The Chinese company should be commended for investing in ideas such as this. This very week we have had reports of space drives and space elevators being worked upon. Almost a bit surreal, I wonder what we will have next week ? A x-wing ?

From the newscientist article and the fact that the researchers are willing to invest in the project has to make him a credible person.

Its very odd that the theory seems to be so controversial:

With that pedigree, you'd imagine Shawyer would be someone the space industry would have listened to. Far from it. While at Astrium, Shawyer proposed that the company develop his idea. "I was told in no uncertain terms to drop it," he says. "This came from the very top."

So why the problem? Shawyer argues that for companies investing billions in rockets and launch sites, a new technology that leads to fewer launches and longer-lasting satellites has little commercial appeal. By the same token, a company that offers more for less usually wins in the end, so Shawyer's idea may have been seen as too speculative. Whatever the reason, in 2000, he resigned to go it alone.

Out-there ideas always face questions from the scientific community and opposition. Incredible ideas require incredible evidence. Reminds me a bit of the reluctance of people like Einstein to accept the more controversial ideas of quantum physics.

Does anyone know the particular arguments against this project ?

A few more interesting quotes

To review the project, the UK government hired John Spiller, an independent space engineer. He was impressed. He says the thruster's design is practical and could be adapted fairly easily to operate in space. He points out, though, that the drive needs to be developed further and tested by an independent group with its own equipment. "It certainly needs to be flown experimentally," he says.

Shawyer's calculations have not convinced everyone. Depending on who you talk to Shawyer is either a genius or a purveyor of snake oil. David Jefferies, a microwave engineer at the University of Surrey in the UK, is adamant that there is an error in Shawyer's thinking. "It's a load of bloody rubbish," he says. At the other end of the scale is Stepan Lucyszyn, a microwave engineer at Imperial College London. "I think it's outstanding science," he says. Marc Millis, the engineer behind NASA's programme to assess revolutionary propulsion technology accepts that the net forces inside the cavity will be unequal, but as for the thrust it generates, he wants to see the hard evidence before making a judgement.

Exciting stuff

[edit on 24/9/2008 by bloodsearch]

Isn't this the drive that powers the large triangle ships that the US flies.

Of course, no one will acknowledge that they exist.

Good on them. The US (and perhaps other western nations) have decided to sit on whatever technology they have. If it's up to an Eastern nation to better the human race (by proving that these things can be done and we're hindering our own progress out of greed), then so be it.

They also said the article should never have been published.

sounds like someone is jealous


I love how snot-nosed scientists can be. If i didn't think of it first, it's NON SENSE

I hope they're right just so we can all stick this in the skeptics' pipe and make them smoke it.

Figures that close-minded Westerns would think they already know it all, and turn this down repeatedly, just to have the Chinese take it and claim success with it.

So exciting!

I wish the guy all the luck.

I will even volunteer to fly some test runs!

Originally posted by john124
Hang on a minute, which sceptics say this is impossible?

Uh, a lot of them. That's why the US rejected the idea originally, remember?

Here in the US, people have learned to accept conventional scientific wisdom as a religious dogma. If something is new, and they're a scientist, and haven't heard anything about it, they are automatically dismissive. It's the intellectual equivalent of a disease, because you see what it is doing for us as a country.

Man.
ATS has become somewhat of a funny point for me.
Like comments on YouTube videos of Over Unity and Magnet Motors.
There's a lot of con artists out there, and they've tricked even huge companies in to giving them a lot of cash for nothing.
Hell, even the dude who "made the first car that ran off water" who also was then "offed" by the government or, in true ATS lingo "TPTB".
See, basically, everyone here doesn't actually KNOW anything, and I think a lot of you know that, too. About yourselves, I mean.

You had something happen to you, a girlfriend cheating, fake or fair weather friends, or even real friends that then turned on you, or maybe a problem in the family or divorce, and it BROKE your trust and your faith.

Now you search for a place to belong.
A place where you're part of the exclusive club, with others like you, and those who harmed you are NOT welcomed. Suddenly you're the "cool kid in school".
You demand you're on the inside, the ground floor, the BASE of the truth.
You wear it as if it's a part of you, as if you're somehow smarter and more informed than everyone else.
When again, in reality, you don't know much about what it is you're professing to know about.

In short: This machine does not do what it says it does. It's a new spin on an old con.

I challenge you, ATS, to tell me how it's PROPOSED to work, the scientific principles behind it, and then once you've realized how it doesn't work, EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT DOESN'T.

Originally posted by Titus7
You had something happen to you, a girlfriend cheating, fake or fair weather friends, or even real friends that then turned on you, or maybe a problem in the family or divorce, and it BROKE your trust and your faith.

Now you search for a place to belong.

I wonder, do you say this because it's why YOU post here?

You sound like you are so sure of yourself that you are speaking from personal experience. I have learned an immense number of things I would never have otherwise known from ATS. And I'm not just talking about the OP. I'm talking about any of the information you'll see here that MSM doesn't bother to tell you, or that you never learn in history class. And when I come across information somewhere else that I never knew, I'll often bring it back here and share.

In short: This machine does not do what it says it does. It's a new spin on an old con.

It took an awful lot of irrelevant ranting just to get to your point, didn't it?

I'm not in a hurry to prove this to anybody, because this guy already went out of his way to pitch this to companies here and they all thought the same thing you're thinking: it doesn't work because someone else would have done it by now.

If it actually works, you can bet your ass the Chinese will be manufacturing it.

You remember all the rocket technology advances the Nazis made during WW2? They were able to launch missiles from Germany and hit targets in England for the first time in history, and a lot of other breakthroughs. Case in point. They were learning from American rocket scientists who had been laughed out of the states. And after WW2, the US gov ended up bringing them back and studying what the Nazis had learned from them. Just goes to show you what a closed mind can accomplish. Put your pride away and take a chance. Because your pride is the only thing that "hurts" when you're wrong about something like this.

In a country with over a billion people, and with their peculiar history, I would imagine their humbleness and humility are amongst their most defining characteristics. It certainly shows through better there than it seems to here in the West.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

I wonder, do you say this because it's why YOU post here?

You sound like you are so sure of yourself that you are speaking from personal experience. I have learned an immense number of things I would never have otherwise known from ATS. And I'm not just talking about the OP. I'm talking about any of the information you'll see here that MSM doesn't bother to tell you, or that you never learn in history class. And when I come across information somewhere else that I never knew, I'll often bring it back here and share.

Well, that was a theory just off the top of my head from my experience here so far.
And no, I'm not speaking from personal experience.
And no, just because you can "turn it around" like that doesn't make you smart or clever. :/
I am interested, however, in hearing about this history you've learned.
I'm sure most of it is just your usual history stuff, but there's an equal chance that, this being ATS and all, it's "special" history. Things like "I KNOW WHO REALLY KILLED JFK OMFGWTFBBQ." and the like.

It took an awful lot of irrelevant ranting just to get to your point, didn't it?

I'm not in a hurry to prove this to anybody, because this guy already went out of his way to pitch this to companies here and they all thought the same thing you're thinking: it doesn't work because someone else would have done it by now.

If it actually works, you can bet your ass the Chinese will be manufacturing it.

You remember all the rocket technology advances the Nazis made during WW2? They were able to launch missiles from Germany and hit targets in England for the first time in history, and a lot of other breakthroughs. Case in point. They were learning from American rocket scientists who had been laughed out of the states. And after WW2, the US gov ended up bringing them back and studying what the Nazis had learned from them. Just goes to show you what a closed mind can accomplish. Put your pride away and take a chance. Because your pride is the only thing that "hurts" when you're wrong about something like this.

In a country with over a billion people, and with their peculiar history, I would imagine their humbleness and humility are amongst their most defining characteristics. It certainly shows through better there than it seems to here in the West.
[edit on 16-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Everything you just said there PROVES what I said about nobody here really knowing anything.
Your "HURR DURR, SCIENTISTS SAID WORLD WAS FLAT BUT IT NOT SO I RIGHT."-esque argument is not only proof of ignorance on this particular subject, but proof of ignorance on a scientific whole!

Like I said.
Explain to me, in your own words, how this device works.
Then and only then can we move forward with a proper, intelligent, informed conversation.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Titus7]