Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Retrograde orbits are now approved (what could possibly go wrong?)
76 views
Skip to first unread message
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 8:13:23 AM4/5/12
to
I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
of valid reasons:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d360/rollout/
“Tuesday's mission, known as NROL-25, placed a new-generation radar-
imaging surveillance spacecraft into a retrograde orbit.”
How many retrogrades are currently deployed?
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
of valid reasons:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d360/rollout/
“Tuesday's mission, known as NROL-25, placed a new-generation radar-
imaging surveillance spacecraft into a retrograde orbit.”
How many retrogrades are currently deployed?
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 9:02:05 AM4/5/12
to
Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
I had to restart multiple times before getting my Outlook Express
method to even function, and FireFox is still kind of acting
dysfunctional, when it had been working as per usual up until this
topic was posted.
Perhaps these retrograde orbits are affecting the internet.
all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
I had to restart multiple times before getting my Outlook Express
method to even function, and FireFox is still kind of acting
dysfunctional, when it had been working as per usual up until this
topic was posted.
Perhaps these retrograde orbits are affecting the internet.
Hägar
Apr 5, 2012, 9:27:27 AM4/5/12
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47fec427-232c-4e0f...@jx17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
**************************************
all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
Just goes to show you how much weight your opinions and concerns
carry with NASA. Of course you (being paid under the table = no tax-paying
leech) have a much higher level of education than those peon NASA PEs and
Doctoral Scientists.
Get any "Gold Stars" lately for posting your abject crapola ???
Joseph Nebus
Apr 5, 2012, 9:34:50 AM4/5/12
to
In <3b52e330-8ee6-4a13...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> writes:
>I thought
Well, see, there's your problem right there.
--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: How Do You Make A Trapezoid Right? http://wp.me/p1RYhY-ag
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I thought
Well, see, there's your problem right there.
--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: How Do You Make A Trapezoid Right? http://wp.me/p1RYhY-ag
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 9:57:09 AM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 6:27 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That’s odd, as the internet keeps going down most every time I post a
reply.
Apparently I’m getting a lot more credit than any phony redneck fart
like yourself ever got.
Why don't you spooks and FUD-masters tell us why those retrograde spy
orbits are so nifty.
Perhaps obtaining 0.1 meter resolution via SAR/SIR imaging isn’t as
well understood by those we’re spying on, and the retrograde makes it
a bit harder for others to track our equipment in order to cause
sufficient radar imaging interference.
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
reply.
Apparently I’m getting a lot more credit than any phony redneck fart
like yourself ever got.
Why don't you spooks and FUD-masters tell us why those retrograde spy
orbits are so nifty.
Perhaps obtaining 0.1 meter resolution via SAR/SIR imaging isn’t as
well understood by those we’re spying on, and the retrograde makes it
a bit harder for others to track our equipment in order to cause
sufficient radar imaging interference.
Hägar
Apr 5, 2012, 10:14:41 AM4/5/12
to
news:538d19f2-579b-4ff2...@vn5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Say, you brain-dead wonder, where did you get the idea that the rocket
launched from Vandenberg was fired to the West in a "Retrograde" orbit, as
you put it ??? I scoured the papers, but to no avail. All rockets that
require the standard escape velocity are launched in the direction of the
Earth's rotation, namely to the East, in order to take advantage of that
extra (free) rotational near equatorial speed.
Could it be that you just have your head up your pooper .... again ???
On Apr 5, 6:27 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47fec427-232c-4e0f...@jx17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
>
> **************************************
> Just goes to show you how much weight your opinions and concerns
> carry with NASA. Of course you (being paid under the table = no tax-paying
> leech) have a much higher level of education than those peon NASA PEs and
> Doctoral Scientists.
> Get any "Gold Stars" lately for posting your abject crapola ???
That’s odd, as the internet keeps going down most every time I post a
reply.
Apparently I’m getting a lot more credit than any phony redneck fart
like yourself ever got.
Why don't you spooks and FUD-masters tell us why those retrograde spy
orbits are so nifty.
Perhaps obtaining 0.1 meter resolution via SAR/SIR imaging isn’t as
well understood by those we’re spying on, and the retrograde makes it
a bit harder for others to track our equipment in order to cause
sufficient radar imaging interference.
****************************************
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47fec427-232c-4e0f...@jx17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
>
> **************************************
> Just goes to show you how much weight your opinions and concerns
> carry with NASA. Of course you (being paid under the table = no tax-paying
> leech) have a much higher level of education than those peon NASA PEs and
> Doctoral Scientists.
> Get any "Gold Stars" lately for posting your abject crapola ???
That’s odd, as the internet keeps going down most every time I post a
reply.
Apparently I’m getting a lot more credit than any phony redneck fart
like yourself ever got.
Why don't you spooks and FUD-masters tell us why those retrograde spy
orbits are so nifty.
Perhaps obtaining 0.1 meter resolution via SAR/SIR imaging isn’t as
well understood by those we’re spying on, and the retrograde makes it
a bit harder for others to track our equipment in order to cause
sufficient radar imaging interference.
Say, you brain-dead wonder, where did you get the idea that the rocket
launched from Vandenberg was fired to the West in a "Retrograde" orbit, as
you put it ??? I scoured the papers, but to no avail. All rockets that
require the standard escape velocity are launched in the direction of the
Earth's rotation, namely to the East, in order to take advantage of that
extra (free) rotational near equatorial speed.
Could it be that you just have your head up your pooper .... again ???
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 9:57:24 AM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 6:34 am, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
nifty.
Would it be okay if China put up a hundred retrograde deployments?
How about if Russia put up a thousand retrograde spy satellites?
I mean to suggest, if it's perfectly okay for us, then why not allow
others?
> In <3b52e330-8ee6-4a13-b086-3d176b405...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >I thought
>
> Well, see, there's your problem right there.
>
> --http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
>
> >I thought
>
> Well, see, there's your problem right there.
>
> Current Entry: How Do You Make A Trapezoid Right? http://wp.me/p1RYhY-ag
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you tell us why those retrograde orbits for spying are so
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nifty.
Would it be okay if China put up a hundred retrograde deployments?
How about if Russia put up a thousand retrograde spy satellites?
I mean to suggest, if it's perfectly okay for us, then why not allow
others?
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 5, 2012, 10:25:43 AM4/5/12
to
"Hägar" wrote in message
news:5dudndGKPpBPNeDS...@giganews.com...
Because rockets launched from Vandenberg are put into polar or retrograde
orbits. They don't launch eastward from Vandenberg because there's land to
the east.
That said, there is no proscription against launching retrograde orbits.
Brad's belief in that is about as accurate as anything else.
Generally orbits close to polar with a slight retrograde tilt are desired
for optical spy satellites since then they can get a good sun angle
constantly as they precsse around the Earth.
Nothing really new here.
>
>Could it be that you just have your head up your pooper .... again ???
>
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
news:5dudndGKPpBPNeDS...@giganews.com...
orbits. They don't launch eastward from Vandenberg because there's land to
the east.
That said, there is no proscription against launching retrograde orbits.
Brad's belief in that is about as accurate as anything else.
Generally orbits close to polar with a slight retrograde tilt are desired
for optical spy satellites since then they can get a good sun angle
constantly as they precsse around the Earth.
Nothing really new here.
>
>Could it be that you just have your head up your pooper .... again ???
>
>
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
HVAC
Apr 5, 2012, 11:48:17 AM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/2012 9:02 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
Well, I had to do it, Guth.
> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
You were getting too close.......
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Dean
Apr 5, 2012, 1:20:25 PM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 10:36 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
I hope no one tells him about the retrograde moons orbiting Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you tell us why those retrograde orbits for spying are so
> >nifty.
>
> Why don't you engage your brain?
>
> >Why don't you tell us why those retrograde orbits for spying are so
> >nifty.
>
>
>
>
> >Would it be okay if China put up a hundred retrograde deployments?
>
> >How about if Russia put up a thousand retrograde spy satellites?
>
> >I mean to suggest, if it's perfectly okay for us, then why not allow
> >others?
>
> 'Allow'? You say that as if we're somehow stopping them...
>
>
> >Would it be okay if China put up a hundred retrograde deployments?
>
> >How about if Russia put up a thousand retrograde spy satellites?
>
> >I mean to suggest, if it's perfectly okay for us, then why not allow
> >others?
>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
I hope no one tells him about the retrograde moons orbiting Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Hägar
Apr 5, 2012, 2:01:28 PM4/5/12
to
"Greg (Strider) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote in message
news:fKKdnTmUl6T1NuDS...@earthlink.com...
firecracker. I thought it was for the extra weight ... thanks for
enlightening us.
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 4:57:41 PM4/5/12
to
imaging surveillance spacecraft into a retrograde orbit."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d360/rollout/
"Both missions are giving space-lift power to the U.S. National
Reconnaissance Office, the agency that operates the country's fleet of
spy satellites. Tuesday's mission, known as NROL-25, placed a new-
generation radar-imaging surveillance spacecraft into a retrograde
orbit."
orbit."
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 5:00:54 PM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 7:25 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> "Hägar" wrote in message
>
> news:5dudndGKPpBPNeDS...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Hägar" wrote in message
>
> news:5dudndGKPpBPNeDS...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 5:06:23 PM4/5/12
to
any problem for myself, because captured retrograde orbits make
perfect sense, though somewhat risky if dealing with the more typical
prograde items getting in your path.
Wayne Throop
Apr 5, 2012, 5:12:58 PM4/5/12
to
: Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com>
: I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
: of valid reasons:
You were wrong.
: I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
: of valid reasons:
You were wrong.
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 5:28:16 PM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com>
Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion. Do most of the
Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
prograde polar orbits.
It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
closing terribly fast upon each-other.
> : Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> : I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
> : of valid reasons:
>
> You were wrong.
Obviously.
