Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space

Propellantless System For Satellites Will Get Tested In Space (universetoday.com) 299

Longtime Slashdot reader drwho writes: A new type of propulsion system which uses no propellant, but rather only electricity, will be tested in a satellite to be launched from June 10's Falcon 9 launch. The IVO Quantum Drive utilizes an alternative theory of inertia known as "Quantum Inertia' by its originator Prof. Mike McCullough of U. Plymouth, which seeks to reconcile General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Field Theory (QFT). If successful, this would herald in a new era not only in satellite technology but in space travel as a whole. See this article for more details.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Propellantless System For Satellites Will Get Tested In Space

Comments Filter:
  • GR + QFT (Score:2, Funny)

    by TwistedGreen ( 80055 )

    But does it have NFTs?

    • But does it have NFTs?

      Yes - the entire thing is an NFT. An NFT is something everyone knows really has no value but that they buy anyway in the hope that magically the price will go up and they can then sell their valueless URL to someone else for more money. This theory is one that everyone knows really does not work but that they buy into it because of what it would mean for space travel.

      Both are based on people's hope for the future overriding their common sense and understanding of today. That people are so hopeful for th

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @02:38AM (#63386881)

    Propellantless space propulsion systems, also known as reactionless drives, are theoretical propulsion systems that don't rely on the principle of action and reaction (Newton's third law) to generate thrust. These systems operate by interacting with the fabric of space-time itself, exploiting various physical phenomena such as the Casimir effect, the zero-point energy of the vacuum, and others.

    There are several proposed propellantless propulsion systems, each with its own unique mechanisms and principles. Here are a few examples:

    EmDrive: The EmDrive, or electromagnetic drive, uses microwaves to create a thrust without the need for a propellant. The theory behind the EmDrive is that the microwaves inside the device create a change in the local space-time curvature, producing a net thrust in a particular direction.

    Mach Effect Drive: The Mach Effect Drive (MED) is a propellantless propulsion system that uses a resonant cavity filled with a dielectric material to generate a force. The dielectric material is subjected to an oscillating electromagnetic field, creating a difference in the rest mass of the material. This change in mass generates a reactionless force, producing a thrust.

    Q-Thruster: The Q-Thruster, or quantum vacuum plasma thruster, exploits the quantum vacuum fluctuations that exist in space-time. The Q-Thruster works by creating a difference in the vacuum energy density on opposite sides of the device, producing a net force.

    It's important to note that while these propulsion systems have been proposed, they are still largely theoretical and have yet to be fully demonstrated or proven.

    • Don't forget the Helical Engine [nasa.gov], while being a thought experiment, does coin an awesome phrase, "Relativistic Momentum Transfer Model" to describe what is essentially a space rated synchotron

    • by gtall ( 79522 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @03:30AM (#63386921)

      Please stop posting ChatGPT garbage in an effort to get us to somehow accept its training data. We can read the literature ourselves before reading its demented take on anything.

    • by eth1 ( 94901 )

      "Reactionless" just means that it's pushing on something we can't see, can't understand, or haven't found yet.

      I seem to recall that the EMDrive was found to be reacting against the Earth's magnetic field, but that could still be useful for satellite station-keeping instead of finite fuel. In the end, it doesn't really matter as long as it works in practice, so long as you haven't accidentally invented aorist rods, or something.

    • by tragedy ( 27079 )

      Propellantless space propulsion systems, also known as reactionless drives, are theoretical propulsion systems that don't rely on the principle of action and reaction (Newton's third law) to generate thrust.

      Can the term not also refer to space propulsion systems that do things like, for example, push or pull the craft against the magnetic field of a planet?

    • As of 2021, mind you
  • by l810c ( 551591 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @03:29AM (#63386919)

    If it fails, scientists can rest easy that the laws of physics don’t need to be revised. If it succeeds, it will open the door to tremendous opportunities. Ultimately, it seems fair to say that everyone (pro or con) is excited to see what comes of it!

