ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

FTL travel safer than STL

4_of_20

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1052

Report this Jun. 25 2006, 4:08 am

Before i start i must clear up that i have no doctorate or PhD in anything. I am a lowly Australian Baker in his last year hoping to move on to University to study relativity and astrophysics. From what i have read i have a limited understanding of the mathematics involved in Special Relativity, but General Relativity still eludes me somewhat.

On to my point. One could argue that warp speed or FTL travel may be irrelevent when one considers time dilation effects. If one where to constantly accelerate at 1g (9.8metres per second per second) for 15 years they could complete a round trip of the galaxy in 15 years ship time. This is more impressive than even Voyager, although our crew doesn't have the luxury of stopping off at planets on the way, and those back home would still have to wait some 300,000 years for them to get back. In this instance, warp technology would be far better to have. The ship time would remain the same as the time on earth (according to the Alcubierre drive) and they may not be able to make it around the galaxy in the same ship time, but at least Earth wouldn't have to wait so long for them to return.

But warp drive requires huge amounts of energy. People are working on this (theroetically) and i recently read on NASA that the energy requirements have been reduced by a factor of 1 with 60 zeros following, but they are still huge. But if one considers the amount of fuel that our galactic circuit would require at conventional STL speeds, it might seem more feesible to attempt to construct a warp ship than one travelling at relativistic speeds. However an Interstellar Ramjet, if possible, would solve this fuel problem, and my argument would be deemed irrelevent.

And lastly, we have space dust. At warp speed, space is bent around the ship so much that light cannot enter or exit the warp field. If light cannot enter, then supposedly space dust could not either. At relativistic speeds one must consider that from the point of view of the ship it is not them, but the universe that is moving at such incredible speeds. Due to length contraction the dust would be closer togther, so much so that at high speeds (something like 0.999c) the dust would almost form a solid brick wall. The mass of these particles would be devided by tau (the square root of one minus the velocity squared over c squared) and would thus have incredible masses and energies and could destroy the ship if it didn't have adequate shielding. Add shielding and you've just made a heavier ship requiring more fuel to push off.

As i stated earlier, i am not an expert in this topic, although it does interest me greatly and i would be delited to hear what some of you think of my point, especially those of you with some education of the topic. I'm not saying that we should not try to produce craft that move at relativistic speeds, i just believe more thought should be put into warp technology before we think about resorting to such tedious methods of exploring our amazing universe...

DrysonBennington

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 223

Report this Jun. 25 2006, 11:59 am

What first needs to be accomplished is a sublight drive that would be able to be put into service much more quickly and would not be as energy consuptive as a warp drive but would none the less be able to take us out of the Solar System as ¿a speed of less then one year.


[QUOTE]And lastly, we have space dust. At warp speed, space is bent around the ship so much that light cannot enter or exit the warp field. If light cannot enter, then supposedly space dust could not either. At relativistic speeds one must consider that from the point of view of the ship it is not them, but the universe that is moving at such incredible speeds. Due to length contraction the dust would be closer togther, so much so that at high speeds (something like 0.999c) the dust would almost form a solid brick wall. The mass of these particles would be devided by tau (the square root of one minus the velocity squared over c squared) and would thus have incredible masses and energies and could destroy the ship if it didn't have adequate shielding. Add shielding and you've just made a heavier ship requiring more fuel to push off.[QUOTE]

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. first off you are talking about the point of view from the ship that is traveling at relativistic speed whereas the dust may or may not be traveling the same speed as the ship thus making it appear like the dust is closer together but in actuality the dust still retains that same length between one another.

AquamonkeyEG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4915

Report this Jun. 25 2006, 3:39 pm

Dryson, length contraction is an OBSERVED effect. from 1 reference frame to another the object APPEARS to have a contraced length.

using a magnetic scoop to funnel the dust into collectors to be used as fuel would solve the problem of shielding the ship against the dust. the problem would still be larger objects that the scoop wouldn't be able to affect. also, the time from detection to collision would matter. going at relativistic velocities wouldn't give much time to avoid a collision.

DrysonBennington

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 223

Report this Jun. 25 2006, 10:16 pm

[QUOTE]Dryson, length contraction is an OBSERVED effect. from 1 reference frame to another the object APPEARS to have a contraced length.

using a magnetic scoop to funnel the dust into collectors to be used as fuel would solve the problem of shielding the ship against the dust. the problem would still be larger objects that the scoop wouldn't be able to affect. also, the time from detection to collision would matter. going at relativistic velocities wouldn't give much time to avoid a collision.
[QUOTE]

the way to counter this would be to have a scanning system that would scan lets say 1,000,000,000 meters ahead of the ship, this would allow for a timely measure of the dust in the area, this approach would work well in warp flight but in sub-flight and slower speeds I really don't think it would matter much about the dust.

AquamonkeyEG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4915

Report this Jun. 25 2006, 11:17 pm

except that light goes at 3x10^8 m/s and the ship would be going at least 90% of that. that means the ship would be going at 2.7x10^8 m/s or 270,000,000 m/s. that gives them less than 4 secs from DETECTION to do something about an object too big to move with the EM field. then when you take into account the relativistic effects they have even less time.

in warp flight there is no problem with colliding with ANYTHING. the warp bubble completely isolates you from everything in normal space. NOTHING would get through the bubble. you could fly right through a star and be fine. the star on the other hand...

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Jun. 26 2006, 2:43 pm

Quote (AquamonkeyEG @ June 25 2006, 12:17 am)
except that light goes at 3x10^8 m/s and the ship would be going at least 90% of that. that means the ship would be going at 2.7x10^8 m/s or 270,000,000 m/s. that gives them less than 4 secs from DETECTION to do something about an object too big to move with the EM field. then when you take into account the relativistic effects they have even less time.

in warp flight there is no problem with colliding with ANYTHING. the warp bubble completely isolates you from everything in normal space. NOTHING would get through the bubble. you could fly right through a star and be fine. the star on the other hand...

Actually flying thru a star would be a problem, each impact with matter drains energy from the warp bubble, a big enought collision would actually collasp the bubble leaving you stranded in the middle of the star..

But dust particle, small meteriods would not be a problem, it would slow down the bubble and the ship would need to be heavily shield from the bombardment of pions and mesons created as atoms are rip apart from tidal forces, but a warp power ship is a heck of alot safer than a fusion ram scoop ship.

M16A4

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 608

Report this Jun. 26 2006, 2:53 pm

amen to that.

AquamonkeyEG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4915

Report this Jun. 26 2006, 3:52 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ June 26 2006, 11:43 am)
Quote (AquamonkeyEG @ June 25 2006, 12:17 am)
except that light goes at 3x10^8 m/s and the ship would be going at least 90% of that. that means the ship would be going at 2.7x10^8 m/s or 270,000,000 m/s. that gives them less than 4 secs from DETECTION to do something about an object too big to move with the EM field. then when you take into account the relativistic effects they have even less time.

in warp flight there is no problem with colliding with ANYTHING. the warp bubble completely isolates you from everything in normal space. NOTHING would get through the bubble. you could fly right through a star and be fine. the star on the other hand...

Actually flying thru a star would be a problem, each impact with matter drains energy from the warp bubble, a big enought collision would actually collasp the bubble leaving you stranded in the middle of the star..

But dust particle, small meteriods would not be a problem, it would slow down the bubble and the ship would need to be heavily shield from the bombardment of pions and mesons created as atoms are rip apart from tidal forces, but a warp power ship is a heck of alot safer than a fusion ram scoop ship.

don't fly into a black hole at warp... got it  ;)

AquamonkeyEG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4915

Report this Jun. 26 2006, 4:17 pm

hmm i was thinking aobut it some more... about flying through a star at warp.

if you are going at really high warp the amount of time you spend in the star would be almost infinitesimal. also going at really high warp would mean there is a lot of energy in the warp bubble.

so shouldn't it just slow you down a little and not collapse the bubble?

M16A4

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 608

Report this Jun. 26 2006, 8:14 pm

Quote (AquamonkeyEG @ June 26 2006, 4:17 pm)
hmm i was thinking aobut it some more... about flying through a star at warp.

if you are going at really high warp the amount of time you spend in the star would be almost infinitesimal. also going at really high warp would mean there is a lot of energy in the warp bubble.

so shouldn't it just slow you down a little and not collapse the bubble?

good questoin. do some math, try and figure out how much energy you use up at warp 9 (shuoldnt be "that" hard) and then compare it to the gravity that the inside of a star would exert on you.

AquamonkeyEG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4915

Report this Jun. 26 2006, 9:05 pm

Quote (M16A4 @ June 26 2006, 5:14 pm)
Quote (AquamonkeyEG @ June 26 2006, 4:17 pm)
hmm i was thinking aobut it some more... about flying through a star at warp.

if you are going at really high warp the amount of time you spend in the star would be almost infinitesimal. also going at really high warp would mean there is a lot of energy in the warp bubble.

so shouldn't it just slow you down a little and not collapse the bubble?

good questoin. do some math, try and figure out how much energy you use up at warp 9 (shuoldnt be "that" hard) and then compare it to the gravity that the inside of a star would exert on you.

real warp doesn't have a scale yet... that i know of.

in Star Trek, the ship would be completely destroyed intersecting a star. their shields wouldn't be able to withstand a superluminal collision with anything. the deflector dish wouldn't be able to "bore" a whole through the star. their shields wouldn't be able to protect them from the radiation and heat. unless they used metaphasic shields and that has only been tested in the corona not inside a star.

M16A4

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 608

Report this Jun. 26 2006, 9:16 pm

yeah didnt two people die from testing metaphasic sheilds.

AquamonkeyEG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4915

Report this Jun. 26 2006, 9:50 pm

it's been a while since i saw the episode but the ferengi scientist died and the other dude only pretended to be dead...

the metaphasic shields worked fine in TNG:"Descent"

M16A4

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 608

Report this Jun. 27 2006, 12:07 am

yeah but didnt crusher kill him?

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Jun. 27 2006, 11:25 am

Quote (AquamonkeyEG @ June 25 2006, 5:17 pm)
hmm i was thinking aobut it some more... about flying through a star at warp.

if you are going at really high warp the amount of time you spend in the star would be almost infinitesimal. also going at really high warp would mean there is a lot of energy in the warp bubble.

so shouldn't it just slow you down a little and not collapse the bubble?

Depends on how fast you moving, the Surface area of the Warp bubble and how much energy is needed to keep the bubble stable.


The lowest calculation of energy for a warp bubble is around
-9KG of negative energy. So all you need to do is hit around 9 KG of matter to neutralize it.

The surface area of the warp bubble will be tiny ( several CM's Square) with the ship being inside a bubble of space time.

I would believe there more than enought chance when colliding with a star that the warp bubble will come in cotact with enought positive matter to cause it to collasp.

A warp drive ship would burrow thru a meteor slowing down but a star is just too big.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum