Quote from: wembleyThere is essentially a news blackout on the experimental side from NASA.The problem is, if this drive really works, the defence implications are huge. Those in charge might feel it would not necessarily be a good idea to go public with it -- especially from the US perspective. Remember that 'Sputnik moment'?Quote from: Mulletron@wembley, do you have any specific info about why you think there is a news blackout?Also, do you have any further verifiable information from this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265607#msg1265607 stating Shawyer stopped using a dielectric section?Quote from: wembleyI been in contact with NASA on this and the lack of direct response has been marked. They will talk about the warp drive and other work, but will not even mention the EmDrive in their replies. It's as though they cannot speak its name...I also have it from other sources that NASA have requested that they do not discuss NASA's work in this area. If you can find any official NASA public comment on anything related to their EmDrive work I will be impressed! It does look like a blackout to me.The info about Shawyer not using dielectric section was in an email from the man himself.Interesting to hear.What happens if another country wheels a drive out, haven't others been working in this area?
There is essentially a news blackout on the experimental side from NASA.The problem is, if this drive really works, the defence implications are huge. Those in charge might feel it would not necessarily be a good idea to go public with it -- especially from the US perspective. Remember that 'Sputnik moment'?
@wembley, do you have any specific info about why you think there is a news blackout?Also, do you have any further verifiable information from this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265607#msg1265607 stating Shawyer stopped using a dielectric section?
I been in contact with NASA on this and the lack of direct response has been marked. They will talk about the warp drive and other work, but will not even mention the EmDrive in their replies. It's as though they cannot speak its name...I also have it from other sources that NASA have requested that they do not discuss NASA's work in this area. If you can find any official NASA public comment on anything related to their EmDrive work I will be impressed! It does look like a blackout to me.The info about Shawyer not using dielectric section was in an email from the man himself.
Quote from: Star One on 01/21/2015 08:21 pmSo does that mean we shouldn't except to hear anything more from the US on this & if that's the case what does that mean for civil applications?I don't believe they can prevent any public disclosure of undeniably working prototypes by the Chinese, in a few years (or months). So they probably are just buying some time for having a working version on our side by then.That or someone on NASA became aware of the potential huge embarrassment this represents, and told all the guys off and ordered them to pretend it never happened.But as H. White et al seem to be still working at NASA, I somewhat doubt it's a case of disowning a blunder. Or at least, I hope so.
So does that mean we shouldn't except to hear anything more from the US on this & if that's the case what does that mean for civil applications?
Quote from: tchernik on 01/21/2015 08:51 pmQuote from: Star One on 01/21/2015 08:21 pmSo does that mean we shouldn't except to hear anything more from the US on this & if that's the case what does that mean for civil applications?I don't believe they can prevent any public disclosure of undeniably working prototypes by the Chinese, in a few years (or months). So they probably are just buying some time for having a working version on our side by then.That or someone on NASA became aware of the potential huge embarrassment this represents, and told all the guys off and ordered them to pretend it never happened.But as H. White et al seem to be still working at NASA, I somewhat doubt it's a case of disowning a blunder. Or at least, I hope so.It could be that the decision, assuming it does work, on what to say and what not to say has gone right the way up the chain of command literally to the very top and in the meantime the blackout is put in place.This might sound odd but perhaps it's for the best that for now this stays outside of the mainstream of public awareness.
It could be that the decision, assuming it does work, on what to say and what not to say has gone right the way up the chain of command literally to the very top and in the meantime the blackout is put in place.This might sound odd but perhaps it's for the best that for now this stays outside of the mainstream of public awareness.
Quote from: Star One on 01/21/2015 09:11 pmQuote from: tchernik on 01/21/2015 08:51 pmQuote from: Star One on 01/21/2015 08:21 pmSo does that mean we shouldn't except to hear anything more from the US on this & if that's the case what does that mean for civil applications?I don't believe they can prevent any public disclosure of undeniably working prototypes by the Chinese, in a few years (or months). So they probably are just buying some time for having a working version on our side by then.That or someone on NASA became aware of the potential huge embarrassment this represents, and told all the guys off and ordered them to pretend it never happened.But as H. White et al seem to be still working at NASA, I somewhat doubt it's a case of disowning a blunder. Or at least, I hope so.It could be that the decision, assuming it does work, on what to say and what not to say has gone right the way up the chain of command literally to the very top and in the meantime the blackout is put in place.This might sound odd but perhaps it's for the best that for now this stays outside of the mainstream of public awareness.only if this thing can go hyper velocity or relativistic velocity in a flight profile that makes it useful as a weapon of mass destruction. so far the most optimistic projection by Dr White would make it have to fly for over twelve days and then turn around and come back to make it into a WMD. that's not really a realistic flight profile for a sneak attack weapon.
Well, if it works, then parking a second strike kinetic weapon package at earth-sun L4/L5 is feasible (hell, earth-moon L2 would make the package immune from terrestrial laser attack). This IS the US military we're talking about, who dreamed up Project Horizon to bomb the earth from a moonbase, and that was with a 3 day lag using chemical propulsion. Added fun is using an expendable electrodynamic tether as a power source as you approach earth, since you only need high relative speed at impact (drop into a counterorbit).Actually, I wonder how applicable that would be, using an ED tether as a power source for orbital capture ops, as a possible alternative to aerocapture...
Thus the geopolitical impact of this technology being real is evident if you think about it a little.In the short term, endless autonomy in terms of thrust and re-positioning would completely change the rules of engagement for spy satellites and anti-satellite weapons. You can have limitless observation capabilities and limitless loitering, following, attacking (and dodging) capabilities too. War bots in orbit could finally fulfill Ronald Reagan's dreams for war in space. And not just that.Even very slight accelerations (as reported by Brady, White et al) with preposterously limited top speeds, they can serve for pushing and placing dormant kinetic bombs far away from Earth, beyond the reach of any feasible enemy's detection or attack; and they would also serve for bringing them back to Earth at their maker's command, for landing at any desired spot, producing nearly any desired amount of damage.While all of us sit here on Earth, sharing the same biosphere and the same rock under our feet, the development and availability of that weaponry would result in an aggravated and somewhat madder version of MAD. Because even if you could be attacked in secret from any direction, you can very well threaten to respond by attacking all your potential enemies with nuclear or kinetic nastiness, ruining the game and the fun for all your potential attackers.But if you have parties/adversaries living in space, could you threaten to crack all the planets in the Solar System?, or all the artificial habitats floating in the space between?Removing the speed limitations (thus conservation of energy) only makes things worse, making it feasible to have interstellar adversaries sending relativistic missiles to you. Those have no way to be stopped and even less, any way to provide adequate or proportionate response (you and all around you sharing the same planet would simply be dead).
Quote from: Star One on 01/21/2015 08:21 pmSo does that mean we shouldn't except to hear anything more from the US on this & if that's the case what does that mean for civil applications?I don't believe they can prevent any public disclosure of undeniably working prototypes by the Chinese, in a few years (or months). So they probably are just buying some time for having a working version on our side by then.
...Rockets respect conservation of momentum and energy by losing mass (and thus energy) in greater amounts than they gain by expelling that mass. These things don't have any clear way to remember how much energy they have spent, and what relative maximum velocity they can reach in order to not be "overunity"....
Quote from: tchernik on 01/21/2015 08:51 pmQuote from: Star One on 01/21/2015 08:21 pmSo does that mean we shouldn't except to hear anything more from the US on this & if that's the case what does that mean for civil applications?I don't believe they can prevent any public disclosure of undeniably working prototypes by the Chinese, in a few years (or months). So they probably are just buying some time for having a working version on our side by then.The Chinese will not go public. They have had a fairly tight clampdown for a couple of years now, with the only evidence being odd scientific papers. They don't want anyone else getting a lead on them either.
Really hoping that discussing such subjective political prospects and other implications of an as yet very theoretical space propulsion technology, is not going to get this thread locked for good..
@Rodal tested in the UK, never knew that?Who was carrying out those experiments?
why shouldn't political ramifications of (Microwave) EM Drive space flight applications be discussed as well?
Quote from: Rodal on 01/22/2015 06:22 pmwhy shouldn't political ramifications of (Microwave) EM Drive space flight applications be discussed as well? I don't mind them myself. But I got the possibly mistaken impression (e.g. people actually asking for this to be locked even after thread v.2) that they put the discussion thread too close to or beyond this website's tolerances. My bad.Seeing such a thorough crunching thru the uncertainties of such an advanced and frankly just plain cool potential technology, IMHO is too excellent to lose. Even if EM Drives all turn out to be nothing, the process of making sense of it as detailed in these two threads is exemplary.