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.


Future space travel

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:48 PM
Sorry if this isn't the right place to drop this but I couldn't find a place to post for future technologies. I was just reading some stuff about all of the potential for other life out there in our own galaxy and felt like addressing this because every time I read about that nobody ever seems to mention the issues that might arise in traveling such distances in space. People always say that we would either need to travel at the speed of light, or even faster, or have some kind of wormhole technology in order to reach other habitable planets. It is quite common that we will read about how many people seem to have high hopes that our species might actually be capable of light speed or faster travel. I do believe that life exists out there, and I would certainly love for humans to be able to actually explore not only our galaxy but our entire universe. However, there is one major issue that I don't recall ever seeing discussed when it comes to traveling at such speeds through space.

There is all kinds of crap floating around out there in space. I don't understand how one would avoid a collision with something while traveling at the speed of light. Say you're traversing unknown territory, how would you maneuver around any of the random rocks or things that you might not know are going to end up being in front of you, if you're going so fast? How do you know you aren't going to crash into somebody else taking there own little joyride through the cosmos? For all we know, there could be thousands of extraterrestrial species very similar to us out there doing the same thing we are, how would we avoid a collision?

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by doomedtoday

Well since were talking future and possibilities maybe force fields, energy field, magnetic field, etc.. strong enough to stop the material from ever touching the ship or advance form of radar to foresee any space material that has the possibility to damage the ship.
edit on 29-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:59 PM
In Star Trek, they have a deflector array that pushes away the little stuff.

I have a feeling that we would work towards using something like that, even if its just a physical barrier.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:03 PM
We will probably have inter-dimension travel tech by then. Like poking your finger through a piece of paper.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:21 PM
A simple explanation is the same ways the UFO and triangles move through our atmosphere and in space. They nullify their mass with an all-encompassing field. That field on a SOL ship would be extend some distance all around it but especially toward the frontal area. Anything wholly entering that field would loss all of its mass and not be a problem to the ship and would glance off. However, we can envision two fields at work. One exactly as just described and one to force the massless body away from the craft rather than to allow contact. That latter type of shield is well known in sci-fi circles and well illustrated in the movie Independence Day. This field would counter proximity-type fuses.

To better understand the primary effect, think of a yokel shooting a gun at a hovering UFO/triangle. The bullet enters the mass nullifying field and with its velocity intact it strikes the craft. But it has no mass, no inertia. It doesn't even scratch the paint. It simply rebounds off and regains those two normal effects once it leaves the vicinity of the field.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:29 PM
+1 for the deflector array. Maybe a plasma shield of some sort.

As for FTL travel, I always liked the way that the Foundation novels approached it. Hyper-dimensional travel is point-to-point and instant.

I know I may bruise a few noses here at ATS, but I think that any FTL or Hyper-dimensional travel is either very costly (in resources), or not possible. If it were, we probably would already be colonized.


posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:29 PM
double post, sorry.
edit on 29-3-2012 by SkullCreek because: double-tapped the post button

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:57 PM
I'm afraid physical light speed travel is impossible, a ship would only require subatomic particles to rip it apart at such relativistic speeds. Such ideas live only in fantasy for the foreseeable future and perhaps beyond.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:23 PM
I'm afraid that I don't really see any future in actual space travel. Even if we could eventually come up with a way to harness all the power needed to bend spacetime to our will, all we're really doing it creating more places for us to think about going to. It's not as if all of us are world travelers and have a burning desire to visit every wonderful place on Earth. We just like the idea of it. So we'll all only see a tiny fraction of the wonders of our own planet, anyway.

Combine that with humanity's inherent physical weakness and what do you have?

You have the future of space travel being virtual, like in Total Recall. Compared to bending spacetime, creating a complex virtual world inside a computer (then in your head) is a breeze. So we'll be able to virtually fly around the universe, visiting all kinds of wonderful planets -- without the boring necessity of space suits and years of travel -- and have great adventures. And then we can return to our regular comfy lives. Only a crazy person would want to actually go someplace like Mars.

