4 ms·

First use case that comes to mind is "Alcubierre torpedoes" or "Alcubierre shaped-charge" (if the bubble could be focused in such a way). Possibly a mechanism f

First use case that comes to mind is "Alcubierre torpedoes" or "Alcubierre shaped-charge" (if the bubble could be focused in such a way). Possibly a mechanism for disrupting any orbital objects on a collision course with earth? Hit it at an oblique angle to its orbit and poof!

imoverclocked 5y ago
This was used in “Another Life” on Netflix.
throwanem 5y ago
Any mass moving faster than light and still able to interact with matter that isn't, will necessarily have enough kinetic energy that any warhead would be an afterthought. That also doesn't necessarily improve matters in the Earth impactor case, since shattering a single large impactor without changing its vector only creates many small impactors. Some models make that look a little worse than the status quo ante, while more optimistic ones just say it's exactly as bad, but either way, if the mission is to see that zero rocks hit Earth then it isn't really a win. I'm more interested in the idea that, the longer your FTL leg, the less well you're able to see where you're going - not that that's likely often necessary for starships any more than for sailing vessels, but you can think of circumstances in which it might matter. Too, it might come to be considered unneighborly to take too direct a course anywhere, lest you inadvertently Kessler-spray your destination. Insystem use of the drive would be most complicated by this in general, especially since there's rarely much point in visiting stars without lots of rocks around them. You might also not be able to make sharp maneuvers in FTL, hence needing to plan legs with care not only for safety, but to minimize time and reaction mass spent on slow thruster rendezvous maneuvers. This has implications for travel time, navigation in general, and thus implicitly for supply chain logistics, travel time, and thus what's feasible both economically and politically - especially should it coincide with the absence of any FTL comms cheaper and faster than "record a message and then have a packet boat take it where it needs to go".
- willis936 5y ago
  I don't believe any model that says many small impactors cause more or the same damage than one large impactor. Surface area is higher, drag is higher. V becomes lower. 1/2mv^2 becomes dramatically lower. In every single case that an impactor is split. Also, in the case of hitting a rock with sufficient kinetic energy it will become atomized. A cloud of fast moving space dust would burn in the upper atmosphere.
  - Gare 5y ago
    If I recall correctly, heating up the atmosphere to scorching temperatures is a major concern. It's better to heat up one spot than half of the globe.
    - willis936 5y ago
      That is true. Well, in the case of being smashed by a hypothetical FTL wave the imparted energy should be sufficient to alter the course clear of Earth.

imoverclocked 5y ago

This was used in “Another Life” on Netflix.

throwanem 5y ago

Any mass moving faster than light and still able to interact with matter that isn't, will necessarily have enough kinetic energy that any warhead would be an afterthought. That also doesn't necessarily improve matters in the Earth impactor case, since shattering a single large impactor without changing its vector only creates many small impactors. Some models make that look a little worse than the status quo ante, while more optimistic ones just say it's exactly as bad, but either way, if the mission is to see that zero rocks hit Earth then it isn't really a win. I'm more interested in the idea that, the longer your FTL leg, the less well you're able to see where you're going - not that that's likely often necessary for starships any more than for sailing vessels, but you can think of circumstances in which it might matter. Too, it might come to be considered unneighborly to take too direct a course anywhere, lest you inadvertently Kessler-spray your destination. Insystem use of the drive would be most complicated by this in general, especially since there's rarely much point in visiting stars without lots of rocks around them. You might also not be able to make sharp maneuvers in FTL, hence needing to plan legs with care not only for safety, but to minimize time and reaction mass spent on slow thruster rendezvous maneuvers. This has implications for travel time, navigation in general, and thus implicitly for supply chain logistics, travel time, and thus what's feasible both economically and politically - especially should it coincide with the absence of any FTL comms cheaper and faster than "record a message and then have a packet boat take it where it needs to go".

willis936 5y ago
I don't believe any model that says many small impactors cause more or the same damage than one large impactor. Surface area is higher, drag is higher. V becomes lower. 1/2mv^2 becomes dramatically lower. In every single case that an impactor is split. Also, in the case of hitting a rock with sufficient kinetic energy it will become atomized. A cloud of fast moving space dust would burn in the upper atmosphere.
- Gare 5y ago
  If I recall correctly, heating up the atmosphere to scorching temperatures is a major concern. It's better to heat up one spot than half of the globe.
  - willis936 5y ago
    That is true. Well, in the case of being smashed by a hypothetical FTL wave the imparted energy should be sufficient to alter the course clear of Earth.