Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin

[Robert Clark]

Kudos to Blue Origin. This is a MAJOR milestone towards reusable rockets.
The key capability that allowed the New Shepard to land successfully while
SpaceX failed is hovering ability. SpaceX would already have succeeded if
they had given the F9 the ability to hover:

Hovering capability for the reusable Falcon 9, page 2: Merlin engines in a
pressure-fed mode?
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/07/hovering-capability-for-reusable-falcon.html


Bob Clark

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions, to discover life on
another world. By commercial space, launch and spacecraft costs can be
slashed by a factor of 10 or more. This would be a cost that could be
financed privately. And at costs this low it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.30beb884b...@news.eternal-september.org...

I saw this on Twitter this morning.

Blue Origin - Historic Rocket Landing - Published on Nov 24, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo

Yes, I know it's only suborbital, but a successful launch, separation,
descent, and landing from 100 km is nothing to sneeze at.

Jeff
--

[Jeff Findley]

In article <n3upd4$hgo$2...@dont-email.me>,
rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...

>
> Kudos to Blue Origin. This is a MAJOR milestone towards reusable rockets.
> The key capability that allowed the New Shepard to land successfully while
> SpaceX failed is hovering ability.

Again, the suborbital stage used by Blue Origin does not have the same
dry mass ratio requirement that the Falcon 9 first stage has. So, the
problem is easier for Blue Origin to solve even discounting the
differences in engine technology.

> SpaceX would already have succeeded if
> they had given the F9 the ability to hover:
>
> Hovering capability for the reusable Falcon 9, page 2: Merlin engines in a
> pressure-fed mode?
> http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/07/hovering-capability-for-reusable-falcon.html

Might work, but increases complexity because now the center Merlin
engine has to work in both a turbo-pump mode and a pressure fed mode.
How would this be possible without extensive hardware changes? SpaceX
would *not* want to make such hardware changes because it would increase
the likelihood of failure during launch. This would be unacceptable to
them. Any recovery hardware on the first stage must not increase the
risk of failure of the launch itself.

An alternative would be SuperDraco engines, but that would require
separate tanks, separate plumbing, separate engines, and etc. So the
increase in dry mass would be *far* higher than the current "hover
slam" approach.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

[Robert Clark]

Blue Origin once again relaunched the same copy of New Shepard:

Why Blue Origin’s latest launch is a huge deal for cheap space access.
Blue already proved it could land. Now it's showing it can rinse and repeat.
by Eric Berger - Apr 2, 2016 3:36pm EDT
[quote]After the January flight, Blue Origin's founder Jeff Bezos told Ars
that refurbishing the propulsion module after that first flight cost “in the
small tens of thousands of dollars.” His technicians never even removed the
engine from the vehicle. “We inspected it and said, 'Let's go.' It was
designed to be reusable from the start.”[/quote]
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/why-blue-origins-latest-launch-is-a-huge-deal-for-cheap-space-access/

Blue Origin has proven relanding is not particularly hard IF you have
hovering ability.

On the other hand, "suicide-burn" is the appropriate description for
SpaceX's Falcon 9 landing technique, not the "hover-slam" term SpaceX has
been using.

Since the F9 can not hover, it is inappropriate to include the word "hover"
in the landing description. A more appropriate name, aside from
suicide-burn, would be "land-or-slam", since without hovering ability you
only get one chance at it. You stick the landing on the first try or you
crash and burn.

SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of
giving the F9 hovering capability.


Bob Clark


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Clark" wrote in message news:n3upd4$hgo$2...@dont-email.me...

[Thomas Koenig]

Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:

> SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of
> giving the F9 hovering capability.

One second of hovering costs 9.81 m/s of delta v.

If your aim is to achieve orbit with a reusable rocket and a reasonable
payload, you need to save as much delta v as possible.

If you aim is to ferry up tourists for a few minutes of zero g, you
don't need to economize as much.

Both choices are reasonable for what the respective companies want to
do.

[Thomas Koenig]

Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:

> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
> launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/

$100 USD
raised by 1 backer in 2 months

0% funded No time left

$250,000 USD goal
Flexible Funding

[Jeff Findley]

In article <ne3v51$216$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
tko...@netcologne.de says...

>
> Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:
>
> > SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of
> > giving the F9 hovering capability.
>
> One second of hovering costs 9.81 m/s of delta v.

Yes, but hovering an almost empty first stage with no payload on top
requires far less fuel and oxidizer than launch. Note that only one
(the center engine) out of nine of the first stage engines are used for
landing. On top of that, the engine is throttled down as much as it can
be. So, fuel consumption upon landing is far, far less than during
launch.

> If your aim is to achieve orbit with a reusable rocket and a reasonable
> payload, you need to save as much delta v as possible.

Or make everything, but the payload, bigger.

> If you aim is to ferry up tourists for a few minutes of zero g, you
> don't need to economize as much.

This is because a sub-orbital hop requires far less delta-V than
attaining orbital velocity.

> Both choices are reasonable for what the respective companies want to
> do.

They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding other
engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover and land,
for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first stage. But,
they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first stage carries.
This would mean adding completely different tanks, plumbing, and etc.
for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were used, it would be
advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent any remaining LOX in
the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" fuel and oxidizer would be
"wasted". In my book, this would not be a good trade to make.

All of that added complexity and added mass would cost money compared to
using "leftover" fuel and oxidizer and an engine that is already there
for launch.

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

[Rick Jones]

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
> a good trade to make.

If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
deeply-throttled Merlin?

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

[Thomas Womack]

In article <brddgb96l4aj50rcp...@4ax.com>,
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nothing says you have to use the full capacity of the booster for
>payload. Fuel is cheap. Hardware is expensive.

I think there's quite an interesting question as to what you can do
with, say, launches which cost a million dollars and which put
precisely one ton in a 1m x 1m x 2m volume into LEO. It's certainly
not straightforward and I'd be unsure whether it's possible to put
into one ton enough of a spacecraft to be able to rendezvous with
something else and attach the remaining payload to it.

Obviously the first priority would be to get something assembled which
is large enough to stay on orbit indefinitely, do all the difficult
bits of the rendezvous, and let you make the small spacecraft as
stupid as possible.

Almost every imaginable space concept was designed by bored graduate
students in the sixties, I'd be quite intrigued to see how little you
have to bolt around a quantity of liquid xenon to make it reasonable
for some other spacecraft to collect and transfer to its own internal
tankage the liquid xenon.

Tom

[Jeff Findley]

In article <d53ggbdkh7rh268ki...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...

>
> Rick Jones <rick....@hpe.com> wrote:
>
> >In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> >> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
> >> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
> >> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
> >> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
> >> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
> >> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
> >> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
> >> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
> >> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
> >> a good trade to make.
> >
> >If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
> >wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
> >deeply-throttled Merlin?
> >
>

> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

And today's successful barge landing proves they don't *need* to hover!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/8/11392138/spacex-landing-success-falcon-
9-rocket-barge-at-sea

I watched it live and it looked like a very nice landing.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <brddgb96l4aj50rcp...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...

>
> Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ne3v51$216$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> >tko...@netcologne.de says...
> >>
> >> Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:
> >>
> >> > SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of
> >> > giving the F9 hovering capability.
> >>
> >> One second of hovering costs 9.81 m/s of delta v.
> >
> >Yes, but hovering an almost empty first stage with no payload on top
> >requires far less fuel and oxidizer than launch. Note that only one
> >(the center engine) out of nine of the first stage engines are used for
> >landing. On top of that, the engine is throttled down as much as it can
> >be. So, fuel consumption upon landing is far, far less than during
> >launch.
> >
>

> SpaceX plans to reserve about 10% of the fuel load to get the first
> stage back down. If someone needs more payload than that calculation
> allows, they will have to buy off the booster because it will be
> expended. That's going to be MUCH more expensive, so people are going
> to size their loads to not require it.

>
> Nothing says you have to use the full capacity of the booster for
> payload. Fuel is cheap. Hardware is expensive.

Agreed. And if Falcon 9 is too small, buy a Falcon Heavy launch,
assuming that its development progresses this year.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rick Jones <rick....@hpe.com> wrote:
>
>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
>>> a good trade to make.
>>
>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>
>

> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
bureaucrat bullshit.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cite?

Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>
> Stop making up lies, Chimp.

Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.

Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
environment.

Go have your fun, I'm not prejudiced against the LGBT community.


--
Jim Pennino

[Robert Clark]

If they can do this 4 or 5 times in a row even if they have 1 failure after
that, then might be adequate for an unmanned booster. More likely though
they'll have couple of successes then a failure. Suicide-burn is inherently
less reliable than a hovering approach.

Bob Clark



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

news:MPG.3171fa196...@news.eternal-september.org...

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.

Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
diapers on their babies since antiquity.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat.

Cloth is raw stock.

Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat.


--
Jim Pennino

[Jeff Findley]

In article <nedhe6$rve$2...@dont-email.me>,
rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...

>
> If they can do this 4 or 5 times in a row even if they have 1 failure after
> that, then might be adequate for an unmanned booster. More likely though
> they'll have couple of successes then a failure. Suicide-burn is inherently
> less reliable than a hovering approach.

Agreed. But that said, space shuttle glide landings were inherently
less reliable than powered landings, yet it was "safe enough" that we
did not see a landing failure during that program.

SpaceX is gaining experience with this mode of recovery even if a thrust
to weight greater than one is not ideal. On their next reusable launch
vehicle design, they should have the opportunity to make improvements.
Exactly what improvements may very well depend on how the rest of the
Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy program pans out.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

news:MPG.317542546...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
>In article <nedhe6$rve$2...@dont-email.me>,
>rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>>
>> If they can do this 4 or 5 times in a row even if they have 1 failure
>> after
>> that, then might be adequate for an unmanned booster. More likely though
>> they'll have couple of successes then a failure. Suicide-burn is
>> inherently
>> less reliable than a hovering approach.
>
>Agreed. But that said, space shuttle glide landings were inherently
>less reliable than powered landings, yet it was "safe enough" that we
>did not see a landing failure during that program.

To fair we'd had over 8 decades of experience of gliding/horizontal landings
and we had the Mark I eyeball in the cockpit to respond to unknowns.

>
>SpaceX is gaining experience with this mode of recovery even if a thrust
>to weight greater than one is not ideal. On their next reusable launch
>vehicle design, they should have the opportunity to make improvements.
>Exactly what improvements may very well depend on how the rest of the
>Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy program pans out.
>

Ayup.

>Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
> dumb cunt.

So what, space cadet?

Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.

Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
Sri Lanka, space cadet?



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
> chimpshit, chimpshit.

>
>>
>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.
>>
>

> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.

>
>>
>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
>>Sri Lanka, space cadet?
>>
>

> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live
> in a rich suburb"...

Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
21st century technology, and a lot of it.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.

Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
> dishonest twat.

As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
growing, people before the Europeans arrived, and you can not live
longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology,
the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...
>>
>
> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.

It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
with imported diseases.

None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
includes diseases.

>>
>>... and you can not live
>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>
>
> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
> right?

So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?

>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>
>

> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.

Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
of the support equipment, space cadet.

As in the ease of survival in the ocean in 1 m of water versus 300 m of
water.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
> it when it HELPS survival.

No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
indiginous population is irrelevant.

>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
>>includes diseases.
>>
>

> Unproven.

The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.

>>>>
>>>>... and you can not live
>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
>>> right?
>>
>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?
>>
>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.
>>>
>>
>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
>>of the support equipment, space cadet.
>>
>

> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
> technology in support.

Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.

About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.

Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
carrying any to Mars.

>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
>>>>includes diseases.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unproven.
>>
>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>... and you can not live
>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
>>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?
>>>>
>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
>>> technology in support.
>>
>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.
>>
>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives.
>>
>

> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?

Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
as it had been for a thousand years or so.

There were few inventions that effected daily life, and especially farming
life, between the 16th century and about the middle of the 19th century.

The first invention of note to do so after 1600 was the loom with the
flying shuttle in 1733.

1764 spinning jenny
1786 threshing machine
1793 cotton gin
1798 smallpox vaccine


--
Jim Pennino

[Greg Goss]

Compared to the North Americans, the use of oxen or horses to do the
hard part of the farming was new. An effective horse collar was
post-Roman, but I don't know if it was older than that thousand when
American was colonized.

>There were few inventions that effected daily life, and especially farming
>life, between the 16th century and about the middle of the 19th century.

You switched from "thousand" to 250 or so rather suddenly.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?
>>
>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
>>as it had been for a thousand years or so.
>
> Compared to the North Americans, the use of oxen or horses to do the
> hard part of the farming was new. An effective horse collar was
> post-Roman, but I don't know if it was older than that thousand when
> American was colonized.

The topic was the state of the European imports.

If all you can come up with is the horse collar, then I would say it is
safe to say the vast majority of European technology at the time of
colonization of the Americas was a thousand years old or so.

>>There were few inventions that effected daily life, and especially farming
>>life, between the 16th century and about the middle of the 19th century.
>
> You switched from "thousand" to 250 or so rather suddenly.

Nope, I switched from technology at the start of colonization to technology
during colonization.

The point being that technology that effected the average person made
very few advances during the colonial period.

Granted things like the telescope, slide rule, and barometer were invented
in the 17th century, but the average person neither had nor needed
such things.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
> odds, then, Jim?

I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1.

> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
> Europe.

Don't be an ignorant fool.

Technology that effected the average person changed very little until
mid 19th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions

How important is the parachute, invented circa 1470, to the average person?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
> information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

> Don't be stupid chimp droppings.

Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."
>
> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.

Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
be called wrong.

>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>
> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>
> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>
> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>
> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
> I think we've discovered the problem...

Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.

Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
as you demanded of me, space cadet.

> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.

Talking to yourself?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
> intrudes into a Chimp Position.

Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
number YOU demanded from me.

>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>
>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>
>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>
>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>
>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>
>>
>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>
>

> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?

How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
is highly unlikely, space cadet?

> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.

Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.

>
>>
>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>
>

> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.

The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
evidence.

That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
small is not my problem, space cadet.

> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
> involved.

Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
> and now you're caught.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?

Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?

>>
>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>>>
>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
>>
>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
>>is highly unlikely, space cadet?
>>
>

> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
> position" that magic makes everything work.

Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
exist in some shelted, special place.

And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
years ago when Mars may have had oceans.

>
>>
>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>>
>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>>
>

> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>>
>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>>evidence.
>>
>

> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
> nothing but your own biases.

What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.

If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
too bad.

>>
>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
>>small is not my problem, space cadet.
>>
>

> Except it doesn't, chimpshit.

> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.

My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
> number, chimp.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?

>>
>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?
>>
>

> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?

> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.
>
> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit?

Of course.

>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
>>>>
>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
>>> position" that magic makes everything work.
>>>
>>
>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
>>exist in some shelted, special place.
>>
>

> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
> Mars is outside of.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?

>>
>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans.
>>
>

> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
> (again).

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>>>>
>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>>>>
>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>>>>evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
>>> nothing but your own biases.
>>>
>>
>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.
>>
>

> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
> your pathologically opinionated view.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?

>
>>
>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
>>too bad.
>>
>

> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?

> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
> quoque).

Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Do so.

> You tell me.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>>>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>>>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>>>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>>>>>>evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
>>>>> nothing but your own biases.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
>>> your pathologically opinionated view.
>>
>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>
>

> You tell me.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
>>>>too bad.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.
>>
>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>
>

> You tell me.

> You're a lying sack of shit, Jim.

Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.


Is is obvious you concider the indiginous peoples of the Americas to
be wogs and you are in denial of what happened to them.

Racist deniers aren't worth talking to.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> It seems like many things are 'obvious' to you that aren't in precise
> 1:1 accord with our present reality. It's a product of you being so
> pathologically opinionated.

>
>>
>>Racist deniers aren't worth talking to.
>>
>

> Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.

Bully, liar, racist; not worth talking to.

--
Jim Pennino