Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday September 05 2016, @03:13AM   Printer-friendly

Multiple sources have reported that a paper about EmDrive has cleared peer review and will be published in December, although there is no certainty yet about whether NASA scientists have found evidence to support thrust apparently in violation of the law of conservation of momentum (and not within experimental error):

Long thought to be nothing more than a space dream, the EmDrive, a rocket propulsion technology that requires no propellant, has cleared peer review, the International Business Times reports. The new engine, first proposed 17 years ago, relies on microwaves for its thrust, which are fired into a metal cone, causing acceleration. The latest design, which will be published in the Journal of Propulsion, was the brainchild of scientists at NASA's experimental lab, Eagleworks Laboratories.

Also at Inverse.

Meanwhile, a company formed by Cannae Inc. has announced that it will launch a similar propulsion device into space to prove that it works:

On August 17, Cannae announced plans to launch its thruster on a 6U cubesat. Each unit is a 10-centimeter cube, so a 6U satellite is the size of a small shoebox. Approximately one quarter of this will be taken up by the drive. Fetta intends the satellite to stay on station for at least six months, rather than the six weeks that would be typical for a satellite this size at a altitude of 150 miles. The longer it stays in orbit, the more the satellite will show that it must be producing thrust without propellant.

Cannae has formed a company called Theseus with industrial partners LAI International of Tempe, AZ and SpaceQuest Ltd. of Fairfax, VA to launch the satellite. No launch date has yet been announced, but 2017 seems likely. "Once demonstrated on orbit, Theseus will offer our thruster platforms to the satellite marketplace," says the optimistic conclusion on their website.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @03:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @03:01PM (#397806)

    Eratosthenes and every sailor ever would like to have a word with you.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @03:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @03:43PM (#397817)

    Eratosthenes and every sailor ever would like to have a word with you.

    Granted. I can safely assume Eratosthenes is not, nor has been, any drinking buddy of yours, so here you are merely regurgitating what you think you know about his work. Let's then take a closer look on said work:

    There are four unknowns: a) the shape of the Earth, b) the distance between Eratosthenes and the well, c) the distance between the Sun and the Earth, and d) the error in time measurement. Let's further assume that (d) can be circumvented by an extremely accurate astronomical measurement of the position of the Sun as it crosses a certain meridian. And let's simplify (a) by assuming either a plane or a convex sphere.

    In either case of (a), you still have more unknowns that equations to conclusively apply trigonometry: you simply cannot tell how far the Sun is away from the Earth. However far, in the globe model the distance is still finite and measurable. Only when you are certain for the distance (b) AND the value of (c) (and don't forget the accurate timing) can you be confident of having figured out the radius of a ball Earth (if that is the case). Note that in the case where you take the infinite plane as a given, AND you know with good precision the distance between Eratosthenes and his well, AND your clock rocks, THEN you can have an estimate about how far the Sun is from those two points through trigonometry.

    Also, how can you be so sure about what was it that Eratosthenes wanted to measure?

    About 'every sailor ever': I can understand how 'some sailor somewhere' may actually HAVE been your drinking buddy, unlike Eratosthenes. However, if you again bother to investigate the bibliography regarding the exploration South of the equator, Oceania and especially Antarctica, you will note what the Captains of that time took note: namely that they would find themselves inexplicably 16, 20 or ore nautical miles away from their reckoning each day, something that puzzled them and could not be attributed to currents or any known factor. There are numerous accounts, all from logs of ships, mostly from the 19th century (but also earlier) and absolutely preserved and accessible until today (to you as well), due to the accurate and notorious record-keeping of the British Navy. Add to this the fact that every attempt to circumnavigate Australia adds a thousand or more miles to the journey when compared to the one predicted by the globe Earth model, plus that every attempt to circumnavigate Antarctica has taken years and consistently described around 50,000 nautical miles. Measure this on the globe, and try and find any plausible combination of icebergs, bad weather, currents and mermaids that can stretch the number you see up to 50,000 nautical miles.

    I am going to disregard the fact that you completely ignored the purely mechanical artificial horizon device. For now.

    Give my best to your sailor friends.