics enough to reduce, or for all intents and purposes, seem to reduce, a crafts mass to 0 or a percentage thereof. One would just need the appropriate power to thrust that ship past the light speed barrier.

People used to believe that the Earth was flat, we found out better, people used to believe that a person could not go outside of the Earth, We proved better. People said the sound barrier could not be broken, we proved otherwise.

People also screw up what they think relativity is. A person traveling at the speed of light would not age any slower or faster than a person standing still on the Earth. The logic behind that old fallacy is about as flawed as a person on the ground aging differently than a person in an aircraft.

To someone on a ship traveling at the speed of light away from a moving observable point would just see the point remain stationary, because that is the point the reflected data traveling at the speed of light would be received by the observer. In reality the point has continued along its path at the same rate and speed. Time and space aren't as inseparable as it seems.

what you see is not always what it is.

Moving towards the target your data perception will change again, and the object in question would appear to move faster than it really is.

On board a ship you would have to calibrate video and signal systems to compensate for the different observable data points and reorient them with time. Remember there are no stationary points in the universe.

All things in motion also presents a problem with folding space.

Point A may be point A relative to point B by said number of light years. You want to bring point A and point B together, thereby moving all of the surrounding space into a singularity connected to another singularity. Wouldn't the aperture size be dependent on distance, after all you still have the distance to cover?

Wouldn't that mean that the longer the distance the larger the aperture of the event horizon?

In that split second while yes, you go through as planned, but you have also in that instant brought who knows what gravitational forces into a smaller area.

Makes you wonder what two stars instantly colliding would do? And you people are always worried about CERN.



[edit on 5/28/2009 by whatukno]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Great and informative post. STAR

I actually once saw some calculations on how many stars that is so close to earth that it would annihilate all life if exploding in a type 1a supernova.
And this is things that might just happen without warning.Yes it makes you wonder why people are screaming about CERN.

-Zyk

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Zykloner]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The US military has been working on a system exactly like this for some time now known as XNAV.

Why? I have no idea, maybe DARPA are fans of Stargate.

edit to add some links:

The first two are different pdf files from the US Navy.

Spacecraft Navigation Using X-ray Pulsars
www.nrl.navy.mil...

Spacecraft Navigation Using X-ray Pulsars
tycho.usno.navy.mil...

DARPA Selects Ball Aerospace for XNAV Interstellar Navigation Program
www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk...

As you can see DARPA has been openly working on this since 2005.



[edit on 28/5/09 by MikeboydUS]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
At one point in time around the era of the model A and T, people said you couldn't go faster than 100 mph. Then it was the speed of sound and now it's the speed of light. I don't see the speed of light being all that difficult to break. 186,000 miles per second in hard vacuum with all that space, hmm. I think it can be done with current tech.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
You're all mistaken..

At the speed of light and faster, you're not going to be affected by objects.. You'll go through them. At the speed of light, you do not exist.

Time slows down as you go faster, and time travels at the speed of light. After that, you're not bounds by the chains of time anymore, and while traveling, you do not exist.

The really big problem, is when coming out of warp speed. If you come out of it when there is something there, then you're boned... As for just warp travel, I've explained enough.

-Zarathustria



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I'm going to have to insist that we no longer refer to travel at the speed of light as "warp speed". It's a real misnomer.

You wouldn't be "warping" anything. You're just moving very fast (if possible).



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join