Il giorno martedì 19 maggio 2020 09:15:03 UTC+2, Öö Tiib ha scritto:
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 09:55:02 UTC+3, wrote:
Il giorno martedì 19 maggio 2020 00:50:02 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:19:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by :

Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 21:50:02 UTC+2, John Bode ha scritto:
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 18:05:02 UTC+2, John Bode ha scritto:
On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 2:00:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is
more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

No, the Shuttle was pretty much THE touchstone for dangerous spacecraft.

Say what you will about SLS (I have), an inline configuration with an actual abort motor
vs. sidemount with no abort capability is automatically MUCH safer. There's no possibility
of foam strike damage (what killed Columbia) and there's a system to get the hell away
from the main tank when an SRB starts burning a hole into it (what killed Challenger).

It's wasteful and expensive, but it will be safer from the start than the Shuttle.

As for overall project architecture, the Gateway is stupid and was introduced solely
to deal with Orion's wimpy-ass service module. It adds complexity where it really isn't
needed. The Starship model looks compelling from that perspective - launch a single,
massive vehicle, refuel in orbit, go pretty much anywhere.

Of course, the Starship may fail - SpaceX may have gone down a technological dead end,
and the engineering challenge may be greater than they anticipated. But based on their
success so far, I don't think that's likely.


Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars
for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.


Welcome to the tyranny of the rocket equation. Reactionless drives are, so far, pure
science fiction. When traveling in space, the only way to go forward is to throw something
out the back.

It seems so because you don't know how to use electrodynamics! :-)


So far everything I've seen about PNN has been non-physical gibberish.

It's EmDrive (which doesn't work either) all over again. If you're getting micronewtons of
force out of 180W of power, then that suggests an issue in the experimental setup. Note
as people build better testing rigs to account for the magnetic and thermal effects of that
much power, the measured effect of the EmDrive goes *down*.

You never thought about the event that when Newton formulated classical mechanics he knew nothing about electromagnetism.

After all, when you say this thing with conviction (non-violation of Newton's III) it does us a great favor.

It does not go to investigate the historical folds of electrodynamics and the events that have influenced it in development.
You are completely superficial.

But this year you will have the opportunity to see that this is not the case with PNN and the rockets will gradually become a comic memory


Looking forward to the demo. And the detailed breakdown of the experimental setup. And
access to the data.


John Bode I am making a list of unbelievers to send the pnn know-how when it (after F432 patent filed) is ready and public.
If you want to participate send me a valid email to:


"Know-how" is nice, but proves nothing. A public demo
determines validity.

A public demonstration will be made with a registered patent .... but it will be made in Rome (Italy)


On what exhibition it will be made?

we (ASPS www.asps.it ) will do the exhibition with journalists, cameras, and above all experimental evidence with open pnn box and other details.

At the same time we will put some prototypes and a user manual on sale ... etc ... etc...