You must be scared out of your mind when it rains or snows. How do you sleep at night? Do you have a hardened bunker for when it hails?

They may not plan to...

Don't even joke about such things...

I don't think you're paying attention to the credentials of the last two batches of testors. This isn't sloppy work. Harold White (NASA) is highly credentialed and esteemed by his peers. The German team in particular is well known for being a bunch of pedantic twits able to rip apart experiments for their faulty methods. They haven't given up on that chore, but their initial conclusions report an inability to find fault in the experiment and are able to comparably reproduce the results.

This device also doesn't have to violate physics, just our current understanding of it. The quantum world for instance while reasonably modeled is largely just that. A collection of models that fit observed behavior. Who says microwaves cannot interact with something from that world? One of the ideas tossed out there (by White IIRC) was that they were pushing against "virtual particles"

I mean really, it's in the name of science right?

A group of Chinese researchers were the first to claim reproduction of the results. This was followed on by NASA, and now apparently these Germans are taking a stab at it. Somewhere between China and NASA I believe I read LockMart paid the fellow a visit but nothing was ever heard from that.

The cheap experiments are meant to convince someone with enough money to toss such a device into orbit.

A two year old, if dropped into the cockpit of a jet plane could theoretically hit the right buttons and pull the right knobs to make the plane go. But that doesn't mean they could reproduce the results, nor explain how they did it.

Solar sails and photon drives produce far less thrust than what is claimed to be being measured with these EM drives. If something real is going on here, it is also almost certain that the experiments represent a sub-optimal design. Nobody has a clue how an EM drive produces thrust. Once that's figured out, if there's something to figure out, more efficient designs can be had producing more thrust with less input.

1. Not only is Tesla a "new" car company starting from scratch, but a electric car company competing head-to-head with ICE cars.
2. SpaceX is a private--not from the military industrial complex--company starting from scratch. They're operating on ordinary business margins rather than the--typical for the industry--government "cost-plus" blank check.

Aside from the improbable business side of it, with respect to the technology, both, but particularly Tesla are pioneers in their respective fields. Current day GM vehicles are nothing like a 1905 auto, and in many ways a Tesla is nothing like a current day GM. Your date based argument makes little sense. It is something akin to comparing a stone axe from 1000BC to a modern day chain saw and suggesting that it's nothing new.

Pretty much no one.

On a lighter note, it will bring new meaning to the term being "swatted." Ought to be good for a few /. posts and ensuing sniggers.

He's doing reasonably well with three improbable companies, each with myriad improbable projects. What's trying to slow down J-day going to add to his already improbable plate?

You imagine wrong.

You must be from Canada...