Slashdot Mirror
Hyperdrive and Space Propulsion
Interested reader writes "MSNBC has an article covering the recent Space Technology and Applications Forum in New Mexico, which included a frontier physics session on hyperdrive, wormholes, and other blue sky ideas. The idea is a revival of NASA's long-dead (and heavily criticized) Advanced Propulsion Project."
I'm afraid Roddenberry and Company were a bit late themselves. The term "hyperdrive" was used in Forbidden Planet in 1956. And according to this article, the idea of FTL through "hyperspace" goes back to a John W. Campbell story from 1934.
Credo sim. - I think I am.
If we stay stuck on Earth we are going to continue to overpopulate the planet until we consume ourselves to death. Population control is inevitable if we do not expand, and with population control comes the cheapening and commoditization of every human life.
Of course the alternative is we can find new worlds to populate.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Why not deal with a quantum mirage or other quantum mechanical effects than to try to accelerate ourselves to fractions of the speed of light? Special relativity tells us that the faster we go the massive we get, and not to mention the acceleration itself would be a huge stress to the occupants or payload, unless you want to take weeks to accelerate to high velocities.
Why bother with those complexities when you have the possibility to "travel" faster than the speed of light by using alternative methods?
Actually one scientific theory holds that it is extremely unlikely we're ever to meet any non-terran organisms that are comptabile with our own physiology. So while we might find inhabited planets, even ones that aren't too different from our own at a glance, our biology will be completely incompatible with theirs, so if we tried to eat each other, we'd die from starvation. Makes diseases transmitting extremely unlikely.
What you'd need to survive an asteroid impact is basically the same kind of setup you'd need to survive a nuclear war and the resulting nuclear winter. A shelter to ride out the initial impact and any red-hot debris raining down from above (you'll just have to hope you're not within a couple hundred miles of where it hits). Then you'd need water or some sort of water purification system, stored food sufficient for a couple years, since farming probably won't be an option, good clothes, some sleeping bags, lots of guns and ammunition (unless everyone is prepared and has enough food stored up, it's gonna be really Mad Max).
Your opinion is yours. but it sounds awfully like the 19th century opponents of trains. "ooh the human body cannot sustain speeds in excess of 20 mph, it's just unnatural". Railway travel (general) "I see what will be the effect of it; that it will set the whole world a-gadding. Twenty miles an hour, sir! - Why, you will not be able to keep an apprentice boy at his work! Every Saturday evening he must have a trip to Ohio to spend a Sunday with his sweetheart. Grave plodding citizens will be flying about like comets. All local attachments will be at an end. It will encourage flightiness of intellect. Veracious people will turn into the most immeasurable liars. All conceptions will be exaggerated by the magnificent notions of distance. -- Only a hundred miles off!--Tut, nonsense, I'll step across, madam, and bring your fan'...And then, sir, there will be barrels of port, cargoes of flour, chaldrons of coal, and even lead and whiskey, and such like sober things that have always been used to slow travelling -- whisking away like a sky rocket. It will upset all the gravity of the nation...Upon the whole, sir, it is a pestilential, topsy-turvy, harm-scarum whirligig. Give me the old, solemn, straight forward, regular Dutch Canal - three miles an hour for expresses, and two rod jog-trot journeys -- with a yoke of oxen for heavy loads. I go for beasts of burden. It is more formative and scriptural, and suits a moral and religious people better. -- None of your hop skip and jump whimsies for me." Source: From the Western Sun of Vincennes, Indiana, July 24, 1830, as quoted by Seymour Dunbar in A History of Travel in America, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1915, Vol. III. p. 938. http://www.foresight.org/News/negativeComments.htm l
Just keep your horse then...
So, to summarize, while solutions are simple, implementing them is not. I'm sure it's not too hard to interpret my ramblings that way. And my main point was: it's no use to lament the fact that physicists are looking at warp drives to solve interesting puzzles instead of looking at for instance world hunger. Lots of people look at that, find solutions which are in itself simple enough but need too much good will and sustained effort (and not only from the haves, also the have nots, or the haves among those countries that have lots of have nots).
Cheers.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
As my pappy use to say,
If your theory doesn't jive with reality, then there's something wrong with your theory.
Yer a few variables short of an equation.
Its not FTL but baby will it get the ball rolling. I'll just run this by everyone here... With all the talk lately about a space elevator, I got to thinking after a sort of recent slashdot discussion, just what advantages would a space elevator offer over a tower launch? I contacted the man responsible for a similar idea, the skyramp (warning: hideous javascript menu may break firefox), Carlton Meyer, and had a dialogue in which he pointed me to a tower launch archive.
The ideas I see bandied about there are similar to what I had in mind, which would be essentially an 11km tall tower (think pylons rather than skyscrapers, based at sea), with evacuated airless launch tubes, using nuclear reactors to power a maglev or pulley system to accelerate vessels to escape velocity. These would then emerge above the end of the troposphere, with it's associated weather and air pressure, and have little to no fuel needed to escape the earth's gravity, meaning you could do a lot more while you were up there. At 1m/s acceleration, you would be at escape velocity when you exit the top of the tower.
Not only would this enable multiple launches daily, it is, unlike the space elevator, readily achievable with today's technology, and financially viable as well. Given NASA had an annual budget of $16.2 billion for 2005, and a nuclear power plant costs a cool billion to build, give or take, we could have this up and running in a few years. And once we are up there...
Space has got vast, essentially unlimited resources. One recent story pointed out the trillion dollar iron asteroid up there. The thing has about 5 tons of steel for every man, woman and child on earth. And thats just one of god knows how many... billions more?
Once we leap the cost to escape hurdle (as I think I have managed), we can proceed to use these resources. There are several obstacles in the way of this, first of which is zero gee mining, we have no idea how to do it. We can either mine the ore out there, or bring the asteroid back into orbit and slice it up there. Or slice it up and send it back to orbit. I would be opposed to moving it back into orbit for processing, purely for the debris issue. Perhaps a lunar base would have some merit there.
So we set up a mining and processing operation either on the moon or in deep orbit, and start cutting and processing one of those bad boys. Whats the first thing we build? A bigger processing and mining operation. Space exploration, much like the internet, has to be a largely incestuous affair at first, existing solely for its own benefit.
Once we have that mastered, we can move to algae pods in orbit for food production, oxygen refining, and fuel production (biodiesel or chemical engines), all of which can be powered by the immense energy of the sun, and use the raw materials abundantly available in space. Whether you ship that stuff back to earth or use it for further colonisation, its a vital step.
The production of automated scouts is also a high priority; a vast amount of surveyor and prospector drones to sweep and map every square inch of every rock and gas in the system, out to the Oort cloud, and figure out what they are made of. I'd err on the side of quantity rather than quality, still no reason not to have either. This could be combined with deep space observatories that would make hubble look like the end of a coke bottle.
So now we have a manufacturing bridgehead, a good idea of what's interesting out there, and a cheap means to launch to orbit. Actual manned system ships would come next, to either colonise or investigate the system. The rest, as they say, is (future) history.
A lot of this would require automatio
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Well... you need to explain how come we keep inventing esoteric math (imaginary numbers, fractal geometry, etc.) and then eventually finding places in the real world well-modeled by them.
The question of how much of math is invented and how much is discovered, is very much an ongoing philosophical inquiry.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Waiting for the old guard to die is a popular belief, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily true.
One thing that DOES have to happen is that enough anomalies have to build up in the old theory that people start looking for a new one. Then that new theory has to be rigorously formulated and tested. So yes, it does take time, but I'm not convinced that people dying is a necessary component.
Now, if you mean waiting for the general public to accept a new paradigm, then that might well take a generation, but the general public's acceptance doesn't really matter that much anyway. They'll happily drive their horseless carriages even if they do think they run on magic.