News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on EmDrive study officially published. Parent comment

Re:EmDrive study officially published by cperciva on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:29PM (#12996328)
Whoops, you're quite right. I was thinking that you wanted to add momentum when you were moving the slowest, but that's for when you want to get into a circular orbit (which is the opposite of what you're talking about).

You should trust KSP more than you trust me. :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EmDrive study officially published by TeMPOraL on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:51PM (#12996631)
It's Oberth effect, basically? :).

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/01/q-how-does-the-ober...

By the way, I only know about it because I played KSP a lot ;).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EmDrive study officially published by photogrammetry on Saturday November 19, 2016 @09:19PM (#12996913)
Does the Oberth effect really apply when your propellant mass is always zero?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EmDrive study officially published by repsilat on Sunday November 20, 2016 @02:39AM (#12997779)
The simplest way (imo) to think about the Oberth effect is "you want to maximize the amount of time you're falling inwards (i.e. speeding up) and minimize the amount of time shooting outwards (i.e. slowing down.)"

It doesn't just work with orbits and rockets and propellants, it works just as well with an oscillating weight on a spring that you flick with your fingers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EmDrive study officially published by TeMPOraL on Saturday November 19, 2016 @09:28PM (#12996937)
It's about ∆v, so I'd say it does regardless of how you got that ∆v. I don't see a reason it couldn't work with solar sails, for example.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EmDrive study officially published by MPSimmons on Saturday November 19, 2016 @10:50PM (#12997158)
If anything, it should increase your inertia, since you're not sacrificing mass for ∆v.
[ Parent | on HN ]