Large Hadron Collider could test hyperdrive propulsion!

Haircut · 10 Oct 2009 at 07:15

digipeep said:
How will they solve the problem of inertia.

In Star Trek they use "Inertia Dampers". I got a feeling this is going to be soemthing that will not be solved.

For those who aren't clued up about inertia, when you speed up coming off a slip road when you join the motorway and go from 30pmh to 70mph in 10seconds you feel yourself being pushed back into your seat. Now amplify that 1000 times a try to imagine what would happen if you were in a space craft capable at travelling just 10% the speed of light, and the pilot put his foot on the pedal. You'd be squash in a millionth of a second.

The thing is you don't need huge amount of acceleration to get to those sorts of speeds in a reasonable time.
Obviously you could do 0- half lightspeed in a few seconds, but accelerating constantly at 1g (which we do all the time just being on Earth, so our bodies are used to it) you could reach that in around 6 months.
Very little time at all in the grand scheme of things.

ChrisJSY said:
Inertial dampers are to stop you being thrown about when you manage to create artificial mavity and need to accelerate/turn/stop in a scenario you'd otherwise die.
None of which exist.

I would have thought if you could create artificial mavity then inertia wouldn't be an issue anyway. The equivalence principle states that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same, so if you could control mavity you could presumably control inertia too.

Teki187 · 10 Oct 2009 at 09:29

But if they use anti mavity surely that would remove the inertia all together?

MonkeyNews · 10 Oct 2009 at 09:59

Teki187 said:
But if they use anti mavity surely that would remove the inertia all together?

That was also my understanding of it, without mavity and resistances you have no inertia issues, though I havent tested the science behind it so am not 100% sure.

Samueltastic · 10 Oct 2009 at 10:55

radar19 said:
Pfft, warpdrive is where its at.

Make it so number 1

Greebo · 10 Oct 2009 at 11:24

Well I have my crowbar ready. It's the beginning of the end I tell you!

cheets64 · 10 Oct 2009 at 11:28

How about sorting earths energy needs instead of silly space exploration.

starfighter · 10 Oct 2009 at 11:31

cheets64 said:
How about sorting earths energy needs instead of silly space exploration.

They are sorted, oil works fine down here. :cool:

At any rate as the price goes up research will go into alternatives more and more and the problem will be solved before it becomes one.

Stuff like this has no real chance of commercial success for a long time, no 1 is going to fund CERN in the hope of building a hiperdrive to sell. So I am happy for my tax money to go on this.

And we are funding Fusion power generation. ITER.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8103557.stm

nex20 · 10 Oct 2009 at 11:32

Didn't they do this on south park?

gillywibble · 10 Oct 2009 at 12:04

cheets64 said:
How about sorting earths energy needs instead of silly space exploration.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Alex_6n2 · 10 Oct 2009 at 12:11

cheets64 said:
How about sorting earths energy needs instead of silly space exploration.

Orrr work on both at the same time? Some of the experiments the LHC could be used for might produce results yielding a new kind of energy production. Space exploration is far from silly.

jas72 · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:06

can someone tell me how this would be applied?

What use could it be put to. Light speed space travel could never happen can you imagine the g's on someone also what would stop people crashing?

Spitfir3 · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:11

When we visited CERN we were going on the lift down from the surface to the bit below where it all actually is and there was a chap in the lift with us who looked suspiciously like Mr Freeman.. only me and my mate seemed to get it

Oh and we were going to ask one of the 'chief' theoretical physicists what the chances of a resonance cascade (ahem.. HL1 accident) happening were... we didn't

Glaucus · 10 Oct 2009 at 16:20

jas72 said:
What use could it be put to. Light speed space travel could never happen can you imagine the g's on someone also what would stop people crashing?

G depends on acceleration not speed. It also doesn't really apply to non human spacecrafts.

What do you mean crash?

very interesting although I'm not sure I understand the principle. I needs a nice little diagram.

The Running Man · 10 Oct 2009 at 16:40

im guessing he means that when you are travelling at the speed of light you need a super tomtom style navigator to take control and swerve you around any planets or obstacles that might get into your way...

astroid belt for example.

Glaucus · 10 Oct 2009 at 16:42

Nickg said:
im guessing he means that when you are travelling at the speed of light you need a super tomtom style navigator to take control and swerve you around any planets or obstacles that might get into your way...

astroid belt for example.

In that case most objects are easily predictable like planets and single asteroids. Asteroid belt might be harder. I have no idea how dense it is and if you could plot a course through it or not.

Teki187 · 10 Oct 2009 at 16:47

jas72 said:
can someone tell me how this would be applied?

What use could it be put to. Light speed space travel could never happen can you imagine the g's on someone also what would stop people crashing?

Well helium 5 is on the moon and we need that, makes mining it easier.

The Running Man · 10 Oct 2009 at 16:57

AcidHell2 said:
In that case most objects are easily predictable like planets and single asteroids. Asteroid belt might be harder. I have no idea how dense it is and if you could plot a course through it or not.

how does one navigate in space in unexlored/unchartered territory at that speed though?

what your 'base' or reference point?

BigglesPiP · 10 Oct 2009 at 16:57

Earth reaches solar escape velocity when LHC hyperdrive experiment backfires!!

Glaucus · 10 Oct 2009 at 17:26

Nickg said:
how does one navigate in space in unexlored/unchartered territory at that speed though?

Why would it be uncharted?

If it was made, they would be well planned and on set courses for a very long time. Just like long range probs at the moment. It's not FTL speed. It's far slower than speed of light and as such would only be useful for solarsytem flight and/or long term probe projects.

Angilion · 10 Oct 2009 at 18:02

cheets64 said:
How about sorting earths energy needs instead of silly space exploration.

Take a look at how many very useful things started off as apparently useless research.

If humans don't learn, technology will not improve. Personally, I think it's silly for humans to not conduct research, especially research that could have immense effects on technology. The grreater the understanding of how the universe works, the greater the ability to use it.

The cost of CERN is buttons compared to energy costs, anyway. You may as well complain about the cost of wear on the soles of your shoes caused by walking to your car when you need a new central heating system.

Earth doesn't have any energy needs that aren't met. It's humanity that has energy needs, not the earth.

What could the scientists at CERN do with the money spent on CERN in order to address humanity's energy needs? Note that in order to give any support to your argument, it must be more useful than furthering humanity's understanding of the universe.