Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 912870 times)

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3386
  • Likes Given: 1115
George Hathaway in Canada.

Thanks. He wasn't listed on Heidi's NIAC presentation in September. If he has "verified" Woodward, I would be curious to see the measurements. Likewise with Tajmar.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2017 05:31 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5909
  • USA
  • Liked: 6113
  • Likes Given: 5363
George Hathaway in Canada.

Thanks. He wasn't listed on Heidi's NIAC presentation in September. If he has "verified" Woodward, I would be curious to see the measurements. Likewise with Tajmar.
Correct, because this is the way that Hathaway wants to be quoted:

Quote from: Hathaway
"Using a sub-microNewton torsion balance of novel design, I have measured thrusts from a Woodward thruster in the range of 0.1 - 0.2 uN under forepump vacuum conditions at a voltage of 200Vp-p. However, these measurements were near the limit of resolution of the balance and even though most spurious influences had been taken into account, it was still possible that the thrusts observed were due to artificial forces."


For a literature source of Hathaway, Tajmar and Buldrini measurements, please see the Estes workshop articles by them in: http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/
« Last Edit: 12/30/2017 07:05 PM by Rodal »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3386
  • Likes Given: 1115
For a literature source of Hathaway, Tajmar and Buldrini measurements, please see the Estes workshop articles by them in: http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/

This is all I can find for Tajmar in the SSI literature: "First tests show thrust values in the sub-N range, however, balance calibration, thermal drifts and power feeding line interactions are still under investigation before our first test campaign will be finalized." 

Were Tajmar's finalized results published at the recent Aerospace/SSI sponsored workshop and did he show any data?





Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5909
  • USA
  • Liked: 6113
  • Likes Given: 5363
For a literature source of Hathaway, Tajmar and Buldrini measurements, please see the Estes workshop articles by them in: http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/

This is all I can find for Tajmar in the SSI literature: "First tests show thrust values in the sub-N range, however, balance calibration, thermal drifts and power feeding line interactions are still under investigation before our first test campaign will be finalized." 

Were Tajmar's finalized results published at the recent Aerospace/SSI sponsored workshop and did he show any data?
Tajmar showed some new experimental data on the Woodward piezoelectric device as well as Finite Element analysis using ANSYS at the workshop at Aerospace Corp. but he wants to be quoted as that this is still a topic of research, he has several PhD students working on it and  a new balance with new foundation to address a number of issues.  My recollection is that Tajmar said that what is important for the future is to demonstrate at least a full revolution and not just a small displacement.    Tajmar also gave a talk at the Raumfahrt symposium in Nov 2017 ( http://www.nawi-zw.de/events/kalender.html ) , where the audience is usually mostly local students. I understand that he did not present anything new with respect to Aerospace Corp. workshop, which is understandable, since the presentations were less than a month apart. I would expect that his group would have newer results to present at the space propulsion conference in Sevilla, Spain in May 2018 ( http://spacepropulsion2018.com/ ).  Hope that SSI will post the Aerospace Corp. workshop videos soon, so that Tajmar's presentation at Aerospace Corp. workshop can be heard and seen so that people can make their own judgement on the state of affairs ...
« Last Edit: 12/30/2017 08:16 PM by Rodal »

Offline Amit

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • australia
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 8
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/more-experimental-evidences-about-pnn-inertia/

Sergio was contributing to this thread if I remember correctly.........

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7009
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 6584
To add a couple of data points for a cubesat test vehicle.

This shows a fairly comprehensive chart of various PV cells and their efficiencies

A figure of 14% for thin film and 22% for rigid types (both without using concentrators for simplicity)
would require 5.26 and 3.35 m^2 of solar cells in Earth orbit,  assuming AM0 at 1360W/m^2. Both numbers are within the the known SoA for a number of different cell technologies.

A 3U long test sat would therefor need to extend a panel 17.56 or 11.17m long for 1Kw of driver power.  That seems very tough, but the thin film design could be very thin, a few mils at most. That excludes losses and any control systems power needs.  You'd need to increase if you wanted to maintain thrust to say Mars.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C Apply So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline SteveD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • United States
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 10
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 50
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?

When one doesn't have to pay for pre-launch preparation, launch/flight insurance, launch/flight/retrieval costs, and
post-flight processing with debriefings. And the flight goes as planned.

NASA used to have a Hitchhiker program, and a Getaway special managed through the Shuttle Small Payloads Project.  Currently, Space Available and Standby flights need a government sponsor such as Darpa or NASA.

One should consider having a second device ready for cubesat testing, and a launch services option. Some private companies seem to have difficulty with rockets exploding.

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 43
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?

When one doesn't have to pay for pre-launch preparation, launch/flight insurance, launch/flight/retrieval costs, and
post-flight processing with debriefings. And the flight goes as planned.

