100-Year Starship initiative gains Bill Clinton

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
Excellent idea, this will make disclosure so much more simple!


To touch on this point -

We all discuss how disclosure might occur and under what circumstances. Perhaps this is a way to continue that process. By engaging in this type of project one of the discussions will be what happens if we get somewhere and find out we are not alone in the universe.

While we can discuss technology, astronomy, astrophysics as well as the human condition on such an endeavor we are going to always keep coming back to ET life.

I find it interesting on how the ET conversation has progressed over the years. We have gone from nothing to looking at the heavens to researching our solar system and identifying planets / moons to taking to the sky and then into space and then humans into space and then a permanent presence via the ISS. We have gone from basic pictures of other planets to exploration via probes to ground exploration by rovers.

We have gone from being deaf to placing sounds and info on probes set to leave the solar system to listening for alien signals to broadcasting our own signals into space looking for others. We have gone from suborbital to orbital to reuseable craft.

We have gone from a goal of going to the moon to gearing up for a manned mission to another planet to discussing a 100 year starship intiative to visit another solar system.

All the while we discuss the possibility of ET life, ranging from basic compounds up to ET races.

If we are destined to go to the stars then we must be prepared for what me might encounter. Everything that has occured to date seems to be part of that preparation, including ET life..

I keep coming back to this thought -
If people are so sure we are alone in the universe then why do we keep discussing the possibility?
* - People accept the concept of God with no physical proof to confirm it.
* - Atheists accept the concept there is no God or afterlife with no proof.

Why?
Faith - A belief in things unseen.


"Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
- Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle).




Hailing frequencies closed....
edit on 8-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Well , regards the problems of building spacecraft in the first place, we would need to loft an orbital shipyard. It could operate by way of heavily modified three dimensional printing technology. That would mean we would be able to do away completely with the idea of actually flying the craft from the surface, making huge dents in its tonnage, and removing a considerable chunk of the cost of spaceflight also.

I must also point out, that if we were to unlock the potential of the Higgs boson, then the same mass manipulation that could drive the craft, could provide gravity for those inside. Either that or the craft would have to be very mechanically complex in order to achieve the same effect by having the habitable parts of the vehicle spin around a central axis, which of course, does not need an awful lot of reworking as an idea, since it has been around since Arthur C Clarke as an intellectual concept (may all and any deities rest his good soul).

Furthermore, the problems of radiation sheilding, to protect craft and crew from the output of stars and other radiological sources could be solved using an electromagnetic sheild, similar in effect to the one that is currently protecting our planet from the terrors of full exposure to our suns fury. Such a shield is already in development, and has been for some years now. I read about it on ATS three years ago, and the technology can only have been improved since then. Honestly, although there is an awful lot to learn about the technologies and sciences that are required for this to work out, to merely state that because something has not yet been proven, as if it means anything in terms of the capacity of man to achieve his aims is foolish.

When man went to the moon, they did it in an object that looked like it had been scotch taped together. If man can do that, then surely he can do this.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
When man went to the moon, they did it in an object that looked like it had been scotch taped together. If man can do that, then surely he can do this.
I'd like to think so, but I'm less than sure.

We have some ideas for some technologies, but we don't know how viable any of them will turn out to be, and it's possible none of them will be viable. Or it could take 1000 years to think of something that works, instead of 100.

One of the best ideas I've seen in project Orion but that's kind of crude and it's not going to be very popular.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If people are so sure we are alone in the universe then why do we keep discussing the possibility?
Where do you come up with this? What people are sure we are alone in the universe?


Originally posted by Xcathdra

"Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
- Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle).


Is this irony intentional or unintentional?

I have to ask because this combination is incredibly ironic! I guess the fictional Sherlock Holmes couldn't take the advice of Von Braun who lived after him?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


While I agree that there are things in the works which may come to nothing, the actual principles behind all the possible technological breakthroughs I mentioned have been proven, bar the Higgs manipulator propulsion system (which is a thought bought on by the very function of that boson) and the idea of printing in 3d in a zero gravity environment. The electromagnetic shield has already been tested under high energy plasma and was found to be effective at defending its target area from being effected by it, we KNOW there are ways to spin a vehicle or object to induce gravity like effects.

One can make all the excuses one would like to, but at the end of the day, the only thing holding us back from our destiny with regard to the cosmos, is a lack of political will, and a problem of financing. The science is evolving to the point where considerations which rely on ITS applications, are becoming lesser considerations when stacked up against the vast sums of money combining these skill sets into a cohesive whole will cost.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by meticulous
 


William Jefferson Starship!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 



Well , regards the problems of building spacecraft in the first place, we would need to loft an orbital shipyard. It could operate by way of heavily modified three dimensional printing technology. That would mean we would be able to do away completely with the idea of actually flying the craft from the surface, making huge dents in its tonnage, and removing a considerable chunk of the cost of spaceflight also.


Yes, simple. We just will a 2 kiloton chunk of polymers, metals, circuits, and power generating equipment into space.

Then... where do we get the material we print this ship from (limitations of direct laser sintering aside).


I must also point out, that if we were to unlock the potential of the Higgs boson, then the same mass manipulation that could drive the craft, could provide gravity for those inside.


We predicted the phenomena of quantum teleportation before 1920. We don't have teleporters, and it's almost a hundred years later.

Not to rain on your parade - but even if we did locate this mythological higgs boson - we're easily a hundred years from being able to do with it what we can currently do with regards to quantum teleportation. Which is neat laboratory experiments that have yet to illustrate how one would make practical use of this phenomena.


Either that or the craft would have to be very mechanically complex in order to achieve the same effect by having the habitable parts of the vehicle spin around a central axis, which of course, does not need an awful lot of reworking as an idea, since it has been around since Arthur C Clarke as an intellectual concept (may all and any deities rest his good soul).


Concept is older than that - and is not mechanically complex. Artificial gravity plating - even if we could create such a thing within the next ten years - poses absolutely insane engineering challenges. Though we can hardly even begin to speculate on how such a gravity plate would work in terms of field equations. Having a ship loaded with universal attractors will have to be designed so as not to warp and buckle itself - particularly as the frame warps and contorts during standard maneuvers and tidal forces by as much as several degrees over the length/width of the frame.

The biggest (but surmountable) challenge to centrifugal designs is balancing to prevent oscillations. This can easily be controlled by computers and a system of extending/retracting counter-weights. Further - distribution of materials from such a platform is a matter of simply releasing them and letting inertia send them clear. A system of VASMIR engines can easily keep a stable rotation speed and handle orbit-maintenance thrusts.


Furthermore, the problems of radiation sheilding, to protect craft and crew from the output of stars and other radiological sources could be solved using an electromagnetic sheild, similar in effect to the one that is currently protecting our planet from the terrors of full exposure to our suns fury.


Radiation shielding isn't a problem.

Basic life support is. Water, food, proper biological development, proper biological function, proper air circulation (essential for cooling in areas without simulated gravity) - etc.

It's the little things added together that make space inhospitable for long-term stays.

When it comes to things like "shielding" - a lot of interesting things become possible. Once you can practically support humans in a space station - you can construct a combination "air dock" and "void dock" (black dock - whatever the hell you want to call it). You use plasma sheathing to contain an atmosphere - which inherently blocks a wide range of radiation. Adaptations of such a technology could also be used for adaptive antennas/dishes, and probably a host of other things we will only discover once able to work with them in space.


When man went to the moon, they did it in an object that looked like it had been scotch taped together. If man can do that, then surely he can do this.


That's like saying "Man jumped down from that wall and survived. Surely, he can jump off a skyscraper and live."

Plus, you're looking at this like one-shot Johny. The amount of resources that need to go into establishing this one petty little task of building a trans generational ship (or even a small 'fleet' (lol) of five) is astronomical with no returns other than bragging rights.

Those same resources are better spent establishing a logistics and industrial supply chain that can support further development.

It's ridiculous. You're all so hell bent on building a ship that would make Kirk proud, but you can't be assed to actually think about setting up what's necessary to make us a viable space-faring species.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
The amount of resources that need to go into establishing this one petty little task of building a trans generational ship (or even a small 'fleet' (lol) of five) is astronomical with no returns other than bragging rights.


The return on investment is exploration and furthering human knowledge.

If we had this mindset from the begining Neanderthals never would have come out of the cave. 3 quotes come to mind that sums up why this is important -

Substitute American for Humanity -

I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon—if I can.
I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.
I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole.
I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.
I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout.
I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.
It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. All this is what it means to be an American.
- Dean Alfange


The next quote puts why we do what we do in perspective -


'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.

Sam Seaborn (West Wing)


Also, since we do not know what we will find if we get there, we cannot assume the return on investment will not be present. We could find alien life who have the answers to our issues here on earth. New minerals, elements, phenomenons etc etc etc. It could guarantee humanities existence by removing some of our eggs from the Earth basket.

"Why" is the question....
"Because it's there" is the answer...


That's because great achievement has no road map. The X-Ray is pretty good, and so is penicillin, and neither were discovered with a practical objective in mind. I mean, when the electron was discovered in 1897, it was useless. And now we have an entire world run by electronics. Hayden and Mozart never studied the classics. They couldn't. They invented them.

- Dr. Dalton Millgate (West Wing)

edit on 9-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
It won't be built on Earth. Scientists had a big meeting a year or two ago about the Fe0 iron on the moon. Totally different than metal ore on Earth because it's never been in an environment where oxygen could decay it.

They figured out they could use pretty low levels of Microwaves to melt it together on the moon and make big pieces really really fast....and really cheap.

That's what thousands of scientists around the world are working on right now. Manufacturing on the moon.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by 35Foxtrot
 


You did misunderstood what I meant, but I actually agree with all that you are saying.

But, to further explain what I really meant, it was relating to the true scientific endeavour our greatest explorers believed in. I think that what destroyed the relations with native people was the greed that came after the discovery of new territories.

Still, I believe that the wish of getting on a boat, going into somewhere unknown, was a demonstration of scientific and adventurous spirit. They did find out how our world ticked, or at the very least started to really want to find out.

That brought a lot of good things, the world might not be perfect but thing's weren't better centuries ago. We can communicate better, and achieve much more. It's the negativity and bad attitude that needs to go, in my opinion. We should all stick to the good values.

If that made us closer, then going into a new frontier might open our horizons. At least, that's what I hope for.
edit on 7-9-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: (no reason given)


I think you are misunderstanding history. No doubt some of the individual explorers had the motives you assign to them but it was never the purpose of the trip. Human exploration has always been funded by greed or fear. People will talk about humans exploring space but if you cant tantalise the money holders with profit (gold, jewels, spices) or scare them (e.g. the Russians will control space, empire x will conquer the territory and have an advantage) they wont put their hands in their pockets.

Thats the real reason we haven't gone anywhere since Apollo. No convincing profit or fear motive.

Thinking it was about grand noble visions simply confuses the issue.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by meticulous
 


I believe that humanity takes small steps when going forward in terms of evolution. It takes a bit of time - generations even - to study a hypothesis, fund the technology and develop it to the point it's efficient, and then find out brave souls to pioneer these exploration adventures.

Personally, I hope this is the start of a movement where Earth is no longer a big limitation on humanity. While researching and working on the problem of space exploration and travel, we can find out solutions to other problems down here.

And even if we don't find them, there will be hope for travel to a better place. The same philosophy and goodness spirit that fueled the exploration of our own planet.

I miss the days when Sci-Fi magazines, and even popular magazines, were all about "going out there", exploration, adventure and that awesome sense of humanity being capable to achieve anything.

Not what we have today. The celebrity gossip, the always negative news, the constant fear and suffering demonstrations.

We need hope again. True, unbiased, inspirational...hope.


I think the problem is that if you even mentioned the idea of space travel or leaving Earth, people look at you like you're some kind of sci fi geek or conspiracy nut. This of course while, at the very same time, using a satellite to talk to you on cell phone. The idea of true hope has been replaced with generations of lies and deceit through institutional Government programs and profit driven corporate greed that, for the most part, could care less about the average person or indeed their own species. Hope, no matter in the form of space travel, education, the economy, freedom, etc. etc. simply does not fit the agenda.

With that said, we will not ...and should not leave this planet until we, as a species, learn to grow up and stop exploiting each other for personal gain. If by chance we did run into an intelligent species and we treated it the same we treat ourselves, it's not going to be a good day for humanity. To think that every living human on this planet could be fed and clothed literally over night if we would just stop the greed and war is mind blowing... yet for some reason that type of thinking is naive and unrealistic. If we continue to think with the primitive side of our brains, it's just a matter of time before that commet shows up and does mother nature's handy work. And to be honest, we probably deserve it.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


So. Let me get this straight. Because I havent got a road map to making this the most successful business venture on the face of the world, you have a problem? I feel I must point out that when the Wright Brothers first successful test flight occurred neither of them had the bloody slightest CLUE about how it would pan out long term. They were bloody bicycle manufacturers, whose only aim was to see the milestone achieved.

They may have made that milestone, but the real achievement comes from what they did for travel and transport in making the possibilities a reality that people could interact with. Until that point, the actual reality of a vehicle capable of flying through the air would have been utterly outside the grasp of many peoples imaginations. In bringing the thought through to a final project, they made people look at what was and was not possible differently.

If mankind were to build a machine of this scale and scope, or several, they would be built not only to prove to the world that it is possible to travel to the stars, but more, that there is a reason to do so, because there is no way they would build these things and not have them carry some kind of experiment to perform.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The return on investment is exploration and furthering human knowledge.


*shakes head*

You are going to spend ten fold the amount to build these ship(s) with existing industrial and assembly methods and send them where ever you plan to send a transgenerational ship.

Not to mention the amount of time that would have to be invested into testing the various systems that you would be using for the first time and the associated costs.

There is no appreciable ROI on such a project.


If we had this mindset from the begining Neanderthals never would have come out of the cave. 3 quotes come to mind that sums up why this is important


We aren't descended from Neanderthals. There's some evidence of cross-breeding, but we're descendants of homo-erectus - a completely different critter.

Your point, however, is irrelevant.

Never did I say "don't leave the cave."

A better parallel is living on the African Savannah and venturing North to slam into the barren wasteland that is the Middle East / Persian Gulf. The critters who attempted to cross that without proper planning no longer represent the human race. Only one strain of mitochondria (read: the descendants of one woman) made it out of Africa to survive into recent history. All others perished and their legacy forever purged from our species.

Unfortunately - the failure to plan we are currently discussing will only waste money as opposed to serve as a factor in natural selection.


Also, since we do not know what we will find if we get there, we cannot assume the return on investment will not be present.


Let me put it to you this way:

The same time, resources, and money spent on establishing a proper system of low and zero-gravity industry would give us the ability to build these same ships for a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time, and with much more knowledge of long-term stays in space.

We would just have to delay our plans.


We could find alien life who have the answers to our issues here on earth.


Doubtful.

To presume alien life would know more about our own system and ecology when we've yet to confirm they exist is a little silly.


New minerals, elements, phenomenons etc etc etc. It could guarantee humanities existence by removing some of our eggs from the Earth basket.


There's known materials on the moon. There are over a dozen moons around Jupiter that hold a wide range of other resources to possibly include raw organic compounds that would be essential in developing self-contained biospheres for use in space (unless you plan to launch hundreds of tons of dirt into space through our atmosphere, against our gravity, using the roughly 12% efficiency of our rocket technologies).



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 



So. Let me get this straight. Because I havent got a road map to making this the most successful business venture on the face of the world, you have a problem?


No.

Because you haven't put much in the way of thought towards the actual process of building a ship and sending it to another star.

Business is the process of making things that others want - if you want a process that is successful and efficient - you are wanting something that is potentially a good business.


I feel I must point out that when the Wright Brothers first successful test flight occurred neither of them had the bloody slightest CLUE about how it would pan out long term. They were bloody bicycle manufacturers, whose only aim was to see the milestone achieved.


The difference is that the Wright Brothers took the time to study previous attempts at flight, study the flight of birds, and develop their project.

Perhaps most critically - they were already bicycle manufacturers. They didn't start off trying to build something they did not have the tools to build in a practical and affordable manner. They had a shop.

What you're doing is saying: "we don't need a shop! Just the will to make an airplane!"

You can go that route - but setting up a shop designed to build things would be a pretty useful thing to have when planning to build experiments.


In bringing the thought through to a final project, they made people look at what was and was not possible differently.


Flight was still viewed as gimmicky for decades to come. It wasn't until their practical employment in World War I for recon and light bombing that the "aviation industry" really began to develop. Even then - air travel didn't become common until after World War II and the surplus troop transports (DC-10s) were auctioned off to help pay for the debts incurred during the war. Boeing applied what it had learned in building bombers to building aircraft that could carry people - and the jet engine later made air travel just that much more practical.


If mankind were to build a machine of this scale and scope, or several, they would be built not only to prove to the world that it is possible to travel to the stars, but more, that there is a reason to do so, because there is no way they would build these things and not have them carry some kind of experiment to perform.


Or - we could spend half the resources necessary to do that to build the infrastructure necessary to set up long-term manned operations on the moon and begin constructing larger structures that would later be used as ship yards to produce the very ship you're talking about for a fraction of the cost it would currently run you.

We've yet to live up to the legacy set upon us by the Lunar landings.

Doing another publicity stunt would net the same result. A lot of imagination and hooplah but little actual progress.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
The shop already exists to make these things a reality, to shanghai your analogy. All that is missing from the mix is people who are capable of repurposing the tools in it to make the very most of the sum total of our understanding. You cannot deny that at this point, the space flight industry fails in nearly EVERY particular to do this.

Every time they think up a new method of moving a craft, it is always about twenty years, MINIMUM, out of bloody date! Oh sure, the experiments they sent up in the Mars rover recently are impressive, but it got there by way of a design so old, that V2 rocket engineers would find it familiar! And all that thinking has been wasted, because we are STILL using that old method, and it is proving utterly incapable of achieving the results we need. And all that IS due to an issue of funding and organisation problems.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
*shakes head*

*places a c-collar and nerf helmet on Aim64c and secures it with duct tape to prevent head shaking*



Originally posted by Aim64C
You are going to spend ten fold the amount to build these ship(s) with existing industrial and assembly methods and send them where ever you plan to send a transgenerational ship.
Absolutely - If we look at history we can see costly projects taking years / decades to complete with no immediate reward for the accomplishment. However down the road it plays a huge part in advancing all aspects of society.


Some examples -
- Ocean vessels
- Airplanes
- Cars
- Computers
- Construction
- Medications
- Laser technology

Everything that has been accomplished is based off of something prior that was improved.



Originally posted by Aim64C
Not to mention the amount of time that would have to be invested into testing the various systems that you would be using for the first time and the associated costs.
Testing systems like life support, navigation, propulsion, communications etc etc? We already started / invested time into those projects the moment we took to the sky, to trains to cars to ocean vessels to the space program etc etc..


Originally posted by Aim64C
There is no appreciable ROI on such a project.
There are times when its not about the money, but the accomplishment itself - A phyric victory if you will.



Originally posted by Aim64C
Never did I say "don't leave the cave."
I never said you did. It was for demonstration purposes.



Originally posted by Aim64C
Unfortunately - the failure to plan we are currently discussing will only waste money as opposed to serve as a factor in natural selection.
Is our military a waste of money / lacking in return on investment? How about the shuttle / apollo missions? What about satellites?

All examples where a boat load of money / time / resources was spent with no initial return on investment.



Originally posted by Aim64C
Let me put it to you this way:

The same time, resources, and money spent on establishing a proper system of low and zero-gravity industry would give us the ability to build these same ships for a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time, and with much more knowledge of long-term stays in space.

We would just have to delay our plans.

Time, resources and money will always be present. Had it not been for the need to improve what we already have it would still take us 6 months to cross the ocean. Lets compare the genship idea to the colonization of the Americas.

* - Those early expeditions dealt with the unknown / expeditions to another solar system deal with the unknown.

* - The initial expeditions were costly with no immediate ROI / going to another solar system will be costly with no immediate ROI..

* - The trip across the ocean in the begining took months and in some instances years / going to another solar system will initially take years.

Perseverance and the human drive to explore is what got us to this point



Originally posted by Aim64C
Doubtful.

To presume alien life would know more about our own system and ecology when we've yet to confirm they exist is a little silly.
To presume there is a God who created all things when we've yet to confirm its existence is a bit silly. Yes? No?




Originally posted by Aim64C
There's known materials on the moon. There are over a dozen moons around Jupiter that hold a wide range of other resources to possibly include raw organic compounds that would be essential in developing self-contained biospheres for use in space (unless you plan to launch hundreds of tons of dirt into space through our atmosphere, against our gravity, using the roughly 12% efficiency of our rocket technologies).


The moment we blasted into space / set foot on the moon / sent probes and rovers to Mars and Venus was the moment our focus shifted from exploration / study of our solar system to looking to see whats in the next solar system.

Either or we need a goal that is lofty, challenging and dangerous while at the same time creating inspiration, drive and ambition.

I would rather shoot for Proxima / Alpha Centauri and end up landing on Mars instead of shooting for Mars and and being stuck in the ISS.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I would rather shoot for Proxima / Alpha Centauri and end up landing on Mars instead of shooting for Mars and and being stuck in the ISS.


And that my good sir, is why I think you have entirely the right idea.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
cute thread, all of you are assuming we wont blow ourselves up in the next 100 years,

if we dont maybe theyll trickle down the tech they already have and use to explore.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I have had conversations with people who work in defense technology and they alluded to the fact that interstellar travel was not that far off....so...we might be doing it now.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
I have had conversations with people who work in defense technology and they alluded to the fact that interstellar travel was not that far off....so...we might be doing it now.


Wiki - Alcubierre drive


The Alcubierre drive (or Alcubierre metric see: Metric tensor) is a speculative idea based on a valid solution of the Einstein field equations as proposed by Miguel Alcubierre by which a spacecraft might achieve faster-than-light travel, making travel to other stars a possibility.



This method of propulsion would not involve objects in motion at speeds faster than light with respect to the contents of the warp-bubble; that is, a light beam within the warp-bubble would still always move faster than the ship. Thus the mathematical formulation of the Alcubierre metric does not contradict the conventional claim that the laws of relativity do not allow a slower-than-light object to accelerate to faster-than-light speeds. The Alcubierre drive, however, remains a hypothetical concept with seemingly insuperable problems: The amount of energy required is unobtainably large, there is no method to create a warp bubble in a region that does not already contain one, and there is no method to move from the warp-bubble once having arrived at a supposed destination.



The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity.


Scientists have 2 options with regards to FTL travel.
* - They will do lab experiments that will be successful and confirm that this drive is possible..

or...

* - They will do lab experiments that will blow up in their face, bringing the scientists one lab accident away from becoming super-villans.


Either or I thought it was pretty cool that we finally have something to work towards that works with Albert Einstein's theories.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join