Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > NASA says magic space engine might work.

NASA says magic space engine might work.
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 02:50 PM
 


Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired UK)

Nasa is a major player in space science, so when a team from the agency this week presents evidence that "impossible" microwave thrusters seem to work, something strange is definitely going on. Either the results are completely wrong, or Nasa has confirmed a major breakthrough in space propulsion.
The torsion balance they used to test the thrust was sensitive enough to detect a thrust of less than ten micronewtons, but the drive actually produced 30 to 50 micronewtons -- less than a thousandth of the Chinese results, but emphatically a positive result, in spite of the law of conservation of momentum:

"Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."
So basically, it's magic.


A working microwave thruster would radically cut the cost of satellites and space stations and extend their working life, drive deep-space missions, and take astronauts to Mars in weeks rather than months. In hindsight, it may turn out to be another great British invention that someone else turned into a success.
If true, it could be a revolution for space exploration.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 03:29 PM
 
Ars, with the reality check.
Don’t buy stock in impossible space drives just yet | Ars Technica
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).
In other words, the negative control in the experiment worked. Which means that the experiment as a whole tells you nothing. Clearly, the device (even when disabled) appears to produce a force. But Lee suggested a variety of ways that this could happen and indicated that there are ways to monitor the device's operation to see if any of them play a role (for example, he suggested that a mass imbalance of as little as 3 mg could account for the small force the NASA researchers found. "All in all," Lee concluded, "it will take a lot more information before we can judge whether the thrust is really a thrust or not."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 06:24 PM
 
If they're detecting micronewtons of thrust, a 3 mg imbalance is huge.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2014, 01:00 PM
 
So it works, but they don't know why, and their assumptions about how it worked were wrong...but it works. Hmmm. The scant info on how the device is thought to work is SO scant that I can't even say "wow, that makes sense/is crazy", so now I'm going to have to do a lot of research on this.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2014, 03:29 PM
 
It would be a great development for space travel if it works. Under current theory, it's hard to see how it can work. Here's a bit of speculation though.

A true reactionless drive would require accessing space at or below the Planck scale. Things we take as constants like conservation of energy become statistical constructs at that level -- we think so anyway. Our theories don't extend well to that level, and our experiments don't even come close. It's hard to picture a microwave resonance cavity doing the trick.

A reaction drive could appear reactionless if it selectively captured / reflected the gravidational wave background, or the neutrino background. The Big Bang is believed to have left us with both, and the nearby Sun gives off a steady neutrino flow as well. But neutrinos are true-neutral particles (not composed of smaller charged particles) and do not interact with the photon. A graviton (if it exists) would have to be a true neutral particle too.

Maybe you could get a drive effect if you could fool around with the Higgs field. Though I'd expect a change in inertial mass rather than momentum from that.

Hopefully Oreo will chime in. He actually works with this stuff. When he's not working on the, you know, covert ops side.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2014, 06:18 PM
 
Yeah, it sounds like Hibberd Space stuff. Or what Scotty would say in explaining how the Enterprise dodged some particularly nasty bad guy alien.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2014, 08:16 AM
 
"quantum vacuum virtual plasma" = magic.

To me anyway.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2014, 08:26 AM
 
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

— Arthur C. Clarke
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2014, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

— Arthur C. Clarke
love that quote. Says it all!

I can only imagine the other inventions out there - perhaps the stuff taken from Tesla as well, that was deemed impossible so it was shelved or shredded. what a stupid planet.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2014, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

— Arthur C. Clarke
That's exactly what I was referencing in the title.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2014, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

— Arthur C. Clarke
Yep, yep!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2014, 03:33 PM
 
Yeah for magic! Hope it works better then it did for Bullwinkle.

     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 01:43 PM
 
There's still hope
10 questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered (Wired UK)

2. Thrust was also measured from the 'Null Drive', doesn't that mean the experiment failed?

...

In fact, the 'Null Drive' was a modified version of the Cannae Drive, a flying-saucer-shaped device with slots engraved in one face only. The underlying theory is that the slots create a force imbalance in resonating microwaves; the 'Null Drive' was unslotted, but still produced thrust when filled with microwaves. This may challenge the theory -- it is probably no coincidence that Cannae inventor Guido Fetta is patenting a new version which works differently -- but not the results.