> : of valid reasons:
>
> You were wrong.
Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion. Do most of the
Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
prograde polar orbits.
It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
closing terribly fast upon each-other.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 5, 2012, 5:34:57 PM4/5/12
to
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:0a00cfb4-0b8a-411f...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
>closing terribly fast upon each-other.
Not really. I think you forget how big space really is.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�
news:0a00cfb4-0b8a-411f...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> : Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>> : I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
>> : of valid reasons:
>>
>> You were wrong.
>
>Obviously.
>
>Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
>satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion. Do most of the
>Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
>prograde polar orbits.
>
They would also be in a retrograde orbit for the same reasons.
>On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> : Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>> : I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
>> : of valid reasons:
>>
>> You were wrong.
>
>Obviously.
>
>Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
>satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion. Do most of the
>Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
>prograde polar orbits.
>
>It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
>closing terribly fast upon each-other.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�
Brad Guth
Apr 5, 2012, 6:02:08 PM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 2:34 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
rules. A lot of what's up there isn't behaving nor necessarily
friendly, and in some valued slots it's getting tight.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" wrote in message
>
> news:0a00cfb4-0b8a-411f...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> : Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> >> : I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
> >> : of valid reasons:
>
> >> You were wrong.
>
> >Obviously.
>
> >Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
> >satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion. Do most of the
> >Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
> >prograde polar orbits.
>
> They would also be in a retrograde orbit for the same reasons.
>
> >It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
> >closing terribly fast upon each-other.
>
> Not really. I think you forget how big space really is.
LEO space around us is only big if everyone orbiting plays by the same
> "Brad Guth" wrote in message
>
> news:0a00cfb4-0b8a-411f...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> : Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> >> : I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
> >> : of valid reasons:
>
> >> You were wrong.
>
> >Obviously.
>
> >Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
> >satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion. Do most of the
> >Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
> >prograde polar orbits.
>
> They would also be in a retrograde orbit for the same reasons.
>
> >It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
> >closing terribly fast upon each-other.
>
> Not really. I think you forget how big space really is.
rules. A lot of what's up there isn't behaving nor necessarily
friendly, and in some valued slots it's getting tight.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Alan Erskine
Apr 5, 2012, 7:37:23 PM4/5/12
to
Feed
The
Troll
palsing
Apr 5, 2012, 9:33:35 PM4/5/12
to
> "Brad Guth" wrote in message
> >It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
> >closing terribly fast upon each-other.
> Not really. I think you forget how big space really is.
Well, there WAS this incident...
> >closing terribly fast upon each-other.
> Not really. I think you forget how big space really is.
http://www.space.com/5542-satellite-destroyed-space-collision.html
\Paul A
Brad Guth
Apr 6, 2012, 12:33:36 AM4/6/12
to
with multiple spy-sats going every which way in the most valued
orbits.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Jonathan
Apr 6, 2012, 6:23:28 AM4/6/12
to
"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:474e883a-d297-48ad...@b2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
And the space station had to change it's orbit to avoid the debris
from that collision a month later.
http://www.space.com/5542-satellite-destroyed-space-collision.html
\Paul A
HVAC
Apr 6, 2012, 7:23:18 AM4/6/12
to
On 4/5/2012 5:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
Classified.
>
>
> So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
Hägar
Apr 6, 2012, 9:43:38 AM4/6/12
to
news:db235a36-ee28-46b3...@9g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...
*** None ... they are in a Polar Orbit.
Brad Guth
Apr 6, 2012, 10:02:52 AM4/6/12
to
> > CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net
>
> So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
>
> *** None ... they are in a Polar Orbit.
As per usual, your redneck intellectual flatulence is noted.
>
> So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
>
> *** None ... they are in a Polar Orbit.
Are all polar orbits from all nations assigned specific tracks or
paths, that all go the same direction of west to east and south to
north, or isn't it actually more like satellites going every which
way?
How much (all-inclusive) is it costing us to track everything?
Sylvia Else
Apr 6, 2012, 10:08:33 AM4/6/12
to
On 6/04/2012 8:02 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2:34 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
> <moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> "Brad Guth" wrote in message
>>
>> news:0a00cfb4-0b8a-411f...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>>>> : Brad Guth<bradg...@gmail.com>
>>>> : I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
>>>> : of valid reasons:
>>
>>>> You were wrong.
>>
>>> Obviously.
>>
>>> Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
>>> satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion. Do most of the
>>> Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
>>> prograde polar orbits.
>>
>> They would also be in a retrograde orbit for the same reasons.
>>
>>> It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
>>> closing terribly fast upon each-other.
>>
>> Not really. I think you forget how big space really is.
>
> LEO space around us is only big if everyone orbiting plays by the same
> rules.
Being what - all orbits circular with zero inclination?
> On Apr 5, 2:34 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
> <moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> "Brad Guth" wrote in message
>>
>> news:0a00cfb4-0b8a-411f...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>>>> : Brad Guth<bradg...@gmail.com>
>>>> : I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
>>>> : of valid reasons:
>>
>>>> You were wrong.
>>
>>> Obviously.
>>
>>> Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
>>> satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion. Do most of the
>>> Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
>>> prograde polar orbits.
>>
>> They would also be in a retrograde orbit for the same reasons.
>>
>>> It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
>>> closing terribly fast upon each-other.
>>
>> Not really. I think you forget how big space really is.
>
> LEO space around us is only big if everyone orbiting plays by the same
> rules.
Not going to happen - never was going to happen.
Sylvia.
Warhol
Apr 6, 2012, 10:45:13 AM4/6/12
to
Op 6-4-2012 15:43, Hägar schreef:
*0*
Brad Guth
Apr 6, 2012, 4:26:08 PM4/6/12
to
happens that's bad, as long as it isn't happening to yourself.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Brad Guth
Apr 6, 2012, 5:50:36 PM4/6/12
to
On Apr 5, 5:13 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
> of valid reasons:
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d360/rollout/
> I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
> of valid reasons:
> “Tuesday's mission, known as NROL-25, placed a new-generation radar-
> imaging surveillance spacecraft into a retrograde orbit.”
>
> How many retrogrades are currently deployed?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
How many safe retrograde and/or multiple bipolar satellites can be
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
managed, especially when capable nations are simply not willing to
work constructively with anyone else nor share anything?
It seems that counter and retro polar orbiting spy, science and other
commercial polar orbital applications are going to get somewhat
testy. Too bad that we can't have a master platform of multinational
moon and Earth-science equipped technology situated within the Earth-
moon-L1 zone, that's offering true zero gravity and its zero delta-V.
At this nifty Earth-moon-L1, we'd certainly learn a whole lot more
from moon and Earth science, not to mention superior astrophysics and
all sorts of true zero-gravity science. Of course using Venus L2
would be even better.
Message has been deleted
Brad Guth
Apr 6, 2012, 6:28:13 PM4/6/12
to
On Apr 6, 3:23 am, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
GSO is practically out of safe parking spots. For accepting a new GSO
means pulling an existing GSO out of its sweet-spot.
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
means pulling an existing GSO out of its sweet-spot.
Wayne Throop
Apr 6, 2012, 9:11:29 PM4/6/12
to
: Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com>
: a master platform of multinational moon and Earth-science equipped
L1 may offer *less* delta-v required for station-keeping but it's not zero.
Basically these features are pretty much useless.
: At this nifty Earth-moon-L1, we'd certainly learn a whole lot more
: a master platform of multinational moon and Earth-science equipped
: technology situated within the Earth- moon-L1 zone, that's offering
: true zero gravity and its zero delta-V
Why is the zero-G at L1 "true"er than that in other freefall trajectories?
: true zero gravity and its zero delta-V
L1 may offer *less* delta-v required for station-keeping but it's not zero.
Basically these features are pretty much useless.
: At this nifty Earth-moon-L1, we'd certainly learn a whole lot more
: from moon and Earth science, not to mention superior astrophysics and
: all sorts of true zero-gravity science.
Nit really. The bebefits you imagine above are just that: imaginary.
: all sorts of true zero-gravity science.
Harold Groot
Apr 6, 2012, 10:27:49 PM4/6/12
to
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 06:43:38 -0700, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
>*** None ... they are in a Polar Orbit.
Hmmmm... there could be reasons for a real retrograde orbit. I'm not
>>So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
>*** None ... they are in a Polar Orbit.
an expert, but I seem to recall that Israel would have to use a
retrograde orbit for any satellites they put up from their own land.
If the launched to the east (in the direction of enemy nations) it
would initially be seen as a missile attack on those nations - and if
the launch was a failure and things came down from the sky on those
nations, even more so. There could be immediate retaliatory strikes.
So their only reasonable launch path would be to the west over the
Mediterranean Sea, i.e. retrograde.
Of course, maybe they could rent launch facilities from a nation that
had them (some friendly nation with facilities with ocean to the
east). But in general I don't think Israel would want to be dependent
on other nations for something that would involve their own national
security. Hitching a ride to the Space Station, sure, not a problem.
But having someone else launch their own spy satellites would be
something quite different. They might consider the extra cost to
boost in "the wrong direction" well worth it to have everything under
their complete control.
Brad Guth
Apr 6, 2012, 11:09:48 PM4/6/12
to
> : a master platform of multinational moon and Earth-science equipped
> : technology situated within the Earth- moon-L1 zone, that's offering
> : true zero gravity and its zero delta-V
>
> Why is the zero-G at L1 "true"er than that in other freefall trajectories?
> L1 may offer *less* delta-v required for station-keeping but it's not zero.
> Basically these features are pretty much useless.
The Earth-moon-L1 is more efficient to sustain (especially once
> : technology situated within the Earth- moon-L1 zone, that's offering
> : true zero gravity and its zero delta-V
>
> Why is the zero-G at L1 "true"er than that in other freefall trajectories?
> L1 may offer *less* delta-v required for station-keeping but it's not zero.
> Basically these features are pretty much useless.
tethered to the moon), it's always in sight from the nearside moon or
from Earth, and it's the most energy efficient location to transport
items to/from. Tethers can be in contact with the moon and otherwise
reach safely to within 6r of Earth. Energy for whatever is unlimited.
>
> : At this nifty Earth-moon-L1, we'd certainly learn a whole lot more
> : from moon and Earth science, not to mention superior astrophysics and
> : all sorts of true zero-gravity science.
>
> Nit really. The bebefits you imagine above are just that: imaginary.
You obviously can't imagine. Just think if Einstein couldn't imagine.
> : At this nifty Earth-moon-L1, we'd certainly learn a whole lot more
> : from moon and Earth science, not to mention superior astrophysics and
> : all sorts of true zero-gravity science.
>
> Nit really. The bebefits you imagine above are just that: imaginary.
Sylvia Else
Apr 6, 2012, 11:45:05 PM4/6/12
to
orbit with a high inclination. In the scheme of things, the fact that
its orbit is retrograde makes little different to the risk it represents.
Even objects that are not in retrograde orbits can still have high
relative velocities. Indeed, objects in non-retrograde but near polar
orbits can have relative velocities of almost twice their orbital
velocities.
If you still think I don't get it, you should explain exactly what the
issue is.
Sylvia.
HVAC
Apr 7, 2012, 6:23:44 AM4/7/12
to
On 4/6/2012 5:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
>>>
>>
>> Classified.
>>
>
> So you don't know, then. You might have just said that.
>
>>>
>>> So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
>>>
>>
>> Classified.
>>
>
>
> I see two (L-25 and L-41).
>
I am authorized to tell you that there are more than two.
HVAC
Apr 7, 2012, 6:28:53 AM4/7/12
to
On 4/6/2012 11:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>
>> As per usual, you don't get it. You also don't really care whatever
>> happens that's bad, as long as it isn't happening to yourself.
>
> The thing is, the satellite you're complaining about is in a retrograde
> orbit with a high inclination. In the scheme of things, the fact that
> its orbit is retrograde makes little different to the risk it represents.
>
> Even objects that are not in retrograde orbits can still have high
> relative velocities. Indeed, objects in non-retrograde but near polar
> orbits can have relative velocities of almost twice their orbital
> velocities.
>
> If you still think I don't get it, you should explain exactly what the
> issue is.
I am a psychic. I predict that Brad won't answer you
>
>>
>> As per usual, you don't get it. You also don't really care whatever
>> happens that's bad, as long as it isn't happening to yourself.
>
> The thing is, the satellite you're complaining about is in a retrograde
> orbit with a high inclination. In the scheme of things, the fact that
> its orbit is retrograde makes little different to the risk it represents.
>
> Even objects that are not in retrograde orbits can still have high
> relative velocities. Indeed, objects in non-retrograde but near polar
> orbits can have relative velocities of almost twice their orbital
> velocities.
>
> If you still think I don't get it, you should explain exactly what the
> issue is.
until AFTER he hears my prediction that he will NOT
write back to you.
Wayne Throop
Apr 7, 2012, 11:41:21 AM4/7/12
to
: Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com>
: The Earth-moon-L1 is more efficient to sustain
So you admit it's not *zero* effort, as you claimed.
The fraction of effort spent on stationkeeping in most any
orbit is a very small fraction of the total effort needed for
operating a station. So optimizing that instead of other things
is shortsighted at best.
: (especially once tethered to the moon)
Note that the tether isn't free, and actually supplies delta-v.
Is it the most economical way to do station-keeping? Quite possibly,
if the tether is there for some other purpose and is co-opted for
stationkeeping. Otherwise, almost certainly less expensive over
the lifetime of the station to ship the necessary consumables for
stationkeeping alone with the much larger shipments for life support.
So it's obviously the wrong place to start, and the wrong place
to do early research, based on this part of your rationale.
: it's always in sight from the nearside moon or from Earth
And how does this help with zero-g research, the purpose you started out pitching it for? Hint: it doesn't.
Further why did you skip over the very simple question about your
statement that there is "true zero gravity" there? What makes it truer
than any other trajectory in free fall? Not general benefits of placing
a station there, but why zero-g is "true" there.
That is in fact my major interest; it'll probably be a hoot to hear
why you think zero-g is "true" there, and not other places.
: and it's the most energy efficient location to transport items to/from
From earth's surface, not really.
: Tethers can be in contact with the moon and otherwise reach safely to
: within 6r of Earth.
And how do these tethers help with this "true zero gravity research"
you claim such benefits for?
: Energy for whatever is unlimited.
Why is it more unlimited there than anywhere else?
:: The bebefits you imagine above are just that: imaginary.
: You obviously can't imagine.
I can imagine lots of things. For example I can imagine the easter bunny.
Doesn't mean I plan a hassenpfeffer dinner based on my imagination alone.
It helps if your imaginings have some connection with reality. It is
this last bit you need to work on. For example, work on explaining why
the zero-g is "true" at L1, but not other places.
: The Earth-moon-L1 is more efficient to sustain
So you admit it's not *zero* effort, as you claimed.
The fraction of effort spent on stationkeeping in most any
orbit is a very small fraction of the total effort needed for
operating a station. So optimizing that instead of other things
is shortsighted at best.
: (especially once tethered to the moon)
Note that the tether isn't free, and actually supplies delta-v.
Is it the most economical way to do station-keeping? Quite possibly,
if the tether is there for some other purpose and is co-opted for
stationkeeping. Otherwise, almost certainly less expensive over
the lifetime of the station to ship the necessary consumables for
stationkeeping alone with the much larger shipments for life support.
So it's obviously the wrong place to start, and the wrong place
to do early research, based on this part of your rationale.
: it's always in sight from the nearside moon or from Earth
And how does this help with zero-g research, the purpose you started out pitching it for? Hint: it doesn't.
Further why did you skip over the very simple question about your
statement that there is "true zero gravity" there? What makes it truer
than any other trajectory in free fall? Not general benefits of placing
a station there, but why zero-g is "true" there.
That is in fact my major interest; it'll probably be a hoot to hear
why you think zero-g is "true" there, and not other places.
: and it's the most energy efficient location to transport items to/from
From earth's surface, not really.
: Tethers can be in contact with the moon and otherwise reach safely to
: within 6r of Earth.
And how do these tethers help with this "true zero gravity research"
you claim such benefits for?
: Energy for whatever is unlimited.
Why is it more unlimited there than anywhere else?
:: The bebefits you imagine above are just that: imaginary.
: You obviously can't imagine.
Doesn't mean I plan a hassenpfeffer dinner based on my imagination alone.
It helps if your imaginings have some connection with reality. It is
this last bit you need to work on. For example, work on explaining why
the zero-g is "true" at L1, but not other places.
HVAC
Apr 7, 2012, 12:40:51 PM4/7/12
to
On 4/7/2012 11:41 AM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : Brad Guth<brad...@gmail.com>
Recently, he was proselytizing for *microwaving* power to Earth
with a station *tethered* in orbit.
When I asked why he would use the lossy microwave option instead
of using the existing tether, he just plain didn't answer.
I think he just likes saying 'tether' and 'microwave' as much
as he does 'L1' and 'true free fall'.
> : Brad Guth<brad...@gmail.com>
>
>
> : (especially once tethered to the moon)
>
> Note that the tether isn't free, and actually supplies delta-v.
> Is it the most economical way to do station-keeping? Quite possibly,
> if the tether is there for some other purpose and is co-opted for
> stationkeeping. Otherwise, almost certainly less expensive over
> the lifetime of the station to ship the necessary consumables for
> stationkeeping alone with the much larger shipments for life support.
Guth is a well-know usenet kook.
>
> : (especially once tethered to the moon)
>
> Note that the tether isn't free, and actually supplies delta-v.
> Is it the most economical way to do station-keeping? Quite possibly,
> if the tether is there for some other purpose and is co-opted for
> stationkeeping. Otherwise, almost certainly less expensive over
> the lifetime of the station to ship the necessary consumables for
> stationkeeping alone with the much larger shipments for life support.
Recently, he was proselytizing for *microwaving* power to Earth
with a station *tethered* in orbit.
When I asked why he would use the lossy microwave option instead
of using the existing tether, he just plain didn't answer.
I think he just likes saying 'tether' and 'microwave' as much
as he does 'L1' and 'true free fall'.
Message has been deleted
Brad Guth
Apr 7, 2012, 2:04:10 PM4/7/12
to
is at greater risk whenever flying retrograde to whatever else is up
there, not to mention whatever they manage to run into that will not
survive the encounter.
What would happen if airports allowed retrograde holding patterns and
head-on landings?
Brad Guth
Apr 7, 2012, 3:06:15 PM4/7/12
to
> : The Earth-moon-L1 is more efficient to sustain
>
> So you admit it's not *zero* effort, as you claimed.
I've never stipulated a zero stationkeeping effort, although a
>
> So you admit it's not *zero* effort, as you claimed.
tethered LSE-CM/ISS would get us really close to that.
>
> The fraction of effort spent on stationkeeping in most any
> orbit is a very small fraction of the total effort needed for
> operating a station. So optimizing that instead of other things
> is shortsighted at best.
>
> : (especially once tethered to the moon)
>
> Note that the tether isn't free, and actually supplies delta-v.
> Is it the most economical way to do station-keeping? Quite possibly,
> if the tether is there for some other purpose and is co-opted for
> stationkeeping. Otherwise, almost certainly less expensive over
> the lifetime of the station to ship the necessary consumables for
> stationkeeping alone with the much larger shipments for life support.
The computer simulations will prove yourself and all other mainstream
certified FUD-masters like yourself as dead wrong.
>
> So it's obviously the wrong place to start, and the wrong place
> to do early research, based on this part of your rationale.
approved obfuscation. Why don't you just admit that we know
practically nothing about our moon, and that it scares you.
>
> : it's always in sight from the nearside moon or from Earth
>
> And how does this help with zero-g research, the purpose you started out pitching it for? Hint: it doesn't.
Elsewhere I've listed dozens of good reasons for the LSE-CM/ISS, and
thus far you've only listed squat, denial and used obfuscation in
order to suit.
>
> Further why did you skip over the very simple question about your
> statement that there is "true zero gravity" there? What makes it truer
> than any other trajectory in free fall? Not general benefits of placing
> a station there, but why zero-g is "true" there.
adjusted to suit. A tethered science pod can be located at exactly
the point of gravity null, and easily maintained within that null.
The advantages are 5th grade obvious once the all-inclusive benefits
are fairly considered.
>
> That is in fact my major interest; it'll probably be a hoot to hear
> why you think zero-g is "true" there, and not other places.
>
> : and it's the most energy efficient location to transport items to/from
>
> From earth's surface, not really.
gateway/oasis is coasting. Especially going there is where you get to
coast or drift to a stop with hardly any reaction thrusting for the
stop, and returning to Earth requires the reaction force of a pinky
finger (if hardly that much).
The advantages are many, but only valued if you're smart enough to
understand, and most dysfunctional 5th graders are probably not smart
enough..
>
> : Tethers can be in contact with the moon and otherwise reach safely to
> : within 6r of Earth.
>
> And how do these tethers help with this "true zero gravity research"
> you claim such benefits for?
complicated to explain.
The counter mass and its enormous space station within, at roughly
64,000 km from the center of the moon, keeps those moon connected
tethers under tension at all times.
>
> : Energy for whatever is unlimited.
>
> Why is it more unlimited there than anywhere else?
% solar illuminated (plus there earthshine half the time). That's
three sources of clean and perfectly renewable energy. How many TW
would you like?
>
> :: The bebefits you imagine above are just that: imaginary.
>
> : You obviously can't imagine.
>
> I can imagine lots of things. For example I can imagine the easter bunny.
> Doesn't mean I plan a hassenpfeffer dinner based on my imagination alone.
> It helps if your imaginings have some connection with reality. It is
> this last bit you need to work on. For example, work on explaining why
> the zero-g is "true" at L1, but not other places.
everything, but I'm certain that you'll keep looking.
Wayne Throop
Apr 7, 2012, 4:14:56 PM4/7/12
to
: Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com>
: I've never stipulated a zero stationkeeping effort
Then what did you mean by "zero delta-v", or was that just another
buzzphrase you've used with no particular meaning, like "true zero-g"?
: No one method is ever going to be 100% ideal in all situations.
But some are remarkably worse than others. Especially when they are
pitched with meaningless buzzwords, and there's no meaningful comparison
of the alternatives.
: At the Earth-moon-L1, science of zero gravity can be sustained and/or
: adjusted to suit
As it can, equally well, in any other free fall trajectory. You still
haven't given *any* reason *whatsoever* to suppose L1 is especially
good for zero-g research, nor why the zero-g there is "true".
And mindlessly repeating meaningless buzzphrases don't help your case.
::: and it's the most energy efficient location to transport items
explains why the energy costs would be lower. Claiming that you "coast
most of the way" doesn't do this, since you're simply ignoring all the
parts that cost energy. The delta-v to LEO is smaller than the delta-v
to L1, it's really as simple as that. You have to spend more energy to
*get* to the coasting trajectory than you spend to get to LEO, so you've
already lost before any of the coasting begins.
: The advantages are many,
But mostly halucinatory.
:: And how do these tethers help with this "true zero gravity research"
not, in fact, further research into "true zero-g" (which itself seems
to be a halucination all your own, since you repeatedly and pointedly
fail to state any advantage of the zero-g at L1 over zero-g on any
free-fall trajectory).
: The counter mass and its enormous space station within, at roughly
: The solar illuminated moon gives off 1220 w/m2, and otherwise it's 97+
I suppose it's plausible to anybody who can't do arithmetic.
So, in fact it *isn't* more unlimited there than anywhere else the sun
shines. Further, if you absolutely, positively had to place your solar
panels on the moon, so they are only illuminated half the time, or have
a bad angle of incidence if at the poles, there is microwave or laser
beamed energy to anywhere you like.
So again, by your own rationale, L1 isn't better than anywhere else.
The zero-g isn't any zeroier, the available power isn't any more
powerful, the stationkeeping isn't a large enough fraction of the
budget to be noticed without a powerful microscope, and all in all,
while L1 is a perfectly cromulent location, it isn't actually
*better* for *zero-g* *research*. You keep claiming it is;
you keep failing to make a coherent case.
: No one place in space is ever going to be 100% ideally suited for
: everything,
But making wild claims about "true zero-g" and "unlimited energy"
for a place that has no more zeroier g and no more unlimited power
than anywhere else, isn't going to convince anybody that it's better
than J.Random Place.
: I've never stipulated a zero stationkeeping effort
Then what did you mean by "zero delta-v", or was that just another
buzzphrase you've used with no particular meaning, like "true zero-g"?
: No one method is ever going to be 100% ideal in all situations.
But some are remarkably worse than others. Especially when they are
pitched with meaningless buzzwords, and there's no meaningful comparison
of the alternatives.
: At the Earth-moon-L1, science of zero gravity can be sustained and/or
: adjusted to suit
As it can, equally well, in any other free fall trajectory. You still
haven't given *any* reason *whatsoever* to suppose L1 is especially
good for zero-g research, nor why the zero-g there is "true".
And mindlessly repeating meaningless buzzphrases don't help your case.
::: and it's the most energy efficient location to transport items
::: to/from
:: From earth's surface, not really.
: Yes, really, because 99.97% of the way to this zero delta-V outpost/
: gateway/oasis is coasting.
Traditionally, in a reply of this sort, what follows the "because"
:: From earth's surface, not really.
: Yes, really, because 99.97% of the way to this zero delta-V outpost/
: gateway/oasis is coasting.
explains why the energy costs would be lower. Claiming that you "coast
most of the way" doesn't do this, since you're simply ignoring all the
parts that cost energy. The delta-v to LEO is smaller than the delta-v
to L1, it's really as simple as that. You have to spend more energy to
*get* to the coasting trajectory than you spend to get to LEO, so you've
already lost before any of the coasting begins.
: The advantages are many,
But mostly halucinatory.
:: And how do these tethers help with this "true zero gravity research"
:: you claim such benefits for?
: If you don't understand the value of elevators, then it's probably too
: complicated to explain.
Nice try. By this ploy, you've made it quite clear that the tethers do
: If you don't understand the value of elevators, then it's probably too
: complicated to explain.
not, in fact, further research into "true zero-g" (which itself seems
to be a halucination all your own, since you repeatedly and pointedly
fail to state any advantage of the zero-g at L1 over zero-g on any
free-fall trajectory).
: The counter mass and its enormous space station within, at roughly
: 64,000 km from the center of the moon, keeps those moon connected
: tethers under tension at all times.
And water is wet, and other irrelevancies.
: tethers under tension at all times.
: The solar illuminated moon gives off 1220 w/m2, and otherwise it's 97+
: % solar illuminated (plus there earthshine half the time). That's
: three sources of clean and perfectly renewable energy.
Earthshine. As an energy source. Most amusing. Heh.
: three sources of clean and perfectly renewable energy.
I suppose it's plausible to anybody who can't do arithmetic.
So, in fact it *isn't* more unlimited there than anywhere else the sun
shines. Further, if you absolutely, positively had to place your solar
panels on the moon, so they are only illuminated half the time, or have
a bad angle of incidence if at the poles, there is microwave or laser
beamed energy to anywhere you like.
So again, by your own rationale, L1 isn't better than anywhere else.
The zero-g isn't any zeroier, the available power isn't any more
powerful, the stationkeeping isn't a large enough fraction of the
budget to be noticed without a powerful microscope, and all in all,
while L1 is a perfectly cromulent location, it isn't actually
*better* for *zero-g* *research*. You keep claiming it is;
you keep failing to make a coherent case.
: No one place in space is ever going to be 100% ideally suited for
: everything,
But making wild claims about "true zero-g" and "unlimited energy"
for a place that has no more zeroier g and no more unlimited power
than anywhere else, isn't going to convince anybody that it's better
than J.Random Place.
Sylvia Else
Apr 7, 2012, 8:32:20 PM4/7/12
to
two orbits - normal, and retrograde. The reality is otherwise.
Sylvia.
Brad Guth
Apr 7, 2012, 9:02:01 PM4/7/12
to
possibly go wrong", regardless of how many spy and commercial sats we
and others put up, as well as no matters which way they go.
Would you travel by air and use airports that allowed retrograde and
crisscross holding patterns?
Ever heard of Karma?
Brad Guth
Apr 7, 2012, 9:06:03 PM4/7/12
to
turn yourself into a black hole.
Why are you always so afraid of utilizing our moon for anything?
How about our using the very cool Venus L2?
Sylvia Else
Apr 7, 2012, 9:33:21 PM4/7/12
to
in near polar orbits, neither being retrograde, can nevertheless be
travelling in almost completely opposite directions when they pass. How
does having some high-inclination retrograde orbits make the situation
worse in any practical sense?
Sylvia.
Brad Guth
Apr 7, 2012, 11:54:45 PM4/7/12
to
their path.
We're paying how many billions a year in order to precisely track as
is?
Of all that's up there but too small to track, we have perhaps 1% of
those potentially lethal items identified and tracked. What about the
other 99%?
So, as long as only public funded and private investments that you
have no stake in are put at risk, you're good with that.
Sylvia Else
Apr 8, 2012, 3:03:27 AM4/8/12
to
retrograde orbits actually makes the situation any worse in a practical
sense.
Clearly, one prefers satellites not to collide, but the problem exists
anyway, and has to be managed, whether or not retrograde orbits are
permitted.
Sylvia.
Jonathan
Apr 8, 2012, 8:16:15 AM4/8/12
to
"Alan Erskine" <alan.e...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:U0qfr.5401$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>> news:47fec427-232c-4e0f...@jx17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
>> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
>>
>>
>> **************************************
>> Just goes to show you how much weight your opinions and concerns
>> carry with NASA. Of course you (being paid under the table = no
>> tax-paying
>> leech) have a much higher level of education than those peon NASA PEs and
>> Doctoral Scientists.
>> Get any "Gold Stars" lately for posting your abject crapola ???
>>
>>
>
> Don't
>> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
>> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
>>
>>
>> **************************************
>> Just goes to show you how much weight your opinions and concerns
>> carry with NASA. Of course you (being paid under the table = no
>> tax-paying
>> leech) have a much higher level of education than those peon NASA PEs and
>> Doctoral Scientists.
>> Get any "Gold Stars" lately for posting your abject crapola ???
>>
>>
>
>
> Feed
>
> The
>
> Troll
I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
s
HVAC
Apr 8, 2012, 8:29:12 AM4/8/12
to
On 4/8/2012 8:16 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't
>>
>> Feed
>>
>> The
>>
>> Troll
>
>
> I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
> now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
> really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
I love the smell of hate and discontent in the morning.....
>
>>
>> Don't
>>
>> Feed
>>
>> The
>>
>> Troll
>
>
> I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
> now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
> really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
Brad Guth
Apr 8, 2012, 8:32:04 AM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 5:16 am, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Alan Erskine" <alan.erski...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Ruse-masters and FUD-masters don't seem to care what you or others
think, but then neither did Hitler, GW Bush or Dick Cheney.
> "Alan Erskine" <alan.erski...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:U0qfr.5401$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/04/2012 11:27 PM, Hägar wrote:
> >> "Brad Guth"<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:U0qfr.5401$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/04/2012 11:27 PM, Hägar wrote:
> >>news:47fec427-232c-4e0f...@jx17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
> >> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
>
> >> **************************************
> >> Just goes to show you how much weight your opinions and concerns
> >> carry with NASA. Of course you (being paid under the table = no
> >> tax-paying
> >> leech) have a much higher level of education than those peon NASA PEs and
> >> Doctoral Scientists.
> >> Get any "Gold Stars" lately for posting your abject crapola ???
>
> > Don't
>
> > Feed
>
> > The
>
> > Troll
>
> I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
> now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
> really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
>
> s
Good luck with that.
> >> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
> >> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
>
> >> **************************************
> >> Just goes to show you how much weight your opinions and concerns
> >> carry with NASA. Of course you (being paid under the table = no
> >> tax-paying
> >> leech) have a much higher level of education than those peon NASA PEs and
> >> Doctoral Scientists.
> >> Get any "Gold Stars" lately for posting your abject crapola ???
>
> > Don't
>
> > Feed
>
> > The
>
> > Troll
>
> I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
> now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
> really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
>
> s
Ruse-masters and FUD-masters don't seem to care what you or others
think, but then neither did Hitler, GW Bush or Dick Cheney.
Brad Guth
Apr 8, 2012, 8:45:39 AM4/8/12
to
zilch.
For a pair of satellites to maneuver in order to miss encountering one
another, becomes a shorter period of time when the intersecting
velocity is increased and further complicated by a million other
potential items (many of which having become rogue/nomads) that'll
also have to be avoided.
ISS hasn't been terminated because of dumb luck. Any time now, Karma
is not going to be so unlucky. Adding retrograde items would only
increase those odds in favor of Karma.
HVAC
Apr 8, 2012, 8:56:59 AM4/8/12
to
On 4/8/2012 8:45 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>>
>> Clearly, one prefers satellites not to collide, but the problem exists
>> anyway, and has to be managed, whether or not retrograde orbits are
>> permitted.
>>
>
>
>>
>> Clearly, one prefers satellites not to collide, but the problem exists
>> anyway, and has to be managed, whether or not retrograde orbits are
>> permitted.
>>
>
> With such closing speeds, the allotted time for error becomes almost
> zilch.
Glad that you used the technical term 'almost zilch' to
> zilch.
describe closing speed of objects in orbit.
Did you study orbital mechanics in school?
Dean
Apr 8, 2012, 9:15:26 AM4/8/12
to
intelligent.
Brad Guth
Apr 8, 2012, 9:44:48 AM4/8/12
to
masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
HVAC
Apr 8, 2012, 10:49:49 AM4/8/12
to
On 4/8/2012 9:44 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>>
>> That's Guthball for you. He fixates on words he thinks make him sound
>> intelligent.
>
> At least I represent intelligence, whereas Ruse-masters and FUD-
> masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
> and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
I will pay one hundred dollars right now for a picture of
>
>>
>> That's Guthball for you. He fixates on words he thinks make him sound
>> intelligent.
>
> At least I represent intelligence, whereas Ruse-masters and FUD-
> masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
> and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
Guth playing with his puppet. (No, not his meat puppet)
Adolf Arch-Impersonator
Apr 8, 2012, 11:29:43 AM4/8/12
to
but willingly becomes puppetized, then according to Guth, there's the
usual nothing-gets-done-without billions for NASA bailouts, where the
taxpayer gets to pay for more of the same old snake-oil! Sorry Brad
'ol buddy 'ol pal, but we've already been down that road, and the last
thing I remember about NASA was that it had bought itself lock, stock,
and barrel, into the "green agenda". THAT should have been the warning
sign that NASA itself was becoming "retrograde"!
And Just because your idea for a 58K tether is a little whacked-out
from being "retrograde", doesn't mean that it would be less convenient
to subvert and/or subterfuge anything that plays into another well
thought out (house-of-cards) scheme of things (maybe not even by
yourself, or others like you), and given a little push from those who
would do just about anything for a buck, let alone a nod of
appreciation from the flying saucer crowd, pull in the entire gauntlet
of alt.promise.guths from around the globe, and given a more fair
shake with the alternatives to Ares II, in order to offer up something
even more believable to the masses, yet in the short run, short-
changing the public-at-large once again.
The sad truth is that the true NASA game-changers have been in short
supply ever since the Apollo years, so it seems to me that the only
alternative is to resurrect the same policies that got us there with
presidents like Kennedy, barring his tendency to end funding with the
military, and end the CIA.
Brad Guth
Apr 8, 2012, 12:02:43 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 8:29 am, Adolf Arch-Impersonator <goosestom...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our NASA should be consolidated and run by the USAF, and otherwise 50%
commercially and/or privately financed. At least that's what I've
said all along.
A tether made of carbonado fibers (aka diamond) is actually way
overkill.
64,000 km tethers would be more like it, unless it's counter balance
mass is managed by the other tether headed towards Earth, reaching its
termination platform and outpost of science and commercial usage to
within 6r of Earth.
Ideally the relocation of our moon to Earth L1 and interactively
keeping it there would be an even better accomplishment for
geoengineering a do-everything solution for our GW and AGW.
wrote:
commercially and/or privately financed. At least that's what I've
said all along.
A tether made of carbonado fibers (aka diamond) is actually way
overkill.
64,000 km tethers would be more like it, unless it's counter balance
mass is managed by the other tether headed towards Earth, reaching its
termination platform and outpost of science and commercial usage to
within 6r of Earth.
Ideally the relocation of our moon to Earth L1 and interactively
keeping it there would be an even better accomplishment for
geoengineering a do-everything solution for our GW and AGW.
GordonD
Apr 8, 2012, 1:57:26 PM4/8/12
to
"Harold Groot" <que...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:4f7fa0d0...@news.west.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Hmmmm... there could be reasons for a real retrograde orbit. I'm not
> an expert, but I seem to recall that Israel would have to use a
> retrograde orbit for any satellites they put up from their own land.
> If the launched to the east (in the direction of enemy nations) it
> would initially be seen as a missile attack on those nations - and if
> the launch was a failure and things came down from the sky on those
> nations, even more so. There could be immediate retaliatory strikes.
> So their only reasonable launch path would be to the west over the
> Mediterranean Sea, i.e. retrograde.
>
> Of course, maybe they could rent launch facilities from a nation that
> had them (some friendly nation with facilities with ocean to the
> east). But in general I don't think Israel would want to be dependent
> on other nations for something that would involve their own national
> security. Hitching a ride to the Space Station, sure, not a problem.
> But having someone else launch their own spy satellites would be
> something quite different. They might consider the extra cost to
> boost in "the wrong direction" well worth it to have everything under
> their complete control.
This is correct. Israel's first satellite (Ofeq 1) was launched in September
1988 and its orbit was inclined at 143 degrees to the Equator. All their
satellites since have been placed in similar orbits.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
news:4f7fa0d0...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 06:43:38 -0700, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
>
>>*** None ... they are in a Polar Orbit.
>
>>>So, how many satellites are in those retrograde-polar orbits?
>
>
>
> Hmmmm... there could be reasons for a real retrograde orbit. I'm not
> an expert, but I seem to recall that Israel would have to use a
> retrograde orbit for any satellites they put up from their own land.
> If the launched to the east (in the direction of enemy nations) it
> would initially be seen as a missile attack on those nations - and if
> the launch was a failure and things came down from the sky on those
> nations, even more so. There could be immediate retaliatory strikes.
> So their only reasonable launch path would be to the west over the
> Mediterranean Sea, i.e. retrograde.
>
> Of course, maybe they could rent launch facilities from a nation that
> had them (some friendly nation with facilities with ocean to the
> east). But in general I don't think Israel would want to be dependent
> on other nations for something that would involve their own national
> security. Hitching a ride to the Space Station, sure, not a problem.
> But having someone else launch their own spy satellites would be
> something quite different. They might consider the extra cost to
> boost in "the wrong direction" well worth it to have everything under
> their complete control.
This is correct. Israel's first satellite (Ofeq 1) was launched in September
1988 and its orbit was inclined at 143 degrees to the Equator. All their
satellites since have been placed in similar orbits.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 8, 2012, 3:37:06 PM4/8/12
to
"Jonathan" wrote in message
news:mZednQdr56MHHBzS...@giganews.com...
something that I'm almost certain is against your ISP's AUP.
Good to know. Thanks.
>
>
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
news:mZednQdr56MHHBzS...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
>now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
>really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
>
>s
Let me get this straight. you just outright made a claim you're going to do
>
>
>
>I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
>now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
>really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
>
>s
something that I'm almost certain is against your ISP's AUP.
Good to know. Thanks.
>
>
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Brad Guth
Apr 8, 2012, 3:52:32 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 10:57 am, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Harold Groot" <ques...@infionline.net> wrote in message
Since most satellites have been public funded, you'd think we'd be
allowed to know a little more about them, and of what other
interference or gauntlet they could be up against.
Since an encounter at any few m/sec could be just as lethal as any at
10+ km/sec, is perhaps why retrograde orbits are no big deal as long
as we always know at all times what we're up against, and having some
maneuverability to work with.
> "Harold Groot" <ques...@infionline.net> wrote in message
allowed to know a little more about them, and of what other
interference or gauntlet they could be up against.
Since an encounter at any few m/sec could be just as lethal as any at
10+ km/sec, is perhaps why retrograde orbits are no big deal as long
as we always know at all times what we're up against, and having some
maneuverability to work with.
Dean
Apr 8, 2012, 8:30:49 PM4/8/12
to
Dean
Apr 8, 2012, 8:33:26 PM4/8/12
to
from? Who makes it?
Brad Guth
Apr 8, 2012, 9:39:24 PM4/8/12
to
be mass produced in the vacuum of space with no size or volume limits
nor any process energy derived from Earth. Its carbon comes from the
moon or obtained from those buckyballs extracted from space. It
offers more than sufficient GPa and its fibers can be continuous (all
of 64,000 km if need be).
Relocating that moon to Earth L1, and for accommodating the same LSE-
CM/ISS would involve using a much longer set of tethers.
It's all a very complicated matter that only the smartest of us can
possibly begin to understand, although everyone gets to appreciate and
directly benefit.
Harold Groot
Apr 8, 2012, 9:51:16 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:57:26 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ah, with that name I looked it up at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofeq
It mentions that while all the Ofeq series satellites were launched
from Israel and went west, there were other Israeli satellites (like
the Amos series) that were launched from sites in other nations,
heading east.
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofeq
It mentions that while all the Ofeq series satellites were launched
from Israel and went west, there were other Israeli satellites (like
the Amos series) that were launched from sites in other nations,
heading east.
Sylvia Else
Apr 8, 2012, 11:40:56 PM4/8/12
to
with an inclination of -89 degrees, neither being in a retrograde orbit,
have a closing speed of almost double their orbital speed.
Put one of them into a retrograde orbit, and their closing speed is only
about 3% of their orbital speed.
Whether an orbit is retrograde is only one factor.
Anyway, it's not as if satellites operate on a see-and-avoid principle.
Pretty much regardless of the closing speed, avoiding action is only
possible on the basis of predictions from known orbits. If the orbits
are accurately known, then avoidance is not a problem (provided there's
a maneovering ability). If the orbits are not accurately known, or
there's no maneovering ability, then the closing speed makes little
difference.
Sylvia.
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 5:18:15 AM4/9/12
to
On 4/8/2012 8:30 PM, Dean wrote:
>
>>
>>> At least I represent intelligence, whereas Ruse-masters and FUD-
>>> masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
>>> and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
>>
>> I will pay one hundred dollars right now for a picture of
>> Guth playing with his puppet. (No, not his meat puppet)
>>
>
> Pay up:
>
>>
>>> At least I represent intelligence, whereas Ruse-masters and FUD-
>>> masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
>>> and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
>>
>> I will pay one hundred dollars right now for a picture of
>> Guth playing with his puppet. (No, not his meat puppet)
>>
>
>
> http://www.dfwfunnybusiness.com/clown_popup_pages/maggie_the_magical_clown/maggie_with_mary.html
Here ya go.....
http://www.clownsupplies.com/shopexd.asp?id=3090
GordonD
Apr 9, 2012, 7:54:40 AM4/9/12
to
"Harold Groot" <que...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:4f823ee9...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> Ah, with that name I looked it up at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofeq
>
> It mentions that while all the Ofeq series satellites were launched
> from Israel and went west, there were other Israeli satellites (like
> the Amos series) that were launched from sites in other nations,
> heading east.
Yes, I should have said "all their satellites launched from Israel..."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofeq
>
> It mentions that while all the Ofeq series satellites were launched
> from Israel and went west, there were other Israeli satellites (like
> the Amos series) that were launched from sites in other nations,
> heading east.
Note that the article you linked to says that they had at least two launch
failures, which shows the wisdom of not aiming for a conventional orbit. You
do *not* want to be dropping rocket stages on a potentially hostile foreign
country.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Brad Guth
Apr 9, 2012, 8:14:08 AM4/9/12
to
of radar tracking that's public funded, you can go right ahead and put
up as many and as random happenstance orbiting missions as you like.
What about others that are not so lucky as to have governments too big
to fail?
Obviously you don't seem to care how spendy and/or risky this LEO/GSO
plus all the other stuff gets.
Glad to hear that your government is running in the black, with a
surplus of everything, as without any past or current debt which only
the next ten generations get to pay off. Aren't you lucky.
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 9:05:48 AM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 3:51, Harold Groot schreef:
Can here in this thread someone proof those satellites exist... please
people only proof of one thing there above would be very welcome...
SO PLEASE ALL STOP TALKING LIKE PARROTS... since none of you can even
proof rockets work in vacuum or satellites are "*flying above*" our
heads watching us... I Defy you all... proof ones in your life time what
you believe in really exist...
Pigsrael has not Satellites or Atomic weapons or any roots... its all
scam...
Now I will await any proof from any one that can proves I am wrong...
but in mean time I call you all parrots, dogs and bastards because you
all repeat words you heard from some liars and deceivers...
http://www.purepirate.com/images/products/large/pirate-parrot-napkins.jpg
people only proof of one thing there above would be very welcome...
SO PLEASE ALL STOP TALKING LIKE PARROTS... since none of you can even
proof rockets work in vacuum or satellites are "*flying above*" our
heads watching us... I Defy you all... proof ones in your life time what
you believe in really exist...
Pigsrael has not Satellites or Atomic weapons or any roots... its all
scam...
Now I will await any proof from any one that can proves I am wrong...
but in mean time I call you all parrots, dogs and bastards because you
all repeat words you heard from some liars and deceivers...
http://www.purepirate.com/images/products/large/pirate-parrot-napkins.jpg
Brad Guth
Apr 9, 2012, 9:29:24 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 6:05 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 9-4-2012 3:51, Harold Groot schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:57:26 +0100, "GordonD"<g.da...@btinternet.com>
> Op 9-4-2012 3:51, Harold Groot schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "Harold Groot"<ques...@infionline.net> wrote in message
We can't help anyone that doesn't want to be helped.
Just do the math and it'll tell even a dysfunctional Moor that
satellited do exist.
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 11:00:42 AM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 15:29, Brad Guth schreef:
they don't... thats why none here can silent me, NASA shill...
the most simple proof you can't provide... rocket technology doesn't
work in vacuum and the needed velocity they never can obtain... so
simple is truth...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Y0ho1NLbA
the most simple proof you can't provide... rocket technology doesn't
work in vacuum and the needed velocity they never can obtain... so
simple is truth...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Y0ho1NLbA
Brad Guth
Apr 9, 2012, 12:58:05 PM4/9/12
to
action/reaction works?
No wonder they had to run you Moors out of town. It was too
embarrassing to keep explaining why you crazy Moors were allowed on
the public streets.
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 2:37:58 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 18:58, Brad Guth schreef:
we invented the gun and the canon and the rocket and the missile and
much more toys... keyword is TOYS for kids...
and with toys you don't get to heaven... believe me.
much more toys... keyword is TOYS for kids...
and with toys you don't get to heaven... believe me.
Brad Guth
Apr 9, 2012, 3:13:23 PM4/9/12
to
capable of getting small payloads into LEO.
http://www.universetoday.com/51532/hydrogen-gas-cannons-could-launch-payloads-to-orbit-wvideo/
The HLC method certainly has no problems getting protons into orbit
and well beyond (possibly exiting the galaxy if need be).
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 9, 2012, 3:39:56 PM4/9/12
to
"Warhol" wrote in message news:jlvaa7$26v$1...@dont-email.me...
>and with toys you don't get to heaven... believe me.
>
>
>
>
>
>we invented the gun and the canon and the rocket and the missile and
>much more toys... keyword is TOYS for kids...
>
You're Chinese now?
>
>
>we invented the gun and the canon and the rocket and the missile and
>much more toys... keyword is TOYS for kids...
>
>and with toys you don't get to heaven... believe me.
>
>
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 4:36:09 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 21:13, Brad Guth schreef:
again the Key word is *could launch* but they can't...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioGJKKG_Kcg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioGJKKG_Kcg
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 6:18:37 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 21:39, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef:
I said chinese invented shit...
I think you know what a rifle is... but do you know who the Rif-man is?
Well the rif-man is also the one who learned all guitarist to play
riff's on their guitars and rock and roll, blues, folk etc etc...
The Future Of Riff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7qdHdv1D3I
The Che'Rif of the Rif Mountains... The Rif'le'man
http://www.americanrifleman.org/videos/moroccan-miquelet-rifle/
yeah camels guns... ofcours they are yids talking about weapons they
don't know... we Berbers have horses... the best horses in the world...
and our Rifles are the oldest in the world... even our rock music is
4000 years old... you guy don't even come to my heels... I have glory
you guys will never have... even my glory is hidden under mud... I just
have to clean it up it will shine like none other in all matters...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5daFVTqr2Y
> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlvaa7$26v$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>>
>> we invented the gun and the canon and the rocket and the missile and
>> much more toys... keyword is TOYS for kids...
>>
>
> You're Chinese now?
>
>
>> and with toys you don't get to heaven... believe me.
>>
>>
>
I just answered the same question yesterday... see my reply.
>>
>>
>>
>> we invented the gun and the canon and the rocket and the missile and
>> much more toys... keyword is TOYS for kids...
>>
>
> You're Chinese now?
>
>
>> and with toys you don't get to heaven... believe me.
>>
>>
>
I said chinese invented shit...
I think you know what a rifle is... but do you know who the Rif-man is?
Well the rif-man is also the one who learned all guitarist to play
riff's on their guitars and rock and roll, blues, folk etc etc...
The Future Of Riff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7qdHdv1D3I
The Che'Rif of the Rif Mountains... The Rif'le'man
http://www.americanrifleman.org/videos/moroccan-miquelet-rifle/
yeah camels guns... ofcours they are yids talking about weapons they
don't know... we Berbers have horses... the best horses in the world...
and our Rifles are the oldest in the world... even our rock music is
4000 years old... you guy don't even come to my heels... I have glory
you guys will never have... even my glory is hidden under mud... I just
have to clean it up it will shine like none other in all matters...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5daFVTqr2Y
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 7:09:08 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 6:18 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
>>
>> You're Chinese now?
>
>>
>> You're Chinese now?
>>
>>
>
>
> I just answered the same question yesterday... see my reply.
Wise minds think alike.
>>
>
>
> I just answered the same question yesterday... see my reply.
Sylvia Else
Apr 9, 2012, 9:33:38 PM4/9/12
to
Sylvia.
Brad Guth
Apr 10, 2012, 12:26:42 AM4/10/12
to
that make the best FUD-masters, rusemasters, spooks and moles. It's a
wonder we're not having to survive from your WW3, or from some other
false-flagged fiasco. Obviously you think this is all nothing but a
game, whereas the upper most 0.0001% always win.
Our governments and their faith-based partners in crimes against
humanity have been out of control as of prior to WW2, and obviously
you could care less.
Earth with its GW+AGW and many other issues, could be saved by way of
a geoengineered solution, but you could care less.
There's some odd kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
Venus, and once again you could care less.
Perhaps yourself and others of any deductive image interpreting
expertise can add a little something from their very own
observationology talent to this growing list, of contributing to what
an actively thriving community of an intelligent mining operation
should look like, as imaged from the perspective of an advanced spy
satellite, keeping in mind that the scale of such items on any given
dimension has to be worth at least 75 meters/pixel or preferably
larger 225 m/pixel in order to count, so for the most part we’re not
trying to interpret anything that’s smaller than 225 meters per
geometric dimension.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
HVAC
Apr 10, 2012, 6:36:17 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/10/2012 12:26 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> There's some odd kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
> Venus, and once again you could care less.
Shouldn't that be, you *couldn't* care less?
>
>
> There's some odd kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
> Venus, and once again you could care less.
GordonD
Apr 10, 2012, 8:38:02 AM4/10/12
to
Now there is something I never thought I'd see - an argument in which Brad
Guth is the sensible one.
I think I need to go and lie down.
Guth is the sensible one.
I think I need to go and lie down.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Sylvia Else
Apr 10, 2012, 8:45:02 AM4/10/12
to
On 10/04/2012 8:36 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 12:26 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>> There's some odd kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
>> Venus, and once again you could care less.
>
>
> Shouldn't that be, you *couldn't* care less?
The yanks have been getting that one wrong for so long that it's become
> On 4/10/2012 12:26 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>> There's some odd kind of other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
>> Venus, and once again you could care less.
>
>
> Shouldn't that be, you *couldn't* care less?
an idiom.
Sylvia.
HVAC
Apr 10, 2012, 9:36:32 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/10/2012 8:38 AM, GordonD wrote:
> Now there is something I never thought I'd see - an argument in which
> Brad Guth is the sensible one.
>
> I think I need to go and lie down.
LOL
> Now there is something I never thought I'd see - an argument in which
> Brad Guth is the sensible one.
>
> I think I need to go and lie down.
Brad Guth
Apr 10, 2012, 9:18:19 AM4/10/12
to
anything that's public funded, and otherwise unwilling to push any of
those mainstream "do not push" buttons.
Notice how Sylvia could care less how much energy is costing us, or
whatever any city, state of federal taxes and fees are costing us, or
whatever amount of debt the next ten generations are getting stuck
with. She could care less if there's a million satellites going every
which way as long as our spendy method of tracking and avoidance can
manage to keep our satellites out of harms way.
There's a dozen nations spying on everyone else at the same time, plus
private technology that's eliminating privacy and otherwise invading
every square meter of this planet, and Sylvia doesn't care how much
that's costing or what sort of misuse it could represent, whereas
other nations on our "No Fly" list and not nearly as capable of
spending as much, are continually putting their investments at risk
all the time, of losing their satellites due to encountering some
other satellite or debris that only we know about, not to mention
being easily targeted by our disruptive microwaves, radars and lasers
that are not exactly friendly fire.
Sylvia also can't deal with utilizing our moon for anything other than
space tourism, or much less anything pertaining to the extremely
nearby planet Venus that's only the most interesting and intriguing
other planet besides Earth. So go figure why the likes of Sylvia is
even here, other than to clown about and ruse or FUD over the rest of
us.
jonathan
Apr 10, 2012, 10:35:59 AM4/10/12
to
"Greg (Strider) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote in message
news:W4WdnaDYaMZ_dRzS...@earthlink.com...
> "Jonathan" wrote in message
> news:mZednQdr56MHHBzS...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
>>now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
>>really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
>>
>>s
>
> Let me get this straight. you just outright made a claim you're going to
> do something that I'm almost certain is against your ISP's AUP.
>
> Good to know. Thanks.
When someone shits all over a post about my late Father's
war history, I'm not going to say thank you. I wouldn't
respect anyone that did, and it's obvious you think it's
OK to do that. So fuck you too.
Jonathan
s
jonathan
Apr 10, 2012, 10:45:20 AM4/10/12
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5822cb1f-f855-4484...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 5:16 am, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Alan Erskine" <alan.erski...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:U0qfr.5401$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/04/2012 11:27 PM, Hägar wrote:
> >> "Brad Guth"<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:47fec427-232c-4e0f...@jx17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Odd, that directly after posting this topic about retrograde orbits,
> >> all normal access to Usenet and even the internet went dead.
>
> >> **************************************
> >> Just goes to show you how much weight your opinions and concerns
> >> carry with NASA. Of course you (being paid under the table = no
> >> tax-paying
> >> leech) have a much higher level of education than those peon NASA PEs
> >> and
> >> Doctoral Scientists.
> >> Get any "Gold Stars" lately for posting your abject crapola ???
>
> > Don't
>
> > Feed
>
> > The
>
> > Troll
>
> I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
> now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
> really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
When people shit all over my dad's memory, a rather
> I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
> now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
> really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
illustrious war history btw, that's something only a true
piece of shit would do. And I'm gonna let them have it.
And anyone that thinks I'm out of line for doing so
shows their true colors. Deep down, they're a
miserable excuse for a human being. And I don't
wish to lower myself to people like that.
Screw 'em
Jonathan
s
>
> s
Good luck with that.
Ruse-masters and FUD-masters don't seem to care what you or others
think, but then neither did Hitler, GW Bush or Dick Cheney.
Message has been deleted
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 10, 2012, 11:29:22 AM4/10/12
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:qsh8o7pgoiepuhquk...@4ax.com...
>be shit all over. Smooth move....
>
That's the thing. The original posting, while off-topic and was mildly
interesting. While a bit annoyed that he posted it off-topic to s.s.* I
really couldn't care much about it.
But then threaten to crap all over the groups, on purpose. That's a
different kettle of fish all together.
news:qsh8o7pgoiepuhquk...@4ax.com...
>
>"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Greg (Strider) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote in message
>>news:W4WdnaDYaMZ_dRzS...@earthlink.com...
>>> "Jonathan" wrote in message
>>> news:mZednQdr56MHHBzS...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
>>>>now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
>>>>really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
>>>>
>>>
>"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Greg (Strider) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote in message
>>news:W4WdnaDYaMZ_dRzS...@earthlink.com...
>>> "Jonathan" wrote in message
>>> news:mZednQdr56MHHBzS...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>I'm going to make a point of feeding the trolls from
>>>>now on. I'm going to start cross-posting to all the
>>>>really annoying ng's until you leave this ng.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me get this straight. you just outright made a claim you're going
>>> to
>>> do something that I'm almost certain is against your ISP's AUP.
>>>
>>> Good to know. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>When someone shits all over a post about my late Father's
>>war history, I'm not going to say thank you. I wouldn't
>>respect anyone that did, and it's obvious you think it's
>>OK to do that. So fuck you too.
>>
>
>So instead you elect to behave in a way that shows that you deserve to
>>> to
>>> do something that I'm almost certain is against your ISP's AUP.
>>>
>>> Good to know. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>When someone shits all over a post about my late Father's
>>war history, I'm not going to say thank you. I wouldn't
>>respect anyone that did, and it's obvious you think it's
>>OK to do that. So fuck you too.
>>
>
>be shit all over. Smooth move....
>
That's the thing. The original posting, while off-topic and was mildly
interesting. While a bit annoyed that he posted it off-topic to s.s.* I
really couldn't care much about it.
But then threaten to crap all over the groups, on purpose. That's a
different kettle of fish all together.
Dean
Apr 10, 2012, 12:56:20 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 8, 9:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:33 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 12:02 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 8, 8:29 am, Adolf Arch-Impersonator <goosestom...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 8, 9:44 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 8, 6:15 am, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > That's Guthball for you. He fixates on words he thinks make him sound
> > > > > > intelligent.
> > > > > http://translate.google.com/#
> > > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > > > ha ha ha If Guth is never flattered by those who try to imitate him,
> > > > but willingly becomes puppetized, then according to Guth, there's the
> > > > usual nothing-gets-done-without billions for NASA bailouts, where the
> > > > taxpayer gets to pay for more of the same old snake-oil! Sorry Brad
> > > > 'ol buddy 'ol pal, but we've already been down that road, and the last
> > > > thing I remember about NASA was that it had bought itself lock, stock,
> > > > and barrel, into the "green agenda". THAT should have been the warning
> > > > sign that NASA itself was becoming "retrograde"!
>
> > > > And Just because your idea for a 58K tether is a little whacked-out
> > > > from being "retrograde", doesn't mean that it would be less convenient
> > > > to subvert and/or subterfuge anything that plays into another well
> > > > thought out (house-of-cards) scheme of things (maybe not even by
> > > > yourself, or others like you), and given a little push from those who
> > > > would do just about anything for a buck, let alone a nod of
> > > > appreciation from the flying saucer crowd, pull in the entire gauntlet
> > > > of alt.promise.guths from around the globe, and given a more fair
> > > > shake with the alternatives to Ares II, in order to offer up something
> > > > even more believable to the masses, yet in the short run, short-
> > > > changing the public-at-large once again.
>
> > > > The sad truth is that the true NASA game-changers have been in short
> > > > supply ever since the Apollo years, so it seems to me that the only
> > > > alternative is to resurrect the same policies that got us there with
> > > > presidents like Kennedy, barring his tendency to end funding with the
> > > > military, and end the CIA.
>
> > > Our NASA should be consolidated and run by the USAF, and otherwise 50%
> > > commercially and/or privately financed. At least that's what I've
> > > said all along.
>
> > > A tether made of carbonado fibers (aka diamond) is actually way
> > > overkill.
>
> > > 64,000 km tethers would be more like it, unless it's counter balance
> > > mass is managed by the other tether headed towards Earth, reaching its
> > > termination platform and outpost of science and commercial usage to
> > > within 6r of Earth.
>
> > > Ideally the relocation of our moon to Earth L1 and interactively
> > > keeping it there would be an even better accomplishment for
> > > geoengineering a do-everything solution for our GW and AGW.
>
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> > > http://translate.google.com/#
> > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > Show us a practical example of a 64,000 km tether. What's it made
> > from? Who makes it?
>
> I can make it. It's made from carbonado (aka black diamond) which can
> be mass produced in the vacuum of space with no size or volume limits
> nor any process energy derived from Earth. Its carbon comes from the
> moon or obtained from those buckyballs extracted from space. It
> offers more than sufficient GPa and its fibers can be continuous (all
> of 64,000 km if need be).
>
> Relocating that moon to Earth L1, and for accommodating the same LSE-
> CM/ISS would involve using a much longer set of tethers.
>
> It's all a very complicated matter that only the smartest of us can
> possibly begin to understand, although everyone gets to appreciate and
> directly benefit.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
I'm calling official BULLSHIT on you right now. This is a classic
example of how you toss in technical details to make yourself sound
educated and knowledgeable. First, carbonado is a natural material
and as such it is quite variable and is found on Earth, not on the
moon on in "space". Second, you have NO IDEA how you could even
process such a material into a superstrong fiber tether that is
several orders of magnitude stronger than anything known today.
Third, name a decent carbon source on the moon. Fourth, how do you
"extract" bucyyballs from "space"? This is typical of you Brad. it
clearly shows why you've gained the undesirable nicknames of Netkook
and Guthball. If you are truly interested in this technology, why
don't you start reading and understanding it first?
> On Apr 8, 5:33 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 12:02 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 8, 8:29 am, Adolf Arch-Impersonator <goosestom...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 8, 9:44 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 8, 6:15 am, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > intelligent.
>
> > > > > At least I represent intelligence, whereas Ruse-masters and FUD-
> > > > > masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
> > > > > and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
>
> > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> > > > > At least I represent intelligence, whereas Ruse-masters and FUD-
> > > > > masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
> > > > > and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
>
> > > > > http://translate.google.com/#
> > > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > > > ha ha ha If Guth is never flattered by those who try to imitate him,
> > > > but willingly becomes puppetized, then according to Guth, there's the
> > > > usual nothing-gets-done-without billions for NASA bailouts, where the
> > > > taxpayer gets to pay for more of the same old snake-oil! Sorry Brad
> > > > 'ol buddy 'ol pal, but we've already been down that road, and the last
> > > > thing I remember about NASA was that it had bought itself lock, stock,
> > > > and barrel, into the "green agenda". THAT should have been the warning
> > > > sign that NASA itself was becoming "retrograde"!
>
> > > > And Just because your idea for a 58K tether is a little whacked-out
> > > > from being "retrograde", doesn't mean that it would be less convenient
> > > > to subvert and/or subterfuge anything that plays into another well
> > > > thought out (house-of-cards) scheme of things (maybe not even by
> > > > yourself, or others like you), and given a little push from those who
> > > > would do just about anything for a buck, let alone a nod of
> > > > appreciation from the flying saucer crowd, pull in the entire gauntlet
> > > > of alt.promise.guths from around the globe, and given a more fair
> > > > shake with the alternatives to Ares II, in order to offer up something
> > > > even more believable to the masses, yet in the short run, short-
> > > > changing the public-at-large once again.
>
> > > > The sad truth is that the true NASA game-changers have been in short
> > > > supply ever since the Apollo years, so it seems to me that the only
> > > > alternative is to resurrect the same policies that got us there with
> > > > presidents like Kennedy, barring his tendency to end funding with the
> > > > military, and end the CIA.
>
> > > Our NASA should be consolidated and run by the USAF, and otherwise 50%
> > > commercially and/or privately financed. At least that's what I've
> > > said all along.
>
> > > A tether made of carbonado fibers (aka diamond) is actually way
> > > overkill.
>
> > > 64,000 km tethers would be more like it, unless it's counter balance
> > > mass is managed by the other tether headed towards Earth, reaching its
> > > termination platform and outpost of science and commercial usage to
> > > within 6r of Earth.
>
> > > Ideally the relocation of our moon to Earth L1 and interactively
> > > keeping it there would be an even better accomplishment for
> > > geoengineering a do-everything solution for our GW and AGW.
>
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> > > http://translate.google.com/#
> > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > Show us a practical example of a 64,000 km tether. What's it made
> > from? Who makes it?
>
> I can make it. It's made from carbonado (aka black diamond) which can
> be mass produced in the vacuum of space with no size or volume limits
> nor any process energy derived from Earth. Its carbon comes from the
> moon or obtained from those buckyballs extracted from space. It
> offers more than sufficient GPa and its fibers can be continuous (all
> of 64,000 km if need be).
>
> Relocating that moon to Earth L1, and for accommodating the same LSE-
> CM/ISS would involve using a much longer set of tethers.
>
> It's all a very complicated matter that only the smartest of us can
> possibly begin to understand, although everyone gets to appreciate and
> directly benefit.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
I'm calling official BULLSHIT on you right now. This is a classic
example of how you toss in technical details to make yourself sound
educated and knowledgeable. First, carbonado is a natural material
and as such it is quite variable and is found on Earth, not on the
moon on in "space". Second, you have NO IDEA how you could even
process such a material into a superstrong fiber tether that is
several orders of magnitude stronger than anything known today.
Third, name a decent carbon source on the moon. Fourth, how do you
"extract" bucyyballs from "space"? This is typical of you Brad. it
clearly shows why you've gained the undesirable nicknames of Netkook
and Guthball. If you are truly interested in this technology, why
don't you start reading and understanding it first?
Dean
Apr 10, 2012, 1:03:14 PM4/10/12
to
Dean
Apr 10, 2012, 1:03:49 PM4/10/12
to
Dean
Apr 10, 2012, 1:02:29 PM4/10/12
to
>
> The HLC method certainly has no problems getting protons into orbit
> and well beyond (possibly exiting the galaxy if need be).
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
No it is not viable. It is nothing but SPECULATION. Do you have
> The HLC method certainly has no problems getting protons into orbit
> and well beyond (possibly exiting the galaxy if need be).
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
reading difficulties?
Dean
Apr 10, 2012, 12:59:00 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 5:18 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Guth playing with his puppet. (No, not his meat puppet)
>
> > Pay up:
>
> >http://www.dfwfunnybusiness.com/clown_popup_pages/maggie_the_magical_...
>
> Here ya go.....
>
> http://www.clownsupplies.com/shopexd.asp?id=3090
> On 4/8/2012 8:30 PM, Dean wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> At least I represent intelligence, whereas Ruse-masters and FUD-
> >>> masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
> >>> and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
>
> >> I will pay one hundred dollars right now for a picture of
>
>
>
> >>> At least I represent intelligence, whereas Ruse-masters and FUD-
> >>> masters like yourself are limited as to only what others have to say,
> >>> and I used to have a puppet that did the same thing.
>
> >> Guth playing with his puppet. (No, not his meat puppet)
>
> > Pay up:
>
> >http://www.dfwfunnybusiness.com/clown_popup_pages/maggie_the_magical_...
>
> Here ya go.....
>
> http://www.clownsupplies.com/shopexd.asp?id=3090
>
> --
> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
LOL! Good one!
> --
> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages