ScottL wrote: Giorgio wrote:
zapkitty wrote:Georgio, paperburn... are you referring to Cannae, SPR or Eagleworks?
I'll be honest, I didn't follow up Eagleworks closely... My original comment was referred to SPR and Cannae...
I agree with you 100%. I don't believe Shawyer's intent is to create a Rossi trainwreck, but you never really know.
Well, with 2 companies, at least 3-4 government and/or university based labs, an unknown number of DIYer hobbyists and 3.1415x10^17 media sources all circulating design concepts, physics ideas, news reports, test data, misconceptions and misunderstandings with equal abandon it is absolutely necessary to be specific or all is lost
That said, I get it about Cannae now, after going over their spacecraft concepts... Dr. Rodal made some good points about the "space tug" thermal design on NSF after he confused it with Cannae's cubesat experiment.... but he seems to have missed the most egregious example: the Cannae "space probe"http://cannae.com/deep-space-probes/
The "space probe" stated goals and specs vs the physical design made me go "WTF?" The design hinges on using the collective, and rather large, surface area of the drives as radiators to bring down the drive temps to HTSC levels...
... but the configuration inherent to Cannae drive design requires that almost all of that surface area to be facing other drives at close range rather than facing deep space.
I can now understand why Cannae seems to be regarded as an... opportunistic... enterprise by many.