The rigid airship (fat waverider/shuttle) to/from hell:
Brad Guth
have such straight and tight intellectual butt-cracks that they can't
even manage to break wind without blowing such as intellectual snot out
their brown nose. There's has been such little science derived from
their supposedly broken mission that's having to function w/o PFS, in
that there's hardly any point in reviewing those rather interesting but
technically pathetic images, with one being the exception of the
following group of thermal images which seems to include a rather large
item that could be a rigid airship as existing within sequence after
sequence (therefore it is not an imaging fault).
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/venusexpress/total_500_red_c.jpg
Since our big old nasty moon that's been so nicely thawing us out and
subsequently warming us to death, as of ever since having arrived as of
the last ice age, is unfortunately remaining so Usenet topic
taboo/nondisclosure, whereas such I might as well take to sharing a
little of whatever else comes to mind.
Here's a little more of my ongoing rant, of having to stoke my very own
warm and fuzzy tit for tat, of my sharing as to what's currently too
Usenet hot and otherwise remains fully taboo/nondisclosure (topic/author
banishment worthy) on behalf of Venus. Too bad ESA's Venus EXPRESS team
of such supposed wizards are currently sequestered until each and every
one of those NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows manage to come home, and
certainly otherwise having to remain as nondisclosure minions unitl our
hocus-pocus fat lady of our multi-trillion dollar perpetrated cold-war
gets to sing.
Nighttime Exploring of Venus with a Composite Rigid Airship.
Perhaps if we're good at cloaking our rigid airship as being flat-black
and pray that we're damn lucky, they'll never see us coming to pillage,
plunder and otherwise infect their planet with our born-again superior
bigotry, arrogance and greed.
Where necessary having a meter thick insulative skin that's made
extensively of the 4.84 GPa basalt fibers (Elastic modulus GPa of 89)
and otherwise of basalt micro-balloons, plus a fair percentage of having
those not so micro balloons that might as well contain H2 or simply
incorporate a good vacuum, is what should obtain the structurally
insulative R-1024/m that'll also benefit from the local 65 kg/m3 worth
of buoyancy, which should cut the net tonnage or cubic density of that
outer hull plus offsetting much of the airship's internal framing and
various infrastructure aspects of decks and structured compartments by
as great as 50%, though perhaps at first a 25% offset of the total
structural consideration that's due to the cubic volumetric buoyancy
factor is more than likely going to be the case. Of course, since
there's so much buoyancy is why one could construct a Venusian rigid
airship out of iron, and it would fly.
The primary volume of buoyancy that's afforded by it's volumetric
airframe shell or outer hull needn't be nearly as insulative, just made
robust and otherwise tough enough in order to take the submarine like
pressure of perhaps 2000 psi (138 bar), or perhaps not even 10% of that
much if using a displacement gas such as H2 that can be created while on
the fly.
Tossing in the 90.5% gravity as offering yet another attractive factor
is what should rather nicely facilitate this form of Venusian
exploration as a technological done deal, that which airframe size or
total volume of this rigid airship (AKA fat waverider/shuttle) is nearly
a none issue except for having to fend off all of the usual mainstream
flak that's to be expected from those naysay mindsets that wouldn't so
much as accept the truth even if it meant salvaging their own status quo
butts.
I believe the necessary R&D on behalf of accomplishing this Venusian
rigid airship/(fat waverider/shuttle or whatever robotic airship
configured probe) isn't even all that insurmountable, as for being
terrestrial constructed and fully proof-tested right here on Earth,
especially if at first we're talking about a purely robotic application
which wouldn't demand 1% of the mass if pertaining to merely sustaining
each of the various scientific instrumentation demands.
As far as accomplishing this task robotically, we're not talking about
all that large nor even aerodynamically configured worth of any such
craft (could be just a rigid sphere of an airship), nor would the
onboard energy demands be all that daunting. The nicely retrograde
weather that's relatively calm below them nifty acidic clouds is
actually a rather terrific efficiency consideration that'll nearly
always work on behalf of enhancing much of the expedition's navigating
considerations, thereby very little propulsion energy is going to be
required.
Of CCD's and other ICs on diamond, SiC or simply employing miniature
vacuum tube applications are going to more than function as being
entirely within their thermal spec, meaning that little if any auxiliary
cooling need be applied.
So, one should be thinking on behalf of robotically flown rigid airships
being anything from a few cubic meters to as large as you'd dare to
achieve, and of those humanly operated rigid airships of anything from
as little as 1,000 m3 to 1,000,000 m3 should be seriously considered.
Unlike having to accomplish our moon, there's nothing about this rigid
airship technology that's technically outside the expertise and scope of
existing science and proven technology that'll efficiently and safely
operate within the Venusian atmosphere, as well as everything based
entirely within the regular laws of physics.
Perhaps extreme high temperature ICs on diamond insteasd of merely
silicon carbide (SiC) for high temperature semiconductor applications
should be reviewed, whereas SiC works perfectly fine even when it's
glowing hot, and if the process of doping diamond isn't too pesky is
where this element of diamond(C) should take over whenever the SiC
application isn't quite sufficient. A less densely populated high
temperature rated IC would obviously demand perhaps as great a 10 fold
increase in surface area, therefore a CCD on SiC or C of 50 micron
pixels (possibly as tightly populated at 25 micron/pixels) should be
doable within existing technology.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT2000/5000/5510okojie.html
Obviously the dynamic range(DR) of a given CCD that's having to operate
at such temperature isn't going to be all that impressive, but it should
be more than sufficient. If need be, auxiliary cooling for a specific
imaging element shouldn't be all that insurmountable.
Conventional IC gate densities that might otherwise achieve 100000
gates/mm2 should become merely 10000 gates/mm2, although I believe 15000
gates/mm2 is entirely doable and at that being way overkill for the
Venusian applications that's nearly always operating within something
less than the absolute worse case of 811 K.
Within a conventional 0.35 micron process, a gate density of 18000 gates
per square millimeter can be achieved, whereas dividing that gate
population by a factor of 10 is obviously worthy of laying down 1800
gates/mm2 that'll more than survive the thermal trauma with a few
roasting degrees to spare.
What this means is that folks that would much rather drop dead than to
utilize the good old vacuum tube format of circuitry that's more than
suited to surviving 900 K, that by rights should be right at home on the
toasty Venusian range of cruising within the nighttime season and for
getting damn near to that geothermally roasting Venusian deck, whereas
instead using their SiC or C alternatives in thermally tolerant ICs that
are simply less populated devices than the norm is what's currently
doable. However, since internal probe/airship volume and of whatever
mass isn't hardly a factor, so what's the difference.
In spite of what all that we've been informed of over and over, Venus is
more than technically doable as is. Though having been geothermally
toasty and very much alive and kicking it's own rather newish
planetology butt, whereas it's simply not too hot nor too nasty to go
visit, at least from the relative safety of a good composite rigid
airship.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
anti-think-tank mindset of a Usenet from hell, that otherwise sucks and
blows from all of their usual naysayism and/or as to their denial of
being in denial, whereas there's not so much as a friendly word on
behalf of accomplishing those Venusian rigid airships.
Perhaps if I got our resident fat-waverider wizard "tomcat" to design
and build us a working prototype of one of these composite
fly-by-buoyancy suckers, whereas then all the supposed experts in the
world will emerge out of their infomercial saturated cesspools in order
to tell us about everything he did wrong, and perhaps as to insisting as
to why it isn't ever going to work, all without their ever once sharing
actual squat as to whatever and of how such matters need to get fixed.
I wonder what their all-knowing problem is with airship physics-101 this
time around?
Scott Dorsey
>That's rather odd, in that within this rather smartly Jewish dominated
>anti-think-tank mindset of a Usenet from hell, that otherwise sucks and
>blows from all of their usual naysayism and/or as to their denial of
>being in denial, whereas there's not so much as a friendly word on
>behalf of accomplishing those Venusian rigid airships.
Brad, your fantasy airship will NEVER approach the beauty and elegance
of Josh Geller's. Powered by Volkswagen engines pumping helium through
garden hoses, crewed by semi-naked women and heated by the burning of
bales of marijuana, Geller's airship is the finest that talk.bizarre
has to offer.
Brad, you claim to support flights to Venus, but here in talk.bizarre,
we worship the Goddess Venus. Or Danu, or Gypsy, or whoever happens to
be available on short notice.
Your attempts at being bizarre fall far short of the mainstream status
quo here in talk.bizarre. Please stop crossposting.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Pat Flannery
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>Brad, your fantasy airship will NEVER approach the beauty and elegance
>of Josh Geller's. Powered by Volkswagen engines pumping helium through
>garden hoses, crewed by semi-naked women and heated by the burning of
>bales of marijuana, Geller's airship is the finest that talk.bizarre
>has to offer.
>
>
This is fairly neat: http://www.fuellessflight.com/
Pat
Brad Guth
news:eitth8$1kc$1...@panix2.panix.com
> Brad, your fantasy airship will NEVER approach the beauty and elegance
> of Josh Geller's. Powered by Volkswagen engines pumping helium through
> garden hoses, crewed by semi-naked women and heated by the burning of
> bales of marijuana, Geller's airship is the finest that talk.bizarre
> has to offer.
>
> Brad, you claim to support flights to Venus, but here in talk.bizarre,
> we worship the Goddess Venus. Or Danu, or Gypsy, or whoever happens to
> be available on short notice.
>
> Your attempts at being bizarre fall far short of the mainstream status
> quo here in talk.bizarre. Please stop crossposting.
> --scott
In other words, you know of nothing about waverider spaceplanes or rigid
airship technology, nor much less that of any related physics.
Gee whiz, why the heck didn't you just say that you are totally airship
dumbfounded, and simply admit that you otherwise don't believe in the
regular laws of physics. Wouldn't that have been so much easier?
Is "talk.bizarre" the same Usenet group as as "talk.dumbfounded",
"talk.dumb.dumber" or perhaps "talk.bigot"?
Brad Guth
news:12l563t...@corp.supernews.com
Thank you so very much, as I totally agree with the nearly "Fuel-less
Gravity Powered Flight", especially if we're given a buoyancy factor of
65+ kg/m3 and a gravity of merely 90.5% in order to work within a fairly
calm retrograde atmospheric environment that's still rather toasty by
season of nighttime but otherwise well protected from whatever that sun
contributed by day, and otherwise keeping sufficiently away from that
geothermally active deck while cruising efficiently below the thick and
acidic clouds of Venus.
sal
>
>
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> This is fairly neat: http://www.fuellessflight.com/
It is, indeed.
Here's an amusing point: This general sort of airship was anticipated by
Jules Verne in "Five Weeks in a Balloon". The "balloon" in "5 weeks"
used a sealed envelope and fixed gas supply, with a heater to control the
lift; very much like the gravity plane. But Verne didn't think of making
the whole thing into a giant glider, so the best they could do to "steer"
was try different altitudes until they found a breeze going in the right
direction.
But coming back in the present, I couldn't see anything on the website
about how _high_ the "gravity plane" would fly, which seems important.
As I recall, zeppelins -- to which this seems closely related -- were
limited to something like a 4000 foot ceiling. Coupled with their low air
speed, large size, and relative fragility, this puts them seriously at
risk from bad weather: They can't fly over it, can't outfly it, and can't
safely ride it out. I seem to recall the last experiment with commercial
use of zeppelins foundered on this problem: One of the last two to fly
broke up in a storm, which, as I said, it couldn't fly over or away from.
I also note that the G-P is called a "glider", not a "sail plane".
Presumably this means it can't soar: it can pump up its gas bags and rise,
and then chill the gas and glide down, but can't just rise on a thermal.
Pretty nifty if it's really possible to power the cycle with the
temperature change in the air -- what's that, 3 or 4 degrees F per
thousand feet? Sounds like a pretty slim variation but nothing a Sterling
engine couldn't use.
>
> Pat
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
Brad Guth
news:pan.2006.11.09....@nospam.org
> As I recall, zeppelins -- to which this seems closely related -- were
> limited to something like a 4000 foot ceiling. Coupled with their low air
> speed, large size, and relative fragility, this puts them seriously at
> risk from bad weather: They can't fly over it, can't outfly it, and can't
> safely ride it out. I seem to recall the last experiment with commercial
> use of zeppelins foundered on this problem: One of the last two to fly
> broke up in a storm, which, as I said, it couldn't fly over or away from.
There is no "bad weather" on Venus, the atmospheric buoyancy starts off
at 65+ kg/m3 and there's all sorts of easily obtained local energy,
minerals and various airship related elements as is.
> I also note that the G-P is called a "glider", not a "sail plane".
> Presumably this means it can't soar: it can pump up its gas bags and rise,
> and then chill the gas and glide down, but can't just rise on a thermal.
I wouldn't utilize that very same G-P as a "glider" on Venus, would you?
At first I'd incorporate conventional fuel such as a good supply of h2o2
plus whatever, and/or having a small nuclear energy source by which to
create a few spare electrons, although the toasty local environment
might be good enough as is.
> Pretty nifty if it's really possible to power the cycle with the
> temperature change in the air -- what's that, 3 or 4 degrees F per
> thousand feet? Sounds like a pretty slim variation but nothing a Sterling
> engine couldn't use.
On Venus you've got 4 bar/km of pressure and thermally perhaps 10 K/km
of such nifty nighttime thermal and pressure differentials to work with,
while at 90.5% gravity and having a rather nifty retrograge flow
(depending on altitude) to work with.
There's also loads of geothermal driven gas vents that can be taken
advantage of, especially if they're pumping out the likes of S8 as
interpreted by John Ackerman.
sal
>
> There is no "bad weather" on Venus
Give it a rest, and stop cross-posting. I had set the followups to the
groups where that message you replied to was actually sort of on-topic.
There's nothing but bad weather on Venus.
(Followups again set to a group where your reply, if any, will be on-topic.)
**plonk**
Brad Guth
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:06:14 +0000, Brad Guth wrote:
> >
> > There is no "bad weather" on Venus
>
> Give it a rest, and stop cross-posting. I had set the followups to the
> groups where that message you replied to was actually sort of on-topic.
>
> There's nothing but bad weather on Venus.
? Such as one or perhaps 2 m/s ? or are you talking about the
geothermal driven thermal dynamics of those vertical differential flows
that could be fairly impressive.
Silly boy/gal. Besides your own shadow, what the heck are you silly
anti-everything and/or naysay/denial upon most everything that's under
the one and only Jewish sun, as representing such mainstream status quo
minions that are obviously so deathly afraid of the truth and nothing
but the truth.
Perhaps the other intelligent life that's existing or as ETs coexisting
on Venus are Muslim or somewhat Cathar related with a capital "C" and a
serious need to kick a few of our less than holy Catholic Pope like
butts before they get around to all the other butts that badly need
their fair share of kicking.
Scott Dorsey
>> of Josh Geller's. Powered by Volkswagen engines pumping helium through
>> garden hoses, crewed by semi-naked women and heated by the burning of
>> bales of marijuana, Geller's airship is the finest that talk.bizarre
>> has to offer.
>
>airship technology, nor much less that of any related physics.
Of course not. That's because this is talk.bizarre that you are crossposting
to.
>Gee whiz, why the heck didn't you just say that you are totally airship
>dumbfounded, and simply admit that you otherwise don't believe in the
>regular laws of physics. Wouldn't that have been so much easier?
Talk.bizarre isn't ABOUT the laws of physics. It's about railroad track
solvent, and sex with reptiles, and about Cuban vacuum cleaners. Brad,
if you want to talk about airships and physics you are not in the right
newsgroups. Airships and physics are just too mainstream status quo for
talk.bizarre. Now, if you're willing to have sex with reptiles and post
long descriptions about it, or eat a huge piece of jimsonweed and drive
a riding mower through a shopping mail, THEN that would be relevant for
talk.bizarre.
But Brad, your postings are just too boring and routine for our newsgroup.
Please stop crossposting here.
>Is "talk.bizarre" the same Usenet group as as "talk.dumbfounded",
>"talk.dumb.dumber" or perhaps "talk.bigot"?
No, but it IS connected to alt.roger-carasso and alt.meredith-tanner.
hairy-douchebag. Not to mention alt.i.have.too.many.heads.
Brad Guth
> >Is "talk.bizarre" the same Usenet group as as "talk.dumbfounded",
> >"talk.dumb.dumber" or perhaps "talk.bigot"?
>
> No, but it IS connected to alt.roger-carasso and alt.meredith-tanner.
> hairy-douchebag. Not to mention alt.i.have.too.many.heads.
> --scott
Very good to know that about your "talk.bizarre" that supposedly has no
topics related to reality nor much less related to any truth(s).
"Forrest Whittaker: Is he the worst actor of all time, or one of the
greatest?"
"Six years on, how is the Fascism?"
"Unacceptable"
"Love thy vanquished and abused atheist neighbor: Pray that GOD heal his
heart and other damaged internal organs."
"Slumming, through the Death Threats, with You (was: America vs. the
Commie Mommy State.)"
"Trapped in the rail yard elevator"
"A True Patriot Warrior"
And so forth. It's good to know that you too are just another a pagan
born-again liar and a certified bigot to boot.
Scott Dorsey
>> >"talk.dumb.dumber" or perhaps "talk.bigot"?
>>
>> No, but it IS connected to alt.roger-carasso and alt.meredith-tanner.
>> hairy-douchebag. Not to mention alt.i.have.too.many.heads.
>
>topics related to reality nor much less related to any truth(s).
The truth is seldom bizarre, Brad. It's usually pretty boring. Here
in talk.bizarre we'd much rather talk about how Jeff Vogel ran his baby
through the washing machine, or how steroids make you gay, rather than
anything truthful.
Brad, talk.bizarre is like the Weekly World News of Usenet. The stuff
you post isn't HALF weird enough here.
--scott
And remember, Kids, Fail to Suck Day is just around the corner.
Brad Guth
> The truth is seldom bizarre, Brad. It's usually pretty boring. Here
> in talk.bizarre we'd much rather talk about how Jeff Vogel ran his baby
> through the washing machine, or how steroids make you gay, rather than
> anything truthful.
Obviously your "Jeff Vogel ran his baby through the washing machine" is
exactly the sorts of hocus-pocus crapolla of what sick and perverted
wizards like yourself would much rather be talking about, while others
are kindly contributing their weirdness by way of sharing and thereby
discussing interesting and somewhat outside the box sorts of weird stuff
that could actually matter, such as there being other intelligent life
on Venus (exoskeletal Cathars or whatever Venusian Muslims), and/or we
have the little extra matter of fact that our extremely robust and
nearby mascon of a physically dark and nasty moon that has been global
warming us to death ever since the arrival of that big old icy
proto-moon, and obviously we're stuck with having it's salty remainder
that's still orbiting us and thereby having been causing a great deal of
global tidal friction, plus having caused all sorts of tidal related
currents (inside and out) of motivating various thermal energy
transferrance, that which simply wouldn't have been so gosh darn
horrific if our environment were merely having to go by those solar
induced tides.
> Brad, talk.bizarre is like the Weekly World News of Usenet. The stuff
> you post isn't HALF weird enough here.
> --scott
>
> And remember, Kids, Fail to Suck Day is just around the corner.
Obviously your lower than gutter scum sucking mindset via your extremely
brown nose of buttology suck-up status quo is exactly where it belongs
(squarely between those butt-cheeks of your next innocent victim), along
with all of your other anti-Muslim and pro-Jewish friends that would
like nothing better than to get whomever's the next Christ almighty
trouble maker placed right back on another stick, and for having the
likes of your born-again Roman puppet GW Bush arround for accomplishing
that dastardly task was obviously perfectly fine and dandy by way of
your previously proof-tested Third Reich collaborating minion status
quo. (sorry if that analogy wasn't quite bizarre enough)
In your perverted pro-petafile and pro-polluted world of continuing to
rape mother Earth for all she's worth, and for otherwise having
perpetrated and thus promoting whatever best sucks and blows to your
rusemaster black heart's content, whereas clearly all that matters is
achieving one more lie after another until each and every one of those
NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows and/or invisible/stealth unfiltered Kodak
moments comes home for good. (sorry once again if that wasn't
sufficiently bizarre)
As your having previously stipulated "the truth is seldom bizarre" and
"the stuff you post isn't HALF weird enough". I'm terribly sorry about
all that, as I'll simply have to try harder next time.
Kent Paul Dolan
> The truth is seldom bizarre, Brad.
> It's usually pretty boring.
Ah, but consider the truth of corner
cube reflectors on the moon, Scott.
Consider how you fake a moon walk on
a sound stage, and show astronauts
emplacing corner cube reflectors on
on the moon. Before that clip, laser
light directed to the moon scatters
any which way, but right as the clip
shows those reflectors being emplaced
by faux astronauts on Brad's Hollywood
sound stage, suddenly lasers aimed at
the moon reflect straight back to the
source, and _anyone_ can check that
this works, and works to this day.
Brad's thesis gets a whole lot less
believable, when the truth of corner
cube reflectors on the moon is factored
into the story. You have to move that
sound stage to the moon to make things
work, and it's way easier just to send
some astronauts instead.
HTH
xanthian.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:1163245979.2...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> The truth is seldom bizarre, Brad.
>> It's usually pretty boring.
>
> cube reflectors on the moon, Scott.
>
> Consider how you fake a moon walk on
> a sound stage, and show astronauts
> emplacing corner cube reflectors on
> on the moon. Before that clip, laser
> light directed to the moon scatters
> any which way, but right as the clip
> shows those reflectors being emplaced
> by faux astronauts on Brad's Hollywood
> sound stage, suddenly lasers aimed at
> the moon reflect straight back to the
> source, and _anyone_ can check that
> this works, and works to this day.
Problem is a) not "anyone" can check this. In reality only a few
observatories in the world have the necessary equipment.
and b) Easy, land an unmanned lander on the Moon and at the proper time
signal it to drop the cover covering the reflector so it starts working.
Face it, Moon-hoax nuts can go to any length to deny the reality of us
landing on the Moon.
Brad Guth
> Brad's thesis gets a whole lot less
> believable, when the truth of corner
> cube reflectors on the moon is factored
> into the story. You have to move that
> sound stage to the moon to make things
> work, and it's way easier just to send
> some astronauts instead.
You folks are all so snookered and thereby pathetic beyond the
brown-nosed point of no return. Grasping at whatever infomercial hyped
straw that demands the use of those custom NASA/Apollo conditional laws
of physics and of believing in their infomercial-science that simply
can't be independently replicated, is apparently as good as life ever
gets for the likes of such village idiot fools as yourselves.
How about discussing the actual topic that's at least somewhat related
to the physics and science application on behalf of accomplishing a
rigid airship/shuttle that's made of a tough composite, involving the
use of those high temperature and acidic tolerant binders for the likes
of perhaps using basalt fibers and microballoons, which isn't all that
unlikely to being way more than sufficient for the task.
If you'd like to discuss merely the robotic airship alternative as being
doable, whereas that's also perfectly fine and dandy for this
application of what a composite rigid airship/probe could accomplish
while efficiently cruising extensively within the nighttime season of
Venus.
Even on behalf of the interior structural aspects can essentially be
made of this very same composite, as created to whatever density suits
the stress, loading and insulation demands on behalf of creating as
large of airship/shuttle or robotic probe as you'd like.
Brad Guth
message news:9Nl5h.5098$0r....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
> Problem is a) not "anyone" can check this. In reality only a few
> observatories in the world have the necessary equipment.
The other problem is that any number of items as having impacted and
thus vaporised their aluminum upon the salty lunar deck that's below all
of that other sooty stuff could just as easily accomplish the same
hocus-pocus affect.
> Face it, Moon-hoax nuts can go to any length to deny the reality of us
> landing on the Moon.
Don't really have to do much of anything but apply the regular laws of
physics along with accepting the honest science and of known
fly-by-rocket technology that can be replicated, such as any number of
Kodak moments that'll include our physically dark moon along with a good
number of other planets and even a few of the brightest of stars, all at
the very same photographic exposure none the less.
BTW; Our NASA/Apollo moon is not a passive Guano island that's
illuminated by the spectrum worth of a xenon lamp array, and there's
lots more where that came from.
Gordon
<brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
>news:1163246148.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>
>> Brad's thesis gets a whole lot less
>> believable, when the truth of corner
>> cube reflectors on the moon is factored
>> into the story. You have to move that
>> sound stage to the moon to make things
>> work, and it's way easier just to send
>> some astronauts instead.
>
>You folks are all so snookered and thereby pathetic beyond the
>brown-nosed point of no return. Grasping at whatever infomercial hyped
>straw that demands the use of those custom NASA/Apollo conditional laws
>of physics and of believing in their infomercial-science that simply
>can't be independently replicated, is apparently as good as life ever
>gets for the likes of such village idiot fools as yourselves.
>
So, Brad, please tell us how those astronauts seemed to be
walking under a much reduced gravitational force in all those
images that were sent back. I worked for RCA Missile Test
Project, at the Cape while this was going on, and I remember
watching those movies and being amazed at the way they seemed to
almost float above the moon's surface when walking around. Even
though they were carrying a lot of mass in addition to their own
body mass, they could hardly keep their feet on the moon's
surface. Their movements reminded me of someone
walking/semi-floating in a swimming pool. Some secretive form of
levitation in a lab...yeah, sure.
Strap a bungee onto a body harness and adjust things such that
the weight force on your feet is about 1/6 that of normal gravity
and you will exhibit the same kind of gait the astronauts
exhibited. I've seen this demonstrated.
Ian Stirling
>
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
> news:1163245979.2...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The truth is seldom bizarre, Brad.
>>> It's usually pretty boring.
>>
>> Ah, but consider the truth of corner
>> cube reflectors on the moon, Scott.
>>
>> Consider how you fake a moon walk on
>> a sound stage, and show astronauts
>> emplacing corner cube reflectors on
>> on the moon. Before that clip, laser
>> light directed to the moon scatters
>> any which way, but right as the clip
>> shows those reflectors being emplaced
>> by faux astronauts on Brad's Hollywood
>> sound stage, suddenly lasers aimed at
>> the moon reflect straight back to the
>> source, and _anyone_ can check that
>> this works, and works to this day.
>
> Problem is a) not "anyone" can check this. In reality only a few
> observatories in the world have the necessary equipment.
Hmm.
I find a link for 3.8cm corner cubes, 300 off, in the Apollo 15 array.
Hmm.
How cheaply can this be done?
I can get 100mW green laser pointers on ebay for around 100 quid.
1.22*532nm/3.8cm = beamwidth of 15Km or so on earth.
A 10cm mirror intercepts some one part in 20*10^9 of this.
So, for every 20 billion photons that hit the reflectors on the moon,
one'll come into a 10cm mirror on earth.
If the laser pointer is shone through the same telescope at the moon,
the beamwidth is some 4Km.
The area of the array is some 1/4 of a square meter, so one part in
64000 of the laser beam that hits the moon hits the reflector.
This is 1 microwatt hitting the reflector.
Or 1*10^13 photons/second.
Or around a couple of hundred photons per second.
Hmm.
This is a fair amount of signal.
On the moon, during its night, about 10mW/m^2 of light from earth
shines.
Onto the 4Km diameter spot that the telescope images, about 160Kw of
light falls.
However, this reflection is spread out by around a billion times,
compared to the reflection from the reteroreflector, so it's 'only' 160
microwatts.
This is of course much stronger than the signal.
I see a 532nm filter on ebay, for $10, which diddn't sell last time,
which should take the signal/noise ratio down to about 1:1 or so.
Interesting.
Averaging over a minute, with appropriate coding, should get a very
definite result.
At this budget level, I'd be surprised if the tracking was not the most
expensive part.
It's certainly easily doable under $1000.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Obviously your "Jeff Vogel ran his baby through the washing machine" is
>exactly the sorts of hocus-pocus crapolla of what sick and perverted
>wizards like yourself would much rather be talking about, while others
>are kindly contributing their weirdness by way of sharing and thereby
>discussing interesting and somewhat outside the box sorts of weird stuff
>that could actually matter,
Brad, this is talk.bizarre you're posting to. This is a place where
people post fiction. It's only because you have Ebola that you're
saying this. If you didn't have Ebola, you'd understand just how silly
it is to expect anything in talk.bizarre to matter. Brad, see a doctor
immediately. Ebola can kill you if it's left untreated.
--scott
Brad Guth
news:45564c55$0$8710$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net
> Averaging over a minute, with appropriate coding, should get a very
> definite result.
>
> At this budget level, I'd be surprised if the tracking was not the most
> expensive part.
> It's certainly easily doable under $1000.
Trust me a little, if you can, at that sort of range and to/from dealing
with our badly polluted atmosphere plus a little tracking error, it's
simply not that easily accomplished.
You'll be doing damn good as getting a couple of photons if any per
minute that may or may not belong to any stinking corner cubes.
Brad Guth
news:o2ecl2lt0m029b7r4...@4ax.com
> So, Brad, please tell us how those astronauts seemed to be
> walking under a much reduced gravitational force in all those
> images that were sent back. I worked for RCA Missile Test
> Project, at the Cape while this was going on, and I remember
> watching those movies and being amazed at the way they seemed to
> almost float above the moon's surface when walking around. Even
> though they were carrying a lot of mass in addition to their own
> body mass, they could hardly keep their feet on the moon's
> surface. Their movements reminded me of someone
> walking/semi-floating in a swimming pool. Some secretive form of
> levitation in a lab...yeah, sure.
I'm not one of those all knowing wizards like yourself and those of your
kind that supposedly had all the "right stuff", but I do know that
almost anything can be made via video and especially if having been
converted from video to film and back to video in order to look as
though having less gravity. However, I do seem to recall counting my
way a few too many of those video frames, and thereby unavoidably timing
the dust of their portland cement and cornmeal as falling to the surface
of that quano island (as rather oddly so nicely xenon lamp spectrum
illuminated), at roughly 9 m/s.
Once again, being topic/author stalked and otherwise getting topic
hijacked as for becoming this "Corner Cube Reflectors on the Moon" seems
about par for the status quo or bust course of this mainstream that's
taking us to hell, and then some. Not that our government hasn't been
accomplishing a damn fine job of their going a little Fascism postal as
of lately, so what's the difference?
Why not instead of hijacking a perfectly good topic, just start yourself
an entirely new one, using your real name and the real names of those
you've sadly or knowingly dragged along for the ride. Doesn't it make
any sense keeping the jest of a given topic as is?
Here's a little something that's at least related as a viable sub-topic
to "The rigid airship (fat waverider/shuttle) to/from hell", as we
otherwise manage to keep getting ourselves global warmed to death my our
moon plus loads of our own soot.
It seems Carl Sagan was just about done for when those absolutely
terrific SAR obtained images of his hot and relatively dry surface of
Venus were getting sufficiently processed for the rest of us to behold.
Unfortunately, there wasn't the likes of myself anywhere to be found
within or even external to the Magellan team, and there certainly wasn't
interaction taking place between Carl Sagan and others of the Magellan
mission, as to whatever was getting so nicely imaged and subsequently
interpreted by those members of such all-knowing wizards as having been
employed on the official Magellan team.
Perhaps that's because our NASA and their religious puppeteers badly
wanted to have a purely atmospherically roasted and toasted to death
Venus, and not merely as any result of a geothermally active and thereby
newish planetology worth of there being such a hot surface (especially
near lava and mud flowing zones), such as having previously been
interpreted by the likes of Carl Sagan and John Ackerman.
You see, apparently NASA's Venus had to be essentially the exact same
age as Earth.
Brad Guth
hijacked as for becoming something other, is what seems about par for
the status quo or bust course of this mainstream that's taking all of us
to hell, and then some. Not that our warm and fuzzy government hasn't
been accomplishing a damn fine job of their going a little Fascism
the difference" situation.
Why not instead of these unhappy campers continually hijacking a
perfectly good topic, just start yourself an entirely new one, above all
using your real name and the real names of those you've sadly or
knowingly dragged along for the ride. Doesn't it make any sense keeping
the jest of a given topic as is?
Here's a little something that's at least related as a viable sub-topic
to "The rigid airship (fat waverider/shuttle) to/from hell", as we
otherwise manage to keep getting ourselves global warmed to death my our
moon plus loads of our own soot.
It seems Carl Sagan was just about done for when those absolutely
terrific SAR obtained images of his hot and relatively dry surface of
Venus were getting sufficiently processed for the rest of us to behold.
Unfortunately, there wasn't the likes of myself anywhere to be found
within or even external to the Magellan team, and there certainly wasn't
interaction taking place between Carl Sagan and others of the Magellan
mission, as to whatever was getting so nicely imaged and subsequently
interpreted by those members of such all-knowing wizards as having been
employed on the official Magellan team.
Perhaps that's because our perpetrated cold-war rusemasters of
MI/NSA~NASA and their religious puppeteers badly wanted to have a purely
atmospherically roasted and toasted to death Venus, and not merely as
any result of a geothermally active and thereby newish planetology worth
of there being such a hot surface (especially near lava and mud flowing
zones), such as having previously been interpreted by the likes of Carl
Sagan and John Ackerman.
You see, apparently NASA's Venus had to be essentially the exact same
age as Earth.
You folks are all so snookered and thereby pathetic beyond that
brown-nosed point of no return. Grasping at whatever infomercial hyped
straw that demands the use of those custom NASA/Apollo conditional laws
of physics and of believing in their infomercial-science that simply
can't be independently replicated, is apparently as good as life ever
gets for the likes of such village idiot fools as yourselves.
How about discussing the actual topic or sub-topic that's at least
somewhat related to the physics and science application that's on behalf
of accomplishing a rigid airship/shuttle that's made of a tough
composite, involving the use of those high temperature and acidic
tolerant binders for the likes of perhaps using basalt fibers and
microballoons, which isn't all that unlikely to being way more than
sufficient for the task.
If you'd like to discuss merely the robotic airship alternative as being
doable, whereas that's also perfectly fine and dandy for this
application of whatever a composite rigid airship/probe could accomplish
while efficiently cruising extensively within the nighttime season of
Venus.
Even on behalf of the interior structural aspects of this craft can
essentially be made of this very same composite, as created to whatever
density suits the stress, loading and insulation demands on behalf of
creating as large of airship/shuttle or robotic probe as you'd like.
Brad Guth
> Brad, this is talk.bizarre you're posting to. This is a place where
> people post fiction. It's only because you have Ebola that you're
> saying this. If you didn't have Ebola, you'd understand just how silly
> it is to expect anything in talk.bizarre to matter. Brad, see a doctor
> immediately. Ebola can kill you if it's left untreated.
Silly boy. Now that I've gotten myself past the point of having proven
that I'm more than sufficiently right, and that you're one of THEM, as
such what's next on your cloak and dagger agenda?
Scott Dorsey
>> people post fiction. It's only because you have Ebola that you're
>> saying this. If you didn't have Ebola, you'd understand just how silly
>> it is to expect anything in talk.bizarre to matter. Brad, see a doctor
>> immediately. Ebola can kill you if it's left untreated.
>
>Silly boy. Now that I've gotten myself past the point of having proven
>that I'm more than sufficiently right, and that you're one of THEM, as
>such what's next on your cloak and dagger agenda?
I'm one of who? There is no cloak and dagger stuff going on here. Maybe
it's the Ebola talking. You should get yourself checked out. I hear Norton
Antivirus is pretty good.
Jonathan Silverlight
Stirling <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>> Problem is a) not "anyone" can check this. In reality only a few
>> observatories in the world have the necessary equipment.
>
>Hmm.
snip
>It's certainly easily doable under $1000.
So go ahead and do it. Otherwise ponder why this is a game restricted to
observatories such as Apache Point, with a 2.3 watt laser and a 3.5
meter mirror <http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html>
Don't forget to tell the FAA what you're doing.
Brad Guth
> I'm one of who? There is no cloak and dagger stuff going on here. Maybe
> it's the Ebola talking. You should get yourself checked out. I hear Norton
> Antivirus is pretty good.
> --scott
I have a side by side computer, in which the other one has nothing
whatsoever to do with my research, and as such it's operating as
perfectly fine and dandy w/o hardly any Internet/Usenet protection
whatsoever.
I guess that makes you a certified liar and/or another damn snookered
fool that's as brown nosed as you can get, doesn't it!
Brad Guth
stalked and otherwise getting hijacked as for this topic becoming
something other, is what seems about par for the status quo or bust
taking all of us to hell, and then some. Not that our warm and fuzzy
little Fascism postal as of lately, so much so that it's become somewhat
of another "so what's the difference" fiasco of a situation with no
apparent end in sight.
Why not instead of these unhappy campers continually bashing and/or
hijacking a perfectly good topic, just start yourself an entirely new
one, whereas above all using your real name and the real names of those
you've sadly or knowingly dragged along for the ride. Doesn't it make
sense keeping the jest of a given topic as is?
Here's a little something that's at least related as a viable sub-topic
to "The rigid airship (fat waverider/shuttle) to/from hell", as we
otherwise manage to keep getting ourselves global warmed to death my our
extremely large mascon of a moon, plus having contributed loads of our
own soot that's dimming the albedo of Earth.
It seems Carl Sagan was just about done for when those absolutely
terrific SAR obtained images of his hot and relatively dry surface of
Venus were getting sufficiently processed for the rest of us to visually
behold. Unfortunately, there wasn't the likes of myself anywhere to be
found within or even external to the Magellan team, and there certainly
wasn't interaction taking place between Carl Sagan and others of the
Magellan mission, as to whatever was getting so nicely imaged and
subsequently interpreted by those members of such all-knowing wizards as
having been employed on the official Magellan team.
Perhaps that's only because our perpetrated cold-war rusemasters of
MI/NSA~NASA and of their religious puppeteers had so badly wanted to
have nothing but a purely atmospherically green-house roasted and
toasted to death Venus, and not merely derived as any result of a
geothermally active and thereby newish planetology worth of there being
such a hot surface (especially from being caused by active lava and mud
flowing zones), such as having previously been interpreted by the likes
of Carl Sagan, John Ackerman and a few others which never got any credit
for such.
You see, apparently NASA's pagan religiology infested version of Venus
had to be essentially the exact same age as Earth, much like their
version of our moon having to be a touch less old than Earth and of Mars
that can't be any older.
Sadly, you folks are all so snookered and thereby pathetic beyond that
brown-nosed point of no return. Grasping at whatever infomercial hyped
straw and eye candy promoted whatever that demands the use of those
custom NASA/Apollo conditional laws of physics and of your believing in
their infomercial-science that simply can't be independently replicated,
is apparently as good as life ever gets for the likes of such village
idiot fools and status quo minions as yourselves.
How about our creating a little boat rocking by way of discussing the
actual topic or sub-topic that's at least somewhat related to the
physics and science application of viable technology that's on behalf of
accomplishing a rigid airship/shuttle that's made of a tough composite,
involving the use of those high temperature and acidic tolerant binders
for the likes of perhaps using common basalt fibers and microballoons,
which isn't all that unlikely to being way more than sufficient for the
task.
If you'd like to contribute merely as to the robotic airship alternative
as being doable, whereas that's also perfectly fine and dandy for this
application of whatever a composite rigid airship/probe could accomplish
while efficiently cruising extensively within the somewhat cooler
nighttime season of Venus (much cooler yet at good altitudes while
cruising just below such thick and acidic clouds).
Even a few constructive words on behalf of accommodating the interior
structural aspects of this craft can essentially be made of this very
same composite, as created to whatever density suits the stress, loading
and insulation demands on behalf of creating as large of rigid
airship/shuttle (AKA fat waverider) or compact robotic probe as you'd
like. Electro-mechanical items already exist for operation at 811 K,
and CCDs or ICs on SiC or upon C have been proven to function within
similar thermal environments, not to mention miniature vacuum tube
technology that's in some instances better performing as alternatives to
the solid state options.
Brad Guth
wrote in message news:La5nBoVJ...@ntlworld.com
> So go ahead and do it. Otherwise ponder why this is a game restricted to
> observatories such as Apache Point, with a 2.3 watt laser and a 3.5
> meter mirror <http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html>
> Don't forget to tell the FAA what you're doing.
A few harmless test shots by either of our 100 MW ABLs would certainly
accomplish a great many returning IR photons, especially of those
photons as efficiently derived from any of those supposed reflectors,
and easily photographed by way of simply 99% masking of KECK's miooros
can boil that raw pixel resolution down to something less than a
meter/pixel (isn't that nifty, or what).
Unfortunately, the physically dark moon itself offers a fairly good IR
albedo factor. Therefore, using something of 407~425 nm might actually
be a whole lot more desirable, and of our spendy ABLs should be able to
accomodate at least a full megawatt CW worth of such as shot as often as
they like from 40,000'.
beelzibub the reverse psychologist
b
ps'
tit
--
This is my post. It's one of the best posts on the net.
I know what you're asking yourself 'did he post 5 or 6
times'? Well in all the confusion I kinda lost track
myself. So you gotta ask yourself 1 question 'do you
feel lucky, huh do ya punk ...'
Brad Guth
wrote
> ... i don't podt fiction!!! everything i post is true!!!
Silly boy. Apparently you and your extremely brown nose don't consider
a butt ugly lie as fiction, but as being the only truth within your
koran of infomercial-science and hypology that matters.
Perhaps we should all do a Usenet search for each of those warm and
fuzzy contributions by "beelzibub", in order to test your infomercial
cesspool for lies. Obviously you and your kind don't consider the
excluding of evidence as being a lie.
Kent Paul Dolan
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
> Problem is a) not "anyone" can check this. In
> reality only a few observatories in the world have
> the necessary equipment.
Based on my work at Qualcomm back in 1995, using
CDMA encoding into your laser signal and to pull the
signal back out of the return, pretty much any
serious astronomy hobbiest should be able to pull
signal down from those reflectors today.
CDMA encoding/decoding can pull signal out of
millionfold louder background white noise.
At the time, lots of independent astronomers at "big
observatories" _were_ capable of checking that the
corner cube reflectors were being placed exactly as
depicted in the mission broadcasts. Pretending that
all the astronomers at all those observatories would
consent en masse to a "fake moon landing"
conspiracy, when they couldn't even consent to
similar political systems, ignores human psychology.
> and b) Easy, land an unmanned lander on the Moon
> and at the proper time signal it to drop the cover
> covering the reflector so it starts working.
Nah. Back in those days we didn't have robots that
worked that well, nor even close; that's even more
unlikely than the reality of the moonwalk.
> Face it, Moon-hoax nuts can go to any length to
> deny the reality of us landing on the Moon.
I grant you that, but there are lengths beyond which
they shouldn't be believed or allowed to go
unrebuked. A stealth launch which no one observed, an
on which no one _ever_ confessed working, and an
unlikely robot deposition, in contrast and parallel
to a very public launch with ongoing highly visible
(to the amateur astronomer) transit of the manned
vehicle along at least the beginning of its path,
and return after a period of time consistent with
its easily determined moon-circling orbit and plan
of work just doesn't cut the mustard as an alternate
"theory" of how corner cube reflectors "poofed" onto
the moon.
Or so it seems to me.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> The other problem is that any number of items as
> having impacted and thus vaporised their aluminum
> upon the salty lunar deck that's below all of that
> other sooty stuff could just as easily accomplish
> the same hocus-pocus affect.
Your ignorance of reflection physics from an
irregular surface as opposed to a corner cube
reflector merely adds to all the other idiocy you've
posted, in impugning your rights to say anything
about any niche of science or reality and be taken
serioiusly.
>> Face it, Moon-hoax nuts can go to any length to
>> deny the reality of us landing on the Moon.
> Don't really have to do much of anything but apply
> the regular laws of physics along with accepting
> the honest science and of known fly-by-rocket
> technology that can be replicated, such as any
> number of Kodak moments that'll include our
> physically dark moon along with a good number of
> other planets and even a few of the brightest of
> stars, all at the very same photographic exposure
> none the less.
That's gibberish, pure and simple.
> BTW; Our NASA/Apollo moon is not a passive Guano
> island that's illuminated by the spectrum worth of
> a xenon lamp array, and there's lots more where
> that came from.
More gibberish.
xanthian.
.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Trust me a little
You've spent a net career building up such a
reputation for spewing lies that no one with
an IQ above room temperature looks on you as
anything but a fool, and then you say "trust
me"???
That loud noise you hear is the Big Crunch,
as the universe collapses in laughter at you.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>> Brad's thesis gets a whole lot less believable,
>> when the truth of corner cube reflectors on the
>> moon is factored into the story. You have to move
>> that sound stage to the moon to make things work,
>> and it's way easier just to send some astronauts
>> instead.
> How about discussing the actual topic
Cluebat application for Brad Guth and any other
Usenet impaired participants: I changed the subject
line, a broad clue that I'd changed the subject.
I said above "Brad's thesis"; I should more clearly
have said: "any thesis by Brad Guth".
Brad's argumentation needs always to be brought back
to his reputation for consistently spewing idiocy
onto Usenet. His thesis that the moon landing was
faked, like his thesis that melting-lead-hot Venus
holds intelligent life forms much like those on
Earth, need to be used in judging the merit of any
other equally dubious arguments he brings to Usenet.
Corner cube reflectors on the moon are only one of
thousands of direct physical proofs that Brad is
lying about the moon walk being faked (detailed
analyses of rocks returned from the moon by
scientists working independently of NASA are
another), but they are evidence anyone can check
even today, not at all dependent on those "lost NASA
archives" and other red herrings Brad drags in to
try to weave a conspiracy out of dust bunny quality
evidence.
xanthian.
Brad tries, elsewhere, to drag attention away from
the reality that the evidence of corner cube
reflectors on the moon proves him a persistent liar,
by dragging in red herrings about blasting those
corner cube reflectors with anti-satellite lasers,
a proposition having exactly nothing to do with the
testable reality of those corner cube reflectors on
the moon.
And by the way, if I recall correctly, the European
Space Agency is _still_ doing science with those
corner cube reflectors, daily as observing
conditions allow.
Brad Guth
> I grant you that, but there are lengths beyond which
> they shouldn't be believed or allowed to go
> unrebuked. A stealth launch which no one observed, an
> on which no one _ever_ confessed working, and an
> unlikely robot deposition, in contrast and parallel
> to a very public launch with ongoing highly visible
> (to the amateur astronomer) transit of the manned
> vehicle along at least the beginning of its path,
> and return after a period of time consistent with
> its easily determined moon-circling orbit and plan
> of work just doesn't cut the mustard as an alternate
> "theory" of how corner cube reflectors "poofed" onto
> the moon.
It would have taken all of 10 cents on the dollar and at that not
involving any more volume nor imposing 10% the payload mass to have
deployed a one degree focused transponder strobe, capable of delivering
perhaps as little as 10 joules per ms flash (although 100 joules should
have been doable). Obviously you folks can not manage to count such
xenon strobe generated photons because, there'd be so many of them pesky
photons that damn near a naked eye viewing upon an earthshine
illuminated moon could have easily detected.
-
Brad Guth
Scott Dorsey
>whatsoever to do with my research, and as such it's operating as
>perfectly fine and dandy w/o hardly any Internet/Usenet protection
>whatsoever.
So the bloody flux hasn't been an indication? Ebola is very serious.
Really, you should see a doctor. My uncle got Klez and nearly died
from it.
>I guess that makes you a certified liar and/or another damn snookered
>fool that's as brown nosed as you can get, doesn't it!
This is talk.bizarre. Talk.bizarre is ALL ABOUT lies. If you aren't
going to lie, don't post here. If you DO post here, everyone will think
you're lying, because that's what the group is for.
Please don't post the truth, because IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE. This group
isn't for that. It is specifically against the charter to post truthful
things here.
Scott Dorsey
>"beelzibub the reverse psychologist" <comprehen...@comcast.com>
>wrote
>> ... i don't podt fiction!!! everything i post is true!!!
>
>Silly boy. Apparently you and your extremely brown nose don't consider
>a butt ugly lie as fiction, but as being the only truth within your
>koran of infomercial-science and hypology that matters.
Don't mind Beelzibub. He is actually a reptile named Duane which has
had a Usenet feed wired directly into his brain as the result of a
psychology experiment at Harvard University. This is talk.bizarre,
after all, where we heartily welcome him.
Kent Paul Dolan
> It would have taken all of 10 cents on the dollar
> and at that not involving any more volume nor
> imposing 10% the payload mass to have deployed a
> one degree focused transponder strobe, capable of
> delivering perhaps as little as 10 joules per ms
> flash (although 100 joules should have been
> doable). Obviously you folks can not manage to
> count such xenon strobe generated photons because,
> there'd be so many of them pesky photons that damn
> near a naked eye viewing upon an earthshine
> illuminated moon could have easily detected.
That you think an active, fallible, monodirectional
light source requring exquisite pointing and rigid
placement that would be thrown off aim by the first
passing moonquake is superior to a passive, drop it
and it works, at least whole earth face covering
field of view, infallible corner cube reflector
light source, merely highlights, yet again, for the
chuckling onlookers, what a scientific and
engineering illiterate dunce you are.
That you'd spend on the order of USD$150,000,000 to
put that on the moon, where perhaps one ten
thousandth of that price sufficed for the devices
chosen, merely redoubles the laughter.
That you'd pop out such an idea in a matter of
minutes to "win" an argument in which you have no
possible hope of victory, without a moment to
consider its feasibility, brings forward into the
view of onlookers the level of your intellectual
dishonesty, the only thing about you that is truly
"world class".
Give it up Brad, your profuse demonstrations of your
abject idiocy have long ago sufficed to serve any
possible need; you can stop typing now.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Please don't post the truth, because IT DOES NOT
> BELONG HERE. This group isn't for that. It is
> specifically against the charter to post truthful
> things here.
Now Scott, you _know_ you're lying.
xanthian.
And right on charter lies, too.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>> Problem is a) not "anyone" can check this. In
>> reality only a few observatories in the world have
>> the necessary equipment.
>
> Based on my work at Qualcomm back in 1995, using
> CDMA encoding into your laser signal and to pull the
> signal back out of the return, pretty much any
> serious astronomy hobbiest should be able to pull
> signal down from those reflectors today.
>
> CDMA encoding/decoding can pull signal out of
> millionfold louder background white noise.
Hmm, Henry posted elsewhere, but that sounds about like what you'd need. ;-)
>
> At the time, lots of independent astronomers at "big
> observatories" _were_ capable of checking that the
> corner cube reflectors were being placed exactly as
> depicted in the mission broadcasts. Pretending that
> all the astronomers at all those observatories would
> consent en masse to a "fake moon landing"
> conspiracy, when they couldn't even consent to
> similar political systems, ignores human psychology.
>
Again, you underestimate the ability of the hoax believers to overcome
obstacles like this.
>> and b) Easy, land an unmanned lander on the Moon
>> and at the proper time signal it to drop the cover
>> covering the reflector so it starts working.
>
> Nah. Back in those days we didn't have robots that
> worked that well, nor even close; that's even more
> unlikely than the reality of the moonwalk.
>
Sure we did. Surveyor had a robot arm. Soft-landing a reflector on the
moon and exposing it is trivial.
And in fact has been done by the Soviets.
>> Face it, Moon-hoax nuts can go to any length to
>> deny the reality of us landing on the Moon.
>
> I grant you that, but there are lengths beyond which
> they shouldn't be believed or allowed to go
> unrebuked. A stealth launch which no one observed, an
> on which no one _ever_ confessed working, and an
> unlikely robot deposition, in contrast and parallel
> to a very public launch with ongoing highly visible
> (to the amateur astronomer) transit of the manned
> vehicle along at least the beginning of its path,
> and return after a period of time consistent with
> its easily determined moon-circling orbit and plan
> of work just doesn't cut the mustard as an alternate
> "theory" of how corner cube reflectors "poofed" onto
> the moon.
>
> Or so it seems to me.
>
Oh I agree.
And of course I've never heard a reasonable explination why, if it was all
faked the Soviets didn't expose it as such on the front page of Pravda.
Kent Paul Dolan
> xanthian wrote:
>> Nah. Back in those days we didn't have robots
>> that worked that well, nor even close; that's
>> even more unlikely than the reality of the
>> moonwalk.
> Sure we did. Surveyor had a robot arm.
> Soft-landing a reflector on the moon and exposing
> it is trivial.
> And in fact has been done by the Soviets.
I think you're ignoring the time frame, using
today's technology to evaluate yesterday's risks. As
of _when_ was sending a robot with an arm to the
moon and having it lay out two fairly separated
corner cube reflector arrays, so _trivial_ that
you'd risk your nation's reputation on a fake moon
expedition being exposed when the robot arm failed?
Remember, the sound stage fake and the robot arm
reality have to be coordinated to within speed of light
round trip time to the moon, you just don't have time
to claim one went right while the other goes wrong,
and recover from that blunder.
It isn't that long since the last orbiting satellite arm
failed to deploy a solar panel array. Robot arms
aren't such a done deal that anyone sane enough to
be allowed near post-stone-age technology would have
tried to use one in a _fake_ moon landing in the
1960's.
FWIW
xanthian.
Brad Guth
> Don't mind Beelzibub. He is actually a reptile named Duane which has
> had a Usenet feed wired directly into his brain as the result of a
> psychology experiment at Harvard University. This is talk.bizarre,
> after all, where we heartily welcome him.
Now I know. Thanks so much for the constructive feedback about Duane.
BTW; was the outcome of that Usenet psychology feed implant experiment
what they expected, or did something go terribly wrong?
Brad Guth
> Please don't post the truth, because IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE. This group
> isn't for that. It is specifically against the charter to post truthful
> things here.
But then clearly what you're saying is a lie.
Which lie about a given lie is actually the real lie?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>> xanthian wrote:
>
>>> Nah. Back in those days we didn't have robots
>>> that worked that well, nor even close; that's
>>> even more unlikely than the reality of the
>>> moonwalk.
>
>> Sure we did. Surveyor had a robot arm.
>> Soft-landing a reflector on the moon and exposing
>> it is trivial.
>
>> And in fact has been done by the Soviets.
>
> I think you're ignoring the time frame, using
> today's technology to evaluate yesterday's risks.
Umm, no, I'm referring to things done in the late 60s and very early 70s.
(Surveyor of course preceeded the manned landings. Lunakhod 2 was 1973, but
the only tech it really had that Surveyors didn't was mobility.)
> As
> of _when_ was sending a robot with an arm to the
> moon and having it lay out two fairly separated
> corner cube reflector arrays, so _trivial_ that
> you'd risk your nation's reputation on a fake moon
> expedition being exposed when the robot arm failed?
I think you're misunderstanding me.
You have one (or as many as you want) fairly simple landers with a cube
laser reflector on the surface.
Heck take a Surveyor body, remove everything and put a reflector on top. We
already knew we could land those since we had.
>
> Remember, the sound stage fake and the robot arm
> reality have to be coordinated to within speed of light
> round trip time to the moon, you just don't have time
> to claim one went right while the other goes wrong,
> and recover from that blunder.
Umm, why? The first use wasn't until August 20th, well after the astronauts
left.
>
> It isn't that long since the last orbiting satellite arm
> failed to deploy a solar panel array. Robot arms
> aren't such a done deal that anyone sane enough to
> be allowed near post-stone-age technology would have
> tried to use one in a _fake_ moon landing in the
> 1960's.
Again, I'm not suggesting using a robot arm for anything.
You want to be assured of something, you use pyrotechnics.
NASA's reliability on those is extremely close to 100%, and with redundancy,
I'm not aware of any failures.
But why even bother. Just mount one on top of a Surveyor body and land. No
robotics required.
Again, do I find it likely, no. Possible, certainly, even given the tech of
the day.
>
> FWIW
>
> xanthian.
>
Scott Dorsey
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:ej841f$2uo$1...@panix2.panix.com
>
>> Please don't post the truth, because IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE. This group
>> isn't for that. It is specifically against the charter to post truthful
>> things here.
>
>But then clearly what you're saying is a lie.
Yes. Every word I say is a lie. This very sentence is completely false.
>Which lie about a given lie is actually the real lie?
That, in short, is what makes lies so interesting. See, there is only one
objective truth, but there can be an infinite number of possible lies. The
truth is so restrictive. Here in talk bizarre, we find lies give us much
more freedom.
I should point out now
That falsehoods are best told as
In a haiku form.
OM
>This is talk.bizarre. Talk.bizarre is ALL ABOUT lies.
...Then would you kindly fracking keep your rants against Guthball
confined to that group? We've killfiled the
child-molested-and-begged-for-more troll over on sci.space.history,
and every time he trolls he makes sure we're in the follow-ups to
cause us more disruption. PLEASE, for the love of
God/Yahweh/Roddenberry, remove .history from the follow-ups, and then
send that dogsucking troll to your killfiles.
PLEASE. Enough's enough.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
>
>
>Again, do I find it likely, no. Possible, certainly, even given the tech of
>the day.
>
>
>
And...no one notices the Atlas-Centaur launches that get these widgets
to the Moon? ;-)
Pat
Brad Guth
> Give it up Brad, your profuse demonstrations of your
> abject idiocy have long ago sufficed to serve any
> possible need; you can stop typing now.
In other words, because of the regular laws of physics and of easily
replicated science that works each every time is why I'm actually worth
your precious time, because??????
Brad Guth
> >Which lie about a given lie is actually the real lie?
>
> That, in short, is what makes lies so interesting. See, there is only one
> objective truth, but there can be an infinite number of possible lies. The
> truth is so restrictive. Here in talk bizarre, we find lies give us much
> more freedom.
Proof that I'm right, as now you're sounding exactly like Henry
Kissinger and GW Bush when they're in bed with one another plus a few
others for good measure.
Is the planet Venus a good lie?
Are the regular laws of physics a lie?
Are all photographs a lie?
Is science anbother lie?
Are your lies a lie?
GOT ANY POINT FOR LIVING?
GOT OWN DICK IN MOUTH?
GOT LIE?
nikolai kingsley
> That, in short, is what makes lies so interesting. See, there is only one
> objective truth, but there can be an infinite number of possible lies. The
> truth is so restrictive. Here in talk bizarre, we find lies give us much
> more freedom.
Lies are wonderful things, often with a life of their own. Discrete
packets of carefully crafted information that sometimes relate to the
real world in a subtle way, but are more suited to showing the world as
you want your enemy to see it, or as you want your enemy to think you
want them to think. - Tsiry
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:12lg4j1...@corp.supernews.com...
You mean, all those "failed" Surveyor missions? :-)
Again, don't put anything past the believes of Moon-Hoaxers.
>
> Pat
beelzibub the reverse psychologist
> Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I have a side by side computer, in which the other one has nothing
>> whatsoever to do with my research, and as such it's operating as
>> perfectly fine and dandy w/o hardly any Internet/Usenet protection
>> whatsoever.
... WOW! i am impressed
b
>
> So the bloody flux hasn't been an indication? Ebola is very serious.
> Really, you should see a doctor. My uncle got Klez and nearly died
> from it.
>
>> I guess that makes you a certified liar and/or another damn snookered
>> fool that's as brown nosed as you can get, doesn't it!
>
> This is talk.bizarre. Talk.bizarre is ALL ABOUT lies. If you aren't
> going to lie, don't post here. If you DO post here, everyone will think
> you're lying, because that's what the group is for.
>
> Please don't post the truth, because IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE. This group
> isn't for that. It is specifically against the charter to post truthful
> things here.
> --scott
>
--
Jonathan Silverlight
D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> writes
>
>"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
>news:1163381579....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>> xanthian wrote:
>>
>>>> Nah. Back in those days we didn't have robots
>>>> that worked that well, nor even close; that's
>>>> even more unlikely than the reality of the
>>>> moonwalk.
>>
>>> Sure we did. Surveyor had a robot arm.
>>> Soft-landing a reflector on the moon and exposing
>>> it is trivial.
>>
>>> And in fact has been done by the Soviets.
>>
>> I think you're ignoring the time frame, using
>> today's technology to evaluate yesterday's risks.
>
>
>Umm, no, I'm referring to things done in the late 60s and very early 70s.
>
>(Surveyor of course preceeded the manned landings. Lunakhod 2 was 1973, but
>the only tech it really had that Surveyors didn't was mobility.)
>
>
Last (possibly a large value of "last") time this came up on
sci.space.history didn't someone note that mounting a reflector on a
Surveyor was actually considered?
Ace Lightning
novelists tell lies for a living.
Fred J. McCall
:... WOW! i am impressed
I'm not.
Dear dumbass. Please stop posting Usenet articles with Windows .vcf
files attached in your .sig. It makes you look positively clueless.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Mikhail T.
<4ffbc17c71cec16734e...@mygate.mailgate.org>:
> That's rather odd, in that within this rather smartly Jewish dominated
> anti-think-tank mindset of a Usenet from hell [...]
We are the Jews of Usenet
We know, you like our show!
We know, you're looking for us,
But we now we have to go!..
I'm afraid, Brad is about to uncover The Cabal, which leads us to two highly
unpleasant options:
1) grant him membership;
2) feed him to laser-armed manatees
I move, we go with 2), but run him through detox first, because we can't
risk the intelligent marine mammals just like that...
-mi
Brad Guth
message news:_dN5h.5596$l25....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net
> And of course I've never heard a reasonable explination why, if it was all
> faked the Soviets didn't expose it as such on the front page of Pravda.
As far as I know, it still takes two to tango.
-
Brad Guth
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cff7061833e623f7200...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in
> message news:_dN5h.5596$l25....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net
>
>> And of course I've never heard a reasonable explination why, if it was
>> all
>> faked the Soviets didn't expose it as such on the front page of Pravda.
>
> As far as I know, it still takes two to tango.
And as you well know, one to masturbate.
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>And as you well know, one to masturbate.
>
>
I've heard there are these girls you can call on the phone... and I
swear, some of them are supposed to live right here in my town, although
I don't recognize the pictures of them that they show. :-)
Pat
Brad Guth
hijacking my nifty topic.
It must be extremely important to them, as otherwise why all the
damage-control and hypology fuss?
I've run the numbers on our NASA/Apollo fiasco, and they simply do not
add up. Sorry about that.
Perhaps it would be a little safer and a whole lot more topic productive
by way of folks sticking with the original rigid airship topic.
Terrell Miller
"Mikhail T." <mi+u...@aldan.algebra.com> wrote in message
news:2969745.tOyO4Ht0im@misha...
> Brad Guth wrote in
> <4ffbc17c71cec16734e...@mygate.mailgate.org>:
>> That's rather odd, in that within this rather smartly Jewish dominated
>> anti-think-tank mindset of a Usenet from hell [...]
>
> We are the Jews of Usenet
> We know, you like our show!
> We know, you're looking for us,
> But we now we have to go!..
>
> I'm afraid, Brad is about to uncover The Cabal, which leads us to two
> highly
> unpleasant options:
>
> 1) grant him membership;
> 2) feed him to laser-armed manatees
>
are they EVIL manatees?
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Just...take...the...fucking...flower...darling"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com
nikolai kingsley
> We are the Jews of Usenet
> We know, you like our show!
hope
> We know, you're looking for us,
rooting
> But we now we have to go!..
if you're going to quote the classics, at least do some fucking research.
Kent Paul Dolan
> I've run the numbers
Trusting you to "run the numbers" properly
is like trusting an acephalic idiot to
handle a loaded cocked handgun correctly --
not a risk a sane person would take.
HTH
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> And of course I've never heard a reasonable
>> explination why, if it was all faked the Soviets
>> didn't expose it as such on the front page of
>> Pravda.
Indeed, since the Soviets had more than enough
telescope and laser technology to expose the fake as
soon as the astronaut turned the corner cube
reflector upright, indeed even as it was turning,
more than enough radar technology to detect any
"stealth" landings of corner cube reflectors sans
astronauts, and to detect those corner cube
reflectors as soon as they were in place, and were
publicly and obviously losing the "race to the moon"
to which US President Kennedy had challenged them,
of _course_ they'd have exposed the hoax if any hoax
were there to be exposed, and of course, therefore,
the US knowing this full well, couldn't have
afforded to risk a hoax.
If our avowed enemies weren't busily demonstrating
the moon landing to be a hoax, when they had all the
skills, science, sanity, tools, opportunity, and
motivation to do the job at the time, why, once
again, should we be listing to the lunatic fringe of
our own society claiming long after the fact that
some hoax has been discovered in the misplacing of
some publicity records over the course of decades,
in some "running of numbers" by complete well
documented innumerates?
Oh, right, we shouldn't
> As far as I know, it still takes two to tango.
In other words, to yet another cogent rebuttal
of your incessant idiocy about a "faked" moon
landing, you have no meaningful answer.
As expected, you are, you remain, and you continue
to demonstrate that you are, to the wonderment of
one and all, a total fool and a complete idiot, when
such extremes of type were presumed impossible for
mere humans to achieve.
HTH
xanthian.
Mikhail T.
> if you're going to quote the classics, at least do some fucking research.
I'm glad, we are in agreement on everything else...
-mi
Brad Guth
> Indeed, since the Soviets had more than enough
> telescope and laser technology to expose the fake as
> soon as the astronaut turned the corner cube
> reflector upright, indeed even as it was turning,
> more than enough radar technology to detect any
> "stealth" landings of corner cube reflectors sans
> astronauts, and to detect those corner cube
> reflectors as soon as they were in place, and were
> publicly and obviously losing the "race to the moon"
> to which US President Kennedy had challenged them,
> of _course_ they'd have exposed the hoax if any hoax
> were there to be exposed, and of course, therefore,
> the US knowing this full well, couldn't have
> afforded to risk a hoax.
My freaking God and Christ almighty on another sitck, as in what a silly
born-again pagan liar in denial upon denial you are.
What part of 'IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO' do you folks not understand about
perpetrating a good cold-war for all the very same gold-bricking
reasons?
What part of there being no Venus as of A11, A14 and A16 is too complex
for your brown-nosed buttology sucking naysayism to appreciate?
What about their nearly 30% inert Saturn 5 and of the 60:1
rocket/payload ratio that simply can't be replicated because of those
pesky regular laws of physics.
According to NASA's own expertise; As of the near future, it's taking
the very best and most advanced of our fly-by-rocket efforts of 42:1 for
their getting stuff just to ISS. Sorry about that.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
news:jcdil2lp0tss4t64o...@4ax.com
> beelzibub the reverse psychologist <comprehen...@comcast.com>
> wrote:
>
> :... WOW! i am impressed
>
> I'm not.
Obviously if others or especially if I were to locate and post the one
and only Holy Grail within this anti-think-tank Usenet that sucks and
blows on behalf of your Old Testament, as such it wouldn't impress the
likes of yourself.
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I've run the numbers
>
> Trusting you to "run the numbers" properly
> is like trusting an acephalic idiot to
> handle a loaded cocked handgun correctly --
> not a risk a sane person would take.
I didn't say that I haven't make more than my fair share of honest
mistakes.
My dyslexic encrypted words, weird syntax and reverse engineered math
has lots of mistakes to spare, that which only the likes of myself could
accomplish. Perhaps you should try being less borg and more human by
way of making an honest mistake or two, or at least admitting that
you've made a few mistakes along the way.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
news:xY2dnQLT6ZkxbMXY...@comcast.com
> novelists tell lies for a living.
GW Bush and of his brown-nosed minion suck-ups tell us lies upon lies
w/o remorse, on behalf of their taking from others and/or for killing
off as many innocent souls as possible, and that's not even the least
bit fiction or novel rated.
Kent Paul Dolan
> What about their nearly 30% inert Saturn 5 and of
> the 60:1 rocket/payload ratio that simply can't be
> replicated because of those pesky regular laws of
> physics.
> According to NASA's own expertise; As of the near
> future, it's taking the very best and most
> advanced of our fly-by-rocket efforts of 42:1 for
> their getting stuff just to ISS. Sorry about
> that.
How splendid for your reputation as an idiot that
the weight ratios for a _reusable_ shuttle going
only into earth orbit are by some incredible
coincidence _not_ going to be the same as the the
weight ratios for a very differently configured
vehicle going to the moon and back (five or six
stages depending on how you count instead of the 3
of a shuttle run), moving a vehicle that is much
more lightly constructed because it didn't need to
be reusable, and because it landed by parachute and
had a one-use ablative shield instead of needing
reusable super-heat-withstanding tiles?.
The numbers are different? Well, gee, that's what
rocket scientists _do_, Brad, design different
vehicles for different mission performance
requirement envelopes, and for _sure_, you are no
rocket scientist.
Have you noticed a trend here, that every time you
make a claim, you get it shoved back down your
throat embedded in a crow's cloaca? Unless you're
just enamored of the taste of fledged raw ungutted
crow, you probably aren't enjoying that as much as
you pretend to be with all your invitations to abuse
your idiocy one more time again.
You might want to change that outcome by abandoning
arguing wtth that almost universal fraction of the
world saner, smarter, and better informed than you
are about subjects concerning which you know nothing
that happens to be correct or believable.
HTH
xanthian.
Or you can just keep wearing your "abuse me" suit to
work.
Brad Guth
VL2/TRACE-II science platform is entirely doable via rigid
airship/spaceplane, but that's not ever going to happen without a damn
good fight.
Because we're so into terminating whatever's left of our badly failing
environment, bringing on WW-III, IV and V if need be, whereas such
here's yet another one for the old infomercial spewing gipper, of our
failing to accept the truth unless it compiles with the Old Testament
and within their one and only singular Big Bang theory, of which a
newish Venus and/or as having been impacted by a salty and otherwise icy
proto-moon simply doesn't fly no matters what the regular laws of
physics and of true science has to say.
topic: You know what is odd about global warming theory?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm/thread/9add9f7d4a931f4a/4e011d48d5efce37?lnk=st&q=venus+temperature&rnum=2&hl=en#4e011d48d5efce37
From: kdth...@yahoo.com / Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 5:11 pm
Groups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
john fernbach wrote:
> > Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
> > > How little mention was made of it prior to 1990,
Apparently our laws of physics and of our replicated hard-science has
drastically changed sinse 1990, although I seem to recall thinking that
we'd gone absolutely mad long before 1990, so perhaps it's just from all
the American incest of our insurmountable buttology on a stick that has
greatly improved since then.
>Also there's no mention of it in chemistry. You'd think in all
>the research by chemists both academic and industrial, some
>mention of these unique properties of CO2 would appear. Of
>course the hoax experiment of CO2 in glass was around from the
>19th century but any chemist with half of a mind would see that
>if CO2 has different temperature change in a concrete vessel, the
>glass and it's rate of letting heat out of the CO2 gas is more
>responsible for temperature difference in the hoax experiment and
>never give it another thought.
Actually, as of 1990 our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) was still in
full swing, and the need to continually snooker thy humanity for all
we're worth is most likely at the root cause of our being so downright
bigoted and summarily arrogant at our being so absolutely dumbfounded,
enough to get away with so much raping of mother Earth along with all
the collateral damage and carnage of the innocent w/o having a shred of
remorse.
>Probes to venus only discovered the high temperature of venus in
>the 1960's. Venus also has a 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere. Some
>theoretical nut needed a thesis, so the explanation of the high
>temperature was attributed to CO2. Of course direct science cannot
>be done to confirm this. From this, the speculation on man's input
>of CO2 into the atmosphere developed into the superstition that it
>is today. Any data on warming must be from another cause other than
>carbon dioxide.
>
>KD
Probes to Venus (Russian as well as our's) simply were not being given
the honest time of day, much less having shared the open truth and
nothing but the truth of whatever that newish planetology had to offer,
and unfortunately it's still an ongoing taboo/nondisclosure topic as of
today.
Actually it was some 'Old Testament' thumping "theoretical nut needed a
thesis, so the explanation of the high temperature was attributed to
CO2", which obviously entirely excluded upon the newish planetology of
whatever was getting geothermally and/or geophysically contributed.
They even excluded upon their very own S8 element as having been
interpreted by John Ackerman and a few others, simply because it didn't
fit within their purely greenhouse mold of a planet that was supposed to
be every bit as old as Earth, just like their Mars isn't supposed to be
any older than Earth.
I agree that "data on warming must be from another cause other than
carbon dioxide", whereas CO2 alone is but only one of many contributing
factors that's rather insignificant compared to our lunar tidal energy
that's new and rather significant as of the last ice age, and of
otherwise our ongoing contributions of various soot that has since
dimmed the albedo of our badly failing world by a measurable notch or
two.
Brad Guth
> How splendid for your reputation as an idiot that
> the weight ratios for a _reusable_ shuttle going
> only into earth orbit are by some incredible
> coincidence _not_ going to be the same as the the
> weight ratios for a very differently configured
> vehicle going to the moon and back (five or six
> stages depending on how you count instead of the 3
> of a shuttle run), moving a vehicle that is much
> more lightly constructed because it didn't need to
> be reusable, and because it landed by parachute and
> had a one-use ablative shield instead of needing
> reusable super-heat-withstanding tiles?.
The only problem being, is that a rocket/payload ratio as deployed to
LEO/ISS is actually the very same requirement, no matters what. Sorry
about that.
BTW; I've said nothing about any stinking shuttle runs. The big stick
is not a very good example of being a "shuttle run". I don't believe
the inert mass of the big stick and of it's payload represents 30%/270t
of their 900t GLOW.
> The numbers are different? Well, gee, that's what
> rocket scientists _do_, Brad, design different
> vehicles for different mission performance
> requirement envelopes, and for _sure_, you are no
> rocket scientist.
The numbers are NOT actually different, only your silly hocus-pocus
numbers are different.
Oddly, it seems as though you folks still haven't given us any of your
superior numbers. Gee whiz, I can't but wonder why.
Brad Guth
existing/coexisting on Venus, and yet we have no plan of action other
than to stonewall the living hell out of whatever until each of them
NASA/Apollo cows manage to come home.
Are we having to speak on behalf of actually allowing the general public
to share in the knowledge as related to the honest to God
replicated-facts, rather than of our having to accept whatever's their
one of a kind infomercial-facts that can't be replicated or otherwise
verified outside the mainstream status quo loop?
Obviously our mainstream religion and government together tend to breed
an unfortunate incest mutated core of fundamental corruption, along with
all of their butt ugly liars as brown-nosed minions having been telling
us lies upon lies to boot. It's clearly of what they seem to do best.
As far as anyone can honestly tell, if there's the least bit of anything
that's new and improved as getting introduced or reintroduced into
Usenet, whereas it either gets mainstream approved or entirely banished
if not simply ignored or otherwise stalked and summarily bashed to death
unless it's sufficiently Old Testament certified and approved.
The mainstream yaysay worth of this Usenet is limited to being
extensively pro-Jewish, and it's so obvious that it's almost
unbelievable, but true. If actions are what counts, then being honest
or not has no apparent meaning or much less moral value within Usenet
unless you're 100+% on the prevailing side of their Old Testament. If
that's not representing an incest Cabal of an intellectual collective
cesspool of skewed religious borgism, then I don't know of what is.
Off hand, I can't think of a Cathar or Muslim ulterior motive nor hidden
agenda that comes close to what these Usenet insiders that'll nearly
always pretend being atheistic, and yet having been doing and/or as
having been allowing others to deliver such absolute dastardly sorts of
things upon so many (even against a few of their own kind as for merely
having slipped a cog or two) all along. In other words, it's exactly as
though the ruse of their Third Reich has never been better off.
What I can say with absolute certainty, is if you intentionally wanted
to create the ultimate intellectual spewing toilet of disinformation
and/or of skewed whatever infomercial history or scientific facts, along
with having created a really good personal data gathering network as
technically possible, whereas on behalf of accommodating such a nifty
cloak, I believe as such there's none better off than what this MI/NSA
formulated Usenet dagger from hell has to offer, and you certainly don't
have to be all that smart in order to realize when you're being so badly
snookered by the likes of folks that supposedly have "the right stuff".
Brad Guth
all-knowing naysay Usenet from hell hasn't a freaking clue about
composite rigid airships.
No wonder we're getting beat by the likes of China and even India.
Muslims are even getting smarter than Jews and Catholics combined.
Scott Dorsey
>Gee whiz, why the heck didn't you just say that you are totally airship
>dumbfounded, and simply admit that you otherwise don't believe in the
>regular laws of physics. Wouldn't that have been so much easier?
Brad, this is talk.bizarre. It's not a group about airships. Seeing that
you are the guy who has been force-feeding his cat with a funnel in order
to train him up as a kitty sumo wrestler, I don't think you really are the
person I'd take advice on "blimping" from anyway. Put down the amnesia pills,
Brad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Brad Guth
> Brad, this is talk.bizarre. It's not a group about airships. Seeing that
> you are the guy who has been force-feeding his cat with a funnel in order
> to train him up as a kitty sumo wrestler, I don't think you really are the
> person I'd take advice on "blimping" from anyway. Put down the amnesia pills,
> Brad.
