Slashdot Mirror


Warp Drives May Come With a Killer Downside

An anonymous reader writes "Alcubierre warp-drives (theoretically) allow rocket ships to travel faster than the speed of light, while staying within the rules of Einstein's general theory of relativity. New research (PDF) has shown that as such warp-drives zip through the universe, they gather up particles and radiation, releasing them in a burst as the warp-drive slows down. This is bad news for family and friends waiting for the ship to arrive, as this intense burst will fry them."

458 comments

  1. This is why you drop to impulse in a solar system by Y-Crate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Duh

  2. duh by Moheeheeko · · Score: 4, Funny
    Because we all know you drop to sublight IN the docking station.

    >thisfuckingguy.jpg

  3. Not even real and already weaponized. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yup.

    1. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You mean, just like the A-bomb?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Everything that uses and harnesses energy inherently is a weapon.

      Fire can cook and protect. It can also kill.

      Nuclear energy can provide energy for thousands of people. Nuclear materials can also be constructed in a way to kill those thousands of people too.

      Any future technology that could create an artificial star may in fact be used to blow one up. Or at the very least snuff one out.

      Dynamics change, but the proportions of nurture to kill do not.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by dpilot · · Score: 1

      The question becomes, "How long do the after-effects of the gamma burst persist?"

      Think of it in "Independence Day terms". Your invasion fleet takes on a set of paths leading them to the destination in a less-than-hemispherical deployment. At the right time they all drop out of warp, with the resulting gamma burst sterilizing the planet. That's why I say less-than-hemispherical, because one could get into a circular firing squad situation. Hang loose a bit for the radiation to die down, and invade. A tiny fraction of the population at the far end of the less-than-hemisphere might have survived, but just barely, and they'll be thinking more about eating than about repelling interstellar invaders.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by pfaffa · · Score: 1

      aka Jon's Law "Any interesting space drive is a weapon of mass destruction. It only matters how long you want to wait for maximum damage."

    5. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by Surt · · Score: 1

      And hooray, you've put in a bunch of work, and conquered a nice sterile planet. Of course, there were a bunch of other nice, sterile planets around that didn't require work to conquer ....

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't "die down" - it's a burst. The gamma rays go out and either continue going, or interact with something and lose energy.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I was speaking more of after effects on the planet you've just sterilized. How soon is it usable?

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    8. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Gammas are pretty high energy. I don't know, but I think they either interact or continue on their merry way - eg, there is no lasting effect.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Not even real and already weaponized. by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Kind of like the good old neutron bomb then, in a way. I was more wondering about some sort of interaction transmuting isotopes into something nasty and longer-lived. Assuming it's only high-energy photons in the burst that probably wouldn't happen.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  4. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by SailorSpork · · Score: 0

    If this is our biggest barrier to developing one tomorrow, then why don't we have these already? I mean besides NASA budget cuts...

  5. bussard collector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bussard collectors. /thread

    1. Re:bussard collector by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More like needing the radiation equivalent of a Catalytic Converter...

      If one knows that some undesirable trait will manifest, look at ways to mitigate that undesirable trait.

      Or, use that trait beneficially. If the act of dropping out of warp releases a fuckton of energy, find a way to harness that energy.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:bussard collector by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Bussard collectors (in the Star Trek reference) were for collecting particles to augment the matter storage of the ship. They did not keep the ship from building up these particles as it traveled.

    3. Re:bussard collector by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Actually this sounds like the equivalent of KERS. I am sure the FTL Ferraris will harness the breaking energy to gain a speed advantage (esp. over cars of lesser teams like the FTL Minardis and FTL Super Aguris) at the long intergalactic straights.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    4. Re:bussard collector by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

      How many shitloads are in a fuckton?

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    5. Re:bussard collector by KarrdeSW · · Score: 1

      Bussard collectors (in the Star Trek reference) were for collecting particles to augment the matter storage of the ship. They did not keep the ship from building up these particles as it traveled.

      That's kinda the point, if you prevent the ship from building them up then you can no longer collect them, silly.

    6. Re:bussard collector by squidflakes · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about Imperial, but there are 100 metric shitloads in a metric fuckton

    7. Re:bussard collector by jythie · · Score: 1

      1024

    8. Re:bussard collector by bmxeroh · · Score: 1

      20.

      --
      Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
    9. Re:bussard collector by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 2

      Actually, they never really said exactly everything that the Bussard collectors did. They very well could have also been used to suck up said particles just before exiting warp. I'll be in my parent's basement if anyone would like to discuss this further.

    10. Re:bussard collector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's actually a shitload of shitloads in a fuckton.

    11. Re:bussard collector by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      The big difference between this and KERS / a catalytic converter is that the energy you're trying to collect cannot be collected from inside the vehicle at all. A better analogy is an aircraft trying to collect the energy from its own sonic boom.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:bussard collector by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll go the geek route. In the STNG: Technical manual by Michael Okuda, the use of the Bussard ram scoops is explained. They aren't constantly active, there is even an episode that shows the Enterprise D using them (they actually open up and "scoop" material...

    13. Re:bussard collector by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      I'm in it now! I'm not saying they aren't used that way. In fact, that episode you mention actually features them blowing hydrogen OUT too. I'm just suggesting multiple uses, of which one might be scooping up the excess particles grabbed by the warp field. We could go over to Trekbbs and ask Rich Sternbach about it. He wrote the tech manual and actually posts there sometimes. ;-)

  6. "We'll be there in a sec... by Openstandards.net · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... May the force be... uh... ummmm... so, sorry!"

    1. Re:"We'll be there in a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if whoosh or ironic... :)

    2. Re:"We'll be there in a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I sense a great disturbance in the Force. As if millions of voices all cried out in terror, and then were suddenly silenced. So ease up on the damn brakes next time, Solo."

  7. Seriously? by AmigaMMC · · Score: 4, Funny

    They came to that conclusion now? Every newly certified spaceship pilot knows that you must drop out of warp no less than an AU from destination.

    1. Re:Seriously? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      In the Star Wars novels, planets even have field generators which stop you from entering the solar system in warp.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Star Wars uses hyperspace, not warp. Get off my lawn!

    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <rage type='nerd'>
      Star Wars makes no reference to warp drives, they travel through hyperspace. Furthermore it is not some generated field which prevents you from entering / travelling through hyperspace near a planet, it is the gravity well itself. Seriously!
      </rage>

    4. Re:Seriously? by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why the rebels didn't get an unmanned vehicle, put it into light speed, and plow it into Endor.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    5. Re:Seriously? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Except that the Empire did have capital ships that generated and artificial gravitational field to passing drag ships out of hyperspace.
      Wookiepedia

    6. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe those fields are called gravity wells. The tech is quite primitive and used in use at all known planets and star systems.

    7. Re:Seriously? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Something that's bugged me.

      They all (in books etc) bitch about going to hyperspace without charts - stuff about flying through stars and whatnot. Wouldn't the gravitational field knock you out first, and with plenty or room to maneuver?

      Or is it that the drive detects the field and aborts as a safety measure, and the interdictors etc just abuse this?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Seriously? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And the Kessel Run really was intended to be measured in the minimum, distance it takes to traverse it, not just a retcon bandaid for getting busted using bullshit spacey-lingo. ;)

      Haven't the re-re-remakes taught you not to expect consistency even in the canon? ;)

    9. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't. The hyper-drives themselves shut off within the proximity of a strong enough gravitational force. The natural gravity of the planet would pull ships out of hyperspace. There are artificial gravity field generators on Interdictor class vessels (not planets) that are used tactically to pull ships out of hyperspace in a small area. Also there is ONE case where a SPACE STATION generates a field across most of the Corellian system.

    10. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the effect doesn't extend very far from the object. i.e., you won't smack into a star, but you'll stop close enough to it to fry, or maybe even get caught by its gravity well and pulled in.

  8. Great Weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now it can be funded.

    WhatMeWorry!

  9. Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Tekfactory · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So you drop out of warp outside the Van Allen belts and everybody gets a nice light show.

    Worst case you only use Warp Drive as far in system as Mars and use more conventional means from there to Earth.

    Hell using Warp drive through the Oort cloud or Asteroid Belt might be troublesome if you just start picking up crap when passing through dense matter. You slow down and all of the asteroids and comets you picked up are on a colission course for Earth. I suggest some different approach vectors might be the first precaution.

    1. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      So you drop out of warp outside the Van Allen belts and everybody gets a nice light show.

      Worst case you only use Warp Drive as far in system as Mars and use more conventional means from there to Earth.

      Hell using Warp drive through the Oort cloud or Asteroid Belt might be troublesome if you just start picking up crap when passing through dense matter. You slow down and all of the asteroids and comets you picked up are on a colission course for Earth. I suggest some different approach vectors might be the first precaution.

      An Aggie with warp drive is what caused the Oort cloud.

    2. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, we could have real fun on the short wave ham bands if we knew when/where someone would drop out of warp speed - we'd be there waiting for the "bands to open up". ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!! Six meters will be open across the *Northern* Hemisphere starting at 0300Z tomorrow. The scheduled opening for the Southern Hemisphere has been postponed until Thursday at 1800Z due to a delay in the arrival of Flight 425...

    3. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by cycleflight · · Score: 1

      WHOOP-sidaisy

      --
      "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
    4. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by CompMD · · Score: 1

      "Everybody gets a nice light show"

      Yeah, except all the people you just gamma ray'd.

    5. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "light show" has no upper limit on intensity. So basically your ship just became a pulsar and shot the solar system with enough radiation to kill all life on Earth from several dozen LIGHT YEARS away. The article also mentions that it may dump radiation out from all sides but the worst would be the front.

    6. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by jemtallon · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else hear a Krikkit death-bot just now? I hope they didn't hear anything... dangerous... about.... ah crap.

    7. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      What do you think the Van Allen Belt is doing up there? It ain't for holdin up our trousers.

    8. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars? Gee thanks for frying all life on Europa!

    9. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Or you use the effect to collect energized particles that can be broken down and/or dragged away from areas with specific makeups.

    10. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accelerating at 1 g it will take about a year to get to light speed. The ship would be no where near a solar system when leaving and entering the speed of light.

      I imagine accelerating at more than a couple g would make it very inconvenient maneuvering around the ship. The acceleration of the Space Shuttle is kept below 3 g. And it is for a short period not days.

      If the ship cannot turn around for decelerating then ceiling would become the floor. Some rooms, like those with running water, will need to be rotated.

    11. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Would this still not lead to Solar System warming?

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    12. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by CompMD · · Score: 1

      The Van Allen belts are completely ineffective against gamma radiation. Only interaction with matter can stop a gamma ray. Generally, the atmosphere absorbs them. The thickness of the atmosphere is the key.

    13. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Aggie, I don't get this joke, but approve of it.

    14. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

      They kind of did the same thing in Galaxy Quest:

      Sarris: You fool! You failed to realize that, with your armor gone, my ship will tear through yours like tissue paper.
      Jason Nesmith: And what you fail to realize is my ship... is dragging mines!


      Whoever wrote this episode should DIE.

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    15. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      What do you think the Van Allen Belt is doing up there? It ain't for holdin up our trousers.

      It's also not for stopping gamma rays.

      The Van Allen Belts stop charge particles - the kind of thing tossed out by the Sun. It does nothing at all to gammas (which are mostly stopped by the 100 or so km of atmosphere).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    16. Re:Northern Lights and Killer Asteroids by HiThere · · Score: 1

      IIUC, the atmosphere is realatively opaque to gamma radiation. So how much is the question. (Be rather bad for any space habitats, though.)

      Also, one needs to wonder how directional it is. If it's not very directional, the ship might get a much higher dosage of radiation/cm^2 than anyplace else at the destination. If it's very directional, you might easily miss hitting a planet by a bit, and the folks there might take *severe* umbrage at being so menaced.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  10. Apparently these guys never watched any Star Trek by guspasho · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is what the deflector array is for. Like, the original purpose, not the solution-of-the-week it usually gets jury-rigged for.

  11. Visit The In-laws! by RapidEye · · Score: 3, Funny

    Makes a visit to the Mother-In-Law worth while now!

    --
    "Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
    1. Re:Visit The In-laws! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need warp drive to reach your mother-in-law, isn't she already far enough away?

  12. okay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why we need lasers to instantly cryofreeze humans and use this burst to our advantage to insta-defrost us back to our normal state.

    1. Re:okay! by leonardluen · · Score: 2

      sure exactly the thing we want for first contact with an alien race

      alien: i like these humans! they keep sending us these tasty frozen dinners and microwaving them upon arrival so they are nice and toasty warm upon delivery!

  13. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you want to irradiate all star systems other than Sol's?

  14. Launch all spacecraft from North Korea by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 0

    I say we build all our space ports in North Korea.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  15. Already handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the most part, in Star Trek they intentionally didn't go to warp in-system unless it was an extreme emergency. Even in The Motion Picture they're at sublight until they're well past Pluto.

    1. Re:Already handled by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Except in Star Trek: 90210 they went to warp only a couple hundred meters from space dock and dropped out in Vulcan orbit. Don't get me started on what else was wrong with it.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Already handled by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was essentially one thing wrong: it was written by the same retards who did Transformers.

    3. Re:Already handled by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There's no problem with that. Vulcan was already being destroyed, what's a little extra radiation?

    4. Re:Already handled by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If it's like all the other complaint I have read, then.. nothing was wrong with it.

      Slap an Ad Hom is not really a complaint.

      " couple hundred meters from space dock"
      Based on? You have no reference to scale the distance. Not that ti matters, they ahve gone to warp close to things many times throughout the series.

      " and dropped out in Vulcan orbit."
      so? No the first time the came out of warp in an orbit.

      Here is Bender, with more shocking news for you old people:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8H5_l9E3s

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Already handled by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Transformers was awesome.
      If you expected any more then it was, then I suggest you watch some of the original animated series.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Already handled by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I have watched the animated series. In the cartoons, you had giant robots that had big plates of metal as armor. In the movies you had giant robots with vast amounts of intricately moving parts that are completely exposed. The robots in the movie look like you could take them out with a well placed stick.

