Warp Speed One... just my shorthand for zipping across interstellar space at nearly the speed of light. More commonly known as "relativistic" speed.
This is the first time that I have encountered this idea being described for a general audience. Not that I would be a particular expert, but I have long been a frequent visitor to online venues like "Mach", which is the Gee Whiz Science-y part of NBC News online.
It seems like it has more reality to it than the some of the other ideas that have long been a staple of science or space travel reporting for the general audience. Such as "wormholes", or the Alcubierre implementation of Star Trek's "Warp Speed" propulsion system.
Here is a report for the general audience; to wit:
Astronomer says aliens might zap black holes with lasers to travel the galaxy Rafi Letzter for Live Science; republished by NBC News "Mach"; March 15, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/mac...el-galaxy-ncna983836
NASA has had decades of success in sending space probes all the way across our Solar System using the gravity of Mars or other planets to accelerate space probes using the "slingshot" technique.
The idea is to use the extreme gravity of neutron stars or of black holes to energize light or photons in a way that could propel a spacecraft to what I have loosely described as "Warp Speed One." In other words, fast enough to traverse the incredible distances between stars on a somewhat tractable time scale.
The NBC News "Mach" report is based on a recent journal article or white paper from a researcher at Columbia University's Astronomy department; to wit (again) :
The Halo Drive: Fuel-free relativistic propulsion of large masses via recycled boomerang photons David Kipping; Department of Astronomy, Columbia University; March 11, 2019. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.03423.pdf
I think it is a draft of a journal article that is in the final steps of being prepared for official publication.
So simple, it's almost a no-brainer.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-19-2019).]
Space is not a true vacuum, there is matter in space. Some as small as dust, some as large as planets and everything in between. Space travel at those speeds would imply that the craft would encounter drag, (to push through the particles) much the same as a car on earth. A sail would not help, it would only hurt. But then it does not matter because space travel is and always will be fiction. Light speed is totally fictional, proof of this is explaining what would happen to a craft when it collides with a grain of sand at the speed of light. That much energy would cause more damage than a nuclear bomb. And given the fact that very small particles of matter exist everywhere in space and collision is unavoidable. Even speeds that are earthy can be absolutely devastating. Look at bird strikes for example.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-18-2019).]
How to bootstrap the process by sending a space probe to the nearest black hole or neutron star, if you need to have the space probe already in position and relatively close to a black hole or neutron star, in order to be able to accelerate the probe into the range of relativistic velocities that would make it feasible to send a space probe to the nearest black hole or neutron star?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-18-2019).]
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Space is not a true vacuum, they is matter in apace. Some as small as dust, some as large as planets and everything in between. Space travel at those speeds would imply that the craft would encounter drag, much the same as a car on earth. A sail would not help, it would only hurt. But then it does not matter because space travel is and always will be fiction.
Ensuring that NASA doesn't waste the budgetary equivalent of a stack of dollar bills long enough to stretch from here to Saturn on an idea that can't possibly work.
This will look good on your annual performance review.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-18-2019).]
How to bootstrap the process by sending a space probe to the nearest black hole or neutron star, if you need to have the space probe already in position and relatively close to a black hole or neutron star, in order to be able to accelerate the probe into the range of relativistic velocities that would make it feasible to send a space probe to the nearest black hole or neutron star?
I am not sure why I even responded to this thread, I am ABSOLUTELY certain that space travel is impossible. I admit that technology is fascinating and this maybe why I responded? All we need to do is look at the simple facts, IF we had a craft that could sustain human life (untethered to earth supplies) it would still be attacked by matter that is flying through space at unbelievable speeds. The craft traveling at ultra high speed will need to slow down when it gets to it's destination. If you could catapult a craft to ultra high speeds using black holes and neutron stars how would you stop it? What are the odds that you can find a series of black holes and neutron stars to accelerate a ship and maintain the PERFECT trajectory that will get it to where you want to go AND THEN decelerate a ship. Simply impossible.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-18-2019).]
YouTube video animation of the Breakthrough Starshot concept, which envisions using light pressure--the force created when a beam of light impinges upon a material surface--to accelerate a postage stamp-sized probe (I think that would be the size) to about 20 percent of the speed of light. Theoretically, the probe would traverse the distance from Earth to the Sun's closest stellar neighbor--the star system of Alpha Centauri--in about 20 years. That would be 20 Earth years.