The true 'null test' was when a load was used with no resonant cavity, and as expected this produced no thrust:

...

Equally significantly, reversing the orientation of the drive reversed the thrust.

7. What's this about hoverboards and flying cars?

A superconducting version of the EmDrive, would, in principle, generate thousands of times more thrust. And because it does not require energy just to hold things up (just as a chair does not require power to keep you off the ground), in theory you could have a hoverboard which does not require energy to float in the air.

You'll have to provide the lateral thrust yourself though, or expend energy pushing the thing along by other means --- and in any case, superconducting electronics are rather bulky and expensive, so the super-EmDrive is likely to be a few years away.
Ok, getting my hopes up like this is just cruel. Space travel and hover boards? Does the thing give grade A blow jobs, too?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 02:40 PM
 
Equally significantly, reversing the orientation of the drive reversed the thrust.
I hadn't heard that part. This is interesting enough to send to the space station for a test. Potentially more useful than further tadpole experiments.

The test should preferably be done outside in free orbit, but even if they left it running in the station, any change in station orbit would presently become measurable.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 03:15 PM
 
I found that to be the most reassuring part, as well. Makes it unlikely it's outside interference.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 12:41 AM
 
Sorry I'm late. I've had a little look at it and the supporting material.

tl;dr: If it's too good to be true, it's probably not true.

I'm not an expert on experiments, but I know a little about electromagnetism. Let me give you a rundown on what the device is and how it supposedly works. There are several incarnations of the same basic idea, e. g. one is by Cannae, another one by EmDrive.

Both start with a cavity for microwaves, i. e. light waves/photons in the cm range are confined in small metal container where the walls act like mirrors. The container of the Cannae proof of concept device is made out of a superconducting material cooled below the critical temperature. The purpose is to make a mirror of extremely high quality so that photons bounce around this small box very, very, very often before they are absorbed.

The claim is that deviations from the perfectly radially symmetric shape of the cavity lead to a net force acting on the box. The purported »explanation« (have a look here, for instance) is that the asymmetry in the geometry leads to an asymmetry in the force exerted on the walls by the light waves inside the cavity. There is nothing quantum going on here, no particle-antiparticle pairs or black holes are created, just good old classical electromagnetism and classical mechanics.

To give you an intuition why this cannot work, consider a balloon filled with air. Balloon are not perfectly symmetric, and if a regular balloon is too symmetric for you pretend you have one of those party balloons with which you can form the balloon into the shape of a dog. Now the analogous claim is that the asymmetry in the balloon's shape leads to a net force, and you should see the balloon accelerate in a preferred direction and, because of conservation of energy, the gas on the inside should cool down -- which simply does not happen. Apart from gravity, there is no net force acting on the balloon. You can't pull yourself out of the mud by your own hair. Of course, this intuition isn't perfect, so don't overstretch it.

A simple physics argument goes as follows: work (= changes in energy) are force times distance, so any motion resulting from a net force implies a flow of energy from the electromagnetic field inside the box to the outside. The change in energy contained in the electromagnetic field is given by the so-called Poynting vector whose time-average is proportional to the radiation pressure -- hence the analogy to the balloon. And just like in the balloon, these forces have to average out to 0 across the whole surface (averaging over a small part while disregarding others is one of the main mistakes in this derivation).

Also note that the device does not operate because the asymmetry in the shape leads to an asymmetry in the quality of the mirror. It is well-known you can in principle build a rocket propelled by light, but the thrust you get is very, very small so that it is unfeasible for generating meaningful amounts of thrust. So also this theory is out. And finally, if people invoke the scary word quantum and babble on about how Feynman once said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics, in all likelihood they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Even though I'm not an experimentalist, I reckon that the recent NASA and older Chinese results are due to systematic errors in the design. The forces that are claimed to be detected are very small to downright tiny, so any bias which hasn't been accounted for may give a false positive. Just keep in mind that even a whole bunch of very clever and serious scientists measured things that don't make sense, and it turned out that those results were literally due to a lose cable.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Aug 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 12:59 PM
 
