|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 1, 2014 21:37:07 GMT
Great new engine idea. I doubt that it really contravenes the conservation of momentum, though. More likely that they haven't properly got to grips with how it works. Or perhaps there's some chicken being overcooked a few million miles away  Does it go 'ding' when it gets to its destination? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 1, 2014 21:39:14 GMT
It'll be interesting to see what the wee willy winkies do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 11, 2014 6:22:52 GMT
The Emdrive motor is a British invention. The first paper on the principle was published in 2005. See the Emdrive website: emdrive.com |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 11, 2014 13:06:18 GMT
Yeah,it's funny how NASA are taking credit for it. They laughed the bloke off,he took it to the Chinese,they got it working great,THEN NASA took an interest,built one but couldn't make it anywhere near as efficient as the Chinese one. NASA have always been rubbish with rocket engines though - they just used Nazi tech or Russian stuff and stuck a Stars and Stripes on it. www.universetoday.com/19347/is-the-impossible-emdrive-possible/Note this dates from 2008! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 11, 2014 14:10:15 GMT
I wonder about NASA sometimes, they can be very 'gung ho' in their approach. For example they recently salvaged a Saturn 5 engine from the Gulf Of Mexico so they could back-engineer it as it is regarded as the best heavy lift rocket engine of all time. Presumably the blueprints and documents exist regarding its development so it begs the question, where are they?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 11, 2014 15:41:35 GMT
Having seen first-hand both a Saturn 5 and Soyuz lifter, they are fantastic marvels of engineering. It could be argued that the Soyuz, with its multiple smaller engines, was a more reliable launcher and has certainly been used many more times than the Saturn.
Why did NASA need to fish a Saturn 5 engine from the sea? They have a complete rocket on show in Houston.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 11, 2014 16:00:27 GMT
Having seen first-hand both a Saturn 5 and Soyuz lifter, they are fantastic marvels of engineering. It could be argued that the Soyuz, with its multiple smaller engines, was a more reliable launcher and has certainly been used many more times than the Saturn. Why did NASA need to fish a Saturn 5 engine from the sea? They have a complete rocket on show in Houston. As I understand it the rocket motors are not complete Martin, the high pressure pumps are missing as are other key parts  |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 11, 2014 20:44:17 GMT
Ah, understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Sept 4, 2014 6:34:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Sept 4, 2014 9:54:10 GMT
Saw that today as well. Fascinating. Means immeasurable heaven Laniakea.
Damn,there was a really good article about the latest telescope being built I meant to post - details the construction of the mirrors - but I can't bloody find it now. >:DWill keep trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Sept 4, 2014 12:04:28 GMT
Whoa
Way bigger than I thought
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 4, 2014 18:57:15 GMT
Fascinating video Jerry, thanks for posting
It is highly likely that the Great Attractor is a super-massive black hole which was born when the universe was very young and which has been increasing in mass ever since as it gobbles up more and more matter. There has been some speculation that such a beast may might be the key to the universes ultimate fate but in truth we simply do not understand what is truly going on. What can be deduced from this work is that if accurate there must be more than one Great Attractor, one for every galactic super-cluster. This is intriguing stuff and may have a bearing on our understanding of the genesis of the universe eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Sept 4, 2014 20:04:23 GMT
Great post, Jerry. Thanks. Mind boggling, but gives some 'shape' to the vastness.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 4, 2014 20:15:49 GMT
Intresting. So do we live in a good neighborhood then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Sept 5, 2014 11:01:57 GMT
I personally think WE are the bad neighbours.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Sept 5, 2014 12:28:17 GMT
I personally think WE are the bad neighbours. Agreed. I'm doing my bit. Must try harder (I remember from school reports) |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 5, 2014 13:34:57 GMT
I personally think WE are the bad neighbours. "Do NOT shoot at the spaceships..."  |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 5, 2014 16:24:52 GMT
I personally think WE are the bad neighbours. Why we don't actually have any neighbors as such. And the possibility of us destroying our planet will have cock all consequence to the universe. No matter how big it is despite some of the theory laden bollocks currently used to estimate is size. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 5, 2014 16:25:19 GMT
I personally think WE are the bad neighbours. Why we don't actually have any neighbors as such. And the possibility of us destroying our planet will have cock all consequence to the universe. No matter how big it is despite some of the theory laden bollocks currently used to estimate is size. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 5, 2014 16:25:59 GMT
I personally think WE are the bad neighbours. Why we don't actually have any neighbors as such. And the possibility of us destroying our planet will have cock all consequence to the universe. No matter how big it is despite some of the theory laden bollocks currently used to estimate is size. |
|