The probe would be constructed with some extremely miniaturized electronics that would function as data sensors, recorders and transmitters. So after another 4 years, or 24 years after the launch, a very precisely aimed and powerful radio receiver--here on Earth, or maybe aboard a kind of Breakthrough Starshot listening station orbiting the Sun at about where the planet Neptune is (my conjecture)--would begin to receive data coming back from the Breakthrough Starshot probe.
There could be many of these postage stamp-sized probes all going to the same destination. Probes that are backups for other probes. The power of redundancy. And given that the miniaturization of the electronics is extreme, there would be probes configured with different payloads. Say, a magnetic field measuring probe and an optical light measuring probe, and a "fill in the blank" kind of probe, and another... etc.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-18-2019).]
It's been a long time, but there was a discussion on this in class. I do remember that even Star Trek stated in their encyclopedia that warp 10 was theoretically impossible, because you would similtaneously occupy all points of the universe.
Somehow, we hadn't considered the stopping aspect. Aging changed, but space messed with our hodies. The body loses mass. Space dementia is an issue. They are playing with telepathy, again, and some people think this is why. I think radio waves teavel further. Solar sails do work. They have been used, but not for propulsion. The particles in space do not prevent ships from leaving the solar system.
In grade school, they made it sound as if leaving the solar system, at the speed of light would still take more than 3 lifetimes. Now, they tell us that spacecraft have made it out during my lifetime. Of course, no human life made it out. The food supply for such a trip would be an obstacle.
When we first sent people into space, the scientists were terrified about the ship being struck by particles smaller than a grain of sand. Of course, we lost astronauts, anyway. What is it? Need Another Seventeen Astronauts?
Does this mean "Scotty" isn't going to "Beam Me Up"?
Rams
It just means that you should not invest your retirement (or other people's retirement) on this stuff. It is cool to discuss and contemplate but DO NOT spend your life or treasures on this pipe dream.
Just to be clear, the idea of using a Light Sail or the pressure of light to accelerate a satellite or space probe is not what lit up a "news alert" for me.
It is the idea of using the extreme gravity of a neutron star or of a black hole to boost the energy of the light. It's kind of like adding a "turbocharger" to the Light Sail concept.
The Light Sail concept was flight tested in 2015 and another test is expected soon. According to this update, which includes a detailed infographic of the mission, the Light Sail 2 flight test is set for sometime next month. If successful, it will be followed by Light Sail 3. These missions are testing the propulsive power of light from the Sun.
The Breakthrough Starshot concept already has some reality to it. This NewScientist report from July 2017 is about a flight test of a miniaturized satellite design called "Sprite." One of these mini-satellites weighs about 4 grams, or just a small fraction of an ounce. It's mostly a single circuit board, 3.5 centimeters (almost 1.5 inch) square. Packed into that small area, a computer processor, solar panels, a magnetometer, a gyroscope, and a radio for communicating with the Earth-bound mission controllers.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
There could be more recent updates, but I'm not looking. I just want to clarify why I thought this "High Speed SAIL" topic was a good candidate to Go Viral here on Pennock's.
Astronomer says aliens might zap black holes with lasers to travel the galaxy Rafi Letzter for Live Science; republished by NBC News "Mach"; March 15, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/mac...el-galaxy-ncna983836
The Halo Drive: Fuel-free relativistic propulsion of large masses via recycled boomerang photons David Kipping; Department of Astronomy, Columbia University; March 11, 2019. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.03423.pdf
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-19-2019).]
This idea sprang from a science fiction novel written decades ago. I don't remember the author or the title, but remember reading the story as a young man. The concept was also used in a movie, or maybe a television show, although again, I don't recall the name, but have seen it.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 03-19-2019).]
I am ABSOLUTELY certain that space travel is impossible.
Aren't you rather religious?
Neat concept. I don't have the depth of knowledge to argue it's merits either way. At face value I can understand the logic behind it. Whatever the case it's neat to read about.
no, I am not "religious", I am Christian. I don't deny life outside this Planet, and neither does the Bible. I love the technology of the "space race". But only as it relates to our reach. That is to say that if we can mine the moon, go for it. But exploring space is pure fiction. I look at this from a factual point of view completely separate from faith.
quote
Neat concept. I don't have the depth of knowledge to argue it's merits either way. At face value I can understand the logic behind it. Whatever the case it's neat to read about.
