NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

On 5/18/20 10:53 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Doctor Who"* wrote in message ...

On 5/18/20 7:43 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Doctor Who"* wrote in message ...

On 5/18/20 7:27 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/18/20 3:27 PM, wrote:
* From* talk.origins

Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 00:50:01 UTC+2, Wolffan ha scritto:
On 17 May 2020, wrote
(in
):

Il giorno domenica 17 maggio 2020 06:45:02 UTC+2, Bob Casanova
ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 14:43:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by :

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 23:30:04 UTC+2, Bob Casanova
ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 03:51:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by :


I am tired to repeat to everyone what is written in links in
www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm

If the action reaction is violated (III principle) ..... change
the inertia law ( I principle) and F=ma ( II ) .... so all is
different from what you think.

I found in test that F=ma increase with time at the same electric
power.
You think as newtonian man but but PNN is NON newtonian !!!!!!
It is very difficult to understand if you don't make NON
newtonian experiments.

Read here more in
https://www.okpal.com/building-a-rea...space-ship/?#/

This year F432 patent will be filed so everyone can reapeat the
PNN experiments.

We don't need more money to produce the collapse of astronautics
to suppositories.

We just want to enjoy the spectacle of what will happen when the
know-how of the pnn is known :-)


I've gotta side with Calmagorod on this one.* I'm a hair's width away
from putting "Jeff Findley" in my killfile because of this "anti-pnn"
fantasy.

Oh no!* Please don't!* Whatever will I do?* /s

Jeff



you will do nothing, aside opposing us on usenet, you really can't
do nothing against pnn.

Of course he can't. He also can't stop the invisible pink elephant
from ****ting in my garage.
Jeff Findley is powerless, POWERLESS I tell you to stop fantastical
creatures or ideas.

Seriously, it's very simple;
Put up or shut up.* Nobody on Usenet can stop you. If PNN works as
you claims, good luck as you're on your ways to becoming billionaires
and winning a Nobel or two for overturning physics as we know it.


the only response about this is that you don't know how physics really
works. You only know what you have read in books, but you have never
done a physics experiment yourself.


Far from it, I've done quite a few.* But again, if your idea is right,
what do you care what any of us think.
Prove it and you'll be billionaires.




You never did a single electric space propulsion experiment in your
life, because if you did it and you had success, you would talk like
calmagorod.

l 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 :

cut



"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)

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...

Il giorno martedì 19 maggio 2020 10:10:02 UTC+2, Öö Tiib ha scritto:
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 10:50:02 UTC+3, wrote:
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...

Blah blah. It will fly around on what exhibition carrying your flag of asps?

From how he writes it seems that he has made the wrong predictions on the pnn. :-)
Don't suffer so obviously that I'm sorry :-)

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 1:25:31 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/18/20 1:53 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/17/20 2:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17-May-20 9:41 pm, Doctor Who wrote:

it helps if you stop contemptuous behavior against pnn.


How can I be contemptuous of something that doesn't exist?

Sylvia.


see? it is your fault if we insult you.

Your reading comprehension needs some work.

Jeff



you are a stupid pereson.

That piece of paper I received from the Aerospace Engineering department
at Purdue and my current employer of 30 years both seem to belive
otherwise.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Hey there, fellow Big Ten! Penn State here, degrees in chemistry.

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 1:34:14 PM UTC-4, Doctor Who wrote:
On 5/18/20 7:27 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/18/20 3:27 PM, wrote:
From talk.origins

Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 00:50:01 UTC+2, Wolffan ha scritto:
On 17 May 2020, wrote
(in ):

Il giorno domenica 17 maggio 2020 06:45:02 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 14:43:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by :

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 23:30:04 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 03:51:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by :


I am tired to repeat to everyone what is written in links in www.asps..it/pnndatabase.htm

If the action reaction is violated (III principle) ..... change the inertia law ( I principle) and F=ma ( II ) .... so all is different from what you think.

I found in test that F=ma increase with time at the same electric power.
You think as newtonian man but but PNN is NON newtonian !!!!!!
It is very difficult to understand if you don't make NON newtonian experiments.

Read here more in
https://www.okpal.com/building-a-rea...space-ship/?#/

This year F432 patent will be filed so everyone can reapeat the PNN experiments.

We don't need more money to produce the collapse of astronautics to suppositories.

We just want to enjoy the spectacle of what will happen when the know-how of the pnn is known :-)


I've gotta side with Calmagorod on this one. I'm a hair's width away
from putting "Jeff Findley" in my killfile because of this "anti-pnn"
fantasy.

Oh no! Please don't! Whatever will I do? /s

Jeff



you will do nothing, aside opposing us on usenet, you really can't do
nothing against pnn.

And PNN for what it's worth can't get any money here so what's the point?

In article ,
says...

"Doctor Who" wrote in message ...

you will do nothing, aside opposing us on usenet, you really can't do
nothing against pnn.

Of course he can't. He also can't stop the invisible pink elephant from
****ting in my garage.
Jeff Findley is powerless, POWERLESS I tell you to stop fantastical
creatures or ideas.

Seriously, it's very simple;
Put up or shut up. Nobody on Usenet can stop you. If PNN works as you
claims, good luck as you're on your ways to becoming billionaires and
winning a Nobel or two for overturning physics as we know it.

This I agree with. There have been so many claims of reactionless
drives over the last several decades that it becomes tiresome. I'm not
going to enumerate the ways these previous claims have gone wrong, but
they should serve as a warning to anyone claiming to have discovered the
one true reactionless drive.

In my mind "pnn" is just another one of these until it actually flies
and proves itself in space.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article , says...

On 5/18/20 10:53 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Doctor Who"* wrote in message ...

the only response about this is that you don't know how physics
really
works. You only know what you have read in books, but you have never
done a physics experiment yourself.


Far from it, I've done quite a few.


prove it.



Greg is not claiming anything extraordinary. Lots of people have done
physics experiments. So there is no valid reason to question this.

You're the ones making the extraordinary claims (essentially having
discovered a reactionless drive that violates the currently known laws
of physics).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, you have a
website and some pictures of an experimental setup. The next logical
step is a peer reviewed paper. Let us know when that's been peer
reviewed and published in a respected physics journal.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article , says...

On 2020-05-18 1:25 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
That piece of paper I received from the Aerospace Engineering department
at Purdue and my current employer of 30 years both seem to belive
otherwise.

Love the Purdue campus. So spread out and green. Ton's of lawn to hang
out in on a summer day. So unlike the packed in campus at UIUC. At least
the engineering campus. It now has a 2nd quad to the north but it's
still pretty compact (UIUC).

I really loved going to Purdue. The main mall area was awesome in the
summer. If I had an hour between classes and the weather was nice, I'd
just pick a spot on the grass and read while I listened to music. That
was certainly one of my favorite things to do when I had some "down
time".

I've driven through UIUC, but never stopped. My oldest daughter just
graduated from Western Illinois University with a Masters of Fine Arts
in Scenic Design (theater). I think it was last year when I was driving
there to pick up her stuff, the U-Haul trailer I was towing had a
serious issue and needed to be swapped out. So, I stopped at the U-Haul
dealer near there and then drove through UIUC on my way back to the
highway. It looked quite a nice campus from what I could see.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 1:25:31 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:

That piece of paper I received from the Aerospace Engineering department
at Purdue and my current employer of 30 years both seem to belive
otherwise.

Hey there, fellow Big Ten! Penn State here, degrees in chemistry.

Very nice. I've never visited Penn State, but as another Big 10 land
grant university, I'm sure it has a lot in common with Purdue in terms
of how it "feels".

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.