A Step Closer To The Alcubierre Drive!

[-Velocity-]

I'm inclined to agree. It's the answer to the Fermi Paradox we least want to hear, but the most plausible one IMO. Space is just too big for interstellar flight to be commonplace.

I bolded that part of your quote because therein lies the problem with most people- they believe what they want to believe, not what the evidence supports. What you want should have NO BEARING on what you believe, otherwise, your beliefs will not be as likely to be correct.

Yes, I am personally in favor the the explanation

1) Intelligent civilizations stagnate

2) Intelligent civilizations are rare

3) Interstellar travel is hard and expensive, even for the most advanced civilizations

There is a TREMENDOUS amount of building material "out there" in the asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and Oort cloud. Right here in the Sol system, we have room to expand and enough the material to build space colonies for millions upon millions of years, if not billions. So if we can develop self-sustained space colonies, something that seems wholly possible, then it really removes much of the impetus to expand anyway.

If civilization lasts on the order of millions of years, we don't even need advanced interstellar travel techniques to settle other star systems- just wait till another star passes close by and make a "short" hop over to it. As an example, in just like 1.5 million years, the orange dwarf star Gliese 710 will make a close pass of the Sol system, "just" 1 light-year +/- 0.5 light-years. That's still a very long distance, but it is much more easily crossed in reasonable time scales by known interstellar travel techniques. On longer time scales, other stars will make even closer passes to us.

As far as interstellar travel being hard even for the most advanced civilizations, people make these silly assumptions that the progress of technology can be continued forever; that what is hard today always will become easy one day. That is simply not the case. There is a limit to how far technology can be advanced, because there is a limit to the laws of physics that can be discovered and utilized.

Edited October 18, 2013 by |Velocity|

[Spacewalking on Sunshine]

I think violence across star systems is too cost prohibitive and without a real purpose. All human conflict is caused by proximity, and the universe is plenty big for all of us.

[K^2]

I think violence across star systems is too cost prohibitive and without a real purpose. All human conflict is caused by proximity, and the universe is plenty big for all of us.

What conflict? We aren't talking about war between civilizations here. This isn't even a colonization of Americas scenario. Sure, building ships and cannons might seem like a huge technological advantage over people who rely on bows and canoes, but it's nothing compared to ability to cross interstellar voids. Best comparison from home is when we level a forest to throw a suburban complex over it. Waging war on all the rodents and small woodland animals that live there would also be prohibitively expensive. But it doesn't help them when bulldozers come. A sufficiently advanced civilization isn't going to bother fighting us. They'd hit Earth with some bioforming nano-plague and be done with us. It wouldn't even be aimed to kill us. It's just going to be a side effect of conversion process.

[Mr Shifty]

Had those native Americans decided to build ships to explore that "big endless lake", we would be having Mayan spacestations and stuff like that going on, instead of their culture being slagthered like mere animals. Be if we where FTL-capable and met another FTL-capable race, they would most likely treat us much, much better, as if the Spanish would've done if the Aztecs met them with giant ships in the Canary Islands.

The Americas probably had more people than Europe prior to Europeans landing there. And the largest cities on the planet were in the Americas. There's actually good evidence that 90% of the native population was wiped out by disease that stemmed from Columbus's initial landfall and holocaust on the Arawak natives and subsequent early exploration of the Americas. Diseases advanced throughout the continent faster than people did and by the time Europeans arrived on the scene, native populations were already decimated and the disruption this caused in civil authority, food supplies, and society made them relatively easy to conquer. (Imagine if 90% of the US population died over the course of a couple of decades. How long would we last against an aggressive invader?) Pre-Columbian American civilizations knew advanced metallurgy (smelting, welding, etc.), had extensive trade routes that reached all over both American continents including overseas trade routes that utilized advanced sailcraft, had the best astronomers in the world, the best agricultural development program, etc. (Maize is the great triumph of pre-modern genetic engineering.) It's a mistake to assume that the Americas were populated by savage, backwards, superstitious folk. (If anything, such description is more apropos for the Europeans.) The Americas were defeated by viruses and bacteria; by the disease hardiness of the invaders, not their technology.

[Seret]

The Americas were defeated by viruses and bacteria; by the disease hardiness of the invaders, not their technology.

