Research Warps into Hyperdrive (space.com article)

[dreada5]

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060308_exotic_drive.html<br /><br />Have you guys read this and whats your interpretation of Felber work?<br /><br />Is he saying that if spacecraft could emit an anti-gravity beam/field in its flight path, it would AUTOMATICALLY accelerate to relativistic speeds ie. 30,000km/s?<br /><br />

 

[ragnorak]

<br />This theoretical stuff is so hard to put into practice. Even if it can work I don't expect to see anything in my lifetime.

 

[googlenaut]

I think what it means is that if a highly collimated matter stream were created where the velocity of flow approaches the speed of light, then because of 'frame dragging' the matter stream will be gravitationally repulsive to test particles, and the threshold velocity where frame dragging overpowers inertial gravitation is about 63% of light speed or something like that...<br /><br />The faster the stream goes, the stronger this 'dragging' force is, and the narrower the angle between the dragging force and the matter beam.<br /><br />However, I wouldn't expect significant effects unless we somehow created a 1 m diameter pipeline that could pump superfluid neutronium at about 75-80% of the speed of light. So yeah, just because something is possible in principle does not mean it is practical.<br /><br />Having said that, what was really remarkebly novel about NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program was the systematic way in which various possibilities were explored. This is the essential nature of science, and such a sustained as NASA's BPP pogram effort will likely be the only way in which a real physical effect can be identified and exploited.<br /><br />Ty Moore<br />

 

[rocketman5000]

I just skimed the article because I don't have a lot of time here at lunch, but it was an interesting read. Several things I found interesting was the use of radiowaves as a forcefield. Is there any more information on such devices? <br /><br />Secondly was the critisms of heritage programs. Ie. back to the moon. Until recently I hadn't realized the scope of projects canceled under the Bush administration. I feel that going back to the moon is a great goal, but not neccessairly at the expense of the BPP, and other advanced spacecraft concepts including several RLV's .<br /><br />Lastly what is the defination of in the near future? The author seems to intimate that this technology could be available within my lifetime...

 

[mlorrey]

I found the BPP to be a whitewash program. Generally, they didn't do any original research or flight tests, they just came up with tired old excuses using obsolete physics for why proposals were impossible. It was a high-tech lynching little different than the historic New York Times "discrediting" of Dr. Goddard's lunar rocket theories.<br /><br />If a new BPP came about that actually tested, found problems, came up with solutions, retested, etc, done by people who were motivated to make breakthroughs rather than to make up excuses, I'd be totally supportive. Maybe that was actually what went on, but that wasn't how it appeared, and where are the ones that actually worked, now? VASIMR got sacked, magneto-plasma sails never set sail, and the Planetary Society had to rely on some unreliable Russian ICBMs to get their privately funded solar sails launched, ending in failure.<br /><br />None of the technologies, so far as I can see, had agressive advocates within the program, outside of Chang-Diaz pimping his VASIMR whenever he could. This is suicide, since scientific bureaucracies kill projects that don't have evangelists for them. "Objective" evaluators fairly come up with possible reasons why a project might not work, the budget people jump on them as excuses to kill the project, and without an advocate being a missionary for the project, it is doomed to being canned.

 

[dreada5]

I don't know <b>enough</b> about BPP to comment. It sounded promising at the time and a worthwhile investment, with some very interesting concepts coming from it.<br /><br />But IMO I don't think its fair to criticise and second guess the value of future manned moon missions because of their great importance. I think if NASA doesn't return to Moon/Mars and soon, it will start to loose credibility, attention from the public and finally money! Put simply: RLV, BPP and "space science" aren't enough!! NASA <b>has</b> to do the BIG missions!<br /><br />Ideally, I just wished the gov't could provide NASA with the budget to do all the above, but it can't. So unless the budget is seriously increased, its one or the other... manned interplanetary missions or space science research.<br /><br />Actually, I'm of the opinion that just like NASA says its only in the business of spearheading the exploration of the final frontier and then it'll will leave it to private industries like Virgin Galactic, SpaceX etc to develop, so to I believe that other gov't agencies FAA, NSA and military etc and scientific research organisations should now start picking up their own bill for getting industry to support their interests in space. Some of that responsibility should be transferred from NASA to these agencies, since everyone's (other groups) now have an interest in space too.<br /><br />So for what its worth, I fully support what Griffin/Bush are doing. I think the public feels its time to change NASA's status quo and restore the agency's glory days and that that is what space scientists have a problem with. But I think it's 100% right to reallocate funds for the moment. Excuse me for being blunt, but NASA can't exist JUST to provide jobs for the local community. This unique organisation has to be going places! Too long NASA's been without a clear vision, without impressive Apollo-type flagship missions. If NASA has to cut space science funding <i>temporarily</i> to get us back out there (to the