Discussion
Seen a lot about this lately, especially the fact they don't actually understand fully how it works.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-...
Visit the moon in 4 hours.
Whats everyone thoughts?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-...
Visit the moon in 4 hours.
Whats everyone thoughts?
Moonhawk said:
Read about this years ago (I think New Scientist ran an article on it about 10 years ago).
At that time it was thought this was just another in a long line of "perpetual motion" or "free energy" type devices that upon closer scrutiny - don't live up to expectations.
If this really does work - it could be a game changer and could also open up a whole new world of physics.
I think this is something different though, its electric, its not free energy you put electricity in and get propulsion out, it can be powered with solar panels. At that time it was thought this was just another in a long line of "perpetual motion" or "free energy" type devices that upon closer scrutiny - don't live up to expectations.
If this really does work - it could be a game changer and could also open up a whole new world of physics.
We already have engines that work similar to this (used by probes) but they need a fuel, this is the next step in having an engine that only need electricity which is in abundance due to solar panels
This is an interesting development.
I did look for an existing thread, I seemed to have missed it.
Im glad this still hasn't been proved an error in data collection or testing yet.
We shall see how what the future holds, with the announcement that a moon base would cost far less than previously thought and with new technology pushing on, will we see man back on the moon again in our lifetime? Its coming up to 15 years of the ISS being occupied as well this year.
We shall see how what the future holds, with the announcement that a moon base would cost far less than previously thought and with new technology pushing on, will we see man back on the moon again in our lifetime? Its coming up to 15 years of the ISS being occupied as well this year.
ash73 said:
Telegraph article here not sure if there's anything new.
One interesting aspect to me is the possibility of an interstellar probe; the article claims 100 years to Alpha Centauri instead of tens of thousands of years. Various efforts to detect planets here are failing, let's just go have a look. It would be a magnificent achievement and there could be an Earth 2.0 right on our doorstep.
The interesting thing for me is that its an electric propulsion system so will just need some fancy circuit boards and some solar panels, no need to hoist tonnes of fuel into space, the fact it generates so much thrust is a bonus but the main thing for me is no fuel, it simplifies and cheapens so many aspects of space travel, even if its found to not generate the level of thrust that they currently think it does, its still a massive leap forward. One interesting aspect to me is the possibility of an interstellar probe; the article claims 100 years to Alpha Centauri instead of tens of thousands of years. Various efforts to detect planets here are failing, let's just go have a look. It would be a magnificent achievement and there could be an Earth 2.0 right on our doorstep.
otolith said:
Indeed - but it's not going to revolutionise transit times within our solar system at that sort of level. Applying that force to the New Horizons probe for the last nine and a half years would only have increased its speed by about 28mph. If there is a usable effect there it's going to need to be much more efficiently exploited.
But if its not carrying fuel, the probe could go out to pluto, then turn around and come back. No fuel also means its lighter payload and a very cleaver guy designed and built it in his kitchen using parts from a microwave, copper sheet and im guessing some more complicated stuff that he knocked up himself.Its like the experiments that took place using mobile phones as the main part of a simple satellite/probe. Its remarkably cheap.
maffski said:
The thing about EM drive threads - they're slow but keep going for ages.
The Register is reporting that the NASA results have been leaked, and they do record a thrust from the drive - about 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt.
by comparison the hall-effect thruster varies wildly but is around 40 millinewtons per kilowattThe Register is reporting that the NASA results have been leaked, and they do record a thrust from the drive - about 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt.
Moonhawk said:
Foliage said:
maffski said:
The thing about EM drive threads - they're slow but keep going for ages.
The Register is reporting that the NASA results have been leaked, and they do record a thrust from the drive - about 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt.
by comparison the hall-effect thruster varies wildly but is around 40 millinewtons per kilowattThe Register is reporting that the NASA results have been leaked, and they do record a thrust from the drive - about 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt.
Even with such a low thrust - they would still be useful for long duration spaceflight probes - and you don't need a haul a load of propellant around either. The lower thrust is countered (to a degree) by a potentially lighter spacecraft. The Xenon propellant on the Dawn spacecraft for example comprised around 35% of the spacecraft's total launch mass.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff