#Why the next man on the moon will be Chinese
5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/02/space-race-china-america-
india
Why the next man on the moon will be Chinese
Since the crew of Apollo 17 returned from the moon in December 1972, no
human has ever left low-Earth orbit. Five space shuttles, scores of
Russian Soyuz capsules, the International Space Station, and more than
450 men and women have left the Earth since Apollo, but all have been
bound to a small shell of space just outside our atmosphere.
Any hope of an ambitious successor to Apollo might have been abandoned
altogether if it wasn't for George W Bush. In 2003, he announced plans
for Nasa to return to the moon by 2020 and then travel on to Mars by
2030. Once again, though, the US faces some serious competition. The same
year that Bush tasked Nasa with the 21st century moonshot, Yang Lee Wei
became China's first astronaut and, explicit or not, another space race
had begun.
"The attitude to the space programme in China is a little bit like the
attitude towards space exploration in the western world in the 1960s,"
says Kevin Fong, an expert in space medicine at University College
London. "There's a deep fervour among their university kids for space
technology. The main difference between China and America now is that
China can just do something - they don't need to ask permission or go
through a democratic process and get the budget approved."
This means that China can progress its space programme quickly; if it
wants to land on the moon - and many observers think it does - the
country could do it well ahead of 2020, the earliest possible date for an
American return.
China's only confirmed plans so far include launching another robotic
orbiter to the moon, probably followed by a robot lander and perhaps a
lunar rover. Beyond that, we might not find whether China wants to put a
person on the moon until it does it. Its successes are broadcast all over
the world, but its failures remain internal. That hasn't stopped serious
people taking it seriously, though: last year the former Nasa
administrator, Mike Griffin, said he believed China had the capability to
get to the moon and he wouldn't be surprised if the next person to walk
on the moon was Chinese.
"It's all very dark out there and you're not really sure how much they're
doing," says Fong. "They seem very serious about it and have mature
thoughts about it, from the little you see in their presentations. They
still have much to learn from the existing space community and don't want
to be too overt about their ambitions at risk of looking like they've
over-promised."
The Indians are also hot on the heels of the US. India worked on an
embryonic space programme with the Soviet Union in the 1970s and flew its
first cosmonaut in 1982. Today the budgets are relatively big - around
$800m a year and a 10-year plan for human spaceflight that has committed
funding of more than $1.2bn. It has already sent a robotic probe to the
moon, but there is still plenty to prove in terms of human spaceflight -
the country has indicated bold ambitions but has still not revealed any
confirmed details that it will send people into orbit, never mind all the
way to the moon.
The Chinese and the Indians have many advantages over the Americans of
the 1960s - they are starting well ahead of Apollo in terms of
technology. But it might not be technology that decides the winner.
Aiming for space is about more than understanding flight paths and
knowing the best rockets to use: moon shots are about taking risks. Fong
points out that the Apollo programme prioritised mission objectives over
life or limb. No one was complacent about the danger, he says, but since
most of the astronauts were former test pilots, they understood that
things can - and would - go wrong. The modern Nasa has inverted this
priority - today the astronauts' lives are absolutely more important than
mission goals. This will have to change if Nasa is to return to the moon
and, particularly, if it wants to send people to Mars. And perhaps here
China will have a clear advantage over the US.
And what about the Brits? This country has a fantastically successful (if
largely invisible) robotic space industry. And, against all the odds, it
has its first official astronaut in the shape of Tim Peake, an army
helicopter test pilot. Despite providing no funds for human spaceflight,
science minister Paul Drayson is optimistic that a British astronaut
could one day walk on the moon. "I hope so," he says. "We're absolutely
committed to space research, both manned and unmanned. It's hugely
aspirational and extremely challenging and helps us put things in
perspective."
--
"Well I think that they say that Rush Limbaugh is the 800 lb. gorilla in
the Republican Party. But I think that's mean-spirited to say that. ...
Because, I think he's down to 650 lbs. I think one should be fair to him
about this whole thing." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
--
"Well I think that they say that Rush Limbaugh is the 800 lb. gorilla in
the Republican Party. But I think that's mean-spirited to say that. ...
