Yeah. I am beginning to get this feeling that I am 100% wrong here.

I love when science fiction and science theory jostle in stories like this.

New 'Helical Engine' could reach 99% the speed of light
[Apr 17, 2022:

The 'Helical Engine' works by exploiting the way mass can change at relativistic speeds. (CREDIT: NASA)



The 'Helical Engine' works by exploiting the way mass can change at relativistic speeds. (CREDIT: NASA)

When it comes to space, there's a problem with our human drive to go all the places and see all the things. A big problem. It's, well, space. It's way too big. Even travelling at the maximum speed the Universe allows, it would take us years to reach our nearest neighbouring star.

But another human drive is finding solutions to big problems. And that's what NASA engineer David Burns has been doing in his spare time. He's produced an engine concept that, he says, could theoretically accelerate to 99 percent of the speed of light - all without using propellant.

He's posted it to the NASA Technical Reports Server under the heading "Helical Engine", and, on paper, it works by exploiting the way mass can change at relativistic speeds - those close to the speed of light in a vacuum. It has not yet been reviewed by an expert.

Understandably this paper has caused buzz approaching levels seen in the early days of the EM Drive. And yes, even some headlines claiming the engine could 'violate the laws of physics'.


But while this concept is fascinating, it's definitely not going to break physics anytime soon.

As a thought experiment to explain his concept, Burns describes a box with a weight inside, threaded on a line, with a spring at each end bouncing the weight back and forth. In a vacuum - such as space - the effect of this would be to wiggle the entire box, with the weight seeming to stand still, like a gif stabilized around the weight.

Overall, the box would stay wiggling in the same spot - but if the mass of the weight were to increase in only one direction, it would generate a greater push in that direction, and therefore thrust.



According to the principle of the conservation of momentum - in which the momentum of a system remains constant in the absence of any external forces - this should be not completely possible.

But! There's a special relativity loophole. Hooray for special relativity! According to special relativity, objects gain mass as they approach light speed. So, if you replace the weight with ions and the box with a loop, you can theoretically have the ions moving faster at one end of the loop, and slower at the other.

But Burns' drive isn't a single closed loop. It's helical, like a stretched out spring - hence "helical engine".

"The engine accelerates ions confined in a loop to moderate relativistic speeds, and then varies their velocity to make slight changes to their mass. The engine then moves ions back and forth along the direction of travel to produce thrust," he wrote in his abstract.

"The engine has no moving parts other than ions traveling in a vacuum line, trapped inside electric and magnetic fields."

It sounds really nifty, right? And it is - in theory. But it's not without significant practical problems.

According to New Scientist, the helical chamber would have to be pretty large. Around 200 metres (656 feet) long and 12 metres (40 feet) in diameter, to be precise.

And it would need to generate 165 megawatts of energy to produce 1 newton of thrust. That's the equivalent of a power station to produce the force required to accelerate a kilogram of mass per second squared. So a lot of input for a teeny tiny output. It is horribly inefficient.

But in the vacuum of space? It just might work. "The engine itself would be able to get to 99 per cent the speed of light if you had enough time and power," Burns told New Scientist.



And here's the other thing. Humans - not all of us, but still more than a few - desperately want to go to interstellar space. We may never get there. But if we never even try to think about it, that "may" becomes a "definitely." What's that saying - you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take?

Burns notes the efficiency problem in his presentation, and also adds that his work hasn't been reviewed by experts, and there may be errors in his maths. We don't exactly have the blueprints for a fully functional space travel engine here.

What we do have is a piece of groundwork that could be used to develop such an engine. What we have is a dream of the stars.

A problem for humans maybe but no problem at all for humanity

100,000 years will be like the blink of an eye.

Anyone willing to test it?


Cliffs:

What are you suggesting? That building a spaceship where we go on to tell the children "You will die on this ship, you are only here to make more children" is a great idea?

I don't think 'dying on the ship' is a problem if we have the technology to make ships that can travel those distances. Generation Ships have been a thing in Science fiction, Science theory for a long time now, and these city sized vessels, I believe would be the place many generations live and die as the ship traverses the universe.

The book series the Bobiverse is a fun read i this area that touches on how generation ships would work via advanced 3D printing and mining asteroids for supplies as you go. A theoretical endless supply of all needed minerals, metals, water, etc on route.

If we can solve some of the other 'living in deep space issues' such as the impact of gravity (or lack thereof) and radiation, then I think generation ships will be a thing.

Why did you ignore the main point which is "No way in hell are you going to be calm and collected when you realize that you are just a breeding machine and all you will see for your whole life is the inside of a spaceship"


Sadly I don't have a link ready but I'm pretty sure that trafficking humans through several hundreds of light years of space is the most impractible thing you could do and scientists widely agree on that. If anything will reach another inhabited planet, it's drones. (Which will have limited benefits for humanity, since we can only aquire information about that planet, if we wait long enough for the signals to return)

I did not ignore it. My comments on generation ships addresses that.

I think how people perceive living and dying on a generation ship will be determined by how big or small they are. If city sized, I don't think someone born on it will have that issue as it will be all they know. that confinement will their world and it could be a bigger world with more options than many older civilizations on earth had access to.

But it could also play out that some/all would not be able to handle it. We just don't know.



I would be curious to read it if you could find it as I read a ton in this area (sci fiction and sci theory) and have not seen that view. I mean, I have seen all views as theory likes to run down all areas. But I have seen nothing representing a consensus like you suggest.

The main issue again is typically what technology we have access to if/when we can truly take on the far outer reaches of space.

But I would agree drones will likely be key and first. I just don't think it precludes mankind also heading out into deep space eventually, as many believe mankind is doomed if we cannot eventually colonize other planets. This planet does have a life span.

I disagree. You basically claimed that all will be good. Nothing more.

A city sized lump of metal, accelerated to a significant fraction of c. Umm, no.

You are sharing your timeline with people who feel abused when they are asked to wear a piece of cloth on their face and you are still ignoring the point.



I think I know why.


Still ignoring the point.

They're not going to be generation ships - that is nonsense.

I am cynical enough to think some will be prison ships but maybe more likely is they will be full of telephone sanitisers, marketing experts and people who think living on something large moving at high velocity in space is a non-starter. There's a good reason for the later but i can't quite remember what it is.

that is factually incorrect and here is the quote.

that quote does not just hand wave away anything. It is me explaining my view in one area where I am saying if we have generational ships I do not see that as a problem.

You are free to disagree as this is wild speculation at this point. But I am also free to think differently.



OK fine, I get you disagree with this area of sci speculation. Again fine.

BUt you seem to be intonating everyone has to disagree and that is not the case. Generational ships are still a big part of sci future speculation.

Not really sure what any of this means other than you seeming to be offended that others do not share all your views.

I totally respect you can disagree in these areas as this is more 'fiction' than 'fact' at this point.

Do you accept others can speculate in other areas and hold other views? It seems like not to me.

I am lost on what you are saying here?

Are you also of a mind that any science theorizing about generation ships, were humans may live entire lives, have kids and die on board a ship traveling to the4 deep reaches of space, is so wrong as to be nonsense for anyone who is not you, to consider?

This real life science project is very much considering the idea of Generational Ships.

100 Year Starship Project


Here are others discussing them.

What is a Generation Ship?



GENERATION SHIPS: THE SCIENCE AND FICTION OF INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL

No his idea of breeding machines was nonsense. Well no more than on earth anyway, It will be home. I was also amused at the idea that moving fast was an issue.

I'm the one arguing for the great ****ing off with people living full lives without ever visiting earth. i conjecture living on ships to start with rather than the far more difficult job and unpleasant task of colonising planets.

Indulging in your opinions about the future of space travel while being shamed for commenting on your mere opinions seems like a huge waste of time. You win again.

Please elaborate.

Please elaborate.

You need to ask yourself why you take such a belligerent stance on a matter of opinion. This is a topic we are not, in any way obligated to agree on where far reaching science fiction and science fact will meet. That is seemed to bother you that I had a different opinion than you, is quite shocking.

oh bless it, that went sideways.

De-extinction Company Aims to Resurrect the Tasmanian Tiger

...Now the wolflike creature—also known as the Tasmanian tiger—is poised to become an emblem of de-extinction, an initiative that seeks to create new versions of lost species. Colossal Biosciences, a Texas-based de-extinction company that made headlines last September when it revealed that it planned to bring back the woolly mammoth, announced today that its second project will be resurrecting the thylacine.

...Colossal Biosciences, co-founded by Harvard University geneticist George Church and tech entrepreneur Ben Lamm, is working with the University of Melbourne’s Andrew Pask, who has already sequenced most of the thylacine genome. The thylacine is the perfect candidate for de-extinction, Pask says, because it died out relatively recently, good-quality DNA is available, and its prey and parts of its natural habitat still exist.

In March his team established the Thylacine Integrated Genetic Restoration Research Lab with a philanthropic gift of five million Australian dollars (about $3.6 million). Colossal is providing “more than that” sum, Pask says—he won’t divulge exactly how much—as well as access to equipment, another dedicated thylacine lab in Texas and a large team of researchers.

With this partnership established, Pask now says it’s reasonable to expect to have “a de-extincted thylacine-ish thing” in a decade. That first iteration might be “90 percent thylacine,” he says, though the ultimate goal is more like 99.9 percent. Eventually—after many years of monitoring the engineered animals in a large enclosed area—Colossal’s goal is to release a viable, genetically-diverse population of perhaps 100 proxy thylacines into the wild...

...For the thylacine, the first task is to complete the sequencing of the animal’s genome. Pask’s lab has about 96 percent of it down, but the final 4 percent is the trickiest, he says. “It’s like doing one of those horrible puzzles that’s all baked beans or all blue sky. Every bit looks the same, and we’re trying to figure out how it goes together.

Next the researchers will compare the genome of the thylacine to that of one of its closest living relatives: the fat-tailed dunnart, a mouse-sized marsupial that is relatively abundant and copes well in captivity. Using CRISPR gene-editing technology, the scientists will engineer the dunnart’s genome to more closely resemble the thylacine’s.

The researchers have already figured out how to re-program dunnart skin cells into stem calls, and are currently testing them to see whether they’re capable of generating an entire embryo—something that hasn’t yet been done in marsupials, which develop differently from placental mammals such as humans and mice. Once they’ve fine-tuned the recipe, they’ll be able to use the stem cells to create a gene-edited living embryo they can insert into either a dunnart mother or an artificial marsupial womb, which they would have to invent...

What could go wrong?

That is what I thought when I watched the liquid robot video.

Seek, and you shall find! with the scientific method

Thank You Scientist.

Big news. Elizabeth Holmes validated as her technology now is presented by another company pretending they invented it!!!



Great news and furtherance towards my belief/hope that cancer (most cancers) is either cured in within a generation or two, or at least managed in a way that it drops off as one of the primary causes of death.

Pretty obscene video showing just how far both Stable Diffusion and DALLE-2 have come in just months. The state of AI and how far it's going to continue to grow over the coming years, let alone decade, is pretty scary.

https://odysee.com/@yannickilcher:3/...-takes-over!:6