J.C.MacSwell

The advantage you have is that you could still consider it part of the system/craft. In so doing you can readily tell that you should not get the result that you seem to expect. As the physics is the same either way...the result cannot be any different... Compare this to picking a reference frame. Regardless of which one you pick you should get the same result...some are simply more convenient and allow things to be more clear.

I will give you an example: If say, I tell you I have a system inside a black box, and I tell you I can get more energy out from it than I put in on a continuous basis, with no loss of energy to the system over time, you should be able to tell me that is impossible based on the known laws of physics. You don't need to know how it is designed, or what is going on inside the box. You could dismiss it out of hand, and no one here would dispute your claim that my design will not work. Without some major change in the laws of physics it simply will not work.

The anticipated results should be based on the proper application of theory. You seem to be suggesting that you would expect a result that contradicts theory. Conservation of momentum must hold, and no thought experiment or design can change that...to overturn it you need a real experiment... ...yet you don't seem to want to overturn it, just ignore it so your design can work...that is a bad expectation for your design. Conservation of momentum tells you you have made an error. You don't need to fully understand your design to discount it...you are expecting a result that is not consistent with the physics you are using to design it. For it to work the physics has to be wrong and your design based on that physics has to be wrong as well. What are the odds of that?

Having to tack: A sailboat gets it's windward momentum from the water. The solar sail gets it's sunward momentum from gravity. I'm pretty sure a solar sail would climb away from sun on one tack by increasing orbital speed, or fall toward the Sun by decreasing orbital speed on the other tack. Both require extra distance but each should be all on one tack.

Concave I would expect from experience with similar kites. Wouldn't it effect the shape detrimentally otherwise? Is there a possibility 10 is on the upper side, but the 8s underneath?

That is equivalent to claiming no force is required. If unbalanced forces are already present, it's already accelerating.

Sorry Mordred. That simply is not true. Unless by "correct amount" you mean anything greater than none at all. There is no minimum requirement.

How about 1% of revenues? Harder to hide market share than profits and multi-National Corporations pretty much control where their profits show up...to the lowest bidder in terms of taxes.

Pulling on my bootstraps...can't seem to pull with 240# of force...so still on the ground...

Thanks. Looking forward to the trip!

If you can prove any "magic", it is then called science. So the answer is no, until proven otherwise...and then no again.

I guess it's too late for me to join in?

Name change to Edsel Corsair...

Wow...so you're saying they've done it more than once? Now I'll read the OP and the article...

Any collusion between the French and Russians?

Law of gravity...though I'm probably only looking at the "upside" of the changes I'd make...

I guess the assumption would be that it isn't a rigid body.

It can't be described by a single vector. If the body was expanding away from some central point (and say, each point proportionally to the distance from that point) the vector concept can help describe it. Each vector would point in one direction.

Probably a pretty safe bet...

Yes. Based only on the set of assumptions we are wired with it certainly does. But there is no reason to believe that set of assumptions is correct. There is no evidence or requirement for it.

No. I think we count it as part of our imaginations. There is absolutely no evidence that it is there, and there is no requirement for it aside from the way we tend to think.

No one knows.

Yes. Relative to the "tiny experimental uncertainties" referred to by John Cuthbert, all the distances/displacements, velocities, the masses, etc, all have much, much greater uncertainty than that. Do you think otherwise?

Fair enough. Just note that on galactic and greater scales, the (observation based) uncertainties are considerable.

...and untrue of GR for the last 50+ years unless you invoke unproven dark matter ad hoc You or anyone else guessing doesn't change that. No. At that time (as I stated... prior to 1859) it was not. As I stated your statements may seem reasonable... We don't know that they are true.