Talk:Black hole starship

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Math Issues

Greetings, In this article, and in the 3^rd source, it says that a black hole that would survive a 3.5-year journey "would have a radius of 0.9 attometers, would have a mass of 606,000 tonnes, and a power output of 160 petawatts." However, I did the math and got different answers. Using the mass of 606,000,000 kg as a standard, I solved $r_{s}={\frac {2GM}{c^{2}}}\;$ for the radius and got the same 0.9 attometers, but I got a power output of ~27 GW when I solved $P={\frac {\hbar c^{6}}{15360\pi G^{2}M^{2}}}\;$ and a lifespan of ~567 years when I did $t_{\operatorname {ev} }={\frac {5120\pi G^{2}M_{0}^{3}}{\hbar c^{4}}}\;$ . My answers may be incorrect, but I really think that the values are false whether my answers are right or wrong and I think this merits immediate attention. Carbon6 ^talk 20:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've calculated 25.6 gigawatts and 593 years. — Reatlas (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, I've calculated the mass of a black hole that would last 3.5 years, and it's 109,522.7 tonnes. It has a radius of 162.625 zeptometers, and a power of 29.7072 Petawatts.

in all honesty, the 29-PW black hole is probably the better option of the two if the technology to pump matter into it is available. If the reflector could handle it, I'd even argue that 10,000 tonnes is a good size, as it allows for a much better Thrust/weight ratio of ~120, assuming ideal efficiency. At that point, you could maintain 1 G acceleration on a craft of 1.2 megatonnes mass.

Even if you want a larger ship, as long as it can handle the thrust, it's better to have multiple black holes powering it over a shorter period.

As for the power from the 606 kt hole: L=1/M^2*hbar*c^6/15360/pi/G^2, so we get 97 Terawatts, with the correct diameter already listed.207.62.170.211 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional

IRIC, fictional Star Trek's impulse engines rapidly generate micro black holes that evaporate just as fast. The ship 'rides' the resulting gravitational disortions. The hawking radiation from the evaporation of each black hole is used to help created the next black hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.46.59 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the StarTrek Technical Manual, impulse engines are pretty standard fusion rockets (I know, booooring!), no exotic physics required.178.15.151.163 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]