Feb 162010
I’ve decided to add a sixth category to the propulsion system eras following “Magic:” “Obsolete Theories.” Following a brief discussion of pre-scientific notions such as dreamed up by the likes of Cyrano de Bergerac (dew, birds, etc.), some discussion of scientifically failed concepts will be made. I’m thinking of such ideas as using the Ether as a reaction mass and Cavorite-style “gravity shielding.” However, while I know I’ve encountered many more such concepts, I’m kinda drawing a blank here. Any other suggestions for more of these?
17 Responses to “S-F Spacecraft: Obsolete propulsion theories”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
How about the Bussard ramjet? Most times I see it mentioned these days, it’s stated that the drag would exceed the thrust.
Apergy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apergy
Also, solidified electricity and molecular drive in Campbell’s “The Dark Star Passes” and “Islands Of Space”.
The Dean drive?
This probably isn’t a propulsion system per se, but weren’t some NASA people studying a spinning disc made of superconducting material that allegedly had an antigravity effect? This might have been as much ten years ago. If I recall correctly, there was disagreement among the scientists as to whether they should measure the antigravity effect or study more carefully whether there even was such an effect.
I’d previously included the Dean Drive in the “Magic” level, but I suppose “Obsolete” would work as well. But I still think “Magic” is better, because the Dean Drive isn;t exactly based on “obsolete” science, but on pseudo-science. The ether was at one time Good Science, but that came to an end. Dean Drives are based on handwaving.
Interestingly enough, there was a mathematical model that explained how a Dean Drive could work. It posited a force proportional the rate of change of the acceleration. Can’t remember the name of the guy who first proposed it.
Jules Verne orginal moon cannon
and constatin paul van Lent nuclear version of it
No, the cannons wouldn’t fit here. Even though the *technology* might be obsolete, the science is still fairly good. The cannons would *work.* Propulsion systems based on *obsolete* *science* would not work.
I don’t know what categories you would put these in but
over time I have of course read lots on the theories of
propulsion of the so called Nazi flying saucers along with
the so called if sucessful works of Searle discs.Viktor
Schauberger and the supposed and maybe still being
worked on the Aerodynamic Air Turbine Engine which I
heard about after reading an article about in in Nexus
magazine.In other sources they claim that Tesla did some
stuff on flying saucers,etc. and of course the theory of
ion-plasma propulsion which was another theory brought
up by a different source.
There’s a lot of weird antigravity devices here:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/antigrav.html
Then there’s that odd Em drive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive
I dunno if Dr. Miguel Alcubierre “Warp Drive” would fit here. It is *gasp* an FTL drive, and is internally consistent. It is just that it would require eleven times as much energy as is contained in the entire universe and the ship inside cannot open the “warp bubble”
Edward Everett Hale wrote The Brick Moon in 1869. The device for putting the brick moon into orbit was a pair of flywheels. Project Gutenberg has it: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1633
Not a propulsion system per se, but a ship’s powerplant built on the Pons/Fleischman cold fusion principle…
> Pons/Fleischman cold fusion principle
OK, yeah, that belongs. Hafnium isomers would also probably fit there as well.
There was a 1970’s era novel RECALL NOT EARTH by C.C. MacApp. It had one of those “too clever for its own good” theories, which of course is now discredited. It said that gravity is repulsive, not attractive. The entire universe repels us. However, gravity can be shielded by matter. So the Earth under our feet weakens the repulsion force from below by exactly 1 g, resulting in a net force of 1 g downward. Once clever scientist discover this, they can develop artificial gravity shields for their spacecraft. Now the ships can hover, and accelerate as they please.
A recent debunking of this can be found here
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/02/failing_at_gravity.php
how about the Space 1889 game.. where they used “luminiferous ether propellers” and “martian liftwood”?
I’ve collected some old patents for research aircraft. At least one of them uses a ring of small rocket tubes as propulsion (2081151). There are two that describe using rockets to drive turbines that turn propellors (2074098 and 2026885). The idea of a helicopter to land a rocket was patented in 1932, 1954, and 1961 — I’m sure there are more, but that’s all I can find right now.