[Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

What I'd like to know, is whether reactionless drives really get enough plot mileage to justify the bending of normal physics from the authorial stand point. How much do they do that another kind of reaction drive does not? If the idea is to economize space or fuel or reduce heat then ano ther kind of reaction drive can be arranged that does the same thing. FTL is an absolute necessity(space opera never seems to work without FTL, so we just have to live with it). Grav control is very much of a convenience(there are only a few times we really want to think about the yucky consequences of being without gravity for weeks at a time, and anyway it's an extra headache for the props department in a stage rather then literary forum). But why reactionless drive?

Reactionless drives exist to remove the glutonnous fuel requirements of a spaceship. However, for that purpose, it appears that it is sufficient to use an 'omni-tractor' drive. I.e. a contactless reaction drive similar to an EM Tether, but one which pushes against an immense sphere, perhaps as huge as a galaxy. Although it probably involves the assumption that gravitons (or whatever is it that transfers the impulse/kinetic energy/etc.) moves FTL, which seems to be not proven as of now.