What's an FTL type engine?

[Themohawkninja]

That is true, I believe they\'ve already laid the basis for an FTL type engine.

What\'s an FTL type engine?

[dr_anonymous]

What\'s an FTL type engine?

FTL=Faster than Light, a hyperdrive or warpdrive or somesuch.

[Themohawkninja]

FTL=Faster than Light, a hyperdrive or warpdrive or somesuch.

Yes, I did here something along the lines of a warp drive. I see absolutely no use for it until we get extra-solar stars to travel to though.

[Cykyrios]

What about an Infinite Improbability Drive?

You can get anywhere instantly, but only if you know exactly how improbable it is... [/HHGG]

I quite like that the new parts are mid-range ones, and that there will eventually be futuristic parts as well. Will make things really interesting when the game gets to that point. I can\'t even think how awesome it will be then, as it already is now =P

[Themohawkninja]

What about an Infinite Improbability Drive?

You can get anywhere instantly, but only if you know exactly how improbable it is... [/HHGG]

I cite the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle as my proof that your proposal is impossible, however convenient it may be.

[GabrielG.A.B.Fonseca]

Star Trek\'s warp drive is possible. Physicists made the calculations, and yes, it works. If you have a giant anti-matter reactor, being cooled by Bosen-Einstein condensate, a giant negative-gravitons generator, a super-strong magnetic field generator, many times stronger the sun\'s mag. field and a pocket book titled 'FTL Travel For Dummies'.

Then, yes, you can go Fater-Than-Light =P

[GabrielG.A.B.Fonseca]

No, but seriously, it indeed works.

[Themohawkninja]

No, but seriously, it indeed works.

In theory...

Anywho, I want to see extra-solar stars before the FLE engine is put in the game.

[zombiphylax]

I\'ve found some pictures of what I think would be nice as a general colour theme:

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg186860#msg186860

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg127210#msg127210

They aren\'t overly cartoony, not rainbow colourful, but they manage to add that extra dimension without feeling cluttered.

While I\'m flattered you liked the simple 'race-stripe-esque' decals I whipped up, I\'m willing to bet the KSP team will be able to come up with something a bit more thought-out and uniform. I\'m thinking many parts by themselves will look fairly plain in the VAB, and the 'Decals' subgroup will let you add your own hazard stickers and fairing decorations.

[OrtwinS]

Star Trek\'s warp drive is possible. Physicists made the calculations, and yes, it works. If you have a giant anti-matter reactor, being cooled by Bosen-Einstein condensate, a giant negative-gravitons generator, a super-strong magnetic field generator, many times stronger the sun\'s mag. field and a pocket book titled 'FTL Travel For Dummies'.

Then, yes, you can go Fater-Than-Light =P

Too bad that we as of yet have no proof of the excistance of gravitons.

Note that we do have evidence of the rest of our particle zoo (quarks, leptons, gluons and photons..). But no Higgs bosons, and we need those to make our Standard Model work and allow for gravitons.

Our friends at CERN are working on it though, whatever the answer I\'m sure they will find it.

Proving the Standard Model, or shoving it into the \'fancy but not completely correct\' bin (it\'ll get a spot next to Newtons Laws).

[sal_vager]

[mod]Off-Topic discussion moved from the Dev thread to a more suitable area.[/mod]

[Cthulufaic]

I think there\'s another kind of FTL drive, one that works on the String Theory.

The idea I think is that it travels along the strings, or that it arranges them into some pattern that allows for FTL travel.

[CaptainArbitrary]

Star Trek\'s warp drive is possible. Physicists made the calculations, and yes, it works.

By which you mean one physicist —Miguel Alcubierre —did the calculations, and no, it doesn\'t work. His paper on the subject is a definitive refutation of the idea of inducing positive curvature in spacetime. It\'s just that he doesn\'t actually get to the 'explaining why it\'s impossible' part until the next-to-last page, and most people don\'t read that far, or else the subtleties of the weak energy condition are lost on people who don\'t have a strong background in general relativity.

Too bad that we as of yet have no proof of the excistance of gravitons.

You can go a step further than that. We have definitive proof of the non-existence of gravitons. The graviton was — emphasis on was —a hypothetical massless spin-2 boson that would, in proposed quantum field theory formulations of gravity, act as the tensor equivalent of the vector gauge bosons in other quantum field theories. Problem is, we soon discovered that any theory that admits massless spin-2 boson isn\'t renormalizable … which is just a fancy way of saying it\'s mathematical gibberish. And of course, any spin-2 boson field that isn\'t massless, or any massless boson field that doesn\'t have spin 2, doesn\'t result in gravity.

So no. Definitely no gravitons.

Note that we do have evidence of the rest of our particle zoo (quarks, leptons, gluons and photons..). But no Higgs bosons, and we need those to make our Standard Model work and allow for gravitons.

Bit of a misstatement there. Neither gravitons nor the Higgs are not part of the Standard Model. The Higgs is an extension to the Standard Model that presents a theoretical explanation for electroweak symmetry breaking —why it is, put simply, that W and Z bosons have mass while photons don\'t — but it\'s not the only such theory. The Standard Model works fine without Higgs, technicolor or any of the other competing ideas; it just doesn\'t tell us everything there is to know about that particular symmetry group.

[Misterspork]

By which you mean one physicist — Miguel Alcubierre — did the calculations, and no, it doesn\'t work. His paper on the subject is a definitive refutation of the idea of inducing positive curvature in spacetime. It\'s just that he doesn\'t actually get to the 'explaining why it\'s impossible' part until the next-to-last page, and most people don\'t read that far, or else the subtleties of the weak energy condition are lost on people who don\'t have a strong background in general relativity.

Apparently everyone who wrote this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

didn\'t read that 'second to last page'. Now, of course, Wikipedia isn\'t a reliable source, but I\'m not going to believe everyone who has done editing on that page has limited knowledge on the subject. I also refuse to believe that the average troll looking to add misinformation knows to search for 'Alcubierre Drive.'

No, it is not impossible, hypothetically, but there are huge hurdles that have to be jumped in order for it to work. By huge, I mean ASTRONOMICALLY huge.

Such as the creation of Hawking radiation, the fact that you can\'t get out of the bubble once you get in, and the huge task of trying to create such a bubble. All these make it seem impossible to accomplish, but not impossible.

And no matter how much you throw at me trying to prove it is impossible, I\'m not going to stop trying to look for a solution. A lot of people believed it was impossible to travel faster than sound. A lot of people believed heavier than air flight was impossible, and that getting to the Moon was impossible. Here is a quote that I like to use, I don\'t remember it perfectly but it goes something like this:

'If the Earth were to explode tomorrow, the last audible sound will be that of an expert saying it is impossible.'

Or so.

http://www.permanent.com/infamous-quotes.html

Now, I\'m no astrophysicist, and far from it, as I am a normal 13 year old that shows an interest in science, but I won\'t take information this readily. So, in response to your other statements, [citation needed].

[CaptainArbitrary]

No, it is not impossible, hypothetically

That\'s just the thing. It is. Impossible, I mean. That\'s what the math says. The math says that in order for that 'drive' to work, you\'d need to be able to induce a stress-energy tensor that violates the weak energy condition. That\'s how we know it can\'t occur. It literally violates the laws of nature.

And no matter how much you throw at me trying to prove it is impossible, I\'m not going to stop trying to look for a solution.

That\'s kind of a shame, really. You\'re gonna waste a lot of effort.

A lot of people believed it was impossible to travel faster than sound. A lot of people believed heavier than air flight was impossible, and that getting to the Moon was impossible.

Completely different things. Nobody says moving faster than light is impossible. What people who understand physics — including, humbly, myself —say is that the phrase 'faster than light' is meaningless gibberish. It\'s like saying you\'re looking for a number with a magnitude less than zero. It\'s just nonsense.

Now, I\'m no astrophysicist, and far from it, as I am a normal 13 year old that shows an interest in science, but I won\'t take information this readily.

That\'s okay. You\'ll grow out of it. Or else remain ignorant, one or the other.

[Misterspork]

That\'s just the thing. It is. Impossible, I mean. That\'s what the math says. The math says that in order for that 'drive' to work, you\'d need to be able to induce a stress-energy tensor that violates the weak energy condition. That\'s how we know it can\'t occur. It literally violates the laws of nature.

Before you can say 'we', again, [citation needed]. I\'m sorry, but I am not one of those people who will freely accept everything told to them by 'experts', especially someone I am not sure is even an expert. In other words, I\'m not a lemming. You can\'t just say 'this is the way it is' and change my thinking except in extreme circumstances. I need proof, mathematical or cited proof.

That\'s kind of a shame, really. You\'re gonna waste a lot of effort.

Some solution can be found. From what I know on the subject, space itself can expand faster than light, and there exists other possible loopholes. Someone, eventually, will figure out how to do it. Heck, who knows, in the next 200 years relativity may be proven incorrect in some senses, or some other great theory can be created that surpasses relativity. It is impossible to predict, and theories are not set in stone. Relativity did overwrite previous ways of thinking, something may do so in the future.

That\'s okay. You\'ll grow out of it. Or else remain ignorant, one or the other.

Excuse me? I\'m sorry, I\'ll try to state this as humbly as possible, but I don\'t think any ignorant person, especially a 13 year old, understands most of the stuff I know about or done the stuff I do. I would rather not give any examples, as that would break what I said in the first 10 words of the second sentence. Now, I haven\'t learned as much as some others my age, but that\'s because I don\'t want to socially isolate myself. I already am partially.

I\'m not saying I know more on the subject, though.

[dogon11]

Now, Mr. Arbitrary, I would not consider those final words to be kind. I\'d see them in a sort of... negative manner.

[Vanamonde]

You\'ll grow out of it. Or else remain ignorant, one or the other.

That\'s needlessly harsh, and is the kind of attitude that turns excited 13 year olds off from science. How do people become not-ignorant? By remaining excited and curious, asking impertinent questions, and talking about the things that interest them. Misterspork should be congratulated for spending his time playing KSP rather than some mindless shoot-\'em-up.

Now, I haven\'t learned as much as some others my age, but that\'s because I don\'t want to socially isolate myself.

See? The poor kid is already afraid he\'ll be ridiculed if he shows any signs of intelligence or curiosity. Insulting him isn\'t going to help.

The laws that we know about now say that it\'s impossible to reach or surpass light speed, but that\'s the thing, isn\'t it? Somebody often comes along and finds new laws, exceptions to the rules, or most often, that the laws we know about are special cases of larger laws that do allow things that were formerly considered impossible. Powered flight and faster-than-sound are completely apt analogies: they were impossible by the rules that were known in the 19th century, and then somebody who refused to believe the accepted wisdom discovered that internal combustion could make a powerplant strong enough to lift a heavier than air vehicle, and changing the shape of a plane could allow it to slip through the compressed air that builds up in front of something trying to exceed the speed of sound. New rules, new possiblities.

Misterspork, try to find nicer friends who won\'t make fun of you for being curious and smart. Trust me: normal people are boring. The weirdos are nicer and have better senses of humor!

[Randox]

Star Trek\'s warp drive is possible. Physicists made the calculations, and yes, it works. If you have a giant anti-matter reactor, being cooled by Bosen-Einstein condensate, a giant negative-gravitons generator, a super-strong magnetic field generator, many times stronger the sun\'s mag. field and a pocket book titled 'FTL Travel For Dummies'.

Then, yes, you can go Fater-Than-Light =P

Doesn\'t this also hinge on subspace being a thing? The entire principle behind star treks warp drive, aside from the bending of space, is the subspace bubble to get your ship into what is essentially another dimension with different laws of physics. Most FTL drives utilize some other dimension because the assumption is that the universe will not let you exceed the speed of light in real space.

