Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Surur t1_jcbqtng wrote

So this is a reactionless drive, right? What's going on?

According to ChatGPT, a 100kg solar panel satellite with 1000w and 1 thruster could get to mars in little more than 1 day.

Does not sound realistic.

3

Stupid-Idiot-Balls t1_jce5olm wrote

You cannot trust chatGPT with calculations/information you don't understand/don't know how to verify.

It's an amazing tool but that is not how its meant to be used

7

Surur t1_jcejzu7 wrote

Sure, but is it wrong?

1

Stupid-Idiot-Balls t1_jcgeb8s wrote

If you can't answer that question yourself, then you shouldn't be using it like that.

It's definitely wrong though. The thruster claims to produce 52mN of thrust using a watt. So even if you assume that this efficiency scales linearly to 1000W (which it certainly doesn't), that equates to 52N of force for a 100kg object, or an acceleration of 0.52m/s^2. Accelerating a 100kg object with an initial velocity of 8km/s at 0.52m/s^2 for two days give a total distance travelled of ~ 9.1 million km. The average distanfe between Earth and Mars is 225 million kilometers, or over 20 times that distance travelled.

But even more importantly, chatGPT failed to capture the complexity of otbital dynamics. You can't just fly straight to Mars, you have to complete complex orbital maneuvers that require precise timing sometimes on the order of days, weeks, or even months. See the Hoffman Transfer Orbit for example.

So please, be careful in the future. ChatGPT shouldn't replace critical thinking.

8

Surur t1_jcgm3y4 wrote

So how many days then?

0

Stupid-Idiot-Balls t1_jcgq7jm wrote

Fuck should I know, ask an orbital physicist.

My whole point is that the answer to a question like that is too complicated to just ask chatGPT..

7

Surur t1_jcgrrtm wrote

ChatGPT says 13 days.

0

Stupid-Idiot-Balls t1_jch8qit wrote

Why people decide to be idiotic assholes on the internet I'll never know.

Enjoy your bad information my guy.

5

Evening-Ad-4406 t1_jcspisz wrote

I mean, you cant answer the question, how can you say chatgpt is wrong for sure.

−1

Stupid-Idiot-Balls t1_jcu8k96 wrote

I clearly explained why ChatGPT was wrong the first time. Wtf are you talking about?

All I'm saying is that you can't take GPT answers at face value. Why are you guys being so fucking annoying?

1

ComfortableIntern218 OP t1_jcbs4kw wrote

I don't think it is reactionless. It sounds like they figured something out in the physics realm using electrons. They haven't said much about how it works for obvious reasons if they are selling it. They clearly figured something out if they got a company to partner with them and scheduled a rocket launch. I can't imagine why someone would waste that much money if they weren't confident.

3

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_jcbyp6r wrote

They claim no fuel which means it's reactionless.

4

ComfortableIntern218 OP t1_jcbz7g2 wrote

Incorrect. It says no solid, liquid, or gas fuel. They also say it uses solely electricity. I also do not see a claim of it being reactionless, and I have been searching high and low for more information. Apparently, this stems from quantized inertia.

2

Gigazwiebel t1_jcc7ahf wrote

Yeah this breaks conservation of momentum.

4

ComfortableIntern218 OP t1_jccfs91 wrote

How can you conclude that when we don't know how it works? I say we wait for the results from space to draw conclusions. I'm still skeptical, but I'm also against damning technology that I don't understand just to sound edgy.

2

Gigazwiebel t1_jccgc1c wrote

I have a PhD in physics. Extraordinary claims that break physics as we know it require extraordinary evidence. These kind of bullshit pops up regularly and it always amounts nothing.

9

lazyeyepsycho t1_jcdmvjj wrote

its an expensive hoax though certainly

full commitment

2

ComfortableIntern218 OP t1_jcibnez wrote

Yes, because small companies buy multi-million dollar launches to go to space and proceed to fake data from extremely sensitive and accurate measurement equipment, all of which are verified by outside sources. I can see them making a claim and never delivering on it, but a launch is a totally different animal. In order to pull off the scam, you would have to be able to fake a mass of data. That scenario is so complex/silly that you can't possibly believe they would go through that much trouble just to fool people momentarily. They and their partner clearly think they have something and have enough data to back up and justify a rocket launch.

1

ComfortableIntern218 OP t1_jcchk9g wrote

Do you have inside information that we do not on how this technology works? No offense, but your degree means you know a certain determined extent of human knowledge of a subject. It does not mean you know the secrets of the universe, including every human invention that can and will exist. If this was the case, your rockets would be landing themselves instead of SpaceX. I'd also like to point out the quantity of PhD holders that stood in the way of SpaceX and many other revolutionary companies that have brought about technological change. Let's see the data first, or did they not teach you the scientific method while you were obtaining that fancy degree?

0

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_jcc9a1w wrote

Electricity isn't a fuel.

Reactionless typically means that it does not expell mass which it claims to not do.

4

ComfortableIntern218 OP t1_jccf507 wrote

Actually electricity is fuel. Electrons have mass. If it doesn't expell electrons and is self-contained, we will have to wait for their explanation of exactly how it works.

1

isleepinahammock t1_jccmmd0 wrote

It's claimed not to expel anything, including electrons. IIRC, it's based on some theories of quantized inertia, and apparently that can be harnessed somehow to create a reaction less drive. I'm skeptical, but I say, go for it if you think it will work.

4

andrew851138 t1_jcv06lr wrote

It can’t just expel electrons as that would build up a charge - whatever it is, it also has to be charge neutral.

2

ConfirmedCynic t1_jcm2kod wrote

You're assuming it has nothing to interact with. Maybe it uses the solar wind somehow. Plenty of charged particles in the solar wind. Maybe it can push against the Earth's magnetic field.

−1

pilotavery t1_jcsmxrh wrote

There's tons of hydrogen ions just floating around in space, not necessarily in deep space but near our solar system. Maybe it's just using that and a magnetic field as propulsion. Kind of funneling in ions and then accelerating them

1

Zenquin t1_jcs2qaq wrote

At an acceleration of 0.52m/s^2 and a distance of 225*10^9 m:

about 33.8 days.

EDIT: corrected my math.

1

Surur t1_jcs3gix wrote

So that still does not sound very realistic, right?

1

Zenquin t1_jcs4d8y wrote

If true, we would definitely be in Nobel Prize territory.

4