The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums

Warp and Reactionless drive topic
(05-01-2015, 07:17 AM)four Wrote: Assume the findings are true. What does this mean for OA?

I think this is a pretty big turning point for Orion's Arm. Do you continue adapting the past timeline to real-life events, even when they significantly alter the course of history, or is there a point at which you decide to stop following with real life and continue as an increasingly-retro 2000s sci-fi?

Because this finding would completely change the course of OA history.

It might not mean very much for OA at all and not do all that much in the way of changing OA history.

A drive that can shift satellites at much cheaper cost or allow for much faster interplanetary missions (or even low speed interstellar missions) wouldn't be all that different from what we already describe in the early timeline (in fact, in some ways it would make some things easier - an abrupt drop in the cost of space travel would help justify space travel taking off in the early timeline).

If this were to develop into something, it would necessitate tweaking some aspects of the setting re the type of propulsion used, but perhaps not much else. A lot would depend on to what degree and how quickly (and if) this sort of thing might develop into a useful drive and how powerful such a drive might be.

In the interim, I would suggest the best approach is to follow our normal course of action with this kind of thing - wait and see and keep on keeping on as we have been doing. If and when there are sufficient developments to justify making changes to the setting, we can discuss the situation and develop a course of action.

My 2c worth,

After all, we already have the theory for monopoles, but monopole technology does not become mature until the First Federation era in OA; similarly wormhole theory exists in the current era, but wormholes are not developed until later still. The effects observed by NASA at this time could take a similar length of time, or longer, to become usable for thrust, if indeed they ever are.
(05-01-2015, 07:17 AM)four Wrote: Here's a detailed analysis of the topic on

That's not a very reputable source.

Here's a better one:

Or, if you want the opinion of a world-renowned physicist:

So no, nothing to see here. Move along.
I didn't know the other topic existed when I made this, if you guys feel the need to merge or delete this one by all means

anyway I kinda always thought that if any reaction less drive turned out to be real it would have been Woodward's since at least that one didn't come from a shady source. (not endorsing reaction less drives FYI)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)