And here's one we found earlier:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU/view

Note, the date.

I assume you'll trust NASA as a reliable source and capable of determining if something actually works or doesn't. If not, tough luck.

Comment deleted

And yet, Eagleworks have ruled out external influences. They might of even made specific mention of thermal errors, and how they discounted them. What was the point of requesting the document if you wouldn't bother to read it?

The folks at Eagleworks appear to be sufficiently educated to determine application of thrust - and appear be trusted with some incredibly expensive measuring equipment to do just this, and a whole range of experimental propulsion systems which I'd imagine are not cheap either.

This has over the last few years been replicated by hobbists and many have reported postive. However, generally these where generally discounted on the basis of there's no truely impirical testing, and no peer review. The Eagleworks test was anticipated for some time, what with them being quite literally the definition of experts within this field - And it categorically suggests that there is indeed applicable thrust generated. Lacking any particular motive to falsify a positive, I put it to you that they are correct.

Ultimately, why take anyone else's word for it? build one and do your own experiments. I've followed it ever since 2010 when it was just some nutcase in a shed, but of course he'll say that it works. For a nutcase in a shed, with something that only exhibits "thermal effect errors", he did a pretty good job of proving that it works and securing .gov funding recently(ish) for advanced development.

He's even started to build a company around it. But you'd actually know all of this if you could be bothered to of done some research.

I just wanted to add in my opinion. I believe it would be wise to plan ahead and initially send some kind of vessel to tow our rocks closer to Earth for processing. I see it as the only way to bring down the high cost of lifting resources into orbit for construction purposes.

Quite - But these "vessel" can be produced up there, mostly from LEO debris, or at least some of them. After that they can begin to be constructed from materials obtained from further. Not only can a seed factory get them made, it can potentially get facilities ready for when the rocks get back, so they can be processed into unsable materials.

For the first ensnares, it'd make the most sense to go after ones that are going to be coming as close as possible and of those the slowest in order to increase chances of success. This would help ensure the long term success.

EyeR, there's a (sadly negative) page on rationalWiki describing the studies and criticism of the EM drive: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/EmDrive

Most useful would be the working under http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/EmDrive#Violationofconservation_laws, where using the NASA experiment numbers, it would take half the planet's power consumption to get half the launch mass of the shuttle just to hover.

Regarding building small drones/ships in orbit, although you could retrieve some scrap material, I doubt you'd find highly useful things like whole, integratable engines or useful quantities of fuel. We don't have great 3d printing technology yet (plastics only, unless you have a lot of space and payload weight free), and you'd need to lend or build capsule space + maintenance crew on the ISS, which is crazy expensive.

My math on the EM drive only set up for a few thousand KW to get a few tonnes into orbit in about 25mins. From the numbers cited in the Eagleworks test(1.2Nm(-/+0.1)/Kw). Although possible for ground-launch, more so with refinement, I was only thinking of using whilst up there - tho Shawyer is looking at "launch assist" with the Mk2. There's a lot of nay-saying with such technologies, ofc Shawyer says it works, but he's also secured .gov funding for the mk2 development - something I'd not think to be happening for a error. Rumour has it some are installed and operable on Tiangong 2. To assume about 2kW of generation per unit, then about 2.4KG's of lift isn't much, but it's able to be put out pretty much constant. It will add up, over time. Three or six units carrying between them aparatus to catch things(likely similar to a wind sock) could reduce time involved in the wait - max impulse is important, but not as important as when/where you apply it.

There's plenty of whole engines up there, but no I wasn't hoping to use them. There's unlikely to be usable amounts of fuel in one place, but in all the places added up maybe. But I've been viewing them as material, typically. There are 3D metal printing technologies, several breeds of. I quesiton the suitablility of some for microgravity. Most take up the same or about the same space as plastic printing machines. I was thinking more of CNC myself initially, however. The idea is to be using the mass up there as much as possible to reduce the total required lift mass. Hopefully to the point of we can have anything actually have built up there, but the intent was to get it to the point of self replication before lifting(or, at least, to the point of building itself self-replicating, less lift). There's loads of material that's ripe for panelwork, and that can also be cut up for other parts, melted and formed into blocks to be cut into parts...There's still going to be some additional lifting, more so in the early phases I'd imagine - things it can't build, like microwave generators - but most can be sourced recycled, locally. Some people will pay to have their debris cleared up, which should help pay for itself. The seed factory building itself more equipment, tools etc, until it can build anything. Currently it's only the fabrication of chips themselves that'd give me headaches - but that's something easily solved and when it is plans can be uploaded and parts can be printed for up there. Entertaining that until mining the sillicon from asteroids isn't too viable anyway. There's time. I'm sure there's something I haven't thought about somewhere though. Ultimately, ground based varients can be constructed - when I have one it's being open sourced - these can upgrade themselves in terms of quality of finish and capacities, print copies of themselves for distribution to lesser fortunate Asgardians and then begin to rent their capacity to individuals and business. This should cover the costs of producing and running the machines, and when these machines build the final copy of what gets lifted, the run can be distributed and happen literally overnight, with the machines having paid for the output. Lift/delivery costs only. Maintainence crew should be minimal - This could be entirely automated. Not requiring habitat should also reduce initial development costs. The idea of clipping it to ISS is just so it's not aimlessly drifting as it where, that and by the time we'd be looking at lifting it, NASA will be abandoning it. It should ideally be generating it's own power and worrying about it's own thermal dissipation. There's no actual reason behind clipping it to ISS other than to try and play nicely with the other children in the garden, really. Once they clear off in 2020-2025 then NASA have already expressed they'd like to see "independant" use of the hardware up there with valid lifecycle. The seed factory could recycle the rest. I wasn't aware of rental charges to attach things to ISS - but I suppose something like that might apply, I'd not looked. Thought they'd might need to grant permission, but that was obvious to be sought if for no other reason to ensure anything we do isn't going to be causing them any problems.

I must bring something to thought. If we find new or completely unknown material... We should have it contained in a secured zone to research it.

With new experiences comes new dangers. I'd like to expand but be safe about it.

I'd agree fully.

One semi disturbing thing early on in the formation was the suggestion of lacking Earth's laws to restrict scientific advancements. I say semi disturbing, because deep down I am indeed a scientist and understand there is only one way you find out some answers and that's to experiment.

Experiments containing more serious potentials for mishap can ideally take place on their own dedicated facilites - containment builtin. Depending on the nature it can take place a long way away from anything else - space is big.

As for finding a completely unknown material - unlikely. The periodic table of the elements is quite well padded out now. There's far more dangers in what we can do more than what we can find, IMHO.

This article suggests "recycling" in the space. There exists a big amount of debris in the outer space coming from obselete satellites, rockets, out-of-date space vehicles which hover in the space randomly and threaten any recently launched spaceships. The space junk is manufactured of rare and very expensive materials such as titanium so that the processes of collecting and recycling them will be sources for those rare materials to be used for new space industries.

I think that the Asgardian orbital farms will not be only a source of food for the Asgardian nation but it will be also a significant financial source where Asgardia will sell agricultural corps to Earth which will suffer from the lack of food because of prominantly shrinking of the arable farming lands within 30 years. The Asgardian farms will not be only orbital but also on the surfaces of other planets. The beginning stage may be on other planets of our solar system.

"Recycling in space" is a logical step - IMHO - to begining to construct and operate the infrastructure required to be in place in order to build both mining machines, and actually do something with the ouput of the mining efforts. There is certainly a lot of debris, and much of it will be "free to harvest" - and there will be those who will even pay to have it removed.

Certainly, in any roadmap I've outlined, I've strongly suggested the formation of orbital farms prior to mass habitation, in order to actually provide for habitation. It's refreshing to occur somone else that can recognise the applicable variables with regards to Earth's precarious situation on this front, and thusly recognition that the output of these farms is likely to be most valuable by the time they are operational. I'd suggest farming on other planets to more likely take place for sustainance purposes of nearby colonies - as they will be considerably remote - more than general export - orbital facilities are much more efficient as you do not have to fight gravity, if nothing else, and you want food fresh - surely? Needs to be close... Before considering sending anyone anywhere, support should first be consdered.

It's likely by this stage Mars will have a colony or two - there are several aiming for this, and it's likely we'll take a swing too I'm sure there are those within our number eager - however we cannot expect them to provide for us. To get to this stage our mining facilities will have rolled out significantly - following the loose plan of my initial post they should of developed into full manufacturing facilities by then. If we mine the asteroid belt just the other side of Mars first, that represents the closest, largest mass "in one spot", then manufacturing support will already be out as far Mars. This can give rise to constructing other facilities off that way, initially farms(energy and conventional) and once they're operational then more habitational facilities... Spread will be slow but it will rapidly progress at an exponential rate.

As for other solar systems. Under the senario above seed factories can be throwing back from the Oort within 150-200 years - and there's more big rocks than you can count there - and in less than 500 years "natural expansion" can of trailed a worthy support chain for multiple long term colonies to the outer reaches. Assuming there's no specific push in this direction. From there, colonists could potentially be thrown, but with conventional techniques it'll be their grand children's children that get there. If things like the EM-Drive are a legitimate functional technology then fed a few megawatts that can potentially have something doing about two thirds the speed of light in just 40 years of acelleration. At that sort of speed you'd hit Proxima Centuri in about 17 years. Ofc, it'd take 40 year to get that speed, so that's 57yrs, then really you might want to think about slowing down. To assume equal impulse there, then there's likely about 40 years of that so you'd likely be slowing down well before the 57mark, and it's realistical to consider a 30-40 year one-way trip - 16 years of speeding up, 20 or so of slowing down over time. At a guess, I'm too lazy for math.

Has anyone else stopped to consider the different technologies we would need to actually make this idea plausible? Because 3d printing, cnc tech, and material recycling will not cut it. How are these tugs or whatever these things may end up being supposed to safely and correctly navigate to their destinations? They would need the ability to pilot themselves as the one NASA satellite had. Furthermore, they would need the ability to exract the ores and other materials we seek to make the process cost efficient. Why tow the rock anywhere when it can be mined in place!? The vessels which for mining purposes would suffice would also need propulsion systems capable of making their journeys as quick as possible, so the accumulation of resources will be faster that their utilization is. If they are to be unmanned they will have to rely on artificial intelligence and that AI would have to be able to moniter the ship's systems, the conditions of it's environment and changes to it. Changes such as the ever shifting orbital paths of ever space rocks for example or the tail end of a passing comet. It will also need to be able to repair the ship itself and it's systems.

Which makes the entire endeavor pretty darn expensive even if you start out using recycled materials you can find in space. It is doubtful that there is enough material floating around in space to even complete one tug unless it is smaller than what would be optimal for it's task. Given the size some of those rocks can be! Let alone have enough material left over for the replication of another and allow those tugs to repair themselves! While the idea would work at a much later date in the future. Say, after space based mining operations have become common place. Currently I see no way it can work, the costs of all the automation and developing or further developing of the tech needed. Are too great and the ROI will be too low. We would need fleets of tugs working round the clock and we would not have fleets of them. Oh, and, how will the electrical systems be built and installed? Yet another obstacle in the way of the idea

There is no such thing as "infinite resources".

There might be an overabundance that cannot easily be quantified, but there is a difference between this and infinite.

It is also a matter of rate of return: does it cost more resources to collect the resources than you would earn through the process?

Infinite, from your perspective of being able to consume it. The abundance is sufficient that from your perspective - and even to that of the species for a thousand generations once starting on the Oort - to be considered infinite. Ofc nothing is truely infinite. Stupidity comes pretty close.

With regards to rate of return, it should be incredibly easy to ensure high rates. A few tonnes of mining equipment can be expected to provide megatonnes of output between failures. The one-off cost is comparitively steep to buying similar resources on Earth for the first haul it throws back but each subsequent is continually reducing this cost. Work out the cost of getting 10 tonnes to a transfer orbit, then how much xenon(assuming EM-Drive unsuitable) you'd require to move 10 tonnes centrafugally accelerated from just past Mars back this way. It's a lot cheaper to launch the xenon from the floor and use that to get mass back here, especially a few thousand tonnes in. It will not take many subsequent hauls to reach a level of attribution unfeasible with lifting mass otherwise. Sale of say 60% of returned mass would easily pay for more xenon and other consumables. Especially if we pick rocks with "high value" elements like platinum in abundance. Once these things are cloning themselves then the rate of return becomes exponential, and incredibly difficult to compete with.

I might of stopped to consider the technologies involved with making this plausible - which could be how I've considered this is entirely plausible. I might even be playing with some of these technologies.

Clearly, these "tugs" will require the ability to self navigate. Manual piloting is inefficient and due to telemetric lag unfeasible - when a few thousand units in, also impractical. This does not represent any form of a problem, the technologies involved in navigation have been in use for decades. The "AI" involved would require to be barely smarter than an ant, and behave remarkably similarly. Repairing themselves is a tall order IMHO, far more feasible to recieve maintainence when it drops off payloads.

Extraction of ore is also a pretty trivial matter, rendering it into a powder should be easy via a combination of application of resonance and mechanical grinding, as is sorting and grading/purification. centrafugal sorting should be more than adequate to sort by atomic mass for individual elements, and then again for individual isotopes.

The reason behind towing the rock is that after placing facilities in orbit, cloning these adding expansions and throwing past mars, the equipment in situ Earthside is still usable. And those rocks I mention need pulling out of problematic orbits. Much of them come close enough to not bother chasing them with the mining facilites, and instead park them next to the facilities. This is ofc a lot more feasible if able to entertain the EM-Drive, as that can continually output and given enough time parking will be assured. This isn't to obtain the resources in these rocks, that's a bonus, it's just to get them out of the way. With regards to the asteroid field and mining of, it's likely more suitable to move the facilities to the general location and tow individual rocks to.

The endavour is still far far cheaper than considering lifting a few hundred megatonnes from the surface. The recyclable materials in LEO are more than sufficient. The few thousand tonnes of titanium and aluminium from upper rocket stages alone can build the chassis and panelwork for a hundred thousand "tugs" on top of the few hundred seed factories potential of which I intended one. With reference to the size of the rocks, you don't start with the biggest ones for harvest. The harvesting of the smaller ones resulting in material to build for larger scales. Rather than scale up the tug, just deploy more of them and have them work collaboratively. Or make the rock smaller.

You might not be able to see a way this can work - but this doesn't detract from the fact it will work. Developments required to existing technologies are incredibly minimal, and where required achievable. To actually take into account the return, the ROI is impossible to be matched. Especially as the initial investment is to be met by itself, and therefore 0. The costs involved in the development I'm more than prepared to shoulder - and will be anyway.

Yes, fleets will be required, and these get built then they exist. A few, or parts for, put up with the seed factory can tow in scrap to build more tugs. I'm fairly confident that this has already been adequately covered previously.

Installation of electrical systems doesn't represent any issues, building them could be as simple as printing a board, pasting it, splatting components into the paste with a pick n place machine and taking a quick trip through a reflow oven. Actually making the electronic components - ie: chips - is something of an issue, not so much as an obsticle as a hinderence and likely represent some of the later to arrive functionality so therefore be the bulk of "consumable lift" required after the initial lift (unless forced to use propellant, then it'll likely 50/50 fuel/parts). It is not impossible to provide for this ability, expecially once there's a steady flow of sillicon to melt up and grow into crystals, but until there's this supply then it's likely useless having this capcity - and as the larger mass for this addition can also be constructed in orbit (whilst waiting resources to return from past Mars) it can cut down initial lifting cost.

Yes, each haul would be of a greater rate of return - for the first phase and with present technology. New technology will change the playing field of resource availability. I know that there are a few technologies out there that can and will be used for these endeavours, varying in development stages.

I like the ant analogy, Asteroid Nom-ing Technology if you will, where the ant colony has many little workers with a nest (or mother ship), and can breakdown the larger bodies to manageable pieces. The worker ants could eventually be cloned or replicated (philosophical and Sci-Fi implications not withstanding) on site, depending upon the size of the "Nest." From there, products can be transported to LEO, maybe to a space elevator, for ground delivery.

As for the ANTs/Tugs, many entities (universities, companies, garage-itechs) have shown advancements in autonomic coordination of robotics. See Ardiuno videos on YouTube to see beginners and professions perform things not capable by major corporations 10 years ago. Financial institutions and professionals would have to account for resource fluxes to the planet but as stated earlier, resource abundance, if managed ethically, can be steps to a much more level and stable economy. With the tinker/open source movements, the materials in LEO are sufficient. With rocket upper stages and processing abilities of things like Raspberry Pi and Arduino, harvesting LEO and NEO items is a challenge but very realistic. If we were to standardized the Tugs size and configuration(s), they could be deployed as a collaborative fleet(s), as mentioned earlier.

For the present, the Close-to-home, build-up approach is my preferred approach. Once new technology for human travel is developed then I'll be more inclined for dating the concept of resources beyond the Asteroid field. I believe on-site involvement would be much more practical at that point.