Xyphos Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 it's real, it exists, it works. I see no reason why we can't get an EM Drive Engine in game. small, extra-solar probes would benifiet from them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stibbons Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 [citation needed] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyphos Posted August 31, 2016 Author Share Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, stibbons said: [citation needed] http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf EDIT: I pasted the wrong link Edited August 31, 2016 by Xyphos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 In KSP it's called Kraken Drive, and it's about as reliable and as consistent with generally understood rules of physics It's a bit like Herobrine from Minecraft. Each release of KSP developers make it non-functional, each release players fix it and make it working again. With the new wheel/leg glitches the 1.1.3 Kraken Drive should be exceptionally efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stibbons Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 One paper about a lab test doesn't really quantify any of your statements. Try and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster for the current status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyphos Posted August 31, 2016 Author Share Posted August 31, 2016 I don't consider wikipidia as a credible source, it's been proven that most of it's articles are biased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javster Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Xyphos said: I don't consider wikipidia as a credible source, it's been proven that most of it's articles are biased That's possible, but you can look at the sources Wikipedia use, as there's a lot less room for bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stibbons Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 It has more primary sources than you, for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfds Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Well, we have magic reaction wheels and magic ISRU converters and fuel cells, so why not a magic engine as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1t1o Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) To get to the OPs question - they would be next to useless in KSP, you think the ion drives give you long burn times? You ain't seen nothin'! According to various papers, as you suggest, there are figures recorded for thrust, they are on the order of what you would expect from a photon drive with a power rating approx 10x higher. That sounds significant but we are talking thrusts on the order of 0.1N/KW If you wanted to exaggerate their performance for use in KSP then they would just take the place of ion drives but without propellant but with higher power requirements. I suppose this could fill a niche, but if you are going to change their performance to suit, then you may as well make a handwavium-powered super drive too. For the record - I remain skeptical as to the significance of the results gathered with respect to Cannae/EM drives, there is still far too little data and far too many anomalies (eg: measured thrust going in the same direction even when unit is turned upsidedown, thrust dissappearing if a battery - instead of an external powersource - is used etc.). My gut says that if it really is an example of previously undiscovered physics, that it ought to have shown up before now, in many areas. For example, relatively recently, non-linear anomalies in Newtons theory of gravitation were discovered that involve force discrepancies orders of magnitude smaller than those purportedly produced by these thrusters, and they were spotted (and taken up by "mainstream science") without controversy. I await more exhaustive research. It is, at least, an interesting mystery as to where these measurements are coming from. Edited August 31, 2016 by p1t1o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 IMHO it is an example of a previously undiscovered physics phenomenon - fully explainable by current physics theory. The drive is not truly reactionless, but interacts e.g. with Earth's magnetosphere, or ejects electrons for propulsion, or such - the reaction mass is not nonexistent, but hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastikator Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Xyphos said: I don't consider wikipidia as a credible source, it's been proven that most of it's articles are biased As far as internet sources go wikipedia is well above par. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) https://kerbal.curseforge.com/projects/em-drive Edited August 31, 2016 by Sharpy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 By the way, https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/08/31/0612233/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-peer-reviwed-paper-is-on-its-way Quote An independent scientist has confirmed that the paper by scientists at the NASA Eagleworks Laboratories on achieving thrust using highly controversial space propulsion technology EmDrive has passed peer review, and will soon be published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Dr Jose Rodal posted on the NASA Spaceflight forum -- in a now-deleted comment -- that the new paper will be entitled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" and is authored by "Harold White, Paul March, Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey." Rodal also revealed that the paper will be published in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, a prominent journal published by the AIAA, which is one of the world's largest technical societies dedicated to aerospace innovations. Although Eagleworks engineer Paul March has posted several updates on the ongoing research to the NASA Spaceflight forum showing that repeated tests conducted on the EmDrive in a vacuum successfully yielded thrust results that could not be explained by external interference, those in the international scientific community who doubt the feasibility of the technology have long believed real results of thrust by Eagleworks would never see the light of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Xyphos said: it's real No its not. There is no EM drive. There are devices that have been claimed could be developed into a spacecraft drive. There is not spacecraft drive system of this design. The Orion Nuclear Pulse drive isn't real yet. It exists only in our imaginations an mathematics. Calling it real now would be like people in the 1940's saying a rocket capable of going to the moon was real -> it would later become real, but it wasn't real in 1940. The difference between a moon rocket in 1940, or the orion drive, is they operate on principles known to be real, well understood, and extensively tested. None of that applies the the "EM drive" Quote it exists, Well, in this context, being real and existing are pretty much the same thing. Unlike the nuclear pulse drive... this drive exists only in imaginations for the moment. There is still not theoritical backing for it. The experimental data is still very dubious. Quote it works. If it doesn't exist, it can't work. Aside from some strange readings, there is nothing to suggest that it works. Still, I'd like to see someone try to make a real working drive, to put this discussion to an end. Until its proven to be real, I don't want to see it in KSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Moving from General Discussion to Suggestions, since this is primarily about a suggestion for an addition to the game, and that's what that forum is for. A gentle reminder: As a suggestion about KSP, please don't get into an argument about the fundamental "truth" or "falsehood" of Cannae / Em drives here, because that's not what this thread is about. If you want to argue about the actual possibility or impossibility of such a thing IRL, there's already a thread for that, as @stibbons pointed out: That