    • Ultimately, it seems fair to say that everyone (pro or con) is excited to see what comes of it!

      Doesn't seem all that fair to me. I'm pretty sure most people with some background in physics are pretty relaxed about this, if they have bothered to take any note at all beyond shrugging it off as the latest miracle drive.

      • > the latest miracle drive

        One rises to the level of /. consciousness every couple of years.

        Remember that one that was basically a penny on top of a stack of piezos?

        Hell, at least that one had experimental evidence.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Sorry, but it's not clear to me that it won't work...or that it will.
        The arguments that it will work rely on math that I can't follow, but this doesn't prove that it's wrong.

        FWIW, I give this a low probability, but think it's worth testing as long as the tests are cheap enough. SpaceX has reduced the launch costs enough that it's probably cheap enough.

        As for respected scientists who dismiss it out of hand, I remember Clarke's first and second laws.

        • The arguments that it will work rely on math that I can't follow"

          No different for me, I'm only a humble engineer. But by virtue of that I have at least an understanding of how the world of scientific discovery operates, and what the odds are of physics -or our entire understanding how the world works- actually being upended here, or at least of it having to be substantially shaken in its very fundamentals. They're low; very, very low. That's not to say that their attempt at a verification in space has no merit- quite the contrary, the more data the better, as long as the

    • If it fails, scientists can rest easy that the laws of physics donâ(TM)t need to be revised. If it succeeds, it will open the door to tremendous opportunities. Ultimately, it seems fair to say that everyone (pro or con) is excited to see what comes of it!

      You could say exactly the same about a claimed perpetual motion machine too. No one's excited about the latest perpetual motion machine because we all know they're bullshit.

      Oh and speaking of perpetual motion: given a working reactionless thruster, you

      • You could say exactly the same about a claimed perpetual motion machine too. No one's excited about the latest perpetual motion machine because we all know they're bullshit.

        Not (sure whether they are) the same thing.

        The physics around perpetual motion machines -- phaenomenological thermodynamics -- is essentially settled.

        The physics around spacetime, general relativity and quantum mechanics, is not. There are many things we don't understand. Yes, there are many theories, but we don't know where experiments will take us. Come to think of it, theories of "dark matter" and "dark energy" sound pretty egregious, and the fact that details need to be adjusted every time there is a ne

        • *care to explain how?

        • > The physics around spacetime... ... is not the issue here. The issue here is conservation of momentum.

          We know beyond any shadow of a doubt, how did you put it, ah yes, it "is essentially settled", that momentum is conserved. It is conserved to the limit of our most fiendish experiments (I believe 10^26 currently) and is also conserved to our ability to explore the universe (it's clearly conserved in the most distance quasars). It is also the basic expectation given the universe is a sphere, to say othe

          • We know beyond any shadow of a doubt, [...] that momentum is conserved.

            The very definition of momentum depends on the definition of inertial mass, and that's where the physics this guy proposes attacks. In a way, it's because momentum is conserved that he gets his propellant-less acceleration: the lighter (in terms of inertia) the payload becomes, the faster it goes, in order to keep the momentum conserved.

            How is it that the object continues to gain momentum, essentially for free?

            As far as I understand, doesn't necessarily gain momentum, it gains speed by manipulating inertia.

            (But don't fact check me on that, it's how I understand the explanations; I

          • How is it that the object continues to gain momentum, essentially for free? How does it manage to violate, or at least *appear* to violate, one of the longest understood and best measured-to-be-true conservation rules that underlies all of physics?

            I await your explanation.

            Do you have a time machine where you went into the future and came back to tell us that the experiment worked? Seems that you are the one who can explain how this experiment was a total success.

          • by tragedy ( 27079 )

            So, how does this device violate that, or in the opposite case, conserve it? How is it that the object continues to gain momentum, essentially for free?

            Don't get me wrong - I'm extremely skeptical about this experiment - but how is it gaining momentum "for free" since it still requires energy to move it? This may still be violating the laws of physics, but I don't quite see how it's the same as perpetual motion.

          • So, how does this device violate that, or in the opposite case, conserve it? How is it that the object continues to gain momentum, essentially for free? How does it manage to violate, or at least *appear* to violate, one of the longest understood and best measured-to-be-true conservation rules that underlies all of physics?

            What specifically is the basis of conservation law based objections? They are explicitly not claiming the device is reactionless so what is the issue?

            Is there a conservation law that demands you can't do any better than a photon rocket? After all exactly that has been demonstrated in the real world by simply bouncing photons back and forth between two mirrors.

        • Come to think of it, theories of "dark matter" and "dark energy" sound pretty egregious, and the fact that details need to be adjusted every time there is a new observation concerning those is everything but trust inducing.

          As a physicist, you know that they are just placeholders until we figure out what the heck is actually happening.

        • by tragedy ( 27079 )

          The physics around perpetual motion machines -- phaenomenological thermodynamics -- is essentially settled.

          Curious, how do time crystals fit into that?

      • Oh and speaking of perpetual motion: given a working reactionless thruster, you can create a perpetual motion machine. The former implies the latter, so claims of a reactionless thruster are mathematically no different from claims of perpetual motion. So... no, not excited.

        Propellantless != reactionless.

    • by Entrope ( 68843 )

      I, for one, am not excited to see what comes out of this waste of resources and time. Would you believe that someone preparing to launch their new alchemy machine into orbit was exciting?

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        That would be very interesting. The current alchemy machines are much too heavy to launch. (You didn't think transmuting elements was still impossible did you?)

        • > The current alchemy machines are much too heavy to launch.

          Are you referring to the fact that Newton was an Alchemist?

          All he did is invent calculus and physics, so we could call rockets alchemy machines ... I guess.

          I assume you're not upset about some guy who's testing out tweaks to Newton's laws. Newton wouldn't mind the experiment.

      • by tragedy ( 27079 )

        Would you believe that someone preparing to launch their new alchemy machine into orbit was exciting?

        Alchemy machine? You mean a nuclear reactor?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @05:41AM (#63387053) Homepage Journal

      Will this be a definitive test though?

      The issue with their tests on Earth was that the vacuum was not perfect and so reaction with gasses in it could not be ruled out. Space isn't a perfect vacuum either, especially not Earth orbit where most satellites are.

      I have a feeling that whatever the results are, there will be too many potential alternative explanations to say definitively if it works as advertised or not.

      • What is being tested is an engine. If it generates thrust without using propellant, who cares if it proves the theory or something else?

        But, let me say that my expectations are that it will not work, but there will be quite a few ad-hoc excuses for it.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          A drive that requires mass to be ejected from the spacecraft is much less interesting than one that only needs energy to work.

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @04:24AM (#63386971)

    but it is in fact possible to make a propellant-less satellite without violating the laws of physics. The keyword here is satellite - and specifically Earth's satellite.

    You need propellant to create a reaction force if you have nothing to push against. Around the Earth, you can use the Earth's magnetic field to "push against the Earth" so-to-speak.

    In fact, it's so not new that satellites already use this principle, and have been for a long time. It's called a Magnetic torquer [wikipedia.org]. It's used to control a satellite's attitude without propellant, but there's no reason why it couldn't be used for linear propulsion.

    • This is daft: you may as well call wheels on a car "propellantless thrusters" then.

      This is about a thruster without reaction mass. The Earth definitely qualifies as a reaction mass.

      • OK but the spacecraft not having to carry the mass onboard (to throw it offboard) is a big difference.
      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Wheels on a car are propellantless thrusters.

      • Umm...wheels on a car ARE propellantless thrusters. They push you forward using friction instead of by ejecting reaction mass. Pushing off of Earth's magnetic field similarly doesn't use propellant, which is great because reaction mass dramatically increases the cost of spacecraft launch and maneuvering.

        Airplanes are a different story though. Airplane engines effectively use air as reaction mass that they opportunistically gather and eject on the fly. Heck, even their exhaust contributes a bit there.

        I
    • You forgot the simplest and most ubiquitous mass less propulsion drive there is, light. All light including radio waves, while having no mass, carry momentum. It’s a very small thrust and impractical to use as a drive from an efficiency standpoint but it is real and has been measured and verified countless times.
      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Well, since E = mc^2 that's not a massless propulsion system. It's just that there isn't vey *much* mass. It's using p = mv, where v == c and m == E/c^2.

        OTOH, that *is* a perfectly valid approach. But stay out of the exhaust. The problem with the photon drive is that it consumes a lot of energy and there are heat losses. At currently reasonable levels of power a light sail is probably a better approach.

        That said, if the proposed approach works, we could have a real reactionless drive. It's true that i

    • but it is in fact possible to make a propellant-less satellite without violating the laws of physics. The keyword here is satellite - and specifically Earth's satellite.

      Even out in deep space, you can easily build a propellant-less EM drive system if you have power: just shoot a laser out of the back of your spacecraft and you will have thrust. The problem is that this only generates a tiny amount of thrust.

  • by Jedi Holocron ( 225191 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @05:50AM (#63387057) Homepage Journal

    This is the the only way to ensure to both fails and succeeds.

    • by Thud457 ( 234763 )
      Directions unclear, what is the "it" that I should put in a box?

      Also, another poster above mentioned homepathy - I have several Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs that I would like to invest in your homepathic star-dirve, please contact me.
  • It's not going to work. That being said, it's great that space launch is accessible enough that even whacky, doomed to fail ideas can be tested. Because if spaceflight has to be a sure thing and failure is unaffordable, then not only scammy laughing stocks will be excluded, but also genuine advancements will be retarded from getting flight proven and advancing technological frontiers.
    • I agree. If we can have spaceflight accessible enough to test out low probability, bat-crap crazy ideas on the regular then eventually one of those out there ideas will pay off. Not this one, probably not the next 100 or so, but eventually. And that's where science gets REALLY exciting.
  • This will be the first perpetual motion machine in space! Normally perpetual motion machines exist only in patent filings and in almost functional condition in the back yards of crackpots.

  • A spacecraft is a terrible way to test this. Expensive, lots of external forces (light pressure, solar wind, earth's magnetic field, upper atmosphere drag, variations in local gravity etc). Its possible to look for extremely small forces in a well designed laboratory experiment. The one advantage of a space test is that it will be easy to claim success by not properly accounting for some of those external forces, and then ask for more funding.

    The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass has been
  • Which it will, although I'd love it to actually work.

  • Just a big wire loop lets satellites use the Earth's magnetic field to adjust their orbits. Ion drives are only need for vehicles leaving the Earth's magnetic field. I wonder how far away from the Sun the Sun's magnetic field would be useful...
  • The earth's got a magnetic field. You can use electricity to push against it without sending out any propellant. Googling yields https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.... [aiaa.org] . The earth's magnetic field is pretty weak so this needs a lot of space. They were using km-long tethers. I didn't read this quantum-stuff article and suspect it's not supposed to be this. I'm guessing it either doesn't work or is magnetic propulsion in disguise. Solar sails are another real propellantless propulsion, working off sunlight a

  • The website has a lot of pictures that mean nothing, a lot of "forward looking statements" presented as if they are past accomplishments, and a bunch of talk that says nothing in particular.

    It would sure be interesting if a disinterested 3rd party consisting of actual physicists found that it works, but I won't be holding my breath.

    Meanwhile, there are a number of proposals for propellant-less satellite thrusters reacting against Earth's magnetic field and requiring no new physics. Those still leave enginee

  • Kirk: Scotty, I need propulsion NOW.

    Engineer: I'm changin' the batteries right now sir. There's some rabbit with a drum gettin' in the way.

    Spock: Star Fleet never should have approved that contract with IVO.

    Kirk: facepalms

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Working...