tomcat's Nice Little Sub-Orbital Runabout
Brad Guth
I'm sorry, but you've got to be absolutely kidding. You mean that all
of this time when you've been spouting off that you're so all knowing
and otherwise such a fat-waverider of a do-everything better than NASA
spaceplane wizard, when in fact you haven't had an actual clue as to
what LL-1 represents?
Obviously you are NOT at all whomever you've pretended yourself to be.
Gee whiz, tomcat (aka MI/NSA spook), why am I not the least bit
surprised.
LL-1 is in fact the gravity well or "Lagrange Lunar one" as being the
nullification zone that's obviously an interactive environment that's
situated at roughly upon average 60,000 km away from the moon, as in
keeping within near direct alignment with mother Earth. You do even
know what the term "mother Earth" represents?
Why are you intentionally going so far off topic with involving those
other Lagrange points?
Haven't you ever heard of the term "lunar space elevator" or even that
of the Arthur C. Clarke "Clarke Station", and otherwise absolute loads
of other moon-->space elevator research as having been sufficiently
published as topics for decades, and otherwise as internet/Usenet posted
for more than the past couple of decade?
http://www.heavyhammer.com/clarkestation/orbit.shtml
This indicates an interactive zone of roughly +/- 9 km/s by +/- 25 km,
along with such station-keeping as being up to 97.6% solar illuminated,
as well as unavoidably getting lunar secondary IR toasted, and that of
your frail DNA getting full body gamma and hard-X-ray irradiated.
Lagrange Points Calculator
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity4.htm
Obviously if you're still within the NASA taboo dark as to LL-1, whereas
then you haven't a freaking clue as to what my LSE-CM/ISS has been all
about. How pathetic!
Good Christ almighty on a stick; where the hell have you been all of
these years, if not decades?
It certainly goes to further prove that you've even lied about reading
anything that I've previously constructed and having multiple times
posted for public review over the past several years. Besides your
being such a born-again pagan Republican, why are you such a Skull and
Bones brown-nosed Usenet liar?
-
Brad Guth
>
For some very odd reason your nifty topic that's perfectly readable
within GOOGLE/Usenet simply isn't getting Mailgate posted or as
otherwise having been moderated into banishment, so as to not being made
available to Mailgate client users. Why is that? Is it because you're
as phony-baloney as it ever gets?
Topic: A Nice Little Sub-Orbital Runabout
From: tomcat
Date: Mon, Jul 31 2006 7:48 pm
Email: "tomcat" <jlav...@bellsouth.net>
Groups: rec.org.mensa, sci.space.policy, sci.space.shuttle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_frm/thread/f75b13e5d32cc974/d811df7e430f3830?hl=en#d811df7e430f3830
Brad Guth wrote:
> A good orbital energy efficient and otherwise worthwhile place for the
> 'tomcat' waverider spaceplane to go to/from is LL-1, from which all
> sorts of secondary missions and the best ever Earth and moon science
> can be conducted, and obviously without ever being out of sight of
> mother Earth or that of our physically dark moon that's so gamma and
> hard-X-ray worthy (you could even fish stuff right off the lunar deck).
> Excluding everything that's NASA/Apollo; what do you folks otherwise
> know about LL-1 (rougly 60,000 km away from the moon) and of the
> required energy for station-keeping demands within that gravity
> nullification well and tidal interactive zone?
> Since the likes of SOHO at Earth L1 hasn't used a sixth of what they'd
> expected, and I'd expect ACE being that mush better yet, therefore how
> much LL-1 station-keeping reaction fuel per metric tonne of craft per
> month (per lunar cycle) or per 12 of those lunar cycles, are we talking
> about?
> Seems like a perfectly good spot to store those megatonnes of spare
> rocket fuel, unless the extra IR and lethal forms of radiation off the
> moon is too much to deal with.
> -
> Brad Guth
:Brad, I hate to ask an 'obvious' question, but what is LL-1? Is it
:Lagrange Lunar one? That would be of some significance, a gravity
:balanced Lagrange point not too far from the Moon.
:One good place for a space station would be an equilateral triangle to
:the sun with the 3rd vertice point 93 million miles behind the Earth.
:This 3rd Vertice point would be a very stable 'observation point' from
:which to watch the Earth. We could call that the 'tomcat 3rd vertice
:point', or 'T-3' for short.
:Every body would have a 'tomcat 3rd vertice point' relative to some
:other body. Maybe 'T-3' points will make me famous. Nothing like
:sinking into the background in a stealthed ship and watching using
:powerful telescopes and passive radiation equipment.
:tomcat
I wonder what other GOOGLE/Usenet topics are being systematically
excluded and/or banished from Mailgate.org?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Wayne Throop
: LL-1 is in fact the gravity well or "Lagrange Lunar one" as being the
: nullification zone that's obviously an interactive environment that's
: situated at roughly upon average 60,000 km away from the moon, as in
: keeping within near direct alignment with mother Earth.
Except of course that it isn't a well. It's a hill.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Brad Guth
news:11548...@sheol.org
Wayne Throop,
That's a very good point, and a better way of us common folks perceiving
this zone as a hill top, that which one has to carefully manage with
reaction thrust, and obviously applied at just the right time in order
to stay with such an interactive hill, as a gravity-hill that'll take
some station-keeping energy per tonne ofwhatever science platform that
might easily demand a kg of reaction per tonne per month, although with
better do-everything computers taking the multi-bodies and solar winds
into account, I believe it is conceivable as to eventually getting that
energy for reaction thrusting down to as little as 0.1 kg/tonne/month,
and obviously getting only better yet as tether elements are deployed
towards touching and eventually holding onto the moon and perhaps best
otherwise accomplished by the dipole tether element as eventually
reaching to within 4r of Earth, by which in of itself can be entirely
interactive on behald of sustaining the station-keeping demands of a
science platform in LL-1.
If using a sufficient cash of Radium under pressure for the unavoidable
decay of obtaining LRn-->Rn-->ion thrust could also become rather
onboard energy efficient and obviously good for offering an ISP of
providing a 1600 year half-life supply of reaction fuel.
Besides moon Radium, How much terrestrial Radium has mother Earth got to
spare?
You seem to have a for real email address and a rather nifty home page
that's chuck full of terrific stuff. Does this mean that you're a real
person, with an actual soul?
tomcat
That LL-1 is a 'hill' is a good point. There is no perfect fit.
Therefore, you will gradually have a decaying 'perfect Lagrange' orbit,
which is a little less than perfect.
Better to make an isoceles triangle with the planetary body you wish to
a stable position with and simply swing along behind, or in front.
tomcat
John Gilmer
>
> Why are you intentionally going so far off topic with involving those
> other Lagrange points?
Whatever happend to the "L-5 Society?
EMWTK
>
Brad Guth
news:44d67def$0$11...@dingus.crosslink.net
>
> Whatever happend to the "L-5 Society?
>
> EMWTK
John Gilmer,
I think someone from that group actually went there for a few minutes,
and soon thereafter died rather badly from the inside out, from having
their DNA irradiated to death, and/or merely impacted clean through and
through from damn near anything that so happened to be moving through
that naked L5 zone at 30+ km/s.
Brad Guth
news:1154906720.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
>
> That LL-1 is a 'hill' is a good point. There is no perfect fit.
> Therefore, you will gradually have a decaying 'perfect Lagrange' orbit,
> which is a little less than perfect.
>
> Better to make an isoceles triangle with the planetary body you wish to
> a stable position with and simply swing along behind, or in front.
>
tomcat,
You can't read, can you?
Why are you intentionally avoiding the intent of this topic, and
otherwise intentionally diverting this topic?
What brown-nosed MI/NSA~NASA cloak of damage-control instructions are
you following this time around?
Pat Flannery
John Gilmer wrote:
They had a schism between the technologists and the political wing who
looked at the L points as the perfect place to build a utopia.
About the time that Timothy Leary arrived, things started to disintegrate.
Pat
rimala2323
regards
<a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Free MMOG</a>
<a href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Free MMORPG</a>
<a href=http://unifcationplayers.50webs.com/>free</a>
BlagooBlanaa
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:12dd41j...@corp.supernews.com...
you mean they achieved an unstable quasi-equilibrium?
at LSD-5
ROFL
> Pat
tomcat
My position on Space Elevators is that they probably are going to be a
good deal more difficult to make then what the proponents of the idea
think. Satellites in geosynchronous orbit don't just go round and
round perfectly. Those nasty 'mascons' you talk about alter their
altitude and position considerably from time to time. Not to mention
meteorites and solar flares.
I recommend that you experiment first. Take 1000 feet of rope and drag
it along with you to the local woods. Make a swing out of it by using
a tree limb. Did you notice how the rope stretches and shrinks with
pressure and moisture? How it gets all twisted up and knots? Did you
trip over some of it while pulling it along and trying to fling it over
the tree limb?
Now, imagine tying a 22,000 mile length of rope to a geosynchronous
satellite that varies it's altitude by 20 or 30 miles from time to
time. And, if you do it for power generation you have to put a copper
core in the rope and then it will get all kinked up! And, when you
hammer on it while holding onto the rope, at say 85,000 feet, heaven
forbid that you might strike the copper core with your steel hammer.
You'll light up like a Christmas Tree!
Arthur Clarke predicted that it might become a reality about 50 years
after people stop laughing about it. Well, I am still have a chuckle
over it.
What about Solar Flares? Well, a good old Sol X-Flare and your power
generating elevator rope will turn into a gigantic sparkler, blue-white
flames everywhere, and your geosynchronous satellite will . . .
Explode!
tomcat
Pat Flannery
BlagooBlanaa wrote:
>you mean they achieved an unstable quasi-equilibrium?
>at LSD-5
>
>ROFL
>
>
>
>
Good one, Centurion!
It would have been fascinating to watch what would happen if you threw
several thousand political ideologues, each of which is sure that a
utopia could only work if it followed their specific ideas of government
and no other, into a giant tin can in space. A army composed entirely of
generals in other words. They'd be killing each other inside of a week
over obscure philosophical concepts. :-D
Pat
Monte Davis
>It would have been fascinating to watch what would happen if you threw
>several thousand political ideologues, each of which is sure that a
>utopia could only work if...
Kinda like throwing a hew hundred space ideologues, each certain that
we could be halfway to Neptune next Tuesday if we'd only adopt *his*
technology/architecture/organization/motivation, onto some newsgroups.
They'd be killfiling each other inside of a week...
Brad Guth
> My position on Space Elevators is that they probably are going to be a
> good deal more difficult to make then what the proponents of the idea
> think. Satellites in geosynchronous orbit don't just go round and
> round perfectly. Those nasty 'mascons' you talk about alter their
> altitude and position considerably from time to time. Not to mention
> meteorites and solar flares.
You're such an official MI/NSA~NASA ass of a borg minion, arnt you.
You didn't even know what LL-1 was until just the day before.
You don't even know the difference between the ESE and the LSE.
There's nothing demanding that the CM(counter mass) of a given lunar
space elevator that need stay absolutely put if allowed to freely float
about, as in keeping any one exact location, but you're too much of a
born-again and otherwise brown-nosed certified bigot to understand such
matters.
The CM of the LSE-CM/ISS isn't even all that geosynchronous demanding,
nor is it even all that centrifugal force demanding, as it has the
somewhat reliable gravity influence of mother Earth to work with, as in
orbital and grvitational physics duh-101.
The lunar mascons are of a total none issue with the physics and/or
orbital mechanics of the LSE-CM/ISS because, the LSE-CM/ISS isn't like
those NASA/Apollo missions orbiting past any of those nasty mascons. My
freaking God you're such an absolute ass of an ass, art you.
BTW; we don't give a tinkers damn about your sicko if not pathetic
naysay opinions. Instead we want your best wizardly expertise and
constructive ideas and/or whatever's your SWAG as to making stuff
happen. You know, like your fat-waverider of a spaceplane, that I'd bet
Arthur Clarke would be having a real chuckle about the village idiot
that you are.
>
> I recommend that you experiment first. Take 1000 feet of rope and drag
> it along with you to the local woods. Make a swing out of it by using
> a tree limb. Did you notice how the rope stretches and shrinks with
> pressure and moisture? How it gets all twisted up and knots? Did you
> trip over some of it while pulling it along and trying to fling it over
> the tree limb?