I don't disagree with this, in fact it is basically how I think about it. With the exception of "light speed" and "nanotechnology", as it relates to stamp size super satellites. That is also fiction. But let's say I am wrong about it, let's say a fiberglass circuit board satellite could gather and send information from lightyears away. This "data" would be so vague and open to countless opinions of interpretation EVEN IF the "data" were to be accurate. With no way of knowing if the "data" is accurate and weather or not it can be received clear enough or unaltered by "space noise" to use. The data would be totally useless because we can't go there. It would be purely meaningless head knowledge. Without any way to help or benefit humanity. So every dime spent would be a dime taken away from other useful projects. In a day and age of "global climate change" and "Global pollution crisis" philosophies that go hand in hand with "over population", it is natural for people to dream of moving or expanding outside of Earth. But even that is a pipe dream because the World Governments could not even keep just one simple Space Station in space so close to Earth that we can see it from Earth. The International Space Station has proven to be to complex, to difficult and to expensive to man and maintain. The evidence against space travel is clear as day. And IF the space station could work and last for hundreds of years, we still could not have the hope of moving billions of people off the Planet to greener grass. So who are the privileged few that would get to go and how do the ones left behind (to pay the tab) benefit from the mission?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-19-2019).]
But I don't "see" any exploration of even the closest neighboring star system--which is 4 Light Years distant from Earth--becoming a serious proposition before all here and their descendants and probably many more human generations have come and gone. Not even with this "Fuel-free relativistic propulsion of large masses via recycled boomerang photons" idea now being described.
Back to Plan B... the Alcubierre warp drive. All it would take is the discovery of some radically new aspects of Physics.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-19-2019).]
Hi Ronald, yes I did see what you posted. I am AMAZED at what we have in our phones and what they are capable of. But I don't believe that that "satellite" is real or is capable of doing what the article claims. And as I have said before, I could be wrong, the stamp satellite could be legit, but even in this scenario, what good is the data anyway? Can we trust the data to be accurate? Who's interpretation of the data should we believe? How can we benefit from the data? How much should we pay for the data (what is it worth, what value does it have to us). I have always said that if a private company or persons wants to pay for it, go for it. But don't use tax money.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-19-2019).]
Roger that. I think I will have to see what more I can "unearth" on that Sprite 1.5-inch square satellite design. Have there been any more flight tests after that original experiment, which was less than 100 percent successful?
People used to think any kind of beneficial large-scale exploration of the sea was impossible based on the well known and undeniable fact that one would eventually sail off the edge of the earth, if the sea monsters didn't get you first.
I believe the exploration/exploitation (mining, science, etc.) of space will continue, largely by machines autonomously, until inter-dimensional access is achieved, which will change the physics of human travel as we know it.
People used to think any kind of beneficial large-scale exploration of the sea was impossible based on the well known and undeniable fact that one would eventually sail off the edge of the earth, if the sea monsters didn't get you first.
I believe the exploration/exploitation (mining, science, etc.) of space will continue, largely by machines autonomously, until inter-dimensional access is achieved, which will change the physics of human travel as we know it.
True, but even the most genius minds Earth has seen realized that fiction and fantasy exist as exactly that, fiction and fantasy. There is a difference between reality and fantasy. Flying into space and diving down in the ocean where we are tethered to Earth's resources and man's assistance is one thing, but space exploration without a tether to supply and medical necessity is totally different. We can fix a worn out part of a plain or submarine, but a stockpile of spare parts and supplies on a space craft is impossible. That is even if people could live in space without ever getting sick, or debilitated by injuries or crippling diseases like cancer or mental illnesses. Being tethered to Earth makes life in space possible, and even that life in space is EXTREMELY short lived. People have to return after very short lengths of time out there.
The thing you have to let go of is the thought of returning. Any kind of real space travel would be in a craft large enough to simulate gravity, have a renewable food source and host enough people to keep generations of explorers alive. It wouldn't be something you can just put together in a few years, this would be something that would take a lot of cooperation, more than we are capable of currently. Lets solve some of our problems here before we take them to other worlds.
The thing you have to let go of is the thought of returning. Any kind of real space travel would be in a craft large enough to simulate gravity, have a renewable food source and host enough people to keep generations of explorers alive. It wouldn't be something you can just put together in a few years, this would be something that would take a lot of cooperation, more than we are capable of currently. Lets solve some of our problems here before we take them to other worlds.
Mostly good points; however, we have some excellent leaders whom I'd like to take this opportunity to nominate for testing space exploration. This would have the dual result of simplifying the problems here.
I'm on my phone, so I won't go through your pay thoroughly Rick. I'll start by saying though, that I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, argumentative, or legitimately can't follow the logic I was alluding to. Also last I checked Christianity is a religion. I only started it as such, because for me to even recall this tidbit of information over our tenures here means that I at some point noted you being blatantly overpowering and aggressive in your beliefs. The statement that you go solely on facts and you know it is impossible is ridiculous to me given that I think your "imaginary" friend is complete fiction and has no scientific data to backup your beliefs. I'm not here to belittle or debate your religion, but the idea of space travel seems more rooted in science, to me. As Don pointed out we used to not even believe we could explore the ocean to any greater degree.
All I know for certain is in the grand scheme of things I know nothing at all. As to the bible disputing aliens, I've never read that or even suggested it did. If your or any god is real, why wouldn't they create other worlds? Furthermore, the bible, your religions holy book, says nothing is impossible through god. I personally take that statement at face value. Space travel must surely be included then, no?
Sorry for any errors. The coding on PFF is archaic at best and I'm posting from my phone.
Mostly good points; however, we have some excellent leaders whom I'd like to take this opportunity to nominate for testing space exploration. This would have the dual result of simplifying the problems here.
LOL, can help nominate a few? Space X has all we need.
I'm on my phone, so I won't go through your pay thoroughly Rick. I'll start by saying though, that I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, argumentative, or legitimately can't follow the logic I was alluding to.
No, I do not wish to argue. Everything I have said is at face value, even the PM that I sent you.
quote
Also last I checked Christianity is a religion. I only started it as such, because for me to even recall this tidbit of information over our tenures here means that I at some point noted you being blatantly overpowering and aggressive in your beliefs.
I sent you a PM as to not change the subject of this topic. I have no problem with people asking me questions, on what I believe in or why. Not being disrespectful, just saying that if you want to know about my believes, I will gladly answer any questions or complaints in context. This thread is not about religion, and I said everything I believe about space travel is from a factual scientific and provable physical fact. Nothing about this thread is about religion. As for being argumentative, of course this is also contextual AND may have been my fault. Sorry, but I am not perfect and I do make mistakes. I ask that you be patient with me as I mature and learn better ways to communicate.
quote
The statement that you go solely on facts and you know it is impossible is ridiculous to me given that I think your "imaginary" friend is complete fiction and has no scientific data to backup your beliefs.
OK, then let's not use religious beliefs to discuss this thread topic. I have not used any such reason to argue against space travel. Only you have used religion as an argumenthat in this thread.
quote
I'm not here to belittle or debate your religion, but the idea of space travel seems more rooted in science, to me. As Don pointed out we used to not even believe we could explore the ocean to any greater degree.
I have addressed this point of view, and it is a very valid point of view. Without this type of thinking, where would we be? I am simply dialing the focus in on obtainable targets based on needs and affordable objectives. Like "what is it worth in dollar value to know the weather in another solar syatem and can we even trust the data sent to use from light years away?"
quote
All I know for certain is in the grand scheme of things I know nothing at all.
You may very well be more knowledgeable than I in this subject. I am only an enthusiast of technology.
quote
As to the bible disputing aliens, I've never read that or even suggested it did. If your or any god is real, why wouldn't they create other worlds? Furthermore, the bible,
For the record, the Bible does not imply the existence or non-existence of alien life in the universe. You are the only person so far to bring up religious slants or believes. I would rather leave those to dedicated threads.
quote
your religions holy book, says nothing is impossible through god. I personally take that statement at face value. Space travel must surely be included then, no?
I am not the person to teach or advise you on religious matters, you clearly do not respect my advice on the matter. But I will say, context is EVERYTHING on this subject and Scripture. I think this is a question for PM or another thread.
quote
Sorry for any errors. The coding on PFF is archaic at best and I'm posting from my phone.
I understand, I myself have not posted from a PC in years.
Please understand that I realize your comments to be at face value and not argumentative. As are mine.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-19-2019).]
I think once you get up to the solar system escape velocities needed to reach and get thru heliosphere, any velocities above that are pretty moot. Interstellar particles themselves are zipping along at about 1,789,549.03 MPH... but so far, Voyager 1 and Voyager2 have seemed to fare ok.
I think once you get up to the solar system escape velocities needed to reach and get thru heliosphere, any velocities above that are pretty moot. Interstellar particles themselves are zipping along at about 1,789,549.03 MPH... but so far, Voyager 1 and Voyager2 have seemed to fare ok.
That being said, what if you want to travel against the "wind"? A collision at ultra high speed with an object traveling in the opposite direction or cross direction would be even more devastating than hitting it at a stationary speed?
I think once you get up to the solar system escape velocities needed to reach and get thru heliosphere, any velocities above that are pretty moot. Interstellar particles themselves are zipping along at about 1,789,549.03 MPH... but so far, Voyager 1 and Voyager2 have seemed to fare ok.
This is a good point. Does the vacuum of space have a "wind direction" or direction of flow "of matter"? We know that space dust and matter is out there and travels at speeds we can't comprehend, but is there actually a direction of flow?
The way I am looking at this is relative to water, " Hydro Dynamics" can be used to emulate or substitute data and converted to measure and calculate " aerodynamics". So we can use our " thick atmosphere" in the same way to predict ultra-high-speed conditions of space. Just like water being considerably more dense than air, we can say that our air is considerably more dense than space. So, in a way we can say that space has wider gaps between matter, but speeding up the rate at witch you travel, can hit or collide with matter just like air or water. It makes sense to me that if you travel very slow in water, it's resistance is minimal as traveling a little faster on dry land. So traveling ultrafast in space will be much the same as driving fast on a road. A spacecraft will undoubtedly encounter matter in space just as a motorcyclist encounters bugs on a road. This spacecraft may even encounter so much "matter" that aerodynamics may come into play? But at those speeds can a space craft handle the stress?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-19-2019).]
Space is not empty, there is all kinds of things floating around up there. Space craft have to be built to stand up to that kind of abuse. Now think about a particle that is traveling faster than anything we have yet encountered striking the side of the ship, there isn't enough mass to cause too much damage but like sand paper it will eventually wear out the ship.
Space is not empty, there is all kinds of things floating around up there. Space craft have to be built to stand up to that kind of abuse. Now think about a particle that is traveling faster than anything we have yet encountered striking the side of the ship, there isn't enough mass to cause too much damage but like sand paper it will eventually wear out the ship.
Thank you, I agree but couldn't come up with as good of words as yours to say it. I tried to expand on the "space dust" as if it were particles or molecules of air and affect the aerodynamics of such an Ultra high-speed craft. Of course, as you have noted, the effects of space matter can't be overlooked.
That being said, what if you want to travel against the "wind"? A collision at ultra high speed with an object traveling in the opposite direction or cross direction would be even more devastating than hitting it at a stationary speed?
It's the old question of "If a car is traveling at 60mph and collides head on with another car traveling from the opposite direction at 60mph ...is it the same as hitting a brick wall at 120 mph or same as hitting one at 60mph? (60mph is the correct answer, a few variants taken into consideration.)
Here:
Our space probes frequently travel 'against the wind'. Any craft leaving our atmosphere, traveling toward the inner solar system...in the direction of any planet between us and the sun...... would be going 'against the wind'. Most particles in 'outer space' tho, aren't moving because of a solar wind. They are being moved about by elector-magnetic charges and gravitational forces.
quote
Now think about a particle that is traveling faster than anything we have yet encountered striking the side of the ship, there isn't enough mass to cause too much damage but like sand paper it will eventually wear out the ship.
You mean like 'tachyons'? Or, Neutrinos? They travel at such high velocities (the speed of light) that they pass completely thru Earthly buildings, people and into and out the other side of our planet itself without causing so much as a speck of dust moving..nor,are the neutrino particles disturbed either.
quote
Neutrinos are everywhere. They permeate the very space all around us. They can be found throughout our galaxy, in our sun and every second tens of thousands of neutrinos are passing through your body.
Ok, your example of the 60mph car wreck is correct. BUT not at all completely representative of objects with dissimilar mass and make up. If that 60mph car were to collide with a (wall moving at 60mph) train doing 60mph, then the result would be in fact the same as hitting a wall at 120mph. The train would not stop or slow down and the car would reverse direction at the rate of the train that is pushing it. Your example only works as long as each car (object) has the same mass and make up. For example a golf ball is specifically designed to travel extreme distance when clubbed. So if you were to hit an egg that has the same weight/mass with the same club the results will be totally different. Speed matters, I can hurl a bullet at a paper target and it would brake through, but my best efforts at hurling a bullet through a plastic 50 gallon drum would all fail. But that same exact bullet shot from a gun would go completely through. The faster an object travels, the more energy it has. And it does not matter witch object is traveling, the paper or bullet, the results will be the same. From example the strange or bizarre objects that have be lodged into trees by tornadoes. Paper playing cards stabbed into a tree as if it were a throwing knife. So yes, I believe that even a grain of sand at ultra high speed can cause devastating damage to a space craft. Keep in mind that a space craft would be for the most part hollow and pressurized. Like a balloon. Think of the airplanes that have decompressed in flight. Decompression in a vacuum has much more potential for catastrophic results.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-20-2019).]
