Bryce Miller em drive in fact is not warp drive, it is more like impulse power. However, the spaceship on the picture has some different engine that is more like a warp drive.
Bryce Miller em drive in fact is not warp drive, it is more like impulse power. However, the spaceship on the picture has some different engine that is more like a warp drive.
Bryce Miller em drive in fact is not warp drive, it is more like impulse power. However, the spaceship on the picture has some different engine that is more like a warp drive.
Bryce Miller the main advantage of em drive is that they dont need to carry a monstrous mass of propellant which means a multiplication of its efficiency compared to conventional thrusters. However, the current design is just a proove of concept and far from being optimized.
Bryce Miller the main advantage of em drive is that they dont need to carry a monstrous mass of propellant which means a multiplication of its efficiency compared to conventional thrusters. However, the current design is just a proove of concept and far from being optimized.
Bryce Miller the main advantage of em drive is that they dont need to carry a monstrous mass of propellant which means a multiplication of its efficiency compared to conventional thrusters. However, the current design is just a proove of concept and far from being optimized.
Bryce Miller A nuclear sunmarine has to operate in a heavy liquid, constantly pushing through it, in a gravity well. I’m sure the engineers at Nasa have the smarts to figure out how much thrust is necessary to move said mass to the velocity required, within the constraint of energy available. ( they put things on Mars , don’t they?)
Bryce Miller A nuclear sunmarine has to operate in a heavy liquid, constantly pushing through it, in a gravity well. I’m sure the engineers at Nasa have the smarts to figure out how much thrust is necessary to move said mass to the velocity required, within the constraint of energy available. ( they put things on Mars , don’t they?)
Bryce Miller A nuclear sunmarine has to operate in a heavy liquid, constantly pushing through it, in a gravity well. I’m sure the engineers at Nasa have the smarts to figure out how much thrust is necessary to move said mass to the velocity required, within the constraint of energy available. ( they put things on Mars , don’t they?)
m1aws And your comparing submarines with spacecraft is ludicrous. Without having to launch the enormous weight of chemical propellant out of Earths gravity well. The mass that needs to be accelerated is reduced substantially. Therefore the amount of electricity necessary to provide the required thrust is reduced. If I were to hazzard a guess I would suppose they will use a small reactor to provide the electricity necessary. If Nasa thinks this drive is worth testing, then the engineering to make it viable is within their capability.
m1aws And your comparing submarines with spacecraft is ludicrous. Without having to launch the enormous weight of chemical propellant out of Earths gravity well. The mass that needs to be accelerated is reduced substantially. Therefore the amount of electricity necessary to provide the required thrust is reduced. If I were to hazzard a guess I would suppose they will use a small reactor to provide the electricity necessary. If Nasa thinks this drive is worth testing, then the engineering to make it viable is within their capability.
m1aws And your comparing submarines with spacecraft is ludicrous. Without having to launch the enormous weight of chemical propellant out of Earths gravity well. The mass that needs to be accelerated is reduced substantially. Therefore the amount of electricity necessary to provide the required thrust is reduced. If I were to hazzard a guess I would suppose they will use a small reactor to provide the electricity necessary. If Nasa thinks this drive is worth testing, then the engineering to make it viable is within their capability.
m1aws I’d be interested to know how many spacecraft you have launched to the moon or Mars. Nasa has been doing so for quite a while. I’ll put my trust in their expertise with mathmatics, physics and rocket science.
m1aws I’d be interested to know how many spacecraft you have launched to the moon or Mars. Nasa has been doing so for quite a while. I’ll put my trust in their expertise with mathmatics, physics and rocket science.
m1aws I’d be interested to know how many spacecraft you have launched to the moon or Mars. Nasa has been doing so for quite a while. I’ll put my trust in their expertise with mathmatics, physics and rocket science.
John Bailey c’mon. I was giving an example of a large power source only producing a small thrust. It’s not ludicrous. It’s putting things into perspective.
As for NASA, yes they are smart and capable. Nobody’s attacking them, so you could stop defending them. They agree with me that the drive will need to be more efficient to be useful.
John Bailey c’mon. I was giving an example of a large power source only producing a small thrust. It’s not ludicrous. It’s putting things into perspective.
As for NASA, yes they are smart and capable. Nobody’s attacking them, so you could stop defending them. They agree with me that the drive will need to be more efficient to be useful.
John Bailey c’mon. I was giving an example of a large power source only producing a small thrust. It’s not ludicrous. It’s putting things into perspective.
As for NASA, yes they are smart and capable. Nobody’s attacking them, so you could stop defending them. They agree with me that the drive will need to be more efficient to be useful.
Let’s say the nuclear sub comparison sucks. Instead we could try a thought experiment:
The article gives the drive conversion of power to thrust as 1.2mN/kW.
The efficiency of our non-submarine power-source might be about 10kg/kW.
Let’s say we build a generator that weighs 10,000kg (10Mg) and it runs for decades before refuel, like a submarine does. Connect it to the drive and we’ll call that a spaceship, ignoring any other weight. So we have no hull, no equipment, and no power drain for computers, communication, or sensors.
