NASA's reactionless thruster

Off topic discussion zone.

Moderators: winston, another_commander, Cody

User avatar
Disembodied
Jedi Spam Assassin
Jedi Spam Assassin
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Carter's Snort

NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Disembodied »

NASA has published a peer-reviewed paper on an experimental reactionless thruster:

Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum

A friendlier summary of what might be going on is available here:
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-offici ... -published

But this might- might - be a breakthrough that could eventually make interplanetary travel a realistic prospect. A prospect fraught with peril and difficulty, granted , but at least one that doesn't mean lugging fuel all over the place.
User avatar
Cody
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Posts: 16081
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:31 pm
Location: The Lizard's Claw
Contact:

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Cody »

Now if I could just have myself frozen until something like this becomes a reality. <sighs wistfully>
Wake me in a hundred years, rejuve my body, refresh my brain, and give me a new left foot.
I would advise stilts for the quagmires, and camels for the snowy hills
And any survivors, their debts I will certainly pay. There's always a way!
User avatar
Smivs
Retired Assassin
Retired Assassin
Posts: 8408
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:31 am
Location: Lost in space
Contact:

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Smivs »

I'm not sure there will be much of anything left in a few hundred years time!
However, a way to flee the planet now would be nice....
Commander Smivs, the friendliest Gourd this side of Riedquat.
User avatar
spud42
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 1571
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:11 am
Location: Brisbane,Australia

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by spud42 »

i seem to remember a couple of years ago a private company or a university claiming to get thrust this way and all the mainstream scientists dismissing it.. its not much but constant acceleration adds up over time....
Arthur: OK. Leave this to me. I'm British. I know how to queue.
OR i could go with
Arthur Dent: I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.
or simply
42
User avatar
Disembodied
Jedi Spam Assassin
Jedi Spam Assassin
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Carter's Snort

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Disembodied »

spud42 wrote:
i seem to remember a couple of years ago a private company or a university claiming to get thrust this way and all the mainstream scientists dismissing it.
Fair enough, it does defy the Third Law of Thermodynamics … something that supposedly breaks a law that well established is almost certainly bogus. But fair's fair, NASA have tested it, and tested it, and had their research peer-reviewed, and published their results, and it seems to be working. This is science, doing what science should do.

If it does turn out to be true, there are two advantages, above and beyond interplanetary travel: first, it puts Elite: Dangerous's fuel-and-thrusters model in the bin where it belongs; and second, the pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics which might be behind the whole thing knocks out the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which if you ask me drives a horse and cart through Noel bloody Edmonds's Deal or No Deal.
User avatar
Cody
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Posts: 16081
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:31 pm
Location: The Lizard's Claw
Contact:

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Cody »

Disembodied wrote:
If it does turn out to be true, there are two advantages, above and beyond interplanetary travel: first, it puts Elite: Dangerous's fuel-and-thrusters model in the bin where it belongs; and second, the pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics which might be behind the whole thing knocks out the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which if you ask me drives a horse and cart through Noel bloody Edmonds's Deal of No Deal.
<sniggers - twice>
I would advise stilts for the quagmires, and camels for the snowy hills
And any survivors, their debts I will certainly pay. There's always a way!
User avatar
Cody
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Posts: 16081
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:31 pm
Location: The Lizard's Claw
Contact:

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Cody »

According to El Reg, the Chinese think it works, and have sent one into space for testing.
I would advise stilts for the quagmires, and camels for the snowy hills
And any survivors, their debts I will certainly pay. There's always a way!
User avatar
Redspear
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 2659
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:22 pm
Location: On the moon Thought, orbiting the planet Ignorance.

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Redspear »

spud42 wrote:
i seem to remember a couple of years ago a private company or a university claiming to get thrust this way and all the mainstream scientists dismissing it.. its not much but constant acceleration adds up over time....
...and I seem to recall some of us discussing it.
User avatar
Disembodied
Jedi Spam Assassin
Jedi Spam Assassin
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Carter's Snort

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Disembodied »

It's definitely got a lot of clever people interested …

This article, from the Atomic Rockets website, is worth a read, and has some good skeptical links about this specific engine too, under the "EmDrive" section:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... sdrive.php
Friends Don't Let Friends Use Reactionless Drives In Their Universes.
Personally, I like reactionless drives, but the article does make a good point about their existence leading to the development of planet-shattering weaponry.
The trick is making a reactionless drive that doesn't give you the ability to shatter planets with the Naval equivalent of a rowboat (which would throw a big monkey wrench into the author's carefully crafted arrangement of combat spacecraft). Reactionless drives, with no fuel/propellant constraints, will give you Dirt Cheap Planet Crackers. If you have a reactionless drive, and stellar economics where most of the common tropes exist (privately owned tramp freighters), you also have gravitic drive missiles. Unfortunately avoiding Planet Crackers Done Real Cheap is almost impossible to justify on logical grounds, so SF author is faced with quite a daunting task.
Ultimately, I think here the lesson is, don't let the maths get in the way of the story. Maths is good, and I'm very appreciative of all the things that maths can do for us, but fiction is fiction, whether science- or not, and I'm willing to exercise a little bit of Suspension of Disbelief (or, more accurately, Suspension of Things I Didn't Know and Don't Really Understand Anyway).

However: if here in the real world, we have a genuine reactionless thruster, then we have perpetual motion. And planet-busting missiles.

Happy Christmas! :D
User avatar
Cody
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Posts: 16081
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:31 pm
Location: The Lizard's Claw
Contact:

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Cody »

MAD for the interplanetary/interstellar age: you bust our planet, we'll bust your planet!

Happy winterfest!
I would advise stilts for the quagmires, and camels for the snowy hills
And any survivors, their debts I will certainly pay. There's always a way!
User avatar
spud42
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 1571
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:11 am
Location: Brisbane,Australia

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by spud42 »

but you dont need a drive at all to bust a planet. just bump a rock out of its orbit . if you can compute the trajectory for a planet strike with a reactionless drive then you certainly have the ability to do it with out one! the stars gravity is all the acceleration you need.
Arthur: OK. Leave this to me. I'm British. I know how to queue.
OR i could go with
Arthur Dent: I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.
or simply
42
User avatar
Cody
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Posts: 16081
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:31 pm
Location: The Lizard's Claw
Contact:

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Cody »

spud42 wrote:
but you dont need a drive at all to bust a planet.
You do if you're aiming at those slimeballs on Proxima Centauri b.
I would advise stilts for the quagmires, and camels for the snowy hills
And any survivors, their debts I will certainly pay. There's always a way!
User avatar
spud42
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 1571
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:11 am
Location: Brisbane,Australia

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by spud42 »

Cody wrote:
spud42 wrote:
but you dont need a drive at all to bust a planet.
You do if you're aiming at those slimeballs on Proxima Centauri b.
then you bump one of their rocks..... bump several .... do a Shoemaker Levy to them...lol
Arthur: OK. Leave this to me. I'm British. I know how to queue.
OR i could go with
Arthur Dent: I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.
or simply
42
User avatar
Cody
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Sharp Shooter Spam Assassin
Posts: 16081
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:31 pm
Location: The Lizard's Claw
Contact:

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by Cody »

spud42 wrote:
then you bump one of their rocks
Yeah... but you gotta get to their system to do that.
I would advise stilts for the quagmires, and camels for the snowy hills
And any survivors, their debts I will certainly pay. There's always a way!
User avatar
spud42
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 1571
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:11 am
Location: Brisbane,Australia

Re: NASA's reactionless thruster

Post by spud42 »

Ahh, but how do you know there are there unless you are close enough to their system to tell??
Arthur: OK. Leave this to me. I'm British. I know how to queue.
OR i could go with
Arthur Dent: I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.
or simply
42
Post Reply