|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 9, 2016 5:28:35 GMT
Personally, I'd have picked Plymouth for a launch site. Anything goes wrong, and it lands in the Channel--or France. Win-win.  Personally I would have used the Eifel Tower as a launch platform, if it melts, we may hear the cheer in Dover... However, they were thinking more of one of the more remote Scottish islands. How the hell they would "Float" a rather large expensive rocket ship out in the north sea to get it there is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 25, 2016 19:47:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 26, 2016 4:10:30 GMT
hard to tell how true what they are saying is. they will say what they want us to hear, and they don't have a deep emotional need for that to be the unadulterated truth. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 27, 2016 16:54:47 GMT
hard to tell how true what they are saying is. they will say what they want us to hear, and they don't have a deep emotional need for that to be the unadulterated truth. My guess is China spoting all B/S. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 27, 2016 17:11:10 GMT
hard to tell how true what they are saying is. they will say what they want us to hear, and they don't have a deep emotional need for that to be the unadulterated truth. My guess is China spoting all B/S. Entirely possible. The first line of the quote, above, acknowledges this. What's interesting to me is that the article references a "proof of concept" test. Technically, to many engineers, this is different from a basic experiment. A basic experiment answers the question "Does this phenomenon exist, and if so, what does it do?" A proof of concept says "We've found that this phenomenon exists and are now trying to make it do something useful". It's the difference between figuring out that plutonium is radioactive and building a nuclear bomb. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but that choice of phrase is interesting. And, again, it's entirely possible it's all baloney. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 28, 2016 9:44:55 GMT
Proof of concept.
Now excuse me for nit-picking here, but, that can be done on earth, why the need to launch rockets?..
Unless they are trying to launch something they would rather we thought was something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 28, 2016 14:43:11 GMT
Proof of concept. Now excuse me for nit-picking here, but, that can be done on earth, why the need to launch rockets?.. Unless they are trying to launch something they would rather we thought was something else. Where a better place to simulate outer space than outer space. Isn't that the main reason that we built the ISS? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 28, 2016 14:56:28 GMT
to give the impression their progress is further along than ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 28, 2016 15:36:14 GMT
to give the impression their progress is further along than ours. Maybe it is. They can still put a man in space, we no longer can. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 28, 2016 16:00:06 GMT
to give the impression their progress is further along than ours. Maybe it is. They can still put a man in space, we no longer can. of course we can. we've turned it over to private enterprise, and we know private enterprise can do everything better and cheaper than the gub'mint. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 28, 2016 22:11:54 GMT
Maybe it is. They can still put a man in space, we no longer can. of course we can. we've turned it over to private enterprise, and we know private enterprise can do everything better and cheaper than the gub'mint. Then why are we still hiring Russian Uber drivers to get our people to and from the ISS? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 29, 2016 1:38:19 GMT
of course we can. we've turned it over to private enterprise, and we know private enterprise can do everything better and cheaper than the gub'mint. Then why are we still hiring Russian Uber drivers to get our people to and from the ISS? we have trade deficits in nearly everything else, why not space travel, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 29, 2016 17:38:30 GMT
The prof of concept "we" did on earth proves it works, the iss cant prove concept any more than earth, to deploy rockets to space prove it works any more that earth, they must have working model.
Has the rocket "moved" under impossible conditions, or is it all bluff.
I suspect bluff.....
To test in outer space MUST be a working model, because of the expense.
Therefore, they are either beyond "Concept", or, they are hiding the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2016 17:47:05 GMT
The major argument about the earthbound experiments was that heating caused errors interpreted as "thrust", as I understand it.
Even the vacuum chamber test had its issues, as some were assuming outgassing due to uneven heating, if I remember right.
The ultimate test must always be in genuine microgravity. If it moves independent of a test bench without expelling reaction mass, it's real. If it keeps it up longer or with greater force than outgassing could explain, they've got something that could be used (at the very least) to extend the life of satellites via repositioning.
Of course, it might be some interaction with the Earth's magnetic field...
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 29, 2016 18:42:02 GMT
Of course, it might be some interaction with the Earth's magnetic field... That's a thought. I have a Mova Globe that continually rotates using the Earth's magnetic field as the stator poles of the motor. But if that's the case, I'm sure NASA would have figured that out.  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 30, 2016 9:24:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 30, 2016 9:27:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 30, 2016 9:37:29 GMT
Basically, the globe is a sphere inside a sphere.
A strong magnet inside the inner sphere acts like a compass needle--always pointing to the north pole. This is the part that uses the Earth's magnetic field.
A photovoltaic powered motor rotates the inner sphere, using the unmoving magnet to "push" against. The outer sphere never moves; a thin layer of liquid separates the outer and inner spheres.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 30, 2016 14:39:23 GMT
Basically, the globe is a sphere inside a sphere. A strong magnet inside the inner sphere acts like a compass needle--always pointing to the north pole. This is the part that uses the Earth's magnetic field. A photovoltaic powered motor rotates the inner sphere, using the unmoving magnet to "push" against. The outer sphere never moves; a thin layer of liquid separates the outer and inner spheres. so it isn't using the field as a power source - it uses the sun for that. it uses the field as a fixed point to push against. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 30, 2016 14:45:02 GMT
Correct, the energy to power it comes from sunlight or artificial light. But the connection to the "impossible engine" could be that a magnetic field generated by the microwaves may be pushing against the earths magnetic field and that is what causes the "impossible engine" to move.
|
|
