Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 7 May 90 02:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 7 May 90 02:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #369 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 369 Today's Topics: Re: Niven's spacecraft drives ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 May 90 06:03:44 GMT From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!uluru5!danielce@ucsd.edu (Daniel Ake CAROSONE) Subject: Re: Niven's spacecraft drives In article <9005041950.AA27399@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: [About LArry Niven's reactionless drives] > - To avoid violating conservation of momentum, one would have to assume that > the reactionless thruster pushes against extremely distant objects (perhaps > the universe as a whole). Ummm, if the drives "push" against something, surely they don't qualify as reactionless. I understood that the whole point of these drives was that they DID violate C of M. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #369 *******************