    7. Re:Already handled by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      You know. There has to be something in DSM IV to describe the sort of neurological malfunction that can lead someone to watch, let alone like those fucking awful movies.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Already handled by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      But you see, the Transformers universe is occupied by humans with Shia LaBeouf's intellect. People like that would have a hard time not picking up a stick and doing themselves real harm long before they could ever stick it in an exposed cog.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Already handled by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      For the most part, in Star Trek they intentionally didn't go to warp in-system unless it was an extreme emergency. Even in The Motion Picture they're at sublight until they're well past Pluto.

      I always wondered about the two dimensional thinking of that. Why not go UP a few light years at full impulse and then have Scotty stoke the warp core and Sulu floor the gas pedal.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    10. Re:Already handled by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Nope. But I hear that they have added it to the DSM V.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    11. Re:Already handled by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Why not go UP a few light years at full impulse...

      Because impulse power moves the ship at less than c. So you're basically suggesting that they spend a few years moving orthogonally from the path to their destination.

      That would make those damn, drawn out "push off" sequences even MORE boring filler.

    12. Re:Already handled by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 2

      Actually, oddly enough it seems to me that much of science fiction is actually limited to a one-dimensional view of the solar system, much less a 2D view. The reference to Pluto is a good case and point.

      Everyone seems to think of the planets in such a fashion that they're strung together along a (long) straight road such that to travel "out" of the solar system from Earth you would have to pass along each planet in turn. Who's to say for any given year which planet (if any) you'll pass heading outward (opposite the sun) from Earth even while staying within the ecliptic plane.

      One may retort that this usage is just shorthand for each planet's orbit. But the problem is deeper than that. For one example, consider Tony Daniel's Superluminal. The entire series is about an inter-planetary war. The "geography" of the solar system is intrinsic to the plot - which planet can attack which, etc. And it's all wrong for the year of 3017. The book describes a group heading towards Triton for an attack with half the group "continuing on" to Pluto. Trouble is, from the starting planet during that year Pluto and Neptune are in very different directions (almost opposite).

      With regards to the warp drive, the ecliptic plane seems hugely relevant. For any inter-stellar travel, just plan things for one (or more) midpoint stop(s) such that your final leg has you heading relatively perpendicular to the ecliptic plane of the destination star system. Then pop out of warp slightly beyond the ecliptic plane (presumably near your destination planet) to dump the energy.

    13. Re:Already handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me it always seemed like the rules for warp in Star Trek were the following and seemed logical to me:

      You can go to warp whenever you want to... IF you are able to point your ship in the desired direction en start the warpdrive. (which can be troublesome if it is jammed/damaged/glitched)
      You can not accurately exit warp at an exact location due to the high velocity and delays in the control systems and what not. Also the exact location of the destination might not be known beforehand. (this is why they usually always approach stuff on impulse)

      Of course there have probably been glaring exceptions to these.

    14. Re:Already handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled asstards there.

    15. Re:Already handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most part, in Star Trek they intentionally didn't go to warp in-system unless it was an extreme emergency. Even in The Motion Picture they're at sublight until they're well past Pluto.

      Which is why that movie was so fucking long and boring.

    16. Re:Already handled by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Well apparently you had to go past pluto at impulse otherwise. I would assume by traveling "up" you would only need to get as far away from earth as you would otherwise have to travel away from pluto before you can safely go to warp.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    17. Re:Already handled by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Pluto is only about 40 AU from earth (average), which is about
      7*10^-4 light years (per google's converter).

      Big difference at impulse speeds (traditionally, about 1/4c, I believe). 22 hours at impulse ought to do it.

  16. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean, as in:

    Data: Geordi, in my experiments to become more like a human, I seem to have lodged Captain Picard up my positronic rectum

    Geordi: Wow, Data, I mean, um.... Maybe I don't want to know. But I tell you what, we'll set up a tachyon burst through the deflector array and that should cause your mechanical sphincter to open. If we're lucky, it will also fry his brain so he won't remember you stuffing him in there.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  17. u can break outside neighborhood, u know :) by youn · · Score: 0

    not different than a car, you don't go 200 miles an hour in tiny streets unless you are prepared for some serious dammages :)

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  18. It's simple, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like an airport, there are specific take off lanes and pre-defined flying paths and alititudes. So in the case of faster than light space flight, there are specific channels that are not directly pointing at any hospitable planets. So all super-accelerated particles get flung off into space without mass genocide.
    Now where's my lab coat and rocket science degree?

    1. Re:It's simple, really. by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2

      What happens when someone comes in behind you in the arrival lane? Since any FTL communication would by necessity be based on this unless yet another way to break the speed of light was discovered, you can't even send a "get the fuck out of the way, I'm coming in!" message without killing everyone in the arrival lane.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:It's simple, really. by grumling · · Score: 1

      Actually, more like a Vogon freeway.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    3. Re:It's simple, really. by x1r8a3k · · Score: 1

      Have something like the old railroad signal flares. If you can read this, you're too close.

      Also if you launch these particles off at FTL speeds they're going to hit something. We'd need something to stop it, maybe a giant wall or something. As a nice bonus it would also freak out first time travelers a bit too.

    4. Re:It's simple, really. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      obvious:
      You send a smaller craft going a slightly faster warp.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:It's simple, really. by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Stellar 9/11, that's what happens. The founding of the Galactic Empire and the war against the Outer Rim separatists.

  19. To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by geekmux · · Score: 0

    ...it's rather more like "non" news, since every single thing discussed here (with the exception of Albert Einstein himself) is based on theory, which tends to make me scratch my head as to how much we're spending funding research like this. Kind of hard to put the cart before the horse when you haven't even invented the wheel yet.

    1. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by gregarican · · Score: 2

      Did you post this from your quantum computer???

    2. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by SoTerrified · · Score: 2

      ...every single thing discussed here is based on theory, which tends to make me scratch my head as to how much we're spending funding research like this. Kind of hard to put the cart before the horse when you haven't even invented the wheel yet.

      I've heard about this kind of ignorance, but I'm a bit astounded to find it on Slashdot.

      Basically, we still haven't found the Higgs boson. Yet physics has advanced far beyond that point, leading to several breakthroughs that we are enjoying the benefits of. And with time, we're eventually going back to prove the Higgs boson. I could name similar "theory points" in almost every science where something has not been proven, but the evidence is enough that we can move forward making assumptions and make other breakthroughs. And we can enjoy the benefit of those breakthroughs long before we verify the 'unproven'.

      I weep for the mindset that you have where, if something is not yet proven, you believe that we shouldn't be funding anything beyond that point. That strikes me as very penny wise, pound foolish.

    3. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because if it is possible, in theory, then we can look into WHAT makes it possible.

      You would have us d no science unless we can predict what the outcome will be head of time. If we could do that we wouldn't need science any more becasue we would no everything.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ...I weep for the mindset that you have where, if something is not yet proven, you believe that we shouldn't be funding anything beyond that point. That strikes me as very penny wise, pound foolish.

      Really? I weep for what we have financially created today, for we have all been FORCED to become penny wise, because plenty of leaders have been very foolish with the pounds, which was kind of my entire point here. Of course there's value in science and research, but with increased pressures on budget cuts and overall spending, one would be a fool to not look at research like this with a bit more scrutiny, and therefore question its derived value.

    5. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

      I'd rather get rid of useless wars and defense funds, to be honest.

    6. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the economic state is entirely NASA's fault.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pure research leading to pure science. This is exactly what should be funded.

      What should NOT be funded is the idea that underripe tech can be foisted into practicality by government subsidies. That simply does not work as a long-term solution.

      This? Yes

      Solyndra, Tesla? No

    8. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If might be more interesting if we find that there *isn't* a Higgs boson. And that's beginning to look more plausible. Most likely energy levels have already been investigated. OTOH, since there aren't that many more places to look, the current searches can be more focused.

      But if there is no Higgs boson, then we need a new theory. (Well, we already know we need a new threory...but this would make it clearer.) The question is, what is the evidence that this new theory would need to establish itself? Knowing that the current theory is wrong doesn't tell you how it should be improved. (Which has just recently been shown to be an NP hard problem.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:To be clear, this isn't "bad" news... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      And I bet the waste was on wars, bailing out banks and insurance companies and other forms of corporate welfare, plus money thrown at the "right" kind of dictator with very little, relatively speaking, "wasted" on increasing our knowledge of how the universe works. I'm glad that your government and mine "wastes" money on this kind of thing because mankind would never have gone to space if all that was important was the $5 (warning - number pulled out of arse) a person it would cost.

  20. Helluva weapon by Kissing+Crimson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sent from a long distance, nearly undetectable, essentially unstoppable. When it arrives, its arrival is itself a weapon, plus whatever payload it is carrying.

    --
    What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
    1. Re:Helluva weapon by Bentov · · Score: 2

      No doubt, instant destruction, and occupation force in one nice and tidy package :) Galactic conquest can be in your hands now!

    2. Re:Helluva weapon by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Which is why the Borg would be a non problem. Build automated craft, fly through Borg ship a C..ish.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Helluva weapon by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      Sent from a long distance, nearly undetectable, essentially unstoppable. When it arrives, its arrival is itself a weapon, plus whatever payload it is carrying.

      This is good news, that means there's a chance the government will fund a research project.

    4. Re:Helluva weapon by BryanL · · Score: 1

      This is why we can't have nice things.

    5. Re:Helluva weapon by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      Exactly. As a scientist you have to phrase discoveries in ways that attract the attention of those who can provide funding.

    6. Re:Helluva weapon by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      what exactly do you mean, "nearly undetectable"? if it's faster than light, you won't know of it until the first gamma photon says hi.

      --
      new sig
    7. Re:Helluva weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you need a payload? The FTL-capable object is the shell. The payload is whatever shit it picks up on the way.
      But seriously, you don't need to get that complicated. We can wipe all intelligent life on earth today with conventional nuclear fission weapons. Even if some people escape to shelters, they will still not have the means to produce enough food in order to sustain a meaningful population.

    8. Re:Helluva weapon by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What works against the borg also works for them.

      They can do the same fancy trick against us!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Helluva weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much like a bullet.

  21. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    If this is our biggest barrier to developing one tomorrow, then why don't we have these already?

    Because nobody has figured out exactly how one would warp space, only that it's theoretically possible.

  22. Easy Fix by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    Just fly past your destination before slowing down. Then the burst is traveling away from the family back home. You then turn the ship around and go the rest of the way on impulse engines. Why did someone even bother with this if it is such an easy solution.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    1. Re:Easy Fix by bytestorm · · Score: 5, Funny
      I think the problem is the particles and energy are collimated, travelling in the same direction the Alcubierre wave front, kind of like a laser. It's probably going to hit something, someday. This Mass Effect 2 quote comes to mind.

      Gunnery Chief: This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3 percent of light speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kilotomb bomb. That is three times the yield of the city buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth. That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's First Law?
      First Recruit: Sir! A object in motion stays in motion, sir!
      Gunnery Chief: No credit for partial answers, maggot!
      First Recruit: Sir! Unless acted on by an outside force, sir!
      Gunnery Chief: Damn straight! I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this husk of metal, it keeps going till it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you're ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not "eyeball it!" This is a weapon of mass destruction. You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!
      Second Recruit: Sir, yes sir!

    2. Re:Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that hard, enter any target system at 30 degress from the planetary orbit 'plane' (quoted because it's really not that flat) and facing the local star. When accuracy is sufficient to do this over non-trivial distances, you're just dumping the energy into the already massive local energy source. If that doesn't make you happy enough, always aim at the nearest black hole.

    3. Re:Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that exchange. One of the more insightful bits in the game. Maybe the *only* insightful bit.

    4. Re:Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's like a laser, diffraction would thin it out long before it hit anything important (unless you are in some wierd binary system, or something). Space is big, and empty, you can point in any direction and probably there is nothing within 100 light year, and if there is, you presumably have a honking great nav computer. On the other hand, once someone works out this is weaponisable, don't count on humans being around for long (even if the discovery of the effect doesn't fry us).

      Even if this effect doesn't really happen, a 1000 tonne impactor travelling even at high sublight (say 0.95c) would be more than sufficient to destroy a biosphere:

      KE = 1/2 * (1000,000kg * 320) * (0.95 * c)^2 = 10^25 Joules ~= 3 million gigatons of TNT ~= 30 Chixulub impacts.

      where 320 is the Lorenz mass increase at 0.95c. Tthe gamma rays would be the least of your worries.

  23. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Think of it as the space version of a signal cannon.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  24. Powered by Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These starships would be so unwelcome wherever they arrived that there would be little point in going there in the first place.

  25. That is what I call a "feature" by Dareth · · Score: 0

    That is what I call a "feature", or wait is that Microsoft?

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  26. Queller Drive by kharbour · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Space:1999, the Alcubierre warp-drive was known as the Queller Drive. There was an episode about this exact subject (the drive killing everyone) in the first season episode, Voyager's Return: http://www.fanderson.org.uk/epguides/spaceyr1eg3.html#Episode%20Twelve. In an almost unbelieveable coincidence, I happened to be watching it at the exact moment this Slashdot story came in. Spooky.

    1. Re:Queller Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no? It was just a reaction drive.

    2. Re:Queller Drive by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      So you're the other Space 1999 fan.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Queller Drive by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      In Space:1999, the Alcubierre warp-drive was known as the Queller Drive.

      There was an episode about this exact subject (the drive killing everyone) in the first season episode, Voyager's Return: http://www.fanderson.org.uk/epguides/spaceyr1eg3.html#Episode%20Twelve.

      In an almost unbelieveable coincidence, I happened to be watching it at the exact moment this Slashdot story came in. Spooky.

      My favorite episode was the one where Commander Koenig figures out Eva Marie-Saint had shot Cary Grant with blanks, then he and James Mason decide to throw her out of an airplane somewhere over the Pacific Ocean.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Queller Drive by kharbour · · Score: 1

      Um, no? It was just a reaction drive.

