The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Who wants to talk about propulsion of a interstellar space ship? No one. Really people.
in Technology
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 8%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 67%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 6%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
Rocket fuel is high oxygen or contains another oxidant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant so it doesn't have to rely on oxygen being provided externally. There are also other forms of propulsion for orbital manoeuvres.
I'm assuming that's what your issue with combustion is. No idea why you are against propulsion. If anything it's easier in space as you don't have to worry about slowing down.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.5  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Gun powder contains it's own oxidant, and experimentation shows that it doesn't combust in a vacuum.
"I'm assuming that's what your issue with combustion is. No idea why you are against propulsion. If anything it's easier in space as you don't have to worry about slowing down."
Cars push off the road, boats push off of water, and planes push off the air. You can't push off of a vacuum. Anyone who applies basic logic will understand.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.44  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 31%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 31%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.1  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
See, there's a big difference between saying what will happen hypothetically, and SHOWING that something can't happen. In an infinitely expanding vacuum, the energy would be lost immediately, expanding with the rest of the universe, and the rocket would remain stationary. Here's an engineer with the details, learn something.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 33%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.66  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
Reason I don't find FTL plausible: Any form of Faster Than Light Travel is time travel. Whether it be a wormhole or 'warp' drive, anything which exceeds the speed of light, may also travel in time, breaking Causality, a fundamental principle of the universe.
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Black holes don't have to have you traveling faster then light. They can be used as a source of propulsion or energy. Hocking radiation can be absorbed and reused or reflected in the opposite direction you wan't to go. If you had a small rotating black hole you could surround it in in mirrors send beams of energy in and while a little bit of the energy will go in the black hole a large amount will accelerate do to a rotating black holes effects on the space around it bouncing of the mirrors then you cloud take the energy back and would have more energy then you began with. Just don't keep the energy trapped with the black holes to long or the mirror might shatter and all the powerful energy would be released.
Warp drives don't exceed the the speed of light or more accurately the speed of causality (light travels at different speeds depending on the medium). They bend space. Going faster the causality for an object slower then causality is ridicules. : )
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ah, thanks for the clarification on blackholes, I thought you were referring to FTL.
Miguel Alcubierre: "But beware: in relativity, any method to travel faster than light can in principle be used to travel back in time (a time machine)."
https://ccrg.rit.edu/files/FasterThanLight.pdf
You can still create time paradoxes. Even with a single warp drive, by changing time references, you could still violate causality.
Detailed overveiw of the physics, and now light cones work: http://www.physicsmatt.com/blog/2016/8/25/why-ftl-implies-time-travel
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.3  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
Space is a reality.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 16%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.62  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Space is full of stuff.
Therefore, space can not be a vacuum.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.12  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are modes of travel which would actually rely on space not being a perfect vacuum. Such as the Remjet concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.12  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
As far as faster-than-light travel goes, there are many reasons for why it might not be possible. Wormholes could exist according to Einstein's equations, but even if they do, I do not believe they will in practice behave differently than the regular space around us. The explanation as to why would be bloated, but ask yourself the question: if there was a wormhole, say, 100 kilometers away from the Earth's surface, then what would be different in our observations? If you think hard enough, you might come to the same conclusion as me: nothing would be different, since humans are not able to consciously perceive wormholes and our brain projects everything into a regular Euclidian 3D space.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
And to traverse wormholes, while theoretically plausible to exist, you would need negative mass to enter. Likewise to create the effects of a warp drive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Basically all Sci-Fi concepts of FLT, or constant acceleration is nicked by physics, which is disappointing.
Most practical mode of travel I can think of is using Centrifugal force for simulated gravity, with anti-matter for initial acceleration, with a ramjet and solar for added efficiency while traversing open space. But it would still take decades/centuries/millennia to get anywhere extrasolar.
And of course if we are willing to give up the biological portions of ourselves, travel becomes much more practical.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://nathangeffen.webfactional.com/spacetravel/spacetravel.php
For example, for travel to Andromeda (which is ~2.5 million light years away), assuming we accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 for half the travel and decelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 for the other half, to make a stop at Andromeda - will take approximately 55 years in the travelers' reference frame. However, as we go further and further, the time required does not increase linearly, as when we travel close to the speed of light, the time dilation becomes extreme and seconds pass as we bypass multiple galaxies. Assuming we want to travel, say, 10 billions light years away by the same model (half-travel of accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 and half-travel of decelerating), it will take us approximately 86 years.
Now, these calculations do not take into account the expansion of the Universe, effectively increasing the required distance: the increase is insignificant when traveling to Andromeda, but might play a noticeable role when traveling 10 billions light years away. However, given the time dilation, it is safe to say that we can reach anywhere in the observable Universe within 100 years, if we manage to maintain this acceleration. Whether we can maintain it or not is an open question, but I do not see any obstacles in theory, other than engineering difficulties. And since our technology develops exponentially, it is very possible that such a travel will become realistic in 1000-2000 years. Anti-matter fuel is extremely, unbelievably, efficient, and 1 ton of it will likely be more than enough to allow a small private spaceship to operate for thousands years without having to resupply.
If we take one step further and consider the genetic engineering and cybernetic advancements that will allow us to endure much harsher conditions, then travel across the Universe becomes fairly trivial. Assuming that we can eventually endure, say, 100 m/s^2 for long periods of time, the travel to Andromeda now takes merely 6 years; not very significant for advanced species with life expectancy of millions/billions years. There are likely millions alien civilizations across the Universe right now who routinely execute such trips.
---
The only problem here is that the time dilation effectively cuts you off from the known world. If you travel to Andromeda and back within 12 years, on Earth 5 million years will have passed. Everyone you knew is so long gone, there is no historical record of them any more, and likely humanity itself has changed so much, you will be treated as a very primitive animal by it. So practically speaking, if you embark on the extra-galactic journey, it is a one-way journey, and you better not plan on coming back.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.08  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 23%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am taking into account time dilation. Even with Anti-matter, constant 1G acceleration would eat too much fuel. You would end up requiring tons of anti-matter and matter for the reaction.
You can run the math here: http://nathangeffen.webfactional.com/spacetravel/spacetravel.php
For instance, say I have 1 ton ship. It would take me 34 tons of matter/anti-matter fuel to maintain 1G for 4 light years distance. And 3.4 years would still pass for the crew.
You will always require multiple times more weight in fuel than your ship. Doesn't add up. If you sacrifice acceleration and time, it becomes more practical. But we would still need decades, or more likely, more than a century to cover the span of 4 light years.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.26  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
Interesting. I have never considered the actual amount of fuel we would need, assuming that for the anti-matter engine it would be negligible - however, it does not seem to be the case for years-long travel.
One problem with that calculator in this regard, however, is that it assumes that you are maintaining the acceleration throughout the whole travel. It does not have to be the case. You can reach, for example, the velocity of 0.999c and then stay at that velocity for the duration of the travel, until the very end, when it is time to start decelerating. Let us consider this scenario.
From the calculator, we get that the fuel needed to accelerate from 0 to 0.9999c at 1g (and it does not seem to depend on the acceleration overall; it is the overall change of speed that matters) for a 1 ton ship with 1.0 fuel conversion rate is ~20,000 ton. Indeed, it is hardly negligible, but not impossible to generate in the future - in theory.
Now, let us calculate how much time will pass if we travel at that speed from Earth to Andromeda (2,500,000 light years). Using the time dilation equation of t = 2,500,000*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), we get the result of ~35,000 years. Hardly short, but with some kind of stasis to put the passenger(s) in, it could be plausible.
---
The major problem here is that the acceleration becomes more and more expensive as we approach the speed of light, while the travel time does not decrease as fast. To accelerate at 1g, let alone more than that, consistently for the duration of the whole ship, we, indeed, will require billions ton of gas, which probably will never be feasible to contain in a light spaceship.
The situation changes dramatically (for the better), if we have some way to obtain fuel from the sources along the way, rather than having to fill the tank before the trip and to never resupply. I suppose, with a cleverly planned route, going through gas clouds and dwarf mini-galaxies along the way to resupply, we could indeed reduce the travel time to dozens years with a reasonably sized fuel tank - but it is not very clear how realistic this scenario is, as we only have a very rough idea of what the intergalactic space looks like and what its resource abundance is.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 47%  
  Learn More About Debra
This describes the same problem. Your fuel would weigh 20,000 times more than your ship.
"The situation changes dramatically (for the better), if we have some way to obtain fuel from the sources along the way, rather than having to fill the tank before the trip and to never resupply"
After a lot of reading, the only practical way to take advantage of this is to:
Use a Ramjet to collect stray hydrogen.
Use solar to collect stray photons.
Use beamed propulsion.
But you'd likely still need to combine it with an Anti-matter engine, and even then, you'd still need literal tons of fuel to get anywhere fast. Not sure how to get around it practically, but I guess that's why interstellar travel doesn't exist in the first place.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
edit: oops it looks like i posted when you posted.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 23%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
No matter what form of propulsion you come up with, you are still stuck with the light speed barrier. You can go anywhere you like, but it's going to take a looooooooong time to get there.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra