Quote from: Rodal on 01/09/2015 12:23 amIn this report http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf NASA's Dr. White wrote of his continuing "dialogue with the (International Space Station) ISS national labs office for an on orbit DTO (On Orbit Detailed Test Objectives)" of the EM Drive (which he calls "Q-Thruster"):The "Q-Thruster" in this case appears to be a Woodward/ME device.
In this report http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf NASA's Dr. White wrote of his continuing "dialogue with the (International Space Station) ISS national labs office for an on orbit DTO (On Orbit Detailed Test Objectives)" of the EM Drive (which he calls "Q-Thruster"):
QuoteThe "Q-Thruster" in this case appears to be a Woodward/ME device. Yes. No. Sort of.....
The "Q-Thruster" in this case appears to be a Woodward/ME device.
Great posts by Rodal and Mulletron.And I concur: the next step is to firmly cement the scientific nature of the mentioned thrusters (them being falsifiable), by providing additional replications and tests. Theories can come later, if empiric evidence is there.It doesn't matter if H. White's theory is right or wrong, the same as Woodward's (or Shawyer's, which is most likely wrong). What matters is that the phenomena related to those theories would have evidence of being real. Humanity has used real phenomena nobody can explain for millenia, and this way before even having complete formal descriptions/theories for them. We still do, as we don't know the provenance and nature of inertia and gravity, and they are part of our everyday lives and expected to work for a lot of technology to function as well.
All well & good unless it proves through theory they are doing some fundamental damage. Something raised in fiction by a Star Trek: The Next Generation & the use of warp drive damaging the universe.
Big difference between figure 5 here: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf (same old Q-thruster paper we've been reading)and figures 2/3 here: http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td2804/McNutt.pdf (MPD thrusters/Nuclear power)The difference between Jupiter transit times is astonishing. Not to mention you don't have to carry aloft ~75 percent of your mass as propellant. Disclaimer though, the empty mass of Jupiter mission spacecraft (fig. 2 McNutt) is ~4081 metric tons (why so massive? anybody know? This is about half as much as of one of these metal monstrosities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser), compared to the 90 metric tons (fig. 5 White) (50mT payload, propulsion mass 20 mT, 2MW power system 20 mT. I'm not sure what the author intended here. I'm assuming a spacecraft with a mass of at least 90 metric tons total though.)Anybody have any idea how massive this is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactorIt would be interesting to put together an imaginary ship using say....a cluster of the Brady c TE mode articles @21.31 milliNewtons/kW + a Lockheed Martin 100MW miracle reactor -reasonable electrical power and RF efficiency losses, to see if anything interesting can be done. Is there even enough information for this to be do-able yet?
Quote from: Mulletron on 01/10/2015 08:46 pmBig difference between figure 5 here: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf (same old Q-thruster paper we've been reading)and figures 2/3 here: http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td2804/McNutt.pdf (MPD thrusters/Nuclear power)The difference between Jupiter transit times is astonishing. Not to mention you don't have to carry aloft ~75 percent of your mass as propellant. Disclaimer though, the empty mass of Jupiter mission spacecraft (fig. 2 McNutt) is ~4081 metric tons (why so massive? anybody know? This is about half as much as of one of these metal monstrosities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser), compared to the 90 metric tons (fig. 5 White) (50mT payload, propulsion mass 20 mT, 2MW power system 20 mT. I'm not sure what the author intended here. I'm assuming a spacecraft with a mass of at least 90 metric tons total though.)Anybody have any idea how massive this is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactorIt would be interesting to put together an imaginary ship using say....a cluster of the Brady c TE mode articles @21.31 milliNewtons/kW + a Lockheed Martin 100MW miracle reactor -reasonable electrical power and RF efficiency losses, to see if anything interesting can be done. Is there even enough information for this to be do-able yet?As the Lockheed Martin reactor will supposedly fit onto a truck, my guesstimate is 5..10mt with shielding, superconducting magnets and whatnot. If it is a thermal conversion model, then LM will need to use heat exchangers with gas turbines to get the electrical power out (makes it heavier again). My favorite, the direct conversion model with p-B11 fuel, would obviously be more compact. I'm worrying a bit about how to get rid of that immense waste heat in a vacuum, though. The radiators would glow red-hot, I guess. They could also use the photon pressure from the waste heat to accelerate.. .
Welcome back!
Total mass: 500mT40MWe available to propulsion, 10MWe left in reserve/used/rest lost to heatAssuming 70% propulsion system efficiency28MW RF available for driveBrady c TE mode @21.31 milliNewtons/kW performance propulsion system Thrust at 28MW RF @0.02131N/kw=596NAcceleration=0.00119200m/s^2 Velocity after 1 year=37.59km/s, 135327km/h, 84088.5mphDisplacement 3.96AU
I went further, considering that the end is bolted onto the cavity, what if it leaks RF? I modelled a narrow slice around the circumference of the cavity cone in the end plate, a variable sized opening but at the smallest resolution my computer will allow, 0.2% of the cavity large end radius.The simulation detected Force/Power ranging from 2/c to 3/c. That is two to three times the thrust of an ideal photon rocket. I think the cause of the force is evanescent waves escaping through the very narrow gap in the cavity base
Welcome back Aero!QuoteI went further, considering that the end is bolted onto the cavity, what if it leaks RF? I modelled a narrow slice around the circumference of the cavity cone in the end plate, a variable sized opening but at the smallest resolution my computer will allow, 0.2% of the cavity large end radius.The simulation detected Force/Power ranging from 2/c to 3/c. That is two to three times the thrust of an ideal photon rocket. I think the cause of the force is evanescent waves escaping through the very narrow gap in the cavity baseIsn't that about on a par with Woodward's device? The worst performer of the bunch?
... the radiation intensity approaches a kW/cm^2, or almost a MW/m^2.
QuoteTotal mass: 500mT40MWe available to propulsion, 10MWe left in reserve/used/rest lost to heatAssuming 70% propulsion system efficiency28MW RF available for driveBrady c TE mode @21.31 milliNewtons/kW performance propulsion system Thrust at 28MW RF @0.02131N/kw=596NAcceleration=0.00119200m/s^2 Velocity after 1 year=37.59km/s, 135327km/h, 84088.5mphDisplacement 3.96AUSo...if I am following this correctly, allowing for deceleration, a 3 year trip to Saturn, give or take a month? Versus a bit over 9 months for the Eagleworks proposal.
Quote from: aero on 01/11/2015 01:31 am... the radiation intensity approaches a kW/cm^2, or almost a MW/m^2. 10,000 sq cm in one sq metre, not 1,000.Cheers, Martin
Quote from: ThinkerX on 01/11/2015 06:58 amWelcome back Aero!QuoteI went further, considering that the end is bolted onto the cavity, what if it leaks RF? I modelled a narrow slice around the circumference of the cavity cone in the end plate, a variable sized opening but at the smallest resolution my computer will allow, 0.2% of the cavity large end radius.The simulation detected Force/Power ranging from 2/c to 3/c. That is two to three times the thrust of an ideal photon rocket. I think the cause of the force is evanescent waves escaping through the very narrow gap in the cavity baseIsn't that about on a par with Woodward's device? The worst performer of the bunch? I think 2x to 3x photon thrust is pretty much exactly the same number as the Woodward device, actually.
.....Total mass: 500mT40MWe available to propulsion, 10MWe left in reserve/used/rest lost to heatAssuming 70% propulsion system efficiency28MW RF available for driveBrady c TE mode @21.31 milliNewtons/kW performance propulsion system Thrust at 28MW RF @0.02131N/kw=596NAcceleration=0.00119200m/s^2 Velocity after 1 year=37.59km/s, 135327km/h, 84088.5mphDisplacement 3.96AU
should examine specific earth departure and return techniques. Unconstrained Q-Ship spiral trajectoriescould expose crewmembers to undesirable levels of radiation exposure due to the Van Allen radiation belts.