      It was also fictional and still FTL. I didn't think scientific accuracy was too important...whatever that means in a show where, you know, the moon blasts out of orbit and wanders round the universe.

    5. Re:Queller Drive by kharbour · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Queller Drive by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      (Okay, OT) How did I miss this show. I was a teen geek back then, but little access to regular TV though I do remember Buck Rogers. Anyway, close to 50 episodes of mid 1970's SciFi on Netflix, ready to watch. I am so there. Thanks for the link. I will either love this or hate it, but with Landau as a lead character there has to be some class to it.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    7. Re:Queller Drive by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I know. I also think there is a show for the other side. meaning, A show about what's happening on earth when the moon is blasted away.

      You could have 2 shows, one a fun Sci-FI, the other a post apocalypse drama.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Queller Drive by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      My only exposure to Space:1999 was a ViewMaster disk that was at my grandmother's house when I was a kid (probably originally belonged to my older cousins).

    9. Re:Queller Drive by Fned · · Score: 1

      I know. I also think there is a show for the other side. meaning, A show about what's happening on earth when the moon is blasted away.

      They're doing a new Thundarr the Barbarian??!! *gleeeeeeeeeeeee*

    10. Re:Queller Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own the DVD set, so I guess that makes me #3.

    11. Re:Queller Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now that you know...
      Only one can survive!

    12. Re:Queller Drive by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      ...and me, #4.

  27. Thermite by rullywowr · · Score: 0

    If you warp a drive to destroy data, isn't it just easier to wipe it with thermite?

  28. Awesome!!! by busyqth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a great thing! Now we know how to wipe out all our alien competition!

    1. Re:Awesome!!! by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Maybe we could practice on asteroids.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Awesome!!! by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I think androids would be a better target.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:Awesome!!! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      Uh, if we had this technology then the easiest way of wiping out the competition would be to not stop. You get all the mentioned effects plus the ship itself as an RKV and any destruction the warp field can do to their planet. It's like the difference between an asteroid and a space capsule - it's easy to hit Earth, it's harder not to leave a crater on impact...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Awesome!!! by DinDaddy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now we know why no one answers our calls. They've seen Star Trek.

      "It's that little planet out near the rim calling again."
      "Sssshh. Just pretend we're not home, or they might come over."

    5. Re:Awesome!!! by EdIII · · Score: 2

      I don't think we need to worry about competition. We are already beaming out our TV broadcasts into space.

      If you think about that.... it progresses from Hitler, to variety shows, to I Love Jeannie, some really weird shit in the 70s, stuff we want to forget about in the 80's, the beginnings of Idiocracy in the 90's... to Ghost Hunters, The Search for Bigfoot, and Snooki.

      Any alien species that picks up those broadcasts is probably smart enough to stay away at all costs.

    6. Re:Awesome!!! by rockout · · Score: 1

      ..., to I Love Jeannie, .....

      Am I the only one that thinks a show combining I Love Lucy and I Dream of Jeannie would be a great idea?

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    7. Re:Awesome!!! by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      No, no... that's not the reason nobody answers our calls. ... it's because we're made out of meat.

    8. Re:Awesome!!! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah..... I kind of got those two mixed up a little. Now that I think of it though, Ricky telling Jeannie that she has some splaining to do kind of works.

    9. Re:Awesome!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's what happened in the Mass Effect universe, on the planet Taetrus:

      http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Cerberus_Daily_News_-_April_2010#04.2F28.2F2010_-_Taetrus.27_Capital_Obliterated_After_Blast

    10. Re:Awesome!!! by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      But if you don't use the craft as an RKV, you might after hitting the first target be able to redirect it to a second, third, fourth, ... - sing it as an RKV might make it more powerful against a single target but a reusable weapon could be far more efficient in a larger strategy.

    11. Re:Awesome!!! by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      You just solved the funding issue Tell the Dept of Defense what a great weapon Warp Drive could be

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    12. Re:Awesome!!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Either that, or come and wipe us out for memetic pollution...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Awesome!!! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      stuff we want to forget about in the 80's

      Yes, but stuff we don't as well -- without Moonlighting would we have had Die Hard, Twelve Monkeys, Last Man Standing, The Jackyl, th sixth Sense? That show launched Willis' career.

    14. Re:Awesome!!! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You should have linked to the actual text of the story at baen books.

  29. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by yincrash · · Score: 1

    the deflector dish protects the ship. it does not protect anything outside the ship.

  30. Unless.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those particles and radiation are consumed as fuel during the trip.

  31. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would keep the particles from collecting in the first place. Try to at least read the summary.

  32. No brakes!!! by gregarican · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not sure about the theoretical effect of stopping, since the original theory postulates that once riding that warp bubble there's no way to stop...

    1. Re:No brakes!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse than that from some calculations I read about a couple years ago. Building a warp bubble around a ship would require more energy than there is in the observable universe. There's a workaround someone came up with -- you don't have to make the outside of the bubble the same size as the inside (TARDIS!), and reducing the outside lowers the energy requirement.

        BUT, shrinking it enough to make the whole thing feasible puts the outside of the bubble dangerously close to (or below?) the Planck length, at which point the outside bubble vanishes and you've suddenly trapped yourself forever, inside your own tiny bubble universe, coasting towards heat death.

    2. Re:No brakes!!! by Yo_mama · · Score: 2

      Before we broke the sound barrier there were some calculations that showed that air loads would approach infinite as the aircraft approached the speed of sound. Obviously that proved to not be true, demonstrating that some models ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

      --
      Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
    3. Re:No brakes!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously that proved to not be true, demonstrating that some models ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

      My god man! Do you know what a grain of salt will do at those speeds?

  33. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

    Urban renewal?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  34. Heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The warning was given before here:

    http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/24/4961498-einsteins-missing-pages-the-doppler-shift-and-information-loss

  35. faster than the speed of light by fizzer06 · · Score: 1

    I thought that it was impossible (theoretically) to go faster than the speed of light.

    1. Re:faster than the speed of light by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought that it was impossible (theoretically) to go faster than the speed of light.

      It is easy to theoretically go faster than the speed of light. It's darn near impossible to actually do it.

    2. Re:faster than the speed of light by fizzer06 · · Score: 1

      I know I've never SEEN it done.

    3. Re:faster than the speed of light by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...seen... faster than light... c'mon people, these are the jokes...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:faster than the speed of light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We laughed before the joke.

  36. Time by ticker47 · · Score: 1

    Would a warp drive have the same affects on time for the observer as normal high speed travel would?

    1. Re:Time by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Time by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The ship using the alcubierre drive would be at rest with respect to the space immediately around it (in the bubble). The ship is essentially in a pocket of space that is moving. Space doesn't have the light-speed limit (areas of the universe are/have expanded faster than light, for example). So for my layman's understanding no it wouldn't create the same relativistic effects (shortening, mass increase, etc).

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  37. Fermi Paradox by medv4380 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless the resulting burst is a Gamma Ray Burst we should already have seen other aliens using this kind of tech.

    1. Re:Fermi Paradox by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unless those aliens that have space-warping technology have already also solved the problem of particle/radiation collection and burst release. If they can travel faster than light, is it really much of a stretch to imagine they might have figured this out too?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    2. Re:Fermi Paradox by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just that, but probably determine how to collect it as usable energy. Many articles like this don't bother thinking any deeper than one.

    3. Re:Fermi Paradox by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 3, Informative
      Also, this from tfa:

      “Any people at the destination,” the team’s paper concludes, “would be gamma ray and high energy particle blasted into oblivion due to the extreme blueshifts for [forward] region particles.”

      So maybe that's exactly what we have been seeing! :D

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    4. Re:Fermi Paradox by medv4380 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then we just end up in the other areas of the Paradox like why if they have FTL travel they should have already come here, and there should be clear evidence of it. I'd rather think that this kind of tech gets developed tested and the entire civilization that made it is wiped out by the test flight.

    5. Re:Fermi Paradox by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2

      There are any number of reasons why they might not want to come here or why we might not notice them. For sure the Fermi Paradox has some interesting arguments, but I don't believe that just because we haven't seen them coming here (or recognized them, maybe they're already here and we just don't see it!) doesn't mean they aren't out there.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    6. Re:Fermi Paradox by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are many patches of earth in my back yard that I have not set foot on. There are no doubt many living things in those patches of dirt. The fact that I have not interacted with he insignificant life forms in the out of the way places of my back yard in no way implies that I don't exist.

    7. Re:Fermi Paradox by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

      From their perspective, you might as well not.....

      Plus, I'm sure your HOA wishes you would mow more.

    8. Re:Fermi Paradox by ModernGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just like a sonic boom when breaking the sound barrier, traveling faster than light may create a burst of light and radiation.

      l33t

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    9. Re:Fermi Paradox by dingo_kinznerhook · · Score: 1

      If you use the same logic, not observing God interacting with the world does not imply that God does not exist.

      So many of the same arguments apply to both proving the existence/nonexistence of God and proving the existence/nonexistence of extraterrestrials. I love the X-Files; that series was awesome at comparing the two questions.

      --
      "God does not play Minecraft with the world." - Albert Einstein
    10. Re:Fermi Paradox by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Gene Roddenberry was right again!

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    11. Re:Fermi Paradox by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The big problem with the Fermi paradox is that the earth isn't covered in a kilometer deep layer of cats.

    12. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A few things to keep in mind:
      1. We still have difficulties determining movement of objects in our own solar system (see estimates for percentages and ranges for distance from earth for near-miss-objects like Asteroids!) given whenever we suspect one might come close to earth.
      2. Space is HUGE, consider that our own small galaxy is 100,000 LY's across, and the farthest planet we have detected so far is 20.5LYs away (quick google search but I believe there are farther ones, in the 50-75LY range...) that means the likelihood of us being able to detect a tiny (relative to a whole planet, star, or solar system) ship (or ship exhaust) is going to be far less likely as well.
      3. So, unless those alien space ships are larger than planets and fairly close (say lightyears 80 which at those speeds and sizes would be right next door) the chance of us being able to detect anything from those ships (let alone detect the difference from the background noise) is probably very, very, very close to zero anyways.
      4. Now consider we are NOT scanning space in real-time; but I believe work is being done on accomplishing this :)

    13. Re:Fermi Paradox by medv4380 · · Score: 0

      Now you're in the part of the Paradox where you're explaining it by proposing something that defys the mediocrity principle. Yea their might be life forms so far beyond organic and humanoid life, but unless the mediocrity principle is wrong life similar to ours should have evolved as well. So now you're leaving it as Beings so great and powerful we'd only be able to describe them as Gods and the life on Earth. I think I've read this "theory" somewhere before.

    14. Re:Fermi Paradox by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, I guess if the deflector dish isn't working to keep those particles from accumulating in the warp field.

      The downside, of course, will be that pesky warp signature you're going to leave behind.

      This is tactically problematic... if the bad guys can track us, we'd best develop cloaking tech for when we drop to impulse.

    15. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the paradox overlooks one very simple, obvious truth. Space is big. I mean really, really frakking huge beyond comprehension big. Maybe the reason other alien life forms haven't reached us yet is the fact that we're just too far away for them to notice our existence.

    16. Re:Fermi Paradox by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      HOAs are for commie bastards.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    17. Re:Fermi Paradox by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      There are many patches of earth in my back yard that I have not set foot on. There are no doubt many living things in those patches of dirt. The fact that I have not interacted with he insignificant life forms in the out of the way places of my back yard in no way implies that I don't exist.

      Thing is...there's nothing unusual about have life forms in a back yard.

      For all evidence, life in the universe is very unusual. If you have a chance to investigate some, you'd leap at it in much the same way that if there was something bright and shiny at the bottom of your back yard you'd have checked it out the first day you moved it.

      --
      No sig today...
    18. Re:Fermi Paradox by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      That doesn't mean what you think it does.

      That means that both Gods and aliens are largely if not completely irrelevant and belief in either is nothing to get terribly excited about. Never mind starting wars and such.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:Fermi Paradox by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Any being that is capable of traveling between star systems would certainly meet your definition of 'Gods'. The ones that evolved to where we are wouldn't be out tripping around the universe. We would seem like gods to our own species from a hundred or two years ago. The line between "us" and "gods" is actually pretty thin.

    20. Re:Fermi Paradox by Randseed · · Score: 2

      Unless the resulting burst is a Gamma Ray Burst we should already have seen other aliens using this kind of tech.

      But we do see unexplained, massive gamma ray bursts all over the place. For all we know, we're seeing what happened when someone dropped out of warp 5 million years ago or something in another galaxy.

    21. Re:Fermi Paradox by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Scale. Life may very well be common when you look at it from a universal scale.

    22. Re:Fermi Paradox by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Then we just end up in the other areas of the Paradox like why if they have FTL travel they should have already come here, and there should be clear evidence of it.

      Hardly. They're capable of FTL travel and thus have a grasp of physics that makes us look like toddlers. Why would they WANT to come here?

      If I were to ever solve the halting problem, I'm pretty sure I'm not suddenly going to say "You know, I should really visit a 7-11 in Mobile, Alabama."

    23. Re:Fermi Paradox by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Not really. The beings like us probably haven't developed FTL travel, either, otherwise they wouldn't be.. you know... like us.

    24. Re:Fermi Paradox by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      Actually it's the size and age of the Universe and the large number of stars that is the source of the paradox. In the Milky Way there is what? 200-400 Billion stars? If intelligent life evolves on 1% that is 2 - 4 Billion intelligent life forms. Only if Intelligent Life evolves on somewhere around 5 x 10^-9th of the stars, which would defy the mediocrity principal, would it make sense that we wouldn't find them. Once an Intelligent life form evolves, and assuming that FTL is impossible it should take anywhere from 5 to 50 million years for that civilization to visit every star in the galaxy. Since the Universe is somewhere around 10 billion there have been plenty of time even with the extreamly small chance of life outside of earth evolving that the entire galaxy should have been colonized multiple times by several different life forms, or we are dealing with the odds that Intelligent life evolves at an even lower value putting it somewhere in the area of Unique.

    25. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is clear evidence....or at least Georgio off of ancient aliens is proof enough.

