NASA validates "WTF - Impossible" space drive. Interesting...UPDATED - 8/14/2017

Hardly?

Is this the point where I ask you if you want me to post a couple and then you say yes and then I do and then you change the subject?

Please let me know if you would like to proceed with the scenario above.

Wait, you're really pulling that card? You've been a gentleman the whole time? Ha!
Please,answer the question above.

What makes you unsure that it is impossible,that there is a spraying campaign ongoing? C'mon, you just alluded to your doubt. Go on.

It is not impossible. The evidence just happens to show otherwise. This isn't a Chemtrail thread however.

So are you going to show me where I was calling folks ignorant and stupid? Again, we both know the answer to that don't we?

Are you still interested in seeing "multiple" studies? Again, we both know the answer to that.

I see a pattern here...

I guess it's a chemtrail thread now. I distinctly remember you piling-on, on multiple threads. But no matter. You're holier-than-thou.
Post whatever multiple studies you have. You have yet to claim what about. Do it. Will they prove anything either way? No.
Rock on, my respected space brother. May your experimental travels be free from spontaneous implosion.

I guess it's a chemtrail thread now. I distinctly remember you piling-on, on multiple threads. But no matter. You're holier-than-thou.
Post whatever multiple studies you have. You have yet to claim what about. Do it. Will they prove anything either way? No.
Rock on, my respected space brother. May your experimental travels be free from spontaneous implosion.

Please note that there are no videos or music to go along with these papers….only citations, protocols and such. (they are meant to be objective and you read them)

[link to ntrs.nasa.gov]

[link to www.emdrive.com]

I've posted nothing but words, tyro, they will suffice. Tell me what you know about Patrick Minnis, and his studies in the mid 90s. Was he the first to attribute supposed persistent contrails to jet engine emissions? Do you know?. Can you recall?

Please note that there are no videos or music to go along with these papers….only citations, protocols and such. (they are meant to be objective and you read them)

[link to ntrs.nasa.gov]

[link to www.emdrive.com]

Here's how we really have been zooming around in space!!!


Thread: Reverse-engineered alien propulsion technology (video)

Fake trip to Mars imminent.

You cant. Need a link?

Gmigriff, due respect, but you could start your own thread about chemtrails rather than posting in this one. Appreciated.

Gmigriff, due respect, but you could start your own thread about chemtrails rather than posting in this one. Appreciated.

Dude, sweet find! If this is true, this completely changes everything in spaceflight. A propellant-less thruster, this would nearly render the tsiolkovsky rocket equation pointless for all future spaceflight (except perhaps for getting into orbit initially). 720 mN is amazing if true, the ion engine on the Dawn spacecraft only produces 90 mN, and even an ion engine must expend fuel (albeit with very high isp). Not as high thrust as Vasimr, but still much better than ion. Buzz Aldrin's idea of not coming back from a trip to Mars to make it more feasible? Fuck that, you suddenly don't need to expend fuel to break Martian orbit and return to earth. This changes the entire paradigm of spaceflight, if it really does pan out. You could load a bunch of these up on your manned spacecraft and use as much payload fraction for life support and supplies as you please without having to worry about what it will do to your delta-V budget - you don't have a delta-V budget, you have unlimited delta-V as long as you have power.

The one concern I have is that in the NASA test they report much lower thrust, 50mN, similar to ion engines (perhaps due to test article differences/power levels?) and even their "null" test article produced thrust. That sends a red flag up in my mind that it could be a spurious detection of thrust that isn't really there due to some sort of interference with the test equipment, but I don't know how. I just don't want to get my hopes up over nothing, but I'm going to be seeing a former astronaut this weekend and I will definitely ask him if he knows anything about this.
[link to ntrs.nasa.gov]

Sorry Astro, I custom highlighted the raw tiff files of the actual tests are there was no actually verifiable thrust.

Lack of scientific principles and failure to be even remotely rational is what leads so many people astray. You really should spend some time to learn how science actually works. Null tests generating thrust?

even their "null" test article produced thrust. That sends a red flag up in my mind that it could be a spurious detection of thrust that isn't really there

No fuel required for a propulsion system? LOL, read up on a guy named Newton.

You're not making sense. Let go the fantastical thoughts, you'll be better for it, both on the Internet, and off. Just breathe.

This story is now headlining on space.com

[link to www.space.com]