Feasibility Versus Viability

Bruce Dorminey of Forbes Magazine wrote “Living The Interstellar Sci-Fi Future: Next Stop Proxima Centauri?“, and I quote his article,

“Sending a probe all the way there, even at the, as yet, unobtainable speed of a tenth that of light, would still require more than four decades of travel time . . . . The physics of getting there remains a challenge, but is not insurmountable.”

Bruce, there are two issues here, feasibility versus viability.

Yes, it is feasible to send a rocket to the Moon, Mars & Beyond. But is it viable to build a commercial enterprise around rocket technology?

An asteroid mining venture, Planetary Resources, Inc., where a single rock is worth $500 billion? Yes.

A space tourism venture where passengers pay $250 for a round trip to the Moon? No.

The second is the problem the space & scientific communities are not addressing. For that matter the first has only recently became viable. It wasn’t viable 10 years ago.

40 years to get to Proxima Centauri is just barely feasible, as the astronauts would be in their 80s at best. Rockets are not viable, for such a venture. What about getting back?

As the author of “An Introduction to Gravity Modification” (http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1612330894), based on a 12-year study on the subject, I can assure that change is here. Imagine semiconductor chips creating artificial gravitational fields.

The discovery of the new formula for gravitational acceleration g=(tau)c^2 that does not require us to know the mass of the planet or star to calculate the gravitational acceleration, lends itself to force field propulsion technologies. (Besides messing with our theories on dark matter.)

Talk to any physicist and they will tell this is not possible. I took the perspective that if a 100,000 of our best minds could not solve the gravity modification problem using relativistic, quantum & string theories, then who was I to even try. Was I more learned? No. Was I more skilled? No. Was I more talented? No. Was I better equipped? No. Did I have bigger budgets? No. But I had a different perspective.

From their view, I agree with these scientists that relativistic, quantum & string theories make this an impossible task. I used a different approach, process models, and my first breakthrough was the massless g=(tau)c^2.

The problem is with their tools, not with the minds!

How did I do this? I ignored Niels Bohr, who is reputed to have said all that was necessary was the equation. However, Morris Kline in ‘Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty’ shows us that one can use mathematics to say anything. Therefore, a grounding was required – physical representation – or process models.

And coming back full circle, viability will be achieved when we replace rockets with force field engines.

We will reach the stars sooner than we suspect.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Advertisements

About Benjamin Solomon
Ben Solomon is a Committee Member of the Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA), and author of An Introduction to Gravity Modification and Super Physics for Super Technologies: Replacing Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger & Einstein (with Kindle Version)

6 Responses to Feasibility Versus Viability

  1. Thanks for your comment. I won’t address all the points you raise but do want to say that while feasibility and viability are important, either mission description one can get the job done. That’s particularly true if society takes the long view when doing the hard work of cathedral-building that is inherently at the heart of any interstellar mission, manned or unmanned.

    I didn’t raise the specter of a manned interstellar mission directly, but rather why we as a society had avoided doing the heavy lifting required of designing an interstellar probe of any stripe. I’m sanguine enough to believe that humanity will get there. Because of a recent story I did about human hibernation studies; they are advancing at a nice clip due to what bio-researchers are learning from bear hibernation, then I don’t think even manned interstellar flight will be impossible.

    Remember at the beginning of this century, respected astronomer William Pickering made the rather odd pronouncement that powered aircraft flight across the Atlantic was likely an impossibility. Thankfully, Lindbergh proved him wrong in fairly short order. Don’t ever underestimate human ingenuity and physics itself. That’s the take away here.

    • Bruce, for me ‘real’ interstellar travel is about manned space flight, and that means figuring out how to ‘get around’ the velocity of light limitation.

      I don’t underestimate human ingenuity, because I solved the gravity modification problem over a period of 12 years, while Michio Kaku in his April 25 2008 The Space Show interview said that this would take several hundred years. My point was that human ingenuity can get stuck in a dead end if we use the incorrect tools.

  2. Pingback: Stardrive? « iSETI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: