N_las

And it would give a giant blow to the public opinion on space travel. I can hear them: - "They take our tax money to torture puppies in space!!!" - "This picture shows how a deformed kitten on the iss is born!!! Like this picture to stop animal cruelty!!!" - "I am against spending money on space related stuff. Because they use it to make bunnies retarted." - "Astronauts are worse than Hitler!"

People here seem to think that virtual particles are just some kind of particles that exsist in vacuum. And thus the statement "it pushes against this particles" sounds like an explanation. From my understanding: If you force some virtual particles to become real (like at the event horizont of a black hole), and then you use those particles to transfer momentum, that could possibly work. But you have to take the energy (to make the particles real) from somewere. So overall this can't be more efficent than a simple photon-drive. And the original explanation on how the drive works is TOTALLY different. They want to bounce microwaves inside an closed container, and by having different reflektivities at opposing walls, this should create a net force. I suspect this nonsense about pushing against virtual particles was only introduced because someone in there team understood how much ........ the orignial explanation was, and so they tried to find a new one.

No one is questioning the exsistens of virtual particles. The uncertanty principle has everything to do with virtual particles.

I suspect there isn't such explanation anywhere. In the words of Prof. John Baez: "This is (...) graduate-level baloney. "Quantum vacuum virtual plasma" is something you'd say if you failed a course in quantum field theory and then smoked too much weed. There's no such thing as "virtual plasma". If you want to report experimental results that seem to violate the known laws of physics, fine. But it doesn't help your credibility to make up goofy pseudo-explanations."

Thats BS. In exactly the same way the photons transfer momentum to the sail, they transfer momentum to the laser as they are emitted. The reason we use ion drives instead of simply using a laser shining out the back is apparent if you do the math: It would produce so little thrust for so much energy that even the worst imaginable ion engine would be unbeatable in comparison.

From the abstract: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 "Approximately six days of test integration were required, followed by two days of test operations, during which, technical issues were discovered and resolved. Integration of the two test articles and their supporting equipment was performed in an iterative fashion between the test bench and the vacuum chamber. In other words, the test article was tested on the bench, then moved to the chamber, then moved back as needed to resolve issues. Manual frequency control was required throughout the test. 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 thatwere designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null†test article)." In other words: This "perfomance of the experiment in an iterative fashion" means, they just tried again and again and again until finally after six days the measurements showed something. Obviously what they measured can't be the thrust from the machine, since the control machine showed the same behaviour.

The glass house again...

People who live in glass houses...

Those have blades.

Maybe something like this, but with air instead of water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive

It will be far more practical to find a medical solution to the negative effects of low gravity.

Then "50" of my arbitrary length unit is approximately 1 cm. EDIT: I think that doesn't seem right. I made an error somewhere. Can you measure at your paper? Are two of the vertical lines really 2 cm appart?

The unit on the axis is arbitrary. "50" doesn't mean 50 mm. I didn't know the scale of the paper. And I don't think the analysation is from the clip you linked. I think you mixed it up. EDIT: I was mistaken. The video you linked is the right one. I just used the "uncut" version for the analysis.

http://www.amazon.de/FS-CT6B-Empf%C3%A4nger-Hubschrauber-Flugzeug-Gleitflug/dp/B00E1C6ZS4/ref=pd_cp_toy_2 I think you could get a cheap toy RC for under 50 €. The set contains the RC, and a receiver. You just have to figure out how to connect the receiver to the drilling machine you use as motor. Why would a gyro only show an anomalous effect in this specific configuration? If you have an effect that appears ONLY in one specific configuration, it seems very likely that there is systematic error in the experiment. Thats why you have to test very rigorously. As long as there are things like a shifting of the neutral position (like in the last experiment) or other elephants, everybody has to conlclude that there is some hidden error in the setup of the experiment. But imagine your machine is working and everybody can test it in repeatable experiments. Even experiments in space are showing that your machine produces thrust. At least then a search for the underlying physical workings would start. This "workings" should then be traceable back to the gyros. So some anomalous effect should be measurable at the gyros alone.

The funny thing is: His name is Colin Furze, and "Furz" is the german word for "fart"...

We just put one of these around the cubsat: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_6?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=mini%20fridge&sprefix=mini+f%2Caps%2C243&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Amini%20fridge But we should propably search for an inflatable one. It should fit into a second cubsat. EDIT: Someone stole my idea! http://goodidea.me/inflatable-mini-fridge/

You forgot: - The budget, engineering capability and manpower of a small nation.

You can't be serious... This thread is so ridiculous. Go ahead: Call NASA. I am sure they have tons of mothballed old rocket parts that they give to anybody who asked nicely.

What if we add a third cubesat with an onboard AI. It could bake muffins using the microwaves of the energy transfer between the first two cubesats. If we sell those muffins to the iss astronauts, we could even make a profit.

Will you use remote control? Compared with the ridiculous plans to make a cubesat sample return mission from phobos (or whatever the forum wants to do), this seems pretty reasonable If you take care of the cable issue, I can show you how I do the dot tracking and data analysis over skype screensharing.

I came around to track the laser. This ist the result: http://imgur.com/cgWYQMG Before you start the machine, the dot has its neutral position at zero. But the machine-off-phase at the end shows that the neutral position has shifted significantly. From the Data, there is no way to tell were the neutral position was during the machine-on-phase. So we can't analyze if there was a net deflection during the on-phase. If we assume the neutral position is what we can see after the machine is turned off, then the deflection from this position during the on-phase is (21.3 ± 2.7). So there would be a deflection of 7.9 ÃÆ’. That is pretty impressive and would proof a net deflection in this experiment. But why is it that the neutral position before and after the machine-on-phase changes so significantly? Before we haven't figured out how and why the neutral position shifts, we can't make any conclusion from the experiment. I would think the most reasonable explanation is, that you unconsciously pulled on the cable.

I am pretty sure his remark was not serious.

I think there was the intention to get to a 750x615km x47° Orbit with a single burn of the second stage. The satellite deployment can now happen very early. A more traditional ascent path to that altitude would involve long coasting.

Lets just wait for the result of the analysis. If the recent experiment doesn't show an average deflection, it seems really pointless to pour more effort into it.

The video behind the third link after the three minute mark looks good for analyzation. If I find time I will track the dot this friday or saturday. Is this ok or would you prefer to have some other footage analyzed instead?