NASA used to have a Hitchhiker program, and a Getaway special managed through the Shuttle Small Payloads Project.  Currently, Space Available and Standby flights need a government sponsor such as Darpa or NASA.

One should consider having a second device ready for cubesat testing, and a launch services option. Some private companies seem to have difficulty with rockets exploding.

My gut reaction is that actual usage ex-Earth is the best proof. It's very empirical, but with clashes of theories resulting in no generally accepted explanation, this type of demonstration may be the event needed in order to funnel more funds to EMdrive research. On the other hand, a failure could be devastating, giving critics enough to dismiss the EMdrive even if the failure was not related to the concept.  This brings to mind two alternative approaches. The first is a very ad-hoc, amateur/semi-pro effort such as a cubesat. Therefore, if it fails, then it can be chalked up to amateurism in the build (sorry, realpolitik). The second approach is the opposite, and more intellectually honest, and that is an a very well designed and executed professional project, which if the mission fails at least there would be adequate information on why it failed. But, I doubt that the latter will be funded any time soon. There's too much priority on 'back to the moon' or 'onwards to Mars' with rockets rather than a sideways step to test a potentially revolutionary concept which would completely change a Mars mission.

So, that leaves us with the Cubesat. Augmentor, I don't understand what you mean by 'retrieval' costs. I think of the Cubesat as anything but a satellite, but rather a simple design with no instrumentation other than on propulsion, velocity, and position. The only 'retrieval' cost would be a conventional propulsion system to de-orbit in case of complete failure, so as to not create more orbital space junk. Post-flight processing and debriefings doesn't sound very expensive. That still doesn't mean that the mission, on the whole, will not be expensive.

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 50
Retrieval costs include booster and sustainer shared costs. Flyback is becoming the standard of newspace folks.

Cubesat recovery costs may be either the cost of retrieving a cubesat including rentry all the way to earth labs for inspection and testing, or picking up the piece(s) in space i.e. cleanup.

D

Offline LowerAtmosphere

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 84
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?

When one doesn't have to pay for pre-launch preparation, launch/flight insurance, launch/flight/retrieval costs, and
post-flight processing with debriefings. And the flight goes as planned.

NASA used to have a Hitchhiker program, and a Getaway special managed through the Shuttle Small Payloads Project.  Currently, Space Available and Standby flights need a government sponsor such as Darpa or NASA.

One should consider having a second device ready for cubesat testing, and a launch services option. Some private companies seem to have difficulty with rockets exploding.

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

2nded, regarding mission control and manouever point coordination/selection plus liasoning with NORAD etc, I'm sure people here would be thrilled to participate if even only via video feed.

Best mission might be HEO with delta v being used to play around with eccentricity rather than trying to alter orbit altitude or maintain eccentricity. It could contain a tiny gyroscope or reaction wheel though this adds both power draw, complexity, and error sources. Mission end might be trying to reach escape velocity and intercepting another gravitational body. KISS applies here so a literal box with an engine in it might be best.

Rotating folding solar panels could be used in lieu of reaction wheels and to test attitudinal control. Onboard computer can also be fairly simple and tiny (could even be parasitical/integrated off the solar panel control chip or magnetron control chip). Maintaining torr pressures and controlling jetting are a primary concern so having multi functional valves on 3 sides of the cube wall and between cavities and cube wall for emergency thrust and venting might be interesting. A major issue is identifying solar weather conditions and solar wind can be difficult given the fluctuating magnetotail and periodic storms. Shielding therefore might be a major concern. Asymmetric heating will occur both inside the box and on the outside. A method to mitigate this and decrease rotational forces is to bathe the internal cavity in coolant or at the very least an inert gas (though this again introduces convection problems). Another alternative is to use a fine mesh or grating of layered thermally conductive and insulative material which should disrupt currents but still distribute heat (would also improve structural integrity). I'm thinking aerogel for the outside but SiC or some other Si compound for the inside. Boron Nitride balls might also be useful. Biradial antennas are also a must. More ideas could be developed... tempting to draw a rough sketch... also didn't this topic already get some discussion earlier? What about the Chinese satellite test or the other cubesat project from a year or so ago? The entire Dr. Yue story with the retraction and weird radio silence is strange to say the least.

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 471
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 109
At this point I am thinking it would be wise for all interested in a cubesat style experiment ( as I certainly am) to review TRL status of the concept and how that works during preparation for available launch vehicles.

Another thread, in May, Robotbeat had a good comment, keep in mind the number of stakeholders required to actually achieve orbit...
"...I do think there's some unnecessary ritual in the whole concept of the Technology Readiness Level formalism. It seems primarily a tool for getting multiple stakeholders to agree on whether a certain technology is mature enough for some application..."

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf

What this means to me is quite simply, unless and until somebody has demonstrated suitable TRL no experiment will fly.

 Personally funding a launch is simply beyond my reach. YMMV
« Last Edit: 01/02/2018 10:45 PM by D_Dom »
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 218
How about something very simple, powered by a LiPo battery, that does an experiment *inside* the ISS?
"If you want to build a ship, dont drum up people to collect wood and dont assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupry

Offline MazonDel

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • Worcester, MA
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 36
How about something very simple, powered by a LiPo battery, that does an experiment *inside* the ISS?

Arguably the cost of doing this would likely exceed the cubesat costs. This is both because you now are taking Astronaut time (very valuable) but also you now need to go through extra safety checks because you are dealing with not only the ISS, but the interior of the ISS, and you want to bring RF and LiPo batteries into the mix...

Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3386
  • Likes Given: 1115
Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.

There needs to be a functioning device before there can be a cubesat. In my opinion, the next logical step (after confirmation on a torsional pendulum), is to construct a rotating test stand so that complete revolutions can be demonstrated.  This is what NASA did, but there were issues with the spherical air bearing that produced undesired results.

I've been thinking about designing a YBCO bearing that uses quantum levitation and magnetic locking effect. But then I have the problem of dealing with liquid nitrogen...


 

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 32
Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.

There needs to be a functioning device before there can be a cubesat. In my opinion, the next logical step (after confirmation on a torsional pendulum), is to construct a rotating test stand so that complete revolutions can be demonstrated.  This is what NASA did, but there were issues with the spherical air bearing that produced undesired results.

I've been thinking about designing a YBCO bearing that uses quantum levitation and magnetic locking effect. But then I have the problem of dealing with liquid nitrogen...

I have a design of rotary bearing that does not have the problems of air bearing or magnetic bearing. It is like this:

1. First construct a usual torsion pendulum.
2. Glue two signs to the high end and low end of the torsion wire respectively, to show their real time position/angle.
3. Mount the high end of the torsion wire to  a rotary server.
4. The rotary server rotates, controlled by computer or circuits so that the high end sign follows the low end sign, ensuring that the torsion in the wire is always very very low (for example, translate to 0.1 uN * beam_length, or 1/10 of the supposed thrust), and always to the other direction of the supposed EM-drive driven direction (drags, not drives).

This device works but documenting and video recording of the experiment is pivotal. This is because this design can be exploited if somebody wants to fake the thrust.





« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 02:07 PM by PotomacNeuron »
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Online bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1824
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 242
AMSAT has managed to keep their costs down by teaming up with universities for joint projects. AO-91 launched last year would not have been possible without that.

If a one-cube sat costs, say, $50k to orbit, combined with a university partner, I think the project could get enough crowd interest to fund it and test.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3386
  • Likes Given: 1115
AMSAT has managed to keep their costs down by teaming up with universities for joint projects. AO-91 launched last year would not have been possible without that.

If a one-cube sat costs, say, $50k to orbit, combined with a university partner, I think the project could get enough crowd interest to fund it and test.
That $50,000 AMSAT cubesat is 1U. I think 3U would be required at a minimum, including the cavity, battery, and supporting electronics. 6U or 12U would be preferable. 
« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 08:27 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1009
  • Likes Given: 2228
How about something very simple, powered by a LiPo battery, that does an experiment *inside* the ISS?

Arguably the cost of doing this would likely exceed the cubesat costs. This is both because you now are taking Astronaut time (very valuable) but also you now need to go through extra safety checks because you are dealing with not only the ISS, but the interior of the ISS, and you want to bring RF and LiPo batteries into the mix...

Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.
They should have Lithium-Ionen or Lithium-Polymer batteries in their laptops as well. The RF energy is trapped in case of the EM-Drive. The costs are a critical point but in respect to a possible new propulsion technology it seems worthwhile to test it there. This and similar revolutionary technologies are the reason why the space station is in place, just to check out such kind of capabilities, exploring new technologies. This guys stay there for months, it shouldn't be that hard to spend a few days with this subject to confirm or reject it.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2018 12:18 PM by X_RaY »

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 155
...

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

I do that for a living, and my group in NG builds some of the best cubesat hardware available.  We can handle up to about 500W of power (continuous) and a projected reliability of >80% at 3 years in single systems or way better than that with redundancy (which we also support).  That core HW, including flight software, launch costs, ground station support, and mission ops over a reasonable lifespan is on the order of $1M.
How cheap CAN you get it?  Probably <$100K but the projected reliability is in the trash can.  Satellites in this cost range have a >50% likelihood to never be heard from once deployed and will never survive deep space radiation.  Outside the Earth's magnetosphere, the radiation is HARSH.
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Tags: