'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

A great leap in technology no doubt... but as far as Nasa implementing any time in the next 10 or 15 years I have my doubts.

I remember when I was an optimistic teenager dreaming of the possibilities of ion and plasma engines. I read how great it was going to be and how NASA was going to use it on satellites and eventually maybe even space ships. Heck during that time even Bush was pushing NASA to go to the moon again.

Unfortunately none of it came to pass and NASA has only implemented the ion engine in a few probes and satellites. As good as this engine sounds I doubt it will be used for propelling any craft with people onboard for quite a while. I used to love NASA but now I wonder if it'd be better off as a private organization.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Like I said, declarations that this or that is impossible makes no sense especially when we're basically primitive when it comes to our understanding of the universe, life and technology..

Great thread and fascinating concept mate, let's hope they have lots of success in developing it!

Couldn't agree more with your other comments either - here are some relevant quotes from the past.

They were sure it couldn't be done


"No possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air..."
Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer,
head of the U.S. Naval Observatory



"Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy



"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the Moon because of insurmountable barriers to escaping the Earth's gravity".
Dr. Forest Ray Moulton, University of
Chicago astronomer, 1932.



"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
British mathematician and physicist



"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth--all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances".
Lee DeForest,
American radio pioneer, 1926.



"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy



"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)



"We have reached the limits of what is possible with computers".
John Von Neumann, 1949



"Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value".
Editorial in the Boston Post, 1865


Nuclear power:


"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is
a completely unscientific Utopian dream,a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration."
Robert A. Millikan (1863-1953)
Speech to the Chemists' Club (New York)



"Any one who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine..."
Ernest Rutherford (1933)



"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
Albert Einstein, 1932.

Cheers.

One important thing to note is that NASA is the one looking into this and validating it.

a reply to: karl 12

No one is saying space flight is impossible. Only thing that was said was that this particular method should not work. It's still not fully proven.

So can we finally enter the space age now?

We are behind schedule..

Arthur C. Clark predicted 2001... we would already have a base on the moon.

So what happened? Maybe it has to do with those pesky aliens.

Or maybe if it wasn't for the degenerate humans..

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So its just a theory like the hover board?

originally posted by: grappo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So its just a theory like the hover board?

It's a theory that is being tested by the people OP seems to be ranting against.

So far there appears to be thrust. Whether it's because the device works, or another source, is still unknown.

OH MY G.

If you've never taken physics 1 Physics 2 please be quiet. You guys are butchering the laws of physics in here.

Until we figure out how to suspend Inertial forces (Not G force because we're in space) "WHICH DO OCCUR IN SPACE" the final velocity at which we can travel still has to be mitigated by the time it takes to accelerate to given max velocity and the time it takes to decelerate from max velocity safely. This rate of accel/Decel can currently be no more than 9 earth G's. Given the human body can only sustain this level of G for seconds at a time before the blood in our bodies flow away from the brain causing blackouts and or death.

With that said, I have learned these laws and they can certainly be bent by unknown processes. They should be used as a guide not fact.

I bent the 1st law of thermodynamics my senior year in college, My college professor kept saying my formula was wrong but couldn't tell me where or why it was flawed, he said he'd never seen it used in such a way.

With that said, there is certainly plenty head way and discoveries to be made with resonant frequency magnetic wave forms, and impulse redirective propulsion systems.

However I don't believe relying on solely solar power will provide enough of a power source to reach such velocities, unless the vessels has found a means to amplify its output without increasing the required input.

A few short years ago people said the Wright brothers would never fly.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

It's an issue of inertia at the end of the day. You have to make sure that under both acceleration, and deceleration, the contents of the craft are not exposed to the stresses associated with that force being applied. That is why they came up with a maguffin called "the inertial dampener" in the TV show, Star Trek. Without this doodad the crew and passengers would have been turned to chunky deposits of minerals made up of their component atoms, or so the theory goes.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

It's an issue of inertia at the end of the day. You have to make sure that under both acceleration, and deceleration, the contents of the craft are not exposed to the stresses associated with that force being applied. That is why they came up with a maguffin called "the inertial dampener" in the TV show, Star Trek. Without this doodad the crew and passengers would have been turned to chunky deposits of minerals made up of their component atoms, or so the theory goes.

Blummin heck... I knew that you should have not gone for that driving lesson yesterday mate...

Kindest respects

Nibs

originally posted by: asmall89
A great leap in technology no doubt... but as far as Nasa implementing any time in the next 10 or 15 years I have my doubts.

I remember when I was an optimistic teenager dreaming of the possibilities of ion and plasma engines. I read how great it was going to be and how NASA was going to use it on satellites and eventually maybe even space ships.

Ummmm we do this. Routinely in fact. Dawn, the NASA probe that is orbiting the dwarf planet Ceres used one. A bunch of missions and satellites use ion engines and have for longer than I have been alive.

Heck during that time even Bush was pushing NASA to go to the moon again.

....and never intended to get there. Same thing happened with his dad and a humans to Mars mission "by 2015".

Unfortunately none of it came to pass and NASA has only implemented the ion engine in a few probes and satellites.

More than a few.

As good as this engine sounds I doubt it will be used for propelling any craft with people onboard for quite a while. I used to love NASA but now I wonder if it'd be better off as a private organization.

Um no. First of all human space flight is incredibly overrated in terms of science return on investment.

Our probes are getting smarter and cheaper.

Second of all where is the profit on pure science research? No company would take on the task of taking over the worlds largest space agency because most of everything NASA does, wouldn't turn a profit other than some spinoff technology but NASA already works closely with private industry regarding that stuff.

Where would the profit be for a company sending a probe to Ceres or Pluto? Or building things like Kepler?

Privatization is not a cure all for everything. Space is hard and expensive. If you want that to change then support companies like Space-X.

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
OH MY G.

If you've never taken physics 1 Physics 2 please be quiet. You guys are butchering the laws of physics in here.

Until we figure out how to suspend Inertial forces (Not G force because we're in space) "WHICH DO OCCUR IN SPACE" the final velocity at which we can travel still has to be mitigated by the time it takes to accelerate to given max velocity and the time it takes to decelerate from max velocity safely. This rate of accel/Decel can currently be no more than 9 earth G's. Given the human body can only sustain this level of G for seconds at a time before the blood in our bodies flow away from the brain causing blackouts and or death.

With that said, I have learned these laws and they can certainly be bent by unknown processes. They should be used as a guide not fact.

I bent the 1st law of thermodynamics my senior year in college, My college professor kept saying my formula was wrong but couldn't tell me where or why it was flawed, he said he'd never seen it used in such a way.

Care to share your formula with us? I'd love to see your work. While you are at it you might want to publish a paper and claim your Nobel Prize.

a reply to: AlongCamePaul

G Force absolutely exists in space, and gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass.

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: neoholographic

Like I said, declarations that this or that is impossible makes no sense especially when we're basically primitive when it comes to our understanding of the universe, life and technology..

Great thread and fascinating concept mate, let's hope they have lots of success in developing it!

Couldn't agree more with your other comments either - here are some relevant quotes from the past.

They were sure it couldn't be done


"No possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air..."
Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer,
head of the U.S. Naval Observatory



"Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy



"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the Moon because of insurmountable barriers to escaping the Earth's gravity".
Dr. Forest Ray Moulton, University of
Chicago astronomer, 1932.



"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
British mathematician and physicist



"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth--all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances".
Lee DeForest,
American radio pioneer, 1926.



"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy



"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)



"We have reached the limits of what is possible with computers".
John Von Neumann, 1949



"Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value".
Editorial in the Boston Post, 1865


Nuclear power:


"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is
a completely unscientific Utopian dream,a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration."
Robert A. Millikan (1863-1953)
Speech to the Chemists' Club (New York)



"Any one who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine..."
Ernest Rutherford (1933)



"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
Albert Einstein, 1932.

Cheers.

Good points and the problem occurs because some people act like our limited understanding of the universe is all there is to know.

Kaku said we're a type 0 civilization transitioning to a type 1 civilization. So in the year 2100, if we make it that far, will have technologies that people today say that's impossible or that can't happen.

I don't understand how anyone can have such limited tunnel vision based on our current understanding of the universe.

It's like saying a 6 year old boy will never grow up to be a do anything because he's not smart enough. You're basing what the child can or can't be at age 30 or 40 at 6 years of age.

With the universe, we have a 6 year old understanding of the universe compared to what people will know 100 years from now. So it makes no sense to proclaim things impossible based on a limited understanding.

