NASA connection to EM drive research

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on NASA's EM Drive research, highlighting critical concerns regarding the validity of its experimental results. The original article from 2015 critiques the theoretical basis for the EM Drive, labeling it as flawed, and notes that the positive results have not been replicated, raising doubts about their credibility. Furthermore, the discussion points out that the findings were shared in a blog rather than a peer-reviewed publication, which is atypical for NASA-funded research. Until new peer-reviewed studies emerge, the topic remains closed for further discussion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propulsion theories, specifically the EM Drive concept.
  • Familiarity with the scientific method and the importance of peer review in research.
  • Knowledge of NASA's research funding processes and criteria.
  • Awareness of experimental replication standards in scientific research.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the latest developments in EM Drive technology and any new peer-reviewed studies.
  • Explore the implications of NASA's funding decisions on unconventional research projects.
  • Investigate the scientific community's response to the EM Drive's theoretical foundations.
  • Learn about the process and significance of replicating experimental results in aerospace engineering.
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, researchers in propulsion technologies, and science enthusiasts interested in the intersection of innovative theories and rigorous scientific validation.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,762
Reaction score
248
The following is a five-year-old post on one of NASA's websites.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/201...StAxsTjIuS3b08fUOyMcPh1-nBjeiwgwWkI3H7jnA0Has

It exposes the holes in the state of affairs at that moment -- first, the article does explicitly mention that the supposed theory for the supposed thrust is rubbish, so OK. It also implies that the positive results announced from experiment have not yet been replicated, so these results remain dubious. Also that the results of the NASA team were mentioned in a blog rather than a peer-reviewed paper seems odd. So, it is nonetheless funded by NASA probably because the stakes are so high -- wild ideas sometimes produce results, so NASA gambles. However, has there been any more serious attempts at replication or possible explanations of why such a thing should work since then?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
3903245-9644996589-in_be.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: DennisN, Astronuc, Dale and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K