I recommend that yourself and of those other Democratic Jews that voted
Republican should go to hell, and then some.
I guess now we know that you're just a kid or some MI/NSA~NASA spook
that's on drugs.
>
> Now, imagine tying a 22,000 mile length of rope to a geosynchronous
> satellite that varies it's altitude by 20 or 30 miles from time to
> time. And, if you do it for power generation you have to put a copper
> core in the rope and then it will get all kinked up! And, when you
> hammer on it while holding onto the rope, at say 85,000 feet, heaven
> forbid that you might strike the copper core with your steel hammer.
> You'll light up like a Christmas Tree!
>
> Arthur Clarke predicted that it might become a reality about 50 years
> after people stop laughing about it. Well, I am still have a chuckle
> over it.
Up until the other day, you knew nothing about Arthur Clarke's "clarke
station", and now you're the all knowing expert.
I think Clarke would laugh in public at the village idiot that you are.
>
> What about Solar Flares? Well, a good old Sol X-Flare and your power
> generating elevator rope will turn into a gigantic sparkler, blue-white
> flames everywhere, and your geosynchronous satellite will . . .
> Explode!
My point exactly about each of those hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo missions
that never set a dusty, double-IR hot and TBI lethal moonboot on that
physically dark moon of ours that should have been electrostatic worthy
as all get out.
BTW No.2; Venus was unavoidably situated above the physically dark
horizon and otherwise cruising nearby within A-11, A14 and A-16. So
you're nothing but a certified liar because, any half-brain of a solar
system simulator proves that you're a liar and a certified bigot to
boot.
Now you're saying that the moon's multi teravoltage and quite possibly
multi terajoule differential is some kind of a problem. And here I'd
merely thought the gamma and unavoidable hard-X-ray dosage was a
problem.
BTW No.3; what's the polarity of our moon?
Of course that's also of squeaky clean energy that could be transferred
back to Earth, but what could we possibly do with such clean and 100%
renewable energy that's essentially continuous?
Brad Guth
news:1154915641.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> i dun think so
Is that because you're only 3 years old?
Pat Flannery
Monte Davis wrote:
>Kinda like throwing a hew hundred space ideologues, each certain that
>we could be halfway to Neptune next Tuesday if we'd only adopt *his*
>technology/architecture/organization/motivation, onto some newsgroups.
>They'd be killfiling each other inside of a week...
>
Rand Simberg used to be a L5 member.
'nuff said. :-D
Anyway, have a peek at what the libertarian wing of L5 turned into:
http://www.islandone.org/
http://samizdata.net/
I particularly like that last one; I think they intend to build a free
society where everyone's rights are respected no matter how many people
must be killed in the process.
In that respect they are fairly close to the Bolsheviks. ;-)
Pat
Monte Davis
its subsequent transformations, most of which have been about as
interesting to 99.9% of the world -- and about as significant -- as
the quarrels of the Workers' Neo-Trotskyite International (Reformed),
the Third World Revolutionary Splinter Vanguard, and the Caribbean
People's Psychedelic Feminist Front.
Henry Spencer
So was I... Indeed, the only reason I'm still a member of NSS is that
life members of L5 became life members of NSS.
Alas, in hindsight, by the time I joined, L5 had already been taken over
by the cheerleader squad, and its days were numbered.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <12df3f7...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>>Rand Simberg used to be a L5 member.
>>'nuff said. :-D
>
>So was I... Indeed, the only reason I'm still a member of NSS is that
>life members of L5 became life members of NSS.
>
>Alas, in hindsight, by the time I joined, L5 had already been taken over
>by the cheerleader squad, and its days were numbered.
Well, I seem to be in good company, regardless of Pat's (as usual)
pathetic attempt at painting me with the tarbrush.
Jorge R. Frank
news:9bhfd2pckpocrmcok...@4ax.com:
Actually, it reminds me more of the Judean People's Front, the People's
Front of Judea, the Judean Popular People's Front...
Splitters.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns9818D892...@204.52.135.8...
> Actually, it reminds me more of the Judean People's Front, the People's
> Front of Judea, the Judean Popular People's Front...
>
Yes, but other than that, what HAVE the Romans done for us?
Pat Flannery
Monte Davis wrote:
>the quarrels of the Workers' Neo-Trotskyite International (Reformed),
>the Third World Revolutionary Splinter Vanguard, and the Caribbean
>People's Psychedelic Feminist Front.
>
Don't forget The Judean People's Front, The People's Front of Judea, and
The Popular Front Of Judea....SPLITTERS! :-)
I once considered joining it during its waning days, but then read the
strange article in their newspaper concerning whether Space Station
Freedom had more ying or yang to its karma, and decided to give it a miss.
If only Gerard O'Neill had realized all the weird shit he was about to
uncork with one little book.
Speaking of books, 15 conservative masterminds give us their take on the
most harmful ones of the past 200 years with unintentionally hilarious
commentary: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X62F2578D
Favorite quote, regarding Marx's "Das Kapital":
"Summary: Marx died after publishing a first volume of this massive
book, after which his benefactor Engels edited and published two
additional volumes that Marx had drafted.
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&camp=1789&tag=humaneventson-20&creative=9325&path=tg/detail/-/089526711X/qid=1117548592/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1?v=glance%26s=books>"Das
Kapital" forces the round peg of capitalism into the square hole of
Marx’s materialistic theory of history, portraying capitalism as an ugly
phase in the development of human society in which capitalists
inevitably and amorally exploit labor by paying the cheapest possible
wages to earn the greatest possible profits."
Lord knows it's nothing like that at your local WalMart...or in
WalMart's Chinese supplier's factories for that matter.
"Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global
proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century
America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative
government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate."
They had better damn well envy and seek to emulate us, or they are
obviously members of The Axis Of Evil. :-)
Another goody, concerning Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique":
"As David Horowitz wrote in a review for Salon.com of Betty Friedan and
the Making of the Feminine Mystique by Daniel Horowitz (no relation to
David): The author documents that 'Friedan was from her college days,
and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of
the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column and for a time even the
lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in
Berkeley’s radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.' "
Not only is she a God-damned commie, she has sex with commie eggheads! ;-)
Some of the runner-ups are Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and "The
Descent of Man", as well as Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" BTW. :-)
We'll have none of that
free-love-evolutionist-commie-humanist-big-government bilge here, by God!
Pat
Andre Lieven
Yes, but its not like that at CostCo, where it's CEO is taking well
under 1 mil $ a year, and already meets the Chicago City Ordinance
on fair pay.
And, Chinese labourers who either make peanuts or are prisoners can
speak on the topic of " the kindness of socialism "... Oh, wait, they
can't, because they're prisoners.
> "Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global
> proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century
> America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative
> government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate."
>
> They had better damn well envy and seek to emulate us, or they are
> obviously members of The Axis Of Evil. :-)
Well, that quote might have been a bit over the top, but most of the
developing world thats not going nutters on other issues, is working
to grow their economic standings. Thats why we are going to run out
of oil all the sooner, as India and China want lots more and soon, too.
> Another goody, concerning Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique":
>
> "As David Horowitz wrote in a review for Salon.com of Betty Friedan and
> the Making of the Feminine Mystique by Daniel Horowitz (no relation to
> David): The author documents that 'Friedan was from her college days,
> and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of
> the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column and for a time even the
> lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in
> Berkeley’s radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.' "
>
> Not only is she a God-damned commie, she has sex with commie eggheads! ;-)
Well, she was so daft that she directly compared housewifery ( Still
the preferred career of choice for the ladies- See " Mrs. Degree " )
to being at Buchenwald.
Daft as a mad hare, she was.
> Some of the runner-ups are Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and "The
> Descent of Man", as well as Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" BTW. :-)
> We'll have none of that
> free-love-evolutionist-commie-humanist-big-government bilge here, by God!
Oh, I'd nominate " The Rules ", by nutbags Ellen Fein & Sherrie Schneider.
A more bigoted work outside of the KKK you won't find.
Andre
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>
>Actually, it reminds me more of the Judean People's Front, the People's
>Front of Judea, the Judean Popular People's Front...
>
>Splitters.
>
>
Considering that I hadn't read this posting before writing mine, this is
some mighty impressive synchronicity. :-)
Now, about those aqueducts. ;-)
Biggus Patus
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
>Yes, but other than that, what HAVE the Romans done for us?
>
>
>
Brought pizza?
Pat
Brad Guth
> : "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com>
Wayne Throop,
Where the heck did you go?
I agree about LL-1 being a moving gravity hill, although as a hill
having a semi-flat top or interactive nullification zone of roughly +/-
9 km by +/- 25 km, giving us the 900 km2 environment with a third
dimension of roughly +/- 6 km that's making the shell volume of this
interactive "Wayne Throop" gravity-hill worth roughly 1e6 km3, that
which in station-keeping mode gets managed with a little timely applied
reaction thrust, perhaps using as much as a kg/tonne/month for
accomplishing sufficient station-keeping that'll be necessary for
staying within the sweet-spot (+/- a few km) of sustaining yourself as a
mostly robotic science platform, or perhaps as eventually accommodating
a fully manned ISS community of brave souls that don't mind being a
little gamma and hard-X-ray over-exposed.
LL-1 is actually rather nearby, and because it is what it is, the
destination of LL-1 represents an extremely fly-by-rocket efficient
opportunity for getting fresh supplies of the reaction thrust fuel,
beer, pizza and smut delivered each and every month, plus you'll always
obtain great TV reception from nearly half of Earth at any given time,
and with a little help your cell phone might even work.
On behalf of an initial 50t science platform, as station-keeping within
LL-1 would thereby require 50 kg of applied reaction fuel per month,
which could rather easily be that derived via waste gray water and even
black water, as being easily solar superheated-steam-->vacuum thrusting
that should always be in surplus as long as there at least one human
soul onboard that's drinking roughly 3.7 pounds(1.75 liters) of beer or
other fluids per day, which actually sounds about right, if not being a
bit on the light side if you're a typical beer and pizza consuming
individual.
Therefore, 50 kg of make-up water per month actually isn't all that
much, especially if that's primarily in the form of beer. Of higher
grade beer or higher proof alcoholic products would simply demand that
you drink a little extra in order to make up for the lower density of
such fluids, and who in their right mind is ever going to object to
that.
These "tomcat" steam reaction thrusters and the somewhat salty h2o
yellow fuel they'll demand could be entirely sponsored by Smirnoff or
Budweiser.
Pat Flannery
Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>And, Chinese labourers who either make peanuts or are prisoners can
>speak on the topic of " the kindness of socialism "... Oh, wait, they
>can't, because they're prisoners.
>
>
Which would mean that capitalist countries are using prison labor in a
indirect manner to cut costs and up profits, which would be right in
line with Marxist theory regarding how capitalism works.
Actually, they had a show on PBS around a year back showing one of those
Chinese factories with all the happy workers in it.
Surprisingly, the workers _did_ complain; they didn't like the communal
soup service, they didn't like having to buy decent food on their own
from their pay, they didn't like the barbed wire around their living
quarters, and they didn't like the total number of hours they had to
work each day.
I don't know what the fall-out of this was after the interviewers left,
but I was surprised to see it at all.
A few years back the Chinese government announced a new slogan to
inspire the people: "To Be Rich Is Glorious!" now, I don't know about
you, but to me that sounds like they are somehow drifting away from
classic Marxist/Leninist dogma. ;-)
>
>
>
>>"Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global
>>proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century
>>America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative
>>government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate."
>>
>>They had better damn well envy and seek to emulate us, or they are
>>obviously members of The Axis Of Evil. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Well, that quote might have been a bit over the top, but most of the
>developing world thats not going nutters on other issues, is working
>to grow their economic standings. Thats why we are going to run out
>of oil all the sooner, as India and China want lots more and soon, too.
>
>
Yes, but do they want to replicate the U.S. in how they do it?
This crew seems to think so- that e are the be-all and end-all of a
perfect society that all others must envy and seek to emulate.
in this commentary on bad book #5; "Democracy and Education" we find out
that the evil of the Clinton generation sprang from the Godless...John
Dewey?!:
"Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a
“progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in
American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia.
He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and
moral absolutes. In "Democracy and Education" in pompous and opaque
prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character
development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged
the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence
on the direction of American education--particularly in public
schools--and helped nurture the Clinton generation."
What makes this one interesting is that I've never heard of this guy or
this book.
Thomas Dewey, yes.
Admiral Dewey, yes.
Huey, Dewey, and Louie, yes.
>>
>>Not only is she a God-damned commie, she has sex with commie eggheads! ;-)
>>
>>
>
>Well, she was so daft that she directly compared housewifery ( Still
>the preferred career of choice for the ladies- See " Mrs. Degree " )
>to being at Buchenwald.
>
>Daft as a mad hare, she was.
>
>
I still think she is the one responsible for those sofas in rest area
lady's...excuse me, women's rooms.
That's the way your hard-core feminazi works.
First the sofas...then the castrations. ;-)
>
>
>
>>Some of the runner-ups are Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and "The
>>Descent of Man", as well as Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" BTW. :-)
>>We'll have none of that
>>free-love-evolutionist-commie-humanist-big-government bilge here, by God!
>>
>>
>
>Oh, I'd nominate " The Rules ", by nutbags Ellen Fein & Sherrie Schneider.
>A more bigoted work outside of the KKK you won't find.
>
>
For all the havoc it wreaked, I'd stick Mahan's "Influence Of Seapower
Upon History 1660-1783" in that top ten somewhere, as that's what got
the bee up Teddy Roosevelt's butt about needing distant coaling stations
for the U.S. Navy's power projection around the world, and set us on our
unfortunate quest for empire in direct contravention of the aims of the
founding fathers.
I'm sure that the 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos who died as a result of
the Phillippine-American war and the famine and disease it caused due to
our desire for a Pacific coaling station for The Great White Fleet,
might not have been too keen on Mahan either.
Pat
Dale
>"Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a
>progressive philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in
>American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia.
>He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and
>moral absolutes. In "Democracy and Education" in pompous and opaque
>prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character
>development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged
>the teaching of thinking skills instead.
>What makes this one interesting is that I've never heard of this guy or
>this book.
So, obviously Dewey's approach won out, at least in your case. He's a
pretty well-known guy, Pat :)
>Thomas Dewey, yes.
>Admiral Dewey, yes.
>Huey, Dewey, and Louie, yes.
Don't forget Melvil...
Dale
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>>And, Chinese labourers who either make peanuts or are prisoners can
>>speak on the topic of " the kindness of socialism "... Oh, wait, they
>>can't, because they're prisoners.
>
> Which would mean that capitalist countries are using prison labor in a
> indirect manner to cut costs and up profits, which would be right in
> line with Marxist theory regarding how capitalism works.
> Actually, they had a show on PBS around a year back showing one of those
> Chinese factories with all the happy workers in it.
> Surprisingly, the workers _did_ complain; they didn't like the communal
> soup service, they didn't like having to buy decent food on their own
> from their pay, they didn't like the barbed wire around their living
> quarters, and they didn't like the total number of hours they had to
> work each day.
> I don't know what the fall-out of this was after the interviewers left,
> but I was surprised to see it at all.
Sure. See " maskirovka ".
> A few years back the Chinese government announced a new slogan to
> inspire the people: "To Be Rich Is Glorious!" now, I don't know about
> you, but to me that sounds like they are somehow drifting away from
> classic Marxist/Leninist dogma. ;-)
Who owns the means of production, again ?
>>>"Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global
>>>proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century
>>>America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative
>>>government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate."
>>>
>>>They had better damn well envy and seek to emulate us, or they are
>>>obviously members of The Axis Of Evil. :-)
>>
>>Well, that quote might have been a bit over the top, but most of the
>>developing world thats not going nutters on other issues, is working
>>to grow their economic standings. Thats why we are going to run out
>>of oil all the sooner, as India and China want lots more and soon, too.
>
> Yes, but do they want to replicate the U.S. in how they do it?
In overall standard of living, close enough to. Even if they come up only
half way in terms of resource consumption, 1.2 billion consumers will
outconsume 300 million USian ones.
> This crew seems to think so- that e are the be-all and end-all of a
> perfect society that all others must envy and seek to emulate.
> in this commentary on bad book #5; "Democracy and Education" we find out
> that the evil of the Clinton generation sprang from the Godless...John
> Dewey?!:
>
> "Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a
> “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in
> American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia.
> He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and
> moral absolutes. In "Democracy and Education" in pompous and opaque
> prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character
> development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged
> the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence
> on the direction of American education--particularly in public
> schools--and helped nurture the Clinton generation."
>
> What makes this one interesting is that I've never heard of this guy or
> this book.
> Thomas Dewey, yes.
> Admiral Dewey, yes.
> Huey, Dewey, and Louie, yes.
<g>
>>>Not only is she a God-damned commie, she has sex with commie eggheads! ;-)
>>
>>Well, she was so daft that she directly compared housewifery ( Still
>>the preferred career of choice for the ladies- See " Mrs. Degree " )
>>to being at Buchenwald.
>>
>>Daft as a mad hare, she was.
>
> I still think she is the one responsible for those sofas in rest area
> lady's...excuse me, women's rooms.
> That's the way your hard-core feminazi works.
> First the sofas...then the castrations. ;-)
Well, the sofas are a small " we get more than you do " entitlements.
For more, see " Violence Against Women Act ", and what gets funded...
>>>Some of the runner-ups are Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and "The
>>>Descent of Man", as well as Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" BTW. :-)
>>>We'll have none of that
>>>free-love-evolutionist-commie-humanist-big-government bilge here, by God!
>>
>>Oh, I'd nominate " The Rules ", by nutbags Ellen Fein & Sherrie Schneider.
>>A more bigoted work outside of the KKK you won't find.
>
> For all the havoc it wreaked, I'd stick Mahan's "Influence Of Seapower
> Upon History 1660-1783" in that top ten somewhere, as that's what got
> the bee up Teddy Roosevelt's butt about needing distant coaling stations
> for the U.S. Navy's power projection around the world, and set us on our
> unfortunate quest for empire in direct contravention of the aims of the
> founding fathers.
Well, I don't know that Imperialism comes just from there. Rather, that
one gets a nod for it's over emphasis of one form of naval warfare, and,
as it turned out, a pretty unimportant one, at that.
> I'm sure that the 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos who died as a result of
> the Phillippine-American war and the famine and disease it caused due to
> our desire for a Pacific coaling station for The Great White Fleet,
> might not have been too keen on Mahan either.
Likely not. Or, today's China is just making up for the Boxer Rebellion.
<g>
Andre
George Evans
Guth at brad...@yahoo.com wrote on 8/7/06 7:32 AM:
> "rimala2323" <deal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1154915641.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
>
>> i dun think so
>
> Is that because you're only 3 years old?
A Brad Guth post only one line long?! Now I've seen everything.
George Evans
Brad Guth
news:C0FFE8C7.D4B5%geor...@earthlink.net
> A Brad Guth post only one line long?! Now I've seen everything.
>
> George Evans
Another "George Evans" post that has absolutely nothing the least bit
topic constructive. Gee hiiz, what a surprise.
Brad Guth
> A Brad Guth post only one line long?! Now I've seen everything.
>
> George Evans
Another "George Evans" post that offers us absolutely nothing the least
bit topic constructive. Gee whiz, why am I not surprised?
Monte Davis
>Actually, it reminds me more of the Judean People's Front, the People's
>Front of Judea, the Judean Popular People's Front...
Here ya go:
WHICH X-TREME SPACER ARE YOU?
Many of us have more than one reason for wanting expanded activity in
space. But if you're an X-Treme Spacer, you know that there's only one
killer motivation -- and it would have us halfway to Neptune by now if
people would just *listen* to you.
So check out the list below and choose your team:
-High Groundhogs
Whoever controls the spacelanes controls the world. Unless you act
fast, China, North Korea and/or Iran will soon be destroying vital US
orbital assets, just as the USSR did in the 1980s with its terawatt
lasers. The shortest path to space is via DynaSoar, X-ray laser battle
stations, and Blackstar, because the Defense Dept. has what it takes
to Get Things Done.
-Insurance Adjusters
Something wicked this way comes. It could be the next dinosaur-killer
asteroid, runaway climate change, gray nano-goo, or that old standby
thermonuclear war. If your Space Ark hasn't weighed anchor by the time
it arrives... game *over*, man.
-Much Higher Consciousness
Sharing a gene pool with E.T. and 2001's Star Child, you are pecking
at the shell of the cosmic egg. Once you can gaze back upon the misty,
outmoded Earth, you will be transformed. (It's not clear how, but it
will be a Good Thing). No radiation shielding needed, as cosmic rays
can only speed your evolution.
-Free-Fall Enterprise
Space is about unfettered growth: the New World, the Industrial
Revolution, and the Heritage Foundation all in one. Big government,
which botches everything, should never have gotten involved. Billions
will start flowing as soon as ITAR and the Outer Space Treaty are
tossed on the dustheap of history. NASA can stay around just long
enough to prime the pump with COTS contracts, then commit seppuku.
-First Steps
Apollo proved that only the prospect of a flag and a footprint will
get us boldly going. You demand a truly inspiring new objective
(ideally reddish-brown, somewhere this side of the asteroid belt).
Never mind sustainability; cost-effective space infrastructure will be
a magic spin-off of the all-important mission.
-Traveling Salesmen
Do people want clean energy to forestall global warming? You offer
solar power satellites and lunar helium-3 (reactor extra). New
frontiers to escape a globalized monoculture? Try O'Neill space
colonies and Martian settlements. Raw materials? Zone-melted
asteroids, coming right up. Whatever *their* future needs, *your*
future's got it. It just happens to be in space.
*****
Once you've identified the end, consider the means. There can, of
course, be only one True Way. Now holding tryouts:
-Detail Men (aka "trainspotters" or "anoraks" for the UK division)
Let NASA, RSA, ESA, and JAXA keep doing what they're doing, as long as
they release the specs. This team revels in the minutiae of rocketry,
the more arcane the better. If you can specify all changes in the
Block _n_ J-2 turbopump that Huntsville sent back to Rocketdyne for
valve re-work before it flew on Apollo 14, you're in. Just don't ask
about economics, politics, or what to do once the hardware gets us to
space.
-Powerpoint Rangers (formerly Overhead Brigade)
Somewhere in the files is the key to the cosmos, in the form of a
marvelous but unjustly neglected launch architecture that could be
developed, tested, and mass-produced for a fraction of what the Space
Establishment spends on office furniture. Meet for pep rallies beneath
the everlasting light bulb (suppressed by GE).
-Alt.Tech
Chemical rockets have let you down: after decades of gritty
engineering they remain expensive, complex, and trouble-prone. Time to
start over with a space elevator, deployed by laser launch and
magnetic catapult, from which nuclear salt-water hotrods will set out
to roam the solar system. This team will take the field as soon as a
few remaining kinks are worked out.
-Skunk Wonks
You know the real barriers to progress in space: bloated engineering
bureaucracies with too many middle managers, design reviews, and GANTT
charts. Join this lean, mean team in their converted warehouse, where
the holy DC-X relics are stored. Given complete freedom and a
comptroller who doesn't ask questions, you'll be in orbit before the
SEC and FAA know you're gone.
-Plot Drivers
The means - aww, whatever. For you, space means getting out there with
Firefly and the Ferengi, and you don't care about the difference
between a working technology and the most speculative bleeding-edge
science on Slashdot. Kerosene, scramjet, VASIMR, Orion, zero-point
energy, teleportation -- just make it so, and don't spare the
dilithium.
(c. 2006, Monte Davis)
Brad Guth
news:J3nK0...@spsystems.net
> Alas, in hindsight, by the time I joined, L5 had already been taken over
> by the cheerleader squad, and its days were numbered.
How about joining my LL-1 club (aka Clarke Station ---> Guth Station)?
At least LL-1 is a bunch closer than L5 to Earth, and supposedly
according to evertything that's NASA/Apollo, our extensively guano moon
is merely lightly dusted with a thin layer of portland cement and
otherwise entirely passive.
Derek Lyons
<much funny stuff>
LOL! More grist for .policy than .history, but one of the Greatest
Posts Ever.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Monte Davis
>More grist for .policy than .history
You wish not only is my command, but already had been. Glad you
enjoyed it.
tomcat
George regards himself as such an AUTHORITY that all he has to do is
say "I dun think so."
As I have repeatedly said their Usenet is not an 'authority' driven
medium. No one knows just what someone else's qualifications are.
Anything can be 'said'. Nothing can be 'proven'. And, at any rate,
when it comes to authority there are so many parameters, yardsticks,
and gradations that spouting off about degrees that can't be proven
just doesn't make any sense. And, neither does the ultra
'authoratative' "ummm, no." or the similiar "i dun think so."
These kinds of remarks are simply sophistry, a subtle version of 'smoke
and mirrors', a waste of Usenet space.
tomcat
Brad Guth
> George regards himself as such an AUTHORITY that all he has to do is
> say "I dun think so."
>
> As I have repeatedly said their Usenet is not an 'authority' driven
> medium. No one knows just what someone else's qualifications are.
> Anything can be 'said'. Nothing can be 'proven'. And, at any rate,
> when it comes to authority there are so many parameters, yardsticks,
> and gradations that spouting off about degrees that can't be proven
> just doesn't make any sense. And, neither does the ultra
> 'authoratative' "ummm, no." or the similiar "i dun think so."
>
> These kinds of remarks are simply sophistry, a subtle version of 'smoke
> and mirrors', a waste of Usenet space.
tomcat,
Tell us about those nifty water/stram rockets, or rather as highly
capable reaction thrusters based upon the 1e-18 bar vacuum of space and
of the solar superheated steam-->atoms worth of whatever plain old h2o
can accomplish.
As I'd said before, as pertaining to the reaction thrust demands of
roughly a kg/tonne of station-keeping per month for the LL-1
'GUTH-Station' that's residing itself within the interactive LL-1 zone,
whereas this effort can be easily accommodated via beer. An initial 50t
station that's demanding 50 kg of beer per month isn't hardly asking too
much. In fact, if my DNA was being continually moon gamma and
hard-X-ray TBI to death, that 50 kg/month might not represent nearly a
sufficient supply of said beer.
Therefore, instead of plain old rocket fuel derived reaction thrust, it
could just as easily be urine powered, as limited only by the inventory
and/or continuing supplies of ice cold beer. Of course in the
nullification zone is where as little as a good blast of flatulence is
actually another perfectly viable backup plan of action, and for that
sort of reaction thrust you simply need 'guy food' that'll consist of
mostly beans and coffee.
Plain old seawater accommodates roughly 84 chemical elements, and our
urine has all of those plus a few others. Besides mostly h2o, then a
few of those various salts, ammonia and a touch of yellow dye No.5, our
urine contains loads of other nifty stuff, including trace elements of
Al, B, Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Li, Mg, Na, P and Zn, all of which should be
rather easily vapor distill and/or be extracted via freeze dried and
then fully reusable as ion thrust, along with the easily extracted pure
h2o made available as for next becoming rather easily superheated
steam-->H2/O2-->atom reaction thrusting.
Jim Davis
> WHICH X-TREME SPACER ARE YOU?
>
> Many of us have more than one reason for wanting expanded
> activity in space. But if you're an X-Treme Spacer, you know
> that there's only one killer motivation -- and it would have us
> halfway to Neptune by now if people would just *listen* to you.
This is a great post, Monte. If your forthcoming book is in a similar
vein sales should do well.
> -Powerpoint Rangers (formerly Overhead Brigade)
I think "viewgraph" works better than "overhead" here, but maybe
that's just me.
Jim Davis
Pat Flannery
Monte Davis wrote:
>
>WHICH X-TREME SPACER ARE YOU?
>
>Many of us have more than one reason for wanting expanded activity in
>space. But if you're an X-Treme Spacer, you know that there's only one
>killer motivation -- and it would have us halfway to Neptune by now if
>people would just *listen* to you.
>
>
I've run into every one of those guys on these newsgroups.
Dead on target! :-D
Pat
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>>WHICH X-TREME SPACER ARE YOU?
Hey, some of us are more than one.
Jorge R. Frank
news:Xns981BB4C12EC7Bji...@85.227.11.7:
I like "viewgraph" as well but I also like the double meaning of
"overhead" (projectors vs. personnel).
Monte Davis
>I think "viewgraph" works better than "overhead"
Sure does -- "Viewgraph Volunteers."
Actually, the book is less sarcastic than this suggests; I have room
there to acknowledge that there's at least some truth behind most of
these caricatures, and that my own stance has elements of several of
them.
Monte Davis
>I've run into every one of those guys on these newsgroups.
Sure, but which one(s) do you encounter in the mirror? :-) | (-:
Rand Simberg
Davis <monte...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Glad to hear that. But even if not, it was a good survey.
Pat Flannery
Monte Davis wrote:
Probably the Detail Man; I've always been most interested in the nuts
and bolts of space exploration.
You missed a group though- the ones that would prefer to do everything
unmanned to keep costs down.
I'd be in that one also.
Pat
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
That's because you don't understand that there are important things
that cannot be done "unmanned."
Chuck Stewart
> Jim Davis wrote:
>>I think "viewgraph" works better than "overhead"
> Sure does -- "Viewgraph Volunteers."
Give some history to your list by including them all :)
-Powerpoint Rangers
(née Viewgraph Volunteers, née Overhead Brigade)
> Actually, the book is less sarcastic than this suggests; I have room
> there to acknowledge that there's at least some truth behind most of
> these caricatures, and that my own stance has elements of several of
> them.
And what about the Nekophiliacs?
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Monte Davis
>And what about the Nekophiliacs?
Some things are not suitable for profane forums, Chuck.
You do *not* want Pat to come forth from the Super Space Dimensional
Macross and..... discipline you for indiscretion.
Scott Hedrick
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:12dnmeq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Monte Davis wrote:
>>Sure, but which one(s) do you encounter in the mirror? :-) | (-:
>>
>
> Probably the Detail Man; I've always been most interested in the nuts and
> bolts of space exploration.
Well, you're getting *half* of that here :P
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 8/10/06 11:37 AM:
> Brad Guth wrote:
>
>> "George Evans" <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:C0FFE8C7.D4B5%geor...@earthlink.net
>>
>>> A Brad Guth post only one line long?! Now I've seen everything.
>>>
>> Another "George Evans" post that offers us absolutely nothing the least bit
>> topic constructive. Gee whiz, why am I not surprised?
>>
> George regards himself as such an AUTHORITY that all he has to do is say "I
> dun think so."
>
> As I have repeatedly said their Usenet is not an 'authority' driven medium.
> No one knows just what someone else's qualifications are. Anything can be
> 'said'. Nothing can be 'proven'. And, at any rate, when it comes to
> authority there are so many parameters, yardsticks, and gradations that
> spouting off about degrees that can't be proven just doesn't make any sense.
> And, neither does the ultra 'authoratative' "ummm, no." or the similiar "i dun
> think so."
>
> These kinds of remarks are simply sophistry, a subtle version of 'smoke and
> mirrors', a waste of Usenet space.
That wasn't me.
George Evans
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
>>Probably the Detail Man; I've always been most interested in the nuts and
>>bolts of space exploration.
>>
>>
>
>Well, you're getting *half* of that here :P
>
>
Thank God I didn't say screws.
Anyway, how about "Robo-Technicians" for those who favor unmanned
exploration, and have little shrines to Dr. James Van Allen in their
houses, which they kneel before while wearing their glowing green Van
Allen belts? But no image of Dr. van Allen is allowed, for cameras are
sinful.
Pat
Pat Flannery
George Evans wrote:
>>
>>These kinds of remarks are simply sophistry, a subtle version of 'smoke and
>>mirrors', a waste of Usenet space.
>>
>>
>
>That wasn't me.
>
>
Yeah? Well, prove it! ;-)
Patcat
Brad Guth
> > These kinds of remarks are simply sophistry, a subtle version of 'smoke and
> > mirrors', a waste of Usenet space.
>
> That wasn't me.
>
> George Evans
You seem more than sufficiently naysay and otherwise none constructive
about damn near everything under the sun, therefore what exactly do you
mean "that wasn't me"?
tomcat
The vacuum of space can 'atomize' hydrogen, explode water into vapor,
and suck the exhaust from an engine so fast that the SSME goes from 400
thousand pounds of thrust to 500 thousand pounds of thrust. Yes,
vacuum is a usable force of nature that exists in Outer Space.
A good 'water rocket engine' could use any kind of water, potable or
not. Crew liquid waste products could be processed into thrust. This
would provide the crew with unlimited water supplies because none of it
would be going to waste.
As far as crew solid waste products are concerned they could be turned
into 'methane' in a holding tank, then expelled as thrust from a
menthane-lox engine. Such an engine could be used for course
corrections and orbital maneuvers.
So Beer and Pizza should be a primary food for all astronauts on
'properly rigged' vessels. Not to mention plenty of coffee and beans
and various other urine and feces producing products such as irish
whiskey, chewing tobacco, and salt pork.
In the long hours, days, weeks, of interplanetary transit the galley
table will have a blanket layed over it and the poker deck will take
center stage. A little disagreement, a quick draw of a .45, and the
menthane holding tank will runneth over with fresh 'fuel'.
Who's worried about Aliens? They're going to be 'nice guys' compared
to what we send up there.
Outer Space will be a Man's World once again. The women folk will just
have to stay at home tending the children.
tomcat
tomcat
Brad Guth
> Who's worried about Aliens? They're going to be 'nice guys' compared
> to what we send up there.
>
> Outer Space will be a Man's World once again. The women folk will just
> have to stay at home tending the children.
tomcat,
Try not to piss off the better half of humanity, or else you ain't
getten any zero gravity sex unless you're planning upon bringing your
dog along for the ride.
I'd much rather have a female crew than not. A interplanetary mission
of all guys is going to get seriously weird after the fist couple of
weeks accomplishing whatever space travel w/o the opposite sex being
within reach, then what?
tomcat
I wasn't talking about you Brad. It was just a plan to empty the
prisons in the United States and use the prisoners as 'conscript' space
crews.
A rough estimate of the cost of housing more than 1 million prisoners
is 10 billion taxpayer dollers per year. Enough money would be saved
to pay the entire cost of the space ships!
tomcat
Brad Guth
> I wasn't talking about you Brad. It was just a plan to empty the
> prisons in the United States and use the prisoners as 'conscript' space
> crews.
>
> A rough estimate of the cost of housing more than 1 million prisoners
> is 10 billion taxpayer dollers per year. Enough money would be saved
> to pay the entire cost of the space ships!
I totally agree, that such life-term prisoners and of whomever's
otherwise terminally ill should be given those first tickets to ride. I
think the actual savings might be closer to 100 billion, especially if
each mission were designed and otherwise engineered as a one-way ticket,
with VIP seating for the likes of your GW Bush that's mentally terminal.
On yet another similar topic of truth that needs to be constructively
told, such as about our once upon a time icy proto-moon that's currently
so Sv-hot in gamma and hard-X-rays, and otherwise of the relatively
newish planetology of Venus that has had something very much alive and
intelligently kicking to deal with; For your everlasting enjoyment, I
think I've finally repaired most of this dyslexic contribution, so
forgive me if I further attempt to update a few topics with this new and
improved version.
After all, being Sv/rad hot is a wee bit different and more
insurmountably lethal than merely getting your butt physically double IR
roasted. IR hot is technically managable, even for Venus, whereas gamma
Sv hot isn't exactly a win-win situation no matters how much applied
energy or technology you toss at the problem, as there are certain
limitations of physical mass or the volums of lesser mass that can be
accommodated.
Other than believable robotic obtained images of our moon from lunar
orbit, not even halfwhit EVA photographic science was supposedly
obtained by way of those Apollo missions, at least not of sufficient
geological close-ups or much less of having depicted any of those items
that had to have been at the time available above that physically dark
horizon, of which should have been unavoidably recorded by way of the
terrific DR(more than sufficient dynamic range) of that unfiltered Kodak
film (no atmospheric attenuation nor artificial bandpass or spectrum
cutoff filters applied), that plus the matter of the official reord of
their having utilized a full spectrum bandpass of a polarised optical
element that should have otherwise made that physically dark surface
apear as somewhat darker yet, of which that physically dark surface
should have been somewhat similar to 0.07 if not having represented less
of a local sunrise albedo as to easily accommodating what such an
unobstructed view of Jupiter should have easily been recorded as a small
orb but otherwise sufficiently illuminated item. That same photographic
argument especially goes so much further on behalf of a nearby and
vibrant Venus being a rather highly photographic item as of missions
A-11, A-14 and A-16, of which most any 3D solar system simulator proves
that I'm right.
It seems no matter what the LLPOF consequences, of collateral damage and
carnage of the innocent (plus these same naysay individuals having
accellerated our global warming along with their taking of
Islamic/Muslim blood for oil fiasco that so many of you folks typically
approve of), whereas being the all-knowing status quo minions that you
are, you folks must like sucking up to whatever's MI/NSA and of their
NASA's infomercial-science butt, as apparently it's what makes each of
your brown noses feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. I suppose that
all-knowing infomercial mindset of those continually opposing the truth
would also have to include using NASA's conditional laws of physics and
of their skewed science plus evidence exclusions where needed, that
being just what your Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones) and mostly white
Jewish doctors ordered (I'm not saying that all Jews are bad folks, only
a few are such, and the others are simply not willing or otherwise
capable of policing their own kind).
How about I ask nicely, and since most folks are too dumbfounded to
answer, as then I'll try my best to answer a few of my own questions:
Ever heard of the Raytheon/TRW Space Data report? (I didn't think so)
Ever heard of anticathode secondary/recoil radiation? (I didn't think
so)
Have any of you folks got an honestly independent and otherwise
replicated clue as to exactly how Sv/rad-hot our naked moon is? (I
didn't think so)
Fortunately, Mars is not nearly as naked as our moon, but since it's
further way from being solar shielded, therefore it's getting a bit more
than it's fair share of cosmic dosage that's also rather moon like gamma
horrific. Do you folks even know what gamma does whenever interacting
rather badly with all of that nearby and unavoidably surrounding matter
of what that Mars surface represents, not to mention your DNA trauma and
having gone clean through every scrap of your bone marrow? (I didn't
think so)
Our moon however is considerably more naked than Mars, and it's getting
rather nicely solar illuminated along with a full gauntlet of receiving
all sorts of what's nasty as raw solar plus cosmic energy influx, that
which the surface of Earth never obtains. Is there some
taboo/nondisclosure of a hocus-pocus law of physics, as per reasoning or
of skewed infomercial-science logic, by which you folks can offer as to
why our moon shouldn't be worse off than our lethal Van Allen belts? (I
didn't think so)
Would any of you folks like to review a nifty PDF file, such as I might
share and share alike on behalf of contributing a look-see at my copy of
the now officially banished Constellation-X (AKA con_x_dose1) report:
(original though another NASA intentionally broken link
http://conxproject.gsfc.nasa.gov/radiation/docs/con_x_dose1.pdf)
How about my offering that link to few shots of Jupiter and that of our
fully illuminated though physically dark moon, as for each orb being
within the same photographic frame?
Jupiter - Moon occultation (though incorrectly posted as
"moom.saturn.jpg")
Taken by Becky Coretti with Bill Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a
Tom O Compact Platform. A ToUCam was used with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
For some reason this image file got itself improperly named as
"moon.saturn.jpg", but otherwise having been properly published as being
that of our moon and Jupiter as obtained within the same frame and
exposure.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
In other words, if amateurs can manage to have photographed (from Earth
and thus through our polluted and spectrum filtering atmosphere none the
less) the likes of Jupiter as being of somewhat similar brightness to
the moon's albedo, then where's that supposed insurmountable problem
with that task of having obtained Venus and of a few other items
(including Sirius), especially from within that naked lunar environment
and of being optically spectrum unfiltered to boot, that is other than
having a polarised lens element which should have made the moon surface
nearly half again darker, and that polarising element impact should have
been rather especially effective within that near point-source of raw
solar illumination.
BTW; that physically dark (nearly open coal extraction pit sort of
dark) and of an extremely dusty moon surface is not actually the least
bit retroreflective as having been suggested from all the NASA/Apollo
rusemasters, because if it were as such retroreflective, local
astronomers would be going blind for having a terrestrial look-see at
the same lunar terrain, that which upon average reflects at 0.072
instead of the 0.55~0.65 as often depicted by way of those official
NASA/Apollo images that seem so guano and portland cement like, plus
exactly as though xenon lamp spectrum illuminated.
Those unfiltered Kodak moments simply do not lie, however we know for a
bloody unfortunate matter of fact after fact, that our government lies
for sport and almost continually.
Too bad we still don't have a few of those very basic interactive
science instruments as honestly reporting from that lunar deck, or even
so much as an energy efficient form of station-keeping science platform
within LL-1. I guess we'll have to wait for China to help us out, as
well as the same goes for China accomplishing Venus.
WARNING: this next part is still a bit dyslexic encrypted
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Our moon as a viable space station or as accommodating any such science
and survival outpost as having been suggested by our trusty
http://www.ARC-space.org (Alliance to Rescue Civilization) rusemasters,
as being their NASA approved formula of providing our salvation on
behalf of that concept accommodating humanity and most other life as we
know it a viable sanctuary, unfortunately this modern version of Noah's
Arc sucks real bad.
For starters it's of a physically dark place, extremely dusty as all
get-out (to the tune of at least tens of fluffy meters deep), and it's
all remaining as rather highly electrostatic, plus getting everything in
sight double IR roasted by day and otherwise extremely sub-frozen by
night, whereas it's also a rather easily pulverised environment and
thoroughly allowing everything in sight plus of whatever's just below
that cosmic morgue of a nasty surface as getting unavoidably
secondary/recoil TBI(total body irradiated) to death, along with the
moon itself being a tad bit locally radioactive to boot. Therefore,
being deep underground might not even represent a safe bet. The moon
surface environment is also most certainly worse off for the likes of
human DNA than whatever our Van Allen badlands have to contribute. In
other words, being there in person is to die for.
PARTICLES AND FIELDS IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=223814
"The lower limit of Van Allen belts that goes down to 200 km of
altitude" has been getting downright testy, as in representing a larger
SAA zone and lo and behold, it's only getting worse off by the year.
Effects of Device Packaging and PC Board Materials on Radiation Dose in
the Die
http://klabs.org/mapld04/abstracts/long_a.pdf
GSO / "Outside the Spacecraft 1,240,000 Krad/year" (I believe that's as
having been based upon a relatively passive/inactive solar year, whereas
a bad solar year might be ten fold wore yet).
The outer Van Allen radiation belt extends from an altitude of about
10,000 to 70,000 km (as well as solar wind distorted and via gravity
extends itself a bit more so towards our moon), having some of its
greatest radiation intensity situated between 15,000 and 25,000 km. GSO
at 36,000 km is supposedly just outside of that maximum dosage zone
(except whenever it's within a sun-->Earth-->moon alignment), although a
previous Raytheon/TRW Space Data Report as having nailed that GSO
environment dosage while shielded by 2 g/cm2 was still worthy of their
systems having to survive 2e3 Sv/yr, or 548 rads/day and thereby of
nearly 23 rads/hr while being physically shielded by 5/16" of 5086
aluminum, and I believe that average was based upon a somewhat typically
active solar year, which I do believe can get worse off by as much as
another 10 fold from solar spikes in lethal energy that have recently
gone well off scale, having terminated a few of those less rad-hard
satellites in the process, with most other satellites sustaining some
measurable degrade in their capability.
Gamma-Ray Moon
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_Gamma_Ray_Observatory
Cruising at merely 450 km isn't by any means clear of having to look
through the worse local radiation dosage there is within each of those
Van Allen belts, as any gamma image having to incorporate whatever the
inner plus outer Van Allen belts have to offer. Therefore the EGRET
gamma-ray detector onboard the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory(CGRO) as
having obtained it's image of our gamma moon was also having to record
that composite image as taking in that exposure while looking through
some of the worse of lethal Van Allen zones of what our magnetosphere
has to offer, whereas the moon simply records as being considerably more
gamma worthy than the surrounding space as having been given those
reddish pixels that's indicating as the much weaker dosage, that which
unavoidably involves the bulk of whatever our inner plus outer Van Allen
belts have to offer.
There's good reason for ISS keeping itself below the 400 km mark, as
well as their having to avoid the SAA at all cost, which is primarily
about their having to make do with avoiding the much less intensive
inner Van Allen belt that's not such a DNA friendly realm.
Unfortunately, that inner belt has been dropping like a rock as of the
last century, along with a reported 0.05%/yr reduction in our magnetic
flux. If I could blame that one on GW Bush you know I would, but in
this case being such an SOB of a LLPOF warlord isn't at fault, it's just
mother Earth doing her thing of aging and eventually getting us all
radiated to death because our DNA simply is not by itself evolving as
Darwin had hoped. I believe what's needed is a good dosage of applied
intelligent design that'll make our DNA sufficiently rad-hard, or else
we'll eventually need to get ourselves off this 'dooms day' rock,
especially testy if life on Earth manages to survive long enough when
our solar system is orbiting close to our extra bright and Sv-hot Sirius
star/solar system that's pulling us along.
BTW; everything orbits something, and our solar system so happens to be
orbiting the much more powerful and considerably massive Sirius
star/solar system. At least there's nothing else within our 105,000
year cycle what's worth looking at.
As with the visible spectrum of CCD obtained images, there are
hard-scientific numbers associated with each and every pixel of that
gamma image. That official gamma spectrum image which so happens to
include our physically dark moon as seen from within our protective and
thus radiation moderating/attenuating magnetosphere, as looking so alive
in gamma radiation isn't any more so a mistake than are those radar
illuminated images of Venus as having depicted what's looking so
intelligent and rational about a few rather significant features, so
it's perfectly OK if you don't believe me, as you naysaying folks can go
fish for yourself.
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v28n4/aas189/abs/S025002.html
"The energy spectrum of the lunar gamma radiation are consistent with a
model of gamma ray production by cosmic ray interactions with the lunar
surface, and the flux varies as expected with the solar cycle. Thus, in
high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun."
Unfortunately, most of the time our sun is not all that quiet, and
sometimes it's downright nasty and at times going off the charts with
saturated lethal dosage output.
Those previous key words of "Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun" means
the surface environment of our physically dark moon is in fact capable
of being far worse off in gamma dosage than walking on our sun.
Basically, in anticathode physics upon our moon there's considerably
greater mass per cm3 or per m3 that's available to interact with, as in
more so than density of reactive mass than whatever those Van Allen
belts can possibly represent. Instead of our moon producing various
harmless secondary/recoil dosage of even the likes of soft-X-rays, as
being the case of what the relative micro density or sparsely populated
turf of what those Van Allen belts represent, whereas our moon is
instead generating gamma and then unavoidably the secondary/recoil worth
of hard-X-rays that get produced by way of the fundamental interaction
of cosmic and solar energy, as such influx unavoidably reacts with the
rather considerable and obviously naked density of that lunar surface,
that's basically a composite of sufficiently heavy elements that
represents itself as the cosmic and solar anticathode motherload of
producing such lethal radiation. At minimums, and especially by day,
we're looking at several hundred rads per hour (with unavoidable peaks
going thousands of rads per hour), that which any damn fool of human DNA
that's taking a moonsuit walk upon that nasty surface will have to deal
with such consequences, and/or soon thereafter must die rather
horrifically from the inside out.
http://www.inconstantmoon.com/lim_9908.htm
"It's cosmic radiation, which is stopped by the Earth's magnetic field,
falls directly onto the lunar surface. This causes atomic decay which
releases the gamma rays."
But then folks, if the cosmic produced gamma isn't quite bad enough, we
also have those various lethal X-rays of the raw solar illuminated moon
to deal with.
http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/sources/moon.html
Of course the X-ray albedo of our moon is relatively piss-poor (an X-ray
albedo of perhaps not 0.01 or less than 1%), thus for actually being
there in person is simply a whole lot worse off by a good 100+ fold of
representing lethal trauma for your frail human DNA than having been
indicated by what little of such X-rays are reflected by the solar
illuminated portion of our physically dark moon, as getting raw solar
illuminated to death. Too bad we still don't have so much as a basic
science platform within that nifty LL-1 zone, that which could have been
interactively feeding us live science data from before those hocus-pocus
Apollo missions, and at not half the cost of just one such mission, thus
for roughly 5% the cost of those Apollo missions and we'd know absolute
loads of honest stuff about our moon, several astronauts would still be
alive, plus having obtained even better Earth science to boot.
Basically there's nothing all that end-user friendly about our moon,
that is unless you're a sufficiently tough rad-hard sort of robot.
Being situated at LL-1 (60,000 km away from that moon) is certainly a
whole lot better off, but as such it still isn't offering a long-term
safe enough distance unless surrounded by an artificial magnetosphere or
50t/m2 of what my tethered CM/ISS shell should represent.
The surface of Venus, especially of the nighttime season, although being
somewhat cooler and especially cooler by way of elevation, whereas that
environment should by rights remain every bit as geothermally active and
thereby sustaining that unavoidably toasty surface environment in the
none-lethal spectrum of IR, however the multiple Sv(1e2 rads) or (1e2
rems) of potentially lethal radiation dosage from whatever's cosmic and
even via solar is actually of a less dosage than it is for us on Earth,
making Venus our best and nearest rad-hard planet that so happens to
have unlimited renewable energy to burn, that will never actually so
easily burn much of anything because of the rather low amounts of free
O2. BTW; atmospheric pressure is biologically a none-issue unless
you're a certified village idiot (AKA naysayer), whereas a given change
of 4+bar/km could be humanly insurmountable without our involving some
applied intelligent design, as physiological improvements to our bodies
that would need to adjust to such changes, in that so much so that
walking to/from a second floor might not agree with many of us, though
local Venusians as having evolved and/or having intelligently adapted to
their environment, or of obviously robotics shouldn't much care.
What I'm saying all along is that Venus is merely physically IR hot
because of the rather newish planetology and unavoidable geothermal
issues, and as such that's something which is technically manageable,
even within certain biological reams, whereas being physically double-IR
roasted (solar influx plus local secondary reflected IR) plus being
seriously multi Sv-hot in gamma and hard-X-ray as being the harsh
environment of our moon is not so easily surmounted unless you're a
sufficiently rad-hard robot.
Would any of you folks like to see an honest picture of what's looking
so rationally intelligent about Venus? or would you much rather go on
pretending that you haven't been lied to?
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> For starters it's of a physically dark place, extremely dusty as all
> get-out (to the tune of at least tens of fluffy meters deep), and it's
> all remaining as rather highly electrostatic, plus getting everything in
> sight double IR roasted by day and otherwise extremely sub-frozen by
> night, whereas it's also a rather easily pulverised environment and
> thoroughly allowing everything in sight plus of whatever's just below
> that cosmic morgue of a nasty surface as getting unavoidably
> secondary/recoil TBI(total body irradiated) to death, along with the
> moon itself being a tad bit locally radioactive to boot. Therefore,
> being deep underground might not even represent a safe bet. The moon
> surface environment is also most certainly worse off for the likes of
> human DNA than whatever our Van Allen badlands have to contribute. In
> other words, being there in person is to die for.
Brad, your living room is a "dark place" until you turn the lights on
and I wouldn't be surprised if is was "extremely dusty" besides. [Now
you know why the apollo astronauts had those xenon lights]
Let's not make the Moon appear to be uninhabitable. It is habitable.
Habitability has more to do with our ability to use science to get what
we need then it does the particular 'gravity well' we select to settle.
Geiger counters will tell us where the radiation on the Moon is located
and you use your Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) where the radiation
isn't. Then you have a nice cozy network of caves to reside in. Mine
some of the He-3 and/or uranium and set up a nice reactor to keep your
Moon Caves nice and cozy.
It is as simple as that. Don't make it sound impossible. It isn't.
tomcat
Ami Silberman
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:ebafqu$pi$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>> Lord knows it's nothing like that at your local WalMart...or in
>> WalMart's Chinese supplier's factories for that matter.
>
> Yes, but its not like that at CostCo, where it's CEO is taking well
> under 1 mil $ a year, and already meets the Chicago City Ordinance
> on fair pay.
>
> And, Chinese labourers who either make peanuts or are prisoners can
> speak on the topic of " the kindness of socialism "... Oh, wait, they
> can't, because they're prisoners.
>
I think that Walmart, in China, has now become unionized.
Andre Lieven
A cite on that would be interesting, as its long been an item of
regional news here as to how hard WalMart fights any attempts to
unionise it's storse, with several in Quebec having tried, and at
at least one where there was a vote with a majority having voted
for a union, WalMart's response was to simply close that store.
As corporate citizens, they suck.
Andre
Pat Flannery
Ami Silberman wrote:
>I think that Walmart, in China, has now become unionized.
>
>
Russia became unionized way back in 1917. ;-)
Pat
Brad Guth
> Brad, your living room is a "dark place" until you turn the lights on
> and I wouldn't be surprised if is was "extremely dusty" besides. [Now
> you know why the apollo astronauts had those xenon lights]
Unlike our government and especially that of our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush), Kodak's film simply doesn't lie. Obviously you're not
whom you claim to be, as any damn fool of a village idiot photographer,
or of even knowing a good one, would have soon realized upon what the
raw spectrum of solar illuminated colors as recorded by such unfiltered
Kodak film would be like, and it's nothing at all the likes of what our
red, white and blue flags had been recorded as xenon lamp spectrum
illuminated. Kodak has proof, Fuji has proof and damn near any other
established and respected institution of film usage can offer the proof
via examples that can be replicated to death. For a good dozen reasons
in addition to those photographs having been xenon lamp illuminated,
those Apollo EVA Kodak moments were simply not the real thing.
> Let's not make the Moon appear to be uninhabitable. It is habitable.
> Habitability has more to do with our ability to use science to get what
> we need then it does the particular 'gravity well' we select to settle.
I totally agree that honest physics and honest science can make our moon
into a viable habitat. I didn't say that our moon was insurmountable,
just that it's currently rather naked and thereby much worse off than
our Van Allen belts combined.
That moon of ours needs a protective atmospheric shield, whereas even a
thin and relatively toxic atmosphere would do wonders on behalf of
making that moon of ours a whole lot more accessible to us humans, even
though going there in the buff isn't likely ever going to be an option.
Why do you think I wanted to start off terraforming our moon by way of
pulverising that naked surface with large blocks of dry-ice, and each of
those having a core of spent reactor fuel or simply radium and frozen
radon gas?
Why do you think I'm using 16 meters of accomplishing 50t/m2 as the
outer shell of the CM/ISS abode that's tethered 60,000 KM away from that
nasty sucker?
Do you still think I'm being funny?
> Geiger counters will tell us where the radiation on the Moon is located
> and you use your Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) where the radiation
> isn't. Then you have a nice cozy network of caves to reside in. Mine
> some of the He-3 and/or uranium and set up a nice reactor to keep your
> Moon Caves nice and cozy.
I agree that tunneling into hollow rilles or best into large geode
pockets that should exist, and of doing such wherever there's somewhat
less of local radioactive elements to deal with is perfectly doable, at
perhaps as little as 16 meters worth of solid basalt between yourself
and the naked surface should do the trick, with thinner amounts
manageable by night. However, of avoiding the influx induced gamma and
hard-X-rays plus whatever local elements of radiation doesn't much
matter if there's an arriving item of 30+ km/s that has your name on it,
whereas if the mostly iron meteor were of any significant size should
not have problems in getting most of the way if not entirely though that
shell or that of damn near any artificial surface structure of supposed
protection. If it were up to myself, I'd instruct those robotic TBMs as
diggers to go for at least 32+ meters in depth.
> It is as simple as that. Don't make it sound impossible. It isn't.
Nothing is impossible, especially if you don't have to bother packing
along the energy for the task of locally processing whatever. Our moon
and even Titan is doable because, one way or another there's local
energy to burn, whereas Mars absolutely sucks.
With accomplishing our moon via the LSE-CM/ISS, and otherwise of using
mostly robotics, your fat-waverider spaceplane would merely parallel
park at the LL-1 energy efficient CM/ISS as being the gravity
nullification depot in the sky, disembark, off-loading whatever else and
then using protective elevator pods that would get whatever safely and
efficiently to/from the earthshine illuminated deck, or rather safely
below that deck of our nasty moon.
I forgot, that you don't even know what LL-1 or the LSE-CM/ISS is all
about, but then you're an all-knowing expert anyway. I think that's
also called being a certified bigot, but what do we actually know about
"tomcat", whereas is the case with most such Usenet rusemasters, you
could be the queen of England or GW Bush for all we know. Usenet =
LLPOF, doesn't it.
As per usual, you're just chuck full of it, whereas whom within Usenet
or in real life has "tomcat" helped with advancing their ideas or
agenda?
If you're so all-knowing and having such upper class intentions; What
exactly are you folks waiting for?
Jonathan Silverlight
<dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
A Google search for China + Walmart + "trade union" gives "about 196,000
hits", so the story is true as far as it goes, but are they trade unions
in any sense we would recognise? Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both
had trade unions.
Jonathan Silverlight
tomcat <jla...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
>Brad Guth wrote:
>> For starters it's of a physically dark place, extremely dusty as all
>> get-out (to the tune of at least tens of fluffy meters deep),
>
>and I wouldn't be surprised if is was "extremely dusty" besides. [Now
>you know why the apollo astronauts had those xenon lights]
I've got Brad Guth kill-filed (as you should) but I'll use your post to
tell him that the idea of dust "tens of fluffy meters deep" bit the dust
when I was a teenager and the Daily Express scooped the Soviet Union
with the first picture from Luna 9
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/3/newsid_40630
00/4063471.stm>
Rand Simberg
Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In message <1155541769.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>tomcat <jla...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>
>>Brad Guth wrote:
>>> For starters it's of a physically dark place, extremely dusty as all
>>> get-out (to the tune of at least tens of fluffy meters deep),
>>
>>Brad, your living room is a "dark place" until you turn the lights on
>>and I wouldn't be surprised if is was "extremely dusty" besides. [Now
>>you know why the apollo astronauts had those xenon lights]
>
>I've got Brad Guth kill-filed (as you should)
And you should have "tomcat" killfiled as well.
Andre Lieven
Indeed. I make no claims about the Chinese unions, as this is the
first I've heard of them. The aspect that I had knowledge of, was
the Quebec situation wrt WalMart unionization attempts.
Andre
Brad Guth
wrote in message news:AcvTkzGG...@jsilverlight.freeserve.co.uk
: I've got Brad Guth kill-filed (as you should) but I'll use your post
to
" tell him that the idea of dust "tens of fluffy meters deep" bit the
dust
: when I was a teenager and the Daily Express scooped the Soviet Union
: with the first picture from Luna 9
:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/3/newsid_40630
: 00/4063471.stm>
How the heck did they ever manage to accomplish that task without having
a viable AI/robotic fly-by-rocket lander?
If the same task can't be replicated as of today, then how could it
possibly have transpired so many decades ago?
Were those pesky laws of physics different and of their rocket-science
so much better and smarter way back then?
Brad Guth
infomercial-scince that proves nothing ever soft-landed on the moon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/3/newsid_4063000/4063471.stm
I'll buy a robotic hard/impact style of landing, but that's hardly
controlled according to any fly-by-rocket plan of action.
tomcat
If you run around on the Moon stark naked you will get one nasty
sunburn. So, don't do that. Instead go up there in 'Spacesuits', dig
deep with TBMs, power up with a nuclear reactor, and enjoy yourself
making the 'Big Bucks' mining He-3, titanium, aluminum, and uranium.
This is what Capitalism is all about. Then hop in your tomcat
waverider and take it all back to Earth.
Those big circular dishes they put on the landing legs of the Landing
Module worked. There is dust up there but not so much you can't land
on it. What helps is that the gravity is so low, and the dust sticks
together somewhat, that with those oversized Spacesuit shoes you can
walk on it easily. Even kangaroo hop if you want to.
The Moon is a big ripe tomato and we should go for it. The sooner we
get up there and start making money with mining, and a refueling
operation, the better.
tomcat
Brad Guth
> If you run around on the Moon stark naked you will get one nasty
> sunburn. So, don't do that. Instead go up there in 'Spacesuits', dig
> deep with TBMs, power up with a nuclear reactor, and enjoy yourself
> making the 'Big Bucks' mining He-3, titanium, aluminum, and uranium.
> This is what Capitalism is all about. Then hop in your tomcat
> waverider and take it all back to Earth.
>
> Those big circular dishes they put on the landing legs of the Landing
> Module worked. There is dust up there but not so much you can't land
> on it. What helps is that the gravity is so low, and the dust sticks
> together somewhat, that with those oversized Spacesuit shoes you can
> walk on it easily. Even kangaroo hop if you want to.
As per usual, your denial is in denial, and then some. You still don't
get it and obviously you never will.
Gee whiz, folks, whereas here I'd thought that I was being such a good
little Usenet fellow, by way of my honestly sharing in whatever my
research had turned up, and otherwise asking those pesky questions, and
that of my having otherwise published a few of my alternative
interpretations of the best available science that replicates without
such having to violate those regular laws of physics.
All I'm asking for is the actual fly-by-rocket solutions as to deploying
a few nifty little items, such as getting my cost effective and good
little live-science obtaining JAVELIN probes to our moon, as in merely
accommodating a one-way ticket to ride that according to our NASA/Apollo
wizards and of their supposed rocket-science shouldn't demand more than
a 30:1 ratio of rocket per payload as for accomplishing that one-way
task, and even that's based upon a fairly hefty inert GLOW factor that's
apparently of no fly-by-rocket consideration whatsoever. My other ruse,
or rather not so hidden agenda, has to do with our establishing the
LSE-CM/ISS before China does, and that of the VL2TRACE science platform
as halo station-keeping itself within Venus L2. I guess that's making
myself into the ultimate Usenet messenger from hell, especially once
having interpreted that 36 look/pixel composite radar image of Venus as
for such having depicted as to what I've interpreted as looking
considerably as though being of intelligently rational modifications, of
such having created a fairly complex Venusian infrastructure. Sorry
about that.
On the matter of how Sv-hot our moon is, I've also noted as to what Van
Allen had recently to say, as more than suggesting it's a bit foolish or
at least "a terribly old fashioned idea" for manned space expeditions
when so much can be robotically accomplished without nearly the horrific
investment plus our having to survive the potentially lethal trauma to
our frail DNA.
"Paul Foley" <paulfxfo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dV9Dg.2650$Sn3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net
> From Bob Park's online newsletter What's New:
> Two years ago I visited Prof Van Allen in his office at the
> U. Iowa. At 89 he was down to a 7-day work week. He showed
> me an op-ed he was sending to the NY Times in which he described
> human space flight as "obsolete"
> http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn072304.html
> I don't believe they used it. Van Allen said using people to
> explore space is "a terribly old fashioned idea."
> Van Allen was very perceptive. He raised a point that virtually never
> gets aired in the manned spaceflight debate, a point that cuts right to
> the heart of the matter: sending people out in ships is old thinking. An
> obsolete way of doing things.
Without a doubt I'd have to totally agree with Prof Van Allen, and then
some. Manned expeditions are not only extra spendy by a factor of at
least tens if not actually hundreds of fold, but otherwise extra time
consuming, plus even if nothing goes the least bit wrong within a given
mission is where such manned expeditions remain as risky if not lethal
DNA business, and that's not to mention whatever microbes or spores our
unintentional panspermia could infect Earth or that of the other world
or moon with whatever either environment is not prepared to deal with.
The last time I'd checked, our NASA was still not rated as an official
God nor that of an intelligent creator that's worthy of influencing or
having otherwise introduced ET life to/from any other world or moon. We
obviously can't seem to cope with the vast complexity of life that's
available to us right here on Earth (most within Usenet land of
naysayism couldn't give so much as a tinkers damn about any life except
that of their own) without involving the collateral damage and carnage
imposed by multiple wars, and we obviously can't manage our own global
warming environment for the greater good of all life, thus we have
absolutely no moral business pushing our resource fading luck nor much
less causing biological trauma upon some other world or life capable
moon unless we know for a fact that it's entirely inert dead to start
with (much like our lethal moon and perhaps even Mars being as close to
a totally expended planet as you can imagine).
Therefore, I simply can not so easily refuse to appreciate and otherwise
accept upon anything that gets independently replicated and/or can
otherwise be proven to function within the regular laws of physics.
Such as on behalf of other intelligent life as having been
existing/coexisting on Venus is by all rights doable, though obviously
that toasty and mostly co2 cloaked environment is not the least bit
suited for the likes of naked humanity, especially of those of us so
easily snookered and summarily dumbfounded at the drop of another
infomercial status quo hat.
I see that you folks like yourself still can't deal with our Sv-hot
moon, nor otherwise honestly share and share alike as to how the heck
otherwise our moon is so NASA/Apollo passive as a guano island.
Is moon physics of anticathode entirely different, or otherwise
nullified, if there's no magnetosphere and hosting of hardly any
atmospheric density to deal with? (apparently so)
Can your conditional laws of physics further explain as to why the
available surface area and that gravity of our naked moon is so impudent
or passive if not as stealth as WMD, as to such an available orb not
having collected dust, and of also having not obtained the same gauntlet
of absolutely nasty solar and cosmic influx as does our lethal Van Allen
belts? (I didn't think so)
Why do you suppose that am I not the least bit surprised?
> The Moon is a big ripe tomato and we should go for it. The sooner
> we get up there and start making money with mining, and a refueling
> operation, the better.
I totally agree. So, when exactly are you and of the all-knowing borg
collective of this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from hell ever going to
constructively help with my LSE-CM/ISS?
Eric Chomko
Why, just because you disagree with him?
Rand Simberg
<pne.c...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:11:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jonathan
>> Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> made the
>> phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >In message <1155541769.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >tomcat <jla...@bellsouth.net> writes
>> >>
>> >>Brad Guth wrote:
>> >>> For starters it's of a physically dark place, extremely dusty as all
>> >>> get-out (to the tune of at least tens of fluffy meters deep),
>> >>
>> >>Brad, your living room is a "dark place" until you turn the lights on
>> >>and I wouldn't be surprised if is was "extremely dusty" besides. [Now
>> >>you know why the apollo astronauts had those xenon lights]
>> >
>> >I've got Brad Guth kill-filed (as you should)
>>
>> And you should have "tomcat" killfiled as well.
>
>Why, just because you disagree with him?
No, because he's a loon.
Brad Guth
news:453bc379....@news.giganews.com
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:11:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jonathan
> Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid
>
> >I've got Brad Guth kill-filed (as you should)
>
> And you should have "tomcat" killfiled as well.
And yet you kind folks haven't "killfiled" our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Busj) nor of anyone that's on that SOB's side.
It looks as though our poor infomercial snookered and summarily
dumbfounded "tomcat" is getting himself topic/author stalked and bashed
by those all-knowing wizards as having "the right stuff".
Eric Chomko
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> news:453bc379....@news.giganews.com
>
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:11:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jonathan
> > Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid
> >
> > >I've got Brad Guth kill-filed (as you should)
> >
> > And you should have "tomcat" killfiled as well.
> And yet you kind folks haven't "killfiled" our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
> Busj) nor of anyone that's on that SOB's side.
He doesn't post here.
>
> It looks as though our poor infomercial snookered and summarily
> dumbfounded "tomcat" is getting himself topic/author stalked and bashed
> by those all-knowing wizards as having "the right stuff".
Can I just call you "Deacon Blues"? You know like the Steely Dan song.
"...I want a name when I lose, call be Deacon Blues..."
You being a loser and all...
haha
Eric
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> Gee whiz, folks, whereas here I'd thought that I was being such a good
> little Usenet fellow, by way of my honestly sharing in whatever my
> research had turned up, and otherwise asking those pesky questions, and
> that of my having otherwise published a few of my alternative
> interpretations of the best available science that replicates without
> such having to violate those regular laws of physics.
Yes, we all know how fluffy white and squeaky clean Brad is. A good
fellow and a truthful man incapable of bias or slanting in any form.
He publishes pure and clear prose that highlights the truths of science
and the "regular laws of physics".
> All I'm asking for is the actual fly-by-rocket solutions as to deploying
> a few nifty little items, such as getting my cost effective and good
> little live-science obtaining JAVELIN probes to our moon, as in merely
> accommodating a one-way ticket to ride that according to our NASA/Apollo
> wizards and of their supposed rocket-science shouldn't demand more than
> a 30:1 ratio of rocket per payload as for accomplishing that one-way
> task, and even that's based upon a fairly hefty inert GLOW factor that's
> apparently of no fly-by-rocket consideration whatsoever.
A "one-way ticket to ride"? Hefty inert GLOW factor that's of no
consideration? NASA/Apollo wizards?
NASA isn't as "fluffy white" nor as "squeaky clean" as Brad, but they
DO put rockets into Outer Space from time to time. Don't they?
> My other ruse,
> or rather not so hidden agenda, has to do with our establishing the
> LSE-CM/ISS before China does, and that of the VL2TRACE science platform
> as halo station-keeping itself within Venus L2.
Once again, Brad is a truth teller. China is a threat in Outer Space.
They are serious, dedicated, and fearless. They will win if NASA and
the U.S. doesn't wake up, and wake up soon.
Once China 'claims' the Moon as their own we won't be allowed to land
anymore. Soon after they will 'claim' Venus and Mars. Well, it
doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that we will be out of the
picture if we don't start . . . COMPETING.
> I guess that's making
> myself into the ultimate Usenet messenger from hell, especially once
> having interpreted that 36 look/pixel composite radar image of Venus as
> for such having depicted as to what I've interpreted as looking
> considerably as though being of intelligently rational modifications, of
> such having created a fairly complex Venusian infrastructure. Sorry
> about that.
No need to apoligize, Brad. Photographic proof exists of both Martians
and Venusians. But the blind are leading the blind. The Ostriches
have their head in the sand. Others are looking the 'other way'. But
'alien life' exists.
See: http://stardot.blogspot.com/
Human bodies aren't clouds on the Martian Landscape.
Good work, Brad. Keep telling the truth until 'they' listen.
> On the matter of how Sv-hot our moon is, I've also noted as to what Van
> Allen had recently to say, as more than suggesting it's a bit foolish or
> at least "a terribly old fashioned idea" for manned space expeditions
> when so much can be robotically accomplished without nearly the horrific
> investment plus our having to survive the potentially lethal trauma to
> our frail DNA.
Nothing wrong with robots, but Outer Space won't be conquered until we
are up there enjoying other worldly views out our hotel windows.
> The last time I'd checked, our NASA was still not rated as an official
> God nor that of an intelligent creator that's worthy of influencing or
> having otherwise introduced ET life to/from any other world or moon. We
> obviously can't seem to cope with the vast complexity of life that's
> available to us right here on Earth (most within Usenet land of
> naysayism couldn't give so much as a tinkers damn about any life except
> that of their own) without involving the collateral damage and carnage
> imposed by multiple wars, and we obviously can't manage our own global
> warming environment for the greater good of all life, thus we have
> absolutely no moral business pushing our resource fading luck nor much
> less causing biological trauma upon some other world or life capable
> moon unless we know for a fact that it's entirely inert dead to start
> with (much like our lethal moon and perhaps even Mars being as close to
> a totally expended planet as you can imagine).
Mars is a great place but you may have to fight your way in. Perhaps a
little negoitation first to smooth the first flights.
> Therefore, I simply can not so easily refuse to appreciate and otherwise
> accept upon anything that gets independently replicated and/or can
> otherwise be proven to function within the regular laws of physics.
> Such as on behalf of other intelligent life as having been
> existing/coexisting on Venus is by all rights doable, though obviously
> that toasty and mostly co2 cloaked environment is not the least bit
> suited for the likes of naked humanity, especially of those of us so
> easily snookered and summarily dumbfounded at the drop of another
> infomercial status quo hat.
>
> I see that you folks like yourself still can't deal with our Sv-hot
> moon, nor otherwise honestly share and share alike as to how the heck
> otherwise our moon is so NASA/Apollo passive as a guano island.
Remember that the Apollo Astronauts were only up there a few days at a
time. They spent most of their time in the Lunar Module that was -- at
least to some extent -- protected from the ambient radiation.
> Is moon physics of anticathode entirely different, or otherwise
> nullified, if there's no magnetosphere and hosting of hardly any
> atmospheric density to deal with? (apparently so)
>
> Can your conditional laws of physics further explain as to why the
> available surface area and that gravity of our naked moon is so impudent
> or passive if not as stealth as WMD, as to such an available orb not
> having collected dust, and of also having not obtained the same gauntlet
> of absolutely nasty solar and cosmic influx as does our lethal Van Allen
> belts? (I didn't think so)
The Van Allen Belts don't stretch all the way to the Moon. What caused
them is unknown but I am suspicious that it might have been our
Department of Energy (DOE) investigating the nature of nuclear space
effects.
