Since it involves the infamous EmDrive, the smart money is still on
"experimental error." I'm always struck by how the standard illo of the
EmDrive looks so Steampunk, cobbled up in the shed behind old Dr. Horatio
Lazarus' house.
You raise an interesting parallel, stutterwarp was another directional
field that followed the orientation of the ship, but fortunately all you
had to do was shut it off to "decelerate."
Your real point, I think, is that if real, this subverts the normal SF
division of drives into normal space vs. hyperspace drives, and says that
your normal space drive IS a hyper space drive.
> Meanwhile...
> http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/nasa-may-have-accidentally-developed-a-warp-drive/
> So assuming that it can ever be scaled up to the size of something as
> large as a manned spacecraft, are we looking here in Traveller terms as
> reactionless thrusters or more like something akin to stutterwarp? Or is
> it something completely different?
>
>
"experimental error." I'm always struck by how the standard illo of the
EmDrive looks so Steampunk, cobbled up in the shed behind old Dr. Horatio
Lazarus' house.
You raise an interesting parallel, stutterwarp was another directional
field that followed the orientation of the ship, but fortunately all you
had to do was shut it off to "decelerate."
Your real point, I think, is that if real, this subverts the normal SF
division of drives into normal space vs. hyperspace drives, and says that
your normal space drive IS a hyper space drive.
> Meanwhile...
> http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/nasa-may-have-accidentally-developed-a-warp-drive/
> So assuming that it can ever be scaled up to the size of something as
> large as a manned spacecraft, are we looking here in Traveller terms as
> reactionless thrusters or more like something akin to stutterwarp? Or is
> it something completely different?
>
>