Live data from Hacker News

Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

nasa.gov

1–10 of 61 posts

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#3
Speaking as a professional physicist, this page feels awfully light on actual information. And as far as I can tell, that's merited: there's not a lot of solid science discussed on this page, or even especially tantalizing ideas for what might come next.

They spend a lot of time discussing quantum vacuum energy, but the one short note about its "propulsion implications" includes the comment that "Those particular gravity theories are still up for debate." That's perhaps generous: quantum gravity isn't far from my field, and I've never heard of this take on the origin of gravity and inertia.

I'm also rather puzzled by the quote "Although gravity’s effects on electromagnetism and spacetime have been observed, the reverse possibility, of using electromagnetism to affect gravity, inertia, or spacetime is unknown." That's really not at all true. Our models of gravity all include very well-defined effects of electromagnetism on spacetime: the energy density in those fields causes space to curve, just like any other form of mass or energy. Hypothesizing anything else would require fundamental changes to the theory. That's entirely possible! But it's misleading to characterize the current state of affairs as having an unfilled gap like this.

So yeah. I'd love a good spacedrive as much as the next guy. But this article doesn't do much to make me optimistic about it.

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#4
I honestly can't imagine why NASA even acknowledges the idea of FTL travel - Is there some kind of propeller beanie PAC forcing their hand?

They should just have a page that says: "FTL is impossible, but that's fine, once you get used to the way things are."

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#5
post #3

Speaking as a professional physicist, this page feels awfully light on actual information. And as far as I can tell, that's merited: there's not a lot of solid science discussed on this page, or even especially tantalizing ideas for what might come next. They spend a lot of time discussing quantum vacuum energy, but the one short note about its "propulsion implications" includes the comment that "Those particular gra…

How do these "legitimate" ideas for FTL deal with causality? I've always wondered that.

People always use causality to argue against FTL, but then readily acknowledge that wormholes or Albicurie might allow it. I'm not getting that disconnect?

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#7
post #3

Speaking as a professional physicist, this page feels awfully light on actual information. And as far as I can tell, that's merited: there's not a lot of solid science discussed on this page, or even especially tantalizing ideas for what might come next. They spend a lot of time discussing quantum vacuum energy, but the one short note about its "propulsion implications" includes the comment that "Those particular gra…

Have you heard of the idea of running a current through a long wire to propel a spacecraft against the earth's magnetic field?

I remember reading about it somewhere, but I can never find it again.

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#8
post #4

I honestly can't imagine why NASA even acknowledges the idea of FTL travel - Is there some kind of propeller beanie PAC forcing their hand? They should just have a page that says: "FTL is impossible, but that's fine, once you get used to the way things are."

Scientists, rightly so, are a little leery of stating "we know everything". There's no guarantees our current theories are perfect - in fact, it's extraordinarily unlikely that they are.

Also of note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#9
post #4

I honestly can't imagine why NASA even acknowledges the idea of FTL travel - Is there some kind of propeller beanie PAC forcing their hand? They should just have a page that says: "FTL is impossible, but that's fine, once you get used to the way things are."

>They should just have a page that says: "FTL is impossible, but that's fine, once you get used to the way things are."

No offense intended to you, but I feel this is a disastrously negative attitude to have. Except where morals dictate otherwise (which are outside the scope of science anyway) nothing is banned from exploration. Suggesting otherwise implies that we know all there is to know about a subject; to me, this is analogous to willful ignorance. Science is dedicated to removing ignorance, not enforcing it.

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#10
post #7
post #3

Speaking as a professional physicist, this page feels awfully light on actual information. And as far as I can tell, that's merited: there's not a lot of solid science discussed on this page, or even especially tantalizing ideas for what might come next. They spend a lot of time discussing quantum vacuum energy, but the one short note about its "propulsion implications" includes the comment that "Those particular gra…

Have you heard of the idea of running a current through a long wire to propel a spacecraft against the earth's magnetic field? I remember reading about it somewhere, but I can never find it again.

Yep. It's called an electrodynamic tether. Proposed for stationkeeping for everything from space stations to skyhooks, among other things.
Post reply on HN