Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA tested an impossible space engine and it somehow worked
The Verge ^ | August 1, 2014 | Carl Franzen

Posted on 08/01/2014 12:08:29 PM PDT by DannyTN

If the tests of the Cannae Drive technology hold up, a trip to Mars could take weeks instead of months

7 inShare NASA has been testing new space travel technologies throughout its entire history, but the results of its latest experiment may be the most exciting yet — if they hold up. Earlier this week at a conference in Cleveland, Ohio, scientists with NASA's Eagleworks Laboratories in Houston, Texas, presented a paper indicating they had achieved a small amount of thrust from a container that had no traditional fuels, only microwaves, bouncing around inside it. If the results can be replicated reliably and scaled up — and that's a big "if," since NASA only produced them on a very small scale over a two-day period — they could ultimately result in ultra-light weight, ultra fast spacecraft that could carry humans to Mars in weeks instead of months, and to the nearest star system outside our own (Proxima Centurai) in just about 30 years.

... More at site

(Excerpt) Read more at theverge.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: cannae; electrogravitics; electromagneticdrive; emdrive; mdrive; microwave; newtonsthirdlaw; propellentlessdrive; rogershawyer; space
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: EEGator

What a real spaceship looks like.


61 posted on 08/01/2014 1:22:38 PM PDT by AceMineral (Some people are slaves of their own stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert; dfwgator

Many believe that the written word forty-two is commonly misinterpreted as 42.

Deep thought returned the answer forty-two which is actually not 42 but 38.

The answer to the ultimate question is 38


62 posted on 08/01/2014 1:22:45 PM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12 ..... Obama is public enemy #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert
There was a lady in my office who had seen the movie but never read the book or saw the old series. I recommended both. Later I heard 42 a lot.

Have you listened to the radio shows? They preceded the books and TV series.

63 posted on 08/01/2014 1:24:48 PM PDT by DrDavid (George Orwell was an optimist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
What I find most fascinating about this story is that Joel Hodgson, creator of MST3k, is "Creative Lead for Media" for Cannae.
64 posted on 08/01/2014 1:28:33 PM PDT by Bear_in_RoseBear (Gentlemen may cry, "Peace, peace," but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Three would be fun...


65 posted on 08/01/2014 1:30:22 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

ultra fast spacecraft that could carry humans to Mars in weeks instead of months, and to the nearest star system outside our own (Proxima Centurai) in just about 30 years

= = =
Proxima Centurai = 4.24 light-years away = 24.9 trillion miles
4.24 / 30 = 0.141 times the speed of light.

24.9 trillion miles / 30 years = 0.83 trillion miles / year
= 2274 million miles / day

Curiosity travelled 350 million miles to get to Mars
= = = =

350 million miles / couple of weeks to get to Mars
vs
2274 million miles / day to get to the nearest star

Must be accelerating or decelerating the entire trip to Mars


66 posted on 08/01/2014 1:30:48 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd

I think that’s the idea, a small thrust continually applied, would eventually allow very fast speeds in the vacuum of space.


67 posted on 08/01/2014 1:37:02 PM PDT by DannyTN (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: kidd

I think that’s the idea, a small thrust continually applied, would eventually allow very fast speeds in the vacuum of space.


68 posted on 08/01/2014 1:37:04 PM PDT by DannyTN (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

LOL that’s something to think about!


69 posted on 08/01/2014 1:37:35 PM PDT by DannyTN (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Actually since 1 newton weighs about 3 1/2 ounces, 30-50 micronewtons is about 10 MILLIONths of an ounce.

I wonder how close that is to the limits of detection?


70 posted on 08/01/2014 1:41:42 PM PDT by Willgamer (Rex Lex or Lex Rex?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

I think you have it right.

The microwave source requires a sustained energy source that will slowly but surely be consumed. If so, you are right that there are no fundamental laws in jeopardy here. But there may be some NASA calculations that are.


71 posted on 08/01/2014 2:00:40 PM PDT by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

??? ..they may need to recalibrate their testing/detection gear.


72 posted on 08/01/2014 2:09:45 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a weapon...0'Mullah / "Rustler" 0'Reid? d8-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toast
So with this they only need fuel for energy. They no longer need a propellant.

Doesn't even need fuel. Solar panels can provide the energy, which would make it good for keeping satellites in proper orbit.

73 posted on 08/01/2014 2:13:40 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Yes, yes, that’s all well and good, but how does does
it stop? Flip 180 degrees half way there?


74 posted on 08/01/2014 2:14:15 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

A plastic propeller and rubber band can do better.

In space?


75 posted on 08/01/2014 2:16:48 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert

“The timeless words of Douglas Adams. Hitchhiker’s never gets old.

There was a lady in my office who had seen the movie but never read the book or saw the old series. I recommended both. Later I heard 42 a lot.”

I liked the movie, even as someone who had previously read the books and watched the BBC TV series. It wasn’t anywhere near as clever as the book, but fun in it’s own way. And Zoey Deschanel (sp?)...


76 posted on 08/01/2014 2:30:10 PM PDT by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like tractor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tet68

Probably. Even at the orbit of the ISS there is a thin atmosphere. NASA should be ashamed to fund a study like this.


77 posted on 08/01/2014 2:31:00 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7
Every day my satellite dish moves to the other side of the house all by itself and I have to move it back every night.

I have carpet runners with non-slip backing that do that.........

78 posted on 08/01/2014 3:09:09 PM PDT by varon (Para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

It runs on pure hate.

79 posted on 08/01/2014 3:25:41 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
I wonder if that “weeks instead of months” thought includes deceleration?

Every time I read an article like this, I think about that same thing.

Sure, if had a FTL craft, we could PASS BY Pluto in about 15 minutes.

The problem, (as you obviously know), is that a trajectory designed to allow you to go into orbit around a body in space is a GIANT "S".

The faster you go, the BIGGER the "S" curves must be to arrive at the destination.

Going FASTER only means that you travel FURTHER. The TIME to get there is the same.

CURRENTLY, there is no 'straight line' shot from point A to point B as a trajectory for any outer space craft.

SO.... if we were able to go the speed of light, we could only accelerate to that max until the halfway point. Then we would need some way to 'brake' the craft. The speed required to drop into orbit is nowhere near the speed of light.

Currently we have no method of 'slowing' the craft in proportion to the ability to accelerate.

Bottom line,using current technology for interplanetary space craft, there is a 'best' speed for going to Mars, and even if you could go faster, you wouldn't get there any sooner.

80 posted on 08/01/2014 3:29:50 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson