Talk:Field propulsion

Field propulsion was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 18, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Field propulsion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Field propulsion was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 10, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.

No consensus, 22 June 2026, see discussion.
keep, 11 January 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

A fact from Field propulsion appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 November 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that field propulsion comprises types of spacecraft propulsion that move a ship without conventional rocket engines?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Did you know archive/2025/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Field propulsion.

Wikipedia

On 2 July 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Field propulsion to ?. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Current sourcing backlog

This is what I need to work through still; some I've attacked, but I want to fresh start on these now that the initial bulk/foundation of the page is moved over.

From: User:Very Polite Person/draft/Field propulsion#Explicit to term "field propulsion" (or analogous); these are sources that outright name the term (and in case anyone would like to hypothetically challenge the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME reality of "Field propulsion"):

From: User:Very Polite Person/draft/Field propulsion#General:

Indexes:

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/a/advanced+propulsion+concepts

Copied overall from: User:Very Polite Person/draft/Field propulsion#Possible references to review. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Is solar sailing Field Propulsion?

Several sources classify it as Propellantless propulsion but I have yet to find one that identifies it as Field Propulsion. If there are none we should probably move the coverage of solar sailing on this page to either Solar sail or PP. ToadalChaos (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

Unsuccessful. ToadalChaos (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Field propulsion/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 17:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: ToadalChaos (talk · contribs) 20:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This article was already GA-nominated once recently, and in my review of that nomination I raised several issues. Some were addressed, some compromises were found, but many issues linger.

To summarise the discussion from that review:

I argued the article should be renamed to Propellantless Propulsion.
- My main concern is that several technologies that were never labelled "Field Propulsion" in the literature are here classed as such. Since the literature provides no clear and consistent technical definition of what "Field Propulsion" actually is (in contrast to Propellantless Propulsion), the line of what belongs on the FP page must be defined by what is explicitly labelled as such in the literature.
- The wording in the article and the redirect from Propellantless propulsion to this page adds to the confusion, imo.
- The main reason I am so concerned with the exact scope of what "Field Propulsion" encompasses is that in recent years, the term has gained much traction in UFOlogy and pseudoscience circles (for instance the books Hitler's Flying Saucers or The Antigravity Files). There are also a number of startup websites with AI-generated imagery and, imho, very little actual credibility. There is indeed some legitimate engineering literature that uses the term "Field Propulsion", but I believe the article in its current state lends undue weight to the topic (e.g. mentioning Kepler) and misrepresents how mature/concrete the theories are (most of the technologies mentioned have never been labelled as "Field Propulsion" in the literature and therefore do not belong here).
The page's author, Very Polite Person (talk · contribs), disagreed with the renaming suggestion. A compromise was reached: I would write a separate page on Propellantless Propulsion, and material not explicitly categorised as "Field Propulsion" by the literature would be moved to Propellantless Propulsion.
- The new page is currently a userspace draft which I will do my best to get in publish-able shape ASAP.

The following technologies are mentioned on this page but I remain unconvinced that they belong here (I have not found any sources actually classifying them as Field Propulsion; at most some calling them propellant-less):

Solar sails and related concepts (eg laser-propelled sails)
Space tethers
Maglev trains
Lightcraft
Plasma waves and magnetospheric plasma
Electrohydrodynamic aircraft
Magnetohydrodynamic naval propulsion
Magnetic and electric sails

Note that this list may not be exhaustive.

--ToadalChaos (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Does this article reflect an actual category that is in common use, or is it more of a bunch of otherwise unrelated technologies glued together even though they are not considered to be "field propulsion" by anyone in the field?

In particular, I see one technology that I am personally familiar with as an electronics and hydraulics engineer: The drive system of the ship Yamato-1. I have personally seen the Yamato-1 thrusters at the Ship Science Museum in Tokyo and have read several papers on them. Fascinating stuff, but so far not practical.

The basic idea behind most ships and boats (sailboat and sailing ships being a notable exception) is "apply force to water. Water goes this way. Ship goes that way". Same with most aircraft (sailplanes and gliders being a notable exception) except with air.

Propellers, ducted fans, jet engines, Jet Ski motors, and even rowing with oars all use the same basic principle. The nature of the air pump or water pump varies, but not the basic drive principle.

The Yamato-1 was basically a giant Jet Ski. It pumped water out of a tube. See [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV-VAjrh1dI ]. The difference was the nature of the pump. Instead of an impeller it used a Magnetohydrodynamic drive. Interestingly, Field propulsion links to Magnetohydrodynamics but not Magnetohydrodynamic drive, even though that is an often used term. (Both pages were linked to in User:Very Polite Person/draft/Field propulsion. so maybe it just got lost along the way.)

I can find zero sources -- reliable or not -- calling the drive system of the Yamato-1 "field propulsion".

Another dubious inclusion is the mention of maglev trains. That's just a standard Linear motor. All electric motors propell something with a (magnetic) field, but nobody calls them "field propulsion"s

What really struck me is what was left out: The many fringe sources talking about UFOs using "field propulsion". This is largely driven by Bob Lazar describing the field propulsion system he says UFOs use in the 2019 Netflix documentary Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers.

In my opinion, if someone runs into the phrase "field propulsion" somewhere on the Internet and comes to Wikipedia to read about it, the odds are very high that they ran across it on a site talking about UFOs and not one talking about any of the topics currently in this article.

I suggest rejecting this article for GA status for now, and sending it back with instructions saying that to achieve GA status There must be [1] at least one reliable source explicitly calling something like the Yamato-1 drive "field propulsion" before it can be included, and [2] That there must be at least a brief section mentioning the significant usage of the term by the UFO community and pointing out the fringe nature of those claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that mention this in the UFO context? All of the sources you linked are WP:FRINGE themselves. It seems an utterly non-notable unrelated topic.

Far and away the primary result on Google Books seems to be what this article is talking about, I can't find anything about UFOs, so I don't see much of a problem there. The possible combination of two things is an issue (propellantless propulsion vs field propulsion). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a U.S. department of commerce document from 1979 hosted by NASA that goes into a bit of detail about field propulsion and UFOs here. Already cited in the article, it can be used as foundation for such a section. The main issue is that other sources I'm seeing all look to be in predatory journals. Would need a bit of a literature review. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Alas, pretty much no reliable source cares about the technical details of the engines used by flying saucers. Which means that we can't even mention things that are widely spread by thousands of non-reliable sources. It isn't ideal, but all the alternatives appear to be worse. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A major academic blind spot is that things beneath contempt to academics don't enter the academic literature, even if it is widely discussed in the grey literature or click bait. There is a fun paper I stumbled upon Online Conspiracy Theories, Digital Platforms and Secondary Orality: Toward a Sociology of Online Monsters that talks about this a bit. One area I hope to be able to fill in my professional career a bit, but so far lack a good target that is within my specific focus. This seems to be a victim of academics not wanting to discuss things they don't believe are even worth countering, which means we don't have the phenomena clearly documented. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Is that a "blind spot"? That's just what academics do. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This is something I have been frustrated by on occasion.

On the other hand, it is a lot easier to spew nonsense than it is to disprove it in proper academic fashion - and this problem is getting worse in the era of LLMs. It is unfair to place the burden of proof on academics to disprove every delusional LLM-driven ego-trip people go on.

I have this problem at work: we've been getting spammed by some loonie who thinks they've reinvented physics but can't put together a coherent argument or falsifiable statements. None of us wants to waste public money (or their own time) on that nonsense. ToadalChaos (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

To your question:

Does this article reflect an actual category that is in common use, or is it more of a bunch of otherwise unrelated technologies glued together even though they are not considered to be "field propulsion" by anyone in the field?

There are some reliable sources that do mention the term. However, this article conflates with "Propellantless propulsion" and other similar-sounding technologies (eg anything to do with electric or magnetic fields). This makes the topic seem much broader than it actually is in the literature.

Hence my proposal to write a dedicated page on "Propellantless propulsion" and cut down the contents of this page to fit actual literature use. ToadalChaos (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have opened a topic for good sources on "Field propulsion" specifically: Talk:Field_propulsion#Explicit_and_reliable_sources.

I will start populating it tonight. ToadalChaos (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Support proposal to write a dedicated page on Propellantless propulsion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I just published a first version of Propellantless propulsion as a standalone page. It's what I'd consider a minimum viable product on the topic, with the intention to expand it further and migrate material from Field propulsion as appropriate (and eventually a GAN??). If you have the time and inclination, any feedback would be appreciated - this is my first full page :) ToadalChaos (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I withdraw this WP:GAN just like we did the last one when when we forked out Field propulsion to become Spacecraft electric propulsion and spilled over still more into Reactionless drive.

Ironic that in a year+ of gathering materials around field propulsion, and my biggest headache for most of it was taxonomy as so much of the language is overlapping and dynamic over decades. So not only did I pull enough material for two articles, now it appears to pulled enough for four total articles. Not bad.

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.

You are 2/2 on good WP:GAN ideas, @ToadalChaos.

So this WP:GAN ends.

Just FYI, you likely need to stand down/aside now for any sort of WP:GAN reviews of field propulsion and obviously not for propellantless propulsion, but I'll help you pull it all together, and I'd be more than happy to see you toss up the future

on your own user page for field propulsion too!

For anyone keeping score as an addendum, it seems notability for the FP term/concept was settled back in the 2009 AFD. It's only gotten more notable since, and since notability can't WP:DEGRADE, we don't need to sweat that. See you on the respective talk pages. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi VPP, welcome back.

Indeed, a lot of the material currently on this page should be migrated. I'd be wary of putting everything on Propellantless propulsion though -- as you say, its scope is broader than FP, and I worry the article might become bloated if we put too much detail there. However, most of the technologies there have their own pages, so we can migrate things there, too. The history section in particular is quite extensive but I'm not sure it would fit well on the PP page as is -- the term PP itself is quite new, especially in review literature, so a history section risks becoming a jumble of the separate histories of the respective technologies.

As for the future of the FP page; since I've struggled a bit to find the exact definition/scope of "field propulsion" as a technical term (distinct from "propellantless"), I've started collecting sources that specifically address it as a category and would be directly usable as Wikipedia sources here: Talk:Field_propulsion#Explicit_and_reliable_sources. The intent being to rebuild this article based on those sources. I hope you find it a useful idea, contributions welcome!

I look forward to collaborating! ToadalChaos (talk) 07:18, 10 June 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.

Explicit and reliable sources

This topic is intended as a collection of sources that:

Are reliable as per WP:RS
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 ^[1]^[2]
Yoshinari Minami ^[3]^[4]^[5]
- 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 ^[3].
- Categorised as Field Propulsion: Space Strain/Drive Propulsion, Space Coupling Propulsion, Zero Point Field propulsion, Alcubierre Warp drive ^[3]
Takaaki Musha ^[6] (is Bentham Science Publishers a WP:QUESTIONABLE source?)
- This book is not considered a reliable source (see discussion below).
Leik Myrabo ^[7]
- 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.^[8]
- 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.

