Talk:Field propulsion

Explicit and reliable sources

This topic is intended as a collection of sources that:

1. Are reliable as per WP:RS
2. Mention the term "Field propulsion" explicitly and intentionally, as a category of propulsion methods. For instance, an article mentioning "magnetic field propulsion" or "propulsion with magnetic fields" in the context of maglev trains would not qualify since the occurrence of "field propulsion" is coincidental.

Talk:Field_propulsion#Current_sourcing_backlog is a good starting point, but should be filtered to sources that actually meet the above criteria.

I will start this as time allows, please feel free to contribute. ToadalChaos (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The primary aim of this thread is to establish whether Field Propulsion fulfills the notability (WP:N) and recognizability (WP:CRITERIA) criteria for the article to even exist (there have been multiple attempts to have the page deleted in the past and I wish to finally settle the matter).

Secondarily, it aims to establish which (proposed or realised) technologies actually belong to the category as per the literature. Anything that can't unambiguously be proven to belong here should be moved either to its own page or the (upcoming) Propellantless propulsion page as applicable. - ToadalChaos (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Grouping by lead author in no particular order:

• Marc G. Millis
• Yoshinari Minami
  • This author is not considered a reliable source (see discussion below).
  • Minami explicitly says that solar and light sails are not field propulsion, in the introduction of .
  • Categorised as Field Propulsion: Space Strain/Drive Propulsion, Space Coupling Propulsion, Zero Point Field propulsion, Alcubierre Warp drive
• Takaaki Musha (is Bentham Science Publishers a WP:QUESTIONABLE source?)
  • This book is not considered a reliable source (see discussion below).
• Leik Myrabo
  • As pointed out below, this report only mentions "Field Propulsion" in reference to another, earlier report, but has nothing to say on the topic itself.
• F.B. Mead Jr.
  • Lists the following under the heading "Field Propulsion": electromagnetic and electrostatic thrusters, improved ion fuels, Alfven wave propulsion, electrostatic effects, satellite drag make-up, electromagnetic spacecraft propulsion, superconducting particle accelerator, antigravity propulsion.
  • The following definition is given: "Field propulsion concepts use electric and/or magnetic fields to accelerate an ionized working fluid, or react directly with the environment by electric or magnetic effects."
  • At 17 citations since 1972, this report can't exactly be considered the most influential.

ToadalChaos (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Updated to reflect feedback from fellow editors.—ToadalChaos (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Those appear to be more than sufficient to support spacecraft propulsion that interacts with a planet or star's magnetic field. Not beamed-energy propulsion. Not Magnetohydrodynamic ship or aircraft drives. Not solar sails. Not ionic wind propulsion. Not Alfven wave propulsion. None of those involve any sort of field. And especially, nothing from this source: (warp drives, wormholes, superluminal quantum effects, vacuum fluctuation energy, coupling of gravity and electromagnetism...) That source is explicitly about things that don't exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I concur -- however:

The primary aim of this thread is to establish whether Field Propulsion fulfills the notability (WP:N) and recognizability (WP:CRITERIA) criteria for the article to even exist (there have been multiple attempts to have the page deleted in the past and I wish to finally settle the matter).

Secondarily, it aims to establish which (proposed or realised) technologies actually belong to the category as per the literature. Anything that can't unambiguously be proven to belong here should be moved either to its own page or the (upcoming) Propellantless propulsion page as applicable. ToadalChaos (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this list. The Minami sources are unreliable. They are many, none are cited, the ones I read are word salad. The Musha book has 7 citations on Google Scholar, none themselves reviewed. Myrabo only mentions "field propulsion" in reference to the Mead NASA report from 1972. Mead has quite a bit about "field propulsion" but it lines up mainly with topic we have under eg plasma thrusters.

Millis sources describe "field propulsion" as hypothetical and that is also the point of view in Mead. If this article is based on these three NASA reports, then we should decide if these are adequate and change the content to match what they say. These sources are also 30-55 years old, very dated for there future looking point of view. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the inputs. I have updated the list above.

I agree on Minami's works. He wrote dozens of papers on the same topic over several decades, and none gained the interest of the wider academic community. A lot of his writing is word salad, with the notable exception of his rant claiming that NASA is too inept to investigate UAPs.—ToadalChaos (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Kepler

The Kepler content is invented. The cited history of solar sail concept starts with Maxwell. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

AFD issues

What is going on here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FField_propulsion_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=1361998549&oldid=1361092760

I asked the "apparent" admin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Izno#Did_you_close_this_AfD? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Resolved. FaviFake (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

What resolution? It looks like they closed it but were not logged in. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:~2026-37644-94&diff=prev&oldid=1361998031

What is going on? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

A vandal is vandalising. The discussion is open now, dw about it. FaviFake (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

A vandal that consistently signs as if a logged out admin...? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Amusing, innit? FaviFake (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal_or_logged_out_admin_and_AFD_oddness — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a LTA. They've been doing this off and on across lots of AFDs for quite a while. Anyone who looks over AFD is probably familiar with it. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Extremely messy, absolutely no chance of determining consensus. (non-admin closure) Robloxguest3 (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Field propulsion → ? – Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field propulsion (2nd nomination), this may not be the best title for the page. FaviFake (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think User:johnjbarton had suggested Advanced spacecraft propulsion somewhere as a nice general pairing with Spacecraft propulsion and Spacecraft electric propulsion, which I had already forked out of a prior major excess of material I had collected for Field propulsion, which also spilled over to Reactionless drive. There was an incredible amount - all the talk pages I think still have north of 100+ references I still hadn't fully gotten through, and I had more still saved.

So I think that's the easiest one: Advanced spacecraft propulsion that will annoy the fewest people. The various Propellantless propulsion and Propellantless spacecraft propulsion and this one can go into that, and we have a nice farm article for myriad advanced, proposed and theoretical tech (all of which then have no justifiable exclusionary reason under any WP:PAG and can by slotted in appropriately. Each as they evolve over years and decades can then (and will if they advance) fork back out to their own pages. Only logical conclusion, really, and sums up every single discussion to date. No brainer. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Someone should probably ping every participant of that discussion. FaviFake (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

AfD isn't sole authority/arbiter, this counts toward consensus as much: Talk:Field propulsion/GA2. They all need pinging too. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. FaviFake (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It's funny, this was all sorted out here in GA2 it seemed...:

Most of what is in field propulsion can readily copy directly airlifted straight into propellantless propulsion, and then (more irony) field propulsion becomes the smaller of the four articles, propellantless propulsion will become the biggest, and ironically (third time) the most inclusive, where I had drop kicked a number of "prospects" out of my considerations for field propulsion (which will now work better in the broader scoped of propellantless propulsion.

So my !vote is what Barton suggested somewhere (FTN?) for Advanced spacecraft propulsion as finale (for now) stop.

Pings: @ToadalChaos @PARAKANYAA @GeogSage @Guy Macon @MrOllie @Johnjbarton @JoJo_Anthrax @RandomEditsForWhenIRemember @ජපස @Stepwise_Continuous_Dysfunction @Ldm1954 @Tercer @ApLundell — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

DO NOT PING ME!!! I do not want to have any interactions with you. The next time you do it you will be reported at ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Jesus Christ what happened? FaviFake (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1224#Very_Polite_Person_user_behavior and a block for VPP, mainly. MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Wiki has a feature to mute pings from users you don't want to hear from. Has had for nearly a decade now. *Specifically* to avoid this kind of escalation. ApLundell (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I want them to leave me alone. I would prefer that they not refer to me, accuse me, ping me, talk about me, reply to me, or in any other way attempt to interact with me. I never initiate any interaction, even when they edit or post to a page in an area such as fringe science where I typically edit. I don't even talk about them other than to respond when they attempt to interact with me, asking them to stop.

Having them attempt to interact with my (historically this consists of accusing me of wrongdoing on article talk pages and noticeboards) and not seeing the notification isn't good enough. I do not want to have ANY interactions with them, including one-sided interactions where they are doing all of the interacting. This is the last thing I will say on this. If you want any further comments from me, email me. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

'Advanced spacecraft propulsion' is vague and sounds like it would inevitably lead to coatracking of unrelated topics. We need something that limits the scope, not something that widens it even more. MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the "this is a bad article name" bit (see Talk:Field propulsion#GA review for my reasoning), but I haven't seen an alternative that I am in love with. They are all acceptable and I will gladly go along with the consensus but I am hoping for a better article name. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Advanced spacecraft propulsion wouldn't solve anything, it's too vague. Does nuclear electric propulsion counts as advanced? Why?

The problem here is lack of a coherent topic, not lack of a good title. I defend Propellantless spacecraft propulsion because that's a very clear-cut topic. Tercer (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't love "Advanced Spacecraft Propulsion" because ... at least to a layman, it's almost redundant. I know what you *mean*, and I know all things are relative, but the whole field is starting at a very high level and continuing to innovate, so it's hard to say that the techniques not covered by this article aren't "advanced", at least by some definitions of the word. ApLundell (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Per our notability guidelines, the question for "Advanced spacecraft propulsion" is do we find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

• Frisbee, R. H. (2003). Advanced space propulsion for the 21st century. Journal of propulsion and power, 19(6), 1129-1154. A review with 325 citations. Author from JPL. The overriding goal of advanced space propulsion is to reduce the costs of doing space missions, and to enable totally new types of missions that basically could not be performed (even at essentially unlimited cost) with existing technology.
• Tajmar, M. (2012). Advanced space propulsion systems. Springer Science & Business Media. 121 citations. Author Professor and Chair for Space Systems TU Dresden, Germany. To an earlier point, the book surveys all forms of space propulsion.

After that we get into a lot variations, "future spacecraft propulsion systems", "advanced propulsion concepts" and so on. The case based strictly the guideline is weak, but to me just these two sources are much better than two old sources I've seen on "field propulsion", a topic which some editors believe is sufficient for an article.

In my opinion, given we can't agree on "advanced spacecraft propulsion" and we can't get rid of field propulsion, the best solution is to change it into a summary of point of view given in the old tech reports. That is, the article would be about the organization concept "field propulsion" as used in the historical sources. We would continue to strengthen Propellantless spacecraft propulsion as the better documented name for as specific category of propulsion systems. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that "Advanced spacecraft propulsion" is arguably better supported by the literature than "Field propulsion". But I also understand concerns about it being a very broad/nebulous term which could suffer from scope creep.

Trimming down the field propulsion page to only what is actually supported by the literature seems to me the most pragmatic compromise. That is why I started the topic on explicit and reliable sources, since there seems to be a lot of confusion about what actually belongs on this page.

Once the work of editing/rewriting this page in accordance to actual sources is done systematically, it should be clearer what the page is actually about, and what it isn't. ToadalChaos (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose "Advanced spacecraft propulsion". It is too vague. "Propellantless spacecraft propulsion" would be much clearer. Or just leave it at "field propulsion" if that term is indeed more prominently used in the literature. As I understand it, there is no difference in scope between propellantless spacecraft propulsion and field propulsion for spacecraft? I've checked the only book on my shelf that touches on the topic: Space Mission Analysis and Design III. On pages 178 and 179 it mentions gravity-assists, aero-assists and solar sails as ways to impart delta-V without expelling propellant. Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

But the term is >> not << more prominently used in the literature. Introduced in Air Force report in 1972. Mentioned in a NASA report. The definitional source by Mead excluded solar propulsion from "field propulsion" so it is not equivalent to "propellantless spacecraft propulsion". Johnjbarton (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The article in its current state is completely misleading because it includes many technologies that were never labelled as field propulsion but are instead propellantless. Due to the confusion in scope we started looking at the sources more critically. So far there is only one report (Mead 1972) which provides a definition for "Field Propulsion", and it is incompatible with Propellantless Propulsion. —ToadalChaos (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Could someone please explain to me why we shouldn't merge this article into Propellantless spacecraft propulsion with a redirect? The only things left appear to be things like Yamato 1 and maglev trains, which are not field propulsion and not propellantless spacecraft propulsion. Those should be discarded. What, exactly, would be left? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  What, exactly, would be left?

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Field_propulsion&oldid=1363538215
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Field_propulsion&diff=1363538215&oldid=1363348567

  A lot. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Mead's 1972 definition, the only one we have, is

  • Field propulsion concepts use electric and/or magnetic fields to accelerate an ionized working fluid, or react directly with the environment by electric or magnetic effects.

  Mead specifically treats photon propulsion as a different category, so all of the light sail material is off topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

don't rename, delete instead

A lexicon does not contain info about proposals. Describing things that actually exist is difficult enough. The Tech Bro / "Futurologist" dudes will have to leave the project, though. They tried to fool everyone into believing that they can tell everyone's fortune, which was not nice of them. They will be held accountable.

--~2026-38777-60 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you're rambling on about with fortune tellers... but there was a recent deletion/merge nomination which did not pass. —ToadalChaos (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)