Is it possible? Even if it’s very unlikely, it’s such a high payoff that it’s worth devoting some resources to. In the mean time, I’m much more focused on making it affordable to just get into orbit.
40 thoughts on “Warp Drive”
Comments are closed.
Is it possible? Even if it’s very unlikely, it’s such a high payoff that it’s worth devoting some resources to. In the mean time, I’m much more focused on making it affordable to just get into orbit.
Comments are closed.
A day late, but the posting date is still 4/1/13, so I have about as much faith in the article as anything else I read yesterday, which is to say, very little…
Pop Science continues to swear up and down that it’s serious. At least as much as anything else it does.
I assume this is related to the news a few months ago along the same lines. I’ve always just assumed it was either impossible or way beyond our capabilities, but it’s interesting to consider the implications if it’s possible and technologically (and economically) feasible.
Since James Hanson is also a NASA employee, that qualification does nothing to increase credibility.
The thing about warp drive is kind of like the deal with space elevators.
If we had a materials tech (carbon nanotubes? structural diamond?) to make the space elevator, we will have long solved the problem of the mass fraction of a single-stage-to-orbit rocket craft. And whether we ever build the space elevator has to do with whether a reliable, cost-effective SSTO isn’t quite keeping up with the volume of traffic.
Likewise, if we can work at the scales and intensity of fields or energy fluxes where the warp drive functions, we will have done a whole lot of other things that people don’t yet have the imagination to think of.
We are quite close to having the materials tech to do a space elevator: graphine ribbon.
The problem I see with a space elevator is it would work great *if* we didn’t have anything in orbit below GEO. I think it’s an either-or proposition, and that’d also entail sweeping space below GEO of all debris.
Right now, I think there’s only one technologically feasible way to sweep all debris and satellites from below GEO, and it might be a tad politically unpalatable; use nukes to put a large (Chixalub scale or larger) NEO or comet on an impact trajectory. The resulting vapor plume would, theoretically, impart drag on orbiting objects, thus de-orbiting them. 🙂
My serious guess; Earth will one day have a space elevator unless there are massive advances (such as anti-gravity or orders-of-magnitude better reaction engines) in launch tech. But it will be a very hard transition, due to requiring that below-GEO space be cleaned and then rarely used.
As for warp drive… that would indeed change everything. I think it (or some sort of FTL) is pretty much a requirement in order to see humans heading for the stars. Sure, a mufti-generation ship is possible, but that’s hardly an attractive proposition on many levels. It would be of limited interest to any potential crew – they’d never even see their destination – and also of limited attractiveness to the originating society that would have to dedicate huge resources to its construction; none of the people involved,m taxpayers included, would ever see any of the results of the mission. The timescale is just too long for human lifespans. Although, a breakthrough in human lifespans could change the equation – slower than light travel for exploration could become viable if the human lifespan increased by an order of magnitude or more.
Short of the space elevator, there’s the idea of using satellites in polar football shaped orbits to suspend a platform over each pole simply using conservation of momentum (the platform acts as a perfect reflector, converting a normal elliptical orbit into two sections from the perigee half of their orbits). With it the stresses on the down cable are vastly reduced because they only have to drop from low Earth orbit alitudes.
Another idea is to use a ribbon in low Earth orbit and have the downcables running along maglev tracks so they can drop into the atmosphere, hoist up a load, and then accelerate back to orbital velocity. The orbital ribbon can keep itself under tension just by spinning at slightly higher than orbital velocity, but the resonance modes elude me. Perhaps that issue could be sidestepped if the weight of each downcable was compensated directly by high efficiency electric thrusters burning fuel supplied from the ground.
You don’t need a multi-generation ship if your lifespan is measured in thousands of years. Perhaps a bigger question would be, if your lifespan is measured in thousands of years and you’re used to living in a self-contained habitat, would you even bother stopping unless you needed raw materials?
My guess is that the first people to leave the solar system will be escaping from something rather than heading to a destination.
As in “Get me off this insane asylum of a rock!”?
Works for me.
I have been notified that my comment is too short, so this is just filler.
Harold White does not “claim to be on the verge of faster-than-light travel.” I attended this talk (which is being reported six months after the fact). White cautioned everyone that what he was attempting was a very preliminary basic-science experiment and requested that the news media not blow it out of proportion. Unfortunately, various people (including Gen. Charles Bolden) have done just that.
focused on … orbit.