Because, I think he's down to 650 lbs. I think one should be fair to him
about this whole thing." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
Ed
"Mr.B1ack" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:u29o45htahp1fs2dg...@4ax.com...
> Because they remember what we forgot - how to do business
> and WIN.
No one forgot.
topset72
> Because they remember what we forgot - how to do business
> and WIN.
Oh my God. It would be such an accomplishment if the Chinese made it
to the moon 40 years after we did. We must expand the NASA Bullshit
-- I mean budget.
topset72
5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09
Well, they have two weeks in which to accomplish that particular goal.
Doing it in time for the 50th anniversary might be possible.
>
> topset72
Billary/2009
wrote:
There's nothing on the moon but rocks. We already took the bragging
rights. Let the Chinese knock themselves out. We need the money to pay
for "free" healthcare.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/02/space-race-china-america-
> india
>
> "The attitude to the space programme in China is a little bit like the
> attitude towards space exploration in the western world in the 1960s,"
> says Kevin Fong, an expert in space medicine at University College
> London. "There's a deep fervour among their university kids for space
> technology. The main difference between China and America now is that
> China can just do something - they don't need to ask permission or go
> through a democratic process and get the budget approved."
>
The Guardian comes out for totalitarianism?
> This means that China can progress its space programme quickly; if it
> wants to land on the moon - and many observers think it does - the
> country could do it well ahead of 2020, the earliest possible date for an
> American return.
>
What will ultimately matter is who stays and builds bases and uses
this to continue farther. So the US better get going, but just
getting there and then doing nothing with it, that's not acceptable
this time.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> "Billary/2009" <BillaryCl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >There's nothing on the moon but rocks.
>
> "There's nothing in California but rocks" - cynic, 1848 :-)
>
> Rocks tend to contain stuff ... valuable stuff sometimes.
>
That tends to be concentrated by various geologic processes which
are largely absent on the Moon.
Matt
wrote:
Yes, nothing at all.
I *strongly* suggest you read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert
Anson Heinlein
(a very seriously conservative author). Then come back to me and tell
me there is nothing
there.
Matt
Billary/2009
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, can't "grok" you on that one.
5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09
vicus of recirculation' )" <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>"5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/02/space-race-china-america-
>> india
>>
>
>> "The attitude to the space programme in China is a little bit like the
>> attitude towards space exploration in the western world in the 1960s,"
>> says Kevin Fong, an expert in space medicine at University College
>> London. "There's a deep fervour among their university kids for space
>> technology. The main difference between China and America now is that
>> China can just do something - they don't need to ask permission or go
>> through a democratic process and get the budget approved."
>>
>The Guardian comes out for totalitarianism?
To quote your illustrious leader, "There's something to be said for a
dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator."
It's good to be the king!
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
There's like an all seeing computer that talks to his buddy,
"Manny", about philosophy and how to kick Earthers' arses, and
plays chess?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:57:37 +0100, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius
> vicus of recirculation' )" <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09" wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/02/space-race-china-america-
> >> india
> >>
> >
> >> "The attitude to the space programme in China is a little bit like the
> >> attitude towards space exploration in the western world in the 1960s,"
> >> says Kevin Fong, an expert in space medicine at University College
> >> London. "There's a deep fervour among their university kids for space
> >> technology. The main difference between China and America now is that
> >> China can just do something - they don't need to ask permission or go
> >> through a democratic process and get the budget approved."
> >>
> >The Guardian comes out for totalitarianism?
>
> To quote your illustrious leader, "There's something to be said for a
> dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator."
>
> It's good to be the king!
>
Is that true? You think that what the world needs is more dictators
as long as they agree with you?
> >
> >> This means that China can progress its space programme quickly; if it
> >> wants to land on the moon - and many observers think it does - the
> >> country could do it well ahead of 2020, the earliest possible date for an
> >> American return.
> >>
> >What will ultimately matter is who stays and builds bases and uses
> >this to continue farther. So the US better get going, but just
> >getting there and then doing nothing with it, that's not acceptable
> >this time.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
z
wrote:
> There's nothing on the moon but rocks. We already took the bragging
> rights. Let the Chinese knock themselves out. We need the money to pay
> for "free" healthcare.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? Hint: historically, the
high ground (physical, not moral) has always been a huge advantage in
a military conflict. Recently that has translated to air superiority.
In the future.... well, it's easy to get one of those rocks up to
escape velocity on the moon. And after it's fallen through the earth's
gravity well.... who needs nukes?
Matt
Partly. Also just an excellent story.
However, the point was about "throwing rocks".
Matt
Matt
Ha, beat you by about an hour on that one :)
Matt
5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09
It taught me about the socio-psychological phenomenon known as
"convergence". The next year, I got to see it in real life, when the
local harbormaster issued a tsunami advisory in the wake of a large
Pacific earthquake.
Hundreds of people went down to the harbor to watch "the big wave roll
in".
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
But how much energy would that take to create a real problem with a
big enough rock? A lot.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
z wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 10:16 am, "Billary/2009" <BillaryClinton2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There's nothing on the moon but rocks. We already took the bragging
> > rights. Let the Chinese knock themselves out. We need the money to pay
> > for "free" healthcare.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? Hint: historically, the
> high ground (physical, not moral) has always been a huge advantage in
> a military conflict. Recently that has translated to air superiority.
>
But the latency of putting nuclear weapons, for example, on the
Moon, makes them less useful than closer to Earth. In fact, the
control of having them on the Earth itself makes it more sensible
than putting them even in LEO.
> In the future.... well, it's easy to get one of those rocks up to
> escape velocity on the moon. And after it's fallen through the earth's
> gravity well.... who needs nukes?
>
Do you know how far away the Moon is?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:53:14 -0700, z wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 10:16� am, "Billary/2009" <BillaryClinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There's nothing on the moon but rocks. We already took the bragging
> >> rights. Let the Chinese knock themselves out. We need the money to pay
> >> for "free" healthcare.- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? Hint: historically, the high
> > ground (physical, not moral) has always been a huge advantage in a
> > military conflict. Recently that has translated to air superiority. In
> > the future.... well, it's easy to get one of those rocks up to escape
> > velocity on the moon. And after it's fallen through the earth's gravity
> > well.... who needs nukes?
>
> It taught me about the socio-psychological phenomenon known as
> "convergence". The next year, I got to see it in real life, when the
> local harbormaster issued a tsunami advisory in the wake of a large
> Pacific earthquake.
>
> Hundreds of people went down to the harbor to watch "the big wave roll
> in".
>
You don't want to miss that, it's a once in a life time event!
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09
recirculation' ) wrote:
> "5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:53:14 -0700, z wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 2, 10:16Â am, "Billary/2009" <BillaryClinton2...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> There's nothing on the moon but rocks. We already took the bragging
>> >> rights. Let the Chinese knock themselves out. We need the money to
>> >> pay for "free" healthcare.- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> > Ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? Hint: historically, the
>> > high ground (physical, not moral) has always been a huge advantage in
>> > a military conflict. Recently that has translated to air superiority.
>> > In the future.... well, it's easy to get one of those rocks up to
>> > escape velocity on the moon. And after it's fallen through the
>> > earth's gravity well.... who needs nukes?
>>
>> It taught me about the socio-psychological phenomenon known as
>> "convergence". The next year, I got to see it in real life, when the
>> local harbormaster issued a tsunami advisory in the wake of a large
>> Pacific earthquake.
>>
>> Hundreds of people went down to the harbor to watch "the big wave roll
>> in".
>>
> You don't want to miss that, it's a once in a life time event!
Especially since the pictures of the property damage at Crescent City
were still fresh in people's minds.
One of the problems firefighters face when battling large wildfires are
the "lookeeloos"; fire tourists. They'll quite cheerfully put themselves
in serious danger so they can admire the pretty flames.
5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09
Escape velocity is under 5,500 miles an hour, and no atmosphere to have
to punch through. Wrap the rocks in something magnetic, and fire them
with a magnetic pulse cannon. That's how Heinlein figured it. The
biggest problem then is making sure of your aim...
Matt
Heinlein was, among other things, an incredibly good physicist. I
suggest
you look at his numbers. Physics doesn't lie, and throwing a rock down
a gravity well isn't all that complicated. Compare it to, say,
throwing a rock
over a small hill so that it falls down a mine shaft. There's a small
amount
of energy needed to get over the hill (escape Moon gravity) but almost
none
to fall down the shaft (descend upon earth).
Try the numbers, then discuss it.
Matt
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
So it would take no energy to cause the Moon to fall into the
Earth? That's an interesting claim that really doesn't require
numbers.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09
Try reading what he wrote again, Bonde. He said nothing of the sort.
Matt
Really. Well, I'm glad to know you understand physics. In
fact, once moving toward Earth it DOES mean it would require
no energy to cause the moon to fall into the Earth.
Hm. Did you ever get past high school, Bill? Seems like your
skills are sorely lacking.
Matt
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
That's nonsense. The Moon is orbiting the Earth. If you pushed the
Moon closer to the Earth, it would increase in velocity and find a
new orbit. The motion around the Earth causes the Moon to fall
towards the Earth but keep missing it. That would continue. THE
MOON IS ALREADY MOVING TOWARDS THE EARTH.
If you could magically stop the Moon and drop it just right,
assuming a simplified version of the Earth Moon system, it would
increase until it hit the Earth at escape velocity. But that's not
going to just happen. The Apollo returns to Earth required
something like seven course corrections. This isn't going to happen
if you are just ballistically lobbing rocks from orbit.
What would happen is that the rocks would get caught up in various
gravitational eddies and end up all over the place. In "Harsh
Mistress", the rocks are dropped on specific cities as kinetic
weapons. I don't recall if they used some kind of solar sail or ion
rockets to fine up the trajectory but you are not talking about
that, you are saying it would just happen.
It will not just happen. If you overcome the Moon's gravity but
just, you end up drifting around some Lagrange point or in an
highly elliptical orbit.
> Hm. Did you ever get past high school, Bill? Seems like your
> skills are sorely lacking.
>
Yet I'm able to kick your ass.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
He didn't mention crashing the Moon into the Earth, as that crazy
dood on usenet used to go on about, remember him? Alex Abian would
tell his readers how people should "JOLT THE MOON TO JOLT THE EARTH
into a saner orbit".
What I'm saying is that the Moon and some rock that just breaks the
Moon's gravity well is the same thing from the perspective of
orbital mechanics. Of course the rock would be pertubated by the
Moon and the Earth (and the Sun) but otherwise the rock and the
Moon are both on orbit hanging out 235K miles from Earth.
This is what the poster said: "There's a small amount of energy
needed to get over the hill (escape Moon gravity) but almost none
to fall down the shaft (descend upon earth)." So why not cause the
Moon to crash into the Earth? You wouldn't have to escape from the
Moon to do that, right? All you have to do is drop the Moon into
the Earth's gravity well. But that doesn't happen, does it?
Why doesn't it happen? Because the Moon is already falling into the
Earth. It's just constantly missing the Earth because its orbit is
such that it moves forward just in time. A rock floating around the
Moon would be the same, since it's floating around the Moon. But a
rock that just broke away would also be essentially the same since
it's essentially in the same orbit as the Moon.
This is why I said that he was saying that the Moon could be used
to fall in the Earth without the use of energy.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
Matt
Actually, they were simply fired on the equivalent of a rail gun.
Like most things, if fired in the right direction, it will fall to
earth
rather than orbit it. This is basic physics, Bill, you are starting
to scare me.
>
> It will not just happen. If you overcome the Moon's gravity but
> just, you end up drifting around some Lagrange point or in an
> highly elliptical orbit.
Really. So, spacecraft always end up in orbit? That's going to
come as a drastic surprise to NASA.
