WOOOOOO!!!
I'm dairy factorying as hard as I possibly can!http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
QuoteNasa is a major player in space science, so when a team from the agency this week presents evidence that "impossible" microwave thrusters seem to work, something strange is definitely going on. Either the results are completely wrong, or Nasa has confirmed a major breakthrough in space propulsion.
British scientist Roger Shawyer has been trying to interest people in his EmDrive for some years through his company SPR Ltd. Shawyer claims the EmDrive converts electric power into thrust, without the need for any propellant by bouncing microwaves around in a closed container. He has built a number of demonstration systems, but critics reject his relativity-based theory and insist that, according to the law of conservation of momentum, it cannot work.
According to good scientific practice, an independent third party needed to replicate Shawyer's results. As Wired.co.uk reported, this happened last year when a Chinese team built its own EmDrive and confirmed that it produced 720 mN (about 72 grams) of thrust, enough for a practical satellite thruster. Such a thruster could be powered by solar electricity, eliminating the need for the supply of propellant that occupies up to half the launch mass of many satellites. The Chinese work attracted little attention; it seems that nobody in the West believed in it.
However, a US scientist, Guido Fetta, has built his own propellant-less microwave thruster, and managed to persuade Nasa to test it out. The test results were presented on July 30 at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio. Astonishingly enough, they are positive.
The Nasa team based at the Johnson Space Centre gave its paper the title "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF [radio frequency] Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum". The five researchers spent six days setting up test equipment followed by two days of experiments with various configurations. These tests included using a "null drive" similar to the live version but modified so it would not work, and using a device which would produce the same load on the apparatus to establish whether the effect might be produced by some effect unrelated to the actual drive. They also turned the drive around the other way to check whether that had any effect.
Back in the 90s, Nasa tested what was claimed to be an antigravity device based on spinning superconducting discs. That was reported to give good test results, until researchers realised that interference from the device was affecting their measuring instruments. They have probably learned a lot since then.
The torsion balance they used to test the thrust was sensitive enough to detect a thrust of less than ten micronewtons, but the drive actually produced 30 to 50 micronewtons -- less than a thousandth of the Chinese results, but emphatically a positive result, in spite of the law of conservation of momentum:
"Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."
This last line implies that the drive may work by pushing against the ghostly cloud of particles and anti-particles that are constantly popping into being and disappearing again in empty space. But the Nasa team has avoided trying to explain its results in favour of simply reporting what it found: "This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster, but instead will describe the test integration, test operations, and the results obtained from the test campaign."
The drive's inventor, Guido Fetta calls it the "Cannae Drive", which he explains as a reference to the Battle of Cannae in which Hannibal decisively defeated a much stronger Roman army: you're at your best when you are in a tight corner. However, it's hard not to suspect that Star Trek's Engineer Scott -- "I cannae change the laws of physics" -- might also be an influence. (It was formerly known as the Q-Drive.)
Fetta also presented a paper at AIAA on his drive, "Numerical and Experimental Results for a Novel Propulsion Technology Requiring no On-Board Propellant". His underlying theory is very different to that of the EmDrive, but like Shawyer he has spent years trying to persuade sceptics simply to look at it. He seems to have succeeded at last.
Shawyer himself, who sent test examples of the EmDrive to the US in 2009, sees the similarity between the two.
"From what I understand of the Nasa and Cannae work -- their RF thruster actually operates along similar lines to EmDrive, except that the asymmetric force derives from a reduced reflection coefficient at one end plate," he says. He believes the design accounts for the Cannae Drive's comparatively low thrust: "Of course this degrades the Q and hence the specific thrust that can be obtained."
Fetta is working on a number of projects which he is not able to discuss at present, and Nasa's PR team was not able to get any comments from the research team. However, it's fair to assume that the results will be picked over very closely indeed, like CERN's anomalous faster-than-light neutrinos. The neutrino issue was cleared up fairly quickly, but given that this appears to be at least the third independent propellant-less thruster to work in tests, the anomalous thrust may prove much harder to explain away.
A working microwave thruster would radically cut the cost of satellites and space stations and extend their working life, drive deep-space missions, and take astronauts to Mars in weeks rather than months. In hindsight, it may turn out to be another great British invention that someone else turned into a success.
That's pretty cool.
Even cooler!
http://www.cnet.com/news/this-man-made-breathing-leaf-is-an-oxygen-factory-for-space-travel/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/this-man-made-breathing-leaf-is-an-oxygen-factory-for-space-travel/)
QuoteMan-made 'breathing' leaf is an oxygen factory for space travel
An artificial leaf converts water and light to oxygen, and that's good news for road-tripping to places beyond Earth.
by Eric Mack
@ericcmack
July 29, 2014 10:47 AM PDT
One of the persistent challenges of manned space exploration is that pesky lack of oxygen throughout much of the universe. Here on Earth, trees and other plant life do us a real solid by taking in our bad breath and changing it back to clean, sweet O2.
So what if we could take those biological oxygen factories into space with us, but without all the land, sun, water, soil, and gravity that forests tend to require? This is the point where NASA and Elon Musk should probably start paying attention.
Royal College of Art graduate Julian Melchiorri has created the first man-made, biologically functional leaf that takes in carbon dioxide, water, and light and releases oxygen. The leaf consists of chloroplasts -- the part of a plant cell where photosynthesis happens -- suspended in body made of silk protein.
"This material has an amazing property of stabilizing (the chloroplast) organelles," Melchiorri says in the video below. "As an outcome I have the first photosynthetic material that is living and breathing as a leaf does."
In addition to its potential value to space travel, Melchiorri also imagines the technology literally providing a breath of fresh air to indoor and outdoor spaces here on Earth. The facades of buildings and lampshades could be made to exhale fresh air with just a thin coating of the leaf material.
But perhaps best of all, a man-made breathing leaf could be the key to not just space travel but space colonization. No need to figure out how to till that dry, red Martian dirt to get some nice leafy trees to grow; we could just slap them on the inside of the colony's dome and puff away.
Brb, putting leaves in the microwave.
Tim: Relax.
I find his enthusiasm endearing. :hug:
G.
The most important question is: hoverboards?
I love this stuff, some amazing possible breakthroughs! :)
Beam me up!
Quote from: Grallon on August 01, 2014, 06:27:26 AM
I find his enthusiasm endearing. :hug:
G.
Makes me want to see it all come crashing down.
Or Proxmired.
In your face Malthus! Space colonies are soon going to be a reality.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 01, 2014, 12:50:07 AM
But perhaps best of all, a man-made breathing leaf could be the key to not just space travel but space colonization. No need to figure out how to till that dry, red Martian dirt to get some nice leafy trees to grow; we could just slap them on the inside of the colony's dome and puff away.
Yeah, except this has a shelf life, since it doesn't reproduce the way natural plant life does. Consequently, you're still talking finite tanks of material to produce these, and nobody's indicated their actual O2 yield, so we can't assume their O2 yield would be greater than an equivalent volume of tanked O2.
:nelson: @ Tim
Why the fuck are people using alternate fonts?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2014, 09:03:09 AM
Or Proxmired.
The Chinese and commercial companies are interested, so that wouldn't matter. If it works it'll be made. :)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 01, 2014, 10:11:38 AM
Yeah, except this has a shelf life, since it doesn't reproduce the way natural plant life does. Consequently, you're still talking finite tanks of material to produce these, and nobody's indicated their actual O2 yield, so we can't assume their O2 yield would be greater than an equivalent volume of tanked O2.
Actually, plants don't reproduce in space, and need nutrients and lots of other finite resources, so we are always talking about finite amounts of oxygen produced per volume/weight devoted to the task. Efficiency is the measuring stick here, not reproduction.
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2014, 07:43:44 PM
Actually, plants don't reproduce in space, and need nutrients and lots of other finite resources, so we are always talking about finite amounts of oxygen produced per volume/weight devoted to the task. Efficiency is the measuring stick here, not reproduction.
Sigh. Somebody didn't read my post, where I took great pains to quote *specifically* the colonization use case. I'm talking about using this as a long-term alternative to terraforming/hydroponics/other agricultural methods of plant production.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 01, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2014, 07:43:44 PM
Actually, plants don't reproduce in space, and need nutrients and lots of other finite resources, so we are always talking about finite amounts of oxygen produced per volume/weight devoted to the task. Efficiency is the measuring stick here, not reproduction.
Sigh. Somebody didn't read my post, where I took great pains to quote *specifically* the colonization use case. I'm talking about using this as a long-term alternative to terraforming/hydroponics/other agricultural methods of plant production.
*Sigh* Someone doesn't understand the concept of the oxygen cycle, where you have to add to the system to keep it going, no matter what system you are using. Even in *specifically* the colonization case, you have to add fertilizers (in the case of Mars, for instance, you will have to ship in all of the phosphorous you need, as Mars almost completely lacks it) to plants to allow them to convert CO2 to oxygen. So, again, you are looking at efficiency, not reproduction, as your guide.
*sigh* You may need to grow plants for all or part of your food supply, but the plants that efficiently produce food are not necessarily the plants that efficiently produce oxygen. The "artificial leaf" gives you another arrow in the quiver.
*Sigh* I just oversaw in the spring term an independent study project by three of my students on the colonization of Mars, and I can tell you that this "artificial leaf" concept would have made a significant difference.
*sigh*
Quote from: Caliga on August 02, 2014, 06:40:47 AM
*sigh*
It's the sigh of the tiger
It's the yawn of the fight
Giving up to the strawman of our rival
And the internet lawyer
Talks his crap in the night
And he's posting it all with the sigh of the tiger
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2014, 05:25:39 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 01, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2014, 07:43:44 PM
Actually, plants don't reproduce in space, and need nutrients and lots of other finite resources, so we are always talking about finite amounts of oxygen produced per volume/weight devoted to the task. Efficiency is the measuring stick here, not reproduction.
Sigh. Somebody didn't read my post, where I took great pains to quote *specifically* the colonization use case. I'm talking about using this as a long-term alternative to terraforming/hydroponics/other agricultural methods of plant production.
*Sigh* Someone doesn't understand the concept of the oxygen cycle, where you have to add to the system to keep it going, no matter what system you are using. Even in *specifically* the colonization case, you have to add fertilizers (in the case of Mars, for instance, you will have to ship in all of the phosphorous you need, as Mars almost completely lacks it) to plants to allow them to convert CO2 to oxygen. So, again, you are looking at efficiency, not reproduction, as your guide.
*sigh* You may need to grow plants for all or part of your food supply, but the plants that efficiently produce food are not necessarily the plants that efficiently produce oxygen. The "artificial leaf" gives you another arrow in the quiver.
*Sigh* I just oversaw in the spring term an independent study project by three of my students on the colonization of Mars, and I can tell you that this "artificial leaf" concept would have made a significant difference.
Dude, you're so full of crap we should just send you to fix any fertilizer problems.
Again, this doesn't replace an agricultural solution because the raw materials/assets in an agricultural solution can be repurposed to serve multiple uses. Livestock would be renewable sources of both fertilizer and food. This is why for a colony's longevity, I'll back the idea that terraforming > sealed system agriculture > synthetics all day, every day.
Oh, by the way, since you opened the door by talking about your students working on Mars colonization projects, what kind of project are we talking? Classroom thought exercise? School science week? Or has their stuff actually been looked over as part of a massive student study by JPL/NASA like mine was? Go take your "internet lawyer" ad hom and grow a tree to suck up some of the CO2 you're wasting.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 02, 2014, 07:21:33 AM
Dude, you're so full of crap we should just send you to fix any fertilizer problems.
Again, this doesn't replace an agricultural solution because the raw materials/assets in an agricultural solution can be repurposed to serve multiple uses. Livestock would be renewable sources of both fertilizer and food. This is why for a colony's longevity, I'll back the idea that terraforming > sealed system agriculture > synthetics all day, every day.
None of that has anything to do with the issue. The artificial leaf provides an additional, possibly more efficient, method of processing carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen. The argument that " this has a shelf life, since it doesn't reproduce the way natural plant life does" is meaningless, because plants don't reproduce unless they are provided with all kinds of additional materials, some of which won't be available on a colony (like phosphorous on Mars) unless imported. It is a matter of efficiency, not a matter of reproduction. It may well be that, since phosphorous is difficult to transport, plant growth in a Mars colony will be limited to foodstuffs, and that the artificial leaf will provide the extra capability needed for oxygen recycling.
QuoteOh, by the way, since you opened the door by talking about your students working on Mars colonization projects, what kind of project are we talking? Classroom thought exercise? School science week? Or has their stuff actually been looked over as part of a massive student study by JPL/NASA like mine was? Go take your "internet lawyer" ad hom and grow a tree to suck up some of the CO2 you're wasting.
We are talking about an independent study course by three students on the requirements for establishing and maintaining a permanent Mars colony. They were not part of some "massive student study." As far as who "looked over" their work, it was a friend of mine named Ellen Stofan who served as their mentor and evaluator. Go ahead and google the name. She won't be hard to find, since she is NASA's Chief Scientist. Guess what project she is, in fact, currently investigating? :lol:
As far as an "internet lawyer" "ad hom" is concerned, you might want to look up the meaning of ad hom (aka "ad hominem argument") before you misuse the term again. You might also want to reconsider your policy of stating legal mistruths with assurance.
With such a device, you destroy all life on earth on accident!
Quote from: grumbler on August 02, 2014, 07:00:06 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 02, 2014, 06:40:47 AM
*sigh*
It's the sigh of the tiger
It's the yawn of the fight
Giving up to the strawman of our rival
And the internet lawyer
Talks his crap in the night
And he's posting it all with the sigh of the tiger
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Internet debates: Described.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2014, 11:16:42 PM
With such a device, you destroy all life on earth on accident!
Que the misanthropic world-weary poster:
Would that be such a bad thing?
¿Que?
Quote from: Norgy on August 03, 2014, 04:28:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2014, 11:16:42 PM
With such a device, you destroy all life on earth on accident!
Que the misanthropic world-weary poster:
Would that be such a bad thing?
Depends if you have lived a full life with no regrets.
Basically a semi-empty one with a bag full of regrets. :unsure:
I am getting old enough that I have forgotten my regrets. I compensate by making new ones.
i'm not sure if i've ever felt regret :hmm:
maybe once when i was five
Quote from: Norgy on August 03, 2014, 10:01:58 AM
Basically a semi-empty one with a bag full of regrets. :unsure:
Then I suppose it's a bad thing.