The moon in 4 hours...
-
'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours [^] Where can I buy a ticket? Alpha Centauri in 100 years? Well, probably won't make it there without some form of stasis/hibernation but I'd give it a go!
-
'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours [^] Where can I buy a ticket? Alpha Centauri in 100 years? Well, probably won't make it there without some form of stasis/hibernation but I'd give it a go!
I'll believe it when I see the hardware actually leave low Earth orbit and go past the Moon in 4 hours, using no other propulsion system. (I'm making it easy for you; you don't have to take off from Earth or land on the Moon.)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours [^] Where can I buy a ticket? Alpha Centauri in 100 years? Well, probably won't make it there without some form of stasis/hibernation but I'd give it a go!
To quote the article "It produces thrust by using solar power to generate multiple microwaves that move back and forth in an enclosed chamber." - the sad part is that having read that I am still not surprised that some people believe it will produce thrust. Sigh :sigh:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
To quote the article "It produces thrust by using solar power to generate multiple microwaves that move back and forth in an enclosed chamber." - the sad part is that having read that I am still not surprised that some people believe it will produce thrust. Sigh :sigh:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
the sad part is that having read that I am still not surprised that some people believe it will produce thrust.
There is some serious research going on with this; may come to nothing but the geeks who work in this area seem impressed enough to do that research and see if the idea has any merit. When they come back and cry foul, then I'll dismiss it - until then... why not? They admit they're not sure why it works.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
the sad part is that having read that I am still not surprised that some people believe it will produce thrust.
There is some serious research going on with this; may come to nothing but the geeks who work in this area seem impressed enough to do that research and see if the idea has any merit. When they come back and cry foul, then I'll dismiss it - until then... why not? They admit they're not sure why it works.
The one thing that all these machines, that defy the current laws physics, appear to have in common is that: 1 - the machines no longer exist. 2 - the inventor has died or refuses to release the secret. 3 - the government has bought the patent and destroyed all evidence. When I see the science proving this then I will be convinced(independent blind tests at the very least with thorough statistical analysis) - until then I am deeply sceptical.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
The one thing that all these machines, that defy the current laws physics, appear to have in common is that: 1 - the machines no longer exist. 2 - the inventor has died or refuses to release the secret. 3 - the government has bought the patent and destroyed all evidence. When I see the science proving this then I will be convinced(independent blind tests at the very least with thorough statistical analysis) - until then I am deeply sceptical.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive [^] The EmDrive [^] I think the fact that NASA are conducting serious tests is evidence that, at the very least, some serious scientists are convinced enough to explore it further.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
the sad part is that having read that I am still not surprised that some people believe it will produce thrust.
There is some serious research going on with this; may come to nothing but the geeks who work in this area seem impressed enough to do that research and see if the idea has any merit. When they come back and cry foul, then I'll dismiss it - until then... why not? They admit they're not sure why it works.
I'm with you - this is how big leaps forward are made. Why just dismiss it without looking deeper? Sometimes I think we're in probably the most unambitious, cynical phase mankind has ever seen. People seem to prefer bickering over nothing on Facebook than trying to do something nobody has done before. X| Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
The one thing that all these machines, that defy the current laws physics, appear to have in common is that: 1 - the machines no longer exist. 2 - the inventor has died or refuses to release the secret. 3 - the government has bought the patent and destroyed all evidence. When I see the science proving this then I will be convinced(independent blind tests at the very least with thorough statistical analysis) - until then I am deeply sceptical.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Minor correction:
GuyThiebaut wrote:
that defy the current laws physics as far as we understand them
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
+5 :thumbsup:
Jeremy Falcon
-
I'm with you - this is how big leaps forward are made. Why just dismiss it without looking deeper? Sometimes I think we're in probably the most unambitious, cynical phase mankind has ever seen. People seem to prefer bickering over nothing on Facebook than trying to do something nobody has done before. X| Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
+5 :thumbsup:
Jeremy Falcon
-
I'm with you - this is how big leaps forward are made. Why just dismiss it without looking deeper? Sometimes I think we're in probably the most unambitious, cynical phase mankind has ever seen. People seem to prefer bickering over nothing on Facebook than trying to do something nobody has done before. X| Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
The Moon was reached by applying well-known engineering principles in a disciplined manner, not by wishing it so. Extraordinary claims such as the EM drive require extraordinary proof. While I would not claim that all physical laws have been discovered (The eminent English physicist Lord Kelvin did so at the end of the 19th century, just before Quantum Mechanics and Relativity were discovered), I am also hesitant to accept the discovery of a new phenomenon without extraordinary proof. Quite a few supposed discoveries of the last hundred years have turned out to be either errors (cold fusion, faster-than-light neutrinos) or deliberate frauds (all "psi" phenomena).
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Minor correction:
GuyThiebaut wrote:
that defy the current laws physics as far as we understand them
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
That is how the scientific method works. The reason the scientific method is so brilliant is that it constantly outdoes itself with better and more refined theories(theory means something very different in science than its common usage - Google it if you are unfamiliar with the scientific definition of the word 'theory'). It's why from the discovery of penicillin a whole range of other antibiotics were developed some of which have saved my life. It's how you are able to use a computer and post on the internet. Science makes no claims to absolute irrefutable truths outside of what it observes. So when it is said "as far as we understand them" this should be applauded because it shows that science is constantly in a state of new discovery.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive [^] The EmDrive [^] I think the fact that NASA are conducting serious tests is evidence that, at the very least, some serious scientists are convinced enough to explore it further.
Thanks. Looks interesting, I eagerly await peer reviewed papers in scientific journals showing this to be functional.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I'll believe it when I see the hardware actually leave low Earth orbit and go past the Moon in 4 hours, using no other propulsion system. (I'm making it easy for you; you don't have to take off from Earth or land on the Moon.)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Exactly! :laugh: On a side note, I would rather see it. And yesterday please!
All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
The Moon was reached by applying well-known engineering principles in a disciplined manner, not by wishing it so. Extraordinary claims such as the EM drive require extraordinary proof. While I would not claim that all physical laws have been discovered (The eminent English physicist Lord Kelvin did so at the end of the 19th century, just before Quantum Mechanics and Relativity were discovered), I am also hesitant to accept the discovery of a new phenomenon without extraordinary proof. Quite a few supposed discoveries of the last hundred years have turned out to be either errors (cold fusion, faster-than-light neutrinos) or deliberate frauds (all "psi" phenomena).
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Actually people had dreamed about going to the moon for centuries, long before it was possible to do so. Even on the first manned landing there were a lot of questions about whether it was possible - the key thing is that they tried anyway. Proof is critical, but you don't get proof without trying.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Actually people had dreamed about going to the moon for centuries, long before it was possible to do so. Even on the first manned landing there were a lot of questions about whether it was possible - the key thing is that they tried anyway. Proof is critical, but you don't get proof without trying.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
A dream is very different from an engineering project. When NASA started Project Apollo, there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible. Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again. The big problem with Project Apollo was converting these theoretical requirements to hardware, which must work in a totally new environment.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Exactly! :laugh: On a side note, I would rather see it. And yesterday please!
All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Me too. If it works (a big if, at present), it would be the biggest advance in space exploration since the Chinese invented rockets.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours [^] Where can I buy a ticket? Alpha Centauri in 100 years? Well, probably won't make it there without some form of stasis/hibernation but I'd give it a go!
I would love this to be true. Sadly it does not look like it is: http://io9.com/no-german-scientists-have-not-confirmed-the-impossibl-1720573809[^] They are bouncing microwaves around in a sealed chamber. It does not matter what shape that chamber is the net effect is zero thrust, so I would be staggered if this does actually work.
-
A dream is very different from an engineering project. When NASA started Project Apollo, there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible. Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again. The big problem with Project Apollo was converting these theoretical requirements to hardware, which must work in a totally new environment.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible
..apart from the fact that it had never been done before. There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive. http://www.space.com/26593-apollo-11-moon-landing-scariest-moments.html[^] http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html[^]
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again.
Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess. Like I said, it had never been done before, there was no template to follow. But the people then had an ambitious dream and gave it their best shot.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible
..apart from the fact that it had never been done before. There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive. http://www.space.com/26593-apollo-11-moon-landing-scariest-moments.html[^] http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html[^]
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again.
Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess. Like I said, it had never been done before, there was no template to follow. But the people then had an ambitious dream and gave it their best shot.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive.
I do not minimize the dangers involved in reaching the Moon. My point is that the solutions to these dangers were a matter of engineering, not scientific research. No new scientific principles were discovered in the attempt to reach the Moon (but many new facts were).
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess.
Orbital mechanics was a well-known subject in the 1960s, and had been since Isaac Newton published his theory of gravity in the late 17th century.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill