"Reactionless" thrusters, first rejected by NASA, confirmed by China and now NASA

jmdrake

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
52,912
Note: Technically the theory is that thrust is produced by "quantum vacuum particles" that seem appear out of now where. The main thing is this engine doesn't need to carry its own propellant.



 
Last edited:
technically, rocket engines push against the matter expelled in the aether of space.

unless. I missed something... :toady:

damm, you sound like Danke.
he seems to think the suction in front of a gas turbine. (jet engine)
has more of an effect than the discharge of said device.
where is HB when I need him? :D
 
Last edited:
plasma can clearly exist in a vacuum.

(apologies to Danke)

LOL. Anyway, I don't pretend to understand the science. I just post the articles. But whenever you throw the word "quantum" in the mix, all sorts of freaky things can happen.
 
technically, rocket engines push against the matter expelled in the aether of space.

unless. I missed something... :toady:

I always heard that jets push against the atmosphere--since their noses aren't sealed--while rockets press against their own nose cones. Of course, jets can press against the air being forced into the combustion chamber and rockets can push against the atmosphere until they leave it...
 

Rocket thrust results from the high speed ejection of material and does not require any medium to "push against". Conservation of momentum dictates that if material is ejected backward, the forward momentum of the remaining rocket must increase since an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.

Very true. But that does not say that if there's something to push against then a rocket won't work. Nor does it say that a rocket won't push against it.
 
Back
Top