Jump to content

Cannae/EmDrive


Northstar1989
 Share

Recommended Posts

a) Study how human beeing adapted under other planet constrains. Which is the next step after a space station....

We can partially simulate that on earth or in NEO; also, it is also part of where I said that I am not against long term colonization.

B) Proceed to advanced scientific experiments that robots can not do ( deep drilling, advanced rock/material analysis, adaptation of Earth life on other planet ? )

Robots will at some point be able to do (even the life one). We could maybe even do right now if sending stuff to mars would not be very expensive. Just look at what curiosity can do already, and it's pretty small (yet rather large in comparision to earlier rovers).

c) Study / Start terraformation to solve future potential over populations.

Mars is (rough guess) a tenth of earth's surface. It surely won't solve any overpopulation problem, even if we assume the very (!) hypothetical scenario where sending people to mars is cheaper than just building higher buildings on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karriz: The point of things like the EmDrive/Q-Thruster/Cannae-drive is not that they will replace chemical engines for getting us to space, it is that they will allow us to do more things in space by virtue of requiring less mass to get around. If this drive holds true, it is an all electric engine that effectively requires no fuel (ignoring power sources). This means that you could build a mega-probe and have it visit every major body in the solar system without this probe being as expensive as that mission sounds. Unlike normal engines which are limited in where they can go by current orbits and the dV that their engines/fuel can provide, for the most part (depending on your power source) this engine allows you to just kinda point your ship wherever and go. Still might take a while, depending on thrust and such, but you'll get there.

As far as the current argument going on between ZetaX and others about the usefulness of human space travel, first point: It's happening and nothing will stop that, so no use arguing against it. Second point: This thread is for a discussion about the EmDrive/Q-Thruster/Cannae-drive, if you would like to continue, please make a thread elsewhere (that will likely get thread locked as this argument tends to do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karriz: The point of things like the EmDrive/Q-Thruster/Cannae-drive is not that they will replace chemical engines for getting us to space, it is that they will allow us to do more things in space by virtue of requiring less mass to get around. If this drive holds true, it is an all electric engine that effectively requires no fuel (ignoring power sources). This means that you could build a mega-probe and have it visit every major body in the solar system without this probe being as expensive as that mission sounds. Unlike normal engines which are limited in where they can go by current orbits and the dV that their engines/fuel can provide, for the most part (depending on your power source) this engine allows you to just kinda point your ship wherever and go. Still might take a while, depending on thrust and such, but you'll get there.

As far as the current argument going on between ZetaX and others about the usefulness of human space travel, first point: It's happening and nothing will stop that, so no use arguing against it. Second point: This thread is for a discussion about the EmDrive/Q-Thruster/Cannae-drive, if you would like to continue, please make a thread elsewhere (that will likely get thread locked as this argument tends to do).

I'm not so sure about EMdrive not being able to replace chemical rockets :) That 1125 Newtons of thrust for every 100 kilowatts of power figure looks very impressive. And can be powered by existing SAFE-400 reactor. For reference: a single SSME (Space Shuttle main engine) gave 1800 Newtons of thrust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about EMdrive not being able to replace chemical rockets :) That 1125 Newtons of thrust for every 100 kilowatts of power figure looks very impressive. And can be powered by existing SAFE-400 reactor. For reference: a single SSME (Space Shuttle main engine) gave 1800 Newtons of thrust.

You missed a few zeros there. kN, not N. :P

From the SSME wiki:

[TABLE=class: infobox]

[TR]

[TH=align: left]Thrust (vac.)[/TH]

[TD]512,300 lbf (2,279 kN)[1][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH=align: left]Thrust (SL)[/TH]

[TD]418,000 lbf (1,860 kN)[1][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Edit: 1000 Newtons is like holding 222 pounds in your hand against gravity(if my google search is correct).

Edited by SuperFastJellyfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are going to need a very impressive power supply to hover with one of these things. 1800 is about 404.7 pounds of force. if you can make your ship weigh less than that then there is a good chance of being able to hover. nuclear reactors tend to be kind of heavy, so i dont think you will be getting it to space without rockets. you might be able to use beamed power to supplement the reactor to allow higher thrust levels, but the chances of a nuclear reactor crashing to the ground if something goes wrong might make a rocket preferable. you might also make a ship with reasonable thrust levels to act as a second stage, and use a reusable first stage to get it at least partly to orbit.

there is also the possibility of using more powerful fission reactor (or fusion concepts like dpf or polywell when/if they work) which might get overall twr high enough. and later iterations of the thruster may be even more efficient. reactionless engines might be up there with several other will never happens like manned aircraft, supersonic flight and moon landings. but thats optimism, not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad, sorry - i'm going on 5 hours of sleep :P Anyways - 1000 Newtons of thrust, without the need to push the fuel along is still a huge deal. It leaves VASIMR and other high-end ion thrusters way behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of posts have been removed from this thread because the argument had become personal and somewhat insulting. Please talk about the subject of the thread and leave each other's personalities out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed a few zeros there. kN, not N. :P

From the SSME wiki:

[TABLE=class: infobox]

[TR]

[TH=align: left]Thrust (vac.)[/TH]

[TD]512,300 lbf (2,279 kN)[1][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH=align: left]Thrust (SL)[/TH]

[TD]418,000 lbf (1,860 kN)[1][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Edit: 1000 Newtons is like holding 222 pounds in your hand against gravity(if my google search is correct).

F=ma

Force of gravity = mass * acceleration = 9.8m

1000N = 9.8m 1000/9.8= 102 kg = 224 lbs

That search was correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mars is (rough guess) a tenth of earth's surface. It surely won't solve any overpopulation problem, even if we assume the very (!) hypothetical scenario where sending people to mars is cheaper than just building higher buildings on earth.

We'll never be able to get humans off Earth faster than they are being born.

Europe couldn't even send colonists to the Americas faster than their population was growing.

The most we get out of it is an expansion of the human race onto another world, not a resettlement.

That's still a good thing though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll never be able to get humans off Earth faster than they are being born.

Europe couldn't even send colonists to the Americas faster than their population was growing.

The most we get out of it is an expansion of the human race onto another world, not a resettlement.

That's still a good thing though.

Yes we can, we just need to try hard enough. We would simply need to build a few rockets, then nuke most of the world and cut the population down to just above nil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not a single thing outside of close earth space that humans can do while robots currently can not. You are vastly underestimating our robots. Humans die from anything outside a very small temperature range, need oxygen (which is an agressive chemical), need food and not just energy, have psychological issues, and so on.

And, what people ignore, is just how dependent we are, even today, on robotics. Not only is there not a single thing that humans can do that robots cannot; but our robots are significantly more advanced than us in the areas they are designed to be. While they've advanced over the years, we more or less, have stayed the same. In the years to come, not only will robots have better physical capabilities, but intellectual capabilities; self driving cars, capacity for vocal recognition expanding into mental processing, we are, perhaps, on the cusp of the period in which we can still say we are smarter than our own creations.

As I already said, you can continue any research you want as long as it is actuall research (yes, even on how to send people to mars); but so far nobody has mentioned a good reason for why we actually should go there anytime soon, except to satisfy our own ego.

This, however, is two sided. Why did we need to go to the moon? Why did we need to go to space? Why did we need to split the atom, to command steam and fire, to build structures that dazzled the world with our engineering prowess.

Why did we even need to go to "The New World"?

Because all human achievements comes down to ego. We do it, because it is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because all human achievements comes down to ego. We do it, because it is there.

I disagree. We don't do stuff just because we can. There are plenty of things we can do, but we don't because it would be a waste of resources or downright stupid. Individuals might be driven by ego, but as a species, we are driven by survival.

My opinion is that all human achievements come down to improving our safety and our comfort and those of our children. We are a species of hunter-gatherers. From the first nomadic human tribes to today's immigrants, humans have only explored and migrated because they wanted to improve their odds of survival or their standard of living. Humans went to the Moon to win points in the Cold War because having the edge over the enemy was seen as a matter of survival. Immigrants settled in the New World because they were in danger in their home countries or sought a better life.

For the moment, space does nothing to improve our safety or our comfort. In fact, it's quite the opposite of a better life out there. Which is why we have so much trouble justifying space exploration. The only thing we can do is to keep on learning about the universe until we find a reason to go there.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will poke a hole in your statement with one word: Chelyabinsk. You remember space rock that came within an inch to plowing straight into a big city and killing thousands in a blast rivaling Hiroshima? We were lucky that day, but math says one day that luck will run out. We know that - sooner or later it WILL happen. I would prefer humanity to have ways of countering such danger. For that, we have to have better ships, engines and power sources than chemical rockets of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a fun interesting bit for people to chew on. Some results they are just posting now

The Eagleworks team took one of their q-thrusters and hooked it up to the micro warp field interferometer, replacing the capacitor ring with the thruster, and ran 5 tests, each acquiring 27,000 data points, where they turned the thruster on and off. The point of this test was to see if the q-thruster itself might be warping space to some degree. At 30 watts of power into the thruster, they measured an effect that, while small, was about 40 times the noise floor of their equipment for a signal through open air.

Further planned tests in this regard are to change the atmospheric composition to prove it is not atmospheric refraction at work, followed later (they are building the system) by a vacuum test of the thruster-interferometer system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's true, I really have to wonder how much the design can be improved, considering the drive wasn't even supposed to generate thrust by warping space.

It might be a while before we know why it works, but things will probably get a lot more interesting at that point.

Edited by jfull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on how you define "warp drive". There are perfectly natural things that warp spacetime all the time, you know... like gravity.

It could be a gravity generator/drive. :D

Okay, all joking aside: I don't feel qualified to speculate on what exactly their interferometer measured here, but let's not jump to conclusions. They pumped an amount of energy into a simple copper frustrum that you can build at home, and some of that energy made their detectors respond. It still remains to be seen why those detectors responded - or rather, to what. Furthermore, this can also be seen as a control group test for the other results their interferometer has produced. Basically, if it reacts to this thing, then it calls into question that it's measuring right in the first place. Maybe it reacts to almost any powered device presented to it? That would just mean that they built the detector wrong.

This device continues to do things that nobody understands, so the need for many more tests remains. A single result is meaningless; you need a series, ideally one that forms a pattern. And based on that pattern, the scientists will begin to unravel this mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking, if the test results are true then yes.

Even better, if Doctor White's working theory for WHY this is true turns out to be correct, then a warp drive turns out to mechanically be a rather simple device involving several q-thrusters. Not without some fairly significant engineering challenges mind you, they would need to find a way to produce ridiculous amounts of energy, and they would need to figure out how to construct a standing wave chamber capable of dealing with that much energy. But these are both simply engineering challenges. Big ones perhaps, but not insurmountable. Certainly decades away at a minimum...but quite probably not centuries.

Now of course, in order for his theory to gain any external acceptance there is going to need to be a LOT of proof about it. To our advantage, he has a fairly straightforward path planned out for this. As some of you know, they are working on that Q-thruster with >1 kilowatt of power input into it. Once that is complete, they will do their usual testing for sure. But then they will almost certainly set up another combo thruster-interferometer test. If the thrust levels on the thruster are anything like what Shawyer and the Chinese team are reporting, we should get some fairly interesting results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they mention how much thrust that 1 kilowatt thruster is expected to be generating? I don't expect it to fly through the nearest wall, but it would make for a pretty impressive show if there would be visible movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they mention how much thrust that 1 kilowatt thruster is expected to be generating? I don't expect it to fly through the nearest wall, but it would make for a pretty impressive show if there would be visible movement.

How great would it be if the thrust wasn't linear? Apply too much juice and the thing rips itself off the mountings and hurls itself into the nearest wall xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they mention how much thrust that 1 kilowatt thruster is expected to be generating? I don't expect it to fly through the nearest wall, but it would make for a pretty impressive show if there would be visible movement.

Probably less than 0.1 N.

Doctor White has previously stated that that is the lower bound he expects possible with this technology. But they will probably not hit it on the first try.

Mind you, 0.1 N per kW is still about 20 times the performance of contemporary ion drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every jaw would hit the floor :D It was a popular trope in old science-fiction stories, to show the reader from the get go how awesome the new invention was. Unfortunately we are not living in a space opera story...yet. Dun dun dunnnnn! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...