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

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/15/97 4:42:29 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote:

>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


<Sigh>

Ok, I'll bite. What is the weighe, volume, power requirements, structural
loads, etc.. Of your FTL drive.  Prove your numbers.

I agree that FTL is likely to be possible.  But we have no idea how, or what
kind of equipment it would need.  So we can't design a ship around it.

Kelly