Ten times the speed of light. :cool:
http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html
Quote
Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say
by Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com Assistant Managing Editor
Date: 17 September 2012 Time: 07:00 AM ET
HOUSTON — A warp drive to achieve faster-than-light travel — a concept popularized in television's Star Trek — may not be as unrealistic as once thought, scientists say.
A warp drive would manipulate space-time itself to move a starship, taking advantage of a loophole in the laws of physics that prevent anything from moving faster than light. A concept for a real-life warp drive was suggested in 1994 by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre; however, subsequent calculations found that such a device would require prohibitive amounts of energy.
Now physicists say that adjustments can be made to the proposed warp drive that would enable it to run on significantly less energy, potentially bringing the idea back from the realm of science fiction into science.
"There is hope," Harold "Sonny" White of NASA's Johnson Space Center said here Friday (Sept. 14) at the 100 Year Starship Symposium, a meeting to discuss the challenges of interstellar spaceflight.
Warping space-time
An Alcubierre warp drive would involve a football-shape spacecraft attached to a large ring encircling it. This ring, potentially made of exotic matter, would cause space-time to warp around the starship, creating a region of contracted space in front of it and expanded space behind.
Meanwhile, the starship itself would stay inside a bubble of flat space-time that wasn't being warped at all.
"Everything within space is restricted by the speed of light," explained Richard Obousy, president of Icarus Interstellar, a non-profit group of scientists and engineers devoted to pursuing interstellar spaceflight. "But the really cool thing is space-time, the fabric of space, is not limited by the speed of light."
With this concept, the spacecraft would be able to achieve an effective speed of about 10 times the speed of light, all without breaking the cosmic speed limit.
The only problem is, previous studies estimated the warp drive would require a minimum amount of energy about equal to the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter.
But recently White calculated what would happen if the shape of the ring encircling the spacecraft was adjusted into more of a rounded donut, as opposed to a flat ring. He found in that case, the warp drive could be powered by a mass about the size of a spacecraft like the Voyager 1 probe NASA launched in 1977.
Furthermore, if the intensity of the space warps can be oscillated over time, the energy required is reduced even more, White found.
"The findings I presented today change it from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation," White told SPACE.com. "The additional energy reduction realized by oscillating the bubble intensity is an interesting conjecture that we will enjoy looking at in the lab."
Laboratory tests
White and his colleagues have begun experimenting with a mini version of the warp drive in their laboratory.
They set up what they call the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer at the Johnson Space Center, essentially creating a laser interferometer that instigates micro versions of space-time warps.
"We're trying to see if we can generate a very tiny instance of this in a tabletop experiment, to try to perturb space-time by one part in 10 million," White said.
He called the project a "humble experiment" compared to what would be needed for a real warp drive, but said it represents a promising first step.
And other scientists stressed that even outlandish-sounding ideas, such as the warp drive, need to be considered if humanity is serious about traveling to other stars.
"If we're ever going to become a true spacefaring civilization, we're going to have to think outside the box a little bit, we're going to have to be a little bit audacious," Obousy said.
Fuck that shit. You see the Warhammer 40K shitstorm the Event Horizon opened? Nightmares of dead wives with no eyeballs, man.
Impulse power is safer.
I never take seriously any article in popular science that uses the phrase "scientists say" in a sentence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
Didn't the Planet Express Ship in Futurama work the same way? I remember a statement by the Professor that the "engines operate at 200% efficiency and move the entire Universe around the ship." (This was how he refuted an argument from his clone that FTL was impossible.) In another episode I believe it was stated that the speed of light was changed at some point prior to the series and the ship can travel at 97% of the new light speed :lol:.
A lot of stuff may be more feasible than thought, especially if we are talking about Tim's thoughts.
These are probably the same scientists JJ Abrams pays consulting fees to.
Let us know how this works out for you.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 07:18:42 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2012, 07:05:37 AM
Let us know how this works out for you.
:unsure:
The scientists.
I mean it's great they have this theory, but given that they've got no evidence this will work I don't see any reason for the hype the story's getting. It's on every geek site, facebook, etc.
The internet can cause minor news to bubble to prominence pretty quickly. This actually isn't really a big deal, scientists have been speculating about this since at least the early 90s.
Oh, so we just need a big ring of 'exotic matter'. Well, that's alright then.
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
Don't be absurd.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2012, 07:24:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 07:18:42 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2012, 07:05:37 AM
Let us know how this works out for you.
:unsure:
The scientists.
I mean it's great they have this theory, but given that they've got no evidence this will work I don't see any reason for the hype the story's getting. It's on every geek site, facebook, etc.
Well, they are apparently going to do some experiments, so it's not like they just wrote a paper and are going to leave it at that.
The money our governments have sunk into space exploration, as well as the huge number of books & movies on the subject suggests mankind is interested. It's just not something we're willing to sacrifice for.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
No. This bullshit isn't technically feasible.
Space travel will cost money, and we'll always vote to spend the money on something to make us more comfortable.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
No. This bullshit isn't technically feasible.
Space travel will cost money, and we'll always vote to spend the money on something to make us more comfortable.
Elon Musk and the folks at Planetary Resources seem to be willing to spend plenty.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 18, 2012, 07:24:24 AM
I mean it's great they have this theory, but given that they've got no evidence this will work I don't see any reason for the hype the story's getting. It's on every geek site, facebook, etc.
of course we have no evidence, it's just a theory so far. Just like the first time we talk about a cloaking device, but now it can be done.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
No. This bullshit isn't technically feasible.
Space travel will cost money, and we'll always vote to spend the money on something to make us more comfortable.
Elon Musk and the folks at Planetary Resources seem to be willing to spend plenty.
They don't have a couple of trillion dollars, and so they are irrelevant.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
No. This bullshit isn't technically feasible.
Space travel will cost money, and we'll always vote to spend the money on something to make us more comfortable.
Elon Musk and the folks at Planetary Resources seem to be willing to spend plenty.
They don't have a couple of trillion dollars, and so they are irrelevant.
And Muslims will kill them when they take over the world anyway.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
No. This bullshit isn't technically feasible.
Space travel will cost money, and we'll always vote to spend the money on something to make us more comfortable.
Elon Musk and the folks at Planetary Resources seem to be willing to spend plenty.
They don't have a couple of trillion dollars, and so they are irrelevant.
They will once they get their asteroid mines up and running.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
No. This bullshit isn't technically feasible.
Space travel will cost money, and we'll always vote to spend the money on something to make us more comfortable.
Elon Musk and the folks at Planetary Resources seem to be willing to spend plenty.
They don't have a couple of trillion dollars, and so they are irrelevant.
They will once they get their asteroid mines up and running.
Firstly, they won't ever get them up and running. Secondly, I suggest you google supply and demand.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:37:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Mankind isn't interested in space travel.
Because we're not investing billions in some fantasy contraption?
No. This bullshit isn't technically feasible.
Space travel will cost money, and we'll always vote to spend the money on something to make us more comfortable.
Elon Musk and the folks at Planetary Resources seem to be willing to spend plenty.
They don't have a couple of trillion dollars, and so they are irrelevant.
They will once they get their asteroid mines up and running.
Firstly, they won't ever get them up and running. Secondly, I suggest you google supply and demand.
Alcoa is still a massively profitable company even though the price of aluminum fell through the floor in the last 200 years. The same thing will happen with Planetary Resources and platinum.
Asteroid mining only makes sense it's to support infrastructure in space. Most Asteroids are made out of base elements that pretty common on earth. Iron, carbon, silicon... That's pretty cheap stuff.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 07:42:00 PM
Alcoa is still a massively profitable company even though the price of aluminum fell through the floor in the last 200 years. The same thing will happen with Planetary Resources and platinum.
Except that Alcoa wasn't breaking the law, and so won't have to forfeit all their profits.
Besides, the insurance premiums alone would prevent such a company from actually doing business.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 05:51:21 AM
Fuck that shit. You see the Warhammer 40K shitstorm the Event Horizon opened? Nightmares of dead wives with no eyeballs, man.
Impulse power is safer.
Perhaps we shouldn't send widowers into space then. Maybe bitter divorced men would be a better idea.
*Eyeless dead wife shows up*
"I was your wife"
"Ex-wife. You ran off with the lawyer"
"Your actions have led me to my death"
"Well, I guess I don't have to write the alimony check this month then".
Humanity is interested in space travel, asteroid mining probally will happen, etc....
Just...not on a Timmy time scale. :contract:
Just wait until Muslims fly an asteroid into Manhattan.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 08:26:41 PM
Just wait until Muslims fly an asteroid into Manhattan.
Why not, they just walk around one in a big circle as it is.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 07:52:18 PM
Asteroid mining only makes sense it's to support infrastructure in space. Most Asteroids are made out of base elements that pretty common on earth. Iron, carbon, silicon... That's pretty cheap stuff.
They also have high concentrations of elements that are much more rare on Earth. Gold, platinum and the aptly named rare earths among them.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 07:42:00 PM
Alcoa is still a massively profitable company even though the price of aluminum fell through the floor in the last 200 years. The same thing will happen with Planetary Resources and platinum.
Alcoa isn't massively profitable - in fact, it recorded a slight loss in the second quarter of 2012.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
They will once they get their asteroid mines up and running.
If. First, there's the IF, Tim.
It's still a theoritical venture, so far. They need the equipment and the people to get up there.
One example: down to good ole Earth, in a corner of the world relatively not so far from where I live, there is a company working there to produce aluminum with a new process not involving bauxite. Lots of people are excited by this start up company. It constantly gets delisted & relisted on TSE.
Theoritically, the process is sound. And it works.
However, that company is still not turning a profit and the sales are negligeable.
In that same corner of the world, there is also proven oil reserves. The company exploiting the oil belongs to Suncore, IIRC. It's still not turning a profit, despite doing exploration drilling since the early 2000s.
So when it comes to "deep space" drilling involving a new process, with new tools, I am very skeptical that such a company will turn a profit in the short-mid term horizon, given the difficulties down to earth corporations can experience.
Bottom line: I like the news, it's a big theortical advance promising for the future, but we're not there yet, and we probably won't make the first warp tests until you and I are very old men :)
And Alcoa is a well diversified corporations with multiple ventures that can offsets the loss of one sector.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 08:40:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 07:52:18 PM
Asteroid mining only makes sense it's to support infrastructure in space. Most Asteroids are made out of base elements that pretty common on earth. Iron, carbon, silicon... That's pretty cheap stuff.
They also have high concentrations of elements that are much more rare on Earth. Gold, platinum and the aptly named rare earths among them.
They are rare in space as well. I don't recall lots of gold nuggets that fall from the sky, or Platinum on the moon.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 11:03:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 08:40:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 07:52:18 PM
Asteroid mining only makes sense it's to support infrastructure in space. Most Asteroids are made out of base elements that pretty common on earth. Iron, carbon, silicon... That's pretty cheap stuff.
They also have high concentrations of elements that are much more rare on Earth. Gold, platinum and the aptly named rare earths among them.
They are rare in space as well. I don't recall lots of gold nuggets that fall from the sky, or Platinum on the moon.
Actually, they're much less rare, which you would know if you would just read the literature.
Has anyone ever found gold on an asteroid?
Its name escapes me but there is one which has a very high quantity of gold. Its out there.
Quote from: Tyr on September 20, 2012, 01:30:52 AM
Its name escapes me but there is one which has a very high quantity of gold. Its out there.
El Dorado.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2012, 12:49:56 AM
Has anyone ever found gold on an asteroid?
10,000 tons of Gold, 100,000 tons of Platinum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%286178%29_1986_DA
How did they find this out?
I'm guessing that they're guessing based on its shininess.
Quote from: viper37 on September 19, 2012, 09:58:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 18, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
They will once they get their asteroid mines up and running.
If. First, there's the IF, Tim.
It's still a theoritical venture, so far. They need the equipment and the people to get up there.
One example: down to good ole Earth, in a corner of the world relatively not so far from where I live, there is a company working there to produce aluminum with a new process not involving bauxite. Lots of people are excited by this start up company. It constantly gets delisted & relisted on TSE.
Theoritically, the process is sound. And it works.
However, that company is still not turning a profit and the sales are negligeable.
In that same corner of the world, there is also proven oil reserves. The company exploiting the oil belongs to Suncore, IIRC. It's still not turning a profit, despite doing exploration drilling since the early 2000s.
So when it comes to "deep space" drilling involving a new process, with new tools, I am very skeptical that such a company will turn a profit in the short-mid term horizon, given the difficulties down to earth corporations can experience.
And not just when new technologies or newly discovered resources are involved. Something like 2/3 of all new businessed fail within the first few years, even when they're something as simple as a corner grocery store.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2012, 01:49:02 AM
I'm guessing that they're guessing based on its shininess.
Actually, the numbers come from a Seattle Times article that has no sources or citations whatsoever - it is just a short "scientists say" filler piece that smells of made-up bullshit.
Are there any asteroids that consist of submissive women?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 20, 2012, 12:14:02 AM
Actually, they're much less rare, which you would know if you would just read the literature.
You must be using some new definition of rare that you made up yourself. 10,000 tons in all of space is pretty insignificant.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 20, 2012, 01:39:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2012, 12:49:56 AM
Has anyone ever found gold on an asteroid?
10,000 tons of Gold, 100,000 tons of Platinum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%286178%29_1986_DA
Make sure you keep us posted when they start bringing that shit back so we can all get rich shorting the gold and platinum markets. :P
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2012, 02:51:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 20, 2012, 12:14:02 AM
Actually, they're much less rare, which you would know if you would just read the literature.
You must be using some new definition of rare that you made up yourself. 10,000 tons in all of space is pretty insignificant.
That's on one asteroid that's a couple of kilometers across.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 20, 2012, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2012, 02:51:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 20, 2012, 12:14:02 AM
Actually, they're much less rare, which you would know if you would just read the literature.
You must be using some new definition of rare that you made up yourself. 10,000 tons in all of space is pretty insignificant.
That's on one asteroid that's a couple of kilometers across.
Yeah, but the asteroid is floating in a vast volume of space. That's what rarity is.
Well yeah, technically anything solid is rare in space.
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2012, 10:19:50 PM
Yeah, but the asteroid is floating in a vast volume of space. That's what rarity is.
No, rarity is a Tim claim that he has examined skeptically. Anyone posting arguments based on wikipedia details isn't being skeptical or even logical.