But how expensive will life extension be, and how many will be able to afford it?
So my goal is to make an M-E recycled propellant thruster over the next 6-months that can't be ignored any longer.
BTW, if you've not read my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper, that's the LOX/H2 fuel cell powered and M-E propelled vehicle that can lift off from the surface of the Earth, fly to the surface of the Moon in 4-to-6 hours time, and then off-load a payload of 2,000 kg and a crew of 2. Then without refueling, head back to Earth with another 2,000 kg of payload and crew of 2 and be back where it started in another 4-to-6 hours, maintaining 1.0 gee "Torchship" like acceleration all the way coming and going. And that is just the introductory capabilities of the M-E...* NOTE: Only if a motivated outfit like Space-X is performing the design and build. If NASA gets its hands on the WarpStar-1 project, it will take decades...Best,(Added Note)
BTW, if you've not read my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper, that's the LOX/H2 fuel cell powered and M-E propelled vehicle that can lift off from the surface of the Earth, fly to the surface of the Moon in 4-to-6 hours time, and then off-load a payload of 2,000 kg and a crew of 2. Then without refueling, head back to Earth with another 2,000 kg of payload and crew of 2 and be back where it started in another 4-to-6 hours, maintaining 1.0 gee "Torchship" like acceleration all the way coming and going. And that is just the introductory capabilities of the M-E...
The energy available from lifting your cargo and dropping it is clearly more than what is available from the fuel cell, so for all practical purposes this is an over-unity device.
Doesn't that imply that the MLT breaks the laws of thermodynamics?
I'm taking note that the tone of this thread has changed quite a bit from the first few pages. I read a lot of dismissive things such as "fantasy" and "crap" in the beginning of this thread. Perhaps they've changed their minds or considered that being dismissive without looking at experimental evidence doesn't benefit anyone?
Quote from: GeeGee on 01/31/2011 07:03 amI'm taking note that the tone of this thread has changed quite a bit from the first few pages. I read a lot of dismissive things such as "fantasy" and "crap" in the beginning of this thread. Perhaps they've changed their minds or considered that being dismissive without looking at experimental evidence doesn't benefit anyone?I, personally, only come here to check whether there are any signs that the ideas discussed here have reached mainline science community and got at least semi-positive reviews from it.
http://science.discovery.com/videos/sci-fi-science-exploring-the-universe.htmlInteresting
Sith:You might be interested in reading Woodward's latest paper when it's published in Foundations of Physics later this year. It's about how the M-E can be applied to the Warp Drive and Stargate problem discussed in this video. It's 26 pages long and it covers some new and interesting ground on how to make warp drives and stargtates using the M-E's wormhole and higher terms to generate the required amount of exotic or negative G/I mass needed to create same. And no, Jupiter sized exotic G/I masses will not be required for that estimate is a worst case. It turns out it could be much, much less...
Elementary arithmetic reveals that such structures would have a density of on the order of 1022 gm/cm3, that is, orders of magnitude higher than nuclear density.
QuoteElementary arithmetic reveals that such structures would have a density of on the order of 1022 gm/cm3, that is, orders of magnitude higher than nuclear density.well, at least its also orders of magnitude lower density than a neutron star. 1kg/cm³ is nothing compared to the 1 billion tons by cm³ of a neutron star