I've been hearing about this microwave cavity drive for over a year now. I find it some what promising that NASA is interested in it but I still have my doubts. They state it would be capable of "producing thrust several thousand times greater than even a photon rocket" but yet in their experiments it's producing such a small amount of thrust they cannot even be sure it's not due to some erroneous factor they haven't accounted for. Also I find it highly unlikely that such a huge amount of thrust could be produced by only solar energy, photons simply don't contain that much energy. If it can produce a huge amount of thrust only with solar energy, they've invented the next clean energy source. I don't think it's a good idea to get our hopes up on this so called EM Drive, I've seen so many stories similar to this in the past and they never work out.

One couldn't make this up.

Tajmar claims to have measured thrust in micronewton range. But his measurements seem to be all over the place with thrust still there when shut down, and in directions that should produce no thrust.

And he concludes with...

The nature of the signals observed is still unclear. Additional tests need to be carried out to study the magnetic interaction of the power feeding lines used for the liquid metal contacts. Indeed many more checks remain like studying effects from outgassing, thermal effects from the magnetron, etc
...

See, this is PROOF right there IT WORKS AND COULD GET YOU TO THE MOON IN HOURS you closed minded skeptopaths!

ROFL

Okay, I am an engineer, and we like numbers.

Lets have some! (Source)

I have found 7 examples of experiments:

1. 700 W -> 0.00002 N -> 0.000000029 N/W
   
2. 50 W -> 0.00000001 N -> 0.0000000001 N/W
   
3. 17 W -> 0.0000000912 N -> 0.0000000054 N/W
   
4. 10.5 W -> 0.01 N -> 0.00095 N/W
   
5. 2500 W -> 0.72 N -> 0.00029 N/W
   
6. 850 W -> 0.02 N -> 0.000024 N/W
   
7. 300 W -> 0.1 N -> 0.00033 N/W
   

His proposed thrust was 30 N/W. This is nowhere near it.

Anyway. Let's calculate thrust.
Let us use for this the Mercury capsula. This was the first US-american spaceship, so it was quite basic but was capable of manned space"flight", which had a initial mass of 1,935kg. Drop the heat shield, add some powersource and the microwave-engine and lets pretend the weight stays the same. Pretending the astronaut does weigh 65 kg.

So, power up with lets say 1 megawatt (we would need about 1,000 m² solarcollector for this.. Which brings us to Ziolkowski and his equation about rockets, fuel and increasing mass because of more fuel/mass).

F = m * a -> Which gives us a thrust between 0.0000005 and 0.5 m/s², aside from his proposed 30 N/W which would result in 15,000 m/s²...

Okay, so right now we could reach 0.5 m/s² as acceleration.

Obviously, we would have to leave the earth's gravity well with a high-propulsion rocket, like the usual chemicaldriven types. Once we are in outer space, having reached a substantial part of escape velocity (11.2 km/s), we could switch to the EM-drive.

Which propells us forward with 1/20 g. This doesn't sound much, but in the long term it adds up.

1. t = 10s -> v = 5 m/s
   
2. t = 100 s -> v = 48 m/s
   
3. t = 1 h -> v = 1,714 m/s
   
4. t = 1 d -> v = 41 km/s
   
5. t = 1 week -> v = 288 km/s
   

Wicked mate and much appreciated.

What happens if you eat 2 tins of Heinz baked beans and then fart in outer space?

Kindest respects

Nibs

a reply to: ManFromEurope

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

G force is a resultant of proximity. In deep space light years from mass structures G force would be equivalent to 0.

Of course near interstellar bodies Gravitation is increased, thats how we sling shot things. you misunderstand what I mean by inertial force.

there are may different derivatives of the formulas equation for different occasions. Gravitation being the least important when you have a working impulse reactor. ask the aliens, why they can zoom out of our atmosphere like gravity doesn't exist.

a reply to: JadeStar

Let me just start out by saying I am not a sane person and have been admitted to a medical clinic and have been determined to be paranoid with dissociative identity disorder (Skitz)

I had an invention, much like one would call a zero point reciprocating device derived from a portion of the 1st laws formula, the result of this would produce a perpetual rotation or what one would call a free energy device.

It didn't use magnets or electricity, however using one of the fundamental laws of fluid dynamics coupled with the 1st law, one could produce massive amounts of "extra" energy which could be diverted to a generator.

That research never existed and was created by my mind to cope with underlying mental trauma caused by my Dissociative identity disorder.

I get free meds, but I don't take them.

Do you understand what Im saying?