CONTACTS
CONTACTS
FOLLOW ON
asps@asps.it
asps@asps.it
Association for Space Propulsion Development
Association for Space Propulsion Development
The colonization of the Moon and Mars remains a dream if we rely on rocketry
We are now just a few years away from the 60th anniversary of the historic landing of man on the Moon and it is time that we face the desolate reality of the facts: well into the 21st century there are no lunar bases, there are no tourist trips around the Moon and there are no human activities in space if not in the claustrophobic environments of a space station in Earth orbit which is now almost at the end of its life cycle and we are already thinking about how to de-orbit it safely.
By observing the history of lunar exploration we notice a depressing involution: after the Apollo program which led human beings to walk on our closest celestial body we had twenty years of substantial stalemate, then came the era of the lunar rovers on wake of the Martian ones and today in 2024 we celebrate the unsuccessful landing of a static probe (Slim lander launched by JAXA) like the Viking of 1975.
It's difficult to contain the sarcasm and not comment that at this rate in 2029 we will jubilantly celebrate the putting into orbit of a Sputnik satellite.
NASA is certainly making a lot of headlines today thanks to the Artemis program which claims it will soon take us back to the Moon but if we take a look at the specifications of the mission we discover with disappointment that it uses the exact same technology as that of 1969 Apollo since it uses enormous carrier rockets driven by chemical propulsion which have a payload/total mass ratio that in the best case scenario does not reach 2%, i.e. over 98% of the vehicle on the launch pad turns into rubbish while carrying out the mission.
It follows that in 2024 we can only do what could be done in 1969 and nothing more. It is no coincidence that the alleged lunar base that Artemis would like to install on the Moon is postponed year after year and the same happens with the landing of a human crew.
A landing which would still be a repetition of what was done in Armstrong's times without adding anything new to the space conquests: to use a cinematic term Artemis is essentially the reboot of Apollo, the show is repeated for the new generations.
As an interlude we had the Space Shuttle, once a futuristic reusable aircraft and now retired but not before having claimed the lives of 14 astronauts.
In recent years, the famous entrepreneur Elon Musk has also entered the aerospace scene with his SpaceX.
Although he is considered by many to be a visionary genius, he also remains fond of chemical propulsion and invests large sums of money, time and energy not to research alternative methods of access to space but to build even larger rockets.
Undoubtedly larger dimensions increase the load capacity but maximum speed and payload/total mass ratio always remain those of the Saturn V of the Apollo missions because it is since then that the physical limits of chemical propulsion have been reached. Limitations that are also noted in the repeated in-flight explosions (3 in a row) of SpaceX's Starships but which are cleverly passed off as great successes by the compliant media.
It would almost seem that Musk does not know the thermodynamic equation PV= NkT which links the speed of the gases expelled from a rocket to the temperature of the combustion chamber. This ratio says that the velocity of the gas expelled from the missile's nozzle is inexorably linked to the square root of the temperature. At most the combustion chambers tolerate around 3000°C of temperature but if you wanted to double the thrust of a rocket you would have to raise the temperature to 12000°C and any known metal alloy if used to cover the combustion chamber would not tolerate even 4000°C . Therefore, any rocket, even if improved, will NEVER have double thrust for the same expelled mass.
But then why all this obstinacy in relying on chemical propulsion? The obvious answer is because it is currently the only known method to reach Earth orbit so it's either that or nothing, but there's certainly more to it.
A first reason could be summed up with "the show must go on": by now the missile industry has been consolidated for some time (if we consider the Von Braun era, the first CEO in rocketry was Adolf Hitler) and like other industrial sectors it moves huge amounts of money and therefore a revolutionary technology that eliminated the need for rockets would be devastating for the economy. SpaceX, for example, would no longer have a reason to exist and would be forced to close the following morning.
Furthermore, each launch is a fireworks display that appeals to the masses and therefore publicity that translates into large amounts of money flowing into the coffers of space agencies. If, for example, a sufficiently developed PNN could bring a satellite into orbit for the price of an Amazon shipment, it would essentially be the end for these institutions too.
The second reason is unfortunately even worse than the first:
because the people who should find solutions don't have the right mentality to do so.
They have been trained to think that the only way to move in space is by exploiting the action/reaction principle and that any alternative must necessarily submit to this physical law. Clear proof of this is all the literature produced from the dawn of astronautics to today: ideas for nuclear rockets, plasma rockets, antimatter rockets, solar sails, spaceships propelled by gigantic lasers on Earth, spaceships that detonate atomic bombs behind them to accelerate etc... all ideas fatally linked to the third principle of dynamics.
An exception is the idea of creating a "warp bubble" like in Star Trek but it is something so far beyond our knowledge that it doesn't even matter.
So-called reactionless devices, which also include PNN, are therefore viewed with skepticism.
ASPS has confronted these people several times but without success and has had to take note of the ostracism that is done towards ideas that do not come from their world.
We report the case of NASA Spaceflight forum, a website about news related to space and its exploration and which defines itself as the most visited themed forum in the world.
The forum has a New Physics for Space Technology section where the most disparate ideas in search of new forms of propulsion are discussed.
In this section, ASPS user Rumee Cervelli opens a Reactionless drives history thread where the PNN is discussed and an attempt is made to provide an overview of the state of reactionless devices.
The result was, after numerous visits and a heated discussion, the deletion of the thread.
Fortunately, screenshots were taken of what was deleted.
In the first, the deleted thread with over 2000 views:
In the second screenshot ASPS asks for an explanation regarding the up and down tests on the scale and invites skeptics to assist and this resulted in a permanent ban from the forum.
Electromagnetic propulsion system for spacecraft movement without the emission of reaction mass, characterised in that it comprises two arms which share one of their vertices at a point called feedpoint; said feedpoint being powered by an electromagnetic frequency UHF adapted to make variable current flow in the arms , generating an electromagnetic field which interacts with the current of the two arms through the Law of Lorentz, creating a self-propulsion effect of the system by means of electrical power (Fig.1).
A PNN thruster powered by a battery which in turn is recharged by solar panels is theoretically capable of operating for an indefinite period of time (Fig.2)
It seems strange that many self-styled scientists shy away from the only procedure that distinguishes physics from literature, painting and philosophy: experimentation!
PNN is the only reactionless drive that can provide concrete demonstrations of its functioning through prototypes and experimental procedures, unlike other devices which are always described in a vague manner and often not even a working prototype is shown, as is the case of the recent IVO
If you think about it badly, you would say that the PNN is censored precisely because it can be tested and replicated and this apparently is not good: much better to have fun with good ideas for an episode of Star Trek but then continue on the safe and above all profitable path of propulsion rocket.
OUR PRODUCTS
The site is always being updated and our products evolve both in terms of composition and costs and for various experimental needs they increase over time
News & Articles
PNN International Expedition on Mars (PIEM)
author
2022-12-17 13:27
2022-12-17 13:27
Stay Informed
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on all the news related to the electromagnetic propulsion system!