Jim - 11/5/2008 4:00 PM$$$$$
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008 9:35 AMQuoteJim - 11/5/2008 4:00 PM$$$$$Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?
Tim S - 11/5/2008 5:44 PMQuotePeacekeeper - 11/5/2008 9:35 AMQuoteJim - 11/5/2008 4:00 PM$$$$$Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?No, not for side projects on pseudo-science. It's been spent on real vehicles and real science.
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008 12:45 PMSome day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!
meiza - 11/5/2008 11:22 PM"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008 1:30 AMThen what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive Can it replace today's rockets?
Disssident - 17/5/2008 10:42 AMQuoteJim - 11/5/2008 4:00 PM$$$$$How much?
hmh33 - 13/5/2008 6:30 AMQuotePeacekeeper - 12/5/2008 1:30 AMThen what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive Can it replace today's rockets?No, because it is fake science.
Nathan - 17/5/2008 4:03 PMEM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.