If you really want cheap access to space… build a destination BEO with a population. Cheap access will follow quickly.
If you can’t afford to get to orbit, you really can’t afford to get beyond orbit to “build a destination there.” I’m not sure why you have so much trouble with this concept.
I have no trouble at all. It’s just my understanding of wooden ships and iron men.
Obviously, if the first step is less expensive, the entire trip is as well. But I’m addressing a different issue…
What is the fastest way to make that first step less expensive?
I don’t think looking at the end of our nose does that. I think we need to pick the right distance… more than the moon, less than the stars.
You want depots? i guarantee there would not even be a debate if we start with a colony. We’ll start building depots every foot of the way in places you wouldn’t have even considered. Because you wouldn’t need a debate at that point. People would do it because the profit potential is suddenly obvious to the dimmest among us.
This goes for cheap access itself, as well. Arguing for cheap access is arguing for mom and apple pie. Who can say we don’t want that?
I know my voice is in the minority, but focusing on the obvious misses what will drive costs down… markets and competition.
So colony is not the first thing. A refuelable ship in orbit is. That creates market and competition but for what? Now you’re back to having a colony.
We can afford to get to orbit. We’ve been doing it for fifty years. If we want it to get cheaper, we have to look further. If wooden ships are not enough, I don’t think we ever get to steel ships. I don’t want my grandchildren arguing we need cheaper access to space. I want lots of competition just doing it… because they’ve been shown the way.
Ken, again, I’m sorry that you’re unable to understand basic economics.
It is barely affordable to get to LEO currently. It only happens for payloads worth hundreds of thousand of dollars per pound. To think that we could set up a destination off planet, particularly at Mars, with current technology, is economic lunacy.
The reason your voice is in the minority is not because you’re some brilliant prophet, but because you don’t seem to understand the basic economics of spaceflight. Sorry.
The steel ships didn’t bring down the costs — they just made it safer. Right now, spaceflight is unaffordable for the purposes that you desire, wooden or steel ships. That problem has to be solved first, and it won’t be solved by establishing a Mars colony.
I love the snark Rand, but I do understand economics.
I also understand that SpaceX would not exist if Elon was not focused on mars. It’s not just an eccentricity of his. It guides everything he does. It’s why he is providing a current service in orbit and others are not. It’s why he will be testing reuse next year, far ahead of what most would have anticipated. All because he is looking past his nose.
Elon is offering seats to orbit for $20m. With just one change and no other, he could offer those seats for less than $4m: By sending more at a time using the FH. That is basic economics. He intends to do better than even that (although I do admit to lacking the imagination to see how?)
Rand, you do not need to explain to me about cost to orbit. I understand it thoroughly (you provided much of that education) including the fact that it affects everything that follows. But don’t ignore your own voice in the wilderness about flight rates.
Current costs are too high. They will come down. My concern is the rate. Saying the obvious, costs are too high, doesn’t address the rate of change.
Steel ships DO bring down costs and continue to do so today. It is in fact, cheaper (per item) because of those steel ships. Per item, is what is important.
If my argument is true, then brilliant prophecy is exactly what that would be. But you know what they say about regard for prophet during their own lives?
Please, I beg you, attack my argument. What is the fastest way to bring down the cost to orbit? I say it is by reaching past orbit.
Current technology (counting things already announced) is more than enough to settle mars today. This doesn’t mean they will do it right, just that they could. I happen to agree with Trent that Mars One is a suicide mission for example, but that they will (assuming funding) put people on the planet.
Wars have taken us from biplanes to jets. A colony on mars will do the same for cost to orbit.
Actually I misspoke. One war in less than four years took us from biplanes to jets.
I love the snark Rand, but I do understand economics.
Sorry, but with all respect, it’s hard to believe that from most of your posts on space settlement and particularly with respect to Mars settlement.
I beg you, attack my argument. What is the fastest way to bring down the cost to orbit? I say it is by reaching past orbit.
You can write that until the cows come home, but it doesn’t make it true. The notion that we will somehow reduce costs by doing something that requires the reduction of costs is logically ludicrous. The only way to bring costs down to orbit, which is essential to what you claim is necessary to bring costs down to orbit, is to provide a near-term, non-BEO market.
I would also like to point out the analogy between depots and gas stations. They build gas stations on roads. The roads come first.
I would also like to point out the analogy between depots and gas stations. They build gas stations on roads. The roads come first.
That statement is completely meaningless in the context of space. No roads are needed. Roads smooth out rough terrain. That doesn’t exist in space. What is missing in space is gas stations. I’ve written essays on this. Sorry you missed them.
The notion that we will somehow reduce costs by doing something that requires the reduction of costs is logically ludicrous.
Your carefully chosen words (to support your logic) is countered by the fact that, that is exactly how it happens in most all cases.
Costs do not come down in a vacuum. They always come down in pursuit of other goals.
That somehow is a basic fact of economics. Cost do not come down when some company is fat and happy making profits. They come down through disruption and competition.
Change is painful. People and companies avoid it.
A mars colony is a disruptive change. It will ignite innovation that brings cost down. Not because I’m saying it. But because that’s how it always happens.
A road isn’t just a smoother surface. It’s a line between two points. Only California builds roads where their are no endpoints (which comes a huge surprise when the road ends and you’re in the middle of a desert.)
A mars colony would be one endpoint if not obvious in my analogy.
A mars colony is a disruptive change.
No matter how much you wish, and clap your hands, and try to revive Tinkerbell, a Mars colony is not going to happen until the cost of getting into LEO is reduced. But apparently it pleases you to live in an illogical dreamworld.
A road isn’t just a smoother surface. It’s a line between two points.
No, roads are pretty well defined. There were many lines between any two points on the American frontier, but until someone actually smoothed them out, no one used them. Again, clapping your hands and redefining terms is not going to fulfill your Mars fantasy.
I’m sorry to be so harsh, but I’m getting tired of having to harsh your Mars buzz that continually pollutes my comments section.
I’m not banning you. I just wish that you’d think a little before posting.
I loved that essay the first time I read it and still do. You are a great writer and you know how to focus on the right points.
NASA has no intention or desire to really build an interstate highway system for space.
Why would they or anybody unless there is an end goal?
The real issue has always been funding. The Space Settlement Initiative has provided the definitive answer to that.
Nobody is arguing that costs aren’t too high and all that follows.
I’m not even arguing against cost coming down making more things possible.
What I’m saying is focusing on costs hasn’t done a lot. I’m arguing that, using SpaceX as an example, costs come down because of a larger picture. Not by focusing on costs.
until someone actually smoothed them out
That is just not true. They got smoothed out, because they were being used.
I’m sorry to be so harsh, but I’m getting tired of having to harsh your Mars buzz that continually pollutes my comments section.
I like who you are Rand. It’s why I have loyally followed you for over a decade. I had hoped my comments added value to your blog. But if you consider them only to be pollution then I will comment no more.
What I’m saying is focusing on costs hasn’t done a lot.
That might make sense if anyone, other than SpaceX, had focused on costs. But they did, and they brought costs down, without building a Mars colony.
They got smoothed out, because they were being used.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. They got smoothed out, because they were built. That is the definition of roads.
I like who you are Rand. It’s why I have loyally followed you for over a decade. I had hoped my comments added value to your blog. But if you consider them only to be pollution then I will comment no more.
I’m just asking you to think before commenting, because, in general, you seem to be doing it the other way around. Friendly criticism, and I hope constructive. I’ve been wanting to say that for a long time.
I’m not going to ban you. For the most part, I’ll just continue to mostly ignore. But if you don’t want me to do that, think more, comment less. Don’t just hit the keyboard with your stream of consciousness. Write things out somewhere else, think about it, edit it, then paste and post it. It will benefit all, but you most of all.
Please know Rand that I do sincerely continue to respect you and the world would be a better place if more people were like you.
Because I do (and likely to your relief) I hope never again to pollute your blog with my comments. I considered not polluting any other sites as well, such are the power of your comments to a loyal and faithful reader for almost two decades. I know you will continue to serve liberty lovers and continue to champion against governmental tyranny with a writing style I envy.
That you would belittle me by saying you will ignore me (rather than just doing it) is disappointing. That you would call my ideas economic nonsense without addressing any specifics is as well. I’m not stupid Rand, I just appear such by my ingrained style and off camber humor, which is one reason I hate the buffoons that continue to denigrate Sarah Palin who has shown wisdom even in the things she is most criticized for.
I wish you only the best Rand. You have been a rock when I have greatly needed it. My mind has always been unique and easily dismissed. You would be amazed at how many people, without any prompting, usually after several years without contact, have come to me to apologize for not recognizing bits of wisdom in the profusion of my ‘pollution.’ I really do have a diminished capacity these days so it’s not likely I can implement your sage advise if I ever could.
When I can, I will always have your back. No response is fine and will not be seen as a some kind of slight. I’ve waited to respond until I felt I should. If I prayed, blessings to you would be in them (being the kind of sincere atheist I like, I know you will forgive me for that.)
Ken, I didn’t say that you “pollute” the blog (I don’t think), and I didn’t ask you not to post. I wrote what I wrote. If you post less, and think more, then I will have more time to think about what you write, and respond.
Forgive me for not being able to suppress my sense of humor (a deep psychological defect of mine no doubt) but…
Ah, so it appears I am not alone in letting the fingers type without engaging the brain. You are human after all. I now have evidence should I have to defend you to accusations of otherwise…
I’m getting tired of having to harsh your Mars buzz that continually pollutes my comments section.
Please don’t parse it, because I do admit to over generalizing this comment. The fact is it had been a rough week for other reasons the details of which I will spare you of (memorial, 54th birthday, multiple family and social group issues, counseling homework: all in the same week) and I was surprised myself by the strength of my own reaction. It hurt more than I expected.
I know I post too much and have become an absolute fanatic about mars colonization. Your time is valuable. I have no problem with you ignoring my posts because I do appreciate that you continue to allow me to make them and other inane comments that fall flat.
If you were or did take the time (or had the time) for an honest give and take I know with absolute certainty that one or both of us (yes, it might only be me with little benefit to you) would come out of that with a better understanding of the truth. Dismissing me as spouting economic nonsense just isn’t fair without specifics. …and I hate that I just used the word ‘fair’ which is one of the most abused words in the english language.
We’re good as far as I’m concerned. I’ve gone through my emotional responses which I must emphasize came as a real surprise to me. You will continue to be a person that gives me joy in the way you express yourself. I only wish I could return some of that to you. I am an acquired taste I fear.
I want to thank all of your readers that have given me such encouragement. You really have brought together a remarkable bunch of people Rand. Including me I’m afraid.
“have no trouble at all. It’s just my understanding of wooden ships and iron men.”
Ken,
One thing to remember when applying the historical sailing ship era analogy, was that the markets were already discovered and reached – by land.
In other words there was a known, proven, profit and already an economical method of getting to where the stuff was. The benefits of shipping via the sea were:
big loads per vessel
less interference with trade routes because you weren’t crossing borders of tribes and/or nations who could and did close them off
As of now, there’s a speculative market, and no way to get to where the goods are. And no real appreciation of the costs of getting the goods.
Nobody builds a colony unless there’s money to be made or a freedom to be gained……and already in existence, a reliable, fairly inexpensive way to get there.
I hope whoever comes up with a workable warp drive comes up with a real name for it and for velocities beyond the speed of light, as our supersonic aircraft don’t fly around using Mach drives, nor do we talk about light traveling at warp 1.
“Mach drive” sounds incredibly cool. That’s what we should call them.
“…………our supersonic aircraft don’t fly around using Mach drives.”
Expect Iran to announce a new Stealth Mach Drive fighter.
Arizona CJ, a space elevator would not just have to avoid anything orbiting below GEO, it would also have to avoid anything above GEO as well; the ribbon would have to extend out to 100000 km to act as counterweight.
The cable wouldn’t need to go much beyond GEO if a counterweight (say a very small asteroid, a few hundred yards in diameter) was used just beyond GEO.
However, doing so would rob the elevator of on of it’s greatest assets; using the cable far beyond GEO and an interplanetary launcher.
That’s one of the biggest problems with a space elevator IMHO; the fact that its existence would preculde the use of most of near earth space for most anything else.
One option; a movable base for the elevator; a mobile sea platform. Moving the base would move the cable enough to dodge an object in orbit, but that gets tricky with a lot of objects in various orbits.
Due to the inherent difficulties with a space elevator, my personal favorite non-rocket system is the skyhook. The version I favor (though one I thought up myself, so it might be utterly impractical or impossible) would be to place a small asteroid (or a very large collection of space junk, far more than currently exists) in LEO, spin it up and deploy a cable for a skyhook. The cable’s passes though the upper atmosphere would thus be quite slow, airliner speed and altitude, enabling either grappling of cargo, or the vehicle itself, would would then ride the cable up and to orbital speed. A longer version could pick up cargo at ground level. You’d have a cable a couple of hundred miles long rather than tens of thousands, so easier from a materials perspective.
The downside of a skyhook; it’s momentum transfer based. Every time you boosted something with it, you’d lower its orbit. Maybe this could be overcome by using a larger asteroid in a higher LEO, so there would be far more mass potential, but at some point it would still need reboosting. The only options I can think of are high efficiency solar-electric of some sort, with reaction mass brought up via the skyhook. Or, going further into speculative tech, a lunar rail gun launching cylinders of compressed regolith be caught by the cable at the top of its arc and released at ground level; its mass providing momentum exchange. A lot of caution would be needed; this could only be done at certain points of the orbit, otherwise a missed catch would create a very large and dense meteor. The only way around that… loose regolith encased in, say, light plastic or a steel mesh, so it would break up upon an inadvertent entry.
A much better option all around, though, would be a truly cheap rocket launch system. Get the price per pound to LEO down enough, especially to anything near air freight rates, and problem solved. 🙂
IMHO, the real holy grail of rocketry would be developing a usable fuel that has much higher energy density per pound than the current best, which I think is LOX-LH2. That’d give a far higher ISP, allowing much more of the vehicle weight to be dedicated to dedicated to resusability, and also simplifying things by making SSTO easy. Right now reusability and also SSTO is very hard due to the mass fraction limits, but high ISP at current thrust-to-weight solves that.
I rather like the eccentric idea put forward in an obscure story (I’ve only ever seen it online): an electromagnetic launcher. The wrinkle in this otherwise rather common idea was that the launcher was suspended at an altitude of about 30km from a series of really big (1km or so) aerostats. How do you get to the launcher? Basically, a crane. Or slightly more practically, an airbreathing lifter specifically designed for the job.
Arizona CJ; Sorry, but such fuels don’t exist. The nearest we can get to that is something like ClF5/diborane, but oxygen/hydrogen is the best we get without toxic, violently inflammable or poisonous reactants. Actually, the best route to increasing efficiency is to decrease the molecular weight of the exhaust. The only known way to do THAT is to use a non-chemical way to heat it, and make the exhaust hydrogen.
Or maybe helium, which brings us to fusion rocket territory. Maybe the focus fusion group, woefully underfunded, will show the way?
One more thing. When discussing reaction drives, remember the Kzinti Lesson.
I’ve seen that aerostat idea before but it seems full of holes to me. For one thing, it takes a really large balloon to lift a significant payload to 30 km altitude. Those balloons are either extremely delicate or perhaps more robust (and expensive) superpressure types. You’d need many of those large balloons and a lot of helium to lift your electromagnetic rail gun to high altitude.
Then, you’d need a powerful supply of electricity. How would that be provided, perhaps large solar panels and ultra-capacitors?
Third, there’s getting the payload up to the aerostats. A crane would be the most practical method but a cable 30 km long tends to be heavy. There aren’t many aircraft that can fly to 30 km altitude (that’s significantly higher than the U-2 or SR-71 could reach) and they’re going far faster than the aerostats, so handing off the payload would be quite challenging.
Finally, all you’ve gained in 30 km of altitude. You still need to reach orbital velocity. The electromagnetic launcher can provide most of that but how do you handle the recoil? Your payload would still need the ability to raise the perigee above 30 km or it wouldn’t survive a single rev before deorbiting.
“Costs do not come down in a vacuum. They always come down in pursuit of other goals.”
Costs come down in a free market in pursuit of undercutting the competition. There hasn’t been a healthy free market in space launch with government cost plus contracts dominating, and export restrictions hampering international competitors.