Space proplusion that needs no propellant, really.

[SerScot]

Vraith,

So, put something in orbit with the Cannae drive and see if it can change its orbit. If yes, then we have something that's a game changer. We can figure out what we're missing later.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Exactly. Test it in a micro-g environment and if it fails then it fails; no one loses anything except a little time and money. If it works, though, then we can continue the research to find out how and, ideally, improve the design or efficiency so future drives generate more thrust.

[Vraith]

Vraith,

So, put something in orbit with the Cannae drive and see if it can change its orbit. If yes, then we have something that's a game changer. We can figure out what we're missing later.

Oh, I don't have a problem with doing real, strictly controlled, methodologically sound testing.
I'm just predicting it's a bunch of junk, and noting that the words so far about it are meaningless...and the looseness of the "tests" done so far negate any real definition of "test."
Vacuum may matter for this device...but honestly, I think they could easily control far better than they did, without leaving earth [and thereby saving money]
Because the amount of energy put in...well, if I put an egg in my microwave and let it sit too long, the egg will explode...and that explosion generates more thrust...orders of magnitude more thrust...than these "tests" showed [if I did my math correctly]. And the exploding egg is mostly due to hot air.
It also is useless for rockets, and doesn't violate physics, and isn't reactionless.
It is EASY to generate thrust with microwaves [or visible light waves, for that matter, or almost anything else]. It's just not efficient or powerful for most uses. [though light-sails and such have some utility]. It's the OTHER claims that matter.

[SerScot]

Vraith,

If a satellite equiped with a Cannea drive changes it's orbit what say you then?

[Vraith]

Vraith,

If a satellite equiped with a Cannea drive changes it's orbit what say you then?

I say it probably doesn't matter [though perhaps there are other uses besides propulsion for whatever is happening...if anything is happening] UNLESS it is actually generating the thrust due to some unknown [currently] reactionless effect...
AND, for propulsion purposes, that that reactionless effect can be done in some other way. I mean, right now the effect is kinda like burning a ton of coal to toast a marshmallow.

If it IS, in fact, functioning by some previously unknown/inexplicable process...that's a horse of a different color, even if it is useless for propulsion. It's a potentially game-changing discovery in that case, no matter it's drive-utility.

[Vraith]

I'm still highly doubtful that anything fundamentally new is happening...still highly doubtful of its usefulness/importance...
But a slight tick in the direction of doubt-elimination...
The effect apparently is measurable in vacuum---
though still no real explanation.

www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluat ... -em-drive/

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I remain cautiously optimistic because the only way we ever reach Mars is via non-Newtonian propulsion. These tests are now going to have to take place solely on the ISS to get any sort of believable and, more importantly, independently-verifiable results.

[Vraith]

I remain cautiously optimistic because the only way we ever reach Mars is via non-Newtonian propulsion. These tests are now going to have to take place solely on the ISS to get any sort of believable and, more importantly, independently-verifiable results.

I think even with what we have we could do Mars and probably asteroid belt and maybe...with great difficulty and massive resource consumption...Jupiter and its moons.
Also Venus---easier to reach than any of those, much harder to live with/make use of once you get there.
But the scope/use is severely limited. Much could be done robotically---even then it would be SLOW, though.

Fast, cheap, efficient, humans, and anything beyond those places---agree completely. We need something different.

Of all of those, I think mechs to the asteroids should be job 1.

[wayfriend]

Once there was a guy who thought he could detect the mass of light particles striking an object. So he built a vacuum tube, and put in a rotor with vanes painted black on one side, and white on the other. The black sides would absorb the light, gain momentum, and the vanes would spin.



And it worked!

It turned out that it didn't work for the reason he thought it would. Light doesn't actually deliver any momentum to the objects it hits. However, if the vacuum is imperfect, the black side does heat the air, and the vanes spin.

I think this Cannae Drive thing will be like that. We'll eventually figure out it's not what we think it was.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I think this Cannae Drive thing will be like that. We'll eventually figure out it's not what we think it was.

That is always the problem with "now". People in the future will look back on us and pat us on the head for being so cute but so clueless.

Of all of those, I think mechs to the asteroids should be job 1.

Permanent moonbase first, asteroids second.

[I'm Murrin]

We don't need a moonbase. We need something in orbit that we can use to launch missions at much reduced cost compared to sending everything in a rocket from the surface.

[wayfriend]

We don't need a moonbase. We need something in orbit that we can use to launch missions at much reduced cost compared to sending everything in a rocket from the surface.

I would think that a moon-base, especially one from which rockets can be launched, would still be considered an act of aggression here on Earth.

Launching missions from orbit makes some sense, but as there's nothing we can launch from orbit that we didn't need to lift from earth first, it doesn't actually solve any problems that I can see.

Is this why you aim for the asteroid belt? Do you think we can build a space mission in situ if we mine the roids? I think the cost (especially the cost in time) of getting personal to and from the asteroids makes that seem unlikely. If we could get to the asteroid belt in a week, we would already have solved the problems we're trying to solve.

I still see the space elevator as being the best way to go. We're reaching the point where we can develop the materials and automate the micro-adjustments needed (it's basically a giant Segway) to accomplish that. It would also make it feasible to power objects on earth from solar arrays in space, which is synergistically related.

High earth orbit then becomes a very happening place.

[Vraith]

Is this why you aim for the asteroid belt? Do you think we can build a space mission in situ if we mine the roids?

The 'roids change everything if we can mine them. And it will be faster, simpler, more efficient at first to do it with mechs, not people.
It will pay for itself nearly as fast as many big Earth surface things, and without the ceiling [or at least a ceiling that is many, many stories higher].

I have a metric ton of reasons why that is so...but I don't want to spend the time or drag this topic too far from the motor.

A moon base would probably be useful---and after the initial build, we wouldn't have to lift much to it if we didn't want to. I'm just not sure we want to go ravaging it.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Of course not. The type of base I envision is merely a stopping point where people on missions spend a couple of days while their ship is refueled (or reenergized via solar) and prepped for takeoff in the significantly reduced gravity. A maglev slingshot system to get off the ground then engage thrust. Perhaps one hollowed out cave for long-term document storage--a "disaster recovery/redundancy" of our knowledge, if you like--but no mining or setting up cities on the Moon.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The Dresden University of Technology is reporting that they have successfully and independently confirmed that the drive produces thrust. This is no longer science fiction or fringe fantasy, this functioning drive is now scientific fact. Their calculations conclude that a craft with these drives could reach the Moon in 4 hours, Mars in 70 days, and Pluto in only 18 months.

70 days to Mars? That allows for a manned mission, presuming the mission craft launches from orbit and that we send up the necessary food and water in conventional missions to the ISS. It couldn't be a surface mission, of course, but one or two orbits would be a milestone.

[Zarathustra]

The Dresden University of Technology is reporting that they have successfully and independently confirmed that the drive produces thrust. This is no longer science fiction or fringe fantasy, this functioning drive is now scientific fact. Their calculations conclude that a craft with these drives could reach the Moon in 4 hours, Mars in 70 days, and Pluto in only 18 months.

And the nearest star in 100 years! Wow. We've just put the stars within the lifespan of a human.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It gets even better because those travel times are with the current design of the propulsion unit. We both know that the design will be improved over the next 20 or 30 years and any craft which is going to have this propulsion system will have anywhere from 3 to 8 of these units, all producing thrust.

The realistic time frame of traveling to other planets just got narrowed down to "within our lifetime".