I think the concern for short trips would be either navigation (risking crashing into something) or acceleration/deceleration (being able to safely control the reaction over such a distance). I wish I knew enough about the subject to even begin to guess if there might be negative effects of manipulating spacetime so close to a planetary body.
The cost to send a cluster of bananas would still be astronomical at best.
These crafts will probably not be aerodynamical and therefor cannot enter or leave an atmosphere without being ripped asunder.
Traditional means would have to be used such as fossil fueled space crafts or a space elevator (if that ever happens) to send goods from earth up to the warp ship and then at site down from the warp ship to the planet. Then we're talking about $10.000/ 1 KG again, that's one expensive banana cluster
The key to colonizing other planets is self-efficiency and don't think that'll ever change even with technology.
Also this^
Last edited by Jevlin; 2012-09-21 at 06:12 AM.
Sorry, 6,5x10^19 J. Which is 65 quintillion on the short scale (million-10^6, billion-10^9, trillion-10^12, quadrilion-10^15, quintillion-10^18) and 65 trillion on the long scale, used by most European countries (million-10^6, milliard-10^9, billion-10^12, billiard-10^15, trillion-10^18). Which is, as Fuzzzie also said, 16 megatons of TNT.
Oh, and about fusion power, it would technically work for half of the elements, but under the right conditions. The "fuel" used most is a mixture of dilithium and tritium (2 types of hydrogen besides the main one, but they're extremely abundant on Earth, so you don't need to worry about fuel shortages in future.
Just to note that this is the worst case scenario. It means the system needs to have a momentary input amounting to that energy. If it had required continuous input totalling to the announced energy requirement we could have made do with much smaller power source. Since at a given point in time input must be this high, that many nuclear reactors have to be plugged in simultaneously at least at one point in time, and so whether we need to have them at the next point in time is irreleveant. We still need to have that kind of a power source. And we propably need to have it with us if we ever want to stop the process. Or do a return trip, at least.
By author Seth Mnookin:
http://blogs.plos.org/thepanicvirus/...ng-circa-2012/
Because it’s sexier to discover something than to show there’s nothing to be discovered, high-impact journals show a marked preference for "initial studies" as opposed to disconfirmations. Unfortunately, as anyone who has ever worked in a research lab knows, initial observations are almost inevitably refuted or heavily attenuated by future studies — and that data tends to get printed in less prestigious journals. Newspapers, meanwhile, give lots of attention to those first, eye-catching results while spilling very little (if any) ink on the ongoing research that shows why people shouldn’t have gotten all hot and bothered in the first place. (I have a high degree of confidence that the same phenomenon occurs regardless of the medium, but the PLOS ONE study only examined print newspapers.)
The less you know, the more you believe.
Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.
Someone please come wake me up from under my rock when we have replicators and holodecks. So I can eat with 0 effort and do questionable things in privacy.