> --scott
Silly boy. you and others of your kind obviously don't have a freaking
clue as to what a composite rigid airship is, do you.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Silly boy. you and others of your kind obviously don't have a freaking
>clue as to what a composite rigid airship is, do you.
Of course I do! It's a drink made with Scotch whiskey and clamato.
Brad Guth
> > Silly boy. you and others of your kind obviously don't have a
> > freaking clue as to what a composite rigid airship is, do you.
>Of course I do! It's a drink made with Scotch whiskey and clamato.
"The rigid airship (fat waverider/shuttle) to/from hell"
At least this mission is efficiently timely, technically doable and it's
certainly far less spendy as for being way less than moon-dirt cheap,
and a whole lot safer (especially via robotics), and best of all being
that our big and not so old Venus at frequent times (roughly every 19
months) has been cruising by us at merely 100 fold the distance of our
moon, and that's by most any space exploration travel distance actually
damn close by.
(if Venus were discovered as of today, I do believe that it could be
classified as a really big NEO)
On top of that, we get to view nearly the exact same face of Venus as
effectively obtained by radar imaging through them thick and acidic
clouds, along with that robust atmosphere hosting a rather nifty layer
of S8, and otherwise buoyant enough to float the likes of an iron
airship.
Venus is an absolute active holy grail of what's simply and absolutely
representing the most worthy of newish planetology, offering some of the
best in modern planetology physics and nearly unlimited science
potenmtial that's very much protoearth worthy.
Unfortunately, due to my silly Old Testament thumping ISP and
Mailgate/Usenet that's being summarily stalked, bashed and/or moderated
to death (as well as banished wherever possible), as such it's taking
next to forever in order to post this reply. Obviously I'm worth all of
their MIB spook/mole efforts of mainstream damage control they can
muster. However, since I'm not always allowed to post to the intended
person, so this indirect contribution is as good as it gets.
Brad Guth
>In article <elhupr$n7...@reader2.panix.com>, David Lesher
><wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>> A serious question.. What's the upside/downside of one big (say
>> 40cm) corner cube vs an array of oh say tens or 100's or more in a
>> 40cm grid....?
>A 40 cm cube of glass is massive, compared to a flat panel a few cm
>thick with many more smaller cubes. It is also has huge thermal
>stresses that will break it after a few lunar dawns or dusks. And a
>single cube can be taken out by a micrometeor.
David is being 100% correct. However, in no time at all those items
would all have become covered in the highly electrostatic moon-dust,
whereas a tripod configured unit of a one joule xenon transponder strobe
that's offering a one degree beam (perhaps even a 10 joule version)
would have represented less mass and certainly of not more volume than
what those silly retroreflectors demanded.
By mission A16 or A17, a 100 joule xenon strobe transponder should have
been more than doable within the same mass and volume budget of those
robust retroreflectors, that which not a independent soul that's outside
of the NASA/Apollo O-Ring gang can possibly detect such wussy photons
with any certainty, and the likes of team KECK isn't even allowed to
look.
Brad Guth
touch closer to the finish line.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html
However, too bad they still can't hardly think outside of their Lox/Lh2
box.
Nochsfentor
> Looks like our "tomcat" SSTO waverider spaceplane is getting itself a
> touch closer to the finish line.
> http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html
>
> However, too bad they still can't hardly think outside of their Lox/Lh2
> box.
> -
> Brad Guth
>
And don't you go letting them know. I put the Lox/Lh2 restriction bowl about
their project so that they won't ever really attain anything. I want them to
possibly come up with some interesting ideas, which I can use back at the
lab, but not to obtain a working product.
||
Brad Guth
news:5bOih.2649$yx6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net
> And don't you go letting them know. I put the Lox/Lh2 restriction bowl about
> their project so that they won't ever really attain anything. I want them to
> possibly come up with some interesting ideas, which I can use back at the
> lab, but not to obtain a working product.
OK, whatever doesn't rock thy boat.
You do realize that Lox/Lh2 will function, just not at a very good
payload ratio because of all their inert GLOW mass and lower energy
density to boot. Extensive use of composites will however greatly
offset the inert mass, allowing more roon for the necessary vast bulk of
Lox/Lh2. I bet they'll need a good pair of fully reusable LRBs that can
each be remote flown back to Earth.
Brad Guth
news:5bOih.2649$yx6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net
> And don't you go letting them know. I put the Lox/Lh2 restriction bowl about
> their project so that they won't ever really attain anything. I want them to
> possibly come up with some interesting ideas, which I can use back at the
> lab, but not to obtain a working product.
OK, whatever the heck doesn't rock thy boat.
You folks do realize that Lox/Lh2 will function, just not at a very good
payload ratio because of all their unavoidable inert GLOW as dead
infrastructure that's having to haul such volumes of low energy density
fuel to boot. Extensive use of composites will however greatly offset
their inert mass, allowing more vital room for their necessary
volumetric consuming bulk of their accommodating all of that Lox/Lh2.
I bet before long they'll need a good pair of fully reusable LRBs, that
which each fly-by-rocket LRB as robotic/remote flown back to Earth, as
conventional landing of such on their original tarmac if need be.
Nochsfentor
Fortunately I have hidden their LRBs among some balloons that a clown is
holding out on Coney Island. *Chuckle* It will be a long time before they
find those.
--
Brad Guth
but at least it showing that applied laws of physics should function on
behalf of private/commercial spaceplanes without all of the usual cloak
and daggers of being associated with our NASA, or of anything
MI6/KGB/NSA.
Tomcat's fat SSTSO (Single Stage To Sub-Orbital) waverider/spaceplane is
becoming quite real, though a spendy ride it's not even of hocus-pocus
physics or involving the smoke and mirrors of all those NASA/Apollo
fiasco years and decades. Using brute force and volumes of fuels, along
with a great many composites in order to keep their inert mass down to a
dull roar seems quite doable, exactly as having been specified by
"tomcat".
It only gets better yet, once the fully robotic and reusable LRBs are of
a production line that's offering those necessary thrust boosters is
when these next two spaceplanes will become the most payload capable of
deploying serious tonnage as well as volumes of whatever into LEO/ISS
orbits. Purely fly-by-rocket should still far outperform the Reaction
Engine in sheer payload tonnage that's getting deployed past LEO/ISS,
simply because of the ratio of inert mass is by far the best if going
via robotics where all is fuel and otherwise extremely compact engine.
Lapcat SSTO
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html
Skylon SSTO
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html
Each utilizing similar multitask Sabre Reaction Engines that are going
to become the near future of what suborbital and even orbital flights
can affordably deliver, along with impressive add-on LRBs making either
of those spaceplanes into commercial payload capable deployments of
getting significant payload tonnage into LEO/ISS or on behalf of
commercial POOF applications.
What's needed are the 10+ meter by 40+ meter of payload volumes, and of
100+ tonnes getting past LEO/ISS. Until then a 10 tonne payload
capability is still way better off than anything that's purely
fly-by-rocket deployed as of today.
Before long, and especially if either of these new and improved
fly-by-reaction/rocket spaceplanes are going for LEO/ISS or commercial
POOF applications, as such they'll most likely each need to apply a good
pair of fully reusable LRBs, that which each of these
strap-ons/latch-ons of secondary fly-by-rocket LRBs, as based upon
h2o2/c3h4o or whatever's better (perhaps good for 180+ km worth of 45
degree flight boost, or roughly a minute worth of absolutely impressive
thrust) as easily robotic/remote flown back to Earth and making
conventional landings on their original tarmac if need be. (thus near
zero LRB recovery efforts or other recovery factors)
Short of spendy and somewhat touchy in air refuelings, LRBs will likely
remain as essential for getting this spaceplane tonnage and of it's
considerable aerodynamic drag from ground zero past the first 3 km/s
mark, that is unless commercial payload tonnage isn't a factor. So,
unless going nuclear or whatever process can vaporise the likes of water
or rather h2o2 quickly enough, LRBs are still going to become the best
reusable ticket in town. Obviously fully disposable SRBs of mostly
composites (large STINGERS) will otherwise remain as the short burn
(kicker) alternative for getting such volumes and otherwise massive
spaceplanes up to their initial aerodynamic velocity.
Brad Guth
"tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1166966535.8...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com
That's getting your "Fat Albert" numbers a touch better off, though now
at 315 tons per each of those 50 massive landing gears. What about that
notion of utilizing the super-conducting electromagnetic rail launch of
less than a mile instead of taking 9+ miles of spendy tarmac, along with
all those custom 200+ massive (nearly solid composite and silicon)
wheels of friction and of their unavoidable horrific inert mass to boot?
BTW; what is the maximum takeoff wheel/tire loading as we currently
know of?
Here's my new and improved rant as to LRB assisted Lapcat/Skylon
applications. However, if any future spaceplane needs LRBs, it's
tomcat's 31,500,000 pounder of a composite fat waverider.
Rigid airships as spaceplanes, or vise versa:
This Skylon/Lapcat is simply way overkill performance for the rigid
airship needs of Venus, but at least it showing that our applied laws of
physics and modern composites should function on behalf of
private/commercial spaceplanes without incorporating all of the usual
inert mass of cloak and daggers as being associated with our NASA, or of
anything MI6/KGB/NSA.
Tomcat's fat SSTSO (Single Stage To Sub-Orbital) waverider/spaceplane is
gradually becoming quite real, though still a rather spendy and brute
force of a energy consuming ride, though at least it's not of
hocus-pocus physics or involving the smoke and mirrors of all those
NASA/Apollo fiasco years, and subsequent decades of their infomercial
crapolla with the sorts of their hocus-pocus rocket-science as based
upon their conditional laws of physics that simply doesn't add up.
Using brute force and absolute volumes of fuels (mostly LOX/LH2), along
with incorporating a great many composites in order to keep their inert
mass down to a dull roar seems quite doable, exactly as having
previously been specified by "tomcat", and for that matter myself with
reguard to those nifty Venusian rigid airships.
I believe this only gets better yet, once the fully robotic and reusable
LRBs are those of a commercial production run that's offering those
items as the necessary initial thrust boosters, as this is when these
Lapcat/Skylon spaceplanes will become the most payload capable of
hauling and deploying serious payload tonnage, as well as configured on
behalf of accommodating greater volumes of whatever into LEO/ISS orbits.
The purely fly-by-rocket alternative if made equally composite should
still far outperform the complex Skylon/SABRE in sheer payload tonnage
that's getting deployed past LEO/ISS, simply because of the ratio of
inert mass is by far the best if going via robotics where all is
benefiting via composites, much greater density of fuel(s) and otherwise
of extremely compact rocket engine(s).
Lapcat SSTO
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html
Skylon SSTO
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html
Each of these utilizing similar multitask/hybrid SABRE thrusters that
are likely going to become the near future of whatever's suborbital, and
even of whatever limited orbital flights can more affordably deliver,
along with impressive add-on LRBs making either of those spaceplanes
into commercial payload capable deployments of getting significant
tonnage into LEO/ISS or on behalf of commercial POOF applications.
What's needed are the 10+ meter by 40+ meter of payload volumes, and of
100+ tonnes getting past LEO/ISS. Until then, a suggested 10 tonne
payload of a somewhat limited volumetric capability is still way better
off than anything that's getting purely fly-by-rocket deployed as of
today's conventional means.
Before long, and especially if either of these new and improved
fly-by-reaction/rocket spaceplanes are going for LEO/ISS or commercial
POOF applications, as such they'll most likely each need to apply a good
pair of fully reusable LRBs, by which each of these strap-ons/latch-ons
of secondary fly-by-rocket LRBs, as based upon the greater fuel density
of h2o2/c3h4o or whatever's better (perhaps good for 180+ km worth of 45
degree flight boost, or roughly a minute worth of absolutely impressive
thrust) as easily robotic/remote flown back to Earth and making
conventional landings on their original tarmac if need be. (thus near
zero LRB recovery efforts or other recovery factors)
Short of their accomplishing spendy and somewhat touchy in-air
refuelings (which might not even be all that viable), LRBs will likely
remain as essential for getting this spaceplane tonnage and of it's
considerable aerodynamic drag from ground zero past the first 3+ km/s
mark and past as much altitude as possible, that is unless whatever
commercial payload tonnage or volume isn't a factor. So, unless going
nuclear or whatever spaceplane process can vaporise the likes of water
or much rather on behalf of processing h2o2 quickly enough, LRBs are
still going to become the best reusable ticket in town. Obviously fully
disposable SRBs of mostly composites (large STINGERS) will otherwise
remain as the short burn (STAR kicker) alternative for getting such
volumes and otherwise massive spaceplanes up to their initial
aerodynamic maximum velocity.
Personally, I think Lapcat or especially Skylon SSTO at merely 79% fuel
w/o LRBs is asking a bit much of those hybrid reaction engines that are
supposedly capable of 200~300 tonnes thrust (half again that of the
proven SSME), which sort of makes one ask, as to once operating above 25
km as to where all the spare fuel is coming from in order to feed a pair
of these thirsty engines, and for any sufficient amount of time as
necessary for obtaining LEO/ISS orbital status, along with fuel to
spare.
Spendy R&D is a given. However, I do believe that operational cost are
another given factor that needs to be incorporated within whatever plan
of action, that is unless all of us are suddenly going to become
billionaires and those warm and fuzzy big energy cartels, that
supposedly wouldn't dream of further gouging us, manage to discover
unlimited fuel(s) and/or yellowcake reserves that we currently don't
know about.
I've asked, what's the best swag as to the all-inclusive mass of the
SABRE ?
Since there's no SABRE mass specified, perhaps we can only assume that
it's currently a rather hefty sucker, at perhaps twice the mass of a
given SSME, making their naked SSBRE worth 6,000+ kg each (not including
all of the airframe internals and external aerodynamic infrastructure).
Brad Guth
> Fortunately I have hidden their LRBs among some balloons that a clown is
> holding out on Coney Island. *Chuckle* It will be a long time before they
> find those.
At a cost of such horrific collateral damage and nearly countless
thousands of lives, plus taking billions upon billions of our hard
earned dollars, they couldn't find any of those supposed Muslim/Islamic
WMD either, much less Usama bin Laden. So, your balloon hidden cash of
nifty LRBs are much safer and certainly far better off then ENRON stock.
Brad Guth
Why not invest into a composite rigid airship, on behalf of our doing
Venus?
Unlike most other planets or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked and rather nicely cosmic zapped to death.
The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment can at least accommodate intelligent other
life in more viable ways than it's being given credit for. There's even
good enough pictures of what's been doable by others. Yet lo and
behold, Venus remains as the absolute most accessible
taboo/nondisclosure other orb in our solar system, that's none the less
easier and much safer than doing our moon.
Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the core of that silly old Mars,
that's also of an environment that's worthy of getting yourself cosmic
TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death while on the
surface, whereas on the relatively newish planetology of Venus there's
hardly any cosmic or nasty forms of solar energy that's DNA lethal
getting through that thick soup of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any
need of digging in in order to find more than your fair share of
geothermal or gas vent issues that can be put directly to the task of
extracting renewable energy on the spot.
The vertical atmospheric thick soup of pressure and thermal differential
factors alone are clearly by themselves more than sufficient to sustain
most any mere half-wit intelligent form of life. That is unless you
were one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet village idiots, in which
case absolutely nothing is possible in the past, present or future, so
why bother.
The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such
viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing, is simply
further proof-positive that such renewable energy while on Venus has
been doable.
Venus is in fact a hot place, though actually it's not all that nasty of
an environment, but so what if you've got such access to and having the
sufficient smarts on behalf of utilizing the vast amounts of renewable
energy that's already there to behold?
Just because a given planet or moon is a little too hot, too cold or
even too wet for our naked bodies, doesn't in of itself mean that it's
100+% taboo. Escaping cosmic and solar radiation seems far more of a
life essential important issue, and secondly avoiding whatever's
physically incoming seems like yet another win-win for the old gipper,
especially if it's having to do with avoiding getting seriously smacked
in the butt by way of something that has your name on it.
Venus simply couldn't possibly be any more newish, alive and kicking on
the door of other life, especially on behalf of accommodating
intelligent other life, possibly even of a few locally evolved species
isn't outside the Venusian box. Although, I suppose if there's lots of
cosmic radiated and otherwise meteorite pulverised dry-ice, plus
whatever remains of that sub-frozen regular old Mars ice that's perhaps
near solid to the very icy dead (older than Earth) core of Mars is still
somehow life worthy, then so be it.
Pro-Mars folks should simply impress us, as in knocking our socks off,
if they can. I'm absolutely certain that millions of years ago Mars
could have had a touch of life to spare, and back a good billion some
odd years even better odds yet for sustaining sizable (larger than
rad-hard microbe) forms of such other life.
BTW; if the bleak realm of that Mars of today has any remainders of
life to behold, then upon our own pesky moon that's still more than a
touch salty is absolutely loaded to the gills with it's local and cosmic
DNA morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.
Brad Guth
The Venusian Composite Rigid Airship; so what's the big insurmountable
deal?
Why the hell not invest into a composite rigid airship (fat waverider
spaceplane), on behalf of our doing Venus?
It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric probe that'll function below their nighttime season
of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore needn't be all that large.
Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.
The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment can at least accommodate intelligent other
life in more viable ways than it's being given credit for. There has
even been good enough pictures of what's been doable by others. Yet lo
and behold, Venus remains as the most nearby and absolute most
accessible taboo/nondisclosure other orb in our solar system, that's
none the less easier and much safer than doing our moon.
Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars,
that's also representing an environment that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and
evolving planetology of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty forms
of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that thick soup
of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to dig in in
order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or terrific gas
vent issues that can be put directly to the task of extracting renewable
energy on the spot.
The vertical atmospheric thick soup of pressure and thermal differential
factors alone are clearly by themselves more than sufficient to sustain
most any mere halfwit intelligent form of life. That is unless you are
one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet village idiots, in which case
absolutely nothing is possible in the past, present or future, so why
bother.
The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such
viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing on behalf of
all things government and big-energy, is simply further proof-positive
that such renewable energy while on Venusian deck has been doable.
Venus is in fact a hot place, though actually it's not all that nasty of
an environment. But so what if it's hot, as long as you've got such
access to and having the sufficient smarts on behalf of utilizing the
vast amounts of renewable energy that's already there to behold?
Just because a given planet or moon is a little too hot, too cold or
even too wet for our naked bodies or physiological grasp, doesn't in of
itself mean that it's 100+% taboo. Escaping the lethal forms of cosmic
and solar radiation seems by far more of a life essential important
issue, and secondly avoiding whatever's physically incoming seems like
yet another win-win for the old gipper, especially if it's having to do
with avoiding getting seriously smacked in the butt by way of something
that has your name on it.
Venus simply couldn't possibly be any more newish, alive and kicking on
the various doors of accommodating other life, especially on behalf of
rather easily accommodating intelligent other life that's merely
visiting, possibly even of a few locally evolved species isn't outside
of this toasty Venusian box. Although, I suppose if there's lots of
cosmic radiated and otherwise meteorite pulverised dry-ice, plus
whatever remains of that sub-frozen regular old Mars ice that's perhaps
near solid to the very icy dead (older than Earth) core of Mars is still
somehow life worthy, then so be it.
These pro-Mars folks should simply impress us, as in knocking our socks
off, if they can. I'm absolutely certain that as of millions of years
ago Mars could have had a touch of life to spare, and back a good
billion some odd years even better odds yet for having sustained sizable
(larger than rad-hard microbe) forms of such other local life
(intelligent being yet to be proven unless merely visiting).
On the other real and honest hands of utilizing those regular laws of
physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so insurmountable
about Venus. Thinking otherwise is only the proof-positive as to how
terribly snookered and dumbfounded past the mindset point of no return
you have become.
BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of that Mars of today has any
remainders of life to behold, then upon our own pesky moon that's still
more than a touch salty is absolutely loaded to the gills, with it's
Art Deco
>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:76874a218a4bd9082d5...@mygate.mailgate.org
>
>Why not invest into a composite rigid airship, on behalf of our doing
>Venus?
>
>Unlike most other planets or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
>getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
>DNA has long been kicked and rather nicely cosmic zapped to death.
>
>The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
>buoyant Venusian environment can at least accommodate intelligent other
>life in more viable ways than it's being given credit for. There's even
>good enough pictures of what's been doable by others. Yet lo and
>behold, Venus remains as the absolute most accessible
>taboo/nondisclosure other orb in our solar system, that's none the less
>easier and much safer than doing our moon.
>
>Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the core of that silly old Mars,
>that's also of an environment that's worthy of getting yourself FLUSH
Yet another collection of newsgroups targeted by Brad Guth for his
Venusian delusions.
Art Deco
You didn't put enough acronyms into this post, Brad, but at least you
spared usenet another round of your screed.
Art Deco
>The Venusian Composite Rigid Airship; so what's the big insurmountable
>deal?
>
>Why the hell not invest into a composite rigid airship (fat waverider
>spaceplane), on behalf of our doing Venus?
I think you need to ask these questions another 20 times, Brad, perhaps
you'll troll an unsuspecting mark into telling you what you don't want
to head.
Brad Guth
Due to the typical topic/author stalking and of their fundamental intent
to cause as much harm as possible, is exactly why I'm having to repost
this new and improved context.
The Venusian Composite Rigid Airship: it makes Venus accessible.
Venus is actually a very intellectually cool and extra special planet,
especially considering there's so much spare and fully renewable energy
to burn (sort of speak). As such, why the hell bother to terraform a
damn thing when it's more than good enough to go as is?
Venus has only been too hot for the likes of those "Bad Astronomy"
types, and otherwise for having rubbed our NASA the wrong way because,
they're all clearly one in the same collective, meaning they is the
truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA spooks and
moles as representing the borg like Skull and Bones collective that's
clearly without an actual soul nor so much as a stitch of remorse. They
used to get away with burning us witches and our books at the stake,
though for kid's sake is why prime-time media has to somewhat frown on
that level of action (similar to avoiding being associated with those
having exterminated Cathars or pushing nuns off a bridge which doesn't
exactly promote good PR), so instead they topic/author stalk, bash and
as much as possible take to excluding evidence and/or simply banishing
whatever rocks their good but seriously rotting ship of their's, the USS
LOLLIPOP that's flying that home port flag of "up your's" USA.
I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with sustaining the ongoing ruse, or
otherwise with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to
terraform Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?
What's really important of us to realize, is that we have a serious
Venusian composite rgid airship gap: so what's the big insurmountable
deal with that?
Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on
behalf of our doing Venus in grand style?
It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric cruising probe that'll function rather nicely below
their nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore
needn't be all that large.
Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.
The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment (say cruising along at 25 km by season of
nighttime and 35 km by season of daytime) can at least accommodate
intelligent other life in more viable ways than it's being given credit
for. There has even been good enough pictures of what's been
accomplished by others. Yet lo and behold, Venus remains as by far the
most nearby and absolute most accessible taboo/nondisclosure other orb
in our solar system, that's none the less easier and much safer than
doing our moon.
Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars,
that's also representing an environment that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and
evolving planetology of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty forms
of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that thick soup
of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to dig in in
order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or terrific gas
vent issues that can be put directly to the task of extracting renewable
energy on the spot.
The vertical atmospheric thick soup of such nifty pressure and thermal
differential factors alone are clearly by themselves more than
sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit intelligent form of
On the other very real and honest hands of utilizing those regular laws
of physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so terribly
insurmountable about Venus. Thinking otherwise is only the
proof-positive as to how completely snookered and dumbfounded past the
mindset point of no return you have become.
BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of whatever the Mars of today has to
offer of any remainders of Martian ife to behold, then upon our own
pesky moon that's still more than a touch salty is what has to be
absolutely loaded to the gills, with all of it's local and cosmic DNA
morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.
BTW No.2; ESA's already doing Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?
-
"habshi" <hi@anony> wrote in message
news:4599a5fd...@news.clara.net
> How would you transport the energy from Venus to Earth .
First of all, screw Earth. I say; Whatever happens in Venus stays in
Venus.
However, utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac
or rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating our
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship
w/piggyback spaceplane that's capable of cruising at good enough
velocity above the 100 km altitude mark, is what seems rather doable.
As such, I suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium
yellowcake as valuable radioactive elements of mostly U238 could offer
an impressive payback.
What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?
I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely
$224,000/tonne
However, I suppose we could just transport the fully processeed
U238/U239, or as ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and 4% U235 at
roughly $1,500/kg.
In fact, the interplanetary "tomcat" fat waverider or fancy Skylon like
spaceplane itself could become fully nuclear powered via radioactive
elements of U238/U235, as exclusively obtained from Venus.
Old pricing data: < http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm >
"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."
There's certainly no insurmountable complications in getting the payload
tonnage of whatever's extracted away from Venus. Every 19 months Venus
gets to within nearly 100 fold the distance of our moon (that's close
enough to spit at one another), so the travel time isn't even a big
factor.
All the necessary rocket fuel(s) of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be
locally processed into even better reactive energy is also not the least
bit of a big deal, since all the necessary energy for processing
whatever into damn near anything is already there to behold.
Jeff Findley
"Art Deco" <erfc...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:010120071859514993%erfc...@usa.net...
> Yet another collection of newsgroups targeted by Brad Guth for his
> Venusian delusions.
Which is why I've got Brad Guth killfiled. His postings aren't worth
anyone's time.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Brad Guth
news:e7e4b$459a6792$927a2cda$29...@FUSE.NET
> Which is why I've got Brad Guth killfiled. His postings aren't worth
> anyone's time.
It's what your all-knowing naysay mindset does best. If you can't
manage to snooker and dumbfound thy humanity, you killfile.
Might as well be the case because, you're clearly not hardly a
constructive topic contributor, much less an outside the box sort of
guy, are you.