Mach Effect progress

[djolds1]

You really don't appreciate how hard this problem really is. Assuming we use a 100,000 kg vehicle with an initial velocity of 0.1 times the speed of light (c), with green light (6.0x10^14Hz) lasers for our warp field oscillators, a toroidal warp field cavity that has a superconductive Q-Factor of 10^8, with an input power of 1,000 GWe or 1.0 terawatt (T), we could expect a net light speed boost factor of only 4.02c. With 10 TWe input power we get a net c boost factor of 12.72c. Of course I could have used even higher frequencies for the warp field oscillators of say 1,000x the green light frequency, which would reduce these power levels by a factor of ~30 for the same boost factor, but we really don't know how to build X-Ray lasers yet...

OUCH. Yes, that is an... ahem... noteworthy required energy budget. Getting up toward the Petawatt range for sfnal scale performance.

I did some more fiddling with our warp-field analysis tool just now and I found that if I decreased the resonant cavity dielectric density down to a lunar like vacuum level of 5x10^-12 Torr and increased the warp-core torodial resonant cavity size up to 20m OD by 15m ID by 20m long while still using green light laser frequency for the RF source and using "just" 1.0 GWe of input power, that one might be able to obtain a c boost factor of 88,000 times the speed of light. If one pulled back to using an infrared 1x10^12 Hz (THz) RF source using the same 1.0 GWe of input power, then the c boost factor lowers down to ~3,600c. As you can tell there from these comments, there are many design parameters that go into this simulation, so your obtainable c boost factor will depend on just how clever we are in the actual design and buildup of the starship.

MUCH more reasonable. A boost of 88,000 at just 1 GWe is... impressive. And that output is entirely realistic today; high end, bulky, and massive (i.e. needs work), but realistic.

As an aside, 100,000kg (100 tonnes) seems to be the standard notional mass for such craft in papers, and would be fine for a light scout or exploration craft (i.e. a NASA golfball), but the history of sail into steam would seem to indicate that 1500 through 15,000 tonnes is a more realistic range of minimum masses for plausible commercial and military vessels - Manila Galleons through Victory ships.

[kurt9]

88,000 times c? That puts the entire Milky Way galaxy within reasonable travel distance and, thus, human settlement.

100 tons makes an exploration ship. A colonizer ship (1,000-2,000 people) is going to be much larger, comparable to a large cruise ship plus the propulsion system. Since radiation, mostly cosmic rays, are an issue, the ship has to be large anyways to minimize the surface to volume ratio to make it cost-effective with thick shielding.

The layouts and travel styles will be similar since we're talking several weeks to several months travel times to most destinations.

[GIThruster]

IIRC, it's 88,000X the acceleration of the craft by other means. That's why it's called a "boost".

[djolds1]

100 tons makes an exploration ship. A colonizer ship (1,000-2,000 people) is going to be much larger, comparable to a large cruise ship plus the propulsion system. Since radiation, mostly cosmic rays, are an issue, the ship has to be large anyways to minimize the surface to volume ratio to make it cost-effective with thick shielding.

The layouts and travel styles will be similar since we're talking several weeks to several months travel times to most destinations.

Western civilization conquered the globe with ships in the 50-500 tonne range. Colonization and commerce with ships of that scale are doable, just not easy or economies-of-scale economic.

IIRC, it's 88,000X the acceleration of the craft by other means. That's why it's called a "boost".

Velocity, not acceleration. But I quibble.

Still, that whacks LEO orbital velocity (7800m/s) up to ~2.29c instantly.

[GIThruster]

Velocity is relative. Which velocity is being boosted? It is rather the acceleration, which is not relative, that is boosted. As far as I understand it, according to this model, when there is no acceleration there is nothing to boost.

[cuddihy]

IIRC, it's 88,000X the acceleration of the craft by other means. That's why it's called a "boost".

Velocity, not acceleration. But I quibble.

Velocity is relative. Which velocity is being boosted? It is rather the acceleration, which is not relative, that is boosted. As far as I understand it, according to this model, when there is no acceleration there is nothing to boost.

I also wonder whether the concept even makes sense for any kind of propulsion that requires expelling the propellant... What happens when your exhaust hits the aft end of the bubble?

[rashudo]

Incredible.. so if this all holds true, it might be possible that in the next 20 years we will have covered the entire milky way with warp probes?

Then you do have to wonder why we haven't seen warp probes around our neighborhood yet, the Fermi paradox springs to mind.

Unless all the aliens are so advanced that we are like ants to them and they can't be bothered to care about us.

[GeeGee]

rashudo,

I wonder the same thing. If warp drives and wormholes are feasible, then to me, that suggests we must either be alone...or on the verge of destroying ourselves. I'd like to think ETs have us in a zoo of some kind, but frankly, I have a really hard time believing we would not have detected any of their galactic-scale activities, as those would be visible over ~Gyr distances. Time will tell I suppose.

Being alone wouldn't necessarily be so bad. That means there's no chance for competition in the future. And if the universe is dead, we'll bring life to it with the combination of synthetic biology, genetic engineering and AI.

[rashudo]

GeeGee, sometimes i think that maybe all the other more advanced civilizations have miniaturized themselves, and they are actually embedded in the virtual particles or quantum foam that permeates the universe, which we only see as random noise.

[GIThruster]

I have a really hard time believing we would not have detected any of their galactic-scale activities. . .

We have 6,000 years of recorded history and of those 6,000 years, we have 6,000 years of reports of "gods" and other various sorts of amazing beings coming from the skies. We have literally millions of such reports. We have hundreds of thousands of pictures and videos. We have hundreds of radar tracks. We have dozens of air-to-air engagements between interplanetary craft and aircraft form nations all over the world, complete with fighters firing missiles. We have verifiable evidence that there is certainly a government propaganda campaign amply illustrated by with the Condon report, run to discredit these things and the culprits caught with their hands in the cookie Jar. We have dozens of eye witness reports and legal testimony of those who were ordered to secrecy and later had that classification removed by President Clinton. We have virtually every sort of evidence one could ask for except bits of hardware in our hands and some say we have that too.

And yet you say we haven't detected any galactic activities? Seriously, have you ever looked at the evidence at all? Ever made a careful study of it? I just find it amazing people think this way. Back before I ever looked into the issue at least I was agnostic. Seemed like all hogwash but I didn't really know. How anyone could have a negative response to so much detailed evidence is just shocking to me.

[TDPerk]

GIThruster > "And yet you say we haven't detected any galactic activities?"

No, we haven't. Not once.

We have some events, a minuscule fraction, which we cannot yet explain. This does not impugn the overwhelming likelihood that one of the explanations we have for the vast number we can explain, do pertain to those we cannot yet explain, but don't yet know how they do so.

There is nothing in the government's attempting to deprecate the notion these are encounters with aliens, which makes it more likely they are aliens.

When some comprehensive alien archive is open to us, and we can see they recorded encounters at such and such a date--then we will know about which events your suppositions are correct, if any.

But for now, there is no evidence of such.

Your argument amounts to your affirming the wisdom of archaic cartographers drawing dragons in the corners they did not know.

[GIThruster]

Blah, blah, blah. Obviously wrong, as per usual, Perky.

What amazes me is that folks like yourself can make logically impossible claims "there is no such evidence" without ever having checked at all. In complete ignorance, you're willing to make a factually incorrect and logically invalid statement. You can't know what evidence does not exist any more than you can prove a negative, and yet you're willing to so embarrass yourself in your ignorance.

Truly amazing. . .but that's the way you true believers are. "Please don't distract me with facts. My mind is made up."

[cuddihy]

Blah, blah, blah. Obviously wrong, as per usual, Perky.

What amazes me is that folks like yourself can make logically impossible claims "there is no such evidence" without ever having checked at all.

Please provide some concrete examples, since TDPerk is so "obviously" wrong.

[GIThruster]

The best books about the evidence on the subject are all written in the last 10 years, because it is only recently that the US began declassifying all the stunts they pulled back starting in '47. I can highly recommend 2 books that stand out. Do remember that my interest only goes back a few years since a friend who is a senior officer at CIA challenged me to apply the analytical skills I have as a philosopher and give the evidence a real read. So I haven't read all of the bad books that are out there.

First I would recommend this:

http://www.amazon.com/Witness-Roswell-U ... pd_sim_b_1

as it goes into an in depth analysis of the charade that happened in 1947. In particular, you have the affidavits of people who were directly exposed to the Roswell physical evidence and were ordered to keep their mouths shut while the government lied about it. Clinton rescinded those orders and the book therefore had to wait to be written until when it was. You can't say there is no evidence of a government cover up without looking at this evidence.

Second and more importantly I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pil ... pd_sim_b_3

This is the best explanation of the Condon scam and how it was sold to the public that I have ever seen and I'm told that has ever been written. It does a very detailed and thorough analysis of more than 2 dozen events, and each of these are important. However, the genius in Kean's journalism is focused on the Condon Report. I would call her treatment of that issue the most outstanding portion of the book. She explains in detail why we have the situation we have today, with people routinely discounting the evidence without ever having looked at it. It is the result of a disinformation/propaganda program run by the government for more than 60 years, and epitomized by the Condon Report.

In addition, the particular cases she examines are all well chosen but she could have used far more. For instance, I don't recall there being anything about the RB-47 incident in the book and that is one of the best documented cases of all time. Fact is, there is too much evidence for any one book.

In the Phoenix Lights incident (you can google it and "RB-47"), there were thousands of people who watched an enormous craft hover over the city for more than 3 hours. Similar incidents have occurred at O'Hare International and in TX. You can't get better evidence than things like this and they're each only a single instance. To say there is no evidence is just misinformed nonsense. There is literally too much evidence for the casual interest to possibly absorb. the craft in the Phoenix Lights incident was so large, it dwarfs our Nimitz class supercarriers. It's pretty dopey to say all these thousands of people were wrong about what they reported they saw.

Hey, for $6 buy the Kean book and keep it in the reading room. The chapters are fairly short. What can it hurt?

[williatw]

100 tons makes an exploration ship. A colonizer ship (1,000-2,000 people) is going to be much larger, comparable to a large cruise ship plus the propulsion system. Since radiation, mostly cosmic rays, are an issue, the ship has to be large anyways to minimize the surface to volume ratio to make it cost-effective with thick shielding.

The layouts and travel styles will be similar since we're talking several weeks to several months travel times to most destinations.

Western civilization conquered the globe with ships in the 50-500 tonne range. Colonization and commerce with ships of that scale are doable, just not easy or economies-of-scale economic.

IIRC, it's 88,000X the acceleration of the craft by other means. That's why it's called a "boost".

Velocity, not acceleration. But I quibble.

Still, that whacks LEO orbital velocity (7800m/s) up to ~2.29c instantly.

Most exploration ships would be that 100 ton range, much cheaper than big capital ships and therefore far more numerous, and as an aside I would much rather be Han Solo captain of my own ship, go where I want when I want than some anonymous red shirt on the starship Enterprise. Big capital ships are only useful if you’re fighting either other such ships or fleets of ships (or possibly ground targets worth your while). They don't send battleships/aircraft carriers to fight Somali pirates for instance. Law enforcement/military such as it would be would probably be more like space going coast guard cutters or destroyers. More like the "space patrol" than star trek. If this warp drive tech works out you could easily have thousands if not tens of thousands of such 100ish ton ships eventually cheap with economies of scale, able to go anywhere in the galaxy. Glad we won't need antimatter. Boron 11 is many orders of magnitude cheaper; Fusion produces only a couple hundred times less energy per unit mass than annihilation does. The energy of a few kilos of antimatter probably equals about a 55-gallon drum of Boron 11, at many times greater cost and storage difficulty. Furthermore you could probably find Boron 11 most anywhere you land making refueling on site easy.