George Hathaway in Canada.
Quote from: WarpTech on 12/30/2017 05:08 pmGeorge 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.
"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/
Quote from: Rodal on 12/30/2017 06:02 pmFor 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-µN 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?
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?
Quote from: SteveD on 01/01/2018 07:28 pmAt 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.
Quote from: Augmentor on 01/01/2018 08:42 pmQuote from: SteveD on 01/01/2018 07:28 pmAt 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?
How about something very simple, powered by a LiPo battery, that does an experiment *inside* the ISS?
Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.
Quote from: MazonDel on 01/03/2018 12:59 amProbably 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...
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.
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 01/02/2018 11:49 pmHow 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.
...Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?