Skip to content
Back to the collection

Are Black Hole Starships Possible

Louis Crane, Shawn Westmoreland

2009 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
18
Readers
10
Months
16
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

We investigate whether it is physically possible to build starships or power sources using the Hawking radiation of an artificial black hole as a power source. The proposal seems to be at the edge of possibility, but quantum gravity effects could change the picture.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

18 selected excerpts · 18 total mentions

octaane
Neutral mention · rule
There have been several proposals. This paper proposes a feasable mechanism[1]: -"a SBH could be artificially created by firing a huge number of gamma rays from a spherically converging laser. The idea is to pack so much energy into such a small space that a BH will form." 1. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
blincoln
Neutral mention · rule
I skimmed over Crane and Westmoreland's paper[1] and an article that discusses specific designs[2], and I'm still unsure how one would keep the vehicle and black hole moving together while also generating thrust. It seems like there would be a conservation of energy problem, regardless of the design. I'm not a physicist, so I'm probably missing something. Most things one would use for thrust in space are inherently repulsive. The part I'm having trouble with is that it seems like even though a black hole would put out a lot of energy, it wouldn't be inherently repulsive, and so any vehicle would have to exert a station-keeping (or orbit-keeping) force equivalent to…
Read the full comment
whatever the over-all black hole engine was emitting, making the engine itself useless. This seems especially true for the design in the second article, where the Dyson shell weighs 600 times as much as the singularity. But again, I'm probably missing something obvious since it's outside my areas of expertise. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 [2] https://www.space.com/24306-interstellar-flight-black-hole-p...
sbierwagen
Neutral mention · rule
Hawking radiation propulsion has the perfect specific impulse: exhaust velocity is the speed of light. Black hole hawking radiation also is perfectly efficient: 100% of the mass is converted into energy. D-T fusion only converts 0.4% of the mass to energy. There are many awful engineering problems of a black hole drive, but they're not so bad as to dismiss out of hand. See https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803v1
adrianN
Neutral mention · rule
Creating a microscopic black hole is not completely out of our reach. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 discusses this topic a bit. If the assumptions there are not wrong, and climate change doesn't get us first, creating small black holes might be become possible an a couple of generations.
kristianp
Neutral mention · rule
Does it make sense to build the FCC, when it costs so much money and doesn't necessarily have enough energy to discover any new physics, at 10x the energy of the LHC? Maybe it makes more sense to start working towards producing microscopic black holes in space, where results about quantum gravity can be gained [1]. [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/f/612766/cern-wants-to-buil... [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 , Are Black Hole Starships Possible
throwawaytire
Neutral mention · rule
The title of this article sounds like a password [1]. Whenever one of these articles comes out I like to think of this fun paper: [2] Are Black Hole Starships Possible?", http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803 [1] https://xkcd.com/936/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship
Detrus
Neutral mention · rule
Most of their science paper is in layman English http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803v1 and explains such questions. The black holes they would build are very very tiny, about the size of a proton. They are relatively light, about 600,000 tons. Such a body doesn't have noticeable gravity, it's too light to attract anything and too small to absorb it. The big danger from these are explosions at the end of their life. The explosions are serious if they happened near Earth, but safe at the distance of Earth to Sun. They're built near the host star anyway.
cletus
Neutral mention · rule
That's a good, grounded assessment of the scale of the problem. I too believe that the human colonization of space, even near-space (ie within the orbit of the Moon) is a long way off. The energy costs are simply too high and resources too cheap on the Earth to make it viable (in spite of typical SF fodder of asteroid mining). This is a problem because with 6.5 billion people we're using up resources. Fast. Anyway, I see two potential solutions to this problem: one not-so-far-fetched and one incredibly far-fetched. The not-so-far-fetched version is... hitch-hiking. Our understanding of the Universe is that it is full of mass wandering between stars. IIRC recently a…
Read the full comment