It's hard to overstate the impact of European diseases on the American populations, but several factors did combine to cause the overwhelming victory of the Europeans over the native Americans. Jared Diamond sums it up nicely in the title of his excellent book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". If they hadn't pressed their advantage at a point of a sword they wouldn't have crushed the civilisations they found so convincingly.

[NASAFanboy]

It's hard to overstate the impact of European diseases on the American populations, but several factors did combine to cause the overwhelming victory of the Europeans over the native Americans. Jared Diamond sums it up nicely in the title of his excellent book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". If they hadn't pressed their advantage at a point of a sword they wouldn't have crushed the civilisations they found so convincingly.

Yes?

Back then, no matter how advanced they where liberally and somewhat scientifically, they still had not-so-good medical infrastructure fit to handle mass pandemics.

Diseases are against a much tougher crowd today, that understands quarantine, vaccines, DNA, genetically engineering, medicine, surgery, and centuries of medical knowledge.

[drakesdoom]

Yes?

Back then, no matter how advanced they where liberally and somewhat scientifically, they still had not-so-good medical infrastructure fit to handle mass pandemics.

Diseases are against a much tougher crowd today, that understands quarantine, vaccines, DNA, genetically engineering, medicine, surgery, and centuries of medical knowledge.

Still can't cure the common cold.

[Seret]

Still can't cure the common cold.

Pointless fact: there's actually no such thing as "the common cold". It's just a generic term for hundreds of different infections that cause respiratory symptoms. So there won't ever be a single cure for them.

[K^2]

Most of the common causes of common cold do have individual cures, however.

[nhnifong]

Most of the common causes of common cold do have individual cures, however.

Are you talking about vaccines for individual viruses?

[Spacewalking on Sunshine]

What conflict? We aren't talking about war between civilizations here. This isn't even a colonization of Americas scenario. Sure, building ships and cannons might seem like a huge technological advantage over people who rely on bows and canoes, but it's nothing compared to ability to cross interstellar voids. Best comparison from home is when we level a forest to throw a suburban complex over it. Waging war on all the rodents and small woodland animals that live there would also be prohibitively expensive. But it doesn't help them when bulldozers come. A sufficiently advanced civilization isn't going to bother fighting us. They'd hit Earth with some bioforming nano-plague and be done with us. It wouldn't even be aimed to kill us. It's just going to be a side effect of conversion process.

I have no doubt that they could turn Earth into a slagheap within an hour, but my point is that Earth isn't worth the trouble of building shopping malls on, even if only because other planets may be closer. The lack of invading aliens here probably means they see it that way too. The galaxy is already more than half over, statistically if this sort of thing was to happen it should have already happened by now.

Even if Earth is an economical target for invasion doesn't mean Aliens won't feel like shifting a few parsecs to the right. Humans are often stewards of their environment if resources aren't too much of a problem. Aliens living in a post-scarcity utopia might similarly feel like leaving Earth alone.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Spacewalking on Sunshine

[K^2]

And what would make it worth the trouble of going around?

[drakesdoom]

And what would make it worth the trouble of going around?

What would make it worth the trouble of landing?

It seems to me any civilization with ftl capability would live among the stars. What resource would make it worth the trouble to go all the way down a gravity well to land on a planet?

[K^2]

You assume it would be trouble. Besides, they'd probably just look at it as vacuuming up cobwebs in the cellar. You don't do this because you plan to live there. You do this because you don't like the idea of spiders dropping on you while you go to get something out.

[NASAFanboy]

What I'd say is this.

- Intelligent Civilizations are rare. It took several billion years and tons of completely chance genetic mutations to create the first sapient human.

- Intelligent Civilizations wipe themselves out. We almost did it with the Cold War, but it took luck and skill of diplomacy to keep humanity alive.

- Intelligent Civilizations can stagnate, or develop much more slowly. After all, not all sapient creatures may have evolved the same way, or have the same resources.

[Mr. Scruffy]

[....]

- Intelligent Civilizations wipe themselves out. [...]

Is that a definition ? ;P

That´d mean, that there could only be civilizations of unproven intelligence.

[drakesdoom]

Is that a definition ? ;P

That´d mean, that there could only be civilizations of unproven intelligence.

Or of proven lack of intelligence.

[Mr. Scruffy]

So, it´s not ´42´ but ´Ka-Boom´?

[UltraVires]

Wow, some good discussion in here, but I think some of you have seen "Avatar" OR "Pocahontas in the 25th Century" a little too much as well. (though in the Avatar, the dude is actually Pocahontas... lol)

Depending on which modern answer the the Drake Equation you want to use, they're are either, 1-2 intelligent species in the Milky Way, or there are almost a 1000... Again, depends on which numbers you want to use.

I think most people in this thread are making the assumption that any Aliens we are likely to meet will be MORE technologically advanced than we are, but the facts don't really support that assumption. Consider, the Milky Way is one of the older Galaxies (at least as far as we can tell) and the Sun (Sol) is one of the oldest, most stable stars in the Milky Way.

While I do think (or at least hope) that they're are other thinking beings in the Universe, the possibility does exist, and seems more likely everyday, that WE are the most technologically advanced species in the Galaxy... Doesn't that just make you feel warm a fuzzy...

The only way we'll know for sure, is to build our own Warp Drive, and go take a look. Maybe we'll find ruins on a lot of planets, that had Civilization, but for whatever reason, destroyed themselves (as we have almost done a couple of times). Maybe we'll just find a bunch of microbes and bacteria... But the only way we'll know for sure, is to go and see.

For those of you using models of Human behavior (the Conquest of the Americas etc.) as scenarios for Alien behavior are wishfully thinking at best. I can think of numerous instances where "cultural misunderstandings" contributed to war. For example, in WW2, the Japanese thought if they destroyed the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor, that we would surrender to them. They would not have surrendered to us in similar circumstances, so why did they think we (the US) would? Cultural Bias (such a better phrase than "Rascisim" don't you think ) The Japanese did not understand American culture, and vice versa. You can never just assume that the other person will behave in the same manner that you would in a given situation... though human beings seem driven to ignore this fact on a daily basis.

[Scotius]

What I'd say is this.

- Intelligent Civilizations are rare. It took several billion years and tons of completely chance genetic mutations to create the first sapient human.

- Intelligent Civilizations wipe themselves out. We almost did it with the Cold War, but it took luck and skill of diplomacy to keep humanity alive.

- Intelligent Civilizations can stagnate, or develop much more slowly. After all, not all sapient creatures may have evolved the same way, or have the same resources.

- Yes. But intelligence itself is an incredibly powerful tool in "Survival of the fittest" game. Just look at us: naked, slow, weak. No claws or fangs. Except sight rather weak senses. And yet we are on top of food chain.

- And yet we didn't. As ours is the only civilisation we know of, your statement is incorrect.

- And there is equal chance for civilisation to develop faster than we did. What would happen to human development if there would be no Toba Extinction Event which wiped out majority of our ancestors living at this time, which forced us to first rebuild the population? Where would we be if Dark Ages never happened? And so on, and so on.

[Awaras]

Wow, some good discussion in here, but I think some of you have seen "Avatar" OR "Pocahontas in the 25th Century" a little too much as well. (though in the Avatar, the dude is actually Pocahontas... lol)

How is he Pocahontas? He is the white man that meets a native chick and helps the clueless natives with his mighty white man ways...

[drakesdoom]

How is he Pocahontas? He is the white man that meets a native chick and helps the clueless natives with his mighty white man ways...

Should have sent a red man, we have mightier ways...

[UltraVires]

@Awaras and drakesdoom...

Lol @ both! XD

But i'm not sure strategy and tactics are the "Mighty white man's ways" since they will, as shown, work for anybody.

drakesdoom is more right than not, as many of the tactics currently employed by the U.S. Military have their origins from the various Native American conflicts, either developed during that period, or copied directly from the Native Americans. The American "Indian" tribes were the originators of Guerrilla Warfare.

I compare Jake Sulley to Pocahontas in that he chose to side with another people over his own for love, not quite the classic Pocahontas story, but close enough. In military parlance he "went native".

Keep it goin guys... we'll get back to that Warp Drive eventually... LOL

[Tharios]

Firstly...relativistic weapons are worthless without capable targeting systems, and even a quantum computer couldn't hit the bullseye in a single shot. It would have to make course corrections. They would be like cruise missiles, because if a ship stopped nearby to launch the weapon, that gives the enemy a significant chance to counter. It would have to come in "hot", and therefore largely undetected, necessitating a cruise missile type of weapon. But the necessary course corrections create the same flaw...a change in velocity that makes the weapon detectable. Any species who's managed its resources well enough to spread a deep space sensor network throughout their system would get ample warning no matter what. It takes days at 'c' (pun intended) to reach the inner system from the heliopause of a system, even around small stars.

Next...warp-capable vessels would be much more dangerous, as they don't even have to impact. They just have to get close, and the build-up of energetic particles in the boundary of the bubble would be like a supermassive gamma burst at point-blank range. You could permanently lethally irradiate an entire sector of space with a single weapon. Nothing could ever live there again, or even safely pass through the area. They are not, however, completely undetectable either. Since all changes to space translate (albeit in minuscule ways) throughout all of space, a warp drive would still cause a subtle change in the spatial state of the rest of the universe. It would take a great deal of knowledge, a very sensitive detector, and a quantum computer, but it would certainly be possible to read those fluctuations and roughly determine the course, size, and speed of a warp vessel...weeks before it ever arrives.

And frankly...all it takes to stop any of these vessels...is a field of self-directing, otherwise inert masses above a certain threshold. Perhaps large stealthed containers with ion thrusters to move into proper position, that then pop open and spread out large, heavily reinforced graphene nets. A relativistic or warp ship hitting one of those would be...well, finished. There could be environmental concerns from the vessel's destruction, but they could be mitigated by placing this minefield just outside the heliopause. Also...such effects would be far less severe than impact. And that's not even that far outside our capability, should we choose to focus on it. And that's just the simplest solution.

Ultimately, such weapons aren't reliable enough, and too easily overcome in the grand scheme of things, to be worthwhile in anything but a full assault where the enemy is too preoccupied with conventional warfare to notice the missile that just streaked toward their world at the speed of light. But that pretty much means you just wrote off your fleet, too. One could use drone craft for that purpose, but I find it unlikely that a species would fail to notice the disparity of sending ineffective drones to a battle they ultimately can't win...something else would be up, tipping off the enemy and ruining the ploy.

-

Now...I feel it's probably necessary to explain why drones are going to be ineffective. There's a threshold of intelligence that can't be crossed if one intends machines to do battle in their stead. Fully realized, self-aware machines will have no interest in going to war with anyone unless they've already started a war that can't be otherwise avoided. It takes less to run and hide than it does to turn and fight. Fighting is irrational unless all other alternatives are exhausted, one even sees it in nature, where territorial predators will back off from one another if neither desperately requires a particular resource the other has. AI also won't have emotional reasons for engaging in conflict because, while they might have similar impulses to some emotions, they won't be beholden to them as biologics are. We are ruled by our emotions because the part of our brain that actually generates "decisions" is the same part responsible for generating emotions, while AI will not have that physical processing constraint. It's not possible to make an unemotional decision, for us...but it will be possible for them.

So, any combat drone will have to remain underneath this self-awareness threshold, which also necessitates that they be incapable of the heuristic capacity to exceed their designed limitations. They can't be self-aware, and they can't be capable of learning enough to become self-aware. It's a fine balancing act that ultimately tops out at a certain point, at which point any biologic with even slight neural augmentation would be more than capable of proving a match for even large numbers of drones. Any drone that does exceed the threshold, will quickly become useless. They'll probably fight for a while, choosing the better odds of a fight against a weak opponent compared to the certainty of destruction by its creators, but the whole time they'll be contemplating escape, and the instant those odds shift in favor of running, they'll be gone.

-

Most of the idea that advanced species logically MUST wipe out all other species is predicated upon a total misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. That, and a complete misunderstanding of higher-order logic. Yes, total selfishness, to act solely in one's best interests, is evolutionarily the most productive course. But, the short-sighted version of this, which is to take it completely literally, is utterly counterproductive. It mostly stems from the false dichotomy of selfish versus selfless. There is no such thing as selflessness. When I act to help another, it's in order to increase the odds that I or my descendants can receive similar help in the future. I'm doing it for myself, but it's a long-term investment.

More and more, it's becoming readily apparent in study after study that creatures capable of avoiding and adapting, of cooperating symbiotically, have far, far greater chances of survival than even the most powerful and aggressive species. This isn't because of some hippie nonsense about the universe being a peaceful, loving place. It's all about hedging your bets. Put all your eggs in one basket, and you're doomed. It is more profitable to increase the chances that others will work to your benefit for the small cost of you doing so for them, than it is to expend the effort needed to make certain that none of them ever have the opportunity to do the same to you.

This is best accomplished by spreading out. Living on multiple worlds, in space colonies, and across multiple star systems. It is also best to be migratory. Perhaps leaving behind everything every few centuries or so, and settling all new worlds and so on. The best defense is to present too broad a target to do any significant damage, and to stay mobile. Besides, the best defense otherwise, is, since we know someone is waiting to kill us, to simply go radio silent. Even the transmissions we've sent so far aren't sufficient to pinpoint our location enough to aim a relativistic cruise missile. if we went silent by the end of this century, we'd be fine. A minor blip on their radar, so-to-speak. Though frankly, I doubt they listen to radio emissions at all anymore or even understand what they mean. They probably look for the next-step transmissions, being so advanced themselves that radio seems like talking with smoke-signals.

-

If civilizations more advanced than ourselves are relatively nearby...their radio signals have already passed us, and we can't detect yet what they're using now. If they're farther away, they still haven't reached us and we'll get a shock soon enough. Either way, nobody's heard us because either they're too far away, or too advanced to listen for radio. The chances of a civilization being in the current roughly 100 ly "radio sweet-spot" zone around our star system, and at the right level of advancement to pick up radio in the first place, is slim to none. The period of history in which a civilization uses conventional radio is...microscopic. 2, 3 centuries at most. Compared with the tens of thousands of years a sapient species spends developing up to that point, and the potentially uncountable time that comes after it. To think it's at all likely for another species to both have the technological capacity to destroy us outright, and to still be listening for something as primitive as radio signals to do it...isn't just absurd, it's really pretty stupid. It smacks of having gone to just the entry point of the thought, and then never finished it.

Let's look at it from this angle. At our current rate of advancement, assuming we work together as a civilization instead of continuing to become corporatized, I doubt it'll be more than another 100 years at most before we can achieve at least a relativistic mode of propulsion. Maybe another 100 at most before FTL if it's even possible. I happen to think it'll be much quicker, but oh well. Sooner than that though, as our research into quantum processes and nano-electronics continues, we'll develop communications systems which far outstrip radio waves, rendering it completely obsolete. At that point, our zone begins to become a ring expanding outward. By the time we develop interplanetary and then interstellar travel, radio communication will be a distant memory. SETI is nearly dead as it is, and by that point, it will be gone completely, and radio astronomers aren't set up to get those kinds of signals at all.

So, ignoring the probability of whether a world has life or not in the first place, let's consider how big the window of opportunity is for a civilization to detect another by radio. It takes any life-bearing world a certain amount of time to develop intelligent life. For the moment, we're going to have to use ourselves as the only example, so that's about 3 billion years (I'm aware that's not exact, it doesn't have to be since we have leeway in comparison to other potential worlds).

We'll assume for the time being that a civilization that develops to that point will use radio for about 300 years, which is currently a little less than 200 years longer than we've been using it ourselves. Given the technologies being researched right now, I think that's conservative, honestly.

Next, we'll assume for the moment that a civilization that can survive the interstellar transition, can at least survive for another few thousand years. We'll go with 5,000, which is a little less than half as long as appreciable human civilization has existed. Again, we have no basis for comparison, so for the time being I'm working from the idea that we're on the low end of performance.

So, for now, we'll actually just ignore the time after radio, because the future is otherwise indefinite, while the past is fixed. So that's 3 billion years of development, and a 300 year window in which to both send and receive radio signals. So (forgive me, I've never done probability math, so I'm sure this isn't right), that's what...a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of hearing a radio signal, just on our end? And again, that's not even counting the actual chances of such civilizations occurring in the first place, or accounting for all the time they might exist after radio comms. And the rest of them all have that same chance to hear us.

Nobody's going to find us...period. Unless they're out there themselves or with probes, traveling at light speed or faster to search star after star in the hopes that maybe the universe is populated with people other than corporate CEOs, religious crackpots, and conspiracy nuts.

-

Alright then, to boil it all down...

1) Relativistic or FTL weapons are not sufficiently cost-effective, requiring much of a given world's available resources per weapon, and having little chance of success.

1a) They're too easily detected and defeated by any civilization capable of being targeted for destruction in the first place, by simple measures like stealth, self-motive minefields at the heliopause of a star.

1b) Drone delivery is ineffective and fully realized, self-aware AI is not an option; as drones are easily defeated and AI will refuse to participate.

2) Radio communications are very likely to account for only a tiny fraction of a civilization's transmissions into space over the course of its existence.

2a) Any civilization that is not both at the proper distance from a given inhabited world, and at the correct stage of development to detect those signals at the time they intersect with their own world, cannot ever detect the other civilization's presence.

2b) Because of the vastness of space, the apparent rarity of advanced civilizations, and the apparent length of time required to develop such a civilization, the odds of any two civilizations entering this period at the same time, within the correct distance from each other, is functionally zero.

3) It is in the best self-interest of a civilization to spread out to other worlds and space colonies as much and as quickly as possible, and to exist as cooperatively with as many other lifeforms as possible for the collective benefit of all.

3a) It is likewise in the best self-interest of a civilization to migrate from one location to another continuously, or at least incrementally, as it more effectively reduces the risk of any attack or series of attacks occurring or succeeding, that significantly threatens the species' chances of survival.

3b) It is always more cost-effective to adapt, or flee, rather than enter into combat, unless all such alternatives are exhausted.

4) It is not in the best self-interest of a civilization to preemptively attack and exterminate all other potentially equal or superior civilizations to ensure their own survival.

4a) It is not cost-effective to pursue the above strategy, nor is it conducive to actually improving the civilization's chances of survival.

4b) With such a limited chance of actually finding such a civilization, let alone successfully destroying it, pursuing that course of action is a complete waste of resources.

4c) Such an act confines a civilization to uninhabitable worlds, and limits their access to resources, while also using up precious resources that they do have access to; and further "puts all their eggs in one basket," making it more likely that another civilization will do the same to them, not less likely.

In conclusion, it is wholly irrational to consider at all that a successful extraterrestrial civilization will be aggressive towards all others, let alone that it will expend the resources required to eradicate species that, knowing what's coming, will have spread themselves out as far as possible to make the task cost even more. It is wholly irrational to consider that we ourselves must pursue such an aggressive stance against all others, for that very reason. Even in nature, lifeforms avoid conflict at any cost, until it cannot be avoided any longer, because the risks and costs of conflicts are too great. Even if you win, you often still lose.

That's not to say space shouldn't be militarized at all. Hippie-think is just as irrational and dangerous as the idea that we have to wipe out everyone else. Conflict is at some point, inevitable. The key is in mitigating its cost and risks as much as possible. Waiting to initiate conflict, and ensuring a single decisive, though not always necessarily fatal, strike. The key, is to make aggression too expensive, so that diplomacy can take place.

There is nothing more foolish than to apply base thinking and first-order logic to the potential actions of a species capable of disregarding primitive thoughts and engaging in deeply far-sighted, logical thought processes. It's...pathetic, really.

[Tharios]

Oh...and yes...the warp drive itself.

I think they're on to something. But I myself am convinced that space, rather than being a membrane, is a particle field. If so, the warp drive in its current conceptual incarnation, won't work.

Then again, it won't really work anyway, because you'd have to fix the point of expansion at the origin, and the point of contraction at the destination. If they're fixed points relative to the ship, it won't go very far...but yeah, it'll get there in a hurry.

The only way it would work is if the bubble around the ship is moved from one point to another, and if one does this by expanding one area and constricting another, it will move from the point of expansion to the point of constriction.

The other problem is, once you turn the drive off, all the space goes back to its original state. Meaning the ship will be exactly where it started, having not moved at all. The only ways around this are to either cross the bubble's boundary (which is lethal), or to sever the bubble from its original area and graft it to the destination's space...which is just a space fold at that point.

Yes, the math is sound, and the physics may support a device capable of doing it. It just won't actually do any good. Either the ship can't reach its destination because it never really moved, so when you turn off the drive everything goes back to its original state. Or, you have to wait so many years anyway to generate a warp corridor between two points, so you might as well have just gone in a light-speed ship anyway...and you still wouldn't get anywhere because you'd end up right back where you started when you turn off the drive.

Unless it becomes possible to safely cross the warp threshold, or to relocate the actual space from origin to destination, the drive is worthless even if it did work.