>
> > Hm. Did you ever get past high school, Bill? Seems like your
> > skills are sorely lacking.
>
> Yet I'm able to kick your ass.
ROFLMAO. Yeah, ok. You seem to have some serious issues with
basic physics, much less orbital mechanics. Your degree is in...?
Matt
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Your specific claim is that all that must happen is that you must
overcome the gravity of the Moon. That would be the Moon's escape
velocity. Then, you claim, the rock will just fall down the gravity
well to Earth without requiring any additional energy. But that's
nonsense. The rock is orbiting the Earth, just like the Moon. You
have to counter this to cause the rock to not go fast enough to
keep missing the earth as it falls.
> This is basic physics, Bill, you are starting
> to scare me.
>
Starting to scare you?
> >
> > It will not just happen. If you overcome the Moon's gravity but
> > just, you end up drifting around some Lagrange point or in an
> > highly elliptical orbit.
>
> Really. So, spacecraft always end up in orbit? That's going to
> come as a drastic surprise to NASA.
>
The rock *is* in orbit. Of course if you don't reach orbital
velocity, you don't get into orbit.
> >
> > > Hm. Did you ever get past high school, Bill? Seems like your
> > > skills are sorely lacking.
> >
> > Yet I'm able to kick your ass.
>
> ROFLMAO. Yeah, ok. You seem to have some serious issues with
> basic physics, much less orbital mechanics. Your degree is in...?
>
You haven't refuted anything I've said.
Matt
My "specific claim"? I said, and stand by, that there is little energy
involved in getting something out of the Moon's gravity. Equally true
is the fact that a "something" on the proper trajectory will enter the
Earth's atmosphere.
The fact that you don't understand this scares me.
>
> > This is basic physics, Bill, you are starting
> > to scare me.
>
> Starting to scare you?
Ok, fine, you scare me a LOT. Did Bush offer to let you run NASA?
Matt
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Compared to what? An asteroid really has little gravity. That's the
place to fire off the rocks. Of course the latency is even worse.
> Equally true
> is the fact that a "something" on the proper trajectory will enter the
> Earth's atmosphere.
>
So the new claim is that there is a specific trajectory that you
can fire a rock at off the Moon such that it will hit a specific
city on Earth and that this trajectory requires minimal energy
beyond that which is required to escape the gravity of the Moon?
> The fact that you don't understand this scares me.
>
That I don't understand what? You said:
#begin quote requote YOU
[T]hrowing a rock down a gravity well isn't all that complicated.
Compare it to, say, throwing a rock over a small hill so that it
falls down a mine shaft. There's a small amount of energy needed to
get over the hill (escape Moon gravity) but almost none to fall
down the shaft (descend upon earth).
#end quote
But the rock is orbiting the gravity well.
> > > This is basic physics, Bill, you are starting
> > > to scare me.
> >
> > Starting to scare you?
>
> Ok, fine, you scare me a LOT. Did Bush offer to let you run NASA?
>
Not that I know of.
5038 Dead, 171 since 1/20/09
Sure is, and I'm utterly amazed you didn't consider it. In addition to
the 5,400 miles an hour needed for escape velocity, you add enough delta
vee back along the path of the moon's orbital velocity that relative to a
point on the earth's equator, the rock is stationary. It then falls
straight down.
>
>
>
>
>> The fact that you don't understand this scares me.
>>
> That I don't understand what? You said:
>
> #begin quote requote YOU
> [T]hrowing a rock down a gravity well isn't all that complicated.
> Compare it to, say, throwing a rock over a small hill so that it falls
> down a mine shaft. There's a small amount of energy needed to get over
> the hill (escape Moon gravity) but almost none to fall down the shaft
> (descend upon earth).
> #end quote
>
> But the rock is orbiting the gravity well.
>
>
>
>> > > This is basic physics, Bill, you are starting to scare me.
>> >
>> > Starting to scare you?
>>
>> Ok, fine, you scare me a LOT. Did Bush offer to let you run NASA?
>>
> Not that I know of.
--
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to
Matt
Bill seems to be orbitally challenged. I suspect Heinlein was talking
about him when he referred to our society going downhill as people
failed to learn the sciences.
Matt
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Of course I did consider it and it's wrong. The energy required
isn't just the amount to escape the Moon, it's also the amount to
stop the rock from orbiting the Earth. And it's actually more than
that because if you want it to hit something specific in some
reasonable time, you are going to need to really send it flying.
Even then, Apollo required about seven course corrections. Perhaps
with a solar sail or something, you could get it in right.
> In addition to
> the 5,400 miles an hour needed for escape velocity, you add enough delta
> vee back along the path of the moon's orbital velocity that relative to a
> point on the earth's equator, the rock is stationary. It then falls
> straight down.
>
Are you assuming that the rock is over the equator for some reason?
And the orbital speed where the point on Earth appears stationary
isn't zero relative to the planet itself. We know that from
geostationary satellites that aren't falling into the surface yet
they are staying steady relative to the surface.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> The fact that you don't understand this scares me.
> >>
> > That I don't understand what? You said:
> >
> > #begin quote requote YOU
> > [T]hrowing a rock down a gravity well isn't all that complicated.
> > Compare it to, say, throwing a rock over a small hill so that it falls
> > down a mine shaft. There's a small amount of energy needed to get over
> > the hill (escape Moon gravity) but almost none to fall down the shaft
> > (descend upon earth).
> > #end quote
> >
> > But the rock is orbiting the gravity well.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > > This is basic physics, Bill, you are starting to scare me.
> >> >
> >> > Starting to scare you?
> >>
> >> Ok, fine, you scare me a LOT. Did Bush offer to let you run NASA?
> >>
> > Not that I know of.
>
> --
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to
--
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I do have my feet on the firm earth.
> I suspect Heinlein was talking
> about him when he referred to our society going downhill as people
> failed to learn the sciences.
>
You make the mistake of assuming that not agreeing with you isn't
learning the sciences.
Matt
I really don't care whether you agree with me or not, that's
unimportant.
Nor is it me you are disagreeing with, if you'll go back through the
thread.
You are actually arguing with Robert Heinlein, a man that knew JUST a
little
more about physics and science than you ever will.
The book has been around for decades, Bill. Don't you think someone
would have
pointed out a flaw in the science by now?
Matt
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You are supposed to respond by refuting what I say.
> Nor is it me you are disagreeing with, if you'll go back through the
> thread.
> You are actually arguing with Robert Heinlein, a man that knew JUST a
> little
> more about physics and science than you ever will.
>
What you are doing is appealing to authority. That is a fallacy.
There is no reason to believe that everything in every Heinlein
book took no liberties with reality.
> The book has been around for decades, Bill. Don't you think someone
> would have
> pointed out a flaw in the science by now?
>
There's been no effort by me to point out any flaws in the book.
I'm responding to your claims. You aren't refuting what I'm saying,
instead you are personally attacking me and appealing to authority.
Matt
Why would I bother? You already know the facts, you just want to play
games. Fine, play them elsewhere.
>
> > Nor is it me you are disagreeing with, if you'll go back through the
> > thread.
> > You are actually arguing with Robert Heinlein, a man that knew JUST a
> > little
> > more about physics and science than you ever will.
>
> What you are doing is appealing to authority. That is a fallacy.
> There is no reason to believe that everything in every Heinlein
> book took no liberties with reality.
No, really? Imagine that, fiction having 'liberties with reality'. Of
course he does. But physics, being one of his strong points, is not
something
he messed with.
>
> > The book has been around for decades, Bill. Don't you think someone
> > would have
> > pointed out a flaw in the science by now?
>
> There's been no effort by me to point out any flaws in the book.
> I'm responding to your claims. You aren't refuting what I'm saying,
> instead you are personally attacking me and appealing to authority.
I'm not attacking you at all. I'm simply pointing out you are being
absurd. If you disagree that a rock can be thrown from the moon to hit
earth, say so. If you want to nitpick because I assumed readers had a
modicum of physics knowledge, do it to someone else, I'm tired of it.
Matt