Is it just me?
Pat Flannery
the moment?
Lurkers occasionally post something to it, but since they don't
regularly post, they leave it almost entirely to the nut-jobs and
Chinese shoe salesmen as the only consistent contributors.
If you enjoy reading the posts to it, you might want to consider writing
some to it also; otherwise, it's just going to croak and you won't even
be able to read it.
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
They're mostly dead.
I can't recall the last post that has passed moderation in sci.space.science
and very few recently that have passed moderation on sci.space.tech.
> Pat
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Alan Erskine
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:f6KdnQcAmordSnnW...@earthlink.com...
>>
>
> They're mostly dead.
>
> I can't recall the last post that has passed moderation in
> sci.space.science and very few recently that have passed moderation on
> sci.space.tech.
>
It's only because the mods are already sick and tired of it all. I've been
saying for over a year that it wouldn't work.
Alan Erskine
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:HcCdnQC1lIr3SXnW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
Comrade Flannery... What have you got against a hard-working member of our
Great Nation? You have been reported to the Proletariat and you can expect
to spend many years serving our Master, along side all the Falun Gong
members.
Jim Davis
> Or my killfiles...but is this newsgroup just about officially
> dead at the moment?
The life went out of the sci.space.* groups when Henry Spencer
decided it wasn't worth his time.
Jim Davis
Pat Flannery
> They're mostly dead.
>
> I can't recall the last post that has passed moderation in sci.space.science
> and very few recently that have passed moderation on sci.space.tech.
That was a slip on your guy's part by trying to sub-divide a moderated
space newsgroup into separate subgroups, when there wasn't enough
interest in any of the subgroups in it to support any of them as an
individual entity.
To make it work, it needs to be pretty much all-inclusive regarding
anything space related.
There is some hope here in regards to the fact that new posters that
were normally lurkers have shown up in the past month on both
sci.space.history and sci.space.policy.
A moderated "space" newsgroup might still work in this regard.
But to throw the towel in now and blame it all on mortality seems
defeatist, as although the _really_ "Old Gang" may be dwindling in
numbers via mortality, I've noted that most of us were born between
1950-1960, and despite my terribly profligate lifestyle based on
lethargy, gluttony, smoking, and inebriation...I, like the Coelacanth
fish, still somehow survive, despite being born in 1956.
Personally, I think it's my perpetual lust for Milla Jovovich that keeps
the vital juices flowing, and my life yet contained in my body.
Where there is lust, there is yet life.
And where is Milla, there is yet lust. ;-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> Comrade Flannery... What have you got against a hard-working member of
> our Great Nation? You have been reported to the Proletariat and you can
> expect to spend many years serving our Master, along side all the Falun
> Gong members.
Somehow I actually got on their mailing list around a year back, and
used to get weekly updates on what the evil things the Chinese goverment
was doing to Falun Gong were.
More recently, I got onto some sort of mailing list from a group of
whackos out of India regarding their take on combining evolution theory
with mystic Hindu concepts. ;-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
According to Strider, their major problem was deleting all the Spam, not
checking out new postings - which unfortunately were few and far between
compared to the spam.
Pat
Pat
Pat Flannery
I miss Henry, but the one I _really_ miss is Rusty Barton with all his
great PDF links.
Pat
Damon Hill
news:Xns9D71F2EBEC0D3ji...@216.168.3.70:
Alas, too true.
--Damon
Pat Flannery
>> The life went out of the sci.space.* groups when Henry Spencer
>> decided it wasn't worth his time.
>
> I miss Henry, but the one I _really_ miss is Rusty Barton with all his
> great PDF links.
I'm going to get in a lot of trouble for this, but before Henry was in
favor of his "Brown Bess" basic booster, he was a proponent of the
"Black Horse" orbital spaceplane that was to be refueled via adding
hydrogen peroxide to it from an aircraft at high altitude to serve as
the oxidizer as it climbed into orbit, after taking off under turbojet
power and kerosene fuel.
The performance figures for "Black Horse" make no sense at all when one
looks at them, as the fuel/airframe weight mass fraction comes in way
too low for something that has a TPS on it for reentry, while the isp of
the kerosene/H2O2 engine on it comes in way too high for something using
that propellant combo.
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/im/magnus/bh/analog.html
Even the size of the payload the Black Horse is shown deploying into
orbit looks around an order of magnitude or more greater than what the
figures in the article show it can carry into orbit as far as weight goes.
Frankly, it throws into doubt this whole concept that Henry
supported...from a simple mathematical point of view...and makes one
wonder about the unimpeachable quality of his judgment in matters
regarding space booster design.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Frankly, it throws into doubt this whole concept that Henry
> supported...from a simple mathematical point of view...and makes one
> wonder about the unimpeachable quality of his judgment in matters
> regarding space booster design.
As a follow-up to that, take a look at the internal propellant volume
that the Black Horse can carry in the cutaways in the article, and
realize that they have to carry it from under Mach 1 at around 50,000
feet altitude up to Mach 25 at around 150-200 miles altitude to reach orbit.
They'd be lucky to hit Mach 6 with it, especially considering that it
has a lot less streamlined airframe than the X-15, as well as a greatly
inferior proportion of fuselage volume devoted to propellant storage.
The whole thing is absurd from the get-go, like expecting a V-2 to hit
the Moon.
This ranks right up there to when I found out that the main designer of
the Delta Clipper concept was Jerry Pournelle...hell, we should have
gone to Larry Niven and made the thing out of Puppeteer hull metal to
cut down weight. :-D
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Ummm, Alan, I can speak for myself thank you very much. I just charged the
fee for the account I use to moderate the newsgroups to my personal credit
card. I am NOT sick and tired of it.
The problem isn't us being sick and tired of it, it's the absolute dirth of
articles.
Pat Flannery
> The problem isn't us being sick and tired of it, it's the absolute dirth of
> articles.
Make it a single moderated newsgroup that is all-space inclusive, and
you will get a lot more postings to it....as well as letting the posters
discuss things outside of the particular aspects of space that the
present set-up has fractured itself into.
Pat
hal...@aol.com
a major issue is that face facts.......
end of shuttle program.
NASA and its loser idea constellation, now apparently cancelled
no new nasa program just ISS, which has nothing new unless something
breaks.
fortunately theres some private industry efforts but no big expensive
multi billion dollar taxpayer based ones
Alan Erskine
Weeee! What are they smokin' in Inja these days?
Pat Flannery
>> More recently, I got onto some sort of mailing list from a group of
>> whackos out of India regarding their take on combining evolution
>> theory with mystic Hindu concepts. ;-D
>
> Weeee! What are they smokin' in Inja these days?
Here's that crew's newsletter:
http://www.bhaktiswarupadamodara.com/mahaprabhu/satsanga/Newsletters/Harmonizer_April_2010.pdf
Pat
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
I mainly post as a way to say I am reading this newsgroup.
So I rate as a lurker more than a poster................Trig
Bob Myers
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>> Or my killfiles...but is this newsgroup just about officially dead at
>> the moment?
>> Lurkers occasionally post something to it, but since they don't
>> regularly post, they leave it almost entirely to the nut-jobs and
>> Chinese shoe salesmen as the only consistent contributors.
>> If you enjoy reading the posts to it, you might want to consider
>> writing some to it also; otherwise, it's just going to croak and you
>> won't even be able to read it.
>>
>>
> They're mostly dead.
>
The difference, of course, is that with "all dead" the most you
can do is to go through their clothes and look for loose change...;-)
Bob M.
Brad Guth
You never want to explore or reinterpret anything new unless it's
scripted as approved by your NASA/Apollo bible.
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
Brad Guth
That's only because they'd moderate their own mothers to death.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Henry Spencer wasn't always pleased with the mainstream status quo
box.
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend."
~ BG
Pat Flannery
>>>
>> They're mostly dead.
>
> The difference, of course, is that with "all dead" the most you
> can do is to go through their clothes and look for loose change...;-)
That's a great movie.
I really get a kick out of the fact that Goldman-Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein
bears an uncanny resemblance to Vizzini:
"Investigated by the SEC? INCONCEIVABLE!" ;-)
Pat
Ken S. Tucker
Right now the US 'policy' is slightly vague. I think ISS access will
be using Russian rockets, and the US will focus on robotics, tho
the Aries 1 + Orion looks like a contender, if necessary, and tech.
