Downside of warp drives: Annihilating star systems when you arrive


Recommended Posts

The dream of faster-than-light travel has been on the mind of humanity for generations. Until recently, though, it was restricted to the realm of pure science fiction. Theoretical mechanisms for warp drives have been posited by science, some of which actually jive quite nicely with what we know of physics. Of course, that doesn?t mean they?re actually going to work, though.

NASA researchers recently revisited the Alcubierre warp drive and concluded that its power requirements were not as impossible as once thought. However, a new analysis from the University of Sydney claims that using a warp drive of this design comes with a drawback. Specifically, it could cause cataclysmic explosions at your destination.

To see how the Alcubierre drive could devastate an entire star system, you have to know a little about how it would work. The ship would consist of a central pod, and a large flattened ring around it (pictured below). The ring would have to be made of an as-yet unidentified kind of dense exotic matter capable of bending space-time.

Supply the craft with enough energy, and the very fabric of the universe can be warped. NASA now believes this would require orders of magnitude less energy than Alcubierre originally thought. When activated, space behind an Alcubierre drive expands while contracting in front. The ship itself hums along in a stable pocket, or bubble in space. It turns out the bubble is the problem.

As your faster-than-light ship sails through the cosmos, it?s not alone. Although we often think of space as empty, there are loads of high-energy particles shooting through the void. The University of Sydney research [PDF] indicates that these particles are liable to get swept up in the craft?s warp field and remain trapped in the stable bubble.

warp_drive_starship.jpeg

The longer the journey lasts, the more of these dangerous particles build up. This doesn?t affect the ability of the warp drive to keep bending the laws of the universe ? it?s the stopping that?s going to ruin your day.

The instant the Alcubierre drive is disengaged, the space-time gradient that allows it to effectively move faster than light goes away. All the energetic particles trapped during the journey have to go somewhere, and the researchers believe they would be blasted outward in a cone directly in front of the ship. Anyone or anything waiting for you at the other end of your trip would be destroyed.

Because of a funny little quirk of relativity, there is no upper limit to the amount of energy a Alcubierre drive could pick up. A long trip could vaporize entire planets upon your arrival. The researchers are beginning a new round of number crunching to see how bad the problem is. It?s possible the deadly particle beam could be projected in all directions, making Alcubierre drives unworkable. That spiffy warp ship might make a better weapon than method of transportation.

The Alcubierre drive is, of course, still highly speculative. NASA scientists are working with small-scale models in an effort to produce localized distortions in space, but this new Aussie research could give NASA something to think about. Even with future advances in technology, this method of space flight might prove to be impossible. At least then we wouldn?t have to worry about annihilating everyplace we try to explore.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/140635-the-downside-of-warp-drives-annihilating-whole-star-systems-when-you-arrive

Pff, invent the Deflector Array as well then?

Pretty sure if someone manages to bend space to achieve warp they could invent something to deflect the particles away in their sleep.

  • Like 2

If the problem is the build-up of particles over the distance of the trip, it would likely be necessary to make shorter 'burst-trips' if you will, going in and out of warp space so that when the particles are released, it wouldn't be so catastrophic. Of course, you first have to know how much travel would be necessary to build up so many particles that stopping would cause a cataclysmic explosion ahead of you. Then you adjust accordingly.

The funny thing is that (as mentioned above) Star Trek already addressed this idea with the Deflector Array, the shape of the ships, and the configuration of the 'Warp Bubble'.

Does anyone else find it funny that the ship above looks a lot like the early Vulcan ships in Star Trek? (Other than the obvious football in the earlier pic)

vulcan_command_ship_02.jpg

  • Like 2

Navigational deflectors, or bussard ramscoops. Or both. Solved :-)

Also the Starfleet rule that you shouldn't enter or exit warp while inside a solar system exists for a reason ;-)

And good call with the vulcan ship there Shane hehe

Navigational deflectors, or bussard ramscoops. Or both. Solved :-)

Also the Starfleet rule that you shouldn't enter or exit warp while inside a solar system exists for a reason ;-)

And good call with the vulcan ship there Shane hehe

Two good, viable options also.

Of course, it's not really a Starfleet rule; rather a United Federation of Planets rule. Starfleet is an Academy for training officers to pilot Federation ships or other work about Federation vessels. It's the Federation that makes such laws and regulations (such as the Prime Directive). This was a mistake I noticed was repeated in J. J. Abram's Star Trek movie. Federation and Starfleet were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But they really aren't.

Navigational deflectors, or bussard ramscoops. Or both. Solved :-)

Also the Starfleet rule that you shouldn't enter or exit warp while inside a solar system exists for a reason ;-)

And good call with the vulcan ship there Shane hehe

But I've seen them enter & exit solar systems using warp.

But, supposedly, you're not supposed to use warp while orbiting a planet, something to do with a gravity well and warp not interacting together would destroy the planet or something along those lines.

Two good, viable options also.

Of course, it's not really a Starfleet rule; rather a United Federation of Planets rule. Starfleet is an Academy for training officers to pilot Federation ships or other work about Federation vessels. It's the Federation that makes such laws and regulations (such as the Prime Directive). This was a mistake I noticed was repeated in J. J. Abram's Star Trek movie. Federation and Starfleet were used interchangeably as though they were one and the same. But they really aren't.

No, Starfleet Academy is where students train in order to enter Starfleet.

Starfleet itself is the name of their combined military and exploration fleet.

The UFP (United Federation of Planets) is a coalition of many worlds that work together. Some members of those worlds choose to enlist in Starfleet, and some of them choose to stay with their own local military and/or exploration fleets.

The wording used in the newest Star Trek film is correct in the usage cases present. Watch it again more closely using the context I've provided above. You will find that every example is correct.

But I've seen them enter & exit solar systems using warp.

But, supposedly, you're not supposed to use warp while orbiting a planet, something to do with a gravity well and warp not interacting together would destroy the planet or something along those lines.

BTW, there is a bit of fuzz surrounding this as it is handled somewhat inconsistently at times. I've viewed it along the lines of there are certain systems in which it is safe to enter/exit warp speed, and certain systems where it is not safe. This is mostly due to the inconsistencies shown...but heck they've even shown warp in atmo before in Star Trek IV on Earth of all places...

No, Starfleet Academy is where students train in order to enter Starfleet.

Starfleet itself is the name of their combined military and exploration fleet.

The UFP (United Federation of Planets) is a coalition of many worlds that work together. Some members of those worlds choose to enlist in Starfleet, and some of them choose to stay with their own local military and/or exploration fleets.

The wording used in the newest Star Trek film is correct in the usage cases present. Watch it again more closely using the context I've provided above. You will find that every example is correct.

BTW, there is a bit of fuzz surrounding this as it is handled somewhat inconsistently at times. I've viewed it along the lines of there are certain systems in which it is safe to enter/exit warp speed, and certain systems where it is not safe. This is mostly due to the inconsistencies shown...but heck they've even shown warp in atmo before in Star Trek IV on Earth of all places...

Ah, man, you're right. My bad.

Hyperdrives is where it's at baby, none of this messing about with warp drive. Check out Stargates speeds compared to Star Treks.

Asgard hyperdrives can hop between galaxies in minutes. It was supposed to take Voyager, what? 75 years to get a mere 70,000 lightyears? (3/4 of the width of our galaxy)

Hyperdrives is where it's at baby, none of this messing about with warp drive. Check out Stargates speeds compared to Star Treks.

Asgard hyperdrives can hop between galaxies in minutes. It was supposed to take Voyager, what? 75 years to get a mere 70,000 lightyears? (3/4 of the width of our galaxy)

Those little guys know their stuff and would bitch slap those star fleet noobs.

but heck they've even shown warp in atmo before in Star Trek IV on Earth of all places...

I remember seeing that in the theatre, back in the 1980s.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Yes, it was amusing at the time because even then dbrand was well known for stealing the designs of products from other companies. That’s what they do.
    • Didn’t Dbrand once complain that Casetify was ripping off their designs a well? seems pretty bad of them to try and get around Valve’s copyright this way with that in mind.
    • Dbrand thought they could get away with this Steam Machine case, Valve disagreed by David Uzondu Image via Dbrand Dbrand has cancelled its highly anticipated Companion Cube enclosure for the Valve Steam Machine, which it teased back in November of last year with a concept render and sign-up page, because it did not ask Valve for permission first before manufacturing the case. According to Dbrand, it took the "backwards approach" of building the product first before asking for permission from the copyright holder. Seven months of work went into the project, requiring over a thousand engineering hours from the design team. Workers developed forty-four sets of injection molding tools, making a unique mold for each sub-component of the crate. When the Companion Cube went live on Monday last week, it, according to Dbrand, quickly became the second-fastest-selling product in the company's fifteen-year history, racking up orders for hundreds of thousands of units. Customers eagerly bought the $129.95 deluxe edition or the bare-bones $99.95 version, which the manufacturer cheekily branded as the "Poverty Cube". It was around this time that the legal eagles at Valve descended on the accessory maker with a formal demand. The developer pointed out that the iconic block design remains protected intellectual property from the game Portal, so unlicensed sales had to stop. Dbrand said that all its pleas to salvage the project with the Valve team, including proposals to run a properly licensed release under official terms "with their blessing", fell on deaf ears, so it had no choice but to obey and remove every trace of the product from the internet. If you bought the enclosure, the company said that banks will process your refund by the end of this week, but if it still hasn't arrived in your account by then, you should not hesitate to contact support. The Steam Machine itself is a high-performance console that Valve designed directly to bring PC gaming into the living room. It was announced on 12th November 2025 (the same day Dbrand announced the Cube) and runs on the Linux-based SteamOS, the same OS that powers the Steam Deck. As for the price, due to the shortage of memory and storage chips, the hardware cost landed much higher than people were expecting, starting at $1,049 for the 512 model (without a controller) or $1,128 with the new gamepad. The premium 2 TB model pushes those prices even higher, selling at $1,349 for the standalone console and hitting $1,428 if you want the bundle.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      Almohandis went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Apprentice
      jahara21 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      534
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      97
    5. 5
      macoman
      57
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!