    26. Re:Fermi Paradox by wurp · · Score: 1

      They should already be here regardless of FTL travel.

      Assume there are intelligent, technologically oriented aliens.
      * Surely if we have been around for four billion years, many of them must have achieved a reasonable level of technology 100 million years before us.
      * Surely in the next million years we will be capable of building a system that could reproduce given the energy and typical raw materials around a significant fraction of stars. Such a system could also be made to build other things based on instructions sent to it.
      * Such a system could use laser driven solar sails and/or bussard ramjets to achieve near lightspeed travel.
      * This system would fill in a sphere of space with the radius being essentially the time it takes light to reach from the center of the sphere to the outer edge since the expansion started.
      * Surely at least one ET which has the power and the inclination to build such a system and set it loose on the universe.
      This ET should control much of the matter within 100 million light years of it.

      Why don't we see evidence?

      This is all projected given the miniscule understanding of what's possible that we have from the ~200 years since the industrial revolution, only 500 years since automated printing became well established. What would be the real capabilities of an intelligent race that had a million years of tech development under its belt?

      Either:
      * they're not there
      * some powerful force is keeping us from knowing about them
      * some significant new understanding one gets with technological development changes the rules somehow and makes this option not attractive

      Or possibly:
      * what's technologically possible is vastly more limited than seems reasonable given our current understanding

      Or maybe some combination of the above.

    27. Re:Fermi Paradox by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      So why in the last 700 million years of earth being habitable have they not come by and colonized it? I would think Hawking would be disappointed in them passing up the opportunity.

    28. Re:Fermi Paradox by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I consider them fascist. They don't make everybody get out and toil equally on each other's lawn (or according to their ability and the need of each lawn to be mowed, if you prefer), the HOA dictator decides on a company that will mow everybody's lawn...usually a company owned by his buddy.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    29. Re:Fermi Paradox by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      If HOAs were for commie bastards why are there so goddamned many of them in Texas? HOAs are for fascist bastards anywhere on the political spectrum.

    30. Re:Fermi Paradox by McDee · · Score: 1

      Yep that'll be Cherenkov radiation.

    31. Re:Fermi Paradox by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you use the same logic, not observing God interacting with the world does not imply that God does not exist.

      So many of the same arguments apply to both proving the existence/nonexistence of God and proving the existence/nonexistence of extraterrestrials.

      The difference is that "God," as generally defined by believers, is a being who specifically does interact with His creation. There is not (and probably will never be) any evidence either way on the hypothesis of a "watchmaker" who set the universe in motion and then left it alone, but that's not the God people pray to, either. If you believe in the power of prayer, or in the Bible as a moral rulebook, or any of the million and one other things which believers are constantly pushing, you have to believe in a God who should have left evidence of His active involvement all over the place, and yet has mysteriously failed to do so. There are people who believe in active involvement in human affairs by aliens too, of course, but they're a fringe minority rather than being in the mainstream of those who speculate on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    32. Re:Fermi Paradox by Surt · · Score: 2

      Because Texas is a well known communist paradise? Texas tried to move so far to the right they accidentally wrapped around and became virulent leftists.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    33. Re:Fermi Paradox by Surt · · Score: 1

      That's exactly right. Except there is some strong evidence for life existing in the universe, whereas the evidence for God is completely lacking.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    34. Re:Fermi Paradox by quacking+duck · · Score: 5, Informative

      After reading the "bad news" I immediately thought of how even Star Trek had already addressed this: the Bussard collectors at the front of all warp drives are designed to scoop up interstellar particles and radiation for fuel replenishment.

      Obviously Trek is a work of fiction, but the collectors are based on actual theoretical Bussard ramjets/ramscoops proposed in 1960.

      And yet 52 years later, with Star Trek providing at least speculative options and real-life regenerative braking on electric and hybrid cars around us, the write-up didn't even think to speculate about somehow collecting and using that energy.

    35. Re:Fermi Paradox by zill · · Score: 1

      Three words explains it all: the Prime Directive.

      But seriously though, it's kinda presumptuous to assume that when aliens visit the Virgo supercluster they're required to visit a particular piece of rock within that supercluster.

      Maybe there's no economic incentive for them to come here. Maybe they've already came, took their samples, and left. Maybe they're not even interested in studying Earth. Maybe they're too busy fighting a war of attrition against other aliens to care about space explorations.

    36. Re:Fermi Paradox by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mean that either. The proposed methods of observation of space traveling aliens is observing radiation dumps from their warp drives. We haven't seen any such dumps, but that does as little for disproving the existence of space traveling aliens and by disproving that God exists by praying and observing that nothing happens. We don't understand either quantity at all, therefore we don't know how to observe them, therefore we should not be surprised that we cannot observe them.

      Wars and other assorted religiously inspired violence can continue for the same reasons they always have: the pragmatic can continue to profit on the corpses of the faithful. Proving God or aliens exist will not stop the wars, it will just change the excuse.

    37. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only common, but spaced out far enough that few of them will ever meet

    38. Re:Fermi Paradox by wurp · · Score: 1

      Please read the whole thing. This is not about them sampling Earth, this is about them disassembling it to build something useful (to them) with automated self-directed machines (that they can also direct with signed messages, etc.)

      If it's possible, and you don't do it, someone else might. If you have a disagreement with that other someone, they're likely to win :-)

      So why didn't anyone?

    39. Re:Fermi Paradox by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Georgio Tsocotopopulous is a freeking Centari from the Series babylon 5.....

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    40. Re:Fermi Paradox by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Only if they're in our galaxy, and only if it occurred in the past (75 + distance / c) years or so that we've been looking, and only if we were looking in the right direction at the time it occurred, etc.

    41. Re:Fermi Paradox by zill · · Score: 1
      I believe I covered that:

      Maybe there's no economic incentive for them to come here.

      The self-replicating nanomachines scans the supercluster, sorts the all galaxies by their useful material to junk ratio and sends detachments to the top N galaxies. The algorithm repeats until all galaxies above the cut-off line gets harvested, and the swarm move onto the next supercluster.

    42. Re:Fermi Paradox by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      s/fascist/commie/

      I don't think that word means what you think it means...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    43. Re:Fermi Paradox by wurp · · Score: 1

      But obviously the earth can support many millions of tons of self reproducing machines (it already supports them).

      If an enemy decides to attack me and already controls earth, he could mobilize all that against me. Surely it's worth sending a few pounds, or hundreds of pounds, of my own VNM (Von Neumann Machines) to take trillions of pounds of yummy matter for myself?

    44. Re:Fermi Paradox by cvnautilus · · Score: 1

      That's true, but a god that doesn't care about our existence isn't one worth spending our lives worshiping, blowing ourselves up over, sacrificing our children, etc. If that god isn't even aware of our existence what's the point?

    45. Re:Fermi Paradox by Froggels · · Score: 1

      The big problem with the Fermi paradox is that the earth isn't covered in a kilometer deep layer of cats.

      Of course it isn't. Everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.

    46. Re:Fermi Paradox by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      ... and people constantly bringing the word "God" into a conversation is equally inspiring of violence... because people just want you to shut up about it.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    47. Re:Fermi Paradox by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      There are any number of reasons why they might not want to come here or why we might not notice them. For sure the Fermi Paradox has some interesting arguments, but I don't believe that just because we haven't seen them coming here (or recognized them, maybe they're already here and we just don't see it!) doesn't mean they aren't out there.

      They aren't out there. People seem to conveniently forget the kinds of timescales evolution works on. The first interstellar civilization to evolve, even if it colonized other systems at sublight speeds in rarely launched generation ships, would, due to the exponential nature of such things, colonize the entire galaxy before the next species discovered fire. The reason we haven't met them is either (a) we're the first, (b) the first came and went before we figured out to bang the rocks together, or (c) physics just makes interstellar civilization impossibly difficult. In any case, they aren't out there (assuming by "they" we mean interstellar civilizations -- option c affords the possibility that there are other civilizations out there, they're just chillin' on their homeworld and we'll never actually meet them).

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    48. Re:Fermi Paradox by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I noticed you capitalized "series" but not the name of the show lmao

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    49. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe in the power of prayer, or in the Bible as a moral rulebook, or any of the million and one other things which believers are constantly pushing, you have to believe in a God who should have left evidence of His active involvement all over the place, and yet has mysteriously failed to do so.

      Only to those who don't believe. To Christians there is evidence everywhere, in the tangible and intangible. Just because you limit "evidence" to a small subset of reality does not mean others do.

    50. Re:Fermi Paradox by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      By the way, it occurs to me on rereading that my post phrases one point in an incredibly optimistic way. To be more explicit, the first interstellar civilization (if such a thing is possible) is not simply going to colonize the entire galaxy before another figures out how to build a fire, it's likely to colonize the entire galaxy before the second figures out the trick of collecting its cells together to form multicellular lifeforms. Given the timescales evolution operates on, the first interstellar civilization should be more than capable for spreading out across the entire galaxy before the second gets to that point, and will find lots of bacteria but no one to talk to...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    51. Re:Fermi Paradox by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      There is?

      I mean, statistically speaking there are an infinite number of copies of you in the universe, should the universe actually be infinite. But that's not evidence that it is true.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    52. Re:Fermi Paradox by zill · · Score: 1

      Earth does not have enough fossil fuel and radioactive materials left to send trillions of pounds material into space. It would cost the VNM swarm a certain amount of energy to process Earth. The swarm does a cost/benefit analysis on each planet/galaxy. Maybe the swarm spent that energy on other planets more worthwhile and skipped Earth.

      And of course there are plenty of other possibilities:

      Two completing swarms are fighting outside our supercluster as we speak for control of the cluster.

      Alien races all discover the necessary technology to become post-scarcity societies. The swarm simply manufactures matter and energy in their home system.

      Alien races all discover transcendental technology and have no need for matter and energy anymore. They don't even bother sending out a swarm because physical matter is meaningless to them.

    53. Re:Fermi Paradox by sjames · · Score: 1

      Have you SEEN our television broadcasts? We're probably in double dog galactic quarantine by now.

    54. Re:Fermi Paradox by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Those were just for collecting fuel (although perhaps they and a combination of tractors were used to collect them to prevent buildup). In actual fact, TNG defined the ship as having navigational deflectors specifically to address the problem if the large particle densities caused by FTL travel...

      I'm amused that Alcubierre's theoretical warp drive concept from 1994 works pretty much the same way the fictional warp drive from a 1987 television show does, down to having many of the same side effects...

      As to why I reference only TNG, I don't think TOS actually tried to put scientific explanations on any of this stuff.

    55. Re:Fermi Paradox by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1
      This assumes that continued colonization is something that an advanced civilization wants or requires.I can't imagine that space exploration would be something that any civilization would voluntarily give up (then again, how can you imagine the drives and desires of such an advanced species), but It could be that a break-even point is reached in a civilization's resource consumption that renders further colonization and expansion unnecessary.

      It could be that most civilizations end up in some kind of Matrix-like singularity situation where they transcend biology and thus the need for such resources as we need as biological beings. As long as they have a star to power their LifeServers(tm), expansion and exploration could be done with nano-sized Von Neumann probes.

      The options you laid out are certainly plausible, but I have to disagree that they are the only ones. I guess my above explanation would fit comfortably in your c). :)

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    56. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read Romans 1:18-23. You inherently know there is a God, but some choose to deny Him to their demise.

    57. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The syntax is the other way around: s/searched text/replacement/

    58. Re:Fermi Paradox by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I would. Imagine the feeling of smug superiority. Of course there'd be no fun in teasing them, it'd go right over their dumb redneck heads.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    59. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this "paradox" is that it assumes the combination of life and sufficiently complex cognitive capabilities have occurred reasonably close at least once before us (I'm assuming reasonably close=our galaxy, but it may be more or less depending on the limitations of hypothetical FTL technology).
      As far as we know, life is pretty rare to begin with. And intellect has only occurred in one species in millions of years of life on earth. During the same time, the universe has had more than enough opportunity to wipe us out and make earth uninhabitable. In fact, it still can.

    60. Re:Fermi Paradox by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you believe in the power of prayer, or in the Bible as a moral rulebook, or any of the million and one other things which believers are constantly pushing, you have to believe in a God who should have left evidence of His active involvement all over the place, and yet has mysteriously failed to do so.

      That which ye seek, so shall ye find.

      If a person believes in a meddling deity, and looks for evidence of such, they will find it.

      If a person believes in a deity who has a firm stance of non-interference, and looks for evidence of such, they will find it.

      If a person believes in no deity at all, and looks for evidence of such, they will find it.


      That's the real problem of theology/anti-theology as an argument: It's a purely subjective realm of thought, and thus every person looking through the same window will, depending on their theological beliefs, see the world differently.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    61. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only to those who don't believe. To Christians there is evidence everywhere, in the tangible and intangible. Just because you limit "evidence" to a small subset of reality does not mean others do.

      The same could be said for visiting aliens, time travelers, invisible fairies and Santa Clause. If you believe in something, then of course the evidence is "everywhere", because that is how you will interpret events.

    62. Re:Fermi Paradox by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Then we can perform the Riker maneuver (one of the few good bits in the whole of Star Trek: Innsurection).

    63. Re:Fermi Paradox by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So why in the last 700 million years of earth being habitable have they not come by and colonized it?

      We did. Now we're watching to see how you do.

    64. Re:Fermi Paradox by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      I've yet to encounter an HOA that mows your lawn for you. Ours just has their lawyer write you letters if you don't.

    65. Re:Fermi Paradox by JWW · · Score: 1

      There's also the possibility that we're the first to begin to approach a solution. I know its statistically unlikely, but its still a possibility that we're the first lifeforms that may be capable of doing this.

      Of course we could even be the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, .... and haven't seen the first ones get here yet.

      But you're right, its and interesting thought experiment.

    66. Re:Fermi Paradox by DinDaddy · · Score: 2

      Yes it is. They are just dark matter cats. I saw one in the basement once.

    67. Re:Fermi Paradox by wurp · · Score: 1

      The earth doesn't need that energy. The sun puts out enough energy to push 3 * 10^11 kilograms of matter to 99% of the speed of light every year. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2651333&cid=38908157

      It seems likely the two competing swarms should be obvious... and assuming a speed of light limit, it seems more of a race to reach the resources than a fight to get there. If my 10kg VNM can get there a year before yours, it will kick the ass of your fleet of 1*10^6kgs of VNM warriors when they get there.

      And I think the last two options fall under the "some significant new understanding" clause.

    68. Re:Fermi Paradox by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      It didn't. There were at least two non-canonical TOS technical manuals, but Sternbach and Okuda were pretty pioneering as far as on-staff nerdistry is concerned.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    69. Re:Fermi Paradox by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your scale is a bit off.

          I'll make some assumptions for you. :)

          You are an average male, with a size 10.5 shoe, and you have two feet.

          Your yard is 1 acre, with no other objects obstructing it.

          We are only considering a single plane for both your yard, and our solar system.

          The size of your foot equals the size of the earth (cross section at the equator).

          Then....

          If your foot were the size of the earth, the soles of your shoes would have had contact with 0.205381533% of the area of the Earth's orbit around the sun.

          I guess you're just about right then. We like to think we know what's in space around us. As has been proven by recent near misses with asteroids, we are not necessarily aware of rocks the size of a city before they are *very* close to us, or in some instances have just missed us.

          There could be a small intelligent alien species in a small object say a spacecraft or natural body that we have passed off as "just a rock", somewhere between us and our sun, who do not meet the criteria for living on earth, and we wouldn't have ever known it existed.

          We like to standardize "life" on the terms we know. Any advanced life will be roughly 1.5 meters tall, weighing roughly 72.5 kilograms, biped form, which breaths a nitrogen/oxygen mixture. That makes a lot of assumptions, including the idea that it would breathe.

          It could be plausible that an alien species travels in a FTL space craft which is no larger than a mosquito. If it used Star Trek based warp technology, the resulting emissions if it slowed to "impulse" several planets away wouldn't even register as a change in background radiation.

          But, we are humans, and we know everything.

          I just hope that when we are visited, they do breathe oxygen, eat compatible foods, are tall enough so I can stand up in their ship, and they understand when I say "Thank goodness you've arrived, I've been waiting for years to get off this rock. Lets get out of here before the others try to kill you."

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    70. Re:Fermi Paradox by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      the Bussard collectors at the front of all warp drives are designed to scoop up interstellar particles and radiation for fuel replenishment.

      Won't work though: a Bussard ramjet uses magnetic fields to collect the interstellar gas (mostly hydrogen ions). A magnetic field may stop charged particles, but won't do anything for the gamma rays.

    71. Re:Fermi Paradox by Sark666 · · Score: 1

      This topic brought to mind the Star Trek TNG episode 'force of nature' in which it was discovered that using warp drive tech was damaging sub-space.

      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Force_of_Nature

    72. Re:Fermi Paradox by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      I know about the deflector dish, even started writing about it to cover my bases, but finally left it out because I was adding to a comment that specifically mentioned collecting particles as usable energy.

      IIRC from the TNG Tech Manual, the deflector dish and warp fields were even configured to allow specific particles (deuterium, hydrogen, etc) to funnel into the collectors while at warp.

    73. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They visited us long ago. Unfortunately all they found was a bunch of dead fucking dinosaurs.

    74. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd, I see evidence of God everywhere and in every action. He isn't a big bearded guy on a cloud you know. He isn't even a guy. He's everything and everywhere. The universe is alive. Call it what you want. Pretend it doesn't exist, but it doesn't change what is, was and always shall be.

    75. Re:Fermi Paradox by Fned · · Score: 1

      collecting and using that energy.

      Actualy they did: you collect it simply by running the drive, and then you use it to kill everything around you when you arrive.

    76. Re:Fermi Paradox by Fned · · Score: 1

      There is not (and probably will never be) any evidence either way on the hypothesis of a "watchmaker" who set the universe in motion and then left it alone, but that's not the God people pray to, either.

      What? Yes it is. Every sixty-two million years, it runs down, and he has to wind it back up again.

      All that interactive business written about in the Bible is just troubleshooting, which He had to do rather a lot of after installing the new feature set.

    77. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless those aliens that have space-warping technology have already also solved the problem of particle/radiation collection and burst release. If they can travel faster than light, is it really much of a stretch to imagine they might have figured this out too?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst

    78. Re:Fermi Paradox by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, if there were/ar intelligent lifeforms on another planet, that coincidentially happened to have started the same time we did, and they were to have focused on advancing their knowledge of all things, and were not obsessed with greed and mutual destruction, they could have probably been here thousands of years ago.

          Thankfully, we invented television and radio broadcasts. If they happen to come anywhere near us, they'll have the luxury of seeing how vile humanity in general is. The signals will weaken with distance, but with a little luck, they'll be able to clean up a signal somewhere between 75 to 100 light years out. When they get to about 45 to 50 light years out, they'll see how we would treat prospective visitors. Kill them first, and steal their technology later. And that's only alien related science fiction. Factual war radio and television broadcasts will paint the rest of the picture for them.

          We have set up our own warning beacons that no one should *ever* approach this desolate rock on the end of a lonely spiral arm of this galaxy.

          Assuming they stop in the occasional system to look and listen, if they stopped around any of the 1,400 stars (133 like our sun) within 50 light years of Earth, they'd know to avoid us at all costs.

          If we developed FTL travel, wouldn't we take such broadcasts as a warning?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    79. Re:Fermi Paradox by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Once an Intelligent life form evolves, and assuming that FTL is impossible it should take anywhere from 5 to 50 million years for that civilization to visit every star in the galaxy.

      Assuming they want that. After all, humans only went to the moon and sent unmanned probes to other planets in the Solar system (and a few probes outside the Solar system). It may not be worth it for the aliens to visit other stars if FTL is impossible. If it takes multiple generations to go to that star and back then they probably would only do it if there was evidence of a habitable (to them) planet or other form of intelligent life. Evidence of intelligent life may be extremely difficult to get without going there.

      So, it could very well be that the aliens just colonized their own star system and maybe the closest star system that has habitable planets and not bothering with the rest of the galaxy.

    80. Re:Fermi Paradox by Junta · · Score: 2

      If you use the same logic, not observing God interacting with the world does not imply that God does not exist.

      It is pretty much the same and no less valid in either case. Science hasn't *disproved* either option nor has it provided evidence in support of either as well. The concept of God is not something that lends itself to being disproved since a believer can always say God does not want to be observed and so will not exist.

      'Aggresive' athiesm that declares there is no God is technically a faith kind of like how religion is also faith. Really the only scientificly sound postiion is agnosticism. Normally just science wouldn't lead someone to insist something doesn't exist that we have no evidence for or against, though I can see someone generally driven by science frustrated at a phenomenon with no supporting scientific evidence and adopting the contrary view out of sheer frustration.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    81. Re:Fermi Paradox by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      The problem is with the way this particular warp drive operates.

      It isn't the intersellar medium that produces the energy wave. It is the collateral effect of the warp field itself.

      More specifically, the edge of the warp bubble acts like an event horizon, and the radiation is hawking radiation that forms from virtual particles getting caught in it, and being made real.

      While the drive is "on", these particles are stuck to the event horizon of the warp bubble. They never get anywhere close to the ship, and as such never get funneled into any collector orifice.

      The longer the warp bubble is on, the more virtual particles will get caught, the bigger the blast wave when the bubble pops.

      One potential solution is a specially made "harbor" fascility that is designed for this very thing, so that ships arriving drop out of warp (and immediately stop. That's the beauty of this hypothetical warp drive), puke out the event shock, which is collected by the harbor commission's harbor ship, and then the ship takes off using conventional drive to its habitated destination.

    82. Re:Fermi Paradox by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not a very good bible scholar but I remember being told that God would hear my prayers. No guarantees about answers, or action, until after I'm dead, and an unspecified time after my death as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    83. Re:Fermi Paradox by slew · · Score: 1

      My favorite answer is that it is probably because it isn't worth it the expense (in energy) to travel here.
      If you had access to the energy it would likely take to traverse the distance you would likely be effectively be infinitely wealthy where you were. Why choose to send a few folks to be gods to a bunch of ants when there are much better things to spend your resources on locally? You'd think that the typcial /. poster would see the potential logic in this explanation as they often have everything they want delivered to thier home cave by UPS with 1-click of a mouse...

    84. Re:Fermi Paradox by dryeo · · Score: 1

      They only like worlds that are tidally locked around red dwarfs of course.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    85. Re:Fermi Paradox by EdIII · · Score: 1

      They must have not watched Star Trek then. Which means they have no credibility as scientists or geeks anyways right? :)

      Not everything from Star Trek can be taken seriously. It's not like we give credence to the concept of Heisenberg Compensators when having a serious discussion about the possibility of matter transport.

      Although I feel like handing in my geek card not knowing that Bussard collectors are actually theoretical.....

    86. Re:Fermi Paradox by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That reminds of me of the Infinite Improbability Drive :)

      My absolute favorite sci-fi propulsion device of all time.

    87. Re:Fermi Paradox by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Are you alive? If the answer is yes, then you have strong evidence for life existing in the universe.

    88. Re:Fermi Paradox by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I don't think I got that far. The only Riker maneuver I remember was when he lost the Enterprise to a single rusty old Klingon ship with a crew of two bodacious babes.
      The next movie should have started out like Hot Shots II with Riker having to pay the ship off in installments.

    89. Re:Fermi Paradox by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Or is all of creation.

    90. Re:Fermi Paradox by Surt · · Score: 2

      Yes, we've already been able to definitively sample one planet with life, and there is some pretty good evidence for life having made a go of it on at least 2 other bodies.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    91. Re:Fermi Paradox by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      That is answered three posts above yours.

      There are many patches of earth in my back yard that I have not set foot on. There are no doubt many living things in those patches of dirt. The fact that I have not interacted with he insignificant life forms in the out of the way places of my back yard in no way implies that I don't exist.

    92. Re:Fermi Paradox by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Why "should" a God have left evidence of his existence? I'm sure people would find some way to dismiss it anyway so why bother?

      By way of the "teach a man to fish..." aphorism, it would seem to be better to make man think that he had solved J Random Problem himself than to just *poof* fix it.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    93. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That which ye seek, so shall ye find.

      If a person believes in a meddling deity, and looks for evidence of such, they will find it.

      If a person believes in a deity who has a firm stance of non-interference, and looks for evidence of such, they will find it.

      If a person believes in no deity at all, and looks for evidence of such, they will find it.

      That's a blatant platitude.

      You need to try harder than "it's a matter of opinion and therefore everyone is right" politically correct crap to make your argument. Go ahead, give an example of evidence of the meddling deity. The non-interference (agnosticism) vs non-existence (atheism) comparison is nothing more than the straight philosophical outlooks "no evidence, we don't know" vs "null hypothesis, assume false until proven true".

      If I believe in the existence of a TV remote that controls the weather, how long will it take me to find that? If "seek and you will find" is true then surely this is a perfectly reasonable question.

    94. Re:Fermi Paradox by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      We would seem like gods to our own species from a hundred or two years ago.

      A hundred years ago there wer trains, planes and steamships. Gods my arse, we'd look like men with gadgets.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    95. Re:Fermi Paradox by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I must admire your patience. I'd have pulled the plug a long time ago.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    96. Re:Fermi Paradox by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      God is just a highly advanced alien anyway. Haven't you read Von Daniken?

    97. Re:Fermi Paradox by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      The earth has moved around a lot in those 700 million years. How do you know that no-one did and the evidence has been obliterated or buried so deep that we haven't found it yet.

    98. Re:Fermi Paradox by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I'd vote for (c). If faster than light communication is physically impossible, there can not be such a thing as a interstellar civilization, because a civilization needs communication to stay coherent. Without communication, the civilization will fork, split and conquer itself time and time again.

      On the other hand, if faster than light communication were physically possible, time-travel would be too. Here the Fermi paradox comes in action: if time-travel would be possible, civilizations that would develop FTL in the future, should be here now. But they aren't, so FTL travel has not been (and will not be) developed in this universe.

    99. Re:Fermi Paradox by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Ok, maybe a hundred or two is to short of a time for that statement. Lets say 4 to 5 hundred years ago then. the point still stands.

    100. Re:Fermi Paradox by toddestan · · Score: 1

      There are other possibilities, such as they simply aren't interested in our solar system, much like how large sections of the Earth aren't developed. Or that we're in the middle of an intergalactic nature preserve. Or we are the aliens, in some lost colony. Or that they are already here and we simply can't detect them or don't recognize them yet.

    101. Re:Fermi Paradox by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      It could be that FTL travel is possible in some manner, but civilizations don't really need to expand beyond their home solar system. Imagine that tomorrow we had a) cheap, reliable FTL travel and b) the tech for building permanent space stations. We could build a few colonies on the Moon, Mars, perhaps some of Jupiter or Saturn's moons, etc. We could also have some colonies that aren't on a rock but just float in space. There's plenty of room for these. Assuming we had the tech to do all this, how many humans could we house in all of them? I'm guessing, with this tech, we could comfortably house billions more humans across the solar system. With all of this room, the drive to find another home planet/solar system would be reduced.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    102. Re:Fermi Paradox by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      FTL doesn't mean instantaneous. It may be that you can travel faster than light, but the trip from one end of the galaxy to another would still be prohibitive. Remember that the Milky Way is about 120,000 light years wide. Even if you could travel at 1,000 times the speed of light (and ignoring any funky relativistic effects of FTL travel), it would take you 120 years to traverse the galaxy. If a hypothetical alien civilization were in another galaxy, their FTL drives might take them thousands of years to reach us. (If they even knew we were here.)

      Then again, there's Option D, they're there, have FTL, and know about us, but don't want to interact with those backwater hicks on Earth who don't even know how to get one of their humans past their own moon yet.

      Or Option E, there's there, have FTL, know about us, but don't want to come close to us because they're a bunch of xenophobes and don't want to "pollute" their civilization with any "alien" (that's us) ideas.