That’s 1.2mN * (10,000/10) = 1.2N of thrust.
With that, our acceleration would be 1.2N / 10Mg = 120μm/s/s
Okay, that’s not enough to fight gravity on the Earth (9.8m/s/s), so now we deliver it into orbit using traditional rockets. Unfortunately, the drive is still too weak, and the orbit would degrade leading to an eventual crash. We boost it again all the way to an orbit the distance from Earth of the moon using more traditional rockets and at that distance the drive is still too weak to fight directly against Earth’s gravity. We send a rescue, using traditional rockets, and this time carry it all the way to five times the distance of the moon and drop it off into an orbit again. At this distance our thrust is equivalent to our weight. We turn on the drive and are able to fly directly away from Earth.
Now that we are leaving our orbit which was 1.8Gm from Earth, let’s keep it simple and ignore gravity within the solar system. Sol’s pull on us at this distance would actually be stronger than Earth’s and would be too strong for our drive handle. We want to actually get somewhere this time, so we’ll say we used the earlier rocket boost to overcome this. We run our drive on at full power for a million seconds. That’s maybe a couple weeks. Our speed would be 120 m/s. (120μm/s/s * 1Ms). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000m (60Mm). We are 1/300th as far as Voyager, and traveling much slower, but we have decades of fuel left to burn. We’re probably a quarter of the way to Mars, but our drive is too weak to decelerate if we get near it, so let’s keep away.
Now keep it running constantly until the fuel runs out after a billion seconds. That’s over 30 years and our speed will have reached a respectable 120 km/s (120μm/s/s * 1Gs). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000,000,000 meters (60Tm).
We’re well outside the solar system, coasting faster than Voyager. Since we have no radios or equipment, there’s perhaps little point, but we did it! We have no fuel remaining to turn around or to decelerate for any future orbit or landing, but here we are. There’s nothing out here and we are only 1/700th of the distance to the nearest star. If we keep coasting at this speed for 10,000+ years we will reach the nearest star. Victory!
Let’s say the nuclear sub comparison sucks. Instead we could try a thought experiment:
The article gives the drive conversion of power to thrust as 1.2mN/kW.
The efficiency of our non-submarine power-source might be about 10kg/kW.
Let’s say we build a generator that weighs 10,000kg (10Mg) and it runs for decades before refuel, like a submarine does. Connect it to the drive and we’ll call that a spaceship, ignoring any other weight. So we have no hull, no equipment, and no power drain for computers, communication, or sensors.
That’s 1.2mN * (10,000/10) = 1.2N of thrust.
With that, our acceleration would be 1.2N / 10Mg = 120μm/s/s
Okay, that’s not enough to fight gravity on the Earth (9.8m/s/s), so now we deliver it into orbit using traditional rockets. Unfortunately, the drive is still too weak, and the orbit would degrade leading to an eventual crash. We boost it again all the way to an orbit the distance from Earth of the moon using more traditional rockets and at that distance the drive is still too weak to fight directly against Earth’s gravity. We send a rescue, using traditional rockets, and this time carry it all the way to five times the distance of the moon and drop it off into an orbit again. At this distance our thrust is equivalent to our weight. We turn on the drive and are able to fly directly away from Earth.
Now that we are leaving our orbit which was 1.8Gm from Earth, let’s keep it simple and ignore gravity within the solar system. Sol’s pull on us at this distance would actually be stronger than Earth’s and would be too strong for our drive handle. We want to actually get somewhere this time, so we’ll say we used the earlier rocket boost to overcome this. We run our drive on at full power for a million seconds. That’s maybe a couple weeks. Our speed would be 120 m/s. (120μm/s/s * 1Ms). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000m (60Mm). We are 1/300th as far as Voyager, and traveling much slower, but we have decades of fuel left to burn. We’re probably a quarter of the way to Mars, but our drive is too weak to decelerate if we get near it, so let’s keep away.
Now keep it running constantly until the fuel runs out after a billion seconds. That’s over 30 years and our speed will have reached a respectable 120 km/s (120μm/s/s * 1Gs). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000,000,000 meters (60Tm).
We’re well outside the solar system, coasting faster than Voyager. Since we have no radios or equipment, there’s perhaps little point, but we did it! We have no fuel remaining to turn around or to decelerate for any future orbit or landing, but here we are. There’s nothing out here and we are only 1/700th of the distance to the nearest star. If we keep coasting at this speed for 10,000+ years we will reach the nearest star. Victory!
Let’s say the nuclear sub comparison sucks. Instead we could try a thought experiment:
The article gives the drive conversion of power to thrust as 1.2mN/kW.
The efficiency of our non-submarine power-source might be about 10kg/kW.
Let’s say we build a generator that weighs 10,000kg (10Mg) and it runs for decades before refuel, like a submarine does. Connect it to the drive and we’ll call that a spaceship, ignoring any other weight. So we have no hull, no equipment, and no power drain for computers, communication, or sensors.
That’s 1.2mN * (10,000/10) = 1.2N of thrust.
With that, our acceleration would be 1.2N / 10Mg = 120μm/s/s
Okay, that’s not enough to fight gravity on the Earth (9.8m/s/s), so now we deliver it into orbit using traditional rockets. Unfortunately, the drive is still too weak, and the orbit would degrade leading to an eventual crash. We boost it again all the way to an orbit the distance from Earth of the moon using more traditional rockets and at that distance the drive is still too weak to fight directly against Earth’s gravity. We send a rescue, using traditional rockets, and this time carry it all the way to five times the distance of the moon and drop it off into an orbit again. At this distance our thrust is equivalent to our weight. We turn on the drive and are able to fly directly away from Earth.
Now that we are leaving our orbit which was 1.8Gm from Earth, let’s keep it simple and ignore gravity within the solar system. Sol’s pull on us at this distance would actually be stronger than Earth’s and would be too strong for our drive handle. We want to actually get somewhere this time, so we’ll say we used the earlier rocket boost to overcome this. We run our drive on at full power for a million seconds. That’s maybe a couple weeks. Our speed would be 120 m/s. (120μm/s/s * 1Ms). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000m (60Mm). We are 1/300th as far as Voyager, and traveling much slower, but we have decades of fuel left to burn. We’re probably a quarter of the way to Mars, but our drive is too weak to decelerate if we get near it, so let’s keep away.
Now keep it running constantly until the fuel runs out after a billion seconds. That’s over 30 years and our speed will have reached a respectable 120 km/s (120μm/s/s * 1Gs). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000,000,000 meters (60Tm).
We’re well outside the solar system, coasting faster than Voyager. Since we have no radios or equipment, there’s perhaps little point, but we did it! We have no fuel remaining to turn around or to decelerate for any future orbit or landing, but here we are. There’s nothing out here and we are only 1/700th of the distance to the nearest star. If we keep coasting at this speed for 10,000+ years we will reach the nearest star. Victory!
Bryce Miller Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period? If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it. The size and weight of a subs reactor should not be applicable to this situation., a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity. I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.
Bryce Miller Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period? If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it. The size and weight of a subs reactor should not be applicable to this situation., a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity. I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.
Bryce Miller Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period? If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it. The size and weight of a subs reactor should not be applicable to this situation., a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity. I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.
John Bailey I’ve only worked on bits of the space shuttle. Your reasoning is irrelevant to the facts. NASA refused to acknowledge this “engine” off the British guy who proposed it. FFS a lad on youtube in Bulgaria proved the motor works!
Fact of the matter, you need a shitload of power for next to no thrust.
John Bailey I’ve only worked on bits of the space shuttle. Your reasoning is irrelevant to the facts. NASA refused to acknowledge this “engine” off the British guy who proposed it. FFS a lad on youtube in Bulgaria proved the motor works!
Fact of the matter, you need a shitload of power for next to no thrust.
John Bailey I’ve only worked on bits of the space shuttle. Your reasoning is irrelevant to the facts. NASA refused to acknowledge this “engine” off the British guy who proposed it. FFS a lad on youtube in Bulgaria proved the motor works!
Fact of the matter, you need a shitload of power for next to no thrust.
John Bailey , “Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period?” hmmmm, yes? Did you read my thought experiment comment where it fired continuously for 30 years? Was that not long enough for you? It had its chance to shine! 🙂
“If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it.” Sure they would. They would pursue on the path to a much more efficient version. The current efficiency is not good enough, which was the point I was trying to make. I don’t know why you are resistent that idea that it needs improvement.
“The size and weight of a sub’s reactor should not be applicable to this situation; a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity.” Well, I gave it zero drag in the thought experiment. Also, I didn’t use a sub’s weight. If I scaled the weight down, it wouldn’t really change anything. I could only try again with better efficiency generator or a better efficiency drive.
“I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.” Well, they won’t. They’ll develop something more efficient first. Then it’ll be worth putting in a vehicle and we’ll all be interested to see how it goes.
John Bailey , “Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period?” hmmmm, yes? Did you read my thought experiment comment where it fired continuously for 30 years? Was that not long enough for you? It had its chance to shine! 🙂
“If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it.” Sure they would. They would pursue on the path to a much more efficient version. The current efficiency is not good enough, which was the point I was trying to make. I don’t know why you are resistent that idea that it needs improvement.
“The size and weight of a sub’s reactor should not be applicable to this situation; a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity.” Well, I gave it zero drag in the thought experiment. Also, I didn’t use a sub’s weight. If I scaled the weight down, it wouldn’t really change anything. I could only try again with better efficiency generator or a better efficiency drive.
“I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.” Well, they won’t. They’ll develop something more efficient first. Then it’ll be worth putting in a vehicle and we’ll all be interested to see how it goes.
John Bailey , “Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period?” hmmmm, yes? Did you read my thought experiment comment where it fired continuously for 30 years? Was that not long enough for you? It had its chance to shine! 🙂
“If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it.” Sure they would. They would pursue on the path to a much more efficient version. The current efficiency is not good enough, which was the point I was trying to make. I don’t know why you are resistent that idea that it needs improvement.
“The size and weight of a sub’s reactor should not be applicable to this situation; a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity.” Well, I gave it zero drag in the thought experiment. Also, I didn’t use a sub’s weight. If I scaled the weight down, it wouldn’t really change anything. I could only try again with better efficiency generator or a better efficiency drive.
“I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.” Well, they won’t. They’ll develop something more efficient first. Then it’ll be worth putting in a vehicle and we’ll all be interested to see how it goes.
m1aws well, it was actually only a single megawatt in my thought experiment. Also, it’s an imaginary generator, but I was trying to give it all the help it could get and still prove it couldn’t even lift itself out of the gravity.
Nuclear subs do run for decades though and can produce more than a megawatt, so it wasn’t too outlandish. Yes, “a huge breakthrough” or whatever it takes to make this drive much more efficient is necessary before it could have a practical purpose. That is what I tried to demonstrate.
m1aws well, it was actually only a single megawatt in my thought experiment. Also, it’s an imaginary generator, but I was trying to give it all the help it could get and still prove it couldn’t even lift itself out of the gravity.
Nuclear subs do run for decades though and can produce more than a megawatt, so it wasn’t too outlandish. Yes, “a huge breakthrough” or whatever it takes to make this drive much more efficient is necessary before it could have a practical purpose. That is what I tried to demonstrate.
m1aws well, it was actually only a single megawatt in my thought experiment. Also, it’s an imaginary generator, but I was trying to give it all the help it could get and still prove it couldn’t even lift itself out of the gravity.
Nuclear subs do run for decades though and can produce more than a megawatt, so it wasn’t too outlandish. Yes, “a huge breakthrough” or whatever it takes to make this drive much more efficient is necessary before it could have a practical purpose. That is what I tried to demonstrate.
Shaun Burks No it doesn’t. The radio engineer knew how it worked in his head. Why it works just confused the theorists. More of a case “not invented here, hence its a nonsense”. Its how they think.
Shaun Burks No it doesn’t. The radio engineer knew how it worked in his head. Why it works just confused the theorists. More of a case “not invented here, hence its a nonsense”. Its how they think.
Shaun Burks No it doesn’t. The radio engineer knew how it worked in his head. Why it works just confused the theorists. More of a case “not invented here, hence its a nonsense”. Its how they think.
Sorry SpaceEveryDay EM drive does not equal an alcubierre warp drive it doesn’t even come close.
]]>Sorry SpaceEveryDay EM drive does not equal an alcubierre warp drive it doesn’t even come close.
]]>Sorry SpaceEveryDay EM drive does not equal an alcubierre warp drive it doesn’t even come close.
]]>George Lacroix Star Trek doesn’t use warp drives to get from Earth to Mars. Impulse power is used, which is like one of these:
en.wikipedia.org – Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster – Wikipedia
]]>George Lacroix Star Trek doesn’t use warp drives to get from Earth to Mars. Impulse power is used, which is like one of these:
en.wikipedia.org – Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster – Wikipedia
]]>George Lacroix Star Trek doesn’t use warp drives to get from Earth to Mars. Impulse power is used, which is like one of these:
en.wikipedia.org – Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster – Wikipedia
]]>With a thrust in the pico or nano-grams per kilowatt. Its hardly the stuff of rocket dreams.
]]>With a thrust in the pico or nano-grams per kilowatt. Its hardly the stuff of rocket dreams.
]]>With a thrust in the pico or nano-grams per kilowatt. Its hardly the stuff of rocket dreams.
]]>Only reason i mention it is ,the original headline worded it so that it was likened to warp drive technology…
]]>Only reason i mention it is ,the original headline worded it so that it was likened to warp drive technology…
]]>Only reason i mention it is ,the original headline worded it so that it was likened to warp drive technology…
]]>Bryce Miller em drive in fact is not warp drive, it is more like impulse power. However, the spaceship on the picture has some different engine that is more like a warp drive.
]]>Bryce Miller em drive in fact is not warp drive, it is more like impulse power. However, the spaceship on the picture has some different engine that is more like a warp drive.
]]>Bryce Miller em drive in fact is not warp drive, it is more like impulse power. However, the spaceship on the picture has some different engine that is more like a warp drive.
]]>m1aws I think a nuclear powered submarine could move about 200 lbs with this drive 🙂
Guess they’ll have to make it more efficient.
]]>m1aws I think a nuclear powered submarine could move about 200 lbs with this drive 🙂
Guess they’ll have to make it more efficient.
]]>m1aws I think a nuclear powered submarine could move about 200 lbs with this drive 🙂
Guess they’ll have to make it more efficient.
]]>Bryce Miller the main advantage of em drive is that they dont need to carry a monstrous mass of propellant which means a multiplication of its efficiency compared to conventional thrusters. However, the current design is just a proove of concept and far from being optimized.
]]>Bryce Miller the main advantage of em drive is that they dont need to carry a monstrous mass of propellant which means a multiplication of its efficiency compared to conventional thrusters. However, the current design is just a proove of concept and far from being optimized.
]]>Bryce Miller the main advantage of em drive is that they dont need to carry a monstrous mass of propellant which means a multiplication of its efficiency compared to conventional thrusters. However, the current design is just a proove of concept and far from being optimized.
]]>Gerd Steinwender At a pressure of nano grams of thrust per kilowatt, rest assured the propellant (Solar panels etc.) will be monstrously heavy.
]]>Gerd Steinwender At a pressure of nano grams of thrust per kilowatt, rest assured the propellant (Solar panels etc.) will be monstrously heavy.
]]>Gerd Steinwender At a pressure of nano grams of thrust per kilowatt, rest assured the propellant (Solar panels etc.) will be monstrously heavy.
]]>What technology becomes
]]>What technology becomes
]]>What technology becomes
]]>Star trek has inspired a lot of tech be patient lol
]]>Star trek has inspired a lot of tech be patient lol
]]>Star trek has inspired a lot of tech be patient lol
]]>Bryce Miller A nuclear sunmarine has to operate in a heavy liquid, constantly pushing through it, in a gravity well. I’m sure the engineers at Nasa have the smarts to figure out how much thrust is necessary to move said mass to the velocity required, within the constraint of energy available. ( they put things on Mars , don’t they?)
]]>Bryce Miller A nuclear sunmarine has to operate in a heavy liquid, constantly pushing through it, in a gravity well. I’m sure the engineers at Nasa have the smarts to figure out how much thrust is necessary to move said mass to the velocity required, within the constraint of energy available. ( they put things on Mars , don’t they?)
]]>Bryce Miller A nuclear sunmarine has to operate in a heavy liquid, constantly pushing through it, in a gravity well. I’m sure the engineers at Nasa have the smarts to figure out how much thrust is necessary to move said mass to the velocity required, within the constraint of energy available. ( they put things on Mars , don’t they?)
]]>John Bailey Your lack or any simple mathematics and physics does not change the facts. it takes kilowatts of energy to provide micrograms of force.
]]>John Bailey Your lack or any simple mathematics and physics does not change the facts. it takes kilowatts of energy to provide micrograms of force.
]]>John Bailey Your lack or any simple mathematics and physics does not change the facts. it takes kilowatts of energy to provide micrograms of force.
]]>m1aws And your comparing submarines with spacecraft is ludicrous. Without having to launch the enormous weight of chemical propellant out of Earths gravity well. The mass that needs to be accelerated is reduced substantially. Therefore the amount of electricity necessary to provide the required thrust is reduced. If I were to hazzard a guess I would suppose they will use a small reactor to provide the electricity necessary. If Nasa thinks this drive is worth testing, then the engineering to make it viable is within their capability.
]]>m1aws And your comparing submarines with spacecraft is ludicrous. Without having to launch the enormous weight of chemical propellant out of Earths gravity well. The mass that needs to be accelerated is reduced substantially. Therefore the amount of electricity necessary to provide the required thrust is reduced. If I were to hazzard a guess I would suppose they will use a small reactor to provide the electricity necessary. If Nasa thinks this drive is worth testing, then the engineering to make it viable is within their capability.
]]>m1aws And your comparing submarines with spacecraft is ludicrous. Without having to launch the enormous weight of chemical propellant out of Earths gravity well. The mass that needs to be accelerated is reduced substantially. Therefore the amount of electricity necessary to provide the required thrust is reduced. If I were to hazzard a guess I would suppose they will use a small reactor to provide the electricity necessary. If Nasa thinks this drive is worth testing, then the engineering to make it viable is within their capability.
]]>m1aws I’d be interested to know how many spacecraft you have launched to the moon or Mars. Nasa has been doing so for quite a while. I’ll put my trust in their expertise with mathmatics, physics and rocket science.
]]>m1aws I’d be interested to know how many spacecraft you have launched to the moon or Mars. Nasa has been doing so for quite a while. I’ll put my trust in their expertise with mathmatics, physics and rocket science.
]]>m1aws I’d be interested to know how many spacecraft you have launched to the moon or Mars. Nasa has been doing so for quite a while. I’ll put my trust in their expertise with mathmatics, physics and rocket science.
]]>John Bailey c’mon. I was giving an example of a large power source only producing a small thrust. It’s not ludicrous. It’s putting things into perspective.
As for NASA, yes they are smart and capable. Nobody’s attacking them, so you could stop defending them. They agree with me that the drive will need to be more efficient to be useful.
]]>John Bailey c’mon. I was giving an example of a large power source only producing a small thrust. It’s not ludicrous. It’s putting things into perspective.
As for NASA, yes they are smart and capable. Nobody’s attacking them, so you could stop defending them. They agree with me that the drive will need to be more efficient to be useful.
]]>John Bailey c’mon. I was giving an example of a large power source only producing a small thrust. It’s not ludicrous. It’s putting things into perspective.
As for NASA, yes they are smart and capable. Nobody’s attacking them, so you could stop defending them. They agree with me that the drive will need to be more efficient to be useful.
]]>Let’s say the nuclear sub comparison sucks. Instead we could try a thought experiment:
The article gives the drive conversion of power to thrust as 1.2mN/kW.
The efficiency of our non-submarine power-source might be about 10kg/kW.
Let’s say we build a generator that weighs 10,000kg (10Mg) and it runs for decades before refuel, like a submarine does. Connect it to the drive and we’ll call that a spaceship, ignoring any other weight. So we have no hull, no equipment, and no power drain for computers, communication, or sensors.
That’s 1.2mN * (10,000/10) = 1.2N of thrust.
With that, our acceleration would be 1.2N / 10Mg = 120μm/s/s
Okay, that’s not enough to fight gravity on the Earth (9.8m/s/s), so now we deliver it into orbit using traditional rockets. Unfortunately, the drive is still too weak, and the orbit would degrade leading to an eventual crash. We boost it again all the way to an orbit the distance from Earth of the moon using more traditional rockets and at that distance the drive is still too weak to fight directly against Earth’s gravity. We send a rescue, using traditional rockets, and this time carry it all the way to five times the distance of the moon and drop it off into an orbit again. At this distance our thrust is equivalent to our weight. We turn on the drive and are able to fly directly away from Earth.
Now that we are leaving our orbit which was 1.8Gm from Earth, let’s keep it simple and ignore gravity within the solar system. Sol’s pull on us at this distance would actually be stronger than Earth’s and would be too strong for our drive handle. We want to actually get somewhere this time, so we’ll say we used the earlier rocket boost to overcome this. We run our drive on at full power for a million seconds. That’s maybe a couple weeks. Our speed would be 120 m/s. (120μm/s/s * 1Ms). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000m (60Mm). We are 1/300th as far as Voyager, and traveling much slower, but we have decades of fuel left to burn. We’re probably a quarter of the way to Mars, but our drive is too weak to decelerate if we get near it, so let’s keep away.
Now keep it running constantly until the fuel runs out after a billion seconds. That’s over 30 years and our speed will have reached a respectable 120 km/s (120μm/s/s * 1Gs). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000,000,000 meters (60Tm).
We’re well outside the solar system, coasting faster than Voyager. Since we have no radios or equipment, there’s perhaps little point, but we did it! We have no fuel remaining to turn around or to decelerate for any future orbit or landing, but here we are. There’s nothing out here and we are only 1/700th of the distance to the nearest star. If we keep coasting at this speed for 10,000+ years we will reach the nearest star. Victory!
]]>Let’s say the nuclear sub comparison sucks. Instead we could try a thought experiment:
The article gives the drive conversion of power to thrust as 1.2mN/kW.
The efficiency of our non-submarine power-source might be about 10kg/kW.
Let’s say we build a generator that weighs 10,000kg (10Mg) and it runs for decades before refuel, like a submarine does. Connect it to the drive and we’ll call that a spaceship, ignoring any other weight. So we have no hull, no equipment, and no power drain for computers, communication, or sensors.
That’s 1.2mN * (10,000/10) = 1.2N of thrust.
With that, our acceleration would be 1.2N / 10Mg = 120μm/s/s
Okay, that’s not enough to fight gravity on the Earth (9.8m/s/s), so now we deliver it into orbit using traditional rockets. Unfortunately, the drive is still too weak, and the orbit would degrade leading to an eventual crash. We boost it again all the way to an orbit the distance from Earth of the moon using more traditional rockets and at that distance the drive is still too weak to fight directly against Earth’s gravity. We send a rescue, using traditional rockets, and this time carry it all the way to five times the distance of the moon and drop it off into an orbit again. At this distance our thrust is equivalent to our weight. We turn on the drive and are able to fly directly away from Earth.
Now that we are leaving our orbit which was 1.8Gm from Earth, let’s keep it simple and ignore gravity within the solar system. Sol’s pull on us at this distance would actually be stronger than Earth’s and would be too strong for our drive handle. We want to actually get somewhere this time, so we’ll say we used the earlier rocket boost to overcome this. We run our drive on at full power for a million seconds. That’s maybe a couple weeks. Our speed would be 120 m/s. (120μm/s/s * 1Ms). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000m (60Mm). We are 1/300th as far as Voyager, and traveling much slower, but we have decades of fuel left to burn. We’re probably a quarter of the way to Mars, but our drive is too weak to decelerate if we get near it, so let’s keep away.
Now keep it running constantly until the fuel runs out after a billion seconds. That’s over 30 years and our speed will have reached a respectable 120 km/s (120μm/s/s * 1Gs). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000,000,000 meters (60Tm).
We’re well outside the solar system, coasting faster than Voyager. Since we have no radios or equipment, there’s perhaps little point, but we did it! We have no fuel remaining to turn around or to decelerate for any future orbit or landing, but here we are. There’s nothing out here and we are only 1/700th of the distance to the nearest star. If we keep coasting at this speed for 10,000+ years we will reach the nearest star. Victory!
]]>Let’s say the nuclear sub comparison sucks. Instead we could try a thought experiment:
The article gives the drive conversion of power to thrust as 1.2mN/kW.
The efficiency of our non-submarine power-source might be about 10kg/kW.
Let’s say we build a generator that weighs 10,000kg (10Mg) and it runs for decades before refuel, like a submarine does. Connect it to the drive and we’ll call that a spaceship, ignoring any other weight. So we have no hull, no equipment, and no power drain for computers, communication, or sensors.
That’s 1.2mN * (10,000/10) = 1.2N of thrust.
With that, our acceleration would be 1.2N / 10Mg = 120μm/s/s
Okay, that’s not enough to fight gravity on the Earth (9.8m/s/s), so now we deliver it into orbit using traditional rockets. Unfortunately, the drive is still too weak, and the orbit would degrade leading to an eventual crash. We boost it again all the way to an orbit the distance from Earth of the moon using more traditional rockets and at that distance the drive is still too weak to fight directly against Earth’s gravity. We send a rescue, using traditional rockets, and this time carry it all the way to five times the distance of the moon and drop it off into an orbit again. At this distance our thrust is equivalent to our weight. We turn on the drive and are able to fly directly away from Earth.
Now that we are leaving our orbit which was 1.8Gm from Earth, let’s keep it simple and ignore gravity within the solar system. Sol’s pull on us at this distance would actually be stronger than Earth’s and would be too strong for our drive handle. We want to actually get somewhere this time, so we’ll say we used the earlier rocket boost to overcome this. We run our drive on at full power for a million seconds. That’s maybe a couple weeks. Our speed would be 120 m/s. (120μm/s/s * 1Ms). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000m (60Mm). We are 1/300th as far as Voyager, and traveling much slower, but we have decades of fuel left to burn. We’re probably a quarter of the way to Mars, but our drive is too weak to decelerate if we get near it, so let’s keep away.
Now keep it running constantly until the fuel runs out after a billion seconds. That’s over 30 years and our speed will have reached a respectable 120 km/s (120μm/s/s * 1Gs). Our drive has carried us 60,000,000,000,000 meters (60Tm).
We’re well outside the solar system, coasting faster than Voyager. Since we have no radios or equipment, there’s perhaps little point, but we did it! We have no fuel remaining to turn around or to decelerate for any future orbit or landing, but here we are. There’s nothing out here and we are only 1/700th of the distance to the nearest star. If we keep coasting at this speed for 10,000+ years we will reach the nearest star. Victory!
]]>Bryce Miller Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period? If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it. The size and weight of a subs reactor should not be applicable to this situation., a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity. I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.
]]>Bryce Miller Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period? If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it. The size and weight of a subs reactor should not be applicable to this situation., a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity. I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.
]]>Bryce Miller Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period? If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it. The size and weight of a subs reactor should not be applicable to this situation., a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity. I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.
]]>John Bailey I’ve only worked on bits of the space shuttle. Your reasoning is irrelevant to the facts. NASA refused to acknowledge this “engine” off the British guy who proposed it. FFS a lad on youtube in Bulgaria proved the motor works!
Fact of the matter, you need a shitload of power for next to no thrust.
]]>John Bailey I’ve only worked on bits of the space shuttle. Your reasoning is irrelevant to the facts. NASA refused to acknowledge this “engine” off the British guy who proposed it. FFS a lad on youtube in Bulgaria proved the motor works!
Fact of the matter, you need a shitload of power for next to no thrust.
]]>John Bailey I’ve only worked on bits of the space shuttle. Your reasoning is irrelevant to the facts. NASA refused to acknowledge this “engine” off the British guy who proposed it. FFS a lad on youtube in Bulgaria proved the motor works!
Fact of the matter, you need a shitload of power for next to no thrust.
]]>John Bailey , “Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period?” hmmmm, yes? Did you read my thought experiment comment where it fired continuously for 30 years? Was that not long enough for you? It had its chance to shine! 🙂
“If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it.” Sure they would. They would pursue on the path to a much more efficient version. The current efficiency is not good enough, which was the point I was trying to make. I don’t know why you are resistent that idea that it needs improvement.
“The size and weight of a sub’s reactor should not be applicable to this situation; a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity.” Well, I gave it zero drag in the thought experiment. Also, I didn’t use a sub’s weight. If I scaled the weight down, it wouldn’t really change anything. I could only try again with better efficiency generator or a better efficiency drive.
“I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.” Well, they won’t. They’ll develop something more efficient first. Then it’ll be worth putting in a vehicle and we’ll all be interested to see how it goes.
]]>John Bailey , “Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period?” hmmmm, yes? Did you read my thought experiment comment where it fired continuously for 30 years? Was that not long enough for you? It had its chance to shine! 🙂
“If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it.” Sure they would. They would pursue on the path to a much more efficient version. The current efficiency is not good enough, which was the point I was trying to make. I don’t know why you are resistent that idea that it needs improvement.
“The size and weight of a sub’s reactor should not be applicable to this situation; a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity.” Well, I gave it zero drag in the thought experiment. Also, I didn’t use a sub’s weight. If I scaled the weight down, it wouldn’t really change anything. I could only try again with better efficiency generator or a better efficiency drive.
“I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.” Well, they won’t. They’ll develop something more efficient first. Then it’ll be worth putting in a vehicle and we’ll all be interested to see how it goes.
]]>John Bailey , “Isn’t the argument for using a low yield thrust, that it can be a constant thrust that builds up a high velocity during a longer firing period?” hmmmm, yes? Did you read my thought experiment comment where it fired continuously for 30 years? Was that not long enough for you? It had its chance to shine! 🙂
“If the thrust available from this new drive system was not workable, Nasa would not pursue developing it.” Sure they would. They would pursue on the path to a much more efficient version. The current efficiency is not good enough, which was the point I was trying to make. I don’t know why you are resistent that idea that it needs improvement.
“The size and weight of a sub’s reactor should not be applicable to this situation; a sub needs to overcome a lot of drag. A spacecraft has very little once it achieves escape velocity.” Well, I gave it zero drag in the thought experiment. Also, I didn’t use a sub’s weight. If I scaled the weight down, it wouldn’t really change anything. I could only try again with better efficiency generator or a better efficiency drive.
“I’ll be interested in how Nasa, engineers such a vehicle if tests in space are promising.” Well, they won’t. They’ll develop something more efficient first. Then it’ll be worth putting in a vehicle and we’ll all be interested to see how it goes.
]]>Bryce Miller 30 years of space and you’ll be very dead. It’s useless for thrust. Fine attitude control would be good.
]]>Bryce Miller 30 years of space and you’ll be very dead. It’s useless for thrust. Fine attitude control would be good.
]]>Bryce Miller 30 years of space and you’ll be very dead. It’s useless for thrust. Fine attitude control would be good.
]]>m1aws not if it’s unmanned. Voyager has been out there that long. No one died.
]]>m1aws not if it’s unmanned. Voyager has been out there that long. No one died.
]]>m1aws not if it’s unmanned. Voyager has been out there that long. No one died.
]]>Bryce Miller So name the energy source that will give mega watts for decades. We don’t have one.
Might as well stick with ion thrusters for what little they give until a huge breakthrough is made.
]]>Bryce Miller So name the energy source that will give mega watts for decades. We don’t have one.
Might as well stick with ion thrusters for what little they give until a huge breakthrough is made.
]]>Bryce Miller So name the energy source that will give mega watts for decades. We don’t have one.
Might as well stick with ion thrusters for what little they give until a huge breakthrough is made.
]]>m1aws well, it was actually only a single megawatt in my thought experiment. Also, it’s an imaginary generator, but I was trying to give it all the help it could get and still prove it couldn’t even lift itself out of the gravity.
Nuclear subs do run for decades though and can produce more than a megawatt, so it wasn’t too outlandish. Yes, “a huge breakthrough” or whatever it takes to make this drive much more efficient is necessary before it could have a practical purpose. That is what I tried to demonstrate.
]]>m1aws well, it was actually only a single megawatt in my thought experiment. Also, it’s an imaginary generator, but I was trying to give it all the help it could get and still prove it couldn’t even lift itself out of the gravity.
Nuclear subs do run for decades though and can produce more than a megawatt, so it wasn’t too outlandish. Yes, “a huge breakthrough” or whatever it takes to make this drive much more efficient is necessary before it could have a practical purpose. That is what I tried to demonstrate.
]]>m1aws well, it was actually only a single megawatt in my thought experiment. Also, it’s an imaginary generator, but I was trying to give it all the help it could get and still prove it couldn’t even lift itself out of the gravity.
Nuclear subs do run for decades though and can produce more than a megawatt, so it wasn’t too outlandish. Yes, “a huge breakthrough” or whatever it takes to make this drive much more efficient is necessary before it could have a practical purpose. That is what I tried to demonstrate.
]]>We could maybe understand the physics of it, since it breaks our current understanding, and then evaluate its potential.
]]>We could maybe understand the physics of it, since it breaks our current understanding, and then evaluate its potential.
]]>We could maybe understand the physics of it, since it breaks our current understanding, and then evaluate its potential.
]]>Shaun Burks No it doesn’t. The radio engineer knew how it worked in his head. Why it works just confused the theorists. More of a case “not invented here, hence its a nonsense”. Its how they think.
]]>Shaun Burks No it doesn’t. The radio engineer knew how it worked in his head. Why it works just confused the theorists. More of a case “not invented here, hence its a nonsense”. Its how they think.
]]>Shaun Burks No it doesn’t. The radio engineer knew how it worked in his head. Why it works just confused the theorists. More of a case “not invented here, hence its a nonsense”. Its how they think.
]]>Hmmm… Peer reviewed science or restricted account… Who do I believe more?
]]>Hmmm… Peer reviewed science or restricted account… Who do I believe more?
]]>Hmmm… Peer reviewed science or restricted account… Who do I believe more?
]]>