Alcubierre drive - Updates and Discussion

[ikke666]

I've a question. What would a alcubierre drive look like?   
I find a lot of sites with formulae but none has a drawing or schematic of how the thing looks or works. Even the site of nasa has no images. Is this because no-one knows (yet) what it looks like?

[strangequark]

I've a question. What would a alcubierre drive look like?   
I find a lot of sites with formulae but none has a drawing or schematic of how the thing looks or works. Even the site of nasa has no images. Is this because no-one knows (yet) what it looks like?

Only the basic theory has been established. The question would be a little like asking Isaac Newton what a Space Shuttle Main Engine would look like.

EDIT: In rereading, that sounds a little sarcastic, which was not my intent. It really is at a basic level. Some of the math and physics is done, but physics breakthroughs are still required. I'd be surprised if we're less than a century before anyone has a clue what the hardware would look like (assuming it's even feasible), aside from artist renditions.

[Downix]

I've a question. What would a alcubierre drive look like?   
I find a lot of sites with formulae but none has a drawing or schematic of how the thing looks or works. Even the site of nasa has no images. Is this because no-one knows (yet) what it looks like?

One mathematical model presented looks like this. 

[mlorrey]

I've a question. What would a alcubierre drive look like?   
I find a lot of sites with formulae but none has a drawing or schematic of how the thing looks or works. Even the site of nasa has no images. Is this because no-one knows (yet) what it looks like?

Only the basic theory has been established. The question would be a little like asking Isaac Newton what a Space Shuttle Main Engine would look like.

EDIT: In rereading, that sounds a little sarcastic, which was not my intent. It really is at a basic level. Some of the math and physics is done, but physics breakthroughs are still required. I'd be surprised if we're less than a century before anyone has a clue what the hardware would look like (assuming it's even feasible), aside from artist renditions.

Actually we are much closer than you might think.

[Lampyridae]

Actually we are much closer than you might think.

Yup. I'm not theoretical physicist, but it seems there are exciting papers out there now. We could be using "exotic geometry" instead of "exotic matter" to make this thing a reality.

[Patchouli]

I so hope this proves to be possible as being stuck at just below c would be a real bummer.

If it can work I wonder how fast this thing can go as even 10x c would be a game changer though I supect it's ultimate top speed is much higher.
Speed is a relative thing here as you're not really moving though space but making the space around the ship move.

As for what the device would look like I'm with strangequark it probably would be like asking Heinrich Hertz what a phased array Doppler radar is going to look like.

But I am surprised how similar that mathematical model is to some scifi depictions of warp drive.

Maybe Gene Roddenberry was some kind of modern day Nostradamus he did predict the cell phone.

[Star-Drive]

Actually we are much closer than you might think.

Yup. I'm not theoretical physicist, but it seems there are exciting papers out there now. We could be using "exotic geometry" instead of "exotic matter" to make this thing a reality.

Folks:

You might like to read the attached paper on such exotic creatures as warp bubbles and the attached picture of the visual distortions they might create around your ship.

[MP99]

I so hope this proves to be possible as being stuck at just below c would be a real bummer.

If it can work I wonder how fast this thing can go as even 10x c would be a game changer though I supect it's ultimate top speed is much higher.

1/1000th of C would be a game changer!

1/10th of C would make it practical to send unmanned probes to the nearer stars.

But let me agree with you that FTL would be "very, very nice".

cheers, Martin

[William Barton]

Whether a given technology or capability is a game changer might depend more on cost than anything else. Suppose you have a spaceship that can go 1000c, but it costs a trillion dollars per mission? You aren't going to be making too many interstellar expeditions.

[nacnud]

That depends, a trillion dollars is reasonable for a new habitable planet.

[Zachstar]

I so hope this proves to be possible as being stuck at just below c would be a real bummer.

If it can work I wonder how fast this thing can go as even 10x c would be a game changer though I supect it's ultimate top speed is much higher.

1/1000th of C would be a game changer!

1/10th of C would make it practical to send unmanned probes to the nearer stars.

But let me agree with you that FTL would be "very, very nice".

cheers, Martin

Getting to 1/2 C is easy but it wont give us real access outside the solar system due to long flight times.

100c is what we need to achieve that would almost guarantee the growth of our civilization for another 1000 years.

[mlorrey]

I so hope this proves to be possible as being stuck at just below c would be a real bummer.

If it can work I wonder how fast this thing can go as even 10x c would be a game changer though I supect it's ultimate top speed is much higher.

1/1000th of C would be a game changer!

1/10th of C would make it practical to send unmanned probes to the nearer stars.

But let me agree with you that FTL would be "very, very nice".

cheers, Martin

Getting to 1/2 C is easy but it wont give us real access outside the solar system due to long flight times.

100c is what we need to achieve that would almost guarantee the growth of our civilization for another 1000 years.

.5 C means 10 years to Alpha Centauri, 40 years to Gleise 581 (site of an earthlike planet known to be in a habitable zone), or 94 years to 47 Ursa Majoris b, a jovian in a habitable zone around a sunlike star, potentially with habitable moons.

We dont know yet if Alpha Centauri does or does not have terrestrial planets. Both stars of this binary have been studied and shown that terrestrial planets could find stable orbits in each stars habitable zone. We need larger telescopes to find out more. If a habitable terrestrial planet is found around one of the Alpha Cent stars, then you can bet that interstellar missions at sub-c speeds are reasonable.

Developing some suspended animation/hybernation technologies would be useful for making long trip times more bearable and survivable, but a 10-40 year trip time is survivable without it provided you build the ship large enough to support agriculture.

[Lampyridae]

It is already feasible to get up to 0.05c with an Orion system using fusion warheads (but this would be a humongous vessel, hundreds of metres long and wide). 0.1c if you use a magsail to brake. Coupled with hibernation, life extension treatments etc. that's a good way to get reasonably experienced crew and colonists to Alpha Centauri and have them pass on their skills to the next generation.

Politically, however, there will be little motivation for anything beyond the first mission, and it will probably be a long time after the capability is actually developed before funding and support is found.

[gospacex]

Getting to 1/2 C is easy but it wont give us real access outside the solar system due to long flight times.

100c is what we need to achieve that would almost guarantee the growth of our civilization for another 1000 years.

"What we need"? what if it is physically impossible?

One argument for the impossibility: if it is possible, a few other civilizations ought to discover it too, and colonize the entire Universe by now - colonization would be exponential, thus no matter now many billions of billions of stars there are, all habitable worlds would be colonized in geologically miniscule time.

This does not mean searching for FTL flight is fruitless. It rather means, we need to think about what to do if FTL is not possible.

[kevin-rf]

Getting to 1/2 C is easy but it wont give us real access outside the solar system due to long flight times.

Name one solid non sub-atomic particle that humans have gotten to go 1/2 c.

[mlorrey]

Getting to 1/2 C is easy but it wont give us real access outside the solar system due to long flight times.

Name one solid non sub-atomic particle that humans have gotten to go 1/2 c.

Quite right. Unless we develop a functional Bussard ramjet, or the ME Thruster works, theres no way we'll ever reach 0.5c. Even if ME Thrusters work, we will need to develop them to be very thrust efficient, in the order of 1 N/W, to reach such velocities else we will need a Bussard Ramscoop to collect fuel to generate the power for ME Thrusters.

[mlorrey]

Getting to 1/2 C is easy but it wont give us real access outside the solar system due to long flight times.

100c is what we need to achieve that would almost guarantee the growth of our civilization for another 1000 years.

"What we need"? what if it is physically impossible?

One argument for the impossibility: if it is possible, a few other civilizations ought to discover it too, and colonize the entire Universe by now - colonization would be exponential, thus no matter now many billions of billions of stars there are, all habitable worlds would be colonized in geologically miniscule time.

This does not mean searching for FTL flight is fruitless. It rather means, we need to think about what to do if FTL is not possible.

Lets put it this way. If FTL is not possible we are screwed. And I dont mean screwed as in "Oh gee looks like prices might go up" screwed I mean seriously screwed.

Look at earth, there have already been major wars over singular resources. Starvation is a major factor in death. Rapid fluctuations in labor worth.

Once we actually get to the point of say 2001 as far as easy access to space.. It would be mere centuries before just about every rock in the Sol system is mined to oblivion.  It wouldnt be long afterwards for earth to be almost completely transformed into mining because desperation > environmentalism every time.

I am not god and neither are you. We have no idea of FTL can be harnessed by man. One thing is for sure. We "need" to at some point.

Like your fear of fission power, this is an unrealistic, irrational response. Firstly, the scale of resources available in our solar system alone is immense, you evidently havent done the numbers. According to Dr. Robert Bradbury, theres enough material in the solar system for each individual to own about 1 cubic kilometer of material and enough energy for each individual to control the power equivalent to a nuclear plant.

As for Earth, there is NO starvation due to lack of food. There is malnutrition due to poor distribution, frequently by governments oppressing their own people. Thats what happens when you have a lack of free markets and no government that respects individual rights. There has never been a case of one country trying to starve out another country. As for conflict over other resources, what do you prefer? Wars over ideology? Religion? By comparison, wars over resources are far more rational. That said, we are rapidly reaching a point in our development where technology will eliminate scarcity for most intents and purposes.

Mars is terraformable to near Earth normal, but would take several centuries of work to get entirely there. Plenty of work to do there to occupy peoples efforts, and Mars has as much dry surface area as Earth does.

That said, sub-light transportation is fully sufficient for travelling interstellar distances. We can make Alpha Centauri in 10 years at 0.5c or 45 years at 0.1 c (a speed we are fully capable of reaching with todays thermonuclear explosives technology). Once we reach Alpha Cent. we can set up a colony and within a few decades, depending on conditions found, be sufficient enough to refuel the ship we brought, or welcome another from Earth and refuel it to travel on to the next star system.

Should habitable worlds be found around both Alpha Cent A and B, thats two worlds to colonize right there in the same star system. Who knows whats in orbit around Proxima as well.

I think these possibilities alone can absorb humankinds efforts for several centuries into the future.

[Lampyridae]

That said, we are rapidly reaching a point in our development where technology will eliminate scarcity for most intents and purposes.

Not true, fresh water is becoming scarce. We have the technology to eliminate most scarcities, but not the money. Even reaching an 80% greenhouse gas cut in the UK by 2050 will far outstrip the manufacturing capacities of all renewables industries in the country.

[Cinder]

Getting to 1/2 C is easy but it wont give us real access outside the solar system due to long flight times.

100c is what we need to achieve that would almost guarantee the growth of our civilization for another 1000 years.

"What we need"? what if it is physically impossible?

One argument for the impossibility: if it is possible, a few other civilizations ought to discover it too, and colonize the entire Universe by now - colonization would be exponential, thus no matter now many billions of billions of stars there are, all habitable worlds would be colonized in geologically miniscule time.

This does not mean searching for FTL flight is fruitless. It rather means, we need to think about what to do if FTL is not possible.

Lets put it this way. If FTL is not possible we are screwed. And I dont mean screwed as in "Oh gee looks like prices might go up" screwed I mean seriously screwed.

Look at earth, there have already been major wars over singular resources. Starvation is a major factor in death. Rapid fluctuations in labor worth.

Once we actually get to the point of say 2001 as far as easy access to space.. It would be mere centuries before just about every rock in the Sol system is mined to oblivion.  It wouldnt be long afterwards for earth to be almost completely transformed into mining because desperation > environmentalism every time.

I am not god and neither are you. We have no idea of FTL can be harnessed by man. One thing is for sure. We "need" to at some point.

You're looking at the space travel tech in a vacuum.  We may learn how to get rid of aging. 

edit- Oops, nm, you aren't.  Consider the low reproduction trend that (as far as I know as a layman) invariably sets in once living standards reach "first world" levels.

And now we're off topic.

[gospacex]

Getting to 1/2 C is easy but it wont give us real access outside the solar system due to long flight times.

100c is what we need to achieve that would almost guarantee the growth of our civilization for another 1000 years.

"What we need"? what if it is physically impossible?

One argument for the impossibility: if it is possible, a few other civilizations ought to discover it too, and colonize the entire Universe by now - colonization would be exponential, thus no matter now many billions of billions of stars there are, all habitable worlds would be colonized in geologically miniscule time.

This does not mean searching for FTL flight is fruitless. It rather means, we need to think about what to do if FTL is not possible.

Lets put it this way. If FTL is not possible we are screwed. And I dont mean screwed as in "Oh gee looks like prices might go up" screwed I mean seriously screwed.

Perhaps we live in different realities. In my reality, you do what you need with things that you have. If FTL is not possible, then FTL is not possible, end of story, and we will have to do with slower-than-light speeds.