EmDrive, the 'Impossible' Engine Tested by NASA, Is Knocked Down Once Again

Illustration for article titled EmDrive, the 'Impossible' Engine Tested by NASA, Is Knocked Down Once Again
Image: Luis M. Molina/Gizmodo (Getty Images)

Five years ago, NASA researchers experimented with an object called the EmDrive (or electromagnetic drive), a Y-shaped metal chamber in which, they reported, thrust could be produced without propellant. Such a contraption would refute core principles of physics as we know them and eliminate a huge barrier to deep space travel by nullifying the need to carry fuel. Ultimately, the hope riding on EmDrive was that propellant-less thrusters would make travel to distant objects, like the outer solar system and even nearby extrasolar systems like Alpha Centauri, manageable in human timescales.

Advertisement
A 2013-14 prototype of the NASA EmDrive.
A 2013-14 prototype of the NASA EmDrive.
Image: Wikimedia Commons (Fair Use)

If that sounds too good to be true, well, other scientists had the same thought. Since that paper, published in the Journal of Propulsion and Power, plenty of research has come along explaining where EmDrive’s original math went wrong. The hopes for a propellant-less thruster haven’t been dashed, exactly; they’re being gradually debunked in a death-by-1,000-studies. The most recent effort involves three papers, presented at the conference Space Propulsion 2020+1 by researchers from the Dresden University of Technology in Germany.

“When power flows into the EmDrive, the engine warms up,” study co-author Martin Tamjar, a physicist at TU Dresden, told German outlet GleWi. “This also causes the fastening elements on the scale to warp, causing the scale to move to a new zero point. We were able to prevent that in an improved structure. Our measurements refute all EmDrive claims by at least 3 orders of magnitude.”

Oops. It’s a real pity, too, because a fuel-less thruster would be a boon to human exploration of the cosmos, near and far. But the German team has been tooling with their EmDrive for several years now, using a model of the technology based on the 2016 NASA design. They still haven’t found evidence to support the original claims.

EmDrive’s principle was that microwaves bouncing around inside a chamber would exert a force just lopsided enough to create a minute amount of thrust. Critics say it violates basic laws of physics: It seemed EmDrive was conjuring momentum, rather than the thrust emerging from known physical phenomena.

Advertisement

“I believe that the EMDrive story is now closed,” Tajmar told Gizmodo in an email. “I have seen no credible evidence (published measurements that pass high experimental standards) that warrants further investigation.”

When previously testing the NASA results, the same German team also found a slight thrust effect, but they weren’t too sure about it. They’ve since been trying to mute all outside noise, to see if EmDrive was actually making any itself. In one of the new studies, the authors concluded that the thrust effect was really just the device vibrating, an artifact of its operation.

Advertisement
Alpha and Beta Centauri, with Proxima Centauri circled in red.
Alpha and Beta Centauri, with Proxima Centauri circled in red.
Image: Wikimedia Commons (Fair Use)

The EmDrive has been a pet project of DARPA, the R&D wing of the United States Department of Defense. DARPA’s investment in the project runs through May 2021, so that funding avenue for the project that once had so many hopes pinned on it has precious little time left.

Advertisement

The fantasy of the EmDrive remains just that for now, though it won’t stop scientists from plugging away at the propellant problem, which remains a colossal barricade to us wee humans venturing farther than our own cosmic doorstep. On the bright side, with each passing paper it seems even more like the “Impossible Drive” has lived up to its nickname.

This story has been updated with comments from Martin Tajmar.

Advertisement

Science writer at Gizmodo.

DISCUSSION

jbhelfrich

Given all the time spent disproving that this works, at what point would it be cheaper to strap one to a cube sat, hold it out the airlock of the ISS, point it at the moon, flip it on, and wait?  Seems like lifting the mass to orbit and letting it burn up on re-entry would have been more efficient.