For some advanced theories in quantum mechanics to be valid, doesn't this sort of thing kinda need to work? I guess I'm not understanding all the incredulity in certain circles (beyond normal levels of skepticism, even bordering on abuse) over a result that's been anticipated by some mathematicians for a while now. Why not just wait for the next level of tests to begin and put that energy towards more positive feedback, instead? I had a good talk with the head of the physics dept at Vandy, and he's amazed at the absurd levels of nerd rage over this, some of it stepping over into the realm of being grossly unprofessional.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
For some advanced theories in quantum mechanics to be valid, doesn't this sort of thing kinda need to work?
No, not at all.
And besides, the explanations given by Cannae and EmDrive are purely classical (classical electromagnetism and classical mechanics), so they claim they don't need quantum effects to understand the mechanism behind the device. Saying quantum three times, make a handwavy gesture doesn't close a gap in an argument. We understand quantum mechanics very well these days.

There are a few basic principles which transcend physical theories, e. g. the concept of energy. Energy is a cash currency which can only be traded, it is a conserved quantity. So the first simple question you can answer without knowing any details is whether the energy balance comes out at 0.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I guess I'm not understanding all the incredulity in certain circles (beyond normal levels of skepticism, even bordering on abuse) over a result that's been anticipated by some mathematicians for a while now. Why not just wait for the next level of tests to begin and put that energy towards more positive feedback, instead?
The primary reason I see is that to someone with a decent physics background, you can tell after a few minutes that the explanation of both, Cannae and EmDrive are just plain wrong. It's the type of mistake an undergrad physics major can find. So my impression is that professionals find it amazing that these experiments were conducted in the first place and got hyped the way they are in the first place.

And everything about these endeavors smells of crackpot science: you have people outside of the scientific community trying to find a miracle device. People outside of science have this nostalgic idea of the genius working in his basement on some theory nobody has ever considered and who builds a device that ends up changing the world. Science doesn't work like that, these lone wolves lose touch with the community and they lose sight of established best principles. For instance, even if it turns out that these devices work, the explanations given are wrong, and if they had put up their ideas to discussion regularly, they'd know.

Another thing you see is that serious scientists would have been much, much more careful announcing this. For instance, the Odessa group which claimed to have measured neutrinos moving faster than light were extremely cautious in their presentations to colleagues. I watched one of them online, and when the head of the group (who has since stepped down) was asked how he interprets his results physically, he said that he doesn't offer any interpretation, but asks the community to critique his experiment to find out whether there was a measurement error or to confirm their findings (a loose fiberoptic cable was at fault).

To give you an example, there is a device called an ionocraft that many people thought was an antigravity device. Yes, it hovers and it seems like it cancels the effects of gravity, but the explanation is much more mundane: it hovers, because the device creates a stream of ionized air which produces lift. Similarly, the small measured forces can easily be attributable to secondary effects.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2015, 02:10 PM
 
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2015, 02:28 PM
 
frickin amazing!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2015, 04:28 PM
 
Definitely interesting. But I'd like to see it tested in space, away from nearby materials. Thrust changes orbits, which are very easy to verify.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 10:38 AM
 
Vacuum experiments were good! I'm officially allowing myself to get excited.
Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive | NASASpaceFlight.com
A group at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has successfully tested an electromagnetic (EM) propulsion drive in a vacuum – a major breakthrough for a multi-year international effort comprising several competing research teams.
After consistent reports of thrust measurements from EM Drive experiments in the US, UK, and China – at thrust levels several thousand times in excess of a photon rocket, and now under hard vacuum conditions – the question of where the thrust is coming from deserves serious inquiry.
While such mission proposals are important to consider, equally as important are the considerations toward development of the needed technology and procurement long-lead items necessary to make this power technology a reality.

Specifically, a useful EM Drive for space travel would need a nuclear power plant of 1.0 MWe (Megawatts-electric) to 100 MWe.

2015-04-19-010710While that sounds significant, the U.S. Navy currently builds 220 MW-thermal reactors for its “Boomer” Ohio class ICBM vehicles.

Thus, the technology to build such reactors is available, and the technology needed to build such a device for space-based operations has been around since the 1980s.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 11:57 AM
 
pff, I already have two. Use them to power the rotisserie.




seriously, this is fantastic news. this could revolutionize space travel. no more heavy propellent!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 12:03 PM
 
I hope this can fix air travel.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 12:06 PM
 
Yes, of course!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 12:24 PM
 
Ironically, if this is legit, a non-trivial issue is launching a nuclear reactor into space.

Very bad news if the rocket carrying it blows up as it leaves the pad.

And blowing up a few seconds after launch isn't exactly an unheard of situation.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 12:27 PM
 
If we still have to use rockets to get this thing into space, I feel like we've failed.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 12:41 PM
 
It seems so primitive that we use this tech from 1930s, still....

I am sure there's a black ops program with the most amazing propulsion system imaginable. or unimaginable.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
If we still have to use rockets to get this thing into space, I feel like we've failed.
I feel the same about needing a fission reactor.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 12:48 PM
 
Non-rocket spacelaunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel like a mass driver would be a safer way to go.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:02 PM
 
Let's put a nuclear reactor in a giant railgun. What could go wrong?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:09 PM
 
Alright killjoy, move along
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:11 PM
 
How about a gargantuan slingshot? It worked for Wile E Coyote. Well, sometimes.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
How about a gargantuan slingshot? It worked for Wile E Coyote. Well, sometimes.
As long as we don't give the contract bid to ACME.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Alright killjoy, move along
No... I only think space elevator sounds better than space gun.

But a fusion reactor takes care of everything in one swipe. More than enough juice to get you into orbit, and it could power the reactionless drive up in space without using yellowcake.

Of course, with fusion, a trip around the solar system at 1g would take, what, a few months?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:22 PM
 
Space elevator seems much harder.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:28 PM
 
Railgun seems much harder than a chemical rocket.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Railgun seems much harder than a chemical rocket.
I feel like the basis for tech is there in maglev trains. It's a matter of scale.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I feel like the basis for tech is there in maglev trains. It's a matter of scale.
Scale, and making whatever you send able to soak 200g
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Scale, and making whatever you send able to soak 200g
That's a matter of acceleration though. Which can be solved by a longer track.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:50 PM
 
... the U.S. Navy currently builds 220 MW-thermal reactors for its “Boomer” Ohio class ICBM vehicles.
Deceptive news article. The "Ohio class ICBM vehicle" isn't a missile, it's a submarine bigger and heavier than anything we've launched into space. And the reactor depends on gravity (convection) to work.

However, we could launch a suitable reactor. Launch it unfueled. Launch the fuel separately, in sealed metal canisters strong enough to survive reentry (or rocket explosion). RTGs are currently built to survive launch failure, and several have. The Apollo 13 RTG is in the Tonga Trench after reentry, with no radiation leakage.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 01:52 PM
 
Deceptive? I thought it was referring to a submarine.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 02:09 PM
 
Anyone who's read about submarines would know. But I think they should have said "submarines" instead of "ICBM vehicles". Especially when they're writing in the context of space vehicles.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 02:20 PM
 
I don't read about submarines, but maybe I've seen too many movies. Or maybe I'm just damn smart.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 02:31 PM
 
"Platform" would have worked, but "boomer" is generally only going to refer to a sub.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 04:46 PM
 
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2015, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
this may not work:
Yeah that knife is shite.

The flying turd scares me.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2015, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No... I only think space elevator sounds better than space gun.

But a fusion reactor takes care of everything in one swipe. More than enough juice to get you into orbit, and it could power the reactionless drive up in space without using yellowcake.

Of course, with fusion, a trip around the solar system at 1g would take, what, a few months?
Thorium reactor, maybe?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2015, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
The flying turd scares me.
Certainly wouldn't want that smashing into the windscreen.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2015, 10:15 AM
 
I'm pretty sure that's a space potato, and Commander Bradley deserves a medal for mounting a potato peeler on the remote manipulation system.

Freedom fries for everyone.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,