Propellantless Field Propulsion and application

[Peacekeeper]

Why does NASA not turn much attention on this revolutionary propulsion, which will make spaceflight accessible to everybody, instead of a few chosen 3-4 times per year?
Not only rockets are danger, but their potential is limited. I know about laser and other type of propulsions, but a spacecraft directed by this concentrated light is dependent on the same source.

[Jim]

$$$$$

[Peacekeeper]

Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$

Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?

[Tim S]

Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  9:35 AM

Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$

Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?

No, not for side projects on pseudo-science. It's been spent on real vehicles and real science.

[Peacekeeper]

Tim S - 11/5/2008  5:44 PM

Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  9:35 AM

Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$

Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?

No, not for side projects on pseudo-science. It's been spent on real vehicles and real science.

They weren't real 60 years ago. They are real now, because of the progressive minds and their scientific work over the decades.  Attention, my friend, attention must be turned on such  "pseudo-science", like you said     Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!

[Jim]

Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  12:45 PM

Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!

You have no proof that they aren't pseudo-science or that they will work

[Jim]

This isn't a conspiracy.  I speak against unfounded rumors and unresearched posts  

USENET is a good place for these discussions.

My job is to get spacecraft into orbit, it is doesn't matter how they get there.

[khallow]

Thanks admins for trimming the nonsense from this thread. There are a number of propellantless methods for changing the momentum of a spacecraft, for example, aerobraking and gravity assists. But to be a possible propulsion technology, the effect needs to be clearly demonstrated first, and then scaled up to something viable. If we're going to use Earth's magnetic fields to get into space (which I assume are the fields you're refering to), then we need a model that generates net force. A key part of the problem is that the Earth's magnetic field primarily generates a torque (a rotation force) not a force pushing in a useful direction. The only ways I know of generating net forces in a particular direction involve structures on the scale of the Earth's magnetic field. For example, a giant conductive ring, looped around one of Earth's magnetic poles, could. through a suffiicently strong electric force travelling in the appropriate direction, generate a large net force that would push it away from Earth.

If you propose to use something like this on the scale of a rocket, then you need to explain the propulsion mechanism. In particular, why is it going to generate net force rather than flip the vehicle?

[Peacekeeper]

These and others, khallow, like the 'Tether'.  And 'Lifter' technology as well

[meiza]

"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).

[cpcjr]

Actually NASA already uses a “propellantless field propulsion” in the form of a gravitational slingshot that swings a space craft around on planet to give it a boost to another.

[Lampyridae]

Solar sails and tethers have already been tested. NASA has an advanced propulsion lab that used to do deal with all this before they got axed (or so I believe). The only technologies of interest appeared to be casimir effect drives and wormholes. Casimir effect is real, but the thrust is so far pathetic. Wormholes are still sci-fi for all intents and purposes but vaguely plausible.

>EDIT<

Peacekeeper, instead of starting off discussions without apparently knowing much about the subject, why not read the many threads contributed to by people who actually put nuts and bolts into space? Or work with REAL technology? I believe you will derive much more benefit by doing so first.

[Peacekeeper]

meiza - 11/5/2008  11:22 PM

"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).

Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive  Can it replace today's rockets?

[Eerie]

Can`t someone ban Peacekeeper? It is rather annoying.  

[hmh33]

Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.