Ken
Bob Myers
>
> That's a great movie.
> I really get a kick out of the fact that Goldman-Sachs' Lloyd
> Blankfein bears an uncanny resemblance to Vizzini:
> "Investigated by the SEC? INCONCEIVABLE!" ;-)
You keep using that word. I do no' theenk it means what you theenk it
means....
Bob M.
Pat Flannery
"YOU thought WE were bundling bad mortgages into packages that WE were
passing off as good investment opportunities to NAIVE INVESTORS...but of
course we KNEW you would think that...so our plan was a lot more cunning
in that we said that the investors weren't NAIVE, but merely RISK
TAKERS! Now who wants to take wild risks with their investments?
NAIVE PEOPLE, that's who! Because NAIVE PEOPLE are flattered if you call
them RISK TAKERS! They think that's some sort of COMPLEMENT, that shows
they are in the BIG LEAGUE! But it was really WE who were in the BIG
LEAGUE, as we thought WE could get away with it! So we could take a BIG
RISK!" ;-)
Pat
mh...@ohiohills.com
> Or my killfiles...but is this newsgroup just about officially dead at
> the moment?
It's not just you.
> Lurkers occasionally post something to it, but since they don't
> regularly post, they leave it almost entirely to the nut-jobs and
> Chinese shoe salesmen as the only consistent contributors.
I've seen those types trash several lists. Is there a word for the
kind of insane irrelevant behavior that destroys this sort of forum?
We need a word.
> If you enjoy reading the posts to it, you might want to consider writing
> some to it also; otherwise, it's just going to croak and you won't even
> be able to read it.
I've tried to stir things up, but no one ever listens to me.
Jonathan
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:856a5d1e-dc2a-48bd...@42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> You never want to explore or reinterpret anything new unless it's
> scripted as approved by your NASA/Apollo bible.
This is a rather amusing thread. I hear them say "Is it the killfiling'?
"Is it the moderator?" "Is it our intolerance of anyone born after
1960?" "Is it our intolerance of different views?"
"Is it cause we just want to exchange old pics of rockets?"
"Is it because we try our hardest to make this ng as
uninteresting as possible?"
Gee, maybe it's all of the above. Or even some of---is enough.
NASA itself, the word itself, is analogous to forward-thinking.
Or it should be. Yet all here swim in the glory of the past.
When the group should be using their imagination to build
an ideal (forward-looking) vision of the near future, figure out
how NASA can make it come true, then unite to force the
world into complying with that Vision.
Anyone that thinks a few people can't effect the world fails
to understand how it works. Exagerated non-linear effects
occur most easily where a system is at it's most sensitive or
it's sore spots. Find those spots and a few people can change
the world.
Given the simple fact that what is essentially a man-made volcano
is about to swamp half our nation, why not figure out a way for
NASA to come riding to the rescue, and just in the nic of time.
You folks have too little imagination. Or is it something else?
My personal wish is to start a War with the Chinese.
A war where the winner is the first to fill the sky with
these things.....
Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm
War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation
"Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
credible organizations such a ExxonMobil predicting that
the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years
and the U.S. Government claiming the planet's absolute peak
will occur somewhere around 2037"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf
....instead of weapons. What's yours?
Jonathan
s
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
wrote:
I'll propose a word, chunghole. However, troll and spammer
often covers it so maybe spamroller. Or perhaps in honor
of Peter B. the second on MHA, pecker troll B.
Pat Flannery
>> If you enjoy reading the posts to it, you might want to consider writing
>> some to it also; otherwise, it's just going to croak and you won't even
>> be able to read it.
>
> I've tried to stir things up, but no one ever listens to me.
I thought about what you wrote and may have a theory here.
If you write something others agree with, they probably don't reply to
your posting.
If, on the other hand, you post something other posters _don't_ agree
with, they will probably post to tell you that you are full of crap.
The end result is that the more outrageous your posting is, the more
likely it is to get replies.
And that's where the whole troll phenomena on Usenet came from.
People get apocalyptic about Glenn Beck, so keep him popular; but few
get into conniptions about the PBS NewsHour, so it sort of sits in the
background, unnoticed.*
This is also the root cause of the popularity of conspiracy theories on
the Internet. Say that Oswald shot Kennedy and no one notices; say that
LBJ ordered Kennedy's assassination, and everyone checks in with their
own take on the subject.
* Despite the fact that it is obviously a tool of the hidden Illuminati
that seized control over PBS back around 1990, and cut Robert MacNeil's
tongue out in cold blood in 1995 after he was about to blow their
world-wide conspiracy wide-open. ;-)
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> If, on the other hand, you post something other posters _don't_ agree
> with, they will probably post to tell you that you are full of crap.
> The end result is that the more outrageous your posting is, the more
> likely it is to get replies.
Reminds me of a "rule" we have on another forum. "The quickest way to get a
correct answer is to post a completely wrong answer."
Jonathan
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>
>> If, on the other hand, you post something other posters _don't_ agree
>> with, they will probably post to tell you that you are full of crap.
>> The end result is that the more outrageous your posting is, the more
>> likely it is to get replies.
>
> Reminds me of a "rule" we have on another forum. "The quickest way to get
> a correct answer is to post a completely wrong answer."
Quite right, and the greater the difference between the opposing camps
the larger the range of potential discussion. Which invites more into
the conversation as more are likely to have a better answer than
either extreme.
But the trick to starting a self organizing system isn't just in having
opposites in terms of pro and con. Which is considered a quantitative
difference between the two. In complexity science the opposing forces
must also be...qualitative opposites. One extreme, then, would be the
forces within a system at hand that tend to maintain order. The other
would be the forces tending towards chaos.
As in the unstable competition (or equilibrium) between....
the rule of law and freedom creates the emergent system
called democracy
Rule of Law > Democracy < Freedom
Or the competition between the subcritical forces of condensation
and the supercritical tendency of evaporation creating the emergent
order or properties called clouds, lightning etc.
Condensation > Clouds < Evaporation
Or in living systems....
Genetics > Natural Selection < Mutation
Or physical system where gravity and radiation pressure
are at an unstable equilibrium generating the emergent
order of a star.
Gravity > Star < Radiation
All are analogous to....
Solid >
Liquid < Gas
Abstractly termed....
Static > Dynamic < Chaotic
Subcritical > Critical < Supercritical
Simple > Complex < Simple
By connecting the opposing forces of order and disorder
together in a balanced way, emergent order is spontaneously
created. The opposites must also be at simultaneous maximums
btw.
Such as defending freedom of expression for all, using smut as
degenerate as the goal is altruistic.
This creates a system which appears either good or evil
entirely dependent on the observer. The system fails
to define itself from the elegant combination of opposites.
Each observer sees what they wish, creating a natural attractor.
As in the Mona Lisa, neutral and shaded emotional cues in the
eyes and mouth, failing to define the facial expression and
leaving that to the observer. Drawing people in as any good
mystery would.
And similarly, with emotional responses, the closer each opposite
defines good and evil, the stronger the potential emotional
response.
So for this ng, first the system boundaries must be arbitrarily
(subjectively)
defined. Is is just NASA, is the system just manned flight? Or is the
system the entire world, of which NASA, manned flight etc are
components of?
Just as a large statistical sample best shows the underlying patterns.
Then the more complex the system, the greater the effects.
So, the larger the goal, the greater likelihood of success.
So the system is the world, hence the opposing extremes
would be saving or destroying the world.
So the question becomes, how can NASA be used to either
save or destroy the world?
That's pretty easy to translate.
Unlimited Prosperity vs Missile Defense Race with China
So the debate in my mind is which opposite is NASA actually helping
vs what NASA ...should be doing.
The opposites of the actual vs the possible
or even
The Classical vs The Quantum
The ultimate opposites of reality, when intractably entangled
produces the emergent dynamic real of order, life
and intelligence.
Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm
War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation
"Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
credible organizations such a ExxonMobil predicting that
the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years
and the U.S. Government claiming the planet's absolute peak
will occur somewhere around 2037"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf
>
>
Ken S. Tucker
> > Or my killfiles...but is this newsgroup just about officially dead at
> > the moment?
> > regularly post, they leave it almost entirely to the nut-jobs and
> > Chinese shoe salesmen as the only consistent contributors.
> > writing some to it also; otherwise, it's just going to croak and you
> > won't even be able to read it.
>
>
> I can't recall the last post that has passed moderation in sci.space.science
> and very few recently that have passed moderation on sci.space.tech.
A lot of moderated groups use old Baby Boomers as moderators with
a sense that science ended in the 1960's, fortunately exceptions
prevail.
sci.space.tech died with the constellation program cancellation.
But I generally agree, you're right.
Ken
Brad Guth
> appeared and nothing to tell me that it got bounced or why...
>
> --
> "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
Obviously you're on their NO FLY list, as are the other 99.9% of us.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Indiscriminate moderation that's mostly robo managed as highly biased
is the death of most any chat or newsgroup that thinks so highly of
itself.
~ BG
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> appeared and nothing to tell me that it got bounced or why...
Hmm, when was this? I don't recall seeing anything? Disturbing you didn't
get at least a bounce.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Hardly. There is no NO FLY list for sci.space.tech or sci.space.science
(despite the wishes of a few.)
>
> ~ BG
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:856a5d1e-dc2a-48bd...@42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You never want to explore or reinterpret anything new unless it's
> > scripted as approved by your NASA/Apollo bible.
>
> This is a rather amusing thread. I hear them say "Is it the killfiling'?
> "Is it the moderator?" "Is it our intolerance of anyone born after
> 1960?" "Is it our intolerance of different views?"
> "Is it cause we just want to exchange old pics of rockets?"
> "Is it because we try our hardest to make this ng as
> uninteresting as possible?"
>
> Gee, maybe it's all of the above. Or even some of---is enough.
>
> NASA itself, the word itself, is analogous to forward-thinking.
> Or it should be. Yet all here swim in the glory of the past.
>
> When the group should be using their imagination to build
> an ideal (forward-looking) vision of the near future, figure out
> how NASA can make it come true, then unite to force the
> world into complying with that Vision.
”Whoever controls the past, controls the future” / George Orwell
>
> Anyone that thinks a few people can't effect the world fails
> to understand how it works. Exagerated non-linear effects
> occur most easily where a system is at it's most sensitive or
> it's sore spots. Find those spots and a few people can change
> the world.
>
> Given the simple fact that what is essentially a man-made volcano
> is about to swamp half our nation, why not figure out a way for
> NASA to come riding to the rescue, and just in the nic of time.
>
> You folks have too little imagination. Or is it something else?
Lack of imagination is not one of my problems. Lack of authority is
clearly an issue.
>
> My personal wish is to start a War with the Chinese.
> A war where the winner is the first to fill the sky with
> these things.....
>
> Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Powerhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
>
> Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
>
> Space Energy Inchttp://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm
>
> War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation
>
> "Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
> the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
> credible organizations such a ExxonMobil predicting that
> the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years
> and the U.S. Government claiming the planet's absolute peak
> will occur somewhere around 2037"http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf
>
> ....instead of weapons. What's yours?
>
> Jonathan
>
> s
>
> Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
> http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
> http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
Go for utilizing our moon/Selene, including relocating that sucker out
to Earth L1, and setting up the Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1) asap.
Go for Venus, because there's already some kind of intelligent other
life that has either evolved or having established themselves, and we
need to go there just to take whatever we like (even if they say no).
Obviousman
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> I tried almost the same article several times through two different
> servers. Dates would have been 5/9, 5/11, and 5/12 (different
> server).
Hmm, strange.
If you hadn't said different server I'd suspect that whatever NNTP server
you're using is still pointing to the old information from when George
Herbert was moderating. But two servers makes that less unlikely.
I can say this did not come through on our server. Had it, it would have
off course been permitted.
If you'd like I can cut/paste it with attribution to you and post it.
>
> Body of the article was:
>
> ==================================================================
>
> Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would like to have your thoughts about the best architecture for
>> high rate lunar missions. I don't want to hear about new technology,
>> if you want to talk about space elevators or antimatter propulsion,
>> start a
>> new thread. By high rate missions, I mean at least one mission every
>> other week.
>>
>
> What's the purpose of the high flight rate? That's certainly going to
> affect the architecture.
>
>>
>> Let's assume that Bigelow, or whoever, successfully builds his space
>> hotel and that there is a thriving orbital tourism industry. How
>> would we go from there to high rate lunar missions.
>>
>> For Apollo it made sense to have a lunar orbit rendezvous and no
>> other rendezvous. For high rate missions, I think that LEO
>> rendezvous would
>> be the way to go. The difference with Apollo is that for Apollo
>> when you came back from the moon, it made no sense to make a stop in
>> LEO
>> because breaking with rocket fuel is hideously expensive and if you
>> are going to use a heat shield to brake, might as well use the heat
>> shield to land. But for high rate missions, it makes sense to use
>> the heat shield to slow down to LEO, not because you want to spare
>> the heat
>> shield the furry of reentry but because you want to keep the
>> spaceship
>> for the next mission.
>>
>> Such an architecture would also provide some opportunities for future
>> growth. For instance, you could add giant solar panels at a LEO
>> rendezvous station, so the fuel you bring for the lunar spaceship
>> could be water instead of oxygen and hydrogen. You just convert it
>> at the station. It is a lot easier to transport water than oxygen
>> and hydrogen because it is denser and not cryogenic. After that,
>> mining water on the moon or in
>> the asteroid belt can become profitable.
>>
>> I'm not sure if one should do lunar orbit rendezvous also. What do
>> you think?
>>
>
> If you want something that frequent for people, I'd suggest a cycler.
> No heat shield required. You build 'shuttle' vehicles to get to and
> from the cycler at each end of the trip. You never actually go into
> LEO at all and the cycler doesn't require a heat shield or even much
> in the way of engines except for orbit adjustments, so you save a lot
> of weight once it's in position.
>
> If you're talking cargo, I'd build 'one-way' ships that are
> essentially just cargo pods at each end and launch them direct.
>
> If you're doing both, you essentially build two 'vehicles'; a small,
> reusable shuttle for people and a big dumb cargo pod for everything
> else.
>
> In neither case is an LEO station for rendezvous particularly useful.
>
> --
> "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
>
>
> ==================================================================
Alain Fournier
>
>>I tried almost the same article several times through two different
>>servers. Dates would have been 5/9, 5/11, and 5/12 (different
>>server).
>
>
> Hmm, strange.
>
> If you hadn't said different server I'd suspect that whatever NNTP server
> you're using is still pointing to the old information from when George
> Herbert was moderating. But two servers makes that less unlikely.
>
> I can say this did not come through on our server. Had it, it would have
> off course been permitted.
>
> If you'd like I can cut/paste it with attribution to you and post it.
I had problems also. On May 11th I posted 3 replies to sci.space.tech,
the reply to J R Stockton sent at 20h25 (in this post, all times are
EDT) went through but my reply to David Spain sent the same day at 20h03
and my reply to Michael Turner sent at 20h38 did not get through and I
didn't get a message from the moderators telling me it was refused. I
will repost those replies in the next few minutes. If I am not successful
once more I will post them here in sci.space.policy, but I would prefer
having them in the moderated group.
Alain Fournier
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Strange, if I get some time I will look into it.
If your posts ARE rejected, you should get an email and generally a commet
from one of the moderators. (unless it's VERY obviously spam in which case
there is no comment.)
>
> Alain Fournier
Alain Fournier
>>I had problems also. On May 11th I posted 3 replies to sci.space.tech,
>>the reply to J R Stockton sent at 20h25 (in this post, all times are
>>EDT) went through but my reply to David Spain sent the same day at
>>20h03 and my reply to Michael Turner sent at 20h38 did not get
>>through and I didn't get a message from the moderators telling me it
>>was refused. I will repost those replies in the next few minutes. If
>>I am not successful once more I will post them here in
>>sci.space.policy, but I would prefer having them in the moderated
>>group.
>
>
> Strange, if I get some time I will look into it.
I would appreciate that.
> If your posts ARE rejected, you should get an email and generally a commet
> from one of the moderators. (unless it's VERY obviously spam in which case
> there is no comment.)
I sent 5 posts tonight to sci.space.tech, they all went through. So at
least for tonight everything is fine.
Thanks to you and the other moderators for your work. I find moderated
groups much more enjoyable than spammed groups.
Alain Fournier
Brad Guth
> Perhaps it's because, Brad, you are a total tosser.
And your less than pile of shit worthy contributions to humanity and/
or the environment are???????
What exactly makes your ZNR approved life worth anything at all?
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google Document info on Venus:
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj