MICROSATELLITES; how small? How cheap?
Brad Guth
Since most all satellites are disposables; could a micro-satellite be
as slight a one kg?
How about if we're affording all of 10 kg per microsatellite?
Could a microsatellite be configured for surviving a 2.4 km/s lunar
impact, such as impacting into a great deal of moon-dust?
Audio/seismic detections couldn't possibly involve more than a few
grams, as well as thermal and radiation detection can't be requiring
but a few extra grams, and even atmospheric spectrum instrumentation
shouldn't involve much greater than a kg. PV cells are certainly
smaller and of higher energy potential, and whatever energy storage
batteries are most certainly a whole lot more reliable, weigh next to
nothing and seem good for many thousands of cycles.
It seems micro-cameras offering less than 2.2 micron/pixel and thus
using a micro/compact lens only draw a few milliamps per frame, thus
perhaps not even .05 joule per frame can become the norm for such small
satellites that could essentially swarm extremely close around our
moon, eventually getting down to cruising just slightly off the highly
reactive lunar deck before running into a lunar mountain or some other
obstruction, like diving into the meters deep moon dust. Other viable
instruments might not even draw 0.01 joule worth of energy per sample.
A directed explosive discharge might even get some of those crashed
microsatellites that survived their initial landing as to their being
situated back up on top of that thick and nasty dust.
Of course, there is an amount of radon, argon and sodium atmosphere to
work on behalf of aerobreaking.
Thus what's the problem if any with going extremely small, thus being
'clumping moon-dirt' cheap and therefore we'd be able to affordably
deploy a hundred of these nifty little suckers for considerably less
effort and certainly less than the price tag of one larger package like
SMART-1 that isn't providing us with hardly any scientific worth.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Henry Hallam
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131309701.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Could a microsatellite be configured for surviving a 2.4 km/s lunar
> impact, such as impacting into a great deal of moon-dust?
I think this will be your problem more than anything else.
That speed is nearly 5400mph, equivalent to more than twice the maximum
speed of the SR-71 Blackbird. The kinetic energy of the microsatellite is a
little under 3MJ per kg. Even if the satellite were made of solid titanium,
the heat released would be enough to vapourise all of it.
I don't really think this sort of lithobraking is practical on the moon.
Henry
Adam Przybyla
> Exactly how small can a microsatellite get these day's?
>
> Since most all satellites are disposables; could a micro-satellite be
> as slight a one kg?
http://www.chipsat.com/press/press01.php
http://www.estec.esa.nl/wsmwww/core/chipsat_abstract.pdf ?
Regards
Adam Przybyla
Jorge R. Frank
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Exactly how small can a microsatellite get these day's?
Precisely 10 kg, no less.
> Since most all satellites are disposables; could a micro-satellite be
> as slight a one kg?
Nope, that would be a nanosat. And below 1 kg, a picosat.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>
>>Exactly how small can a microsatellite get these day's?
>>
>>
>
>Precisely 10 kg, no less.
>
>
>
>>Since most all satellites are disposables; could a micro-satellite be
>>as slight a one kg?
>>
>>
>
>Nope, that would be a nanosat. And below 1 kg, a picosat.
>
>
Okay, keep going- what are the next increments down? Nanosatellite?
Pat
Jorge R. Frank
@corp.supernews.com:
Nope, that's 1-10 kg. Below 100 g, they're called femtosats.
Brad Guth
Thanks for all the good info.
Not that surviving impact is essential, although I'm also thinking of a
spin-deployed large area chute.
Thus in addition to whatever our NASA officially stipulates as lunar
atmosphere, how about such efforts taking advantage of a good amount of
sodium breaking, then of Argon and several other element breaking prior
to taking advantage of the final layer of Radon breaking before
becoming thick moon-dust breaking?
How about a CNT/basalt composite nose/shell?
Besides, all that needs to survive should be less than a kg out of 10
kg to start with.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Other than suffering another unfortunate PC lock-up on the second link,
that's the right sort of direction that I knew had to exist.
http://www.chipsat.com/press/press01.php
http://www.estec.esa.nl/wsmwww/core/chipsat_abstract.pdf
Perhaps you could copy that "chipsat_abstract.pdf" and repost it
without whatever's causing the problem. I found a couple of other links
associated with having the same file name, thus the problem may have to
do with a pdf fault on page 3 that's trying to make things as difficult
as possible.
Basically I'm thinking we could deploy dozens if not hundreds of such
minimal satellites that aren't all thar science limited, just extremely
small.
How about ballistic rated circuitry? Just how tough and energy
efficient can circuitry get?
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Thanks much. 10 kg sounds just fine and dandy.
I'm thinking that being smaller has become a whole lot better,
especially in these robust micro-miniature circuitry wonders of sensors
you can hardly see, of fly-weight cameras and Ghz pulse signal/packet
transponders that take up hardly any volume and can't possibly draw all
that much energy.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
better, especially in these robust micro-miniature circuitry wonders of
cameras that are really quite good, and Ghz pulse signal/packet
transponders that'll take up hardly any volume and can't possibly draw
all that much energy.
However, if you believed the Apollo record as to the lunar atmosphere
being next to nothing (3e-15 bar = 0.000000000003 mb), as in having no
apparent Sodium nor of any Radon to contend with, and oddly hardly of
any Argon as suggested by merely 32e3 Ar atoms/cm3, as this would offer
us a nearly lithobreaking deorbit as being nearly impossible to obtain.
Although, even 2r(3476 km) would be safely 1738 km off the deck (that's
a better average than 17 times further away than the Apollo CM orbit),
which should be entirely doable even though the thick sodium atmosphere
that was subsequently discovered is supposedly worth less than 5e3
atoms/cm3 at being 2r close range, except for the comet like trail
portion of sodium that's made so extra dense because of the available
solar influx and solar winds having excavated the near surface
inventory, that as such it reaches out past 900,000 km. In which case
the brief nighttime/earthshine passage through the solar downwind side
of the moon is where these small satellites might have to deal with
several hundred thousand Sodium atoms/cm3 while operating within the
range of their being less than 1738 km off the deck, of which this
sodium gauntlet should impose some degree of aerobreaking which SMART-1
has been avoiding like the plague by way of keeping it's distance and
otherwise by extensively using up it's cash of Xenon fuel for ion
thrusting in order to prevent excessive orbit decay as it manages a
highly elliptical and thus orbital energy recovery path, of which
unfortunately keeps SMART-1 at too great a distance for accomplishing
all that much good.
from NASA's Moon Fact Sheet
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
http://www.higp.hawaii.edu/futureflight/ffh2001/MoonFAQs/atmosph.htm
Abundance at surface: 2e5 particles/cm3
Estimated Composition (particles per cubic cm):
Helium 4 (4He) - 40,000 ; Neon 20 (20Ne) - 40,000 ; Hydrogen (H2) -
35,000
Argon 40 (40Ar) - 30,000 ; Neon 22 (22Ne) - 5,000 ; Argon 36 (36Ar) -
2,000
Methane - 1000 ; Ammonia - 1000 ; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 1000
If I were having to go by this NASA/Apollo koran of info, we should be
perfectly safe and sane at having our microsatellites orbiting
effectively down to the very last km off the deck.
Apparently the hundred plus some odd thousand if not 1.6e5 Sodium
atoms/cm3 that has been coexisting near the supposedly NASA/Apollo
certified as salt-free lunar surface went entirely unnoticed, as did
all of that stealth Radon(Rn222) that's crystal clear by day and turns
itself into an orange/reddish glow of LRn by night or earthshine,
although I'd have to believe that within hours this LRn would likely
have vanished into being sequestered within the thick lunar dust.
However, this Sodium and Radon free environment being especially odd of
the raw unfiltered solar illuminated deck, of which neither of these
primary and most basic of common elements that could have easily been
directly sampled and brought back to Earth, yet 6 out of their 6 manned
expeditions managed nothing of the sort, as well as of several previous
robotic missions that supposedly sat upon the surface for more than a
month (thereby day and night) at a time never once recorded or
otherwise sampled any amounts of Sodium nor Radon, as well as
apparently all of their radiation readings were just as off-line and/or
skewed as well as their audio and seismic readings having failed to
provide us with the hard-science of anything other which independent
research communities could sink their teeth into. There wasn't even so
much as a +/- 1° xenon beacon strobe transponder deployed as could
have been easily focused upon Earth.
So, it's apparent that our lunar atmosphere remains as either extremely
top-secret, as in cold-war cloak and dagger taboo/nondisclosure or
need-to-know, or perhaps as otherwise those primary elements were being
as spotty and WMD stealth-like hard to find, or perhaps as having been
sensor overrun with all of those retroreflective illumination zones of
which their unfiltered Kodak moments recorded as being rather Xenon
lamp spectrum like, depicting of such a vast 55+% albedo reflective
lunar surface for as far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see. Thus
apparently the conditional laws of physics stipulates that the closer
you get to such a near zero atmospheric planet or moon the less the
secondary radiation gets, while the greater the spotty reflective
albedo becomes, and even the less raw element color there is to behold
(carbon/soot, deep iron, titanium and whatever salt deposits vanish
into less than thin air like so many WMD), and then apparently the
likes of secondary/recoil photons of near-blue or especially those of
hard-X-rays simply can't be created.
Of course I'm still one of the village idiots that doesn't for a minute
believe those surface obtained images even remotely resemble their own
inventory of images as having been obtained from 100+km orbit.
Therefore, by having a swarm of these microsatellites cruising about
the moon, perhaps starting their operation at just 1738 km off the
extremely dark and nasty lunar deck would be able to obtain all of
those spectrum readings, of thermal readings, radiation readings and so
easily obtaining those terrific images by having a 2.25 x 2.25 mm CCD
chip containing those 2.2 micron/pixel elements which would have those
12 bit 1024 x 1024 and easily 10x telephoto color images to work with,
including nighttime/earthshine images of 8 bit and 0.003 lux worth of
bottom DR capability should even allow starshine illuminated surfaces
to being detected.
If each microsatellite managed to survive just 10,000 orbits before
impacting, whereas obviously those last few hundred orbits should have
been getting down to being just next to nothing off the lunar deck, as
all other instrument readings of day/night thermal, radiation and
various atmospheric spectrometer samples should also have been taking
place and sharing a great deal of science information that otherwise
we've got next to nothing upon. Even 1,000 orbits would be an
impressive amount of information derives by 100 x 1000 microsatellite
probes that would likely cover nearly every m2 of the moon, thus 100e6
images and 10e6 science samples of just about everything under the sun,
including the sun.
So, I was wondering a bit, as to where to start these highly cost
effective orbits. Such as If starting off at 2r and a velocity of 0.6
km/s, obviously eventually ending up at 1r and 2.4 km/s seems as a
viable plan of action, that which I'm thinking of these somewhat
micro-instruments accomplishing a rather short lived but otherwise damn
fine job that should be worth every penny of our having 100 of these
little satellites going every which way as they're spiraling down upon
the moon, getting terrific hard-science and absolutely stunning
pictures to boot, sending back a thousand images per orbit (obviously
having to onboard cash the backside images) as well as perhaps 10,000
other hard-science readings per orbit of temperature, radiation and
whatever sorts of spectrum readings that can be packaged into such a 10
kg satellite. These science reading and images all transmitted back to
their mothership that perhaps efficiently coasting within the mutual
gravity-well that's just 60,000 some odd km from the moon, therefore
individual satellite signal detections shouldn't a problem.
I'm thinking somewhat of a aerodynamically wedge shaped package instead
borg cubic or even sphere like because of eventually these miniature
satellites having to confront a great deal of lunar atmospheric drag
once dropping below 174 km off the deck. Although at 10 kg/satellite
and perhaps 0.04 m3(1.4126 ft3) simply isn't going to represent all
that much total surface area worth of friction compared to the SMART-1
plus PV panels, and especially as compared to those supposed Apollo
missions that should have been much like representing a massive
box-kite worth of drag coefficient to deal with. Our microsat PV panels
need only cover the top half and/or possibly deploy somewhat like small
V-wings for improved flight stability control.
One last thought is per having coasted the mothership payload of these
100 microsatellites into the mutual gravity-well zone that's supposedly
interactive at roughly 60,000 km off the lunar deck, then having
deployed all 100 satellite probes via individual small SMEs at the same
time, as per going off in every direction away from this nifty
nullification zone would make for a fairly uniform coverage pattern of
these small satellites scouting over every square meter of the lunar
surfaces, sort of leaving no stone unturned, and eventually getting
down to their imaging at considerably less than 0.1 m/pixel.
BTW; not all 100 probes would have to be exactly the same, as some
might have multiple cameras with appropriate optical spectrum filters,
and even a few outfitted with a combinations of three such micro
cameras of 1:1, 10:1 and even an extreme 100:1 telephoto lens should be
doable. While a few (perhaps 10 units worth) could be made of ultra
CNT/basalt composite that's robust and having a large spin-deployable
parachute for their final aerobreaking just prior to their impacting
the extremely dusty lunar surface, as arriving at something less than
being 1° off the horizon, thus nearly lithobreaking via dragging their
parachute through a final thin layer of Radon gas.
Nick
into space. I don't know how heavy a typical satellite is. But I know
that basically the enitire payload of the rocket that gets the
microsatellite into space is in the rocket. How much difference would
this make over getting the heavier satellites into orbit?
I suppose it to be millions per kilo.
Ian Stirling
However.
2.4Km/s (moon escape) is a relatively small solid rocket.
2.2Km/s (or so) spin-stabilised rocket stage, triggered at the optimum point.
Then another 400m/s stage, with thrust termination, and the thing engineered
to sustain an impact of maybe 30m/s.
It occurs to me that the easiest way for a truly micro-scale lander/crasher
to determine altitude would be inertial navigation plus several wide-angle
cameras, and a gig or several of storage of the moons features.
To avoid the power use and bulk of a laser or other ranger.
Tice with a J
Brad Guth wrote:
> Of course I'm still one of the village idiots that doesn't for a minute
> believe those surface obtained images even remotely resemble their own
> inventory of images as having been obtained from 100+km orbit.
Take your neighborhood, or a national park you've been two, and compare
it to satellite photos of that place, and see if you recognize
anything.
With that, the defense rests.
Brad Guth
>been two, and compare it to satellite photos of that place, and see
>if you recognize anything.
>With that, the defense rests.
certainly asked of others to look and to share and share alike upon
whatever's similar about Earth, yet lo and behold, it's folks exactly
like yourself that can't be bothered to 'put-up or shut-up' with
forking over any of those images of similar radar resolution, whereas
if there's anything to behold upon Earth that looks as massively
artificial and as rational community like a complex of structures
unless it's artificially man-made.
Artificial patterns are entirely different than natural patterns, at
least that's what makes them artificial looking as opposed to natural
looking. That applies for Mars, Titan, Earth, our moon and Venus. In
other words, please show us village idiots whatever it is that looks so
massively artificial about Earth but isn't.
It's not that humans haven't created some extremely large and complex
items, it's just that when having been radar imaged at such a nearly
ideal 3D perspective is why they sort of look exactly as though they
were man-made.
Those interesting patterns on Venus are indeed quite large, whereas
such they are rather artificial looking, and they're set within a
highly rational community like configuration that's situated pretty
much exactly where you'd want to be. PhotoShop doesn't distort one damn
thing unless you intend to do so, and even then as long as the original
36-look per 8 bit pixel image exist there's no viable way of forcing
those unique 225 meter/pixel patterns into becoming something other
than what they are. The same PhotoShop applied to Earth by NIMA.MIL is
proof positive that I'm entirely right about my observationology
methods. Are you saying that MIMA.MIL is bogus?
There's even some nearby and equally quite large geological attributes
that are rather impressive, besides that terrific canyon of a
fluid/mud-flowing rille, such as the nearby 'fluid arch' and of a good
number of issues related to those natural as well as a few potentially
artificial looking reservoirs. Are you saying that you don't quite
understand the radar imaging process?
If you have some terrestrial image to share that's of a similar good
satellite radar perspective as to compare such patterns to, whereas I'd
be quite willing to accomplish your job by taking a look-see and to
process that image to death in order to see if there's something about
Earth that looks a massive and as artificially community like complex
but is merely a collection of natural formations.
That massive tarmac isn't even nearly as large as terrestrial tarmacs,
yet within that thick soup of the day you certainly wouldn't require a
tenth the runway (just available surface area for accommodating rigid
airships), but then you might require a large area service elevator and
those sub-service bays, as well as for having been situated right next
to that community of structures to the south in order to avoid your
having to travel cross country any more than absolutely necessary. It
is after all a geothermally active planet and thus damn toasty on
Venus, or didn't you know that was the case?
That bridge like item is just another example of what it is. Of those
alignments of large items as having been nicely recessed as perhaps
chemical/gas storage tanks (I'm thinking possibly CO, O2, H2O2 and
C12H26) that seem to be specifically related to what looks like a
nearby and rather extremely large rigid-airship are also exactly what
they seem to be. At least I've found no other terrestrial image of
having such well aligned and recessed items being of anything that's
natural, nor has any PhotoShop processing upon what's terrestrial or
even of other locations upon Venus recreated those sorts of interesting
alignments and recessed patterns to boot. So, therefore it's not a
PhotoShop image processing error, and it's certainly not the least bit
typical of what any other image contains unless it's been man-made, or
in the case of Venus as having been ET-made.
I can't speak on behalf of whatever's Venusian locals but, at least
technically speaking about the environment and rather considerable
amount of renewable energy resources has made for other life upon Venus
perfectly doable, especially ET doable.
With that, your defense shouldn't be resting it's sorry mindset butt,
at least not until a few of them NASA/Apollo cows come home.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
this reply posted into sci.physics hasn't been all that easy when
there's so much mainstream status quo crapolla hitting the fan. So, I'd
thought others might be interested in what "Rene Tschaggelar" had to
say, and of what I had to say in reply.
>Rene Tschaggelar;
>Before designing a light weight satellite, you should
>define its purpose and its life time. If you just want
>some mass with a surface up there, there is no real limit
>to its smallness. As soon as you have some electronics,
>some batteries or other power source, temperature sensitive
>gear, then you have to optimize size, surface, weight,
>lifetime.
How true that we "should define its purpose and its life time". Thus
how about you and I suggest a rather conservative duity cycle or
lifespan of managing to last for 1000 orbits about our moon. Giving the
average orbit an arbutuary value of 1.8 hours would require 1800
hours(75 days) worth of energy reserves plus whatever slight PV
contributions if need be in order to assist those 1000 orbit cycles.
>As soon as you have some electronics, some batteries or other
>power source, temperature sensitive gear, then you have to
>optimize size, surface, weight, lifetime.
I totally agree but, I haven't the necessary expertise that perhaps you
might care to share. Supposedly a lithium battery (w/o PV energy
influx) can provide better than 208 Whr/kg(750 kJ/kg). That's 750e3/75
= 10 kj/day as based upon a 1 kg battery. Of course there are other
batteries the likes of H2O2/Aluminum that are way better at exceeding 1
kwhr/kg(3.6e3 kj/kg). There's even a Lithium ion Power Cell that's
supposedly worth 720 whr/kg(2.6e3 kj/kg).
Essentially the onboard science and camera instruments can be
configured to live within whatever the daily energy allotment. I would
have to think that perhaps not more than 10% or 1 kg could be allocated
to the battery, and perhaps another 5% or 0.5 kg for the optional PV
cells covering half the airframe and 100% of those aerobreaking and
therefore flight/orbit stabilizing V-wings. Thus perhaps as much as 15%
of the total mass being associated with providing the necessary energy.
A plan of action might involve each orbit upon average obtaining 1000
12-bit images of the moon as it gets ever closer and closer to taking
the ultimate dive into the dark and rather thick and nasty moon-dust.
Then how about our having a few other sensors obtaining their 12
bit(4095:1) resolution of readings, such as of hard-X-ray radiation,
thermal data, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric spectrum data and
possibly even 1.0 hz to 40 kz audio/scismic. Say taking a good number
of each of those readings per orbit for another 12-bit demand of having
to transfer 10,000 of such science data packets per total orbit, and of
obviously having to get those 12-bit packets downloaded per half orbit
might become the most energy consuming process. Obviously this
represents that each microsatellte is having to store a little better
than half orbit data.
Accomplishing those budgets of volume usage, energy demand and as per
mass distribution within a 10 kg satellite seems doable. Though I'm not
the least qualified, however if others that supposedly are qualified
have little or nothing to share, as this might be when I'll give this
another one of my best lose cannon shots at delivering those numbers.
Since these small satellites are not generally expected to survive
their final impact but, perhaps having a few of their satellite innards
designed to possibly survive and to somehow trail an antenna so that
their seismic/audio and whatever other science data signals could be at
least briefly transferred to the mothership/transponder (that's still
coasting efficiently nearby within the ME-L1 zone) seems doable. Unless
there's several orbiting motherships, lunar backside impacts of
whatever if anything that survives impact will not prove all that
usable, thus if at all possible the breaks should be deployed so as to
impact upon the nearside rather than the farside.
There could be an atmospheric density that's populated at greater than
1e6 atoms/cm3, whereas the final near-surface layer of Radon(Rn222)
combined with the likely amounts of Argon, CO2, Sodium and even touches
of Xenon and Krypton as substantial secondary elements could actually
impose a rather substantial aerobreaking alternative for such a 1/6th
gravity environment.
At a final orbit circumference of roughly 11,000 km affords roughly 4.6
seconds between image frames if still having been configured as for
obtaining those 1000 frames per orbit. That's plenty of time for the
physical response of a gyro and servo tracking drive to improve upon
the image as the moon rather quickly passes below. I'm thinking of
having the camera aligned most often at +22.5° forward or -22.5° aft,
and otherwise having a + 85°(forward looking) to a - 85°(back
looking) overall pointing capability, giving everything from those of
zero degrees as representing those nearly useless plan views, to those
views including a bit of the lunar horizon.
Depending upon a given starting point of satellite deployments and
subsequent orbit decay, and especially since eventually there's going
to be a rather substantial amount of lunar atmosphere to deal with,
perhaps we're talking about providing as little as a 90 day timeline
before impact.
There should be some degree if interactively uploading instrument and
flight instructions, as to how frequent and of exactly how such items
as the camera should be utilized. Obviously we could do quite nicely
with a whole lot fewer than 1000 images per orbit, especially if there
are 100 of these little suckers swarming about the moon. Other science
readings could also settle for as few as 100 samples per instrument per
orbit, thus the required data throughput and subsequent demand upon
satellite energy resources might become rather insignificant.
BTW; as soon as I get myself back into this GOOGLE/NOVA usenet
connection is when my PC heads directly for the nearest toilet, meaning
that the fresh crapolla loads of MI6/NSA~CIA usenet spermware kicks
into high gear so as to disrupt my efforts as much as possible. No lie
folks, please stop by for an impressive show, as it only proves that
I'm right about a bit more than my fair share of what's been going down
the perpetrated cold-war tubes for decades. Right now my data
throughput to/from this usenet that summarily sucks and blows isn't
hardly even functioning. Gee whiz folks, I wonder what their pathetic
wag-the-dog problem is this time around.
Brad Guth
ytyour...@p.zapto.org
Ten kg and as large as a basketball? Homungous.
Google "cubesat".
1kg mass, 1 liter volume, 1W power.
cordially
Y.T.
--
Remove YourClothes before you email me.
Brad Guth
>2.4Km/s (moon escape) is a relatively small solid rocket.
>2.2Km/s (or so) spin-stabilised rocket stage, triggered at the optimum point.
>Then another 400m/s stage, with thrust termination, and the thing engineered
>to sustain an impact of maybe 30m/s.
>It occurs to me that the easiest way for a truly micro-scale lander/crasher
>to determine altitude would be inertial navigation plus several wide-angle
>cameras, and a gig or several of storage of the moons features.
>To avoid the power use and bulk of a laser or other ranger.
Thanks much for all of the impact survival considerations. However, of
whatever if anything survives lunar impact would certainly be darn nice
but, surviving isn't exactly priority No.1
Secondly; I'm thinking there's a bit more to that lunar atmospheric
density than meets the eye. Thus aerobreaking might not be all that
insurmountable. Even if arriving at 300 m/s as going deep into that
thick and nasty moon-dust that shouldn't represent more than 5 g/cm2
worth of surface-tension, and thereby shouldn't be all that probe
lethal of a landing if the CNT/basalt composite hull isn't vaporised in
the process.
At well above the lunar deck there could be an atmospheric density
that's populated at greater than 1e6 atoms/cm3, whereas the final
near-surface layer of Radon(Rn222) combined with the likely amounts of
Argon, CO2, Sodium and even touches of Xenon and Krypton as substantial
secondary elements could actually impose a rather substantial
aerobreaking alternative for such a 1/6th gravity environment. A vast
crater pond of that that moon-dust shouldn't be worth 1% as hard as
water.
Brad Guth
Fred J. McCall
:
You lose. I can take 1 meter Urban Imagery and find my house with my
old grey Buick parked out front.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
blart
a plume of ejecta back towards the microsat, bit like a shaped charge in
reverse
the microsat could then 'aerobrake' on the plume of ejecta via standard
ablative shield (maybe with armor)
then you're down
i suggest a small toy truck sponsored by mattel
(or any other toy manufacturer who wants to make a kazillion)
with a front end loader and a willingness to dig, and build stuff
on the moon
for real
use it/them to make a moon habitat, and a moonstalk - because moonstalks can
be built and earthstalks can't (yet)
use the moonstalk to build a moon orbiting habitat (those little tonkas can
CLIMB)
and use that to build a moon-earth shuttle, no - bus/barge... no glory just
function
use the bus/barge to build a proper earth orbiting habitat/way station
then wait
cheers
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131309701.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
donsto...@hotmail.com
moonstalks can be built and earthstalks can't (yet)
use the moonstalk to build a moon orbiting habitat (those little tonkas
can CLIMB) and use that to build a moon-earth shuttle, no -
bus/barge... no glory just function
*****************
It's higly dangerous to publish such plans for there is a chance that
NASA managers may be reading and adopt this proposal which would
divert them from their present important work.
Brad Guth
As per usual, I don't understand your point.
I've known that seeing as good as 1.5 meter per raw satellite image as
obtained by our shuttle bay outfitted with SAR imaging technology were
obtained, and if reverse processed to being of less resolution in order
to match the 75 m/pixel or even the 225 m/pixel of what the Magellan
images have to offer us about Venus is quite PhotoShop doable. Of
course, at 225 m/pixel is where only the largest of natural as well as
artificial patterns would become the case. Thereby no such "old grey
Buick" would ever be uncovered, in fact the given color and/or solar
illumination upon any "old grey Buick" means absolutely nothing to
radar imaging.
Obviously our NIMA.MIL satellite images via CCD and optical performance
are good for something better than 0.1 meter/pixel. Unfortunately we
haven't that to work with on behalf of imaging Venus. However, the
radar imaging of 36 looks and of 8 bits per 225 meter pixel beats the
optical truth factor by a very large margin. In other words, often you
simply can not believe the one look per pixel of even a 0.1 m/pixel
that's from a conventional CCD/optical obtained image.
Perhaps we should have used radar imaging instead of your fancy optical
and CCD obtained images as to all of those WMD, as then tens of
thousands of innocent folks would still be alive and we'd be trillions
of hard earned dollars better off.
A large shape that looks exactly like a fairly complex tarmac as
extracted from a 225 m/pixel image of 36 looks/pixel is most likely in
fact exactly what it is. Of course if you have some terrestrial images
of perfectly natural formed tarmacs that have been created within a
highly mountainous terrain, having a couple of sub service bays and of
what looks like a large platform elevator area, some form of large
flight/airship equipment on deck and otherwise as having a nearby
township community of rationally configured structures to boot, then
please do share and share alike by forking those images over.
If you're to lazy or incapable, I'll even do all of the PhotoShop work.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>you could have an impactor slightly ahead of the microsat designed to shoot
>a plume of ejecta back towards the microsat, bit like a shaped charge in
>reverse
>the microsat could then 'aerobrake' on the plume of ejecta via standard
>ablative shield (maybe with armor)
>then you're down
Wow!, what an absolutely terrific idea.
That notion of creating clouds of nasty moon-dust as an atmospheric
debris gauntlet form of fluffy lithobreaking may just become exactly
what the doctor ordered. It's almost like my previous notions of
bombing the living crapolla out of the moon by way of using large
hallow blocks or spheres of dry-ice surrounding a core of
Radium(Ra-226) and LRn as Radon(Rn222), in which case we'd be doing all
of humanity and the environment of Earth a big-ass favor by getting rid
of three of the most toxic of elements from Earth and having
subsequently impact vaporised those nasty to Earth but otherwise
friendly to the moon environment as nifty substances contributed to
creating the new and improved moon atmosphere.
If going in for an extreme roundabout head-on impact shouldn't have any
problem reaching 100 km/s, as opposed to using direct moon shots as
directed through the nullification bullseye of our mutual gravity-well,
that which should be capable of two-stage SMEs delivering our payloads
at sufficient velocity as entering the point of no-return, whereas
going in for the remaining 60,000 km distance should created the
necessary Vf kill of achieving those 33 km/s impacts of CO2, Ra226 and
LRn222 which ott to be damn impressive. Doing the KE=.5MV2 formula gets
downright interesting as to the amount of crater mega tonnage as would
become vaporised of whatever's mostly lunar basalt into releasing a
good 1e6:1 ratio of such becoming viable lunar atmospheric elements,
which so happens to include a great deal of O2. Thus each artificial
tonne of impactor can potentially result in 1e6 tonnes worth of our
moon getting an artificially vapourised form of atmosphere. Is that
good moon terraforming news or what, especially nifty for subsequently
getting sizable robotics deployed upon our otherwise albedo dark and
nasty as well as highly reactive lunar surface that's not been very
DNA/RNA friendly, nor even fly-by-rocket accessible.
>From that point on of infusing perhaps a 100e6 populations of
atmospheric atoms/cm3 should be more than sufficient for conventional
aerobreaking, whereas the final km or so of atmosphere would be
extensively Rn222, then Xe, Kr, various Argons, CO2, O2 and all of that
capped off with the 15,000 km worth of Sodium (especially dense amounts
of Sodium in the nighttime/downwind side). All and all the aerobreaking
that's available below 2r should become sufficient for accommodating
such low mass microsatellites of 10 kg.
With CNT/basalt composites is where these 10 kg satellites can actually
become rather large, representing as much as a cubic meter if need be,
thus further improving their odds of at least some of their
micro-innards surviving impact. This could be a collage contest of
whomever can create the most micro-satellite per kg, and of which of
those designs might be the most likely to survive landing upon the
moon. The prize could be a billion dollars (tax free) for first place,
100 millions for 2nd place and 10 million of those tax free bucks for
third. I wonder if there would be any takers?
>use the bus/barge to build a proper earth orbiting habitat/way station
Might I suggest the "proper earth orbiting habitat/way station" as
being the LSE-CM/ISS depot in the pitch black and crystal clear lunar
sky, as such a habitat that's offering 1e9 m3 having 50t/m2 of a shield
surround that's situated at roughly 64,000 km off the lunar deck,
always remaining as tension aligned with Earth and being fully tether
elevator-pod accessible to boot. The tether dipole element would trail
directly towards the CG of mother Earth (+/- solar influence) and it
could have it's termination science platform as per reaching to as
close as 25,000 km from Mother Earth, and if need be offering folks as
great as 100t/m2 worth of shielding of perhaps a 1e6 m3 habitat. Is
either of those tethered items worthy of being such a "proper earth
orbiting habitat/way station"?
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
I'm thinking that as many as 100 of these micro-satellites of 10 kg
each can be rather easily accommodated by one deployment mission that's
not 10% as involved as just one of those spendy NASA/Apollo missions.
Thus I believe that we're talking about our's being clumping moon-dirt
cheap.
I can't imagine the total package including their mothership that would
remain within the interactive sweet-spot of ME-L1 requiring much
greater than 2,500 kg. The mothership itself could host the 100X
telephoto full color spectrum camera of a 4096 x 4096 and perhaps at
less than 5 micron/pixel CCD of 20.5 x 20.5 mm, plus hard-X-ray and
numerous other instruments related to Earth/moon science and thus
hard-science knowledge as to this interactive nullification zone.
With accommodating a little extra mothership mass, a Rn222 breeder
reactor of having a cash of Ra226 onboard, whereas the energy efficient
and extremely powerful per gram of Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thrusters should
be good for at least the 1600 year half-life of station keeping.
How much was the total Apollo package of everything involving their CM
orbiting and of deploying those unproven fly-by-rocket landers worth in
gross tonnage?
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
substantial package consisting of 100 deployable microsatellites, as
into orbiting our extremely nearby moon;
I believe the total dry Apollo CSM mass was roughly 30t as situated in
orbit.
However the total spacecraft mass: 46,678 kg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17
Apollo 17; CSM 30,369 kg, LM 16,456 kg = 46.825t (notice how their own
figures do not add up).
The difference of 147 kg must have been in beer and pizza, that is
unless it was their 'Chapel Bell' transponder mass.
Of course it took a rather considerable amount of additional energy
getting that 47t into safely orbiting our moon, whereas a ME-L1/EM-L2
sweet spot (nullification zone) of an interactive parallel parking zone
should have required but half as much effort. Actually, I'm thinking
not a forth as much effort if there's nothing having to retro-thrust
and otherwise having to come back home.
Thus a whopping 3t payload of accommodating 100 of these 10 kg
satellites and of their mothership remaining efficiently parked as
station-keeping rather nicely at roughly 60,000 km off the lunar deck
shouldn't represent but 5% the delivery effort.
At least this time around, I'd have to bet the 100X telephoto images as
obtained from the mothership at 60,000 km away from the lunar surface
would extensively match the dark albedo and deep/rich golden raw solar
illuminated colors of what the carbon/soot infused iron and titanium
that's deposited on top of all of that extremely dark (nearly coal
like) basalt worth of lunar landscape, whereas the these small 10 kg
satellites closed in as their orbits decayed would if anything record
upon an even darker surface and of depicting more mineral rich
composites of whatever makes our once upon a time 4,000 km icy
proto-moon that's still reacting as rather salty, so gosh darn
interesting.
The older craters are clearly much larger and considerably shallower
due to the once upon a time thick covering of perhaps extremely salty
ice. Less ice and certainly of no ice as of lately represents that the
ratio of crater depth per given diameter becomes greater, whereas even
glancing blows are worthy of creating relative deep formations from
those encounters.
BTW; much of whatever didn't get vaporised and having managed to escape
the lunar gravity had to have landed upon good old mother Earth, as in
megatonnes worth. Too bad so damn few if any of the NASA/Apollo moon
rocks resembled these samples.
Lunar *breccia* meteorites
http://groups.msn.com/moonmeteorites/homepage
Brad Guth
Art Deco
Nice whine, Brad.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy
"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."
"Human beings CAN NOT live in a solar system without a sun
with a ferrite core and a planet without a solid iron core."
-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004
"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka ...
Chuck Stewart
> Brad Guth wrote:
<snip 130 lines crap>
> Nice whine, Brad.
And you felt compelled to
share it with us in its
entirety while regailing
us with an awesomely
witty one liner.
Hint: While someone who
goes on about using the
radon atmosphere of the
moon for aerobraking
surely belongs in AUK,
sci.space.history really
doesn't need a retread of
Guth's mental diarrhea.
Not unless you can also
act as a content
aggravator and supply
a value-wadded service.
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Art Deco
>On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:51:08 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
>
>> Brad Guth wrote:
>
><snip 130 lines crap>
>
>> Nice whine, Brad.
>
>And you felt compelled to
>share it with us in its
>entirety while regailing
>us with an awesomely
>witty one liner.
Who is "us", Chuck?
>
>Hint: While someone who
>goes on about using the
>radon atmosphere of the
>moon for aerobraking
>surely belongs in AUK,
>sci.space.history really
>doesn't need a retread of
>Guth's mental diarrhea.
>
>Not unless you can also
>act as a content
>aggravator and supply
>a value-wadded service.
Nice whine, Chuck.
>
>--
>Chuck Stewart
>"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
--
Brad Guth
You're supposed to flush after each deposit. Either that or please
share and share alike with your bed partner "Art Deco".
As usual, the two of you incest cloned borgs have absolutely nothing
that's topic related to contribute, thus topic/author stalking, bashing
and if possible orchestrating banishment is the very best yourself and
of your Skull and Bones cultism can muster.
BTFW; what the hell is "AUK"?
Ian Stirling
>>Ian Stirling;
>>2.4Km/s (moon escape) is a relatively small solid rocket.
>>2.2Km/s (or so) spin-stabilised rocket stage, triggered at the optimum point.
>>Then another 400m/s stage, with thrust termination, and the thing engineered
>>to sustain an impact of maybe 30m/s.
>
>>It occurs to me that the easiest way for a truly micro-scale lander/crasher
>>to determine altitude would be inertial navigation plus several wide-angle
>>cameras, and a gig or several of storage of the moons features.
>>To avoid the power use and bulk of a laser or other ranger.
>
> Thanks much for all of the impact survival considerations. However, of
> whatever if anything survives lunar impact would certainly be darn nice
> but, surviving isn't exactly priority No.1
>
> Secondly; I'm thinking there's a bit more to that lunar atmospheric
> density than meets the eye. Thus aerobreaking might not be all that
> insurmountable. Even if arriving at 300 m/s as going deep into that
The atmospheric density is well known.
It's essentially bugger-all, and makes pluto look dense.
Aerobraking is in principle possible - but you'd be looking at something
more like a solar sail than a heatshield.
And you're not going to get high decelleration, or low terminal speeds.
Brad Guth
than some privet or selected usenet group(s) that are intentionally
other than of what I'd originated. As such this is what I've been
having trouble with lately. Just sharing perfectly good information
past all of the damage-control layers of spermware of what this
GOOGLE/NOVA usenet that sucks and blows represents hasn't been all that
simple, especially when there's so much of the usual mainstream status
quo crapolla hitting the fan. So, I'd thought others might be
group, and of what I had to say in reply.
First of all. Thanks to Rene for all of this amount of good topic
feedback:
>Rene Tschaggelar;
>Before designing a light weight satellite, you should
>define its purpose and its life time. If you just want
>some mass with a surface up there, there is no real limit
>to its smallness. As soon as you have some electronics,
>some batteries or other power source, temperature sensitive
>gear, then you have to optimize size, surface, weight,
>lifetime.
>Rene Tschaggelar; there is no real limit to its smallness
I tend to agree, as well as to your wise suggestion of a microsatellite
design that needs its "purpose and its life time" nailed down. To
answer that I say how true it is that we should define this purpose and
lifespan.
Thus how about folks like yourself and I suggest upon a rather
conservative duty cycle or lifespan of managing to last for 1000 orbits
about our moon. Giving the average orbit an arbitrary value of 1.8
hours would thereby require 1800 hours(75 days) worth of energy
reserves plus having whatever slight PV contributions if need be in
order to assist the energy demands of whatever those 1000 orbits can
manage to achieve.
Such a low density satellite might offer us as much a square meter
worth of PV cells, thereby an extra 250 joules whenever there's sun to
being had (this could even become a trailing item via tether PV chute
or some other drag coefficient wedge-form like panel that'll eventually
assist in achieving a controlled deorbit).
>As soon as you have some electronics, some batteries or other
>power source, temperature sensitive gear, then you have to
>optimize size, surface, weight, lifetime.
I totally agree but, I haven't the necessary expertise that perhaps you
might care to share. Supposedly a lithium battery (w/o benefit of PV
energy influx) can provide better than 208 whr/kg(750 kJ/kg). That's
750e3/75 = 10 kj/day as based upon a 1 kg battery. Of course there are
a few other batteries the likes of H2O2/Aluminum that are way better at
exceeding 1 kwhr/kg(3.6e3 kj/kg). There's even a Lithium ion Power Cell
that's supposedly worth 720 whr/kg(2.6e3 kj/kg).
Essentially the onboard science and camera instruments can be
reconfigured on the fly in order to live within whatever the daily or
per orbit energy allotment. I would have to think that perhaps not more
than 10% or 1 kg could be allocated to the battery, and possibly
another 5% or 0.5 kg for accommodating those optional PV cells covering
half the airframe which conservatively could amount to a m2 average
worth of 100 watts or 360 kj/hr, especially if including 100% of those
aerobreaking surfaces and therefore flight/orbit stabilizing V-wings.
Thus perhaps as much as 15% of the total mass being associated with
providing the necessary energy. I can't foresee any lack of
accommodating a good camera and of science instruments plus dealing
with all of their packet transceiver energy demands.
A plan of action might involve each orbit upon average obtaining 1000
12-bit images of the moon as it gets ever closer and closer to taking
the ultimate dive into the dark, rather thick and nasty moon-dust. Then
having a few surviving sensors obtaining their 12 bit(4095:1)
resolution worth of readings, such as of hard-X-ray radiation,
IR/thermal data, atmospheric pressure, of whatever atmospheric spectrum
data and possibly even 1.0 hz to 40 khz audio/seismic samples. Say
taking a good number of each of those readings per orbit for another
12-bit demand of having to transfer perhaps 10,000 of such science data
packets per total orbit, and of obviously having to get those 12-bit
packets multi-channel transferred per half orbit might become the most
energy consuming process. Obviously this represents that each of these
microsatellites is having to store a little better than half orbit
data.
Accomplishing those budgets of volume usage, energy demand and as per
mass distribution within a composite shell that's within the 10 kg
satellite budget seems doable. Though I'm not the least qualified,
however if others that supposedly are qualified keep having little or
nothing to share, as this might become when I'll give this portion of
the topic another one of my best lose cannon shots at delivering those
numbers. Like "Rene Tschaggelar" had previously suggested; there is no
real limit to its smallness, meaning that a smaller than 10 kg
satellite should be doable, thus I'm interested in the notions of
accomplishing as little as whatever a 1 kg satellite that has a goal of
as little as a 100 orbit lifespan, essentially 5 days worth if starting
off at 17.38 km above the deck, dropping at the rate of 2.4 km/day(-100
m/hr) and somehow remaining lucky enough before running smack into
whatever's in the way.
Since most of the really good hard-science and terrific images will be
those obtained from orbit, therefore I'm not looking so much for any
controlled soft-landing as I'm interested in a barely survivable
controlled impact.
These small and relatively inexpensive satellites should not be
generally expected to survive their final impact but, perhaps having a
few of their satellite innards designed to possibly survive and to
somehow trail and/or to deploy their micro-antenna so that their
underground seismic/audio and whatever other science data signals could
be at least briefly transferred to the mothership/transponder that's
still coasting efficiently nearby within the ME-L1 zone, as this phase
seems perfectly doable. Unless there's several orbiting motherships, of
whatever lunar backside impacts of anything that manages to survive
will not prove all that usable, thus if at all possible the breaks
and/or release of whatever aerobreaking options should be accommodated
so as to allow for the majority of impacts to transpire upon the
nearside rather than the farside.
There could be an atmospheric density that's populated at greater than
1e6 atoms/cm3, whereas the final near-surface layer of Radon(Rn222)
combined with the likely extra amounts of Argon, CO2, Sodium and even
touches of Xenon and Krypton as worthy secondary elements could
actually impose a rather substantial aerobreaking alternative for such
a 1/6th gravity environment that's receiving a cubic meter satellite
that's not imposing greater than 10 kg (1.667 kg lunar mass/m3 is
actually extremely low density that's nearly parasail like) that
shouldn't require all that much atmospheric density for moderating the
final arrival velocity down to something that's impact survivable,
whereas 316 m/s seems like a worthy goal.
A semi-soft landing as based upon skipping on top of a 5g/cm2
surface-tension worth of a nasty moon-dust covered surface seems to
also suggest upon of what's survivable.
At a final orbit circumference of something under 11,000 km affords
roughly 4.6 seconds between image frames (that is if we're still having
been configured as for obtaining those 1000 frames per orbit) is plenty
of time for the physical response of a gyro and servo tracking drive to
improve upon the image quality as the moon rather quickly passes below,
although CCD sensitivity might otherwise permit a sufficiently fast
scan so that physical frame stabilizing need not be required, whereas
instead of physical tracking is where the electronic scan stabilisation
methods could suffice.
I'm thinking of having the camera aligned as most often looking +45°
forward or -45° aft, and otherwise having a + 85°(forward looking) to
a - 85°(back looking) capability, a single +/- 85° axis offering
170° overall pointing capability, giving everything from those images
of zero degrees as representing nearly useless plan views, to those
absolutely nifty views of aiming just 5° below horizontal for
including a bit of the lunar horizon. Each of the 1000 orbits could be
established at a given camera angle, whereas eventually every
conceivable view of coming and going away from such frames would
accomplish a vast archive that could then become easily matched up with
the multiple other hard-science readings per frame.
Depending upon a given starting point of satellite deployments and
subsequent orbit decay, and especially since eventually there's going
to become a rather substantial amount of lunar atmosphere to deal with,
perhaps we're talking about providing less than a 90 day timeline
before impact/termination.
There should be some degree of interactively uploading instrument and
flight instructions, as to how frequent and of exactly how such items
as the camera should be utilized. Obviously we could do quite nicely
with a whole lot fewer than 1000 images per orbit, especially if there
are 100 of these little suckers swarming in nearly every direction
about the moon. Other science readings could also settle for as few as
one sample per given image, thus a few hundred combined samples per
orbit, whereas therefore the required data throughput and subsequent
demand upon satellite energy resources might become rather
insignificant if we're restricted down to 100 frames and perhaps 500
other science samples per orbit.
Per orbit minimums of obtaining 100 samples each:
color images (10° x 10° 1024 x 1024 12-bit)
hard-X-rays (256 channels 12-bit)
near-IR/thermal CCD image samples (10° x 10° 256 x 256 12-bit)
atmospheric spectrometer samples (1024 channels 12-bit)
atmospheric pressure (single channel 12-bit)
audio/seismic (0.1 hz ~ 40 khz, 4096 channels 12-bit)
For another example; at the orbit altitude of 10 km, using a 1024 x
1024 CCD and the 10° optical lens as having been shifted for viewing
at 45° is going to be delivering roughly 3.56 meters/pixel.
At the 10 km altitude offering a 10,983 km circumference worth of orbit
and perhaps a velocity of 2.35 km/s represents that we're covering
something less than 4674 m/s worth of the lunar surface. Therefore, a
passive 1-ms scan would yield a pixel smear factor of roughly 4.65
meters w/o image tracking. With electronic tracking and/or via
gyro/servo would get that smear down to less than 0.0465 meter, and
there's certainly no good reason why the CCD scan can't be of 10 ms,
100 ms or even a full second as for imaging the nighttime side via
starshine. A CCD having a raw DR of just 5000:1 and a 12-bit DR of
4095:1 should be seriously overkill considering that there actually
shouldn't be more than an 8-bit(255:1) basic range of intensity
requirement unless we're interested in recording the sorts of natural
and artificial impact intensities and/or of including the dim planets
and stars that should be vibrantly above the horizon.
BTW folks; just as soon as I get myself back into this GOOGLE/NOVA
usenet connection is when my PC heads directly for the nearest
space-toilet, meaning that the fresh loads of MI6/NSA~CIA usenet
crapolla spermware kicks into high gear so as to disrupt my efforts as
much as possible. This is no lie folks, please stop by for an
impressive show, as it only goes to further prove that I'm sufficientlt
right about a bit more than my fair share of whatever's been going down
the perpetrated cold-war tubes for decades. Right about now my data
throughput to/from this usenet that summarily sucks and blows isn't
hardly even functioning, and my mouse has been going postal. Gee whiz
folks, I can't but wonder what their pathetic wag-the-dog problem is
this time around.
Brad Guth
enmic...@hotmail.com
trained in science blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah never took physics blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blaah blah sound BSeeee don't I? blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah melarill is good for heat stroke also blah blah blah blah
blah balh blah blah blah who needs discipline blah blah blah blah blah
my shit is just so so so smart loooking blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bethca
einstein was kinda like me blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahb
blah blah blah :
Brad Guth
Impressive status quo feedback. Is that the top most level of your
all-knowing expertise that got us into exterminating innocent Muslims
over oil?
Or, is this merely MOS of your brown-nosed family incest tree of
intelligent design that's running amuck?
BTW; Got cross?
Dr. Flonkenstein
> Dear Chuck Stewart,
> You're supposed to flush after each deposit. Either that or please
> share and share alike with your bed partner "Art Deco".
>
Oh look, everybody is having sex except Guthborg!
> As usual, the two of you incest cloned borgs have absolutely nothing
> that's topic related to contribute, thus topic/author stalking, bashing
> and if possible orchestrating banishment is the very best yourself and
> of your Skull and Bones cultism can muster.
>
What has your post have to do with microsatellites?
> BTFW; what the hell is "AUK"?
Something you would snip if you had the clue of what it was.
> ~
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
Bartlo's hate lits #1: <40376AD8...@enter.net>
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
The Way of the Kook:
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm
in Message-ID:<adurg15tk0vd6ip6r...@4ax.com>
Alexa "Crackpot" Cameron explains electromagnetism, and how
the sun has an 'iron core':
"The sun and the earth are 'magnets', each with an iron
based core, and both have an electrical force between them."
in Message-ID: <rjise19nrclufrgjg...@4ax.com>
Mark "Woody" Ferguson shows his mastery of the English language:
"With patients and practice you could be nominated next time around..."
in Message-MID: <k1kte1hu59khhkt4m...@4ax.com>
Mark "The illiterate" Ferguson astonishes everybody saying:
"Oh, for fucks sake, Gary no matter how angery he thinks he makes there
are lines I will not cross unless I believe what I say is the true, I
know more then you."
in Message-ID: <lhic01pc5svudk22n...@4ax.com>
Alexa "Tequila Titsz" Cameron explains world religions:
"The jews roots are islamic."
in Message-ID: <j1b5c1l2629tc6afu...@4ax.com>
Alexa "dumbass" Cameron shows her knowledge of history:
"WRONGO. There was NO Bible before King James had it written."
in Message-ID: <5g89d15kbjd3cd7i6...@4ax.com>
Alexa "Word Salad" Cameron shows her knowledge of science:
"Einstein never found the double superimposed doubl 'equilateral' triangle."
in Message-ID: <1rfee1d5iuhq3piii...@4ax.com>
Alexa "Kook of the year 2004" Cameron uses words she doesn't understand again:
"Why is the Pentagon killing American citizens with non-lethal technology?"
in Message-ID: <2mrge1phgk68ourdt...@4ax.com>
Alexa "Imnotalexadammit" Cameron has problems with that extra finger
on her hand:
"Why do the Jews use the Star of David as symbolic of the Pentagon, or
Pentagram?"
reminder: Message-ID: <pan.2005.09.01...@localhost.localdomain>
The quote naziwhore Don Ocean stole.
Brad Guth
That was certainly brown-nosed typical and off-topic to boot.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Could you please be just a little more specific?
That "density is well known" is supposedly well known by whom, and/or
by way of what hard-science instruments?
All that I can find is what's published within your NASA/Apollo pagan
bible, or perhaps it their koran, as having been based upon evidence
exclusions and those conditional laws of physics.
Brad Guth
Dr. Flonkenstein
> Dr. Flonkenstein,
> That was certainly brown-nosed typical and off-topic to boot.
>
Did you find McDonalds on Venus already?
Brad Guth
As per incest cloned and extremely brown-nosed borg minion usual,
you've contributed MOS mainstream status quo crapolla. Thus you've got
Christ right back on that stick and you're building a damn good fire
around the base.
Is this your one and only anti-truth and wag-the-dog spook method
you've been given permission to use?
Forbid that you'd have anything to offer as to microsatellites, as what
the freaking hell would any of us do if you actually contributed squat
on behalf of the topic at hand.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
We've made all sorts of artificial items that couldn't possibly have
never existed in billions upon billions of natural evolutionary years
unless we had accomplished those sorts of things. And no way can mother
nature pillage and so badly pollute such a nifty world in the way and
to the extent by which us humans have achieved such collateral damage
and even massive carnage of the innocent and of therefore having
exterminated our own kind in the process.
We've also modified intentionally and accidentally the DNA/RNA of all
sorts of existing life plus having accomplished a few good and bad
microbes as never having existed before, and we seemingly have every
intentions of transferring some of that new and improved life to other
moons and planets. Therefore interplanetary and eventually interstellar
terraforming is our middle name, and certainly intelligent design has
been our game all along.
However, we humans may not be the best terraforming ETs in town but,
I'd still have to bet that we'd be giving the likes of creating and
sustaining other life upon our moon the same degree of accomplishing
Mars and even for a toasty Venus receiving our best effort of a life
giving shot in the dark. At least technically we can accomplish the
likes of Venus so much easier than we can manage our very own
once-upon-a-time icy proto-moon, and though trillion+ dollar spendy, it
seems like Mars is possible even though it's simply too damn far away,
a wee bit TBI, sub-frozen and rather easily pulverised to death, and
it's certainly way out there in the wrong direction as for whomever
wants to return home so that they can summarily infect mother Earth
with whatever forms of robust life from Mars.
Thus the small/micro (non DNA/RNA transferring) satellites as deployed
from whatever robotic mothership seems to offer us a perfectly viable
and affordably renewable alternative for not 0.1% the cost and not 10%
the timeline of us humanly achieving those other planets in person.
The TRACE-VL2 platform has been just one such multi-tasking form of a
station-keeping mothership notion that could deploy dozens if not a
hundred of small/micro craft that would accomplish the likes of
exploring Venus just fine and dandy. We could even deploy a few trial
and error packages of microbes, such as diatoms, if not for introducing
a few substantially larger forms of sufficiently robust life to that
geothermally active planet. What could possibly go wrong?
In other words; if it's going to eventually happen anyway, it's
certainly a better off notion for us to be biologically poisoning them
than us.
Ian Stirling
The apollo experiments were not great.
However, they do set a very low upper bound.
Do you have some reason to believe they are incorrect?
snidely
Ian Stirling wrote:
>[...]
> The apollo experiments were not great.
> However, they do set a very low upper bound.
> Do you have some reason to believe they are incorrect?
Ian, you responding to Brad Guth.
/dps
Brad Guth
Other than some of the science of what had been robotically obtained
from orbit, that which is believable because it falls within the
regular laws of physics, such as the extremely dark and deeply
rich/colorful albedo worth of an extremely dusty moon, as for otherwise
yes I do seem to have a wee bit of a problem with such a nearby orb
that's supposedly so chuck full of nifty elements, as for that nicely
reactive object having such a pathetic 3e-15 bar worth of an atmosphere
that's supposedly represented by all of 2e5 atoms/cm3, along with no
mention of sodium solids nor sodium gas, as well as nothing with regard
to Radium(Ra226) and of its Radon(Rn222) gas existing within any of
those numbers.
Where the heck did all of the lunar Radium(Ra226) go?
As I've said before; it's too bad that after 4 decades and counting
that the likes of yourself, others and I still haven't access to one
interactive science worthy instrument that's sharing information as to
the lunar surface and daytime/nighttime atmospheric environment.
Perhaps China will soon accommodate all of our needs before LUNAR-A or
my small/micro exploratory satellite probes deliver the badly needed
information as to the raw lunar environment.
Brad Guth
Text Medium #5
monkey:
> BTFW; what the hell is "AUK"?
Where a bad writer with the initials "B.G." has gone to die.
--
Shon'ai
Brad Guth
You're telling "Ian Stirling" what he/she can or can not do?
Is that your MI6/NSA~CIA usenet 'E-men in BLACK' job?
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
and kicking.
Brad Guth
dave hillstrom
<1131759967.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Brad Guth"
<ieisbr...@yahoo.com> humped my leg thusly:
>But it seems that your "AUK" is clearly not working. I'm still alive
>and kicking.
>
>Brad Guth
brad, are you some inconsiderate, non quoting, non attributing asshole?
thats all i see right now.
--
dave hillstrom
Vote Dave Hillstrom for Whining Whinger in AUK November 2005
the belgians are STILL thieves. Heinous! alWaYs keePinG heR
locKed Up likE a Gor SLAVE GirL!!! NaStY, nAuGhTy BeLgIaNs!!!11!
Dr. Flonkenstein
> Dr. Flonkenstein,
> As per incest cloned
Delusional ideas about NASA pictured tampering I think you merit another
kook award, but I'm not sure which one is fitting you the most, kook.
FreeSpeechStore
...So far.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris!
Not Richard Scoville
Richard M. Scoville is explicitly denied the right to archive any of my
posts, under any of my nyms, on his site, FreeSpeechStore.com
http://tinyurl.com/c222n
Art Deco
>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:42:29 -0800, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>> Dr. Flonkenstein,
>> As per incest cloned
>
>Delusional ideas about NASA pictured tampering I think you merit another
>kook award, but I'm not sure which one is fitting you the most, kook.
Brad finally made it to Kook of the Month, I'm sure this isn't the end
of the line for his kook kareer.
Brad Guth
Exactly how much quoting and attributing would you folks like?
It's seems that it's the sorts of brown-nosed and thus highly incest
cloned borgs and thus intellectual blood and oil sucking bigots like
yourself that can't be bothered to contribute squat. Why is that?
How can I "quote and attribute" when there's nothing but the usual
scripted infomercials of your mainstream status quo crapolla to work
with?
Being sequestered within your need-to-know and/or taboo/nondisclosure
basis isn't exactly helping one damn bit.
BTW; why the heck do you suppose that your Third Reich MI6/NSA~CIA and
of your GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo served usenet that sucks
and blows big-time is still (no lie) hard at work delivering their
spermware into my PC?
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Terrell" offers some traditional full-scale and thus extremely massive
as well as spendy fly-by-rocket methods worth our considering as an
alternative to using small/micro satellites until the LSE-CM/ISS is up
and running.
Exploiting the Moon (Building on Project Constellation / September
2005)
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/Constellation/Routemap%20-%20lunar%20option7.htm#_Toc113893191
This is what Lord William Mook recently had to offer in his sub-topic
mesage "Developing the Interplanetary Frontier";
usenet original topic: lunar centric orbit?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/845df119fc042b63/4d1d565ce702c89b?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=3&hl=en#4d1d565ce702c89b
>William Mook; Here's more about Lagrange points...
Thanks so much for these old files that still badly informs us village
idiots, as to providing next to nothing as to the hour by hour
LL1/ME-L1 interactive location as I've previously requested. It's just
MOS wag-the-dog infomercial formulated info as having been re-posted in
order to look a bit different. You and I shouldn't have to run all of
these complex numbers. So, where's the LL1/ME-L1 beef?
http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html
http://www.freemars.org/l5/aboutl5.html
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/1982.articles/elevate.800322
All of these supposed new and improved notions of yours seems to
require that spendy and yet to be R&D CNT stuff. However, your notions
of doing everything the absolute hardest way possible and the most
spendy as well as energy consuming and thus environmentally damaging
way conceivable is rather impressive.
>A space elevator on the moon is an interesting topic. I can wax
>poetic about that.
Please do "wax" away. At least that form of waxing would be on "lunar
centric orbit?" topic.
Those "skyhooks" and other terrestrial notions of getting large masses
of substances delivered into space will likely happen within the next
century after we're dead. Of course, by then China will own the moon
and having 100% authority over the LSE-CM/ISS, and the scant remains of
terrestrial oil will bring $1000/barrel, whereas the only folks that
can afford to buy any of it will be those as already having it or
having some other energy to trade to the highest bidder. Yourself, Dick
Cheney and the likes of "tomcat" should get your thoughts and whatever
agendas together, which shouldn't be all that difficult since you
already think so much alike.
By then it'll only cost $10,000/month for your residential HVAC
demands, and a gallon of gasoline at $100/gal should get your 10 mpg
Hummer down the road just fine and dandy.
By then those nifty CNT terrestrial space elevator and skyhook tethers
should only have been costing us a billion dollars/km. Of course, since
more than half the world is Muslim and they haven't forgotten, chances
are that defending our terrestrial based and thus CNT tether assisted
space explorations and of accomplishing whatever subsequent lunar
extractions via those massive fly-by-rocket landers that still have to
be R&D, whereas we'll have to be continually defended with the likes of
nukes-in-space and having dozens of those GW class of ABLs being kept
in the air 24/7. Thus WW-III, WW-IV and WW-V should manage to keep your
global populations down to something under your 9.2e9 requirement.
Your "Project Orion" is certainly another real Greenpiece killer, but
since the environment of Earth will have already become terminated
beyond the point of no return, we'd have nothing to lose.
Is there some ulterior reasons why the safe and sane Ra-->Rn-->ion
thrust isn't any part of your mad scientist plan of action?
Is there some other reason why you've excluded upon the He3/fusion
alternatives?
Is there some other reason why you've excluded LSE tether dipole
extracted energy?
BTW; start making room for at least twice your "9.2 billion people",
thus 18e9 and still growing strong by the year 2100, that is unless the
incest cloned likes of yourself and Bush/Cheney can manage invent some
additional WMD lies in order in order to exterminate more than half of
them. Remember that at the rate we're going, oceans should soon become
worth 10 meters higher, thus we'll have a whole lot less dry land to
work with and more nasty bugs than anyone can imagine. However, a
nearly ice free Greenland and Antarctica should soon become valuable
properties (buy now while it's still ice covered and cheap).
BTW No.2; the richest will not become any 1/10th of the global
population, it'll become the upper most 0.1%(18e6) of humanity that'll
be considered as rich and powerful. The rest of us will be lucky to
afford toilet paper, much less having dry land to call home.
You certainly have a nifty way of spending other peoples hard earned
dollars, and of causing the absolute most collateral damage and carnage
upon the innocent in the process, just like GW Bush and all of his
incest partners in crimes against humanity, like good old Dick Cheney
and don't ever forget your Dr. Death(Kissinger).
Why can't we just accomplish the LSE-CM/ISS and essentially start
bringing home the He3 bacon?
Even from the initial station-keeping satellite platform that'll be
efficiently coasting along in a halo orbit within the LL1/ME-L1
interactive zone is offering an absolutely terrific spot for all sorts
of Earth science and moon science. Even astronomy improvements from
that location isn't exactly a bad thing.
With regard to the radiation that's out there, especially as related to
the LL1/ME-L1 zone and of folks getting any closer to our moon;
The density of lead cuts hard-X-ray dosage by half for every 18 mm.
Ten of those layers = 180 mm = 1024:1 reduction.
Fifty of those layers = 900 mm = 32,768:1 reduction.
Our atmosphere is roughly equal to those 50 x 18 mm layers of lead.
Then we have the vast 70,000 km Van Allen expanse or badlands that's
worth at least another 100:1
On a passive sort of solar day, it seems that our full moon as having
been detected from the altitude of ISS is sharing a good millirem/day.
However, on a bad solar day, make that extra dosage worth 100 mr/day.
Now do the math of receiving a 100:1 dosage once getting yourself
through the Van Allen badlands and by way having traveled half way
towards the moon is what gives us our first 400:1 increase in that
original dosage from having been situated roughly 375 km above Earth as
having shared that extra 0.001 rem/day. That'll only amount to another
10+ fold of cutting the distance in half in order to get yourself to
within 187.6 km of the lunar deck, and that's only an extra 4^10 =
1.048e6:1 radiation multiplier.
Thus by cutting that distance to the moon in half, and using the square
of the distances as your hard-X-ray dosage multiplier means that for
each haft distance multiplies the lunar contributed dosage by a factor
of 4:1.
Gees freaking Louise folks; now you tell me what the situations is all
about as per cruising along at 100 km off that absolutely nasty and
highly reactive lunar deck (especioally reactive if at best there's
only 2e5 atoms/cm3 getting in the way) as your craft is passing over
whatever that solar illuminated moon has to offer, then perhaps divide
that in half for the average since being half the time on the dark side
of the moon (of course it's not ever going to become half because even
the dark side of the moon is still just as if not a bit more reactive,
thus sharing a bit of the secondary/recoil worth of whatever the cosmic
influx has to offer), but then also remember to contribute a bit of
what's directly impacting your spacecraft and lo and behold, what did
your math as based upon the regular laws of physics have tell us?
It seems that even an earthshine environment of our moon is going to
remain as humanly testy if not short-term lethal. If the much lesser
background and foreground radiation still doesn't manage to get you,
then whatever's passing by or God forbid impacting our nighttime moon
at 3+km/s is still going to easily nail your sorry moonsuit butt,
especially of whatever 30+km/s stuff that isn't slowing down all that
much in that thin atmosphere, especially if that arriving substance is
offered at any typically good sort of density/cm3, and there are bound
to being a few of those 100+km/s encounters that'll remain just as
invisible as WMD until it's too freaking late. Thus earthshine is only
at best offering a partial moonsuit butt saving alternative.
Therefore, the surface of our moon (especially by day) is mostly suited
for robotics. Space travels outside of our Van Allen zone of death is
also best suited for robotics. Those sorts of robotic satellites can
actually be extremely small, energy efficient and as a whole they'll
take a rather nasty licking and keep on ticking for not 0.1% the cost
of accomplishing anything that involves humans. Some of those
small/micro satellites may even be configured for surviving their
impact/landing upon our moon or for their getting into a rigid airship
mode of efficiently accomplishing Venus.
Artificially impacting our moon could easily have improved the lunar
atmosphere from being 1e6/cm3 to becoming something greater than
1e12/cm3. In fact the near surface populations of a Radon, Argon and of
a much greater CO2 matrix might easily exceed 1e15/cm3 (especially
within some of the larger crater basins). It takes next to nothing for
targeting our moon with sufficient solids of CO2 packing a hefty core
of Radium and LRn. Physics-101 stipulates that the surface
impact/vaporising conversion rate of 1e6:1 into becoming a viable lunar
atmosphere has been entirely doable as of more than 4 decades ago.
Please good notice how I'm not another anti-technology freak. I do seem
to be mindset stuck in the rut of believing that ETs and of their
intelligent design do happen coexist throughout our universe, and as
such I also believe that we're far from being the smartes of the lot.
I'm not even opposed to whatever yourself and the likes of the energy
sucking "tomcat spaceplane" has to offer. I'd even have shared on a
50/50 matching funds basis from my bank accounts that should have been
overflowing as of 5 years ago, with no limits and essentially no
strings other than your haveing to stay the course of such efforts
improving the quality of life for the lower 99.9% of humanity that's
sequestered upon this global warming Earth.
Therefore, I'll need to keep asking folks like yourself;
Good grief almighty. What the freaking sam hell is your sicko problems
that are continually orchestrating disinformation against accomplishing
our moon, or even against our better alternative of establishing the
LSE-CM/ISS?
Art Deco
>BTW; why the heck do you suppose that your Third Reich MI6/NSA~CIA and
>of your GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo served usenet that sucks
>and blows big-time is still (no lie) hard at work delivering their
>spermware into my PC?
Dear Brad:
If you disassemble the spermware, or even open it with a hex editor,
deep inside you'll find the source identified:
(c)2005 Alcatroll Labs. Inc.
Hope this helps.
Brad Guth
An actual honest to God comment that's at least on the sub-topic of
MI6/NSA~CIA spermware that's running amuck.
>Art Deco; - If you disassemble the spermware, or even open it
>with a hex editor, deep inside you'll find the source identified:
>(c)2005 Alcatroll Labs. Inc.
>Hope this helps.
Thanks much Art Deco No.2, or is it spook No.3 this time around?
However there's no spermware files to being had on the hard drive since
as you already know that they're being contributed as a live and very
AI anti-vaccine directly into the wide open barn doors of this MS
browser and PC operating system, as remaining stealth as another WMD
disguised as something other that's actually supposed to be there.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
still relatively complicated and perhaps a bit dyslexic, though
otherwise intended to share and share alike in spite of all the ongoing
flak against the likes of myself.
At least this recently accomplished page as having been shared by "Alex
Terrell" offers us some traditional full-scale and thus extremely
accomplishing all sorts of Earth science and moon science. Even
astronomy improvements from that location isn't exactly a bad thing.
With regard to the radiation that's out there, especially as related to
the LL1/ME-L1 zone and of folks getting any closer to our moon;
The density of lead cuts hard-X-ray dosage by half for every 18 mm.
Ten of those layers = 180 mm = 1024:1 reduction.
Fifty of those layers = 900 mm = 32,768:1 reduction.
Our atmosphere (because of its low density and thus creating the least
amount of its own secondary/recoil impact is roughly equal to a bit
more than those 50 x 18 mm layers of lead. But then we have the vast
70,000 km Van Allen expanse or badlands that's worth at least another
100:1
On a fairly passive sort of solar day, it seems that our full moon as
having been detected from the cruising altitude of ISS is sharing a
good extra millirem/day. However, on a bad solar day and full moon,
make that extra dosage contributed from our naked moon worth 100
mr/day.
ISS isn't the least bit stationary nor is it keeping its position as
situated between Earth and the moon, but if it were there'd certainly
become any number of extra complex problems, including a bit of what
the moon shares in the form of secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays.
For argument sake, let us use ISS as our spacecraft that's headed for
becoming our station-keeping patform at LL1/ME-L1, and as a perfectly
good example of subsequently taking those fly-by-rocket EVA trips for
getting ourselves much closer to the surface of our moon.
386,400 -6378 -1738 -384 = 377,900 km that's between ISS as situated
384 km above Earth and remaining directly in alignment with the surface
our moon. We now have roughly 378,000 km to start our dividing in half
in order to fully appreciated the available radiation dosage.
Now we start doing the math from the basis of receiving a 100:1 dosage
increase plus half distance multiplier of 4:1 once getting yourself
through the Van Allen badlands that'll have happened once having
traveled the first half way towards the moon, being 189,000 km as what
gives us our first 400:1 increase in that original dosage from our
previously having been situated roughly 384 km above Earth as having
received that extra 0.001 rem/day.
If going in for the kill, it'll only amount to another 10+ fold of
cutting the distance in half in order to get yourself into actually
orbiting our moon to within 184.5 km of the lunar deck, and that's only
representing an extra 4^10 = 1.048e6:1 radiation multiplier.
Thus by having multiple times cut that distance to the moon in half,
and using the square of the distances as your hard-X-ray dosage
multiplier means that for each haft distance multiplies the lunar
contributed dosage by a factor of 4:1. Of course that's a wee bit testy
if the first half distance having established the radiation influx upon
your spacecraft at 0.4 rad/day, whereas obviously the only thing going
for those NASA/Apollo missions was their smoke and mirrors worth of
need-to-know soft-science and a good amount of their applied
conditional laws of physics.
Gees freaking Louise folks; now you tell me what the situations is all
about as per cruising along at 100 km off that absolutely nasty and
highly reactive lunar deck (especioally reactive if at best there's
only 2e5 atoms/cm3 getting in the way) as your craft is passing itself
directly over whatever that solar illuminated moon has to offer. Then
perhaps divide that hard-X-ray influx in half for being the average
since half the time is spent on the dark side of the moon (of course
it's not ever going to become half dosage because even the dark side of
the moon is still just as if not a bit more reactive, thus sharing a
bit of the secondary/recoil worth of whatever the cosmic influx has to
offer), but then also remembering to contribute a bit of whatever's
directly impacting your spacecraft and lo and behold, what did your
math as based upon the regular laws of physics have tell us?
It seems that even an earthshine environment of our moon is going to
remain as humanly testy if not potentially short-term lethal. If the
much lesser background and foreground radiation still doesn't manage to
get you, then whatever's passing by or God forbid impacting nearby your
nighttime moon surface at 3+km/s is still going to easily nail your
sorry moonsuit butt, especially nasty of whatever's 30+km/s stuff that
isn't slowing down all that much in that thin atmosphere, especially if
that arriving substance is offered as any typically good sort of
density/cm3, and there are certainly bound to being a few of those
head-on 100+km/s encounters that'll remain just as invisible as WMD
until it's too freaking late. Thus earthshine is only at best offering
a partial moonsuit butt saving alternative of being a whole lot less
TBI worthy.
Therefore, the surface of our moon (especially by day) is mostly suited
for robotics. Space travels outside of our Van Allen zone of death is
also of what's best suited for robotics. Fortunately, those sorts of
robotic satellites can actually be extremely small, energy efficient
and as a whole they'll take a rather nasty licking and keep on ticking
for not 0.1% the cost of accomplishing anything that involves humans.
Some of those small/micro satellites may even be configured for
surviving their impact/landing upon our moon, or for their getting into
a rigid airship mode of efficiently accomplishing Venus.
Artificially impacting our moon could easily have improved the lunar
atmosphere from being 1e6/cm3 to becoming something greater than
1e12/cm3. In fact the near surface populations of a Radon, Argon and of
sustaining a much greater CO2 matrix might easily exceed 1e15/cm3
(especially within some of the larger crater basins). It takes next to
nothing for targeting our moon with sufficient solids of CO2 packing a
hefty core of Radium and LRn. Physics-101 stipulates that the surface
impact/vaporising conversion rate of 1e6:1 into becoming a viable lunar
atmosphere has been entirely doable as of more than 4 decades ago.
Please take good notice how I'm not another anti-technology freak. I do
seem to be mindset stuck in the rut of believing that ETs and of their
intelligent design do happen coexist throughout our universe, and as
such I also believe that we're far from being the smartes of the lot.
I'm not even opposed to whatever yourself and the likes of the energy
sucking "tomcat spaceplane" has to offer. I'd even have shared on a
50/50 matching funds basis from my bank accounts that should have been
overflowing as of 5 years ago, with no limits and essentially no
strings other than your haveing to stay the course of such efforts
improving the quality of life for the lower 99.9% of humanity that's
sequestered upon this global warming Earth.
Therefore, I'll need to keep asking folks like yourself;
Good grief almighty. What the freaking sam hell is your sicko problems
that are continually orchestrating disinformation against accomplishing
our moon, or even against our better alternative of establishing the
LSE-CM/ISS?
BTW; why the heck do you suppose that your Third Reich MI6/NSA~CIA and
of your GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo serviced usenet that
sucks and blows big-time is still (no lie) hard at work delivering
their spermware into my PC?
Brad Guth
Art Deco
Art Deco
>BTW; why the heck do you suppose that your Third Reich MI6/NSA~CIA and
>of your GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo serviced usenet that
>sucks and blows big-time is still (no lie) hard at work delivering
>their spermware into my PC?
Alcatroll Labs. is using you as a test case, Brad.
Brad Guth
? The psychology of an "ET" believer, and how it can lead to e
? I wonder if Tom Sneddons children are as ugly as he is?
Is this lab of yours a pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-ET and thus an
anti-God lab?
Are you pro/con intelligent design, or do you folks just brown-nose
suck for good measure?
BTW; I found the perpetrated cold-war smoking gun, and it's the very
same gun that you seem to have in your hand. Imagine that, finally a
for real smoking gun that has cost humanity millions of lives and
trillions upon trillions of hard earned dollars while setting humanity
back by at least a good century. I believe that's not such a bad days
work for Alcatroll Labs. Whom do you plan upon exterminating tomorrow?
Brad Guth
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
Dr. Flonkenstein
Nice admission you have no clue about what a hex editor is, brown nosed
incest kloned piece of kook crap!
Dr. Flonkenstein
>>Alcatroll Labs. is using you as a test case, Brad.
> Alcatroll Labs ?
> ? The psychology of an "ET" believer, and how it can lead to e
> ? I wonder if Tom Sneddons children are as ugly as he is?
>
> Is this lab of yours a pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-ET and thus an
> anti-God lab?
>
> Are you pro/con intelligent design, or do you folks just brown-nose
> suck for good measure?
You're an experiment of the cloning of brown nosed saucerhead kooks.
Brad Guth
just as we seem to have learned the hardest way possible as to those
extremely few and far between bad Muslims that seem to be responding
exactly as planned by our provocation. What's your problem with any of
that?
BTW Dr. Flonkenstein; - why the heck do you honestly suppose this Third
Reich MI6/NSA~CIA and of their GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo
serviced usenet that so badly brown-nose sucks and blows big-time is
still (absolutely no lie folks) so hard at work delivering their
interactive spermware into my PC?
Brad Guth
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
dave hillstrom
<pan.2005.11.14....@localhost.localdomain>, "Dr. Flonkenstein"
<ad...@localhost.localdomain> humped my leg thusly:
>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:28:50 -0800, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>>>Alcatroll Labs. is using you as a test case, Brad.
>> Alcatroll Labs ?
>> ? The psychology of an "ET" believer, and how it can lead to e
>> ? I wonder if Tom Sneddons children are as ugly as he is?
>>
>> Is this lab of yours a pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-ET and thus an
>> anti-God lab?
>>
>> Are you pro/con intelligent design, or do you folks just brown-nose
>> suck for good measure?
>
>You're an experiment of the cloning of brown nosed saucerhead kooks.
as opposed to the yellow bellied saucerhead kooks?
Dr. Flonkenstein
>>You're an experiment of the cloning of brown nosed saucerhead kooks.
> That's rather odd, because I certainly know of a good many nice Jews,
> just as we seem to have learned the hardest way possible as to those
> extremely few and far between bad Muslims that seem to be responding
> exactly as planned by our provocation. What's your problem with any of
> that?
>
Did I mention the word problem somewhere, kook?
> BTW Dr. Flonkenstein; - why the heck do you honestly suppose this Third
> Reich MI6/NSA~CIA and of their GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo
> serviced usenet that so badly brown-nose sucks and blows big-time is
> still (absolutely no lie folks) so hard at work delivering their
> interactive spermware into my PC?
>
Maybe you should revert to a good typing machine and a calulator.
The age of information technology was clearly not meant to include kooks
like you.
Dr. Flonkenstein
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 03:02:52 +0100, in alt.usenet.kooks,
> <pan.2005.11.14....@localhost.localdomain>, "Dr. Flonkenstein"
> <ad...@localhost.localdomain> humped my leg thusly:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:28:50 -0800, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>Alcatroll Labs. is using you as a test case, Brad.
>>> Alcatroll Labs ?
>>> ? The psychology of an "ET" believer, and how it can lead to e
>>> ? I wonder if Tom Sneddons children are as ugly as he is?
>>>
>>> Is this lab of yours a pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-ET and thus an
>>> anti-God lab?
>>>
>>> Are you pro/con intelligent design, or do you folks just brown-nose
>>> suck for good measure?
>>
>>You're an experiment of the cloning of brown nosed saucerhead kooks.
>
> as opposed to the yellow bellied saucerhead kooks?
Same species, but only when looked at when they are belly up.
"pootjes omhoog" as we say here in the county.
dave hillstrom
<pan.2005.11.14....@localhost.localdomain>, "Dr. Flonkenstein"
<ad...@localhost.localdomain> humped my leg thusly:
>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:34:58 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 03:02:52 +0100, in alt.usenet.kooks,
>> <pan.2005.11.14....@localhost.localdomain>, "Dr. Flonkenstein"
>> <ad...@localhost.localdomain> humped my leg thusly:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:28:50 -0800, Brad Guth wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Alcatroll Labs. is using you as a test case, Brad.
>>>> Alcatroll Labs ?
>>>> ? The psychology of an "ET" believer, and how it can lead to e
>>>> ? I wonder if Tom Sneddons children are as ugly as he is?
>>>>
>>>> Is this lab of yours a pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-ET and thus an
>>>> anti-God lab?
>>>>
>>>> Are you pro/con intelligent design, or do you folks just brown-nose
>>>> suck for good measure?
>>>
>>>You're an experiment of the cloning of brown nosed saucerhead kooks.
>>
>> as opposed to the yellow bellied saucerhead kooks?
>
>Same species, but only when looked at when they are belly up.
>
>"pootjes omhoog" as we say here in the county.
damned belgians. just like cockroaches, i tell you. same damned thing.
putting costumes on a freely peeing child statue. sheesh. what next,
chanting for the end of the wurld? i say we gas em. BEANS A FORE!!!!
Dr. Flonkenstein
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:26:28 +0100, in alt.usenet.kooks,
> <pan.2005.11.14....@localhost.localdomain>, "Dr. Flonkenstein"
> <ad...@localhost.localdomain> humped my leg thusly:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:34:58 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 03:02:52 +0100, in alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> <pan.2005.11.14....@localhost.localdomain>, "Dr. Flonkenstein"
>>> <ad...@localhost.localdomain> humped my leg thusly:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:28:50 -0800, Brad Guth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Alcatroll Labs. is using you as a test case, Brad.
>>>>> Alcatroll Labs ?
>>>>> ? The psychology of an "ET" believer, and how it can lead to e
>>>>> ? I wonder if Tom Sneddons children are as ugly as he is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this lab of yours a pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-ET and thus an
>>>>> anti-God lab?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you pro/con intelligent design, or do you folks just brown-nose
>>>>> suck for good measure?
>>>>
>>>>You're an experiment of the cloning of brown nosed saucerhead kooks.
>>>
>>> as opposed to the yellow bellied saucerhead kooks?
>>
>>Same species, but only when looked at when they are belly up.
>>
>>"pootjes omhoog" as we say here in the county.
>
> damned belgians.
Dave, where were you when geography was invented?
There is no such thing as a "belgian".
> just like cockroaches, i tell you. same damned thing.
> putting costumes on a freely peeing child statue. sheesh. what next,
> chanting for the end of the wurld? i say we gas em. BEANS A FORE!!!!
--
Brad Guth
quo,
http://www.physorg.com/news6342.html
How much radiation awaits lunar colonists? A new NASA mission aims to
find out
"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the
Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a
few days,"
Please inform us village idiots as to why on Earth is there any further
question whatsoever?
Didn't we send several robotic instruments as satellites and of those
supposed AI/robotic fly-by-rocket landers, each having been loaded to
the gills with our utmost best possible instruments and thus obtaining
months worth of essentially live data prior to even one supposed
moonboot step upon the moon? Didn't each of those Apollo missions and
especially of their moonsuit EVAs include more of the same TBI
recordings as to the nature of such energy spectrums that included the
natural background and of the secondary/recoil worth of them
hard-X-rays? Why apparently NOT folks.
Why exactly do we even need this "Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects
of Radiation (CRaTER)" telling us anything?
I'd once thought that we(NASA) pretty much had all of those TBI dosage
detections and a good handle upon the various spectrums worth those
energy levels down pat, as in been there and done that technology way
before we ever took that supposed step upon our rather unusually
dust-free and otherwise highly reflective lunar surface. I'd though
that we also had the likes of human hairs and of their own bodily
organs to boot that oddly proved our moon was anything but reactive,
thus proving that much of the regular laws of physics were bogus,
meaning that Einstein and so many others really suckered us good.
Reverse math simply doesn't work if you must believe all that's within
the NASA/Apollo Koran.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
Cosmic Radiation of 27 (mrem)/year hits any given person thus per m2 of
Earth's surface.
That's obviously after having migrated all the way through our nasty
Van Allen expanse that's good for at least a 100:1 factor of radiation
moderation, as well as for the equivalent of having survived the
equivalent of penetrating those 50 x 18 mm layers of lead which our
atmosphere represents as our best hard-X-ray shield. As to how much of
that "Cosmic Radiation of 27 (mrem)/year" is specifically of hard-X-ray
as contributed by way of the secondary/recoil of such X-ray photons
from our moon remains somewhat need-to-know and/or as
taboo/nondisclosure and thus as unknown as it gets because, we seem to
have absolutely no independent hard-science nor of anything as having
been obtained from lunar surface deployed instruments, and of our NASA,
DoD and USAF satellite data is essentially data encrypted so as to mean
anything you'd like to make of it.
It's as though we're having to deal with exactly what liars do best,
they lie.
Generally, once a study has been accepted as published under the
moderation and agenda rules of whatever's our NASA/Apollo Koran
certified is when this same information gets reutilized and republished
in so many other forms as having no other independent research
associated, thus no verification whatsoever as to any of their numbers.
If we attempt reverse engineering as to discover the amount of what 27
mrem/year represents as to what that sort of influx dosage amounts as
per being situated outside of our highly protective atmosphere, as this
is where it gets real interesting.
It takes 18 mm(0.7") of solid lead that's good for a material density
of better than 11.3 g/cm3 in order to cut the hard-X-ray dosage in
half. Whereas if given 50 fold worth of doubling in dosage becomes a
very significant DNA snuffing multiplier factor of 112e12:1
If merely 0.1% of that 27 mrem/year is related to what's having been
derived off our moon, as such that's all the way down to 27
microrem/year which is merely .074 microrem/day, which seems somewhat
insignificant until we apply the math as based upon the surface of
Earth being shielded by a metric tonne/m2 plus our environment having
the Van Allen expanse on top of that, which has certainly become a
whole lot more TBI worthy than I'd been using for my estimates, as
having been based upon starting off at 1 mrem/day worth of moon
contributed dosage while situated at 384 km above Earth, therefore
residing well below the Van Allen badlands. Whereas I'm also especially
conservative since I'm sticking with a basis of what a full-moon
contributes and where the other side of this argument is clearly based
upon their averaging at not more than having a 50% solar illuminated
moon as from the perspective of mother Earth receiving whatever
secondary/recoil worth of such hard-X-rays having been specifically
contributed by our moon. In other words, I'm being the good guy in this
argument.
Of course, other than for those intending upon specifically
accomplishing the moon itself, most if not all of the planned human
space travels are those going away from our nasty sun, as well as for
going far away from our naked moon that's so gosh darn reactive,
especially keeping away from the solar radiated side that's sharing off
such a great deal of hard-X-ray dosage. No kidding folks, it seems the
solar impacted side of our moon is a good thousand fold worse off for
our DNA than is a lunar nighttime or earthshine illuminated moon, yet
there's still no mention nor any other NASA/Apollo certified science
that even so much as mentions that difference.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the
Moon"
No kidding folks;
It seems that we also need an understanding via hard-science as to raw
ice surviving in space, or even for that matter of surviving within any
near vacuum of 1e9 atoms/cm3, as perhaps being the most likely
underground environment upon our moon. Moon air that's populated at 1e9
atoms/cm3 isn't hardly worth much of anything compared to Earth air =
53e18 atoms/cm3, as that's 53 billion fold less to work with, which
isn't exactly a good thing if there's radiation that needs moderation
and/or whatever bits of debris to deflect or at least slow them little
and not so little suckers down prior to their final impact.
At what our NASA/Apollo dead-sea scrolls officially stipulates about
our lunar atmosphere being worth a messily 2e5 atoms/cm3, and if we're
to be going by way of those numbers, we could efficiently sustain
satellite orbits right down to their cruising just a few km off the
lunar deck, that is as long as they somehow managed to miss running
into the vertical terrain features as offered by such a topographic
range as +/- 8 km <http://www.astrosurf.com/avl/UK_download.html>. It
seems that the closer to the moon a satellite gets, the better off
their orbit becomes as nearly circular, thus capable of obtaining so
much better resolution of whatever their instruments are taking in. So,
if there's supposedly such a slight atmosphere, then why the heck is
SMART-1 along with its benefit of having that rather nifty Xenon-->ion
thruster so into keeping it's highly elliptical and thus mission
inefficient distance of transpiring from nearly 11 hours out to nearly
9 days per orbit?
Perhaps the sooner SMART-1 manages to run itself out of Xenon the
better, as at least then we'll get some reasonable data and best images
as it closes in on the moon.
We've also needed something/anything as to appreciating the raw
physical influx that's contributing to the cosmic morgue worth of such
absolutely nifty meteorites and of spore deposits that simply have to
be sequestered upon our 'once upon a time' icy proto-moon, that which
should also coexist along with all of that He3 element. Just like
there's been need for live readings as to the surface population of
Radon, Argon, CO2, Sodium and a good many other heavier elements as
they have managed to survive such a hellacious gauntlet from each hot
day after day throughout each sub-frozen night after night that keeps
cycling again and again, all the while taking a lethal solar and cosmic
licking because of having no magnetosphere of it's own and of
supposedly having such a slight atmosphere that's only long after the
NASA/Apollo mission having been detected as dispersed itself out to
14,000 km worth of such a relatively low density element of what the
likes of boiled off Sodium has to offer, and that's only 36 fold
greater expanse of such atmospheric elements than what mother Earth has
to offer. Of course there's also another taboo/nondisclosure worth of
the lunar sodium trail that extends out past 900,000 km, but whatever
we do, don't tell our NASA because, it seems their Apollo Koran offered
absolutely nothing about any such sodium, nor otherwise hardly anything
mentioned about the amounts of Radon(Rn222) that had to have been
floating right upon the raw solar illuminated surface.
Note that boiled off and thus vaporised sodium offers a damn hot
substance, at one bar melting at just 371 K (208 °F), although boiling
into becoming a suitable lunar atmospheric vapor takes 826 K (1027
°F), whereas obviously within the near vacuum of space that point of a
vapor phase is somewhat of yet another taboo/nondisclosure factor about
our moon. Actually, there's one heck of a lot we seem not to know for
certain about our moon.
BTW folks; - why the heck do you honestly suppose this incest Third
Reich MI6/NSA~CIA and of their GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo
serviced usenet that's into so badly brown-nose sucking and blowing
big-time is still (absolutely no lie folks) hard at work delivering
their interactive spermware into my PC?
You think I'm kidding? I kid you not.
Brad Guth
OK, I'll bite for learning more about the 1 kg micro or perhaps it's a
sub-micro/cubesat. However, I'm thinking of using composites so that
the volumetric density isn't much greater than 10 kg/m3 or whatever
that amounts to as a smaller scale based upon achieving that 1 kg
cubesat package might suggest as little as 10 milligrams/cm3.
Those "1kg mass, 1 liter volume, 1W power" cubesats are of a rather
high density at 1 g/cm3, which I'm thinking isn't all that terrific if
the really good part of their mission involves some aerodynamic
requirements as well as impact/landing survival.
In which case we could deploy a thousand of them little suckers for not
10% the overall cost of doing the likes of SMART-1 that has been
anything but all that smart about bringing home the bacon.
It seems to be rather obvious that such small/micro satellites are
going to become just the ticket to ride, and possibly even as per a few
of those managing to survive their impact/landing into a lunar basin of
extremely thick although otherwise extremely low surface-tension
capable moon-dust isn't going to be quite as testy as we'd thought.
http://www.space.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cubesat/index-e.html
http://www.cubesat.auc.dk/
http://web.usna.navy.mil/~bruninga/cubesat.html
taboo/nondisclosure http://ssdl.stanford.edu/cubesat/
Brad Guth.
donsto...@hotmail.com
*************************
OK. I'm nude now. What's next???
- A Texas A&M student
Brad Guth
So that's the absolute very best on-topic contribution you've got to
work with?
The topic is "MICROSATELLITES; how small? How cheap?" not how naked and
totally dumbfounded to boot.
Brad Guth
-
I thought that I'd share in the info that a few of our warm and fuzzy
MI6/NSA~CIA spooks are now into using popular celebrity names as
another measure of their usenet ruse, such as using "Bill Snyder" as
one their cloaks in order to carry out their brown-nosed sucking and
blowing plan of action as to their new and improved levels of incest
cloned borgism, of delivering MOS wag-the-dog and simply as per
continuing MOS LLPOF worth of their ongoing disinformation
infomercials.
Why the heck do you suppose that their Third Reich(Skull and Bones)
MI6/NSA~CIA E-Men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
mainstream status quo serviced and moderated to death usenet that
summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no freaking lie folks)
hard at their brown-nosed agenda of each and every day after day
accomplishing their collective workmanship of specifically targeting
and thus delivering their very best spermware into my PC?
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
noge...@linuxmail.org
hired government agents that are threatened by your ability to see
outside the box. In that you see the things they thought they cloaked,
they have to come out here using aliases trying to mock you to vanish
you in the eyes of others that might be prone to thinking outside the
control establishment, that NASA is.
I don't have the time to keep up with all your posts, just thought you
should know I value your work & insight, it's definitely on the money.
:)
Brad Guth wrote:
> Exactly how small can a microsatellite get these day's?
>
> Since most all satellites are disposables; could a micro-satellite be
> as slight a one kg?
>
> How about if we're affording all of 10 kg per microsatellite?
>
> Could a microsatellite be configured for surviving a 2.4 km/s lunar
> impact, such as impacting into a great deal of moon-dust?
>
> Audio/seismic detections couldn't possibly involve more than a few
> grams, as well as thermal and radiation detection can't be requiring
> but a few extra grams, and even atmospheric spectrum instrumentation
> shouldn't involve much greater than a kg. PV cells are certainly
> smaller and of higher energy potential, and whatever energy storage
> batteries are most certainly a whole lot more reliable, weigh next to
> nothing and seem good for many thousands of cycles.
>
> It seems micro-cameras offering less than 2.2 micron/pixel and thus
> using a micro/compact lens only draw a few milliamps per frame, thus
> perhaps not even .05 joule per frame can become the norm for such small
> satellites that could essentially swarm extremely close around our
> moon, eventually getting down to cruising just slightly off the highly
> reactive lunar deck before running into a lunar mountain or some other
> obstruction, like diving into the meters deep moon dust. Other viable
> instruments might not even draw 0.01 joule worth of energy per sample.
> A directed explosive discharge might even get some of those crashed
> microsatellites that survived their initial landing as to their being
> situated back up on top of that thick and nasty dust.
>
> Of course, there is an amount of radon, argon and sodium atmosphere to
> work on behalf of aerobreaking.
>
> Thus what's the problem if any with going extremely small, thus being
> 'clumping moon-dirt' cheap and therefore we'd be able to affordably
> deploy a hundred of these nifty little suckers for considerably less
> effort and certainly less than the price tag of one larger package like
> SMART-1 that isn't providing us with hardly any scientific worth.
> ~
>
> Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
> no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
> with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
> such as GW Bush.
Brad Guth
Thanks much. I could use a few other brave contributors that don't have
those nondisclosure E-MEN in BLACK poking gun barrels up their butts,
as to sharing whatever good-news/bad-news they've got to work with
could go a long ways.
As per our being all that right about our moon or Venus isn't actually
even a fundamental topic requirement, whereas if one good thing out of
a hundred turns out to favor humanity, and thereby on behalf of sharing
science plus our learning about whatever lunar resources and/or ETs
there are nearby, whereas this seems to be a win-win all the way
around, especially if whatever Venusians or of their ET visitors as
having been smarter than us, as how hard could that be?
Small and efficient in dollars as well as per energy for their
deployments is what the micro satellites should be capable of
accomplishing for less than a few cents on the dollar, as opposed to
that of our otherwise doing such things NASA's spendy and most cloak
and dagger time consuming way possible, that which seems to have warn
out their welcome as of decades ago.
Unlike the infomercial rusemasters of this usenet that sucks and blows,
I certainly don't have all the answers, nor can I alone fix their
horrific problems that we're having to deal with. Thus whatever you and
others might contribute in the way of similar notions and/or better
ideas, including whatever's subjectively interpreted from the available
science and of observationology of extracting viable information from
their own science and images is going to eventually be put to good use,
that is if I have anything to say about it.
Would you like to have a highly specific task to research and share
whatever results upon?
Would you like to suggest a specific task of research that I might
report something back upon?
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
impacting upon our moon will likely need tiny reaction wheels. Of
course a 10 kg satellite demand upon any such reaction wheels are going
to be rather minimal.
Apparently any notions of "exploring the moon and saving the Earth"
doesn't have to involve reaction wheels or any other form of spacecraft
pointing other than via rocket thrusters, which is apparently all that
our marvelous though R&D unproven Apollo fly-by-rocket machines had to
work with. It also doesn't involve LL1/ME-L1 or of anything related to
the topics of any lunar space elevator or even a station-keeping
platform as having any relevance whatsoever. It's exactly as though
LL1/ME-L1 doesn't even exist.
The rather unusual lack of there being hardly if any usage of reaction
wheels on behalf of directly influencing the pointing and thus
stability of those supposedly safe and sane fly-by-rocket landers is
what's of keen interest because, I believe we sort of have to have them
suckers, especially for the final 100 seconds worth of incoming,
down-range and solf landing needs all the rigid degree of pointing
control it can muster.
Accomplishing a GOOGLE usenet group search for whatever's LANDER IPACS
or of anything NASA IPACS, CEV IPACS or even Apollo Spacecraft Reaction
Wheels, or simply accomplishing a search for Reaction Flywheels and
other than what I've posted you'll get next to zilch because lo and
behold, there's apparently absolutely nothing within this usenet that
sucks and blows to behold of whatever these pathetic rusemasters simply
do NOT wish to publicly talk about. The GOOGLE WEB search of 'NASA
Flywheel' or of 'Reaction Wheels' does however get us into somewhat
limited information that's unfortunately a bit encrypted as
need-to-know and/or remaining as a bit taboo/nondisclosure, especially
if you'd care to explore what if anything our NASA/robotic lunar
landers and of their Apollo fly-by-rocket landers of the mid to late
60's had to work with.
Apparently our taboo/nondisclosure computer modulated rocket engines of
the mid/late 60s that supposedly managed all of those AI/robotic and
subsequent manned Apollo landings without those spacecraft having
involved any direct acting reaction wheels (of what today are called
IPACS units), whereas specific info upon such controlled thrusters seem
to offer us yet another blank wall or perhaps involving a Maxwell Smart
'dome of silence'. It's not that under ideal passive conditions that
should have existed once established within a stable orbit shouldn't be
so much in demand of that situation requiring attitude control via
reaction-wheels, that is as long as there's not so much as a
ventilation blower operating or any other rotating or physical energy
transfering tidbit of machinery involved, which includes not even
astronauts moving about nor so much as turning around in order to
accomplish anything within their craft because, no matters what actions
are involved, for every interior/exterior physical action there's still
is a matching reaction. If there's a sufficient array of modulated and
or fully analog adjustable thrusters available, each of which pointed
in nearly the exact required direction could manage the task as long as
sufficient fuel were available, as to replace the IPACS/reaction-wheel
demands, especially if those fully adjustable/modulated thrusters were
as having been sufficiently computer managed in order to counteract
whatever was twisting or rolling their spacecraft.
>Fred J. McCall; 'Reaction wheels' are gyroscopes that are used to control
>vehicle pointing without expending propellant. By some combination of
>braking and accelerating the reaction wheels, one translates their
>change in rotational inertia into a rotational effect on the vehicle.
>Yes, there are potentially limits on just what you can do with them,
>since the wheels can become 'saturated' (you can't speed them up any
>more in the direction you need to in order to change state of the
>vehicle), at which point you use thrusters to affect the vehicle and
>offset bringing the spin of the reaction wheels back to some nice
>centerline value. This is known as 'desaturating' the reaction
>wheels.
Of course newer and much improved variable speed reaction-wheels or
VIPACS have been greatly extending the range and scope of vehicle
pointing, thus saving further upon rocket fuel while accomplishing a
whole lot more refined job of their task at hand, however at the demise
of having to consume other forms of stored energy. In many ways the
VIPACS method should greatly outperform other than the most powerful of
Rn-->ion thrusters, and of their capabily for delivering short response
timing of peak energy can even outperform conventional thrusters, as
this method all depends on the size and scope of what these VIPACS can
accommodate without their coming unglued.
Perhaps our fly-by-rocket expertise and having way more than a
sufficient supply of rocket fuel is why spacecraft reaction-wheels are
simply not going to be required onboard the CEVs that'll otherwise have
those fully computer modulated thrusters at their disposal, as another
advantave lacking in them good old warm and fuzzy (damn near WW-III)
perpetrated cold-war days of our pretending to walk upon the moon.
For your continuing entertainment and education, in spite of all the
taboo/nondisclosure that's being orchestrated as flak until death do we
part, here's a few interesting web links that'll share a wee bit of
what a typical IPACS is good for, if not somewhat essential for safely
accomplishing the likes of most any fly-by-rocket robotic or especially
manned lunar landings. Even the LUNAR-A impact probes have to utilize
at least one form of these very same reaction wheels unless their
penetrating probes impacting sideways is survivable.
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/projects/flywheel/
They(NASA) most often keep saying these are intended as replacements
for batteries, which of course is perfectly all well and fine. However,
there's simply no getting around the spacecraft stabilisation aspects
of what a pair or best having a trio of such gyro/flywheel (reaction
wheels) as to what such a IPACS configuration can accomplish in terms
of physical brute leverage force that's essentially on demand.
Energy-in still equals energy-out even if the energy-out is being taken
as a result of a twisting motion that opposes the natural energy forces
of what a given gyro/flywheel that's drafted for whatever a
reaction/momentum wheel has at its disposal.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/RP/RPE-jansen.html
Integrated Power and Attitude Control System (IPACS)
http://centaur.sstl.co.uk/LectureSeries/abstracts2003/P_Tsiotras_abs.htm
"Spacecraft Adaptive Attitude And Power Tracking With Variable Speed
Control Moment Gyroscopes"
"VSCMGs have extra degrees of freedom and can be used to achieve
additional objectives, such as energy storage, as well as attitude
control."
"A control law for equalization of the wheel speeds will be proposed to
evenly distribute the kinetic energy among the wheels, thus minimizing
the possibility of wheel speed saturation and the occurrence of
zero-speed singularities."
http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/03newsreleases/nr_200311/nr_flywheel031106.html
"A flywheel made with the new technology set a speed record, spinning
at 3,000 miles per hour, demonstrating the capability of storing 70
percent more energy than the same-sized flywheel made with current
technology."
""This achievement is the result of our ability to design
state-of-the-art complex objects using carbon fiber composites that
have unprecedented, but predictable, mechanical properties," Richard
Thompson, the research mechanical engineer who led the development
team."
"The record-setting flywheel his team developed included a novel,
bell-shaped composite structure rotating on a metallic shaft in vacuum
that well suits the design needs of NASA's future space missions."
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/5000/5450b.htm
"Both of these systems are sized to store approximately 3 kW-hr of
energy, which is appropriate for large spacecraft."
This amount of energy storage is also representing 10.8 MJ worth of
physical craft stabilisation force to draw upon per IPACS. However,
these are still relatively new R&D prototypes, none of which having
existed at the time of the NASA/Apollo missions (other than for
intrumentation and thus crate pointing feedback), much less having
otherwise been incorporated for affecting space craft role and pitch
stabilizing. Even these composite gyro/flywheels are not exactly all
that small nor light weight once sufficiently packaged and structurally
interfaced within something like a fly-by-rocket lander, and keeping
three of these IPACS units up and running requires a good amount of
sustainable electrical energy input, that is unless there's nothing in
the way of external forces attempting to move these wheels off axis.
http://www.ipacs-benchmark.org/download/marketing/The_IPACS-Project_at_Glance.pdf
IPACS Benchmark Suite, Performance Modeling and Prediction Methods,
Benchmarking Environment
http://www.sptimes.com/News/112999/Worldandnation/Mars_landing_to_test_.shtml
Worldandnation: Mars landing to test NASA's prowess
The spacecraft had a trio of reaction wheels, devices similar to
flywheels ...
NASA's congressional critics are watching, too, making a Polar Lander
success ...
NASA G3 flywheel / Reaction/Momentum Wheels / IPACS
http://machinedesign.texterity.com/machinedesign/20040916/?pg=90
G3 flywheel. This is a 15-in.-diameter flywheel
25 Whr/kg, 85% round trip (energy-in/energy-out) efficiency.
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/projects/flywheel/papers/GRC_IPACS_Demos.pdf
Thus a 3 kwh IPACS is going to become worth 120 kg that's capable of
delivering a peak of 1.08 MJ for 10 seconds or support a demand of 108
KJ for 100 seconds worth of replacement reaction thrust. Therefore
having at least two of these units available would in fact conserve a
considerable amount of propellant as long as the available electrical
energy isn't depleted in the process.
This following old but extremely interesting report is mostly because
its using less than a tenth as many words as I would have employed, as
having been created by amateur "Nathan Jones", whereas it fails like
most all others to cover a good dozen or more so of the critical
technical issues, as his terrific research doesn't even touch upon the
lack of reaction wheels or of what their unfiltered Kodak eye failed to
record about a albedo dark and nasty moon but otherwise recorded just
fine and dandy as per offering us those very terrestrial Xenon lamp
illuminated scenes that remained relatively dust free, of nothing the
least bit reactive and a good amount of what has to be vast lunar
white-out zones that oddly can't be recorded from orbit or via our best
terrestrial telescopes, all of which without once having a stitch of
secondary/recoil photons to deal with, and actually the earthshine, the
location and size of mother Earth seemed somehow off the mark to boot.
As I said, nor does this series of reports even hint upon there being a
total lack of any involvement of their spacecraft reaction wheels for
safely accomplishing incoming/deorbit and down-range flight stability
management control, of methods that if managed via what was way back
then essentially single bit (on/off) bang-bang thrusters seems rather
ify.
If the dark (well under 5% albedo) portions of Earth were being so
nicely photo recorded with photons to spare, as just fine and dandy
along with our deep blue seas, white clouds and of the rather extremely
subdued blue of our own american flag, as then a couple of other
planets and a few terribly vibrant stars couldn't possibly have been so
easily excluded. Especially the nearby and highly reflective orb of
Venus on at least two of there missions had to have been in smack their
dumbfounded faces big-time. Kodak film DR is somewhat limited compared
to modern CCDs but it certainly doesn't lack the equivalent of
pixels/mm , and it simply wasn't that DR pathetic, as even the planet
Jupiter offers a similar photographic image intensity if that were
being compared to the typical 11~12% albedo worth of our moon, and I
understand that supposedly Jupiter is a seriously big planet though
somewhat far away, whereas Venus is essentially Earth like in clouded
size except 80% reflective, and as I'd said it was sufficiently nearby
upon two of their Apollo missions. In order to honestly compare as to
what's photographically doable (especially from the surface of the
moon), as such would you like to review some independent moon/Jupiter
images?
Most of the internal sub-links are simply chuck full of the numerous
image content related issues that do in fact seem out of place or at
least skewed away from what other hard-science has since had to offer,
and certainly not of what one might have expected if the regular laws
of physics were applied. Otherwise, they've simply not addressed the
overall film exposure that was essentially unfiltered and supposedly
getting the fullest benefit of raw worth of what the greater
proportions of solar near-blue, near-UV and UV-a energy that had to
exist at rather enormous levels greater than indicated by any of those
terrestrial and Xenon lamp illuminated Kodak moments, and yet there's
not even the planet Venus nor capturing the Sirius star system was ever
once within their thousands of Kodak photographically recorded frames.
ACTUNG DAS FAQ APOLLO
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/7ec8852a9056e9bb/d4959e8b7c70b4c3?lnk=st&q=Apollo+lander+Reaction+Wheels&rnum=1#d4959e8b7c70b4c3
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/b5268ff5f3854574/9036113943e36b4f?lnk=st&q=%22Nathan+Jones%22+apollo&rnum=5#9036113943e36b4f
Of course there's always folks like our good little anti-ET and thus
anti-God mormon Jay Windley, that which by his mistake allowed his best
rusemaster apollohoax friend to offer me the basic info on lunar
secondary/recoil radiation that'll knock your socks off. Shortly after
that slip of his nondisclosure lips is when those official 'E-MEN in
BLACK' paid wizard Jay a call, whereas ever since his access to the web
and especially to anything usenet has become taboo/nondisclosure or
sequestered because he was such a bad little boy (Jay Windley *
University of Utah * jwin...@cs.utah.edu). Thus it proves that you
don't even have to be Jewish affiliated in order to appreciate what
knowing thy enemy and snookering thy humanity is all about, because
even Jay Windley is smart enough to know that he's been lying his
anti-ET and thus anti-God mormon butt off for decades.
Brad Guth
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Brad Guth
items eventually having to landing upon and/or slightly impacting into
the extremely dusty lunar deck shouldn't be all that insurmountable.
a spin deployed drag parachute or that of an inflated balloon like
parachute method of establishing a viable drag coefficient for slowing
down a 10 kg satellite of one m3, that which has only a slight density
factor of perhaps 10 mg/cm3 in the first place, shouldn't be all that
difficult.
A solar wind of 1200 km/s should cause an extra amount of a lunar comet
like trail of a sodium cloud that's worth as great as 600 km/s, which
obviously only gets into being a whole lot denser although of lesser
velocity the closer you get to the lunar deck. Thus if a 100 m2 amount
of surface drag coefficient can be provided, as such that's going to
amount to quite a bit of solar-wind induced drag as we're coming in for
a semi-controlled landing. Whereas the last few hundred meters of
altitude should pick up benefit of a relatively dense amount of argon
that's in addition to all of the solar blown sodium, then involving a
final few dozen meters worth of Radon gas which shouldn't allow for all
that great of a final velocity of such a micro satellite that's roughly
a cubic meter weighing only 10 kg and as having been dragging that
extra 100 m2 worth of parachute like item, that in of itself doesn't
have to weigh hardly anything.
Even at the near surface atmospheric environment of 1e6
atoms/cm3(1e12/m3) is going to amount to some degree of drag,
especially if any of those cubic meters of such a thin atmosphere are
still getting solar wind-blown plus as having been extensively
populated by atoms of Radon, Argon and Sodium. Clearly landing into the
solar wind should offer some measurable benefits. However, since our
moon remains as a taboo/nondisclosure topic, as much as per all of
their soft-science and conditional laws of physics that supposedly got
those other items safely onto the lunar deck, it therefore has been a
rather fun though wasteful amount of time trying to locate an honest
soul that's not been 100+% snookered and thereby dumbfounded beyond the
point of no return.
It seems that each and every individual within this usenet that sucks
and blows almost anything but the truth has their mindset that's carved
in stone, as well as their one and only agenda (hidden if need be) or
bust. Thus open minded folks that could be of assistance and directly
benefit by sharing simply do not exist outside of their grand
collective of what a perfectly horrific mess we've got to work with,
until death do us part.
Brad Guth
-
I thought that I'd share in the latest info that a few of our warm and
fuzzy MI6/NSA~CIA spooks are now into using popular celebrity names as
another soild measure of their usenet ruse, such as using "Bill Snyder"
as one their phony baloney cloaks in order to carry out their
brown-nosed sucking and blowing plan of action as to their new and
improved levels of incest cloned borgism, of delivering MOS wag-the-dog
and simply as per continuing MOS LLPOF worth of their ongoing
disinformation infomercials.
Why the heck do you suppose that their Third Reich(Skull and Bones)
MI6/NSA~CIA E-Men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
mainstream status quo serviced and moderated to death usenet that
summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no freaking lie folks)
hard at their brown-nosed agenda of each and every day after day
accomplishing their collective workmanship of specifically targeting
and thus delivering their very best malware/spermware into my PC?
Unlike The New York Times and of The Washington Post, and of all the
big cannons of NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and so many other news and publishing
members of our society that often have to tow the line or else, I kid
you not. Even our PBS and NPR have their limits if they don't want
their federal funding further cut and of losing their tax-exempt status
like so many churches have to fear for their honest efforts to inform
us of the truth and nothing but the truth. In other words, it's
perfectly OK for government to be telling churches what they can or
can't communicate to others, just as it's perfectly OK for a church to
be utilizing it's resources for being fully supportive of the
administration but, it's apparently not a good situation as to suggest
upon anything that's outside the political agenda box, and this is
what's coming directly from our very own pagan born again loser of a
resident warlord(GW Bush).
Brad Guth
this topic?
What is Art Deco afraid of?
Whom is Art Deco brown-nosing?
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
As I'd just informed your incest cloning bed partner "Bookman"; - When
and if I need a fresh role of toilet paper, as then I too will ask for
your help, as I already know for a matter of fact that at least you
have way more than your fair share of crapolla to deal with, especially
if you're sleeping with the likes of anti-Muslim types, as well as
anti-ET and thus anti-God freaks like yourself, Bookman, Dick Cheney
and our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
BTW; thanks once again for all of your efforts in keeping this topic on
top of the usenet pile. It's almost as though whatever I have to say
matters.
OM
>Brad, all the anti-Brad Guth people that attempt to mock you are likely
>hired government agents that are threatened by your ability to see
>outside the box.
...If that were the case, I wouldn't currently owe the hospital some
$15k for that gall bladder removal, as I'd have federally funded
insurance. However, if the government would like to hire me to fry
Guth's ass instead of doing it for free as most of us have for the
past 5 years the dog molesting retard has been infesting this group
with his particular strain of visual AIDS, I'd be more than happy to
accept payment for said.
OM
--
]=======================================[
OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld
Let's face it: Sometimes you *need*
an obnoxious opinion in your day!
]=======================================[
Brad Guth
Is that it, the absolute very best you've got to work with is to banish
and/or exterminate whatever rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP?
If you're so gosh darn smart, then why haven't you or any of your
incest cloned minions (as the supreme brown-nosed and pagan butt
sucking rusemasters that you are), contributed to the actual topic at
hand?
It's perfectly clear as another taboo/nondisclosure "chapel bell" that
"nogeek" is sufficiently correct, which represents that yourself and of
your friends represent a bit more than just the usual sucking and
blowing to the tune of your perpetrated cold-wars.
-
BTW folks; thanks once again for all of those "OM", "Art Deco" and
"Bookman" like members of this Skull and Bones "space.com" cult of a
usenet that continually sucks and blows out their disinformation as
infomercials, as well as for all of their ongoing topic/author stalking
and bashing efforts of the past 6 years and counting, in as much as
having been keeping this one plus quite a few of my topics as briefly
on top of their brown-nosed usenet pile that sucks and blows big time.
With the likes of such anti-everything under the sun contributions as
having provided so much of my proof-positive that I'm right, whereas
it's almost as though whatever honest folks like myself have to share
actually matters a bit more than I'd imagined to such folks that'll use
their political and religious agendas over avoiding the truth as much
as over avoiding the possibilities of future truths that might rock
their good ship LOLLIPOP.
The ongoing and orchestrated efforts in order to spermware/malware (aka
fuckware) my PC and to otherwise foul my access of this internet
superhighway is in fact further proof-positive that I'm more often
right than not about what's been perpetrated and subsequently
sequestered for decades.
Brad Guth;
- - - - - - If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Brad Guth
so many others are still into topic diverting, as well as still into
their usual topic/author stalking and bashing along with only at best
applying loaded questions instead of actually contributing their
all-knowing squat as to the original topic. I had no idea that my
dyslexic words, relatively piss poor math and of my ongoing research as
soooo gosh darn important.
Because lord/wizard Art Deco is actually an official usenet mole/spook
of MI6/NSA-CIA that's deep into perpetrating the cold-wars and much
worse things, as such he simply can't officially accommodate whatever
Pat Flannery has requested dozens upon dozens of times.
>Pat Flannery;
>And you will be going bye-bye for not learning to trim your quotes of
>his postings, so that I still have to see all his looniness despite
>having him killfiled.
These ongoing and orchestrated efforts in order to spermware/malware
(aka fuckware) my PC, and to otherwise foul my access of this internet
information superhighway is in fact further proof-positive that I'm
more often right than not about what I've discovered about our once
upon a time icy proto-moon, Venus, the Sirius solar system and of what
has been systematically perpetrated and subsequently sequestered for
decades.
Brad Guth;
- - - - - - If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it.
Brad Guth
last time I'd tuned into this GOOGLE/NOVA usenet that usually sucks and
blows a bit more than its fair share, whereas it seems that my mouse
isn't going postal and I'm not having been remotely forced into another
unscheduled PC reset/shutdown. I may have accidently removed some of
their spermware/malware that previously had my PC private parts
squeezed so tight that I'm usually having to communicate at two octaves
higher.
I'd like to pass along another example of wizard Mook running us
somewhat amuck. Of course if space deployments were ever going to
become this 'cup of coffee' cheap, then perhaps micro satellites
spiraling down upon and eventually landing/impacting upon our moon
shouldn't be all that testy, nor spendy, and the environment of Earth
shouldn't be any worse off for ware.
Mook actually has some other good analogies that tend to make our NASA
look exactly like the pathetically disfunctional dipwads they are.
Although, I'm not quite as ESE/LiftPort and Skyhook or bust optimistic
as Mook when it comes down to getting the real serious stuff
accomplished so cheaply, whereas deploying anything into space and
especially if it's headed for orbiting our moon isn't going to
transpire without some considerable environmental impact.
Exploiting the Moon and saving the Earth
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/75d6c3946bb77a85/c6d5a726d5286505?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=4#c6d5a726d5286505
Going with these Mook methods of so easily excluding whatever evidence
in order to bring us his form of reality back into the realm of
actually achieving a given goal isn't entirely without values. It's
simply suggesting alternatives that are a wee bit spendy and ify to
boot, however it's also offering that we've been somewhat snookered
into thinking that everything needs to be so gosh darn NASA/Apollo
and/or shuttle big and impressive, not to mention damn risky business.
Thus perhaps the smaller the satellites the better, even if we're
talking about a collective of deploying 100 small satellites at a whack
is going to afford many times better results and essentially more
science info bang for the almighty buck. Thus smaller and much lighter
is better in more ways than just cost and saving our environment from
having to deal with such enormous contributions that are not exactly
life friendly if it's your like that's going down the tubes because of
see so much as having been diverted into the sorts of science that
hasn't been bringing home the bacon, nor has it plans by way of our
NASA ever doing so.
Thus I'd thought you folks might actually enjoy what our William Mook
still has to say. At least he's one of us few and far between
free-thinkers that's willing to share and share alike, even though he
has been of lately steeling away some of my weirdness audience, by way
of entertaining folks with such notions of his Skyhooks and
ESE/LiftPorts that haven't thus far been doable, and not likely to be
accomplishing their thing any time soon. More likely decades from now
and trillions rather than mere billions down theses spendy and somewhat
global warming roads is when if ever we'll see commercial usage of his
nuclear propelled although hopefully He3/fusion powered spaceplanes
and, otherwise eventually our children and/or their children that might
actually survive WW-III, as to their seeing the likes of his LiftPorts
and Skyhooks in action. Just don't plan upon holding your breath or
forking over your bank account numbers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/1492868e741e0689/3be808b89e9e7cbe#3be808b89e9e7cbe
11. William Mook Nov 22, 11:06 am
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: "William Mook" <william.m...@mokindustries.com> - Find messages
by this author
Date: 22 Nov 2005 11:06:53 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 22 2005 11:06 am
Subject: Re: NASA as a worthless moon-crack addict
Pat Flannery wrote:
> William Mook wrote:
> >A low-cost DISPOSABLE hypersonic espresso machine! No *thats*
> >progress! :)
> Disposable!? That's wasteful!
Depends on the details.
The structural fraction of a rocket sized to deliver a single cup of
coffee suborbitally would be on the order of the mass of a disposable
soda bottle, so its not wasteful by those standards. Given that its
likely to be ceramic-carbon-metal composite, it can easily be recycled.
THE HEAT IN A CUP OF COFFEE:
A cup of water (250 mL) is heated from 10C to 90C. 4.2 J is required to
raise the temperature of 1.0 gram of water by 1C. The density of water
is 1.0 g per mL. Thus, the internal energy increase is
dE = 4.184 J/(g C) * 250 g * 80 C
= 83680 J or 84 kJ
THE HEAT NEEDED TO MOVE THE COFFEE TO ITS CONSUMER
A foamed ceramic coffee cup, which doubles as a nose cone of a rocket,
atop sufficient hydrogen oxygen to loft it a maximum range. Moving
from coffee growing regions - say 15 degrees North latitude to coffee
consuming regions - say 45 degrees north latitude - we move things over
a range of 30 degrees of latitude. This is 1/12th the circumference of
the Earth, so its 3,300,000 m - So, this requires a delta vee of about
5721 m/sec. Assuming a structural fraction of 5% overall, and an
exhaust velocisty of 4500 m/sec - we can compute that the propellant
fraction must be 0.72 - leaving 0.28 for structure and payload,
subtracting 0.05 for structure, this leaves 0.23 for payload. So, a
250 gram cup of coffee would require a total vehicle of the following
type;
250 grams - payload (cup of coffee)
5 grams structure
782 grams propellant (hydrogen and oxygen)
Now, optimal exhaust velocity occurs at a Oxidizer Fuel ratio of 6:1 by
mass - the stochiometric ratio is 8:1 - so, the rocket is hydrogen
rich, and only 75% of the hydrogen is reacted with the oxygen
propellant - the rest lowers the average molecular weight of the
exhaust - increasing performance slightly. So we can compute that 3.94
MJ of energy is used to transport the coffee from its place or origin
to its place of consumption. This is 50x the energy of brewing the
coffee.
There are 572 ml of liquid oxygen on board and
and 1,862 ml of liquid hydrogen on board.
A total volume of 2,434 ml of propellant.
About the size of a two liter bottle.
If we use gelled LH2 (by mixing in small amounts of methane) we could
cut this volume in half. (the size of a ONE liter bottle)
NOTE ON ATMOSPHERIC BRAKING
Since the time of flight is on the same order as the coffee brewing
time, and since the energy of the vehicle is largely dissapated by
atmospheric heating during its travel through the atmosphere - the
coffee could be brewed in flight during atmospheric braking by
controlled leakage of the heat flux into the coffee carrying
compartment.
COST ESTIMATES - IN FULL SCALE PRODUCTION
The cost of LOX/LH is about 1.5x the cost of the energy to make these
compounds. This comes out to be around 6 MJ - about 1-2/3 kWh - which
at 5 cents per kWh would cost 8-1/3 cents - say 10 cents over all.
The ceramic materials fashioned into computer controls, actuators,
rocket body, rocket arrays, braking system, landing system and so forth
- might cost 2 cents per gram in quantity - and would cost another 10
cents.
The communications to order and target the cup of coffee would be
around 10 cents
The coffee itself, along with the labor and so forth would be another
20 cents.
A total cost of less than 50 cents.
Selling price - $1.50
Delivery time - 5 minutes after ordering +/-
Delivery locale - anywhere on Earth's surface
VOLUME: 3 billion servings per day
NOTE: Coca Cola produces over 1 billion servings per day of its
product -
This contribution as having been offered by William Mook actually
sounds like a perfectly viable commercial plan of action, suggesting of
serving the likes of coffee and whatever you-name-it via rockets
that'll supposedly only end up costing "50 cents" in order to provide
folks access to such a nifty hot cup of coffee. And you probably
wondered as to how weird I've been and of where some of those ENRON and
Arthur Andersen folks got their ideas, and of a resident warlord like
our very own GW Bush having conceived of his preemptive notions of
having to save humanity (mostly us white folk) from all of those
stealth/invisible WMD, as well as per his ongoing plan of action that
has been responsible for getting half the world that's mostly Muslim
seriously piss off at us Americans once again.
Brad Guth
usually sucks and blows a bit more than its fair share, whereas it
been remotely forced into another unscheduled PC reset/shutdown. I may
have accidently removed some of their spermware/malware that previously
had my PC private parts squeezed so tight that I'm usually having to
going to continually place the responsibility onto myself, which only
proves that folks like Art Deco are either snookered and/or seriously
dumbfounded, that is if they're not the actual problem to start with.
I'd like to pass along another example of wizard Mook running us
somewhat amuck. Of course if space deployments were ever going to
become this 'cup of coffee' cheap, then perhaps I'm onto the proper
notion that micro satellites spiraling down upon and eventually
landing/impacting upon our moon shouldn't be all that testy, nor
spendy, and the environment of Earth shouldn't be any worse off for
ware.
Mook actually has contributed some other good analogies that tend to
make our NASA look exactly like the pathetically disfunctional dipwads
they are. Although, I'm not quite as Nuclear Pulse rocket, ESE/LiftPort
and Skyhook or bust optimistic as lord Mook when it comes down to
getting the real serious stuff accomplished so cheaply, whereas
deploying anything into space and especially if it's headed for
orbiting our moon isn't going to transpire without some considerable
environmental impact.
Exploiting the Moon and saving the Earth
16. William Mook - and - 18. William Mook
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/75d6c3946bb77a85/c6d5a726d5286505?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=4#c6d5a726d5286505
Going along with these Mook methods of so easily excluding whatever
hard-science as well as objective evidence of actual overhead in order
to bring his form of reality back into the realm of achieving a given
goal isn't entirely without values. Mook is simply suggesting as to
viable alternatives that are still going to remain as a wee bit spendy
and ify to boot, however it's also offering that we've been somewhat
snookered into thinking that everything that's related to
rocket-science needs to be so gosh darn NASA/Apollo and/or shuttle big
and impressive, not to mention damn risky business.
Going by this following contribution by William Mook, perhaps the
smaller and least density these satellites can get the better, even if
we're talking about a collective of deploying 100 small satellites at a
time is going to afford better results and essentially more science
info bang for the almighty buck. I'm thinking that smaller and much
lighter can be better in more ways than just cost and the saving of our
environment from having to deal with such enormous contributions of
such pollutions that are not exactly life friendly, especially if it's
been your life that's going down the tubes because of seeing so much
having been diverted into the sorts of science that hasn't been
bringing home the bacon, nor has it plans by way of our NASA ever doing
so.
Pollution and thus environmental impact via rocket-science by the way
isn't limited to the launch phase, whereas launching whatever tonnage
is perhaps as little as 10% of what those big boys actually manage to
pollute us with.
I'd thought folks might actually enjoy what our William Mook still has
to say. At least he's one of us few and far between free-thinkers
that's willing to share and share alike, even though he has been of
lately steeling away some of my weirdness audience, by way of
entertaining folks with such notions of his Skyhooks and ESE/LiftPorts
that haven't thus far been doable other than on paper, and not likely
to be accomplishing their thing any time soon. More likely decades from
now and trillions rather than mere billions down theses spendy and
somewhat global warming roads is when if ever we'll see commercial
usage of his nuclear propelled although hopefully He3/fusion powered
spaceplanes, as otherwise eventually our children and/or their children
that might actually survive WW-III that'll be another scrap over more
of those WMD which are actually cloaked as fuel reserves, as to their
Selling price - $1.50
folks access to such a nifty hot cup of coffee that'll retail for $1.50
which is unfortunately still more than a day's wages in many countries
that haven't access to affordable energy nor much of anything else that
matters. And you probably wondered as to how weird I've been and of
where some of those ENRON and Arthur Andersen folks got their ideas,
and of a resident warlord like our very own GW Bush as having conceived
of his preemptive notions of having to save humanity (mostly us white
folk that thrive upon oil) from all of those stealth/invisible WMD, as
well as per his ongoing plan of action that has been responsible thus
far for getting half the world that's mostly Muslim seriously piss off
at us energy sucking Americans once again.
William Mook
Brad Guth wrote:
>
> William Mook wrote:
>
>>
>> A total cost of less than 50 cents.
>>
>> Selling price - $1.50
>>
>> Delivery time - 5 minutes after ordering +/-
>> Delivery locale - anywhere on Earth's surface
>> VOLUME: 3 billion servings per day
>>
>> NOTE: Coca Cola produces over 1 billion servings per day of its
>> product -
>
> This contribution as having been offered by William Mook actually
> sounds like a perfectly viable commercial plan of action, suggesting of
> serving the likes of coffee and whatever you-name-it via rockets
> that'll supposedly only end up costing "50 cents" in order to provide
> folks access to such a nifty hot cup of coffee that'll retail for $1.50
> which is unfortunately still more than a day's wages in many countries
Your analysis is flawed on several points.
1) Over 5 billion servings per day of beverages are sold at an average
price of $1.50 retail.
2) Per capita income worldwide exceeds $20 per day, for a typical
family of 4.6 this exceeds $100 per day.
3) Distribution of income worldwide is typical for that of any
industrial economy around these averages.
4) of the 6.47 billion people worldwide, fewer than 800 million are in
extreme poverty (less than $5 per day) - and those are in well
concentrated regions of excessive political control by religious or
communist zealots.
First off, look at the world market for carbonated non-alcoholic
beverages:
Company Percentage Servings/day Cost/serving
(wholesale)
Coca Cola 43.7% 1,100 million $0.43
Pepsico 31.6% 795 million $0.48
Cadbury/Schweppes 15.8% 398 million $0.49
This is factory cost, (total sales divided by total servings) -
distribution, delivery, warehousing, and so forth are to be added - and
sales price is typically 3x wholesale price.
A look at the beverage industry in general also puts the lie to your
prejuidices about income. Beverages arenot just carbonated
non-alcoholic beverages. A look at real data from any of a variety of
sound financial sources indicates there are 25 top tier companies,
many, like Nestle, are larger than Coca Cola or Pepsico, and serve
Coffee, bottled water, and a variety of other drinks (Tropicana Juices,
etc.)
Analysts report that 5.1% of the global $55 trillion economy is spent
on beverages which translates to $7.7 billion per day in total sales.
The average global consumer consumes 186 ml of beverages daily - so
with 6.47 billion people we have a daily consumption of 5.2 BILLION
servings (8 fl oz = 240 ml = 1 serving) producing a total WHOLESALE
revenue of about $2.6 billion per day, and as pointed out $7.7 billion
per day in total sales.
Also, the average global income per person is $24.10 per day. That's
6.446 billion divided into $55,000 billion divided by 365. So, a
family of 4.6 on average makes nearly $110.90 per day - not the $1.50
per day you assert.
Since people generally overstate the poverty of the world, here is a
reliable source of relevant information on the subject;
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This from the CIA World Fact Book:
Population: 6,446,131,400 (July 2005 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 27.8% (male 919,726,623; female 870,468,158)
15-64 years: 64.9% (male 2,117,230,183; female
2,066,864,970)
65 years and over: 7.3% (male 207,903,775; female
263,627,270)
note: some countries do not maintain age structure information, thus a
slight discrepancy exists between the total world population and the
total for world age structure (2005 est.)
Median age: total: 27.6 years
male: 27 years
female: 28.2 years (2005 est.)
Population growth rate: 1.14% (2005 est.)
Birth rate: 20.15 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Death rate: 8.78 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Sex ratio: at birth: 1.06 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.79 male(s)/female
total population: 1.01 male(s)/female (2005 est.)
Infant mortality rate: total: 50.11 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 52.1 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 48.01 deaths/1,000 live births
(2005 est.)
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 64.33 years
male: 62.73 years
female: 66.04 years
(2005 est.)
Total fertility rate: 2.6 children born/woman (2005 est.)
Religions: Christians 32.84%
(of which Roman Catholics 17.34%,
Protestants 5.78%,
Orthodox 3.44%,
Anglicans 1.27%),
Muslims 19.9%,
Hindus 13.29%,
Buddhists 5.92%,
Sikhs 0.39%,
Jews 0.23%,
other religions 12.63%,
non-religious 12.44%,
atheists 2.36% (2003 est.)
Languages: Chinese, Mandarin 13.69%,
Spanish 5.05%,
English 4.84%,
Hindi 2.82%,
Portuguese 2.77%,
Bengali 2.68%,
Russian 2.27%,
Japanese 1.99%,
German, Standard 1.49%,
Chinese, Wu 1.21% (2004 est.)
note: percents are for "first language" speakers only
Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 82%
male: 87%
female: 77%
note: over two-thirds of the world's 785 million illiterate adults are
found in only eight countries (India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan,
Nigeria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Egypt); of all the illiterate adults
in the world, two-thirds are women; extremely low literacy rates are
concentrated in three regions, South and West Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa,
and the Arab states, where around one-third of the men and half of all
women are illiterate (2005 est.)
Administrative divisions: 271 nations, dependent areas, and other
entities
Legal system: all members of the UN are parties to the statute that
established the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or World Court
Economy - overview:
Global output rose by 4.9% in 2004, led by
China (9.1%),
Russia (6.7%), and
India (6.2%).
The other 14 successor nations of the USSR and the other old Warsaw
Pact nations again experienced widely divergent growth rates; the three
Baltic nations continued as strong performers, in the 7% range of
growth.
Growth results posted by the major industrial countries varied from a
small gain in Italy (1.3%) to a strong gain by the United States
(4.4%).
The developing nations also varied in their growth results, with many
countries facing population increases that erode gains in output.
Externally, the nation-state, as a bedrock economic-political
institution, is steadily losing control over international flows of
people, goods, funds, and technology. Internally, the central
government often finds its control over resources slipping as
separatist regional movements - typically based on ethnicity - gain
momentum, e.g., in many of the successor states of the former Soviet
Union, in the former Yugoslavia, in India, in Iraq, in Indonesia, and
in Canada. Externally, the central government is losing decisionmaking
powers to international bodies, notably the European Union. In Western
Europe, governments face the difficult political problem of channeling
resources away from welfare programs in order to increase investment
and strengthen incentives to seek employment.
The addition of 75 million people each year to an already overcrowded
globe is exacerbating the problems of pollution, desertification,
underemployment, epidemics, and famine.
Because of their own internal problems and priorities, the
industrialized countries devote insufficient resources to deal
effectively with the poorer areas of the world, which, at least from an
economic point of view, are becoming further marginalized.
The introduction of the euro as the common currency of much of Western
Europe in January 1999, while paving the way for an integrated economic
powerhouse, poses economic risks because of varying levels of income
and cultural and political differences among the participating nations.
The terrorist attacks on the US on 11 September 2001 accentuate a
further growing risk to global prosperity, illustrated, for example, by
the reallocation of resources away from investment to anti-terrorist
programs. The opening of war in March 2003 between a US-led coalition
and Iraq added new uncertainties to global economic prospects. After
the coalition victory, the complex political difficulties and the high
economic cost of establishing domestic order in Iraq became major
global problems that continued into 2005.
GWP (gross world product) - purchasing power parity - $55.5 trillion
(2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 4.9% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $8,800 (2004 est.)
GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 4%
industry: 32%
services: 64% (2004
est.)
Unemployment rate: 30% combined unemployment and underemployment in
many non-industrialized countries; developed countries typically 4%-12%
unemployment
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
developed countries 1% to 4% typically; developing countries 5% to 60%
typically; national inflation rates vary widely in individual cases,
from declining prices in Japan to hyperinflation in several Third World
countries (2004 est.)
Industries:
dominated by the onrush of technology, especially in computers,
robotics, telecommunications, and medicines and medical equipment; most
of these advances take place in OECD nations; only a small portion of
non-OECD countries have succeeded in rapidly adjusting to these
technological forces; the accelerated development of new industrial
(and agricultural) technology is complicating already grim
environmental problems
Industrial production growth rate: 3% (2003 est.)
Electricity - production: 15.29 trillion kWh (2002 est.)
Electricity - consumption: 14.28 trillion kWh (2002 est.)
Oil - production: 76.01 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - proved reserves: 1.025 trillion bbl (1 January 2002 est.)
Natural gas - production: 2.637 trillion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - consumption: 2.599 trillion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - proved reserves: 161.2 trillion cu m (1 January 2002)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> that haven't access to affordable energy nor much of anything else that
> matters.
Over half the people in the world make more than $8,800 per year -
Over 3/4 of the people in the world make more than $6,000 per year -
per capita.
> And you probably wondered as to how weird I've been and of
> where some of those ENRON and Arthur Andersen folks got their ideas,
> and of a resident warlord like our very own GW Bush as having conceived
> of his preemptive notions of having to save humanity (mostly us white
> folk that thrive upon oil)
Highly inflammatory and lascivious remarks. Facts are that the
majority of people in the world are NON-white, and the majority of the
economic gains in the world have been to NON-white peoples, and the
majority of the world's resources flow to NON-white people - as if the
color of a people's skin mattered to anyone these days! Sheez!
> from all of those stealth/invisible WMD, as
> well as per his ongoing plan of action that has been responsible thus
> far for getting half the world that's mostly Muslim seriously piss off
> at us energy sucking Americans once again.
Only 1/4 of all the energy in the world is consumed by North America.
3/4 of the world's energy is consumed outside North America. The rate
of growth of energy use is around 4% per year in North America and 9%
per year in China! (which consumes more energy than any other nation
in the world).
> Brad Guth;
> - - - - - - If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it.
> ~
If you're looking for truth, you won't find it reading Brad Guth's
rants.
[snip]
Brad Guth
intentionally diverted by topic into his cesspool clubs of
"alt.fan.art-bell, alt.usenet.kooks", as for that reason alone I'll
have to repost so that the original groups of "sci.space.policy,
sci.space.history, sci.physics, sci.astro, alt.news-media" can
appreciate my efforts.
Besides microsatellites being a good thing, here's other micro-stuff as
food for honest thought:
"Scientists in Germany have used a Ti:sapphire laser to transfer DNA
into a cell. Femtosecond lasers improve the transfer of DNA into cells
and could advance the fields of gene therapy and DNA vaccination,
according to Uday Tirlapur and Karsten König of Friedrich Schiller
University in Jena (U Tirlapur and K König Nature 418 290)."
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/7/14/1
Apparently opening up the DNA barn door so that a DNA/RNA transfers can
most easily transpire as having been accomplished with the aid of
photons. The next logical step could be the actual DNA coding itself
being part of that door opening via photon process. Obviously Diatoms
are to some extent DNA photon encoded and/or evolved as based almost
entirely upon the influx of available photons, whereas without visible
and UV photons there are no populations of such diatoms to being had,
especially of the 250~750 nm photon receptive and thus photon energy
processing if not as though having been photon DNA encoded diatoms.
Interesting topic involving the matrix of what diatoms represent: Space
and Time travel
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=312873&page=15&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
I sort of like this guy that quotes; "To believe with certainty we must
begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"other galaxies are theorized as once being a part of a spiral, and
that clustered galaxies are the result of galaxy collision or other
unknown phenomenon. The spiral is the galaxy in order."
"look at nature all around you. Your skin is bound together by these
same patterns of force. look at this Diatom frustule. See how it's
matter is bound together at the microscopic level. That is the same
force that binds a spiral galaxy."
"It is the underlying pattern of magnetic force that binds all things
matter. ALL THINGS. Everything that is matter is bound together by
these micro patterns of magnetism. A spiral galaxy is just a very large
version of this same pattern that emerges."
"I see the universe as it is. Small. Very small, and simple. Yet it
reveals it's mysteries in very complex patterns. Simple law yielding
very complex patterns. a lot like E=mc2. A very simple equation, yet it
produces a very complex solution."
Although as "Tex_1224" gets every bit as per usual "uplink.space.com"
bashed out of context to as much death as possible, rather than the
warlords of uplink.space.com subjectively contributing to this honest
topic as a viable string of science, in spite of their flak there's
still a good amout of worthy persistance of considers as having been
honestly contributed by the original topic author: Tex_1224
Obviously this next one qualifies that "Tex_1224" is every bit as
delusional as myself, beyond the point of no return.
"One day, we Humans will overcome our pethetic fueds, and form a sigle
One world Government. At that time, we will join the rest of the
Galaxies civilizations. Time will be no more. We should look to the
center of the Galaxy for life, for its there that it thrives in all
forms."
Too bad that even NASA's uplink.space.com is so into their brown-nosed
intellectual arrogance and bigotry upon that of anything being the
least bit near the outside their all-knowing box of incest cloning,
thus representing a potential threat to their Skull and Bones agenda,
is why such topics and their authors are automatically placed upon
their chopping block, as their NASA version of E-Book Burning and/or
E-Witch Burning at the E-Stake of their insider usenet cultism that's
little more than providing a spendy infomercial of creating and farming
out MOS disinformation until them Apollo cows come home.
Just for keeping you folks on your toes, here's some extra news we can
use;
Diatomaceous Earth offers a rather unique combination of physical
properties:
Diatomaceous Earth / PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
http://www.agriorganics.com/products/insect_stop.html
High Porosity: Up to eighty-five percent of the volume of Diatomaceous
Earth is made up of tiny interconnected pores and volds. It is quite
literally more air than diatom.
High Absorption: Diatomaceous Earth can generally absorb up to 1 times,
its own weight in liquid and still exhibit the properties of dry
powder.
Diatoms as an element offers:
Silicon Dioxide SiO2 83.7%
Aluminum Oxide A1203 5.6%
Iron Oxide Fe203 2.3%
Calcium Oxide CaO 0.4%
Magnesium Oxide MgO 0.3%
Other Oxides 1.9%
Ignition Loss at 1000 5.3%
Semi quantitive spectrographic analysis of other elements:
Copper 2ppm
Strontium 100ppm
Titanium 1800ppm
Manganese 200ppm
Sodium 2000ppm
Vanadium 500ppm
Boron 50ppm
Zirconium 200ppm
Diatom mass (typically wet): @2.3 g/cm3
diatom skeletal mass (typically dry/inert): 0.48 g/cm3
Bulk inert/dry diatom mass = 320 to 640 grams per liter
Vacuum dried diatom mass would likely be somewhat less than 256 g/liter
Diatoms typical average size is 5 to 20 microns in diameter
@1e18 inert diatoms/liter = 1e12 diatoms/cm3 = 0.48/1e12 = 0.48e-12
g/skeletal diatom
Diatoms span a range of volumetric sizes, from 5e-3 millimeter(5
microns) up to 5 millimeters (5000 microns), although the vast majority
are of those less than 25 microns in diameter.
By some accounts there's enough diatomaceous diatom sketalital remains
in existance to cover the entire surface of Earth by more than 20
meters. As a biologials instrument of planetary terraforming, diatoms
might represent the very best of an all around adaptive solution.
Greater than 50,000 species have existed upon Earth, with far more than
6,000 as still living and thus populating species at our disposal that
are either bilaterally or radially symmetrical. By some accounts
diatoms are probably vegetable rather than animal. Although, when was
the last time any vegetable took nearly 2000 K to cook.
Boiling point: 2200°C (2473 K)
Melting point: 1710°C (1983 K)
Maximum wet density: 2.3 g/cm3
Diatoms offer most any shape, complexity, color and size. Here are a
few related web pages.
Dr. Kenneth Sandhage
"diatom reproduction rates can exceed several times per day."
http://www.matsceng.ohio-state.edu/~SANDHAGE/
"At a sustained replication rate of 3/day, 1.07 billion (2e30)
similarly-shaped 3D frustules can be generated from a single parent
diatom in 10 days!"
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/GeolSci/micropal/diatom.html
http://chemistry.jcu.edu/nicholsweb/diatoms/diatoms_web_page.htm
http://chemistry.jcu.edu/nicholsweb/diatoms/labeled_structures.htm
http://www.mbari.org/staff/conn/botany/diatoms/john/basics/repro.htm
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/DNAcount.ws.html
"With a refined technique, they have detected a single DNA molecule,
weighing in at 995,000 Daltons -- a shade more than 1 attogram" = 1e-18
gram, suggesting that typically vacuum dried diatom skeletal remains
are individually roughly an impressive 500,000 times heavier.
DNA mass/Daltons: Double Stranded DNA/RNA
DNA/dalton atomic mass:
DNA extractable from fingerprints
http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20030730-040600-4102r
"Although 10 "nanograms" might not sound like much, for DNA analysis,
even 0.1
nanogram is enough"
Obviously at 1 attogram (1e-18 g), the individual DNA/RNA string of
code is about as quantum string like close to being photon mass hauling
worthy as it gets. What say a viable DNA/RNA stran of code gets down to
a zeptogram (1e-21 g), as then we're talking of nearly atom to atom
alignments of which laser beams of photons have been accepted as
accomplishing such alignments as viable conduits of spinning atoms
quite nicely.
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/honors.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node6.html
>From this given physics web/lecture page offers that one atom of 12 C
is supposedly worth 1.9926465e-23 g, or 0.019926465 zepogram.
http://www.neutron.anl.gov/hyper-physics/atom.html
This .gov web page has one atomic mass unit (1 AMU=1.6606e-24g) as
1/12th the mass of the C12 isotope, thus 1 AMU = 0.0016606 zepogram.
Why the slight difference of 12C = 0.0199272 as to the previous
0.019926465 zepogram is outside of anything I can share.
http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m12432/latest/
"There are over 18 million known substances in our world."
Sounds pretty much like whatever intelligent design running amuck.
Brad Guth;
- - - - - - If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it.
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
- Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
pete
<willia...@mokindustries.com> sez:
` 4) of the 6.47 billion people worldwide, fewer than 800 million are in
` extreme poverty (less than $5 per day) - and those are in well
` concentrated regions of excessive political control by religious or
` communist zealots.
Utter nonsense. Most abject poverty is in africa, and the political
control is practised by people whose zealotry is focused acutely
on the accumulation of power and money for their own sake, free
of any religious or economic ideologies beyond "me first, me second,
everyone else last".
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
William Mook
indeed, but concentrated among those nations who still practice statist
policies. The wealthiest African populations are those served by
markets. Those less well off also include non-oil-rich muslim states
which practice a religious form of statism. This condition is
accurately reflected in my statements about excessive control by
religious or communist zealots.
Now, those who accumulate, or rather, create, vast wealth for
themselves, typically do so in a market based economy. The market,
involving voluntary exchanges of wealth, *requires* that those who
accumulate wealth provide something of value to those they acquire
wealth from. Thus, those who accumulate wealth in this way, regardless
of how they feel personally about others, creates value to others who
operate in the markets they operate in - which is the genius of the
market. It doesn't require loving-kindness to benefit everyone.
Brad Guth
>control is practised by people whose zealotry is focused acutely
>on the accumulation of power and money for their own sake, free
>of any religious or economic ideologies beyond "me first, me second,
>everyone else last".
BTW; Are you speaking as an employed and fully benefitted soul, or as
that of an unemployed individual without a shred of retirement benefits
after the stock exchange fiascos, TWA flight-800 and 9/11, or how about
just being summarily greenhouse storm ravaged on top of everything
else?
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
Brad Guth
Your out-of-context analysis is also flawed on several points. Perhaps
it's merely a DNA/RNA fault sort of genetic thing that's a family
incest trait on your side of the bush?
Mook's great ideas that someone out of your 55 trillion dollar/year
economy that's getting by upon their earning all of a buck fifty per
hard day should appreciate. Although, if you've recently (in the last
decade) lost your job which usually means losing all related retirement
benefits and obviously having zero medical coverage, whereas next or
soon thereafter you get to lose your home and most other possessions of
whatever you can't manage to carry from cardboard box to cardboard box,
plus otherwise being blown over or flooded out to boot is clearly
getting less benefit bang from that almighty buck fifty per day,
especially once you've subtracted for whatever it's actually taking
out-of-pocket and/or of taking from family and friends just to survive
in spite of our corrupt and immoral administration that hasn't a gram
of remorse to boot.
I'm not arguing that your math isn't sufficiently proving that
resources have been and still are available for spending hundreds of
billions if not an extra few trillions per year as per getting our
technology and a few sorry butts as far away from Earth as possible.
What I'm saying is that it has become a bit too little and too freaking
late in the ongoing program that's focused upon benefitting the upper
most 0.1% at the demise of having pillaged and raped mother Earth to a
fairlywell.
BTW; the last place we should be taking information from is via any
pagan biased "CIA World Fact Book".
For an example, here's pure crapolla on steroids, as for using gross
income as for meaning the same as expendable income, whereas in a few
too many places $12,000/year is barely break-even;
>Over half the people in the world make more than $8,800 per year -
>Over 3/4 of the people in the world make more than $6,000 per year -
>per capita.
You can't so much as ask for one dollar from the poor without
subtracting nourishment, health services, medications, education,
housing, transportation or of something other that's absolutely
essential if not for sustaining their lives at what's less than the
bare essentials (in other words of their day by day losing ground).
If you asked most folks that are not even all that poor, if they'd give
up so much as one soft-drink/soda for any of your space programs,
chances are that they'd first drink that soda in your face, then hand
you their empty container. Ask a truly poor soul to give up any portion
of what little they have, and you might be damn lucky to walk away
alive.
On the other honest hand, folks like myself as willing to be giving
unlimited matching funds to private industry and mostly to honest
individuals for the benefit of their achieving the sorts of
accomplishments, the likes of exactly what you've previously mentioned,
as such that would go quite a long ways towards achieving such goals,
and perhaps then some, especially since my only requirement of such
50/50 funding would be that no patents be established upon anything
that I'm sharing my wealth with.
>Since people generally overstate the poverty of the world, here is a
>reliable source of relevant information on the subject;
BTW; the last place on this artificially global warming Earth we sould
be taking our information from is via any biased "CIA World Fact Book",
that is unless you're looking for more of those liars telling us lies
until them NASA/Apollo cows come home.
>Only 1/4 of all the energy in the world is consumed by North America.
That's MOS mainstream status quo crapolla because, it's much worse off
once you've excluded the cooking of those skewed books by way of your
beloved Third Reich ENRON and Arthur Andersen accounting. I'd say it's
closer to a third of the global energy, that is unless you'd care to go
on a house per house basis, as then it's way more than half. We're only
at a third of the global energy consumption because so many of our big
energy consuming productions of plastics, glass, aluminum, steel and
other alloys have been off-line and/or shutting down for the past
couple of decades. Of what we don't consume at work we consume via our
personal 10 mpg Hummers going on average better than 100 miles per day.
Most homes and industry is not multi-fuel and/or alternative energy
powered because otherwise we'd have no options other than to accept
rolling black-outs.
We badly need to have established those 25 kw/m2 footprints worth of
towers extracting solar and wind energy.
If you're so damn energy smart-ass and all-knowing, then where the sam
hell are all of our basalt composite factories?
Where's all of our LH2 and H2O2 as having been easily derived from
clean and 100% renewable spare/surplus energy?
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
William Mook
> William Mook,
> Your out-of-context analysis is also flawed on several points.
Not really.
> Perhaps
> it's merely a DNA/RNA fault sort of genetic thing that's a family
> incest trait on your side of the bush?
Nice. That's certainly on topic NOT!
> Mook's great ideas that someone out of your 55 trillion dollar/year
> economy that's getting by upon their earning all of a buck fifty per
> hard day should appreciate.
This idea that someone is working AND making a dollar fifty per DAY is
a phantasm. While it is true that the unemployment rate for humanity
in general is around 30% - that puts 1.8 billion people unemployed or
UNDERemployed - those who have jobs make far more than $1 per day.
The problem isn't low wages - the problem is statist zealots who don't
allow the market to operate freely to benefit everyone.
> Although, if you've recently (in the last
> decade) lost your job
You speak as if someone who loses their job cannot find another one in
a growing economy. That's bullshit! The problem isn't losing one's
job. The problem is whether the economy is growing or not. An economy
grows by capital formation. If taxes in whatever form they take,
reduce the rate of capital formation, the economy cannot grow - and
hence, jobs and wages.
> which usually means losing all related retirement
> benefits
If no other job in the big wide world doesn't exist. Sure. But the big
wide world has lots of jobs. Or rather - if it doesn't WHY? The
answer is, people arent investing in new jobs. Why's that? Because
they can't find a reasonable investment? Why's that? Well, plenty of
reasons. The first and foremost, is if they have to pay excessive and
confiscatory taxes. the second is over - regulation, the third, lack
of market discipline - which is related to a lousy or corrupt police
and legal system, or lack of proper civil laws related to ownership,
property and so forth. ALL OF THESE - can be laid at the feet of
governments. If you have a government that takes more than is should
from its people, the people they serve will be impoverished. If you
have a government that doesn't trust its people with basic freedoms,
the peole will suffer from poverty. If you have a government that is
dishonest and corrupt, the people will suffer from poverty. If you
have a government that doesn't take care of its people's rights with
respect to property, the people will suffer poverty... The 1.8 billion
poorest people in the world are those that live under - or have
recently lived under - governments that have excessive taxes, no
markets, corrupt police, and no property rights. The 1.8 billion
richest people in the world are those that live under governments that
have reasonable and declining taxes, strong markets, honest police, and
property rights.
You wrongly imply that the rich take from the poor. Its not that way
at all. The rich create wealth for themselves. The poor cannot. Its
just that simple.
What we're talking about here is how to best secure general growth in
our global community. The answer to that question is to expand basic
strategic resources. The first, is energy. This is achieved by
tapping into coal reserves efficiently, and expanding that by tapping
into solar and nuclear energy cost effectively.
> and obviously having zero medical coverage, whereas next or
> soon thereafter you get to lose your home and most other possessions of
> whatever you can't manage to carry from cardboard box to cardboard box,
Generally talented people who lose one job quickly find another. In
fact, in a company having trouble, the MOST talented jump ship well
before the axe falls. The scenario you play out here is quite dramatic
- and for that reason beloved of story tellers - but lacks any referent
in reality.
> plus otherwise being blown over or flooded out to boot is clearly
> getting less benefit bang from that almighty buck fifty per day,
You spout utter bullshit. The poorest don't have jobs. That's the
problem. The problem isn't jobs that pay $1.50 per day because NONE
EXIST.
> especially once you've subtracted for whatever it's actually taking
> out-of-pocket and/or of taking from family and friends just to survive
You have this fantasy of someone who has a good job, doesn't save when
they are employed, doesn't look for a new job before the axe falls, and
can't find a job after getting axed, and saying that is the fault of
who exactly? Clearly in a healthy growing economy - with real honest
to God people who have half a brain - people leave one place of
employment and enter another place of employment without any difficulty
whatever!
> in spite of our corrupt and immoral administration that hasn't a gram
> of remorse to boot.
Corrupt? Who? Remorse? For what?
You are seriously brain dead sir.
> I'm not arguing that your math isn't sufficiently proving that
> resources have been and still are available for spending hundreds of
> billions if not an extra few trillions per year as per getting our
> technology and a few sorry butts as far away from Earth as possible.
Yes, our $55 trillion per year economy is growing in excess of 4% per
year - that's an EXTRA $2.2 TRILLION per year - CREATED by the hard
work of people who do have jobs.
> What I'm saying is that it has become a bit too little and too freaking
> late
With a 1.5% population growth rate, and a 4.5% economic growth rate,
REAL WEALTH is growing at 3.0% per year - which doubles income every 20
years or so. I think that is too slow - in less developed countries we
need something like 9% growth rate - to double income every 10 years or
less - this is sufficient to reverse population growth rates before
things get too far out of hand.
> in the ongoing program that's focused upon benefitting the upper
> most 0.1% at the demise of having pillaged and raped mother Earth to a
> fairlywell.
This is merest fantasy on your part. A real investment in space faring
technology, with the release of nuclear, entry body, and rocket
technologies to qualified vendors and operators, would pay large
dividends and put humanity on a path of tapping into the resources of
the interplanetary frontier - which is astronomical in size, and
capable of sustaining real economic growth for astronomical time
frames.
>
> BTW; the last place we should be taking information from is via any
> pagan biased "CIA World Fact Book".
Why?
> For an example, here's pure crapolla on steroids, as for using gross
> income as for meaning the same as expendable income, whereas in a few
> too many places $12,000/year is barely break-even;
For whom? But $12,000 per year is lots more than $1 per day though -
showing that you're full of shit - which was my point - a point which
you've verified.
> >Over half the people in the world make more than $8,800 per year -
> >Over 3/4 of the people in the world make more than $6,000 per year -
> >per capita.
> You can't so much as ask for one dollar from the poor
Who asked the poor for anything? That's the root of your problem. You
make this assumption that the rich got rich by robbing the poor or some
such - and that's foolishness. The poor are poor because they cannot
create the wealth they need. The rich are rich because they can.
WEALTH IS CREATED NOT TAKEN.
If the conditions for investing in space faring technology and
development of off world resources were met - it would be THE RICHEST
OF US that would risk the most. In fact, you can't even collect money
from unqualified investors in most start up situations. A qualified
investor must be worth $1 million or more - and that's not poor by any
stretch of the imagination.
> without
> subtracting nourishment, health services, medications, education,
> housing, transportation or of something other that's absolutely
> essential if not for sustaining their lives at what's less than the
> bare essentials (in other words of their day by day losing ground).
Money invested in profit making enterprises CREATE WEALTH - that's how
taxes get paid. Its government programs that impoverish people.
Needless regulation doesn't help either.
> If you asked most folks that are not even all that poor, if they'd give
> up so much as one soft-drink/soda for any of your space programs,
They don't have to - that's the point. Sirius satellite radio spent
millions on its space program - the richest in America and around the
world invested in it. They were successful - and as a result -
hundreds of millions of people have a new space based service at a
price they're happy to pay, and those investors who risked their money
- make money. EVERYBODY WINS BECAUSE WEALTH WAS CREATED. Those who
made money, if they don't pay it away in taxes, will have more money to
invest in new enterprises that creative business people come up with in
the future.
> chances are that they'd first drink that soda in your face, then hand
> you their empty container. Ask a truly poor soul to give up any portion
> of what little they have, and you might be damn lucky to walk away
> alive.
What mental defect causes you to believe the poor are the source of
wealth in this world?
> On the other honest hand, folks like myself as willing to be giving
> unlimited matching funds to private industry and mostly to honest
> individuals for the benefit of their achieving the sorts of
> accomplishments, the likes of exactly what you've previously mentioned,
> as such that would go quite a long ways towards achieving such goals,
> and perhaps then some, especially since my only requirement of such
> 50/50 funding would be that no patents be established upon anything
> that I'm sharing my wealth with.
People who invest outperform people who give by a very large measure
because people who invest multiply their wealth over time whilst people
who give deplete their resources over time.
> >Since people generally overstate the poverty of the world, here is a
> >reliable source of relevant information on the subject;
> BTW; the last place on this artificially global warming Earth we sould
> be taking our information from is via any biased "CIA World Fact Book",
> that is unless you're looking for more of those liars telling us lies
> until them NASA/Apollo cows come home.
>
> >Only 1/4 of all the energy in the world is consumed by North America.
> That's MOS mainstream status quo crapolla because, it's much worse off
> once you've excluded the cooking of those skewed books by way of your
> beloved Third Reich ENRON and Arthur Andersen accounting.
If you have better figures then point to them and explain why they're
better. You did not, so I must conclude you cannot - and so don't have
better figures and can't explain why they're better.
> I'd say it's
> closer to a third of the global energy, that is unless you'd care to go
> on a house per house basis, as then it's way more than half.
Look, if 80 million barrels of oil get bought each day and 20 million
of them get bought by Americans - then I'd say Americans buy 1/4 of all
the oil. All this hand waving on your part is shit - and you know it.
> We're only
> at a third of the global energy consumption because so many of our big
> energy consuming productions of plastics, glass, aluminum, steel and
> other alloys have been off-line and/or shutting down for the past
> couple of decades. Of what we don't consume at work we consume via our
> personal 10 mpg Hummers going on average better than 100 miles per day.
Hummers are far less than 1% of all vehicles on the road. So, they
don't account for much.
> Most homes and industry is not multi-fuel and/or alternative energy
So? That has nothing to do with the fact that Americans consume about
1/4 of all the energy in the world.
> powered because otherwise we'd have no options other than to accept
> rolling black-outs.
??? Horseshit
> We badly need to have established those 25 kw/m2 footprints worth of
> towers extracting solar and wind energy.
More horseshit
> If you're so damn energy smart-ass and all-knowing, then where the sam
> hell are all of our basalt composite factories?
Didn't say I was smart - you did. I'm just saying you're full of
horseshit.
> Where's all of our LH2 and H2O2 as having been easily derived from
> clean and 100% renewable spare/surplus energy?
Your head is humming and you think we all can hear it - so you ask
questions like this one. Might I suggest you take a pill and lay down
for a while.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
And you won't find it reading anything Brad Guth writes no matter what
you're looking for.
> "To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
> -Stanislaus I
Yes, and doubting Brad Guth's assertions is the best place to start
eliminating horseshit in your life.
> "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
> but having new eyes."
> -Marcel Proust
Something Brad Guth is genetically incapable of doing for himself.
> "Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
> action, not a thought."
> -F.W. Robertson
Doing something useful is something Brad Guth has repeatedly avoided
doing - witness the fiasco with the celestial mechanics references
after he whined about the lack of good data to compute the details of
operating a lunar skyhook.
phhhht!
[snip] (all propaganda designed to undermine the idea that space
development is a serious and respected activity)
dave.harper
Brad Guth wrote:
> >blart;
> >you could have an impactor slightly ahead of the microsat designed to shoot
> >a plume of ejecta back towards the microsat, bit like a shaped charge in
> >reverse
>
> >the microsat could then 'aerobrake' on the plume of ejecta via standard
> >ablative shield (maybe with armor)
>
> >then you're down
>
> Wow!, what an absolutely terrific idea.
It's also a pretty infeasible idea. Controlling the ejecta (achieving
a satisfactory cloud density and radius, making sure your impactor
doesn't produce large chucks which would destroy the craft, etc.) isn't
realistic. The amount of time, money, and overall effort put into
solving this is far greater than just putting a simple deceleration
engine on your craft.
Also, the deceleration is probably much higher than you expect. Let's
SUPPOSE you can create a "dense" cloud of ejecta with a radius of 500m.
Assuming that you're decelerating from 2400m/s at a constant rate,
that means you're going from 2400m/s to full stop in .417 seconds.
This is equivalent to almost 590 g's, which is more than double the
deceleration that any probe to date has yet experienced (the greatest
to my knowledge was around 250g's). Not that it's not possible, but I
think you'll find the initial problem of controlling the ejecta the
obstacle.
Dave
Brad Guth
why should this topic about "MICROSATELLITES; how small? How cheap?" or
most any other topic I've originated and thus proposed be any
different. Most often the likes of Usenet borgs the likes of "Art Deco"
and "Bookman" hijack and even entirely rename and divert my topics into
their privet cesspools of "alt.usenet.kooks" and "alt.fan.art-bell",
that is usually after they or their minions having first deployed as
much of their spermware/fuckware into my PC.
Unlike the hordes of uncontrolled author/topic stalking and bashing
that's essentially running Usenet amuck, I consider my personal topics
my home turf, and thus I expect those inviting themselves in to play by
my rules. If not, then I'll do my very best at returning the warm and
fuzzy topic bashing favor with as much love and affection as I can
muster.
Much like some of the interesting topics as having been shared to us by
the well to do "tomcat", another perfectly good Usenet topic originated
by "Space Cadet" that's about folks eventually exploiting our moon for
the benefit if not the salvation of humanity is hijacked by the likes
of "William Mook", and otherwise stalked and bashed by the likes of so
many others having no intentions of their honestly contributing any
positive worth to this topic, or even of the related sub-topics at
hand. The anti-doers and the anti-change anthing of the past, present
or future folks are however going out of their way in order to be
tossing out all the mainstream status quo flak they can muster.
Basically the negatives are getting in 90% of their kicks and
sucker-punches, while the 10% of whatever's potentially topic positive
related keeps getting continually lost in the croud.
Usenet has become a living and continually mutating cesspool collective
of intellectual, social/political and religious incest bullyism, if not
extreme cultism that's running amuck, with the naysayers encharge of
the biggest and baddest bullhorns so that their words are
overwhelmingly the ones being heard. Thus instead of having a global
Usenet science think-tank of reasonable thoughts and of viable what-if
considerations to ponder, instead of therefore attracting the better
half of the supposed expertise and other talents for resolving issues
and/or on behalf of constructively taking advantage of whatever's made
available to those of us willing to share and share alike, whereas
instead we have the gauntlet of Usenet insiders as bullies and
rusemasters of their realms, as they are go about their usual formula
of attracting the absolute scum of the Earth, and thereby affectively
shun the real world and even their own snookered mainstream media by
way of their over-shouting the truth.
One such barely ongoing topic is this following item, and of the
contributions I've made within taking up more than my fair share of
their flak.
Exploiting the Moon and saving the Earth
Willianm Mook sets another fine example of the mindset of a typical
Usenet contributor that doesn't seem to be the usual author/topic
stalking and bashing type, as actually willing to share and share alike
to the best of his limited abilities is very admirable, although
clearly is shared along with a twisted soul having a personal agenda as
affording little if any open mindedness to spare, as clearly being a
well to do individual as having little if any contact with actual
humanity. Fortunately, we can actually learn a thing or two from Mook
and, otherwise tell quite a bit about an individual that uses the CIA
Fact Book as his pagan bible.
I can also tell by the manner and/or by their polished form of wordings
that these folks seem better than average educated, as well as I can
tell in the case of Sir Mook that he very much believes in being pro
cold-war and thus pro-NASA'Apollo goes without question, but otherwise
he believes not in ET's or in any forms of intelligent design other
than what's terrestrial, thus anything and everything potentially
tainted with any ptentials of what other forms of life could have
managed and/or achieved is sooner or later going to get his pagan axe.
This is called being more than merely a little mindset, as it's
extremely closed-minded and as having deeply seeded ulterior motives to
boot, although with Sir Mook it's also arriving with a firm deliverence
of his atomic bomb powered spaceship that would actually work with only
somewhat minor impacts upon his somewhat perverted views as to the
limited worth of the sequestered humanity of this Earth, that according
to his calculations has way more than another trillion dollars to spare
each year, plus nearly another expendable 7%~10% booster shot per year
advantage from an endless cycle of industrial expansion on top of that.
In Mooks world, inflation and true unemployment factors do not exist,
and the actual cost of living is actually gong down, thus upon average
we minions of this Earth have even more expendable income than we know
what to do with, and we're just hording and otherwise hiding it like
we've been all of those WMD. Whereas to be suggesting alternatives
and/or even improvements that'll not be quite as environmentally
impacting and/or as spendy as per his Third Reich plan of actions,
which by the way isn't in lue of but in addition to all other plans of
actions by all others within his upper most 0.1% of humanity club, thus
in reality we're having to look at the multi-trillion dollar
expenditureds per year after year, along with their megatonnes of
created pollutions and obviously the continued drain upon our having
diverted so much of our most valuable resources and of course the
taking of absolute loads of our best talents and expertise as also
being diverted for decades on end as being the Mook norm of what's just
fine and dandy.
I've suggested that Mook as being so focused upon improving the quality
of life and for the future befitting of his upper most 0.1% of humanity
is just a wee bit austentacious, especially when the lower 99.9% of
humanity gets to fend for ourselves, at best being the minions to his
upper most 0.1% of humanity that'll need every available minion they
can get their greedy little hands on. Now it seems I'm not liked by
lord Mook.
His CIA Fact Book is what gives Sir Mook is supposed intelligence, as
his raw basis of being able to extract the extra billions per year
after year with apparently no one ever becoming smart enough to be
feeliing the pinch.
>There are 6,447 million people in the world. The US population exceeds
>280 million. The US and its close trading partners exceed 1,000
>million - this is 4.3% and 15.5% respectively. The US produces $9.5
>trillion per year and the world $55.0 trillion per year - thus the US
>thus the US' 4.3% of the world's population produces 17.2% of the
>world's econmic activity - and hence its resources.
The truth is that our CIA Fact Book is highly skewed and at best
extremely Third Reich formulated, and it doesn't even make for good
toilet-paper, as you might get an infection and end up dying from all
of the highly poisonous ink.
In spite of our best efforts to exterminate as many Muslims as possible
(especially of those sitting on an oily rock), and to otherwise allow
if not expedite vast ethnic cleansing to continue throughout this
world, there's more like 6.75 billions of mostly nice folks upon this
Earth, and despite our local rate of energy consumptions it seems that
our American economy is more or less in the toilet these days, whereas
we've been loosing technological as well as product wise and
educational ground faster than our not finding all of those WMD, nor
have we resolved in any way the core reasons as to why the Osama bin
Laden types are trying their level best to nail our energy and other
resource sucking butts as having been directly plus indirectly
responsible for nearly half the global pollution that has since gotten
the albedo of Earth down another notch, into absorbing more than our
fair share of solar energy influx, of thereby creating the extra global
energy imbalance that obviously has to go somewhere, and especially if
we're making it a touch cloudier by night. Of course the likes of lord
Mook only believe in the politically correct nature of soft-science and
of their conditional laws of physics.
Mook has further suggested that it takes merely a tonne of energy
related substances per individual per month in order to sustain our
typical quality of life. Obviously Mook isn't using his own lavish
quality of life as an example, nor of whatever it takes to sustain of
the rest of American life styles that seem to be getting into demanding
2,000 sq.ft. of residential space per soul and twice that amount as per
their employment, whereas that's 6,000 sq.ft. plus an SUV fleet of
those 10 mpg Hummers, all of which is fully (24/7) HVAC accommodated
and otherwise isn't the least bit make-do within nor of it's highly
manicured surroundings, and it certainly doesn't include their
individual fair energy shares of what all the vast numbers of private
and government facilities and public institutions that seem to be
running amuck, nor of all of their mega shopping malls, endless numbers
of strip malls, casinos and vast numbers of entertainment and
recreational investments that'll each demand their fair share of their
monthly megatonnage worth of that apparently endless Mook energy pot of
coal, oil and NG per month after month. Unfortunately, our local
supplies of that form of energy is entirely insufficient by a good 75%,
nor have our alternatives of hydroelectric and nuclear picked up hardly
any of the tab.
It currently takes nearly as much energy influx as per energy extracted
via our nuclear birth to grave cycle, thus that option is not even
within the same contest. Our deployment of solar and wind derived
alternatives are at best pathetic and not likely under the current
LLPOF administrations plus by way of their American oil cartel going to
allow such green/renewable alternatives to contribute any better off
than our pathetic usage of hydroelectric potential. Tidal current's
have been and will continue to being ignored as well, thus we're
snookered into favoring the fossil fuel alternatives for the
foreseeable future that is assured to include WW-III, WW-IV and if
there's any souls still standing over the last few drops of oil and
that final bucket of coal will insure that WW-V is going to finish off
whatever the likes of Sir Mook and his friends started more than a
century ago. At least by then we'll all know for certain whom has the
most and the best WMD.
Sir William Mook has great plans of U235 getting megatonnage into space
and for going after the resources of space and of whatever can be
extracted from other planets. However, his plans generally exclude our
moon by way of offering us no viable fly-by-rocket landers, especially
of nothing that'll even break even, much less safely manage getting
technology plus folks to/from our nearest orb of what's most likely
containing exactly the most value of what we'll eventually need in
order to survive. His lack of imagination matches his perverted mindset
to a bloody T. Mook's plans also exclude the extremely nearby orb of
Venus, even though each and every 19 months Venus is merely 105 fold
the distance to the moon, and of the highly buoyant atmosphere of Venus
is especially well suited to the comings and goings of rigid-airships
as shuttles, plus the matter of fact that all the necessary energy as
for sustaining life, for extracting and processing whatever, including
the fuels in order to return back home with whatever, are all ready
there to begin with. Yet lord and all-knowing wizard Mook is so
intellectually bigoted and otherwise into sustaining the mainstream
status quo of perpetrated cold-wars and whatever other ruse/sting it'll
take, that no matters what the show must go on and on until the fat
lady sings.
His pretentious lack of comprehending the vast advantages and
essentials of establishing the Lunar Space Elevator(LSE-CM/ISS) is yet
another perfect demonstration of what the generations of intellectual
and possibly DNA incest has mutated itself into. Thus the only way out
of the absolute genocide mess which the likes of Mook created in the
first place (much like the GW Bush cartel having created 911) is to
keep the all-American peddle to the metal, as well as to otherwise
avoid all possible chance of involving remorse on behalf of the lower
99.9% of humanity. That's obviously a big responsibility that not even
Hitler could manage to pull off, although a couple of Popes did manage
to pretty much nail the hides of those Cathars, whereas as it's
obviously too little and too late for all of those innocent souls, as
well as for all of those over-active Catholic peckers being publicly
castrated, much less for seeing a gram of respect and remorse on behalf
of all those innocent victims, Cathars and of the more so innocent
bystanders that paid the very same sort of price that William Mook has
in mind for the rest of us minions.
Fortunately for Mook, there's plenty of others within the very same
mainstream cesspool holding their ground onboard by way of continually
bailing out their good ship LOLLIPOP as for planning upon a course of
ramming the rest of us into submission, or optionally of being
assimilated into their Skull and Bones collective as having perpetrated
cold-wars from the very get-go. Thus all is not lost if we just give up
and join their ranks in this global energy domination quest to the very
end. As it's either them or us and, I'd certainly perceive that a
majority of folks (with or w/o God's blessings) would naturally want to
be on the winning side regardless of the total lack of morals and void
of remorse that's enstore, at least that's what worked for Jews when
they thoughtfully pointed out the likes of Jesus Christ to those nice
Romans. Perhaps that's what been wrong with my open minded mindset
that'll accept that we're extremely human, and as such having made the
very same mistakes over and over, as will likely continue this cycle
until them NASA/Apollo cows come home, which of course they're never
coming home from that God forsaken icy proto-moon that's been ever
since so gosh darn dark and nasty as well as for being so salty and
downright naked, thus horrifically way too damn hot or otherwise too
damn sub-frozen, obviously easily pulverised and reactive to boot.
With the likes of the all-knowing lords and wizards that are equals or
preferably somewhat less important than Mook, if it matters at all it
has to become fully published and accepted into their brown-nosed
mainstreams of our educational status quo, which therefore represents
that such materials need to have those LeapFrog pop-ups and sound chips
embedded, along with having those spendy sorts of HDTV productions of
3D animated and custom orchestrated surround-sound BBC/NOVA
infomercials that'll hype their dog-waggings to death before the likes
of Mook are going to pay any attention. Above all else, it needs to get
included within their all-knowing CIA Fact Book as being their pagan
bible/koran that matters the most. In other words, God or any other
form of intelligent design doesn't stand a chance.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
donsto...@hotmail.com
why should this topic about "MICROSATELLITES; how small? How cheap?" or
most any other topic I've originated and thus proposed be any
different. Most often the likes of Usenet borgs the likes of "Art Deco"
and "Bookman" hijack and even entirely rename and divert my topics into
their privet cesspools of "alt.usenet.kooks" and "alt.fan.art-bell",
that is usually after they or their minions having first deployed as
much of their spermware/fuckware into my PC.
Unlike the hordes of uncontrolled author/topic stalking and bashing
that's essentially running Usenet amuck, I consider my personal topics
my home turf, and thus I expect those inviting themselves in to play by
my rules. If not, then I'll do my very best at returning the warm and
fuzzy topic bashing favor with as much love and affection as I can
muster.
*******************
You have only one choce, Brad - a Hofstadterian JOOTS:
JUMP OUT OF THE SYSTEM
Brad Guth
Once again your numbers are soooo impressive, to the point where it's
almost as though they mean squat.
>This idea that someone is working AND making a dollar fifty per DAY is
>a phantasm. While it is true that the unemployment rate for humanity
>in general is around 30% - that puts 1.8 billion people unemployed or
>UNDERemployed - those who have jobs make far more than $1 per day.
Subtract those too damn old to count, then subtract all of those under
the age of 18 which are mostly part-timers at best and always spending
half again to twice as much as they earn by way of steeling, parental
matching funds or otherwise counting upon declaring bankruptcy before
they turn 21. Then subtract all of those that are sufficiently wealthy
but working for their own social status and their own amusement
principals that I'm sure you'd be the type as to admiring such, then
subtract those too sick or insane to work, whereas now your global
unemployment percentage of the potential workforce that's in need of a
viable job is looking a whole lot more like 60%.
>The problem isn't low wages - the problem is statist zealots who don't
>allow the market to operate freely to benefit everyone.
Oddly, I totally agree with this anti-inflation if not retro-inflation
method. So, what's your corrective plan of action, besides sitting on
your stinking butt. I know what I'd do, but then you'd have to disagree
just out of spite because you're William Mook, the all-knowing lord and
wizard of all there is to know, and it's all because you have your
nifty bible looking copy of that warm and fuzzy CIA Fact Book, on CD no
less.
>You speak as if someone who loses their job cannot find another one in
>a growing economy. That's bullshit! The problem isn't losing one's
>job. The problem is whether the economy is growing or not. An economy
>grows by capital formation. If taxes in whatever form they take,
>reduce the rate of capital formation, the economy cannot grow - and
>hence, jobs and wages.
Because you're such a nice guy that probably hasn't worked an honest
day in your life, and most likely hasn't been outside of your mansion
for the past four decades unless using one of your 5 mpg Hummer-limos,
whereas such I'm not going to contribute to the illusions you have
established about folks having lost their well earned and deserved high
paying and well benefitted job, and were even of those lucky enough to
have eventually after years of all other options having dried up
becoming re-employed, whereas for some unknown reasons after losing all
of their retirement investments, being unemployed for a couple of years
and thus bottoming out all of their personal bank accounts, pillaging
their collage and retirement investments that recently became worth all
of 10 cents on the dollar if they were lucky enough to not being
invested in any of dozens of big companies that took everyone to the
cleaners, next losing title to their home and typically that included
the 3rd or 4th mortgage fiasco that included all of their
transportation and most everything else as all rolled into one hope to
Christ of a last ditch effort to staying afloat, that even with their
last option of accepting a reverse mortgage it seems those dumb
bastards of a family of 6 or more somehow still can't manage to get by
on their part-time and zero benefit WalMart employment. Thus lo and
behold your "capital formation" comes to their rescue, allowing at
least one of the two bread winners to obtain a full-time WalMart
position with extremely limited benefits and perhaps even at a couple
of bucks an hour above minimum wage, that is as long as they're not
whistle blower, don't mind the 100+ mile to/from commute each day, and
don't mind working all of those extra hours for regular pay.
What could possibly be a better all around outcome for such a 20+ year
and thus highly experienced and otherwise skilled machinist or
engineering type, or perhaps as a scientist or possibly even as an
architect or fine furniture and cabinet worker as might aspire to being
that freaking lucky. Of course, we're talking about those folks of
their mid 40s to mid if not late 50's that'll be starting all over from
scratch, plus still having a good portion of if not all of their
previous debts to clear up. Gee whiz Mook, what could possibly go
wrong?
I just love it when Mook talks dirty.
>You wrongly imply that the rich take from the poor. Its not that way
>at all. The rich create wealth for themselves. The poor cannot. Its
>just that simple.
If this hasn't been lord Mook as a Jewish freelance nazi collaborator
speaking, then I don't know what is.
>What we're talking about here is how to best secure general growth in
>our global community. The answer to that question is to expand basic
>strategic resources. The first, is energy. This is achieved by
>tapping into coal reserves efficiently, and expanding that by tapping
>into solar and nuclear energy cost effectively.
Other than the little part about our taping into solar energy, the rest
of your manifesto/rant is worth far less than used toilet-paper, almost
as badly soiled as for your next statement that sucks and blows even
for such a wealthy Jew (oops, perhaps you're also a wealthy mormon? or
since you can't possibly belive in God, in which case you're just a
wealthy pagan spirit that has developed a taste for the blood of
others)
>Generally talented people who lose one job quickly find another. In
>fact, in a company having trouble, the MOST talented jump ship well
>before the axe falls.
Do you per chance have a specialized horsepucky maze as a shield
against angry unemployed minions, or perhaps a toxic mote surrounding
your castle?
Take my advise, don't bother brown-nosing your way thorugh the
mainstream status quo cesspool on behalf of polishing off the butts of
so many of our previous or of the present day administration that
seriously sucks and blows at the same time. Oops, too late.
:plus otherwise being blown over or flooded out to boot is clearly
:getting less benefit bang from that almighty buck fifty per day,
>You spout utter bullshit. The poorest don't have jobs.
Dear Mr. out of context, Mook. Say what? Are you and your Third Reich
collective suggesting that poor folks (black or white) as the apparent
scum of the Earth being the sort of trash they are within your book
didn't have those jobs to lose in the first place?
>You have this fantasy of someone who has a good job, doesn't save when
>they are employed, doesn't look for a new job before the axe falls, and
>can't find a job after getting axed, and saying that is the fault of
>who exactly? Clearly in a healthy growing economy - with real honest
>to God people who have half a brain - people leave one place of
>employment and enter another place of employment without any difficulty
>whatever!
Gosh almighty, if we'd only realized upon 10% of what lord Mook knows,
as such this nation would have been trillions of dollars within the
black each year after year, thus trillion upon trillions better off
than we are right now, and that's even on top of our spending all of
those other trillions upon those perpetrated cold-wars, of the 911
fiasco and upon all of those snipe hinting expenditures for locating
all of those WMD that apparently look exactly like Muslim oil wells.
Thus explains your "Corrupt? Who? Remorse? For what?"
>Yes, our $55 trillion per year economy is growing in excess of 4% per
>year - that's an EXTRA $2.2 TRILLION per year - CREATED by the hard
>work of people who do have jobs.
Apparently exterminating innocent Muslims is a whole lot more
profitable than I'd imagined. Oops, did you forget that I really don't
like you, not as a person nor as a Usenet contributor, but only because
you're willing to at least share your views is a great help even if you
are a wee bit Hitler like. At least that way we all know that you have
such weird ideals as based upon some other planet, thus there's hope
yet that if we survive your WW-III, that we survivors as mutated as we
may have to become might possibly find your home world and thereby
enable us to drop you back off where you belong, whereas your following
manifesto/rant makes it perfectly clear that your home world uses
extremely advanced math and of those conditional laws of physics so
much better than us heathens as having been sequestered upon Earth.
>With a 1.5% population growth rate, and a 4.5% economic growth rate,
>REAL WEALTH is growing at 3.0% per year - which doubles income every 20
>years or so. I think that is too slow - in less developed countries we
>need something like 9% growth rate - to double income every 10 years or
>less - this is sufficient to reverse population growth rates before
>things get too far out of hand.
The rest of your manifesto/rant is hit and miss along with the good,
the bad and the ugly, although I believe the "ugly" has by far taken
the majority rule in your case, and I'm not all that sure of what's
good about your mindset is good enough considering the past, current
and future mess of what the lower 99.9% of humanity will have to
continually pay over and over for what collateral damage and carnage of
the innocent that you've accomplished thus far. I assume that you're
the damn fool on the hill that nominated GW Bush for receiving a Nobel
Piece Prize award? And, what sort of prize does your Henry
Kissinger(aka Dr. Death) get?
>What mental defect causes you to believe the poor are the source of
>wealth in this world?
I'll just suggest with my usual exaggeration that without the poor as
your brown-nosed minions, as willing souls begging as to be working for
that buck fifty per sweatshop day, you wouldn't be nearly as rich.
Since you're so good with numbers, perhaps you can far better explain
this little matter of the rich getting richer fact.
Microsoft executive employee 'Jane' visits a local charity function
that's essentially collecting cash-cash donations for their cause.
Jane sees that there's a bit more than $500 of cash-cash accumulated in
the donation jar.
Jane offers to kindly replace those 500 cash-cash dollars with a
personal check for $1000
Charity obviously accepts the offer and summarily forks over the $500
cash-cash to Jane, in exchange for that $1000 personal check.
Jane of course is working for an upstanding company(Microsoft) that in
addition to having ripped off countless other software companies and
basically caught manipulating the market place via ENRON, WorldCom and
Arthur Andersen style of cooking their books and otherwise having been
caught red-handed with both hands in the cooky jar of life, essentially
having been taking way more than their fair share of the cookies by way
of pillaging and steeling from others, also has an in-house policy of
always compensating their executives with a 50/50 matching fund of
whatever gets donated into the local community by one of their own
kind, thus Jane forks over her cancelled check of $1000 and her
boss/MicroSoft in turn shells out the extra $500 as per the 50/50
matching fund bonus in order to fairly compensate Jane having donated
her personal check of $1000.
1) Howmuch money did the Cherity actually end up with? ($1000)
2) How much did Microsoft and Jane take as a tax deduction? ($1000)
3) How much did Jane actually donate to the Charity? (-$0)
4) How much tax-free cash-cash did Jane end up with? ($500)
Of course there's no limits as to how often and/or for how much is
donated in this manner, or even if limited to local community
involvements, and certainly MicroSoft has a good thousand of these
do-gooders as their representatives proving that such upstanding
Microsoft employees and the company they keep are actually the good
guys. In fact, as long as you've got the tried and proven Arthur
Anderson set of book keeping skills down pat, there's almost no end as
to where this tax avoidance shell game can take you.
Of course, I could run the numbers as to what these thousand Microsoft
executive qualified employees could collectively manage to pull off per
year after year, and I could only imagine as to what the corporate
levels could manage to shell as their part of essentially giving those
same sorts of tax-avoidance dollars to their upper most rich, namely
themselves. Thus without even involving offshore banking and other
phony baloney corporate partners in crimes against humanity, it seems
that local companies of which I'm fairly certain that you own a good
part of can basically get a tax-free ticket to ride, if not a whole lot
better yet. Naturally we'll expect you to put another typically
positive 'Mook' dog-wagging spin on this.
A typically loaded question as the following is exactly what I'd expect
from such a CIA Fact Book pagan LLPOF bigot that cares less about
humanity, that is unless it's working dirt cheap for your benefit. I
have lots of personal examples of such remorseless folks that are
actually as bad as yourself at taking from the poor and giving to the
rich.
>If you have better figures then point to them and explain why they're
>better. You did not, so I must conclude you cannot - and so don't have
>better figures and can't explain why they're better.
Do NOT assume any such notions, as only a pagan fool on the hill would
dare to push my lose cannon buttons. However, as to the original topic
that's clearly being avoided by way of your hijacking this topic into
your typical cesspool of 'my facts are better than your facts', whereas
instead you above all should be the one contributing as to the better
ways and/or methods of achieving such cheap and efficient satellites
that'll basically bring home the bacon at perhaps less than 10 cents on
the dollar, and actually involving far less than a cent on the dollar
if being accomplished in lue of any manned mission to/from our moon.
>Doing something useful is something Brad Guth has repeatedly avoided
>doing - witness the fiasco with the celestial mechanics references
>after he whined about the lack of good data to compute the details of
>operating a lunar skyhook.
This last statement of your's is only further proof positive that you
are a Third Reich member in good standing, Skull and Bones worthy to
boot. Again, you seriously brown-nose suck and blow like all the others
of this disinformation cesspool of GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA crapolla on
steroids. You are a liars, your are a perverted sicko bastard and
you're obviously anti-ET as well as anti-God while being 100+% pro Dick
Cheney and GW Bush all the way. I bet that your blood sucking soul owns
a good amount of Halburton as well.
Obviously lord 'Mook' isn't looking for the truth in much of anything
that's not published within his CIA fact book. Perhaps I'll return as
to extracting a few more of your Th rid Reich notions, as I could
certainly use the practice shots of whatever my lose cannons can manage
to deliver.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
Brad Guth
>You have only one choce, Brad - a Hofstadterian JOOTS:
>JUMP OUT OF THE SYSTEM
with.
You're leaving out lord/wizard 'Mook', as yet another one of your
sticky wet-bed partners in crimes against humanity. Besides the blood
sucking 'Mook's' of this Usenet that sucks and blows, why not include a
few quotations from your Muslim exterminating friends Dick Cheney and
GW Bush into the cloning frenzy so that you can all swim about in your
mutual sperm as a warm and fuzzy way of such good and wholesome
fellowship bonding.
God forbid, you sure as hell wouldn't want to contribute anything the
least bit related to the original topic at hand being "MICROSATELLITES;
how small? How cheap?", as that would be anti-spookism.
John Thingstad
I am aware that you insist to enrage people with outrageous statements that
people didn't land on the moon on 6'th july 1969.
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:48:49 +0100, Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Rand Simberg
Thingstad" <john.th...@chello.no> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Stop insulting Kurt Vonnegut by quoting in yor posts.
Given the vapid stupidity of many of the things that he says, quoting
him *anywhere* is a form of insulting him (and a well deserved one).
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:07:25 +0100, in a place far, far away, "John
>Thingstad" <john.th...@chello.no> made the phosphor on my monitor
>glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>him *anywhere* is a form of insulting him (and a well deserved one).
I'll second that.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Brad Guth
What's there to enrage?
>Stop insulting Kurt Vonnegut by quoting in yor posts.
>I am aware that you insist to enrage people with outrageous statements that
>people didn't land on the moon on 6'th july 1969.
Isn't the truth and nothing but the hard-science and regular laws of
physics truth worth anything these warm and fuzzy days of wine and
roses?
Why are you staying off-topic?
What's so horrifically complicated and/or testy about "MICROSATELLITES;
how small? How cheap?"?
BTW; Kurt Vonnegut isn't the least bit insulted because, he knows
better than most that I'm more than right about the current
administration than I'm being given credit for, and Kurt certainly
can't prove that I'm wrong about our once upon a time icy proto-moon,
about other life coexisting upon Venus or even as to the
taboo/nondisclosure enforced policy as to the Sirius star/solar system.
So, what's your pathetic excuse?
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Bill Higgins
But I did like Vonnegut's suggestion that we should require the
Eight Beatitudes to be posted in courtrooms, instead of the Ten Commandments.
--
"Since you belong to the company of wise men, | Bill Higgins
and apparently do not kill anyone for money, |
for money, tell me, pray, how you occupy yourselves." | Fermilab
|
"We dissect flies," said the same philosopher, |
"we measure distances, we calculate numbers, | Internet:
we are agreed upon two or three points |
which we understand, and we dispute about | hig...@fnal.gov
two or three thousand of which we know nothing." |
--Voltaire, "Micromegas" (1752) |
Brad Guth
Why are you avoiding the original topic?
Are you too dumb and dumber, thus too dumbfounded to boot?
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Brad Guth
yourself that suck and blow the absolute hardest.
Why are you and your Third Reich friends pretending as being into any
free market based economy?
Exactly how much of the Halburton free market based economy do you own?
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Karla Rove
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS [Mexican/Central American] FIRST ON MARS!
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
Satellites One
http://kal007mystery.tripod.com/satellites1.html
Satellites Two
http://kal007mystery.tripod.com/satellites2.html
Brad Guth
blows bigger than ever. Thus why should this honest topic about
"MICROSATELLITES; how small? How cheap?" or most any other topic that
I've originated and thus proposed as viable alternatives be treated any
different. Most often the likes of Usenet borgs the likes of "Art Deco"
diverted my topics into their privet cesspools of "alt.usenet.kooks"
and "alt.fan.art-bell", that is usually after they and/or their minions
having first deployed as much of their spermware/malware as Usenet
fuckware into my PC.
Unlike the hordes of uncontrolled author/topic stalking and bashing
that's essentially running Usenet amuck, I consider my personal topics
as my home turf, and thus I expect those inviting themselves in to play
by my rules. If not, then I'll certainly do my very best at returning
the warm and fuzzy topic/reply bashing favor with as much love and
affection as I can muster.
Much like some of the interesting topics as having been shared to us by
the well to do "tomcat", another perfectly good Usenet topic originated
by "Space Cadet" that's all about folks eventually exploiting our moon
for the benefit if not the salvation of humanity gets hijacked by the
likes of "William Mook", and otherwise stalked and bashed by the likes
of so many others having no intentions of their honestly contributing
any form of positive worth to this or any other topic that's not fully
NASA/Apollo and thus MI6/NSA~CIA certified, or even upon the related
sub-topics at hand. The naysayers, anti-doers and above all the
anti-change anthing of the past, present or future are however going
out of their way in order to be tossing out all of their mainstream
status quo infomercials, plus whatever damage-control flak they can
muster. Basically the negatives have been getting in 90+% of their
kicks and sucker-punches, while the 10% or less of whatever's
potentially topic positive related keeps getting continually lost in
the croud.
Usenet has long been and has most recently become a fully biological
organic reformation of a living and continually mutating cesspool
collective of the worse possible anti-everything manifesto focused upon
destroying whatever's outside of their mainstream status quo box, of
Third Reich collaborating intellectuals of the worse social/political
and religious incest bullyism, if not the utmost extreme cultism that's
running amuck, along with such naysayers encharge of the biggest and
baddest bullhorns so that their words are overwhelmingly the ones being
heard. Thereby instead of having a global Usenet of a nifty science
think-tank of reasonable thoughts and of viable what-if considerations
to ponder, instead of therefore attracting the better half of the
supposed expertise and other talents for resolving issues and/or on
behalf of constructively taking advantage of whatever's been made
available by their own kind as well as by those of us village idiots
willing to share and share alike, whereas instead we have to survive
their MI6/NSA~CIA gauntlets of Usenet insiders as commercial
infomercial rusemasters and bullies of their realms, as they go about
their usual tactical strategy of attracting and motivating the absolute
scum of the Earth, and thereby affectively shun the real world and even
their own snookered mainstream media gets easily dumbfounded by way of
their over-shouting the truth.
Using the 'CIA World Fact Book' as their pagan bible/koran gives new
meaning to paganism, arrogance, greed, torture and just plain old LLPOF
pillaging, plundering and the full blown raping of humanity as well as
for their having taken our global environment to it's knees.
One such barely surviving topic is this following item, and of the many
contributions I've made within this topic seemingly haven't managed the
intended impact, thus having taken up more than my fair share of their
all-knowing sanctimonious flak.
Exploiting the Moon and saving the Earth
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/75d6c3946bb77a85/9ad125ce352e9881#9ad125ce352e9881
As usual, Willianm Mook sets up another fine example of his mindset of
a typical Usenet contributor that doesn't at first seem to be the usual
author/topic stalking and bashing type, as actually having been willing
to share and share alike to the best of his limited abilities is very
admirable, although clearly is shared along with a twisted soul having
a deeply skewed personal agenda as affording little if any open
mindedness to spare, as clearly being a well to do individual as having
little if any contact with actual humanity. Fortunately, we can
actually learn a thing or two from the likes of lord Mook and,
otherwise tell quite a bit about an individual that continually uses
the CIA World Fact Book as his pagan bible. If the CIA World Fact Book
stipulated by way of classifying Jesus Christ was an Al-Qaida terrorist
and Henry Kissinger(aka Dr. Death) as a bloody God, that would be all
she wrote.
I can also tell by the manner and/or by their polished form of carfully
scripted wordings, that these folks seem better than average educated,
as well as I can tell in the case of Sir Rusemaster Mook that he very
much believes in being pro cold-war and thus pro-NASA/Apollo goes
without question, but otherwise he believes not in ET's or in any
possible forms of intelligent design other than what's terrestrial,
thus anything and everything potentially tainted with any potentials of
what other forms of life could have managed and/or achieved is sooner
or later going to get his pagan axe. This is called being more than
merely a little pagan mindset, as it's extremely closed-minded and as
having deeply seeded ulterior motives to boot, although with Sir Mook
it's nearly always arriving with a firm deliverence of his atomic bomb
powered spaceships that would actually work with only somewhat minor
impacts upon his somewhat perverted views as to the limited worth of
the sequestered humanity of this Earth, that according to his
calculations has way more than another trillion dollars to spare each
and every year, plus nearly another expendable 7%~10% booster shot per
year advantage as extracted from an endless cycle of industrial
expansion on top of that. In Mook's world that is clearly not of Earth,
inflation and true unemployment factors do not exist, there's no such
artificial pollution nor subsequent global warming factors, and the
actual cost of surviving is actually going down, thus upon average we
minions of his world have even more expendable income than folks know
what to do with, and we're just hording and otherwise hiding it like
we've been hiding all of those WMD. Whereas to be suggesting
alternatives and/or even improvements that'll not be quite as
environmentally impacting and/or as spendy as per his Third Reich plan
of actions, which by the way isn't in lue of but in addition to all
other plans of actions by all others within his upper most 0.1% of
humanity club, thus in reality we're having to look at the
multi-trillion dollar expenditureds per year after year, along with
their megatonnes of created pollutions and obviously the continued
drain upon our having diverted so much of our most valuable resources
and of course the taking of absolute loads of our best talents and
expertise as also being diverted for decades on end as being the Mook
norm of what's just fine and dandy.
I've suggested that perhaps lord Mook as being so focused upon
improving the quality of life and for the future befitting of his upper
most 0.1% of humanity is just a wee bit austentacious, especially when
the lower 99.9% of humanity gets to fend for ourselves, at best being
the minions to his upper most 0.1% of humanity that'll need every
available brown-nosed minion they can get their greedy little hands on.
Now it seems, for some reason I'm not liked by lord Mook.
His CIA World Fact Book is what gives Sir Mook is supposed
intelligence, as his raw basis of being able to extract all of those
extra billions if not trillions per year after year with apparently no
one ever becoming smart enough to be feeliing the pinch.
>There are 6,447 million people in the world. The US population exceeds
>280 million. The US and its close trading partners exceed 1,000
>million - this is 4.3% and 15.5% respectively. The US produces $9.5
>trillion per year and the world $55.0 trillion per year - thus the US
>thus the US' 4.3% of the world's population produces 17.2% of the
>world's econmic activity - and hence its resources.
The truth is that our CIA World Fact Book is highly skewed and at best
extremely Third Reich formulated, and it doesn't even make for good
toilet-paper, as you might get an infection and end up dying from all
of the highly poisonous ink. I happen to believe that SpongeBob
Squarepants or even Bart and Lisa Simpson could manage to accomplish a
far better blow-job than of anything based upon our CIA that can't even
manage to torture prisoners and/or exterminate Muslims as based
entirely upon their own butt sucking lies upon lies, that is without
their getting brown-nosed in the process and thus caught brown-handed.
In spite of our ongoing best efforts to exterminate as many Muslims as
possible (especially of those sitting on an oily rock), and to
otherwise allow if not expedite vast ethnic cleansing to continue
throughout this world, there's more like 6.75 billions of mostly nice
folks upon this Earth, and despite our local rate of numerous energy
consumptions it seems that our American economy is more or less in the
toilet these days, whereas we've been loosing technological as well as
product wise and educational ground faster than our not finding all of
those WMD, nor have we resolved in any way the core reasons as to why
the Osama bin Laden types are trying their level best to nail our
energy and other resource sucking butts as having been directly plus
indirectly responsible for nearly half the global pollution that has
since gotten the albedo of Earth down another notch, into absorbing
more than our fair share of solar energy influx, of thereby creating
the extra global energy imbalance that obviously has to go somewhere,
and especially if we're making it a touch cloudier by night. Of course
the likes of lord Mook only believe in the politically correct nature
of soft-science and of their conditional laws of physics.
Wizard Mook has further suggested that it takes merely a tonne of
energy related substances per individual per month in order to sustain
our typical industrial quality of life. Obviously Mook isn't using his
own lavish quality of life as an example, nor of whatever it takes to
sustain of the rest of American life styles that seem to be getting
into demanding 2,000 sq.ft. of residential space per soul and involving
twice that amount as per their employment, whereas that's 6,000 sq.ft.
plus a spiffy SUV fleet of those 10 mpg Hummers, all of which is having
to be fully (24/7) HVAC accommodated and otherwise isn't the least bit
make-do within nor of it's highly manicured surroundings, and it
certainly doesn't include their individual fair energy shares of what
all the vast numbers of private and government facilities and public
institutions that seem to be running amuck upon vast amounts of their
own energy consumptions, nor is this inclusive of all their mega
shopping malls, endless numbers of strip malls, casinos and vast
numbers of various 24/7 ongoing entertainment and recreational
investments that'll each demand their fair share of their monthly
megatonnage worth of that apparently endless Mook energy pot of coal,
oil and NG per month after month. Unfortunately, our local supplies of
such forms of this required energy is entirely insufficient by a good
75%, nor have our outdated alternatives of hydroelectric and nuclear
picked up hardly any of the tab.
It currently takes nearly as much energy influx as per energy extracted
via our nuclear birth to grave cycle, therefore the nuclear option is
not even within the same contest. Our deployments of solar and wind
derived alternatives are at best pathetic and not likely under the
current LLPOF administrations plus by way of their Bush/American oil
cartel going to allow such forms of green/renewable alternatives to
contribute any better off than our pathetic usage of hydroelectric
potential. Tidal current's have been and will continue being ignored as
well, thus we're snookered our dumbfounded selves into favoring the
fossil fuel alternatives for the foreseeable future that is assured to
include WW-III, WW-IV and if there's any souls still standing over the
last few drops of oil and that final bucket of coal will only insure
that WW-V is going to finish off whatever the likes of Sir Mook and of
his incest collective of friends started more than a century ago. At
least by the time WW-V roles around is when we'll all know for certain
whom has the most and the best WMD in town.
Sir William Mook has such great plans of U235 getting megatonnage into
space and for going after the resources of whatever can be extracted
from other moons and planets. However, his plans generally exclude our
own moon by way of offering us no viable fly-by-rocket landers,
especially of nothing that'll even $/$ break even, much less
energy/energy or that of merely safely manage getting technology plus
folks to/from our nearest orb of what's most likely containing the most
value of exactly what we'll eventually need in order to survive. His
lack of imagination matches his perverted sicko mindset to a bloody T.
Mook's plans also manage to entirely exclude the extremely nearby orb
of Venus, even though each and every 19 months Venus is merely 105 fold
the distance to our moon, and of the extremely buoyant atmosphere of
Venus is especially well suited to the comings and goings of
rigid-airship/shuttles, plus the matter of fact that all the necessary
energy as for sustaining life, for extracting and processing upon
whatever, including the obtaining of fuels necessary in order to return
back home with whatever is pillaged, are allready there to begin with.
Yet lord and all-knowing wizard Mook is so intellectually bigoted and
otherwise into sustaining the mainstream status quo of perpetrated
cold-wars and whatever other ruse/sting it'll take, that no matters
what the perpetrated shows must go on and on until the fat lady sings.
Mook's pretentious lack of comprehending the vast advantages and
essentials of establishing the Lunar Space Elevator(LSE-CM/ISS) is yet
another perfect demonstration of what the generations of intellectual
and quite possibly DNA incest has mutated itself into. Thus the only
way out of the absolute genocide mess which the likes of Mook and our
resident warlord created in the first place (much like the GW Bush
global energy cartel having created 911) is to keep the all-American
peddle to the metal, as well as to otherwise avoid all possible chance
of involving remorse on behalf of the lower 99.9% of humanity. That's
obviously a big responsibility that not even Hitler could manage to
pull off, although a couple of Popes did manage to pretty much nail the
hides of those Cathars, whereas as it's obviously too little and too
late for all of those innocent souls, as well as for all of those
over-active Catholic peckers that should have been publicly castrated,
much less for seeing a gram of respect and remorse on behalf of all
those innocent victims, of so amy Cathars and of the more so innocent
bystanders that paid the very same sort of price that William Mook has
in his sick mind for the rest of us minions.
Fortunately for the likes of Mook, there's plenty of others within the
very same mainstream cesspool holding their ground onboard the fleet of
sinking ships, by way of continually bailing out their good ship
LOLLIPOP and as for their planning upon staying a course of ramming the
rest of us into submission, or optionally of our being assimilated into
their Skull and Bones collective as having perpetrated those spendy and
somewhat lethal cold-wars from the very get-go. Thus all is not lost if
we all just give up and join their ranks in this global energy
domination quest to the very end. As it's either them or us and, I'd
certainly perceive that a majority of folks (with or w/o God's
blessing) would naturally want to be on the winning side regardless of
the total lack of morals and void of remorse that's enstore, at least
that's what worked for Jews when they thoughtfully pointed out the
likes of Jesus Christ to those nice Romans. Perhaps that's what been
wrong with my open minded mindset that'll accept that we're extremely
human, and as such having made the very same mistakes over and over, as
will likely continue this cycle until them NASA/Apollo cows come home,
which of course they're never coming home from that God forsaken icy
proto-moon that's been ever since so gosh darn dark and nasty as well
as for being so salty and downright naked, thus horrifically way too
damn hot or otherwise too damn sub-frozen, obviously easily pulverised
and reactive to boot.
With the likes of the all-knowing lords and wizards of Usenet that are
equals or preferably somewhat less important than lord almighty Mook,
whereas if anything matters at all it has to become fully published and
accepted into their brown-nosed mainstreams of our educational status
quo, which therefore represents that such materials need to have those
CIA LeapFrog pop-ups and sound chips embedded pages of their World Fact
Book, along with having all of those spendy sorts of HDTV productions
of 3D animated and custom orchestrated surround-sound BBC/NOVA
infomercials that'll hype their disinformation and whatever
dog-waggings to death before the likes of Mook are going to pay any
attention. Above all else, it needs to get certified as published
within their all-knowing CIA World Fact Book as being their pagan
bible/koran that matters the most. In other words, God or any other
form of intelligent design doesn't stand a chance.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).