starship-design: Collision sails and various things

[Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>]

kyle writes:
 > Greetings:
 > 
 > I know I'll be ridiculed but:
 > 
 > We need some serious thought into alternative propulsion ideas. These
 > designs are great, but require so much fuel/energy to run, that they
 > defeat the purpose. I have some ideas created by myself and NASA below:
 > 
 > 1. collision sails: To ride QZPF/such as a sail would ride a laser beam

Huh?

 > 2. transmission sails: To absorb, concentrate, and reemit QZPF/such

Huh?

 > 3. Field drives: To alter space in a way providing propulsive force
 > (falling into your gravity well, etc.)

Huh?

 > 4. EM drives: distort gravity via electromagnetism. (ZPF is an
 > electromagnetic phenomena).

Gravity is not an electromagneetic phenomenon, so far as anyone
understands it currently.

 > 5. ????ideas anyone????

I'm willing to consider new ideas, but let's not rehash all these
speculative ideas that we seem to agree are just too new and unproven to
be useful in an engineering context.

 > These were not forbidden by the charter. Look at how far we've come
 > since 1947! If anyone misunderstands, that date is only provided as a 50
 > year ago reference, not the roswell incident time.
 > 
 > We need to do some work on these. If NASA did, we might as well.

All the NASA work I've seen on these basically says that none of them
are useful for spacecraft engineering at this time, even the ones that
aren't in violent contradiction with known physics.

 > Kyle Mcallister
 > 
 > "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."
 > 						- Robert Millikan,
 > 				     Nobel Prize in Physics (1923)