Spaceships 2-8 new drives

[Joseph Paul]

Do any of the Spaceships books 2-6 + book 8 have any rules on drives that don't use propellant such as the theorized Mach Effect thrusters and EM Drive? I know there are paranormal drives in 7 - would any of those work as rules for theorized EMdrive or Mach Effect thrusters?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Do any of the Spaceships books 2-6 + book 8 have any rules on drives that don't use propellant such as the theorized Mach Effect thrusters and EM Drive? I know there are paranormal drives in 7 - would any of those work as rules for theorized EMdrive or Mach Effect thrusters?

These are Reactionless Engines. See Spaceships 1 p.24. As super-science (or at best something that works on undemonstrated principles) there isn't a lot you can say about a specific "theorized" version - they can have any statistics whatsoever.

[Joseph Paul]

Good - making sure I am not missing a relevant update. Thanks.

[PTTG]

I'd adjust the numbers given in Spaceships if you're representing EMdrives or some other part of that crowd. A (supposedly working) TL 8 Microwave Cavity drive probably has something like 0.01G per system; they cost as much as a Rotary reactionless drive. A TL 8 superconductiong one requires extra radiators and provides .1G per system, and costs as much as a Standard drive. TL 9 and up superconducting drives do not require significant additional radiators and provide .2G per system.

Presuming the hype is correct, of course.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by PTTG

I'd adjust the numbers given in Spaceships if you're representing EMdrives or some other part of that crowd. A (supposedly working) TL 8 Microwave Cavity drive probably has something like 0.01G per system; they cost as much as a Rotary reactionless drive. A TL 8 superconductiong one requires extra radiators and provides .1G per system, and costs as much as a Standard drive. TL 9 and up superconducting drives do not require significant additional radiators and provide .2G per system.

Presuming the hype is correct, of course.

Note that for the hype to be true the drive not only has to diss Newton (equal but opposite reaction) but Einstein as well (E=MC2).

An EM Drive that didn't cause a ship to gain more KE from acceleration than electricity put into it could explain would have very low performance.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Note that for the hype to be true the drive not only has to diss Newton (equal but opposite reaction) but Einstein as well (E=MC2).

I believe all reactionless drives with (thrust > power/c) - that is more than 3.3 newtons (0.75 lbs) per gigawatt do that in some reference frame.