planet-sized body was detected traveling between the stars. Simple probability dictates that it is only a matter of time before a sufficiently large body travels through the Solar System with sufficient velocity (including direction) to reach somewhere else in sufficient time (but not too fast that we can't perform an orbital intercept) that we can essentially build a colony on it. The far-fetched version is to use back holes as power sources [1] as this is, as far as I've read anyway, the only remotely viable method of providing propulsion without reaction mass to speak of and reaction mass is the death of any form of interstellar propulsion. The answer to the Fermi Paradox [2] may simply be that it's too hard to leave our comfortable gravity wells and most (all?) civilizations simply run out of stuff before they get there. I've also given the thought to "footprints". If you think about, say, a primitive tribesman. What do they need to survive in a sustainable fashion? They need a sufficient sized population (measured in the hundreds or low thousands) to avoid inbreeding and sufficient land area to provide a food source. This is probably measured in the tens or hundreds of square miles. Imagine all they need as the footprint of a sustainable colony as that then dictates the minimum size of any spaceship. Now imagine a more advanced society. 1000 modern humans would need an ENORMOUS footprint. Just think about computer chips. On any long voyage they'd break down so you need to be able to make new ones. That means a sufficient lab, technology, materials (or, in reality, the means to get more materials), all that knowledge and so on. Plus the size of the population goes up given required specializations. This of course assumes that people would do all of these things instead of, say, an AI of some kind (which would actually solve a lot of problems). That footprint is currently way too large to build any kind of interstellar vessel (IMHO). One of the trends I see in coming centuries is that footprint will reach a point of reducing in size. By 2100 I expect we'll be able to keep the sum of all human knowledge (or a close enough approximation) on an essentially mobile device. Advanced manufacturing techniques and materials may solve many of the footprint problems and so on. As the footprint goes down, the viability of any isolated colony being able to survive increases. The hitchhiking idea would also be ideal for the survival of humanity overall. With sufficient isolation, there will be cultural and genetic drift. If we're able to influence each other, that's a recipe for conflict. But a large mass passing through the Solar System is very likely a one-way ticket. There's no way to follow and no way to return (barring astronomically small odds of a repeat or inverse body). [1]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803v1 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
sbierwagen
Neutral mention · rule
Crane and Westmoreland looked into this: "Are Black Hole Starships Possible" (2009) https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803v1 A black hole is generated when mass-energy density is above a certain threshold. You need to pack about a megatonne of mass-energy in a sphere 3 attometers in diameter to get a black hole approaching a useful lifespan. You could do it with bosonic matter, but photons are easier. Well, "easier": >In Section V below, we discuss the plausibility of creating SBHs with a very large spherically converging gamma ray laser. A radius of 1 attometer corresponds to the wavelength of a gamma ray with an energy of about 1.24 TeV. Since the wavelength of the Hawking…
Read the full comment
radiation is 8π^2 times the radius of the BH, the Hawking temperature of a BH with this radius is on the order of 16 GeV, within the limit of what we could hope to achieve technologically. >[...] >In a previous paper by the first author [9], it was proposed that a SBH could be artificially created by firing a huge number of gamma rays from a spherically converging laser. The idea is to pack so much energy into such a small space that a BH will form. An advantage of using photons is that, since they are bosons, there is no Pauli exclusion principle to worry about. Although a laser powered black hole generator presents huge engineering challenges, the concept appears to be physically sound according to classical general relativity. The process of aligning the laser array will be interesting, however. From Wikipedia: >Unlike most objects, a black hole's temperature increases as it radiates away mass. The rate of temperature increase is exponential, with the most likely endpoint being the dissolution of the black hole in a violent burst of gamma rays. A complete description of this dissolution requires a model of quantum gravity, however, as it occurs when the black hole's mass approaches 1 Planck mass, when its radius will also approach two Planck lengths. See table 2 from the paper. A 0.32 attometer wide black hole has a surface temperature of 98.1GeV and is losing 61.4 kilograms per second-- 5,519 petawatts of ultra-hard gamma radiation! Even at that diameter it has a sizable weight of 108,000 tonnes, but it doesn't have long to live-- a couple weeks. A poorly collimated laser array will produce undersize black holes which will rapidly evaporate. The paper suggests keeping them well away from Earth, on the other side of the Sun if possible. Not hard-- you'd want to put the array well within the orbit of Mercury for better solar power flux.
kristianp
Neutral mention · rule
Microscopic Black Holes are cooler than anti-matter if you ask me. We are only centuries of progress away from this: "Are Black Hole Starships Possible", http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 My question is, how long before we can build an accelerator that deliberately aims at creating black holes, so we can understand the Quantum effects? (In space hopefully).
kristianp
Neutral mention · rule
This kind of thing would require large scale industrialization of space (in orbit around various places). If we are doing that, why not create a black hole starship? Microscopic black holes have been theorized as power sources for starships. The power source is the Hawking radiation that is intense for microscopic black holes, with a mass of around a million tonnes according to calculations in [1]. Apparently, creating a black hole "would require millions of times less energy than a comparable amount of antimatter" [2]. We would need to learn more about quantum gravity first though. [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship

Keep following the thread.

More in Physics

More from the same topics.