Then, eventually, we'll just be satisfied with our virtual travels and the whole push to actually travel in space will fade away. And then our species will fade away as the mutants and machines take over.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:25 PM

Originally posted by otie1
Like poking your finger through a piece of paper.

This. (also, Event Horizon ruled)

It is the only practical way to explore the universe. I'm not sure I'd use inter-dimensional to describe it, but I'm quite convinced our only way of exploring the stars will be the wormhole technology you mentioned. Faster than light travel is clearly impossible, at least for human beings so the only way to travel such great distances will be to bend space to bring the two distant places side by side momentarily.

I only hope that we will be able to spawn a wormhole in an area of space that we haven't previously explored. I suspect that when the wormhole is created it will destroy anything in the space surrounding it, so as long as we can find a nice empty section of space to travel to we should be fine, but it may be that we need to send drones out into space to create a beacon for the other end of the wormhole - which will mean that our ability to explore space won't come until many decades (at least) after wormhole technology is discovered.

I believe we are being/have been visited by aliens, and I don't believe that faster-than-light travel is possible, so I believe this wormhole technology exists - but obviously I don't have a clue how it works (other than probably a massively strong gravitational field, since we know gravity bends spacetime) or how close (if at all) we are to discovering it. Probably not very.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by TheStev

It never ceases to amaze me that people speak of "wormholes[" as actual objects or portals that are known to exist and, incredibly, can be accessed as easily grabbing a flight to Dallas. How do you know where one resides or would take you if you found one? How would you know where your exited it? 'Seems to me that would be like trying to catch a whirlwind without knowing much about what the whole thing was about.

Yet, we have the apparent phenomena of the UFO and the triangles that also apparently motivate themselves without using air or blast of rocket exhaust. Why talk about the hypothetical wormholes that would require some sort of phenomena ships themselves simply to get to them? Why such magical thinking when we have anecdotal evidence that a most miraculous means of locomotion is within our midst? If you have a nullmass ship such as the UFOs and the triangles exhibit, then the stars are within reach.

My personal opinion is that those want to talk about wormholes are sorta like NASA, they want to point a finger to some far off place and muse about life out there, while strangely ignoring what's under itheir noses. 'Course, NASA has an agenda, and i wouldn't dare dream that about ATS posters.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:07 PM
Well for starters, I'm talking about man-made wormholes. I'm not talking about stumbling onto a natural wormhole out in space and flying through it in the hopes of reaching a distant location in space. Wormhole is probably a misnomer, and its aptness depends on how you look at the conceptual technology. From one perspective, the technology would allow two points in space to be laid over each other momentarily, which would allow us to traverse great distances instantaneously.

From another perspective I think what is happening is that we are opening a hole in spacetime, and a wormhole within hyperspace connects that hole to another point in spacetime. I don't know that it will necessarily entail a physical vortex swirling in space, if that's what you think I mean by wormhole travel.

And on your other point, I don't believe the movement of a craft (triangles or UFOs) within a gravitational environment like the Earth's gravity field necessarily explains their movement through the vast distances of space. It may be that they are able to put themselves into a zero mass state, or it may be that they can simply manipulate the Earth's gravitational field, in which case this technology would have no bearing on interstellar travel (other than the fact that being able to manipulate gravitational fields could potentially allow that craft to bend spacetime)

If the craft do in fact have zero mass, they would still need to find a way to travel at not only the speed of light, but hundreds of thousands of times the speed of light. I'm not saying it's not possible, I just think instantaneous travel by bending spacetime is a more likely explanation.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by TheStev

Ok. You build a wormhole for me. Where do you start? How do you build one? What kind of magical technology do you need?

Second, you invoke the typical trick which is intentionally done by those that need to confuse the issue. The suggestion of a mass-negating drive hits exactly on the true situation as anyone can see that views a decent UFO or triangle sighting. Creating a null-mass field has nothing to do with gravity. Gravity isn't involved. It is ignored. It isn't part of the equation. As my signature line has stated for years, gravity is side-stepped when there is no mass for gravity to work upon. It as simple as that.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by Aliensun

Geez, no need to be a douche about it.

Ok. You build a wormhole for me. Where do you start? How do you build one? What kind of magical technology do you need?

but obviously I don't have a clue how it works (other than probably a massively strong gravitational field, since we know gravity bends spacetime) or how close (if at all) we are to discovering it.

I think I was pretty clear that I'm just speculating wildly here. But since you seem so convinced of your own beliefs, ok. You build a zero-mass ship for me. Where do you start? How do you build one? What kind of magical technology do you need?

Secondly, what 'trick' did I invoke? I didn't say zero-mass tech was gravity manipulation, I said that the manoeuvres performed by these craft seem to either be a result of zero-mass tech OR gravity manipulation. Now who's playing straw man with whom?

Just to be clear, are you saying that because these craft have zero mass they can travel faster than the speed of light, but still travel using some sort of propulsion physics? As far as I know, the only two methods of transport are propulsion and teleportation. I personally don't think that the nature of physics allows propulsion at the speeds that would be required to traverse the universe, zero-mass ships or otherwise.

Look, I've said all along this is just how I think the technology will work once we discover it. I've never once claimed to know for a fact what technology UFOs might be using, and what technology we need to discover to cross the stars. I don't know. Let me say that again, because you seem to be misreading my posts: I don't know. But I find it interesting to speculate about it, as does the OP obviously.

I notice you haven't actually suggested a potential future method of space travel. How about you stop trying to pick a fight with me and stop telling us what you think of 'NASA Wormhole types', and tell us what you think the future technology used for space travel will be?
edit on 30-3-2012 by TheStev because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by TheStev

You said: "I notice you haven't actually suggested a potential future method of space travel. How about you stop trying to pick a fight with me and stop telling us what you think of 'NASA Wormhole types', and tell us what you think the future technology used for space travel will be?"

First, since you have reduced yourself to the need for name calling, my discussion with you is over

I'll repeat, however, what I've said from my first words on this thread. Wormholes are some sorta dream that we in no way really know to exist. Yet, there are tons of indicative proof that UFOs and triangles are nullifying mass. Now, which seems to be more likely to be true? Physical things we see, photograph, radar clock or a fanciful math equation?

I have clearly attempted to show you that a zero-mass ship is the way that the universe can be/is traversed. So the quote of yours that I've taken from your recent posting makes no sense. It seems for some reason that you have a great need to ignore talk of UFOs, triangles and null-mass concepts. Why is that...maybe your job?

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by Aliensun

You asked me to 'build a wormhole' and called my theory 'magical'. Your general attitude was 'my theory is proved right, your theory is just silly'. That's kinda douchey if you ask me. My reaction of 'name calling' was a reaction to your tone and perceived attitude.

Three things you might find interesting:

1. You can't say 'this discussion is over' and then keep discussing. Either you're storming off in a huff, your you're not - you can't have your cake and eat it too

2. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" So anything we haven't discovered the science behind is currently considered magic. Therefore your 'zero-mass ships' are just as magical as my wormholes.

3. I think you're a bit confused about what the word 'proof' means. There may be some evidence that UFOs if they exist are nullifying mass. But that's far from proof. Proof is evidence that is undeniable. The manipulation of gravity is just as valid an explanation for the way those alleged craft operate as mass nullification is, therefore I can deny your interpretation of the evidence, therefore that evidence is not proof. Both are just theories, both are unproven.

Providing us with a craft that has zero mass is just one part of the interstellar travel equation. Even if a craft does not have inertia, which I suspect you're suggesting with zero mass, it requires some sort of momentum to move. So are you going to tell use what method of propulsion is used by these zero mass craft that have, according to you, been proven to exist

I have to address that too. I believe that UFOs exist, but that's just a belief. I don't believe they have been proven to exist. And I think the vast majority of people, even the vast majority of UFO believers, would agree with that. So how can you use an unproven phenomena to prove a theory you have?

top topics


log in