And as a side note, the most interesting FTL I have ever seen (because its so different) is Babylon 5\'s, which is just subspace with no warp/hyper/slipstream drive. It\'s like the nether in minecraft. Ships transition to hyper space (might be remembering the name wrong), and continue using their sublight engines. The space itself extremely warped relative to realspace, providing a huge shortcut, but you need navigation beacons transmitting from real space to navigate hyper space.

[Agamemnon]

from nasa about warp/alcubierre drive (and more):

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html

have fun

[Alchemist]

All the current FTL designs are still like attempts to reach supersonic speeds on a turbofan-propelled aircraft without even building a wind tunnel to understand laws of supersonic aerodynamics.

That is until a successful experiment with any kind of FTL and researching the physics laws in these conditions (who guarantees that in FTL the model based on relativistic observations will work better than classic mechanics in relativistic case?) it can\'t be 100% proven that any design of FTL drive is or is not possible - we can\'t be sure about this if our model isn\'t tested in these conditions.

If it violates some mathematics, that doesn\'t mean that it\'s physically impossible until we know that these mathematics match physics in the given case.

[Vanamonde]

There\'s an Isaac Asimov short story in which they figure out how to get to hyperspace, but the speed of light there is slower.

[Cthulufaic]

There\'s an Isaac Asimov short story in which they figure out how to get to hyperspace, but the speed of light there is slower.

Oh the Irony! ;P

It would be so funny/crushingly dissapointing if that was really the case.

[Vostok]

Before you can say 'we', again, [citation needed]. I\'m sorry, but I am not one of those people who will freely accept everything told to them by 'experts', especially someone I am not sure is even an expert. In other words, I\'m not a lemming. You can\'t just say 'this is the way it is' and change my thinking except in extreme circumstances. I need proof, mathematical or cited proof.Some solution can be found. From what I know on the subject, space itself can expand faster than light, and there exists other possible loopholes. Someone, eventually, will figure out how to do it. Heck, who knows, in the next 200 years relativity may be proven incorrect in some senses, or some other great theory can be created that surpasses relativity. It is impossible to predict, and theories are not set in stone. Relativity did overwrite previous ways of thinking, something may do so in the future.Excuse me? I\'m sorry, I\'ll try to state this as humbly as possible, but I don\'t think any ignorant person, especially a 13 year old, understands most of the stuff I know about or done the stuff I do. I would rather not give any examples, as that would break what I said in the first 10 words of the second sentence. Now, I haven\'t learned as much as some others my age, but that\'s because I don\'t want to socially isolate myself. I already am partially.

I\'m not saying I know more on the subject, though.

Mathematical proof that it\'s impossible to travel at c.

Shown by the relativistic mass equation.

First you need to know that at high speeds, the (relativistic) mass of an object changes. The mass of the object is illustrated in this equation.

Your relativistic mass is given by m. Standing mass is Mo. Speed is v, speed of light is c.

As you can see, as your speed gets close to the speed of light, (or as V -> c), then v^2/c^2 gets closer and closer to 1.

If then, you approximate it to 1, (by assuming speed of light travel) the denominator becomes sqrt(1-1) which is zero. Therefore, the bottom line is zero. As you know, you cannot divide by zero, and the equation breaks down.

As v gets closer and closer to c, the denominator gets smaller and smaller and smaller, meaning that the relativistic mass gets infinitely large. Since the force taken to accelerate a body is proportional to its mass (relativistic mass at these speeds) it will then take an infinite amount of force to further accelerate the object, meaning, therefore, that you cannot accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light.

[Menelmacar]

It has already been seen that a few things can travel faster than c, like light in certain media. 'No that\'ll never work' is simply not a response that\'ll ever get us anywhere... and to whoever said the Infinite Improbability drive was impossible simply doesn\'t understand it - it\'s creation is infinitely improbable - not impossible.