      Just because we haven't seen aliens doesn't mean they're not there. Nor does it mean that FTL is impossible. It just means we don't have proof that aliens ever visited us which could be for a variety of reasons that don't involve aliens not existing or FTL being impossible.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    103. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just that, but probably determine how to collect it as usable energy. Many articles like this don't bother thinking any deeper than one.

      What is the USS Prius?

    104. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have figured it out yes. But don't ask me how the boffins did it... ...I just bough my ship from a used ship dealer that said it still had mega parsecs to go. And when I go on a road trip to the outer spiral, of course it brakes down next to this shit hole planet that doesn't have even a phone to call for a tow! Now, I'm stuck here and just have to wait it out with the vegetables that live here. The vegetables that still think a networked computer is a pretty nifty idea.

    105. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Aggresive' athiesm that declares there is no God is technically a faith kind of like how religion is also faith

      I disagree, and I think I can use an analogy to illustrate why I disagree. Imagine a bag containing 100 balls of different colours. Anna, a theist, says that she believes that the bag contains at least one red ball. Billy, an atheist, says he believes the bag doesn't contain any red balls. No one knows for certain the colour of the balls in the bag. Now imagine Carol, a scientist, starts randomly pulling balls from the bag. Initially there is an equal chance that both Anna or Billy are correct about the existance or absence of red balls in the bag. But as more balls are selected without encountering a red ball the probability that the bag doesn't contain any red balls increases towards 1.

      Without deriving the math it seems apparent that the probably of a bag containing no red balls starts at 0.5 and increases asymtotically with probability 1 as balls are removed from the bag. Eventually no balls are left, and, if no red ball was drawn, the bag has probability of 1 that it did not contain any red balls. Only if at least one red ball is drawn does the probability that Ann is correct jump to 1. This is different to the probability of pulling a red ball from the bag at any one time, since here we have the benefit of knowledge about prior draws.

      Now compare with the existance of god debate. Drawing balls from the bag is similar to scientific research used to understand the laws of nature and the universe. Thus far we haven't come up with a law that points to the existance of a god. (i.e. no red ball has been drawn yet). The more we understand about the universe we live in, without finding an underlying sentient controlling force, the less likely there is one. As with the earlier analogy we benefit from knowledge of prior scietific research, making it less and less likley that there is any kind of god or controlling force guiding our lives.

      Now understand, I don't care if you believe in a controlling force or not. Ones personal belief is personal, and I don't want to tell someone that they can't believe in a god if it helps them live a fulfuilled life. But it isn't reasonable to say that atheism is a faith similar to theism. By saying something like that you are ignoring the null evidence that has accumulated over centuries as part of scientific work. An atheist does not say 'There is no god, but I don't have evidence to back up my claim'. An atheist says 'There is no god, and my statement is supported by the lack of reproducible evidence for the existance of any controlling sentient force amassed over thousands of years of scientic work'. Null evidence is evidence if it is statistically sgnificant.

    106. Re:Fermi Paradox by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      As to why I reference only TNG, I don't think TOS actually tried to put scientific explanations on any of this stuff.

      No, they didn't, but it did foresee a lot of technology that may not have happened without it. For example, Disney saw the self-opening doors and went to Paramount to find out how it was done, they wanted self-opening doors at Epcot. However, the doors still hadn't been invented, it was just stage hands opening and closing the doors.

      Most of the tech on TOS was far-out fiction that nobody would ever see in their lifetimes, like flat screen monitors, cell phones, McCoy's sick bay, etc.

    107. Re:Fermi Paradox by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      He said a hundred or TWO. If you showed up 200 years ago in a new RV with DVDs, stereo, and all the modern conviniences those things have (like electric lighting and a microwave oven), you'd have either been worshiped or burned at the stake.

      Thor was the nerd who invented the hammer. Likewise all the other ancient pagan gods; they were merely really smart men.

    108. Re:Fermi Paradox by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Maybe there's no economic incentive for them to come here.

      I would posit that economics is a primitive thing, that some day we may get past greed, selfishness, and lust for power over others. Because that's all there is to economies. We have enough food and resources to feed, clothe, and house everyone, only economics gets in the way of this planet being a paradise where nobody goes hungry and work is something you do because you enjoy working.

    109. Re:Fermi Paradox by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I think 1% is widly optimistic. Few stars have planets the right mass, inclination, and distance from those stars for life to ever begin.

      Of all the life that's evolved here so far, only one species has ever been capable of going even as far as the moon.

      I think if there's intelligent life out there, it's as rare or even rarer than here on earth. And don't forget, people were as smart five thousand years ago as they are now, they just didn't know as much. Nobody had calculus then, but if you took a baby from 5000 years ago and raised it here and now, likely nobody would ever notice that (s)he was from the past.

      "If I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

    110. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called Cherenkov radiation. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

    111. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without deriving the math it seems apparent that the probably of a bag containing no red balls starts at 0.5 and increases asymtotically with probability 1 as balls are removed from the bag.

      Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out, but you're entirely and completely wrong. You obviously don't know the math required to derive it.

      The initial probability is not 0.5, it is simply unknown. And it will remain unknown until the last ball has been removed from the bag. Unless there is a known probability of a ball being red, there is no knowable probability of whether there are red balls in the bag.

    112. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have to believe in a God who should have left evidence of His active involvement all over the place and yet has mysteriously failed to do so.

      What evidence do you want?

    113. Re:Fermi Paradox by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      A hundred is a subset of "a hundred or two".

      And in any case, it's wrong. What you describe wasn't the default occurence when Europeans of the Victorian era (19th C) encountered people whose levels of technology were by our standards medieval (11-15th C). That's four hundred years.

      The only exception I can think of is Cortés, and that was down to coincidence (if it was actually true at all).

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    114. Re:Fermi Paradox by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why choose to send a few folks to be gods to a bunch of ants when there are much better things to spend your resources on locally?

      I guess even with infinite resources you'll have troublemakers & misfits.

      Earth might be the galactic equivalent of Australia. It explains quite a lot, actually.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  38. How far? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2
    From tfa:

    In the case of forward-facing particles the outburst can be very energetic — enough to destroy anyone at the destination directly in front of the ship. “Any people at the destination,” the team’s paper concludes, “would be gamma ray and high energy particle blasted into oblivion due to the extreme blueshifts for [forward] region particles.”

    I do not see anywhere where it is mentioned how far in front of the ship the blasted into oblivion effects will occur. How close is directly in front of the ship?

    1. Re:How far? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      So, all you have to do is turn the ship 180 degrees before dropping out of warp? Sounds simple enough.

    2. Re:How far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stars that do this along their axis can potentially hit us with the gamma pulse from dozens or even hundreds of light years away with a enough umph to destroy all life on the planet. The actual article referenced has a few quotes that there is no theoretical upper limit to the pulse's intensity. It relies only on distance traveled and I imagine radiation density through said distance. So basically the ship becomes a pulsar and the pulse of radiation is so concentrated that it likely goes on in a fairly coherent stream for a hundred light years or more literally destroying and/or killing anything in its path.

    3. Re:How far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is almost brilliantly stupid, but no. That's not how the conservation of momentum works.

    4. Re:How far? by jovius · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you aim for the orbit of the planet than directly at the planet anyway?

    5. Re:How far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forever in front of the ship. That's why its called a gamma 'Ray'. An object in motion will stay in motion and all.

  39. GRB mystery explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Gamma ray bursts and other transient particle jets are intergalactic smog from commuters dropping out of warp?

  40. Warp Speed Warps Space by na1led · · Score: 1

    It causes abnormally intense tetryon fields. This requires that all ships must travel under warp 5. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Force_of_Nature_(episode)

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  41. Gamma ray bursts by Vireo · · Score: 1

    so they're really only Alcubierre drive-equipped ships slowing down in our direction.

  42. Conservation of energy by rrohbeck · · Score: 4, Informative

    I hate to be the party pooper, but:
    All the energy for those high energy particles has to come from somewhere, which means that it'll take ridiculous amounts of energy to create an Alcubierre drive, it it's possible at all.

    1. Re:Conservation of energy by Gotung · · Score: 2

      Not just ridiculous amounts of energy, but ridiculous amounts of negative energy. Which as far as I know only exists in theory.

    2. Re:Conservation of energy by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Maybe the negative and positive energy required would cancel each other out ;)

    3. Re:Conservation of energy by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thats why we have politics, to generate ridiculous amounts of negative energy.

    4. Re:Conservation of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just gotta build some superconducting coils that interweave and are powered such that the interacting fields produced are in repulsion. This will create a null-field. (Looks like a lot of energy going in, but resulting in no net magnetic field, and a certain volume within which is completely absent of anything.) Then the rest of the trick is to produce a bias in the quantum foam interactions which occur within the null-field. After that, the fun part should be easy.

      The reason why nobody comes close to making a warp-drive is that some aspects of the process really seem counter-intuitive at first. Physicists are so used to putting energy in to see what happens that they never think to see what happens when you pull all the energy out and then some.

    5. Re:Conservation of energy by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia article says just how large an amount of negative energy is needed, for a reasonable sized spaceship it is in universe masses.

      Such a drive would also violate causality - since you can arrive before your light cone. (if you accelerate to a new frame and do it again, you wind up in your own past). This has nothing to do with how you travel FTL, only that you arrive faster than light.

      Calculations like this are a very interesting way to study general relativity and the structure of space-time, but they really don't represent realizable technologies.

    6. Re:Conservation of energy by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Finally, a use for teenage girls...

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  43. Damn, it's always something! by cvtan · · Score: 1

    And here I thought we were going to get a warp drive without having to solve any difficult problems!

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Damn, it's always something! by kqs · · Score: 1

      I've always thought that the causality problems (time travel) which FTL makes possible will be a far bigger issue than the ability to kill some people. I mean, we can already make nuclear weapons; this is not likely to be any worse than that.

    2. Re:Damn, it's always something! by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Saying "nuclear" very vague.
      Do you mean a 30 kiloton nuclear bomb, or do you mean a 300 megaton thermonuclear missile?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  44. Star Trek The Motion Picture by tekrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Except that in the 23rd Century way back then, Pluto was a PLANET!!!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Star Trek The Motion Picture by mdmkolbe · · Score: 2

      Except that in the 23rd Century way back then, Pluto was a PLANET!!!

      It cost the tax payers a pretty penny to make it big enough to be a planet, but it was worth it.

    2. Re:Star Trek The Motion Picture by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you. I got a good laugh.

    3. Re:Star Trek The Motion Picture by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      What do you think caused WWIII in Star Trek?

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  45. Pheww..... I prefer our good old.... by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

    ... and very slow rockets. There are only behind the ship deadly. ;-)

    1. Re:Pheww..... I prefer our good old.... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      unless they explode...

  46. Wait a second! by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    The warp drive was never supposed to work by gravitational space distortion, as I recollect new research into Quantum Mechanics revealed that there were more dimensions than the three that we have (plus time) but a myriad of different dimensions that formed the structure of space. It was hoped that an investigation into these other dimensions would allow for a lower energy distortion of space to occur, or for a shortcut to be found (warp conduit tunnelling or “hyper-space”.) This is the “Tech” that was “borrowed” by sci-fi researchers and not the Alcubierre thought expreiment which relies on a tech that turns you into a singularity / black hole in about 2 seconds flat! :0)

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  47. Alcubierre warp-drives already proven impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/
    http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/etc/cqg15_2523.pdf

  48. Given how they work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... couldn't you unwarp and rewarp really quickly and focus all that radiation and energy IN to your ship?
    You could fuel your ship with all those particles you pass through on your journey, you wouldn't even need to dip in to a sun to refuel and slowly destroy your ship over time. (damn Ancients, what were you thinking?)

    The radiation and particles would fall out of the gravity wells, possibly go fusion, by then you'd have already rewarped and some of the energy would have fallen back in to the warp bubble, the rest would be recaptured as more radiation, which on the next rewarp would release and fuse even more particles you have collected, until you have stopped.

    How to stop the explosive energy on arrival, however, is a hard thing.
    I guess one thing you could try is dissipate the energy by making successively larger rotating warp bubbles, in turn cancelling out a lot of the momentum of the explosion, but equally adding a lot of stress to your ship in doing so.
    All theory, but it is an interesting thing to think about if we ever crack gravity and / or Higgs.

  49. Helicopters by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can injure boarding/deboarding passengers with the intense amount of static electricity that builds up on the rotors. Getting fried by discharge of built-up charged particles is not a new downside to travel methods.

    1. Re:Helicopters by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Don't fly a helicopter at warp speed, then.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  50. Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Automobiles may come with a Killer Downside.

    Summary:
    You can get hit by a car.

    1. Re:Car Analogy by treeves · · Score: 2

      More like, every time you park your car, everyone within a half mile of the car gets hits by tires flying off the car at 50 mph.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    2. Re:Car Analogy by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That's on the basis that the car just explodes with energy.
      In this case, the energy just continues forward as the transportation mechanism slows.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily most Pintos are off the road by now.

    4. Re:Car Analogy by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there are still many Ford Explorers still on the road.

  51. Waiting friends by tomhath · · Score: 1

    This is bad news for family and friends waiting for the ship to arrive, as this intense burst will fry them

    Not only that, but since you're traveling faster than light they wouldn't see you coming in time to duck.

  52. Jet aircraft... by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jet engines (theoretically) allow large metal objects formed into a lifting body to fly though the air at great velocities. This causes them to accumulate great momentum. This is bad news for family and friends waiting on the runway for the aircraft to arrive, as this momentum will cause the aircraft to run into them and kill them.

  53. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Can't they wrap the dock in tinfoil or something?

    --
    No sig today...
  54. Duh Photon Torpedo Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds the technology needed to reproduce the photon torpedo. This would certainly make a Hellacous weapon.

  55. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what you're saying is that this situation calls for WD-40 rather than duct tape? I suppose you must be correct, excellent work good sir!

  56. Han Fried First by tekrat · · Score: 1

    The falcon, being the first spaceship in the SW universe to be seen going into (and out of) FTL, makes Han Solo the first fryer. Stuff it George Lucas!

    But seriously, wouldn't solar winds and a habitable planet's magnetic field tend to deflect the vast majority of this crap? I mean, without either of these, we'd be getting fried by our own sun.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Han Fried First by Briareos · · Score: 1

      The falcon, being the first spaceship in the SW universe to be seen going into (and out of) FTL, makes Han Solo the first fryer.

      ITYM "Frequent Fryer"...

      np: Deichkind - 99 Bierkanister (Befehl Von Ganz Unten)

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

  57. Dump it all on Mars by Tekfactory · · Score: 2

    Actually using Mars as a dumping ground to add more Mass and Heat, that was in Red Mars right?

    1. Re:Dump it all on Mars by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually using Mars as a dumping ground to add more Mass and Heat, that was in Red Mars right?

      Not really, but close. They used a lack of emissions controls to thicken the atmosphere. Then the nasties were fixed out with lichens or something. Then they cruised comets through the atmosphere to break them up and thicken it further.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  58. What? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Have they never watched an episode of star trek before... you drop in or out of warp drive at a safe distance from any other planet/lifeforms
    so you would never hi warp drive until you actually where outside orbit...a safer distance then this guy thinks it would be...

  59. Darn it all! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    How dare someone interject reality in to my SciFi visions of the future!

    On the more serious side, I'm sure that by the time we could develop something that could warp space, we will also have developed some sort of frictionless space flight. If we flew in space without friction, we would not be collecting all of those loose particulars.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  60. Idiot by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

    If you warp a drive to destroy data, isn't it just easier to wipe it with thermite?

    If you'd properly encrypted the drive to begin with, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now shut up and pass the ammunition.

    --
    Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  61. Asimov by Kohenkatz · · Score: 2

    So basically, Asimov was right when he predicted that any interstellar travel would require death. See I, Robot chapter "Escape!" (or short story "Paradoxical Escape") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape! He was just wrong about whose death it would be.

  62. Easy solution by nilbog · · Score: 1

    Well as long as we're talking about stuff that doesn't exist, it's an easy solution: just add a dampening field generator.

    --
    or else!
    1. Re:Easy solution by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      What good would it to do generate slightly wet fields?

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    2. Re:Easy solution by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      So bassically DC vs. AC.

      I call it the Tesla Drive!

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    3. Re:Easy solution by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And who wants to see a wet Sally Fields?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Easy solution by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Why can't you overshoot so anything sensitive is directly behind you?

      It still might take a few months to fly in from out there, but it beats the alternatives of killing everything or not traveling faster than c.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  63. Safe Zone by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

    Easy to fix. It's just like in Mass Effect 2: there would be a "safe zone" for where ships traveling at FTL speeds to come out of FTL safely. The zones would just have to be large enough to accommodate the largest of ships. The station where you would disembark and your family would be would be outside this zone.

    Also, if you are a Star Trek person, you will remember the episode of TNG where the ship had to be evacuated at an orbital platform so that it could be "cleaned" as it built up particles along the hull from many light years of travel. So even fictional space ships still had these types of problems!

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    1. Re:Safe Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they gave it a 'Barium enema' if I'm not mistaken.

  64. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by pz · · Score: 1

    If this is our biggest barrier to developing one tomorrow, then why don't we have these already? I mean besides NASA budget cuts...

    Well, there is that whole problem with creating a bubble of negative energy, something we've not quite figured out how to do (or even what it means).

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  65. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I thought the deflector array was for the protection of the crew, not for the inhabitants of the destination.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  66. If life gives your scorching radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    make toasted marshmallows.

    1. Re:If life gives your scorching radiation by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      If life gives you scorching radiation, don't toast marshmallows, make life take the radiation back! Get MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR DAMN RADIATION!! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS!?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life rue the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON RADIATION! Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's going to BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN. With RADIATION.

    2. Re:If life gives your scorching radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just not funny without lemons.

  67. life imitates art by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    In many fictional universes, you must drop out of warp drive while you're significantly far from your goal for various reasons (Niven's universe, because ships in hyperspace disappear too close to a gravity well, Star Wars and many Asimov stories, affects navigation or some such hand-waving, Drive comic, causes collateral damage, etc.). This is often for dramatic purpose, else there's no fighting your way in or out of locations, but it's become ingrained in our collective conscious to a certain degree. (Funny how a significant number of people believe something, and it turns out to be true. Maybe Pratchett was right...)

    Trek has been somewhat wishy-washy about this, in some cases using impulse to get to a respectful distance, in other cases warping from wherever they happen to be, at the whim of the writers apparently.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  68. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoosh?

  69. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by user+flynn · · Score: 1

    Because nobody has figured out exactly how one would warp space, only that it's theoretically possible.

    I generally put a rock where I want to warp space. It's like a paperweight, except it holds downs space. -- not that a physicist would ever perceive it this way.

    --
    In the distance you hear an ominous moo.
  70. My starship... by skrimp · · Score: 1

    My starship, the U.S.S. Wedgie, releases a burst both before and after it travels faster than light speed on Start Trek Online. It doesn't seem to bother anyone. Just sayin.

  71. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by v1 · · Score: 2

    Because nobody has figured out exactly how one would warp space, only that it's theoretically possible.

    More specifically, they've figured out all the neat things they can do with warped space, but just not how to accomplish it in the first place. Gravity, energy, magnetism, and mass all can warp space, but not in useful ways yet. I'd bet magnetism is going to be the way we do it, if ever.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  72. Shields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why you need navigation shields.

  73. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't they wrap the dock in tinfoil or something?

    That would be for First Class arrivals only. Non-refundable fares friends and family, will only get tin beanies, and little tin cups to hold in front of their genitals.

  74. VASIMR prototype by fluffythedestroyer · · Score: 1

    For now, since the warp drive has a serious side effect ( 0.0 ). I rather put my money on the VASIMR prototype for now until "further research is done". Nasa has over 100 guys working on this project with AAR right now. So this one is very promising

  75. Rebel propaganda exposed! by telso · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember when the Millennium Falcon jumped out of hyperspace and Alderaan was gone? What we now know is that the dust on the leading edge of the ship is what actually destroyed the planet, arriving just before the ship, leaving it in the middle of an "asteroid field". However, this would have been mighty embarrassing for the Rebellion, so they made up this myth of destruction by the "Death Star" (which wasn't even operational yet!) as the killer. Who do we have to prove otherwise, Leia? She's from the planet that got destroyed and head of the Rebellion; of course she'd lie to protect it (remember, she'd never consciously give it up)! Let's stop the propaganda in its tracks!

    Oh, and when Kenobi felt that disturbance in the force: it was a premonition of what they were about to do, but Mr. "I've seen a lot of crazy things" didn't believe in some "force"

    1. Re:Rebel propaganda exposed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh to have mod points today...

    2. Re:Rebel propaganda exposed! by AlCapwner · · Score: 1

      Remember when the Millennium Falcon jumped out of hyperspace and Alderaan was gone? What we now know is that the dust on the leading edge of the ship is what actually destroyed the planet, arriving just before the ship, leaving it in the middle of an "asteroid field". However, this would have been mighty embarrassing for the Rebellion, so they made up this myth of destruction by the "Death Star" (which wasn't even operational yet!) as the killer. Who do we have to prove otherwise, Leia? She's from the planet that got destroyed and head of the Rebellion; of course she'd lie to protect it (remember, she'd never consciously give it up)! Let's stop the propaganda in its tracks!

      Oh, and when Kenobi felt that disturbance in the force: it was a premonition of what they were about to do, but Mr. "I've seen a lot of crazy things" didn't believe in some "force"

      Reasons you fail: 1: Mon Mothma was the leader of the Rebellion, not Princess Leia. Not by a longshot. 2: Which explains why it had no huge holes in it when it nearly destroyed Yavin 4, but the Death Star 2 was missing 1/4 of it but was still operational, right? 3: Nobody on the Millennium Falcon was yet a member of the Rebellion; they would have no reason to spread this information. 4: Do you think that was the first time that somebody jumped to SlipSpace? That they weren't doing it before The Phantom Menace? 5: The Rebellion doesn't have the manpower required to spread propaganda that couldn't be blocked by the Empire. You're still pretty funny, though.

    3. Re:Rebel propaganda exposed! by telso · · Score: 1

      Okay, I was rushing to work when I mischaracterized Leia as the leader; she was a leader, and a top diplomatic contact in the Senate. If Pelosi screws up Obama won't take all the blame, but you can be sure the Dems will. So that's point 1.

      But the topic of rushing is apropos. When Han jumped to light speed it wasn't any normal jump: it was rushed. They were under attack and had to high-tail it. Maybe a small mistake was made in haste, and their calculations were off by an AU or two (or 12 parsecs). Shit happens (especially to someone so nervous around the first sight of an imperial cruiser that he'd drop his smuggling shipments) (point 4). I'm not saying they intentionally destroyed Alderaan (though that "accident" would certainly help their cause if framed the right way); I'm saying they took advantage of the situation that presented themselves. That doesn't mean they broadcast it across the galaxy, or that they even could (if they had been able to spread the propaganda, the Empire would have been defeated much earlier) (point 5); it just means that when Leia met up with them they formed this plan (What do you think all that money for Han was for? Duh, to keep his silence! (Though obviously, for the sake of his reputation, he was happy to go along with the ruse.) So it's not that anyone on the Falcon was part of the Rebellion when Alderaan was destroyed; that happened later, thanks to some backroom deals. (Did you know all the history and files from that time period are either "sealed" or were "destroyed" after the attack on Hoth? Pretty convenient, don't you say?) So there's point 3.)

      Then, lo and behold, this "top secret" "Death Star" mysteriously "disappeared" (i.e. the Rebellion said it destroyed it; as if their story of one small fighter destroying a battle station was at all believable (the account reads like something out of Hollywood!)), meaning there was no one to deny the Rebellion's story. It's the perfect PR stunt: "Of course the Empire is denying it; they don't want people knowing their ultimate weapon was destroyed by a couple of proton torpedoes!" The outer planets would eat that shit up!

      So, you see, this "First Death Star" didn't even exist; the Rebellion knew of the real first Death Star around Endor, but decided to invent another one to cover the blunder and drum up support for their cause. So point 2 is moot.

      Look, I know it's all the rage today to be a Rebel apologist; who doesn't like siding with the eventual winner? But doesn't that story just seem a little convenient? Sure, there are evil elements in any group, but a conspiracy to rule the galaxy that's that widespread sounds too much like fiction. If you review the facts and search your feelings, you know it to be true.

  76. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually, my ex wife can create an enormous bubble of negative energy with only a moment's notice...

  77. Bussard solution by J05H · · Score: 1

    This could be an application for a Bussard Ramjet - collect the forward wave's particles for power or thrust. TFA said the problem is mostly blue-shifted components in the front wave, just remove the problem.

    Also if Alcqubiere Drives are possible, they will make terrifying weapons. It's a neutron bomb for an entire solar system. *shudders*

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  78. You mean wiping them out isn't a feature? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Well, I want my money back.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  79. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Just find a reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly heavy rock. Then they'd agree with you.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  80. everyone knows this by cstacy · · Score: 1

    Just about every warp ship I've seen re-entering normal space, does so with a light show. Sometimes it looks like they've even ripped a hole in local space.

    1. Re:everyone knows this by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      Those darn science fiction writers/producers and their getting things right!

    2. Re:everyone knows this by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is sci-fi is a documentary of things we don't know yet?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  81. The new Star Trek sucked by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    If you want to understand the true suckage that is the Star Trek movie, here is a good review that explains it.
    http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

  82. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Keith111 · · Score: 1

    That just means the airport is going to have to taxi spaceships even longer since we have to wait for them to take off, land, and fly far enough away from the space line to begin take off. I hope we have more comfortable seating and entertainment

  83. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    I'd argue the Earth's warping of space so I tend to stay near it is really, really useful. That and the sun's kindly keeping us in its vicinity.

  84. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    I believe one could argue that the people at your destination would have a deflector as well.

  85. We knew this... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2

    Why do you think all warp capable vessels in Star Fleet have deflector arrays? Gosh, kids today not paying attention in interstellar physics...

  86. New sign to look for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The signature should be predictable so any species using warp technology should be easy to spot. The problem is since it's a single burst more than one radio telescope would have to detect it or it couldn't be proven scientifically.

  87. No problem. by edibobb · · Score: 1

    No problem. Family and friends will be really old by then.

  88. They had it right in TNG. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    Think this was already known.

    In ST:TNG, this is the flash when ships go into and drop out of warp.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:They had it right in TNG. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      The reason for the flash was for different reasons. The concept was that light travels slower so it suddenly is visible.

      Sci-fi after all is by no means inventive, just speculative.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  89. so much for travel of any kind. by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

    In other news, standing in front of an arriving airplane leads to being chopped up by the prop. Clearly we can't invent powered flight.

  90. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try reading the article, you will find your answer. I know, surprising huh?

  91. Lethal Space Donuts by gelfling · · Score: 1

    you damn kids get off my solar system.

  92. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Requires negative energy, which is only a theoretical construct at the moment.

    2. Cannot be controlled from the inside.

    3. There are also radiation issues inside one.

    1 and 2 are show-stoppers, 3 is kind of serious too.

  93. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by Dotren · · Score: 1

    I thought the deflector array was for the protection of the crew, not for the inhabitants of the destination.

    In this case it might protect both. If all of the radiation and particles get deflected out of the path of the startship at warp then there wouldn't be anything to build up within the bubble (which protects the crew) and therefore also nothing to get expelled outwards when the ship leaves warp (which protects any nearby inhabitants).

  94. The Sun by LoLobey · · Score: 1

    All trajectories would just have to terminate pointing in a direction calculated not to cause harm, say directly at the local star with no important intervening objects.

    --
    We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
  95. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Paracelcus · · Score: 0

    Theories like assholes, are everywhere and you can safely assume that they stink, unless you personally smell them and document the experiment with appropriate peer review.

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  96. Stupid Scientist = Horsemanure Expulsion. by LeAzzholeChef · · Score: 1

    Im no physicist and I'm sorry for voicing a direct opinion, however this sounds like a crock of horseshit. Captain kirk, give us more warp speed for the diarrhea repulsion, This really can be a result from force feeding poor dumb animals Metamucil and ex lax flurries. If this were true "Warp speed accumulates atomic explosive energy particles", than the light from the sun colliding with the earth, we would all be toast. H O R S E S H I T !!!!! None the less, stupid people shouldn't talk about physics, instead they should be figuring out the OTHER side of the equation.

  97. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by owlstead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Proposing to use your ex as fuel is taking it a bit far...

  98. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    A thick coating of molasses will make the particles stick to the ship!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  99. Re:Alcubierre warp-drives already proven impossibl by cvtan · · Score: 1

    Certainly impossible to spell.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  100. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Kind of like the Gun on Ice Planet Zero then?

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  101. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by nine-times · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure it was to deflect high-energy particles from colliding with the ship. As in, space isn't empty, and you're traveling at immense speeds, so you're bound to collide with something that will kill you unless you deflect everything.

  102. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Damn right...

    We should use exes as ammunition, instead.

  103. Horse before cart? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Maybe if they figured out if warp drives can exist first...

    1. Re:Horse before cart? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      The concept needs to be researched before an engine can be created to utilize it.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  104. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously. at warp-speed, navigation through a solar system is VERY dangerous. this radiation isn't the biggest hurdle to warp-drive space-craft. having accurate space-maps and sensors so that you don't warp into an 'asteroid' or 'comet' the size of a gumball and explode is the biggest obstacle.

  105. Repeal Theory of Relativity! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Who is this German foreign alien to impose an absolute speed limit? Our founding fathers did not create this country to obey some weird laws dreamt up by European commie librul snobbish scientists. I demand immediate congressional action to repeal the theory and the limits immediately. It will create gazillion new jobs.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  106. Bussard Collectors and the Deflector Dish by inerlogic · · Score: 1

    DUH.... WTF you think they're for? looks?

  107. Easy solution by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    The article also mentions that it may dump radiation out from all sides but the worst would be the front.

    Then just pull in backwards, like I do when pulling into my garage! Problem solved.

  108. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by v1 · · Score: 2

    yep, I'd agree, gravity certainly is an attractive Earth feature

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  109. I Pin PRick it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its a bubble right

  110. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is why you drop to impulse in a solar system"

    Except that on impulse you are limited to sub light speed, which means it would take several months to travel from the outer solar system to the inner planets.

  111. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by willaien · · Score: 1

    Something about requiring absurd amounts of exotic matter (for example, things that somehow have negative mass) - to the tune of orders of magnitudes more than there is matter in the universe.

  112. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, then some pedant would come along and berate you for calling the rock "heavy" instead of "massive".

  113. First have shit, then u can worry about the shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peope. First we must have the shit, then you can worry about the shit that make it shit. lol

  114. Re:*Ahem* by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Not according to Wikipedia.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  115. Makes sense... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    It's the old question of what happens to a photon traveling at 99% the speed of light
    when it achieves a gravity boost from a black hole?

    It maintains it's speed but releases a particle or radiation. Conservation of energy.

    So no matter how you obtain a FTL craft you've got energy that needs to be released.

    (didn't read the PDF, can't do the math so why bother)

    1. Re:Makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the old question of what happens to a photon traveling at 99% the speed of light when it achieves a gravity boost from a black hole?

      No, the real question is what happens to a photon traveling at 99% the speed of light while it passes through water that is 99% wet.

    2. Re:Makes sense... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      No, the real question is what happens to a photon traveling at 99% the speed of light while it passes through water that is 99% wet.

      Very pretty sight with the lights out - being a restricted area and no photos allowed, you take what you can get.
      http://i56.tinypic.com/28lqu4i.jpg

    3. Re:Makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the parts where a photon always travels at exactly 100% of the speed of light, and water is always 100% wet.

      The point was that when you mean the speed of light in a vacuum, you should say that. Or just call it c; everyone knows what that means. But yes, I was deliberately trolling for someone to come along and post about Cherenkov radiation. Thanks for obliging.

    4. Re:Makes sense... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Trust me, with all the crap in that water it's closer to 90% wet.

    5. Re:Makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might only be 90% water, but it's still 100% wet. "Wet" is relative, subjective, and boolean. Something is wet or isn't wet, and whether you call it wet or not depends on what it is and how much water there is. And "90% wet" only makes sense if you mean that 90% of a surface is wet (and the remaining 10% is dry).

  116. Easy solution by CnlPepper · · Score: 1

    Well the solution is rather obvious, just keep turning it on and off again. You don't need to travel in one jump. No build up, no problem.

  117. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by crakbone · · Score: 1

    Technically (as technical as one can get on fictional technology) the array produced an energy shield around the ship and could be expanded to encapsulate objects nearby even small craft. It kept micro meteroites and asteroids away from the ship during normal navigation. It could also deflect primitive weapons. I believe (but cannot verify) the idea was expanded to cover areas of the ship that lost life support and were open to space (to hold air in) as well as reinforce hull integrity in extreme situations.

  118. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Yes, exactly like that! Nothing says "I'm here" like rampant destruction.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  119. Re:*Ahem* by truedfx · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia is not and is not supposed to be a credible source by itself. It does, however, link to a credible source, which would have been better to use in your message.

  120. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by na1led · · Score: 1

    We'll get Zefram Cochrane to figure this one out.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  121. Picard Maneuver by jmenezes · · Score: 1

    So, in effect, the Picard Maneuver has been scientifically confirmed?

    --
    Stop over-analyzing your analizations
  122. Then Point SETI at them by medv4380 · · Score: 1

    If that's the signal they dropped out of warp then point our radio observatories at it to see if they broadcast anything else. If they used any form of EM communication we might be able to pick it up if we know where to point the equipment.

  123. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    Screw that... I prefer the idea of targets.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  124. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    For certain untestable versions of theory.

  125. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Party at your house this weekend?

  126. a ship could always drop out of warp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if i now that my ship is going to shout out deadly particles and radiation. I would just slow down before you get to a place where you can kill people and use sub or near light drives to get me the rest of the way (no biggy) lets build a warp drive.

  127. warp field stabilized by crutchy · · Score: 1

    just ask blizzard how the protoss do it

  128. ways to fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    use a metamateriel to hide from the radiation and a magnetic field to hide from the high energy particles

  129. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Either that, or move it far enough away that you can use an electromagnetic field to bend the radiation away.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  130. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deflector array would stop the build up of particles and radiation.

  131. light/sonic boom by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    I've long thought of if a near-light speed vehicle would generate a 'light boom' like a sonic boom produced by aircraft.

  132. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by ArmchairGeneral · · Score: 1

    Science requires sacrifice...

  133. Srs Business question by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    So I know that if go on a round trip to Alpha Centauri near the speed of light while my twin brother stays on Earth and nails my wife, when we meet again I'll be at least 10 years younger than him and would probably have ditched her anyway. But what happens if I go on a FTL ship? Will I'll be MUCH MORE younger than him? Be the same age? Be younger than him and probably greet my self on the way out?

    How about if I spend a year at the 'Tauri on a (artificial?) planet (that's no moon/whatever) of the same gravitational force than Earth at an orbit equivalent with the gravitational pull of our Sun?

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
    1. Re:Srs Business question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I know that if go on a round trip to Alpha Centauri near the speed of light while my twin brother stays on Earth and nails my wife, when we meet again I'll be at least 10 years younger than him and would probably have ditched her anyway. But what happens if I go on a FTL ship? Will I'll be MUCH MORE younger than him? Be the same age? Be younger than him and probably greet my self on the way out?

      With an FTL ship your age would be the same or closer to his and neither of you would be 10 years older unless you spent a few years on Alpha Centauri "mingling" with female slime monsters.

  134. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a no-wake zone.

  135. Maybe travel by short skips? by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

    Coupled with some sort of scoop/intake device to harness those particles and use their energy at every stop?

    On a completely crazed spinoff, this effect might prompt the development of extremely destructive FTL weapons. Imagine a weapon that will fry a planet as big as the distance it traveled? Stuff of nightmares.

    --
    Send your spendthrift head of state this
  136. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    No no, my friend. You're not thinking this through.

    Please, allow me a small thought experiment to illustrate my point.

    Assuming you miss the target and hit the stopwall behind it, what happens to the target?

    Assuming you miss the target and hit the stopwall behind it, what happens to the bullet?

  137. Han did NOT fire first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He fired ONLY. Greedo NEVER fired off a shot. Go watch the original actual movie.

  138. More bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's fucking fictional, you worthless fuckbags.

  139. Optic boom by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    This outcome always seemed like common sense to me, but then I've never studied wave theory so I could be completely off.

    If you're traveling faster than a wave propagates, you compress it until something goes boom. That happens in stages, and the one people are most familiar with is the sonic boom. I'd imagine an optical boom would be seriously devastating.

    1. Re:Optic boom by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you're travelling faster than a wave propagates, you compress it until something goes boom. That happens in stages, and the one people are most familiar with is the sonic boom. I'd imagine an optical boom would be seriously devastating.

      The term that you're looking for is "Cherenkov Radiation".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  140. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    This drive gives the old saying "you never really can go home" a whole new meaning.

  141. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, my ex wife can create an enormous bubble of negative energy with only a moment's notice..

    Proposing to use your ex as fuel is taking it a bit far...

    You've never been divorced, have you?

  142. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    maybe something to do with not being able to access and control enough energy to bend space on itself and pierce through it (as far as i think i understand how it would work)

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  143. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a theory that its impossible

  144. irrelevant by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    Solving the problem of actually getting to warp would be far harder than dealing with this.

  145. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, everyone knows that!

  146. Cattle Catcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one picturing a space time cattle catcher in the front?

  147. Shaw-Fujikawa Slipstream Space FTL Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume none of you have read the Halo novels? In it, two researchers (Shaw and Fujikawa) develop a Faster Than Light drive that cuts its way out of normal space, and into slipspace, an alternate dimension in which matter moves much faster. While in Slip (stream) space (as long as the ship that enters it is functioning and interacting with the SlipSpace Matter), the ship will move many times faster than normal space, oftentimes allowing the ship to arrive at its destination BEFORE it actually departs, due to the warping of space and time. Because they are not technically moving through normal space, these problems that you all mention do not apply. All that exiting from SlipSpace does is release a small amount of radiation (and since United Nations Space Command ships generally enter normal space many hundreds of thousands of miles, if not millions of miles, from their true destination, this is a non-issue). I think that tearing out of THIS FUCKING DIMENSION would be about as easy as WARPING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, if not easier.

  148. Sounds like a Queller Drive by Snaller · · Score: 1

    From "Space 1999"

    (1975)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  149. Awesome! by neiras · · Score: 1

    So to wipe out the aliens and take posession of their infrastructure, all we have to do is... arrive nearby?

  150. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by j235 · · Score: 1

    This is what baryon sweeps are for.
    Don't forget your saddle.

  151. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I need to go anywhere I just take the TARDIS!

  152. So, If I'm reading the summary right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A warp drive that we can't afford isn't feasible because it'll nuke the planets we can't get to?

  153. were the great gatsby of the universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'psch, new life... so gaudy'

  154. another thing "predicted" in numerous sci-fi shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always remember to raise shields BEFORE going into hyperspace.

  155. Wrong Direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are going in the wrong direction with Faster Than Light Travel. Read up on Nicola Tesla's physics. He found a way to combine relativity, and quantum mechanics. I have already said enough.

  156. Re:This is why you drop to impulse in a solar syst by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

    Well one we don't know if exotic matter exists that *can* warp space the way that is needed. There are no particle candidates in the standard model either. The next big problem it that you need more energy than in the entire visible universe. There are a bunch of other problems, like that it does not conserve some things that are widely held to be conserved. etc...

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  157. Anyother mystery solved! by Nagilum23 · · Score: 1

    Thanks guys! Finally a plausible explanation for all those small GBRs we have been registering!
    PS: To those out there: Thanks for not stopping by!

  158. Solution: by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    If the particles and radiation would cook the ship's passengers: Simply make internal shielding to protect the passengers.

    If the particles and radiation didn't cook the passengers like a microwave potato, but would fry things around while slowing down: Simply have the vessels begin slowing down a safe distance from its destination.

  159. Static Wick Equivilent by Yo_mama · · Score: 1

    What would be needed (other than perhaps the deflector dish / Bussard Ram scoops mentioned above) would be a static discharger that would bleed off those particles as they built up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_discharger

    --
    Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
  160. Using the scale difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bacteria being in the micrometer range, and we in the meter range, 1 million factor difference, are you implying that there are some alien out there , about 1000 kilometer size ignoring our existence and we ignoring theirs ? That's funny. See the difference between those bacteria and us, is our system of collecting systematically data, analyzing it, and comparing to what we know. Not so much for bacteria.

  161. DUH....SciFi nears have known this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think you're not supposed to travel at more than 1/4 impulse out of space dock to the outer warp limit?

    Just like you should speed a boat to the point of having a wake when you're boating through a river community....you should have a minimum safe distance to engage or disengage warp engines.

  162. Navigational deflector array solves problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The navigational deflector array pushes "stuff" out of the way of the path of travel, thereby reducing the amount of particle buildup.

  163. So that's what causes... by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 1

    gamma ray bursts!

  164. Re:Apparently these guys never watched any Star Tr by CubicleView · · Score: 1

    My guess would be that the fictional deflector array would deflect all the photons and radiation and such along the way, never allowing them to build up in the first place. It's main function would still be to protect the crew, the side effect would be to protect the destination.

  165. Almost there by hicksw · · Score: 1

    So we have FTL sorted, except for a few little details -

    We don't know how to start it
    We don't know how to stop it
    We don't know how to steer it

    and

    We don't know how to build it.

    We're almost there.
    --
    On large numbers - almost all numbers are larger than you can imagine.