Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source

[kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

Steve VanDevender wrote:
> 
> kyle writes:
>  > I think that the problem with most scientists is that we would like
>  > to think that we know everything about physics, and that there are
>  > not an incredible amount of alternative posibilities and situations
>  > which we have not yet begun to understand. We have only begun to
>  > learn. Many a number of unexplored posibilities await us. We are just
>  > beginning the journey. In my opinion, I think we should consider FTL
>  > as possible in our mission.
> 
> The starship-design exercise is to design a starship and interstellar
> exploration mission that can be reasonably expected to be buildable in
> 2050.  That means we are being intentionally conservative about the
> technology used.  While we sometimes extrapolate technological trends in
> making assumptions about the materials and techniques that will be
> available, for the most part nobody has tried to postulate technology
> that violates _currently known_ laws of physics, because that's all we
> have to work with now.

FTL doesn't necessarily violate physics. Or consider these: distance
modification;
The ability to make sublight journeys to stars by quantum jumping; That
has 
been done in laboratories. Any particle physist will tell you that.
You'd be 
surprised at how many scientists have postulated "technology that
violates
currently known laws of physics". As I said earlier, physics is almost
entirely
an unknown for us. We haven't begun to unlock its secrets. Maybe FTL
doesn't
violate physics. There have been scattered reports of slight FTL
transversal.
(E-mail me if interested). I know most of you say that these reports are
just
junk science, but thats exactly what was said to the Wright brothers. 


> The biggest problem with trying to design an FTL starship today is that
> no one, not even the most expert physicist, has the slightest idea how
> FTL could be realistically accomplished in a manner that would allow it
> to be used in a starship drive system.  

Not necesarily true.

>If you don't know the size and
> requirements of the drive system, how can you design a ship around it?

Hmmm...Aha! Estimate! (we've done plenty of it)

> On the other hand, while the requirements of a relativistic drive system
> are difficult, they are not physically impossible, and it might be
> possible to build one in 2050.

FTL may not be impossible.

My conclusion: I still stick by FTL as being a good propulsion system to
use on our ship. (whichever one we build) Giant sail ships wouldn't
work with it though- distortion would be so large, it would require
ENORMOUS
energy to create and maintain it without risking ship's integrity. Sail
ships are dangerous even if used for sublight travel: One stray meteor
shower and there went your mission, your crew, and several hundred
billion
dollars. My design does incorporate FTL travel. Similar to Alcubierres
warp
drive, but more...2050ish.

Kyle Mcallister