SigmasonicX
Member
Yeah, the hoverboard stuff is pretty questionable.
The "Impossible" Engine is real, NASA says so!
- Thread starter Cragvis
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, the hoverboard stuff is pretty questionable.
GuitarAtomik
Member
I'm not very well versed on this stuff so I'm sure someone much more knowledgable can elaborate or correct me on this: I think when they say "does not require energy", they mean from a power source like a battery. That's why they specifically mention a superconductor version. Again, I could totally be wrong about that. Maybe they're just talking about fuel.
Phrozenflame500
Member
I'm inclined to trust official statements from NASA but I'm less likely to trust what is likely hyperbole from new networks. Let's wait and see until more concrete information comes out before getting excited at speculation.
Graphics Horse
Member
What happened to that alternative fusion reactor design that Lockheed martin announced a while back, did we hear any more about that?
Blargonaut
Banned
Dictator93
Member
If I somehow can go to mars in my life time (age 24), I would be more than exstatic. It is probably my "nth degree" dream.
To step on to another world. Just to even see another world with my own eyes would probably be enough.
To step on to another world. Just to even see another world with my own eyes would probably be enough.
I'm mean, I'm all for this engine being legit, that just sounded wrong.
It definitely sounds wrong. The engine needs energy to produce thrust. If you stop providing energy you stop producing thrust. I think the point is with a superconducting energy source it could theoretically produce enough thrust to remain neutral in relation to gravity and you could use alternate forms of thrust for lateral movement.
They are talking about chemical fuel or some type of aerosol.
For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. That is the principle by which chemical rockets work. You throw something in one direction (propellant) and you yourself must therefore move in the opposite direction. This drive appears to not need to throw something in one direction, other than microwaves that is, which can be continuously produced so long as you have energy to do so.
However, the drive would still need ENERGY to create the microwaves. They are talking about large drives powered by on-board nuclear reactors.
The main cool thing about this (assuming it pans out) is that we don't have to carry our own propellant on board, our only limit in terms of propulsion becomes the size/thrust output of the engines and the amount of energy we have to create the microwaves.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Can this be used for weapons? Space weapons?
Possibly not, I mean it doesn't use up any energy to keep your laptop on a desk against gravity. Or if you're lying in bed you aren't using any energy to stop yourself from falling down towards the centre of the earth.
Energy = Force * Distance, so even if you need a force to keep something from falling as long as it isn't actually moving it isn't using up energy.
I still think it's probably all baloney though.
My colleague that has been reading up on this for the last few days said that if the speed increase is linear then one can reach 99% of the speed of light in under a year (calculated over at Reddit apparently).
Alpha Centauri is four light-years away so it would take us about 5 years to get there (externally from the ship, who knows how little time passes inside of it).
But that is if the speed increase is linear.
Holy shit! If they can really get that thing to work, it would advance space travel by several decades.
We could actually start sending probes to Alpha Centauri and get data back in less time it took for Voyager to reach the edge of the solar system. This is crazy!
Graphics Horse
Member
Does this imply that any EM source is capable of some sort of small propulsive force? At least if you put a special chamber around it.
Phoenix
Member
Sure. If I wanted to attack some distant target (like a comet I saw on a collision course that would hit at some future time), this is the optimal way to design such a weapon. It would build up speed over time and have high velocity when it gets there.
Or I could design something that would settle on the comet and with this tech, use it to push the object out of the way with less "overhead" of making that mission work.
The 28 days is based on the claims from the dude making the Canae drive I believe.
The legit Nasa science showed only a fracion of his dubious results.
Indeed. I always waited on his posts and most of the time opted not to post because I knew he would always provide more insight than I could. Really sucks he's gone.Hitokage would have loved this topic
EdibleExplosives
Member
This is really fucking incredible.
The cynical part of me is still waiting on the follow-up article where the experiment is proven to be wrong, however.
The cynical part of me is still waiting on the follow-up article where the experiment is proven to be wrong, however.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
For the people asking about interstellar travel, assuming you have a magical drive that converts energy into acceleration without any propellant, reaching "almost C" on a 1 tonne spaceship imparts a relativistic kinetic energy of 2.330E+21. This is energy that must presumably be imparted upon it from somewhere. It is certainly not coming for free. This is not the removal of fuel, it is the removal of reaction mass. But to get to near-light speed you still need to insert stunning quantities of energy. To give context to the previous figure I gave, the entire world's energy consumption in the year 2013 was three orders of magnitude smaller than what you would need for a perfectly efficient drive to zip that spacecraft up to 1 meter per second below c. This is something you should be thankful for, because if you could get this energy for "free" from somewhere, it would mean every single space craft with these drives is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, any person with access to one could crack planets apart with weapons that moved so fast you couldn't even detect them coming before they already struck you.
The abolition of reaction mass is still a dream come true for spacecraft design although I am still remaining skeptical for the time being, in no small part because it sounds like some form of minor sorcery.
The abolition of reaction mass is still a dream come true for spacecraft design although I am still remaining skeptical for the time being, in no small part because it sounds like some form of minor sorcery.
The Elite
BOSS
This is the point I'm at.
Just waiting for someone to publish that article and crush the fun.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Only if you were trying to land. We'd be doing flybys of planets first, so we could do 5 years out, a couple super fast orbits and 5 years back. And the coolest part is, you would only need to pack like one or two years of food!
something something all modern advances would have sounded like sorcery to people 200 years ago something
just kidding, but seriously this is amazing. i have to be skeptical too though, if only because there's no reason not to be. as significant as this will be if it's true, we'll have plenty of scientists doing experiments on this going forward. I can wait for the answers
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
Graphics Horse
Member
You still need to slow down, you're already at a fast orbital speed when you leave our system, and have been accelerating for several years since then. Depends on how much mass the other star has I suppose.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Hitokage would have loved this topic
Hitokage has passed away? I'm really sad now, I didn't know. I enjoyed his posts. Is there a farewell thread at all where I can leave my condolences?
Yeah. 31 years old, sudden causes. topic is here. there's also an obituary page you can leave comments on...
The man was a constant source of light in ScienceGAF topics. I'll miss his insight deeply... I can already feel the hole
Possibly not, I mean it doesn't use up any energy to keep your laptop on a desk against gravity. Or if you're lying in bed you aren't using any energy to stop yourself from falling down towards the centre of the earth.
Energy = Force * Distance, so even if you need a force to keep something from falling as long as it isn't actually moving it isn't using up energy.
I still think it's probably all baloney though.
Yeah, I suppose it might not use any energy under the technical definition, but there would still need to be a force to hold you in place, meaning the drive would have to be on and producing thrust. When you're lying in bed you've got the normal force against your bed holding you up.
It seems somewhat arrogant to pronounce it's usefulness and limitations based on existing accepted theory when the drive itself confounds existing theory.
While I'm sure many people are greatly excited when our understanding of something is radically altered, I just find it irritating that a widely accepted 'truth' was always false. In a practical sense, obviously people can't throw out everything they 'know' as soon as part of that whole is clearly proven false, but I would imagine it should have something of a humbling affect.
While I'm sure many people are greatly excited when our understanding of something is radically altered, I just find it irritating that a widely accepted 'truth' was always false. In a practical sense, obviously people can't throw out everything they 'know' as soon as part of that whole is clearly proven false, but I would imagine it should have something of a humbling affect.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
1. Orbital speeds are measured in kilometers per second, your interstellar cruising speed of 0.999... c is measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometers per second. You literally cannot orbit a body if you are going too fast.
2. If you're not going to start slowing down half way, when will you start slowing down? After you've already overshot your target? This will make your total mission time take longer, because you still spend the exact same time slowing down, then beginning your reverse thrust to come home.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Hitokage would have loved this topic
What makes this so hard is, what if this actually turns out to be true? In 20 years, it may be possible to have manned missions to Mars. Then, you have the neural chip that IBM just announced yesterday.
We're going to see plenty of technological developments in our lifetime, and Hitokage is not here to experience such marvel...
Orbis Tabula
Member
Yeah, I'm not very good at physics. hahaha
If I understand correctly, accelerating becomes exponentially more costly energy-wise as you approach the speed of light, but in terms of the duration of a journey, you could do well enough with 80%-95% of the speed of light, which should be much much easier to achieve (though still well beyond anything we have on the horizon).
QuicheFontaine
Member
Excellent.
And I take it this could theoretically be used to convey a crew of oil rig workers to said comet?
killer rin
Member
So, assuming this drive is real, how long do you think it would take before we start seeing this in actual usage.
Years, if not decades. And if it is very inefficient and/or weak, it may never get any real use. Just because something is odd or new doesn't automatically mean it is good. Quite a lot of old tech is still in use because they're just so good and effective and efficient.
But if it is true, even if there is no scientific use for this type of engine, the implications surrounding what it means about what we don't yet know are huge
so I say net win either way
But if it is true, even if there is no scientific use for this type of engine, the implications surrounding what it means about what we don't yet know are huge
so I say net win either way
Sure. People just shouldn't except this to be some kind of miracle engine for space travel or anything else even if it works.
If we had 800 newtons of thrust and craft that weighs 10 tons... it could have constant acceleration of 0.08m/s^2, which means that this craft could reach distance of 4 light years [alpha centaury] in 43 years if it's powered all the time.
http://a.pomf.se/ijpdap.png
http://a.pomf.se/alkdmw.png
Sweet.
Err, did you account deceleration into this? Or was that "go there and speed past"?
- Status