[1]
Millis, Marc G. Coupling Gravity, Electromagnetism and Space-Time for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs (PDF) (Report). NASA Lewis Research Center. pp. 93, 94–95, 95. NASA NTRS 19950002760. Archived from the original on 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2026-02-20. For field propulsion, the fields themselves must act as the reaction mass.
[2]
Millis, Marc G. (1996-07-16). The Challenge to Create the Space Drive (PDF) (NASA Technical Memorandum). Cleveland, Ohio: NASA Lewis Research Center. 19960048672. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-07-16. Retrieved 2026-02-12. Hypothetical field drives: in addition to producing forces with collisions, forces can be produced from interactions between matter and fields. Gravitational fields accelerate masses and electric fields accelerate charges. To entertain the analogy of using field interactions to create a space drive, it is necessary to assume that there is some way for a vehicle to induce a field around itself that will in turn accelerate itself. Field drive concepts are more complex and more speculative than collision sail drives.
[3]
Minami, Yoshinari (September 2003). "An Introduction to Concepts of Field Propulsion". Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. 56 (9): 350–359. Retrieved 2026-02-20.
[4]
Minami, Yoshinari (February 13–17, 2005). "A Perspective of Practical Interstellar Exploration: Using Field Propulsion and Hyper-Space Navigation Theory" (PDF). AIP Conference Proceedings. Space Technology and Applications International Forum (conference paper). Albuquerque, New Mexico. pp. 1419–1428. doi:10.1063/1.1867273. Archived from the original on 2026-02-21.
[5]
Minami, Yoshinari; Musha, Takaaki (January 2012). "Field propulsion systems for space travel". Acta Astronautica. 81 (1). Elsevier: 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.02.027. ISSN 0094-5765. Archived from the original on 2026-03-03. Retrieved 2025-09-17. Field propulsion systems were proposed by many researchers to overcome the speed limit of the conventional space propulsion system. Field propulsion system can be propelled without mass expulsion; its propulsion principle can induce a propulsive force (i.e., thrust) that arises from the interaction of the substantial physical structure.
[6]
Musha, Takaaki (15 February 2018). Field Propulsion System for Space Travel: Physics of Non-Conventional Propulsion Methods for Interstellar Travel. Bentham Science Publishers. pp. 20–37. ISBN 978-1-60805-566-1.
[7]
Myrabo, Leik N. (May 31, 1983). Advanced Beamed-Energy and Field Propulsion Concepts (PDF) (Contractor Report). NASA Contractor Report Series. McLean, Virginia: BDM Corporation for the California Institute of Technology and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. BDM/W-83-225-TR; NAS 1.26:176108; Accession 85N33186. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-12-14. Retrieved 2026-02-19. Advanced concepts falling under the general headings of Thermal Propulsion, Field Propulsion, and Photon Propulsion were evaluated to define their potential.
[8]
Mead, Jr., F. B. (1972). "Advanced Propulsion Concepts - Project Outgrowth". Defense Technical Information Center. Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory (AFRPL). Retrieved 6 July 2026.

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)

Sources 2 and 3 are completely bunk

Yoshinari Minami is the author of 2 and 3 and is writing complete pseudophysics in out-of-the-way journals. We cannot base the article on this. Therefore I have tagged the article. I don't know, perhaps deletion is in order. I'm reporting this article to WP:FTN as well. jps (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Your last AFD was unsuccessful: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field propulsion — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Please qualify how those sources are pseudophysics and that they are "out of the way journals". Your claim is extraordinary and needs evidence.

Acta Astronautica

Journal of the British Interplanetary Society

These are mainstream journals of real sciences. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

They aren't good journals. They are second to third rate. If Minami wants to make a mark for himself, let him publish in first-rate journals. jps (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

They aren't good journals.

Says who? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The lack of citations says so. This is supposed to be some sort of summary article and I can't find a single source that treats the subject the way this article does that has any decent citation rate. jps (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Be clear, which is required for demonstrable WP:CIR. Are you A) arguing these sources have no citations, or that B) these journals are not cited by others? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that these papers are walled gardens. jps (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Based upon what linkable and directly reviewable evidence? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I was clear. There aren't any WP:Independent sources that cite them. jps (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the contested citations are:

2: Minami, Yoshinari; Musha, Takaaki (January 2012). "Field propulsion systems for space travel". Acta Astronautica. 81 (1). Elsevier: 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.02.027. ISSN 0094-5765. Archived from the original on 2026-03-03. Retrieved 2025-09-17. 2 citations in 14 years.
3: Minami, Yoshinari (September 2003). "An Introduction to Concepts of Field Propulsion". Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. 56 (9): 350–359. Retrieved 2026-02-20. 0 citations.

Correct? The number of uses of these poorly cited sources is clearly WP:UNDUE. These are not reliable sources. All related content should be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd be curious for your reasoned POV here. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Field_propulsion&diff=1360169068&oldid=1360166167

What exactly do you see as the issue with those peer reviewed papers in those two journals - which are 100% fine journals, to just establish that baseline. They're boring mainstream aerospace. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. The lack of citations is a sign that the source is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Experts in the field have evaluated these sources. Their conclusion is silence. Thus we should not base our content on such sources. This is especially true for unusual or exotic claims. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

So to be crystal clear, your position is just (and understandably) on the basis the papers in question were not heavily cited, vs the erroneous claims above they were in bad journals? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Better journals might not have published these papers. The second- and third-rate nature of the journals in which these claims were published is only underscored by the lack of citations. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I am genuinely puzzled by your repeated slamming of those two journals. What exactly is your specific problem with aerospace sciences and engineering? I've noticed you over time have repeatedly been... very oddly negatively harsh toward the entire domain, on your interactions with it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Engineering journals are not the right place to publish the kinds of claims being proffered by Minami and Musha. Much the same as when someone proposes a perpetual motion machine, when someone claims that there are novel kinds of propulsion that are based on fringe, novel, or untested physics, the place to make the arguments isn't properly in engineering journals. jps (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

What policy on wiki or in science defines that?

By your metric, an aerospace engineer is as unqualified to speak to astronomy as an astronomer to aerospace engineering? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Journal shopping and out-of-place venues are problems described in WP:RS. jps (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

To be crystal clear, no I am not claiming that the paper in question are "not heavily cited". I am claiming that these paper are almost not cited at all. The very few citations these papers have are primarily by the same author or co-author or are by papers which have exactly zero citations in Google Scholar. These are not reliable sources.

If you read these paper you can tell why no one cites them. They are completely bogus. Consider:

As previously mentioned, the propulsion principle of field propulsion is based on the assumption that space is a vacuum that possesses a substantial physical structure. From "Field propulsion systems for space travel". Well, a vacuum does not possess a substantial physical structure, so you can stop reading right there.

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

More unsuitable sources

Millis, Marc G. Coupling Gravity, Electromagnetism and Space-Time for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs (PDF) (Report). NASA Lewis Research Center. pp. 93, 94–95, 95. NASA NTRS 19950002760. Archived from the original on 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2026-02-20. One citation, by an article which is itself uncited.
Gilland, James H.; Williams, George J. (2011). The Potential for Ambient Plasma Wave Propulsion (PDF) (Report). NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-06-12. Retrieved 2025-06-06. One citation and yet this source backs 15 claims in the article.

On the other side, there are glaring omissions.

Frisbee, Robert H. "Advanced space propulsion for the 21st century." Journal of propulsion and power 19.6 (2003): 1129-1154. 233 citations. Notably this review discusses only the beamed energy part of Myrabo's paper (and of course makes no mention of anything by Minami) This kind of source would be a suitable basis for an article with similar topics to this one, but Frisbee never mentions "field propulsion".

Johnjbarton (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

What should we do here? Should we just AfD the article? jps (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

What we should do here is discuss these sources. We may decide to remove the content they verify. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

What is wrong with the first two that makes them unsuitable on what basis? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Again it is the lack of citations, indicating that these works did not influence the field of study. The question should be asked in reverse: what validates the inclusion of this material? It depends a bit on how this material was vetted and how it is used in the article. Is there evidence that the Millis or Gilland paper was reviewed by scientists at NASA? Is the use consistent with the scope of that review? Johnjbarton (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Another unsuitable source is

Myrabo, Leik N. (May 31, 1983). Advanced Beamed-Energy and Field Propulsion Concepts (PDF) (Contractor Report). NASA Contractor Report Series. McLean, Virginia: BDM Corporation for the California Institute of Technology and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. BDM/W-83-225-TR; NAS 1.26:176108; Accession 85N33186. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-12-14. Retrieved 2026-02-19. Advanced concepts falling under the general headings of Thermal Propulsion, Field Propulsion, and Photon Propulsion were evaluated to define their potential.

If you read the report you will find that "Field Propulsion" is discussed only long enough to say that it was already covered in another report:

Mead Jr., Franklin B. (June 1, 1972). Advanced Propulsion Concepts – Project Outgrowth (Report). Edwards AFB, CA: Air Force Rocket Propulsion Lab. Accession No. AD0750554.

That report has a long chapter on Field Propulsion, which covers things like plasma thrusters. These are non-chemical thrusters, but not explicitly propellantless. We have a lot of xx thruster articles which match the content in that source. Actually my take is that the terminology "field propulsion" used in these decades old NASA reports just did not catch on. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Maglev trains??

Kepler

AFD issues

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)