thread's been going for two years, is already well over 1200 replies into the "yes it is" / "no it isn't" debate, and shows no signs of dying down. We don't need another instance of it here. If you'd like to discuss the addition of such a drive in the game, here is fine. If you want to say "I <would/wouldn't> like to see it in KSP, because it <would/wouldn't> be fun" or "because it <is/isn't> realistic" or such, fine. But please don't get into actual arguments about the supposed drive itself. If you see someone expressing the opposite opinion from yours about its realism, don't argue that point here, because this thread is about what KSP players want, not about what is physically possible. Would love to post some discussion here myself, since I'm 1. an avid KSP fan, and 2. a physics major, and am just itching to jump in ....but now that I've used the Moderator Voice, 'fraid I'm gonna have to recuse myself. So: What this thread boils down to is this: "How about adding an engine to KSP that generates thrust in a vacuum, using only electricity as input." There. If you want to debate that point, where your concerns are fun, playability, etc., that's what this thread is about. If you want to debate about the scientific validity of such a thing, please take it over to the other thread. Okay, returning you back to your friendly suggestion thread already in progress. Please keep it civil, folks. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 The fact that its viability is such a subject of hot debate is reason enough to not include it in the stock game, IMO. That and any space propulsion that isn't fuel limited kinda breaks the game balance. Nice for mods, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corona688 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, cfds said: Well, we have magic reaction wheels and magic ISRU converters and fuel cells, so why not a magic engine as well? It wouldn't be the first wholly hypothetical tech to make it in-game. Reaction wheels, ion, and NERVA are exaggerations of existing technology (NASA actually built a few NERVA's, just on the ground), but ISRU and RAPIER are science fiction, with one important difference: They obey the laws of physics as we understand them. The reactionless thruster is doing something(I'll leave my speculations out), but isn't strongly supported enough to overturn newton and relativity yet. If we wanted to include electric-only propulsion options, how about magnetic thruster? It'd only work inside the SOI of Kerbin and Jool, where there's strong magnetic fields to push off, but it's a real effect and a working concept which does pretty much the same thing without the physics violations. It'd work slowly enough you could put it in timewarp, hopefully. Edited August 31, 2016 by Corona688 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) Unlike ISRU and RAPIER, for which no working prototypes exist, EM thrusters were built, and the results are repeatable. None was tested in space yet, of course, but the fact is there: they produce thrust. Now, HOW they produce the thrust, and whether the laws of physics as we know them are broken, or they just exploited some hard to spot caveat - that's an interesting point, but it doesn't mean we can't try to exploit the existing device for propelling probes, completely regardless of what rules its operation. There are many devices that apparently break laws of physics - seem to be perpetual motion, or with sourceless propulsion - while they aren't really, but we understand the reason how they work. The clock that is wound up by Earth's spin and Coriolis force acting upon its pendulum. Magnetorquers can not only spin, but also accelerate a craft by pushing against Earth's magnetosphere. The Moon is moving away from Earth, accelerating in its orbit, through stress wave and density distortion of Earth crust, due to tidal forces, traveling ahead of the Moon with Earth's spin. There's a 'toy' propeller that captures electrons with light from arbitrary direction but emits them unidirectionally off its blades, propelling itself. The Drinking Duck seems perpetual motion, while it runs on heat of evaporation of liquid. None of these devices violates laws of physics. But if a physicist doesn't know them, he or she will be baffled for a good while, until the A-Ha! moment, where they find the hidden mechanism. EM drive works, just the same. We just need to find what makes it tick And the fact we don't know doesn't mean we shouldn't put it in KSP. Edited August 31, 2016 by Sharpy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaMachinator Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 IMHO if this were to be implemented it would require a fundamental change in the game, that of allowing acceleration of vessels on rails. Otherwise, the amount of time required to perform any significant maneuvers with such a craft would be absurd. This also applies to any drives using radiation pressure (solar sails, laser sails). This ignores whether such a drive is actually possible, which I find highly unlikely. To the best of my knowledge, all positive results obtained so far have been: determined later to be the result of human error side effects of using a power source external to the device registered on devices with insufficient precision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, DaMachinator said: IMHO if this were to be implemented it would require a fundamental change in the game, that of allowing acceleration of vessels on rails. Otherwise, the amount of time required to perform any significant maneuvers with such a craft would be absurd. This also applies to any drives using radiation pressure (solar sails, laser sails). If it was made too comfortable to use, it would be game-breaking. By keeping it off-rails you're making it bothersome enough that people wouldn't want to replace every other drive with a ginormous array of EM drives. Quote This ignores whether such a drive is actually possible, which I find highly unlikely. To the best of my knowledge, all positive results obtained so far have been: determined later to be the result of human error side effects of using a power source external to the device registered on devices with insufficient precision How recent is your best knowledge? Someone raised a point in the discussion about it: Even if it IS all an error - if it is in fact perfectly explainable, with some current hidden reaction mass loss - that STILL means we have a drive of the best specific impulse so far. Edited August 31, 2016 by Sharpy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaMachinator Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Sharpy said: If it was made too comfortable to use, it would be game-breaking. By keeping it off-rails you're making it bothersome enough that people wouldn't want to replace every other drive with a ginormous array of EM drives. How recent is your best knowledge? Someone raised a point in the discussion about it: Even if it IS all an error - if it is in fact perfectly explainable, with some current hidden reaction mass loss - that STILL means we have a drive of the best specific impulse so far. I am referring to the experiment in which the force exerted by the drive was due to the magnetic field of the power cables from an external power source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Folks, please see Snark's post above. We have another thread about whether the EMDrive works or not, please take that discussion there. This thread is about its desirability in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alshain Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Regarding whether it should or should not be in the stock game. The simplest reason it shouldn't is gameplay. Forget realism, gameplay is more important and making an engine that requires no propellant is massively overpowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 @Alshain: Download and install the mod I posted. Then tell me again it's massively overpowered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts