I hate to quote this stance and by (correct) inference share it, but here I am. Source I want this to work, but I don't believe it. The notion of extracting energy out of the quantum foam sounds particularly impossible to me.The other danger here is that glorifying dubious shortcuts like Cannae Drive takes away attention (and, potentially, political support and funding) from the real space-exploration advances. You know, the ones that result from the hard work of large teams, not the tinkering of lone inventors. When the results of the Cannae Drive prove impossible to validate (as will almost surely happen), it may produce an unjustified cynicism about how NASA has failed us once again. I’m not just speculating here. In a whiplash pivot, the same Popular Mechanics story that starts with the breathless headline ends with a sneer. The writer concludes, “But I’m still wondering, how much did it cost to run this test? During this era of tight budgets, is NASA wasting money on fringe science?”
I was under the impression the thrust came from the microwaves losing energy as they disproportionately hit one side of the chamber. This would also contradict wired's assertion that Anyone who knows more about physics want to weigh in?extracting energy out of the quantum foam
A superconducting version of the EmDrive, would...not require energy just to hold things up
I think the article makes absolute sense. This is not the result of a 'lone inventor', it has come to prominence precisely because different teams across the world have also observed 'something' happening. Now whether that something is valid is the subject of the next stage of tests. And I'm sorry I cannot agree with your assertion that this kind of research takes away from 'real' space exploration. This kind of thinking ditches the whole concept of 'blue sky' research and assumes that we know everything we are likely to know. Or even worse, that only 'large teams' can actually deliver advances. Which, of course, we know to be simply not true.