Yeah, so it's highly speculative, but... NASA design for a 'warp' ship

[K^2]

If I'm reading K^2's description right, sounds like a transfer using warp would still be pretty complicated, in that you will still need to execute some serious burns in order to properly orbit your destination.

It won't save you much on fuel, but would you rather a trip from Earth to Mars take months or hours? This is basically the difference that sub-light warp could make.

[Seret]

*sigh* Again. Yes, it is completely possible. The only values you need are the planet's mass, your velocity with respect to it, and your position with respect to it. Can you get these things? Yes, you can. The rest involves storing pre-warp velocity and updating it using numerical integration algorithm. That's it. That's all you have to do.

Submit a patch? The maintainer might be very grateful to have the benefit of your specific knowledge.

[Streetwind]

A physicist from NASA commissioning an artist to make a fantasy spaceship doesn't make it a NASA design... I wish journalists would get this through their heads. They always seem to do this.

Yeah, this. I watched the presentation, and at no point did the presenter make any claims about this being an actual NASA concept. That's pure invention by the (as usual) scientifically illiterate press.

What really happened: this NASA-employed scientist person did some science, and figured out that it would make more sense to build with thick rings rather than thin ones. Then he ran into some guy he knew, who happened to be a concept artist, who had previously done some concept art on spaceships with ring shaped alcubierre drives. They chatted over a cup of coffee, and the scientist said "hey, I actually discovered that the rings you drew back then are inconveniently thin. You'd ideally want them thicker". And the concept artist person said "sure, I can draw it like that too". And then he made some new concept art with thicker rings.

Guess that simply doesn't make for a headline as interesting though

What I found much more interesting than the whole warp drive stuff (which was completely speculative - they're not even researching the warp field yet, they're researching tools that could maybe, potentially be used to research warp fields) was the bit about quantum thrusters. It's a popular opinion on these forums that, since it involves pushing off of virtual, subatomic particles in the quantum vacuum, it will end up being just about identical to a photon drive (in other words, generating thrust by shining light out the back). But the thrust numbers that man quoted were well beyond what a photon drive could ever hope to manage. 0.1 N per kW of energy was his lower bound expectation - a value noticably better than any contemporary electric engine, all without having to carry any fuel.

Now you can make a lot of wild claims about nearly anything, but the thing is: this man is employed by NASA to research propulsion technologies. And for all the administrative bloat that NASA gets derided for, they are incredibly good at doing science. They have some of the top physicists in the entire world. And that man isn't just an intern either, he has a leading position. Yet it appears that he doesn't discount the possibility of q-thrusters working at (for electric propulsion) incredibly high thrust levels at all. In fact, not only doesn't he discount it, he even says outright that "we just moved [q-thrusters] from TRL2 to TRL3 with this".

In that, he's referring to the "Technology Readiness Level", which is a metric for describing how close a technology is to being deployed in the field. As you can see in the linked article, there are nine levels on the NASA scale. And if you read the exact level definitions, then moving from 2 to 3 is equivalent to going from "formulate concrete yet still speculative application of this basic principle of physics" to "proof-of-concept validation in the lab". In other words, NASA no longer considers q-thrusters to be speculative science. And I'm honestly surprised and impressed that it got this far, despite the close scrutiny of some of the best people in the field. For comparison, the whole warp deal will be stuck at TRL 1 for a while yet ("attempt transition from theoretical science into applied science").

A penny for his thoughts!

Edited June 12, 2014 by Streetwind

[78stonewobble]

Predicted amounts are right at the edge of detectable right now. Which is why NASA has experiments looking for it. It's all been inconclusive so far, which is to be expected, but getting to conclusive experiments will really be just a matter of years now.

Of course, bending space and making a warp bubble, even a sub-light one, are very different things.

The last sentence is then the next thing I'd want to see, before I believe it to be practically possible.

[Scotius]

Yeah, this. I watched the presentation, and at no point did the presenter make any claims about this being an actual NASA concept. That's pure invention by the (as usual) scientifically illiterate press.

What really happened: this NASA-employed scientist person did some science, and figured out that it would make more sense to build with thick rings rather than thin ones. Then he ran into some guy he knew, who happened to be a concept artist, who had previously done some concept art on spaceships with ring shaped alcubierre drives. They chatted over a cup of coffee, and the scientist said "hey, I actually discovered that the rings you drew back then are inconveniently thin. You'd ideally want them thicker". And the concept artist person said "sure, I can draw it like that too". And then he made some new concept art with thicker rings.

Guess that simply doesn't make for a headline as interesting though

What I found much more interesting than the whole warp drive stuff (which was completely speculative - they're not even researching the warp field yet, they're researching tools that could maybe, potentially be used to research warp fields) was the bit about quantum thrusters. It's a popular opinion on these forums that, since it involves pushing off of virtual, subatomic particles in the quantum vacuum, it will end up being just about identical to a photon drive (in other words, generating thrust by shining light out the back). But the thrust numbers that man quoted were well beyond what a photon drive could ever hope to manage. 0.1 N per kW of energy was his lower bound expectation - a value noticably better than any contemporary electric engine, all without having to carry any fuel.

Now you can make a lot of wild claims about nearly anything, but the thing is: this man is employed by NASA to research propulsion technologies. And for all the administrative bloat that NASA gets derided for, they are incredibly good at doing science. They have some of the top physicists in the entire world. And that man isn't just an intern either, he has a leading position. Yet it appears that he doesn't discount the possibility of q-thrusters working at (for electric propulsion) incredibly high thrust levels at all. In fact, not only doesn't he discount it, he even says outright that "we just moved [q-thrusters] from TRL2 to TRL3 with this".

In that, he's referring to the "Technology Readiness Level", which is a metric for describing how close a technology is to being deployed in the field. As you can see in the linked article, there are nine levels on the NASA scale. And if you read the exact level definitions, then moving from 2 to 3 is equivalent to going from "formulate concrete yet still speculative application of this basic principle of physics" to "proof-of-concept validation in the lab". In other words, NASA no longer considers q-thrusters to be speculative science. And I'm honestly surprised and impressed that it got this far, despite the close scrutiny of some of the best people in the field. For comparison, the whole warp deal will be stuck at TRL 1 for a while yet ("attempt transition from theoretical science into applied science").

A penny for his thoughts!

^This. White says things that raise hackles of half of scientific community - and yet he's still working, and still getting money from the NASA. Logically, he's had to have something to show for these money. And results of his work must be tangible enough for the purseholders. Gentlemen, methinks something is afoot

[Javster]

A physicist from NASA commissioning an artist to make a fantasy spaceship doesn't make it a NASA design... I wish journalists would get this through their heads. They always seem to do this.

It certainly isn't a NASA design because we still don't know for sure whether the technology it is based on works yet!

It's like "designing" a magic-powered car.

[Victus]

That's a pretty cool picture, shame that's all it ever will be.

[K^2]

Submit a patch? The maintainer might be very grateful to have the benefit of your specific knowledge.

Hm. It's on GitHub, so yeah, I suppose I could grab it and make modifications. I'll look into it.

[Aghanim]

http://www.pcgamesn.com/kerbal-space-program/nasa-put-together-ftl-vessel-concept-it-only-took-couple-days-it-pop-kerbal-space-program

[Iforgotthis]

That's a pretty cool picture, shame that's all it ever will be.

Don't give up hope so easily! It's entirely possible this may be around in the coming centuries/decades (if we're lucky). I personally think a warp drive is our best hope for interstellar travel, or even just long distance interplanetary travel.

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

I actually preferred the article on Gizmodo, io9's sister site... http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/06/holy-crap-nasas-interstellar-spaceship-concept-is-amazing/

And for reference, this is the original mockup:

I particularly like the level of detail they go into - "Dr. Whiteâ€â€whose daily life is working in future propulsion solutions for interplanetary travel in the near future, like ion and plasma thrustersâ€â€developed new theoretical work that solved the problems of the Alcubierre Drive concept, a theory that allowed faster-than-light travel based on Einstein's field equations in general relativity, developed by theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre."

and then goes on to explain the principle idea behind the tech - "A spaceship equipped with a warp drive would allow faster-than-light travel by bending the space around it, making distances shorter. At the local level, however, the spaceship wouldn't be moving faster than light. Therefore, warp drive travel doesn't violate the first Einstein commandment: Thou shall not travel faster than light."

It even goes further, explaining that "Working at NASA Eagleworksâ€â€a skunkworks operation deep at NASA's Johnson Space Centerâ€â€Dr. White's team is trying to find proof of those loopholes. They have "initiated an interferometer test bed that will try to generate and detect a microscopic instance of a little warp bubble" using an instrument called the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer." So they do already have some of the tools up and running to detect the effects of these current tests...

In my opinion, it's still a way off, but actually possible... and who knows what might be possible the further away we get from our star? seeing as it is one of the constants of our solar system that we haven't been able to get the (right) instruments out of its SOI...

[sojourner]

I actually preferred the article on Gizmodo, io9's sister site... http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/06/holy-crap-nasas-interstellar-spaceship-concept-is-amazing/

And for reference, this is the original mockup:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--pPsTL3Qq--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/oahzg5cd2pchk2edwpk0.jpg

Strictly speaking, that's not "the original mockup". That design was created by Mark Rademaker for the Star Trek "Ships of the Line" Calendar from a couple years back. It, in turn, is based on one of Matt Jefferies original idea sketches for the U.S.S. Enterprise back when they were developing the original Star Trek series in 1965.

[crazyewok]

This sort of PR really annoys me.

Good job you dont work in PR

Good PR can be the difference between funding and haveing your project cancelled.

And pretty pictures not only interest the public but give the monkeys in suites (The politicians and Administrators) who control the purse strings something to look at.

Any sort of Alcubierre or Warp drive is nothing more than an theoretical construct at this time. It relies on this purely theoretical "exotic matter" that might or might not exist or even be possible. At any rate it is decades away, and more importantly, several scientific breakthroughs away.

Everything starts off theoretical.

If we didnt fund or explore the fringes of science we would still be living in caves.

To be far Im skeptical and doubt it will work. For a few hundred thousands $ to explore it? Still worth it.

It's way too early to start thinking about designing a ship around it because if we do build warp ships in 100 years, chances are they'll look nothing like the IXS Enterprise. In 30 years, you'll be looking back at this and finding it just as laughable as this:

Pretty pictures may not mean much to the scientists but to the bureaucrats and public who control the budgets they look good and help visualize the project.

I'm not sure how much of this pointless exercise is funded by NASA and how much is fan art, but I don't think NASA should be spending their tiny budget on artist impressions of science fiction space ships.

That pretty picture

1) Inspires support from the public.

2) Gets the interest of kids and possible budding young scientists and engineers

3) May convince some feeble minded congressmen to put more money into the NASA budget.

No it serves no practical use to the project but it could have some good PR implications that may benefit NASA later on.

Edited June 18, 2014 by crazyewok

[vger]

And pretty pictures not only interest the public but give the monkeys in suites (The politicians and Administrators) who control the purse strings something to look at.

Yep, just because someone invests in something hightech, doesn't mean they actually understand the tech. Much better to have something to 'show' them, rather than just give them a huge pile of schematics and formulas that they might not be able to read anyway.

[crazyewok]

Yep, just because someone invests in something hightech, doesn't mean they actually understand the tech. Much better to have something to 'show' them, rather than just give them a huge pile of schematics and formulas that they might not be able to read anyway.

Yup when I was working R&D for Pharma company, when talking to the suites we had to use simple language and use pretty diagrams and charts.

NASA likely have to dumb things down more for the politicians as I doubt some of them have above 2 digit IQ's. Pretty pictures and models will likely secure support not 100's of pages of complex maths, especially when some of these politicians cant even count the worlds age above 6000 years

I wont name names but some of the more famous US politicians of the republican party you may as well jingle car keys in front of them.

Edited June 18, 2014 by crazyewok

[TonyC]

I just hope the final warptship which will enter production will not be called the Enterprise.

[Nibb31]

I just hope the final warptship which will enter production will not be called the Enterprise.

No warpship is entering production any time soon.

[TonyC]

No warpship is entering production any time soon.

I know, but if in a hundred years an actual warpship is actually designed, I hope they won't call it like that.

[Sean Mirrsen]

What I found much more interesting than the whole warp drive stuff (which was completely speculative - they're not even researching the warp field yet, they're researching tools that could maybe, potentially be used to research warp fields) was the bit about quantum thrusters. It's a popular opinion on these forums that, since it involves pushing off of virtual, subatomic particles in the quantum vacuum, it will end up being just about identical to a photon drive (in other words, generating thrust by shining light out the back). But the thrust numbers that man quoted were well beyond what a photon drive could ever hope to manage. 0.1 N per kW of energy was his lower bound expectation - a value noticably better than any contemporary electric engine, all without having to carry any fuel.

If you make an effort to dumb the principle down to brick levels, so you can look past the actual math and science, it kinda makes sense. A photon drive effectively makes its own reaction mass, while a Q-thruster wrings reaction mass out of nominally empty space. The energy required to make something available doesn't really have to correspond to the energy of that something. Putting it into brick terms, you don't need much energy to reach out and grab a nearby brick, but you can put a lot more force into a hand with a brick than an empty hand. That being the case, reaching out to grab the bricks that float around and use them is a much better investment of energy than not doing so, especially if the bricks are plentiful and everywhere.