Warp Drives Feasible in our life-time
-
harold aptroot wrote:
While cheaper than a full ship with live support and such, they can't be cheap. And you'd have a limited number of them - producing more of them (forcing you to take a whole warp drive factory with you) does not seem realistic (yes I really just used that word) to me.
Not sure about that. Its not like the "drone" needs warp capability actually. Just the launcher does. The only thing that need be launched is the message itself. We tend to think "message in a bottle" and in this case it seems the bottle is the warp bubble. The message is the pure data or communication. For example a RF transmission. Once the warp bubble reaches its destination the RF signal propagates as it would have if there was no warp bubble, but it is then at its destination so only interpretation is left.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Hmm. I always assumed you needed something inside the warp bubble to maintain the bubble, but like I said, that's an assumption. Is there something in the research that indicates a bubble is persistent and can be created at an arbitrary location, rather than around the "warp drive"? You may still want a warp drive with navigation capabilities so that it can correct itself if something gets in the way or it misses the catcher. I do wonder about your sending an RF signal idea though. Are you assuming the RF signal will just bounce around inside the bubble? Or do you need a 2-light-year long bubble to keep up with the RF signal's natural propagation inside the bubble? I really want to know what happens when something touches the edge of the bubble....
-
Hmm. I always assumed you needed something inside the warp bubble to maintain the bubble, but like I said, that's an assumption. Is there something in the research that indicates a bubble is persistent and can be created at an arbitrary location, rather than around the "warp drive"? You may still want a warp drive with navigation capabilities so that it can correct itself if something gets in the way or it misses the catcher. I do wonder about your sending an RF signal idea though. Are you assuming the RF signal will just bounce around inside the bubble? Or do you need a 2-light-year long bubble to keep up with the RF signal's natural propagation inside the bubble? I really want to know what happens when something touches the edge of the bubble....
Considering nothing on earth yet has the capability of actually making the warp bubble there is no telling whether the bubble will have to be maintained for an internal source or not. It is definitely a good point. My point was more that the same technology would likely create a path of "messaging" technology. It would have its basis in the core of warp drives, but could end up significantly different.
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
I do wonder about your sending an RF signal idea though. Are you assuming the RF signal will just bounce around inside the bubble? Or do you need a 2-light-year long bubble to keep up with the RF signal's natural propagation inside the bubble?
Good question. I think your ideas there are good potential answers. Could be other ways as well. Something along with string theory comes to mind where the signal would not actually be "bouncing" as much as it would be propagating through an endless bubble with in the tiny traveling bubble.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
lewax00 wrote:
I'm sure an organization like NASA has either already figured it out
The NASA Mars plan is based on 5 cargo only trips before the first manned vehicle is sent.
lewax00 wrote:
but I didn't say it was happening tomorrow
Or the day after either.
jschell wrote:
The NASA Mars plan is based on 5 cargo only trips before the first manned vehicle is sent.
So that somehow changes their supply calculations? Just because they aren't sending it all at once doesn't change how much food the people will need :doh:
-
Considering nothing on earth yet has the capability of actually making the warp bubble there is no telling whether the bubble will have to be maintained for an internal source or not. It is definitely a good point. My point was more that the same technology would likely create a path of "messaging" technology. It would have its basis in the core of warp drives, but could end up significantly different.
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
I do wonder about your sending an RF signal idea though. Are you assuming the RF signal will just bounce around inside the bubble? Or do you need a 2-light-year long bubble to keep up with the RF signal's natural propagation inside the bubble?
Good question. I think your ideas there are good potential answers. Could be other ways as well. Something along with string theory comes to mind where the signal would not actually be "bouncing" as much as it would be propagating through an endless bubble with in the tiny traveling bubble.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Personally I'm hoping we can overcome Heisenberg uncertainty so we can convert our Quantum Encryption devices into Quantum Communication devices...
-
jschell wrote:
because as I showed the cost of what the article presented is so astronomical to be nothing but fantasy.
Today... And that is why we continue to research.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
jschell wrote:
The NASA Mars plan is based on 5 cargo only trips before the first manned vehicle is sent.
So that somehow changes their supply calculations? Just because they aren't sending it all at once doesn't change how much food the people will need :doh:
-
While I understand that people make mistakes, a mistake on your reading comprehension self-test still results in an F mark. It sent you on a tirade about the logical ramifications of what would happen, but at least half of your rant was invalidated by an incorrect assumption. Thus, at best you get a 50%, resulting in an F mark for you. Some of your other points are good, but also make other false assumptions. For example, you seem to make the assumption that the costs of making 500Kg of exotic materials would be at the current market costs of producing the materials. If we needed that much material, rather than the microscopic amounts we need for laboratory uses, we would find cheaper ways to make the materials. We cannot know what the final costs will be, but as your article points out, the costs for producing antimatter have already dropped 3 orders of magnitude in a decade.
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
We cannot know what the final costs will be, but as your article points out, the costs for producing antimatter have already dropped 3 orders of magnitude in a decade.
How many orders of magnitude must it drop before it costs only the same amount as all of the Moon missions combined (and in 2012 dollars)?
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Today... And that is why we continue to research.
Today...based on the historical trends for exotic matter the cost will continue to be astronomical.
A trend that does not go back very far. Furthermore, technology trends of the last decade clearly show that this could change. In fact, with recent technology we can actually "find" it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12158718[^] With the right technology we could accumulate the natural occurrence of it. Its really just a matter of the right minds on the right projects and the "price" will plummet due to better understanding of production or of gathering.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
lewax00 wrote:
Just because they aren't sending it all at once doesn't change how much food the people will need
It does however mean that 5 ships will be needed - so in terms of this discussion 5 times the amount of exotic matter.
That's only if they send it separately (they'd need at least 2 year's supplies on their ship), that this ship wouldn't be bigger, and assuming all of it has to come back. Only one ship really has to come back (i.e. the one with the people, if a manned mission), any others can be one-way trips. Even 5 ships total is 1000 (one round trip) + 2000 (four one way trips) = 3000, only 3 times what a round trip would take to begin with.
-
Right. And it also talks about in our life time. Not tomorrow or the next day. Power generation is a huge field into itself. And on top of that generating anti-matter is a whole different field. It would not make sense to diverge into said topics with out creating a journal itself. It was a simple article about some research done and went into its possible application. The main idea is simple. We used to think warp travel would require 1000 Earths of Anti-matter. Now they found a way to shrink that down to 500Kg. That is astonishing!
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And it also talks about in our life time
There is no evidence that the cost will become feasible in the next 50 years.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Power generation is a huge field into itself. And on top of that generating anti-matter is a whole different field. It would not make sense to diverge into said topics with out creating a journal itself.
And so what does that have to do with the fact that the article was in fact mostly about making trips to distant locations?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It was a simple article about some research done and went into its possible application.
No it was an article mostly about one application. It is quite possible and perhaps even feasible, at least if the cost drops many orders of magnitudes, that other applications would exist.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Now they found a way to shrink that down to 500Kg. That is astonishing!
Perhaps. But unless they can get it down to about one molecule then, based on current evidence, it doesn't mean much.
-
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote:
We cannot know what the final costs will be, but as your article points out, the costs for producing antimatter have already dropped 3 orders of magnitude in a decade.
How many orders of magnitude must it drop before it costs only the same amount as all of the Moon missions combined (and in 2012 dollars)?
This was just a really quick Google search, but I got the result that the whole lunar program was $83 billion in 2005 dollars. (I don't know off hand the conversion of 2005 dollars to 2012 dollars, but I figure this is close enough) $83 billion / 500 Kg in $/ounce = 4,706,020.84 US$ / ounce, or $4.7 million / ounce is the target you're asking for. Current prices, according to the article given, are $1.7 trillion / ounce. That would be six orders of magnitude, more or less, for fuel alone to be equivalent to the entire Apollo program. Considering how it came down 3 orders of magnitude without anyone really trying hard to make it cheaper, I could see it coming down much further than that if we really put our minds to it.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And it also talks about in our life time
There is no evidence that the cost will become feasible in the next 50 years.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Power generation is a huge field into itself. And on top of that generating anti-matter is a whole different field. It would not make sense to diverge into said topics with out creating a journal itself.
And so what does that have to do with the fact that the article was in fact mostly about making trips to distant locations?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It was a simple article about some research done and went into its possible application.
No it was an article mostly about one application. It is quite possible and perhaps even feasible, at least if the cost drops many orders of magnitudes, that other applications would exist.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Now they found a way to shrink that down to 500Kg. That is astonishing!
Perhaps. But unless they can get it down to about one molecule then, based on current evidence, it doesn't mean much.
jschell wrote:
There is no evidence that the cost will become feasible in the next 50 years.
Considering that production is new with in the last 50 years there is also no evidence saying it would not. In fact one could logically deduce it would following technology progression of any material. Granted Anti-matter is slightly different... But then again, it seems any "new" produced material is 'slightly different' when it is at the beginning of the learning curve.
jschell wrote:
And so what does that have to do with the fact that the article was in fact mostly about making trips to distant locations?
Apparently you have trouble reading then... I see about 2 paragraphs that refer to actual travel. There is more about its usage but again, that is what the article is about. Not the practicality of space travel tomorrow but the fact that this break through could allow it. Seems like you just breezed over it and are flaming the parts you don't agree with.
jschell wrote:
No it was an article mostly about one application. It is quite possible and perhaps even feasible, at least if the cost drops many orders of magnitudes, that other applications would exist.
Missing your point here. Again, the article is calling out a breakthrough and what it means. Seems like you have missed that entire point.
jschell wrote:
Perhaps. But unless they can get it down to about one molecule then, based on current evidence, it doesn't mean much.
Again, the discussion is not about the production of exotic material. It is about the usage of the exotic material. You are going down a chicken and egg path. If a scientist said "Ereka, I have discovered a way to produce Anti-matter cheaply so it is possible to travel to other star systems" you would then argue "No because we need enough the size of Jupitor". Well now in theory we only need 500Kg. Since the production of anti-matter is another field we will wait until advancements happen. Not sure why you are missing this point. Its quite simple.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
That's only if they send it separately (they'd need at least 2 year's supplies on their ship), that this ship wouldn't be bigger, and assuming all of it has to come back. Only one ship really has to come back (i.e. the one with the people, if a manned mission), any others can be one-way trips. Even 5 ships total is 1000 (one round trip) + 2000 (four one way trips) = 3000, only 3 times what a round trip would take to begin with.