> Why do you suppose that am I not the least bit surprised?
>
> > The Moon is a big ripe tomato and we should go for it. The sooner
> > we get up there and start making money with mining, and a refueling
> > operation, the better.
> I totally agree. So, when exactly are you and of the all-knowing borg
> collective of this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from hell ever going to
> constructively help with my LSE-CM/ISS?
Once mankind loses it's irrational fear of the Laws of Thermodynamics
and dares to think and explore, then we will spread out among the
planets and stars.
I am still trying to figure out, however, just what a LSE-CM/ISS is?
Is it a Lunar Space Elevator connected to an International Space
Station circling the Moon?
tomcat
Brad Guth
> Yes, we all know how fluffy white and squeaky clean Brad is. A good
> fellow and a truthful man incapable of bias or slanting in any form.
> He publishes pure and clear prose that highlights the truths of science
> and the "regular laws of physics".
Unlike you all-knowing self and of those you've continually brown-nosed,
I make my fair share of mistakes, though honest mistakes that I don't
intend to repeat over and over without ever a stitch of remorse (like so
many you've sucked up to, and clearly having no intentions of ever
unsucking yourself away from their butts). Haven't you figured out
what's going down and down, as this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from
hell is doing all their wad-thy-dog of infomercial hype, spin and damage
control they can muster, yet you're still buying into every last word of
it, arnt you.
> A "one-way ticket to ride"? Hefty inert GLOW factor that's of no
> consideration? NASA/Apollo wizards?
As opposed to the required fly-by-rocket energy per kg of whatever
payload that has to perform a two-way ticket with energy and payloads to
spare is a damn neat trick that we've been continually snookered to
death about, expect for the likes of "tomcat" that's merely dumbfounded
to death by all the NASA/Apollo infomercial shock and awe, or by all the
artificially impressive as colorized eye-candy. By the way; A nearly
30% inert(including payload) of a GLOW factor is in deed a heafty
fly-by-rocket if not hocus-pocus by most any standards, don't you think!
> NASA isn't as "fluffy white" nor as "squeaky clean" as Brad, but they
> DO put rockets into Outer Space from time to time. Don't they?
I have no arguments with any of that. So, what's your pathetic
infomercial point of inaction this time around?
: My other ruse, or rather not so hidden agenda, has to do with our
: establishing the LSE-CM/ISS before China does, and that of the
: VL2TRACE science platform as halo station-keeping itself within
: Venus L2.
> Once again, Brad is a truth teller. China is a threat in Outer Space.
> They are serious, dedicated, and fearless. They will win if NASA and
> the U.S. doesn't wake up, and wake up soon.
That's the ticket, as I totally agree that we'll need to kick some
serious Chineese butt before they do our's.
> Once China 'claims' the Moon as their own we won't be allowed to land
> anymore. Soon after they will 'claim' Venus and Mars. Well, it
> doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that we will be out of the
> picture if we don't start . . . COMPETING.
China only has to claim and hold onto high-ground, and that holy grail
of high-ground being the energy efficient and best ever do-everything
imaginable LL-1 zone is the one and only brass ring that's worth holding
onto.
> No need to apoligize, Brad. Photographic proof exists of both Martians
> and Venusians. But the blind are leading the blind. The Ostriches
> have their head in the sand. Others are looking the 'other way'. But
> 'alien life' exists.
I'll have to agree that Martian life had once upon a time existed, but
for the past few millions of years it simply couldn't hold out unless
they were half as smart as yourself, and simply having constructed those
fat-waverider spaceplanes and summarily got the hell out of whatever
Martian town before it was too late.
> Nothing wrong with robots, but Outer Space won't be conquered until we
> are up there enjoying other worldly views out our hotel windows.
That's exactly what the LSE-CM/ISS represents, as eventually offering a
256e6t worth of a 1e9 m3 abode that's perfectly safe and sane, giving us
humans as well as robotics an efficient and safe to/from mode of access
of that physically dark and nasty lunar surface, and otherwise best
accommodating the energy and complex outfitting needs of most any other
to/from mission(s) that are intended to transport our frail DNA to/from
other planets and of their moons.
> Remember that the Apollo Astronauts were only up there a few days at a
> time. They spent most of their time in the Lunar Module that was -- at
> least to some extent -- protected from the ambient radiation.
Your denial is more than ever in denial, and you're so otherwise
infomercial-science dumbfounded that the truth and nothing but the truth
is of no meaning whatsoever (just like with our resident LLPOF warlord,
whereas the truth is easily diverted by way of his "so what's the
difference policy").
> The Van Allen Belts don't stretch all the way to the Moon.
You know damn good and well that I never once said the Van Allen belts
included our moon, however our magnetosphere that's failing off by
roughly 0.05%/yr is still once in a while interrelated with our moon
(it's just extremely weak by the square of the distance).
> Once mankind loses it's irrational fear of the Laws of Thermodynamics
> and dares to think and explore, then we will spread out among the
> planets and stars.
You can't possibly accomplish that if allowing for the continued
ruse/sting of our perpetrated cold-wars and of the wasted decades to
control your every thought and subsequent mindset, now can you.
> I am still trying to figure out, however, just what a LSE-CM/ISS is?
> Is it a Lunar Space Elevator connected to an International Space
> Station circling the Moon?
Good grief. Of course it is a "L"unar "S"pace "E"levator, that which
obviously goes from the lunar deck directly to/from the "C"ounter "M"ass
and of the "I"nternational "S"pace "S"ation within that's tethered
directly above (roughly 60,000 km above) and thus remains as
continuously and efficiently aligned with mother Earth, in part held
there by way of Earth's gravity and otherwise by the slight amount of
centrifugal force, and by a few other fully interactive infrastructure
factors. However, as for that weird part about "circling the Moon" is
so far out in outer space that I'm not at all certain there any hope of
my ever getting your clearly naysay mindset to reboot or reset it self
on the right tracks. Technically the CM/ISS is within a slow lunar
orbit, but it's the very same as the moon orbits mother Earth, so as to
anyone upon the moon it's not actually in orbital motion with respect
any given location to the moon, perhaps think of it as being in
LL-1/GSO, nor otherwise as seen from Earth it remains relatively
centered upon the face of our moon and thus always aligned with that
moon, and that's including the tether dipole element and of it's
termination pod or platform that can safely reach to within 4r of Earth
without taking out too many of our terrestrial satellites.
Tell you what; I'll redo an external page or two in LeapFrog format, so
that the "tomcat's" of America and elsewhere might actually get a vague
clue as to what I've been stipulating for years on end. And here I was
beginning to actually believe that I was in fact the village idiot.
Brad Guth
> If you run around on the Moon stark naked you will get one nasty
> sunburn. So, don't do that. Instead go up there in 'Spacesuits', dig
> deep with TBMs, power up with a nuclear reactor, and enjoy yourself
> making the 'Big Bucks' mining He-3, titanium, aluminum, and uranium.
> This is what Capitalism is all about. Then hop in your tomcat
> waverider and take it all back to Earth.
tomcat,
Think rad-hard robotics rather than DNA.
Here's one more alternative review at considering the cosmic impact upon
your frail DNA while situated on or anywhere near that moon of our's,
thus making my argument for having the 50t/m2 available to the CM/ISS
abode as being within spec of what long-term survival at even 60,000 km
away from our physically dark and nasty moon has to offer, as being not
such a bad idea.
According to our NASA certified science with regards to cosmic influx of
roughly one hit per second per cm2, the following is extrapolated in
order to estimate the lunar surface environment that's without benefit
of having a magnetosphere, thus by rights and if anything the naked moon
unavoidably receives more than it's fair share of merely one cosmic
hit/cm2/sec.
However, at taking on merely those 36e6 cosmic hits/m2/hr, and for using
the conservative square root of that amount = 6e3 mrem or 6 rem/hr. A
TBI(total body irradiation) of .06 Sv/hr is obviously survivable for
several hours worth of exposure, that is if that were the one and only
amount of dosage your DNA had to worry about.
Of course, outer space and essentially that of our naked moon is not 2D,
but rather 3D/cubic, whereas your 3D body is therefore not limited to
the m2 worth of cosmic influx. Instead, your 3D body might be worth
roughly 0.1 m3 which equals 100,000 cm3, making it into a cosmic target
that's 10 fold as bad off. Therefore taking on 360e6 cosmic hits/hr,
and if we're using the same conservative conversion into mrem of taking
the square root makes that dosage of DNA trauma worth 19e3 mrem or 19
rem/hr.
Unfortunately you're not alone while moonsuit walking about, whereas
you're entire body and frail DNA within are continually surrounded by at
least 3.14e6 m2 of that physically dark and nasty lunar anticathode
terrain of matter that's roughly half again as dense as aluminum and
otherwise better than 3 times the density of your body, and thereby
unavoidably more reactive in a bad sort of way of generating those
nastier forms of secondary/recoil energies of gamma and hard-X-rays.
Since the lunar atmosphere is supposedly so sparse, the amount of mass
or atmospheric shield density that's between yourself and any of those
surrounding 3.14e6 m2 that are naturally being anticathode at doing
their thing, of each m2 emitting humanly lethal dosage, whereas this
outcome is not by any means a good sign.
3.14e6 * 0.06 Sv = 188.4e3 Sv/hr, whereas if your body were only getting
0.1% of that surrounding dosage is still worth 188 Sv/hr. This is where
being a rad-hard robot gets looking as a really good idea.
Of course, if we'd ever established those interactive science probes on
the lunar deck, or even having established that science platform as
efficiently station-keeping itself within the interactive LL-1 zone
would have long ago eliminated all of the swag of such speculations that
myself and others have had to make do with.
Unfortunately, each and every time I've taken the initiative upon myself
having suggested as to deploying extremely low cost alternatives, for
getting small/micro science probes or of those within my JAVELINs as
implanted into our moon, whereas this is when all the usual mainstream
status quo of their wag-thy-dog flak started to fly. Instead of getting
a community think-tank of folks honestly sharing in the best available
science that's replicated, and of sharing other viable ideas and/or
alternatives, instead we get MOS anti-think-tank of their Usenet
naysayism in the forms of topic/author stalking, bashings and wherever
possible banishments applied, along with whatever's the evidence that's
on behalf of our arguments getting excluded if such evidence represents
the least bit of whatever rocks their good ship LOLLIPOP. If that's not
bad enough, we also get to receive an extra good PC infecting dosage of
their GOOGLE/Usenet server accommodated gauntlet of absolutely pesky
spermware/fuckware to continually deal with, plus that of our email
accounts trashed with further butt-loads of their worse possible
infected files, and otherwise for years I've had hundreds of those pesky
hang-up phone calls that are obviously intended to impose as much damage
as possible by remote means, that which our cloak and dagger MI/NSA
spooks have entirely at their disposal and within their instruction as
to utilize every means available without spilling any of their precious
nondisclosure beans.
In other words, there's apparently so much that I'm right about that
it's getting a wee bit hot and nasty to be sharing whatever without
involving yet another round of status quo flak. So, if you're at all
interested in our moon, Venus or our orbital association with the Sirius
star/solar system, as such I'd advise being prepared for taking on the
absolute worse of the worse sorts of nasty things to happen, and so much
so that it could become a whole lot safer for those Venusians or
visiting ETs as having existed/coexisted on Venus than it is for those
of us right here on this polluted and subsequently global warming Earth
that's about to go WW-III postal in order to further cover thy
perpetrated cold-war butts.
As I've said before, the geothermally active surface environment of
Venus is simply a whole lot safer than Earth when it comes down to the
solar/cosmic levels of Sv. That Venusian environment is obviously not
Earth like (more hell like), but it also isn't all that humanly
insurmountable if a gram of intelligent common sense gets applied. The
ESA Venus EXPRESS mission is helping to prove this to be true,
especially once their PFS instrument gets into action (as by rights it
should), that will better map the surface of geothermal terrain to a
much greater resolution and extent than previously obtained (as limited
only by the highly elliptical polar orbit).
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> "tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1155615809.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
>
> > If you run around on the Moon stark naked you will get one nasty
> > sunburn. So, don't do that. Instead go up there in 'Spacesuits', dig
> > deep with TBMs, power up with a nuclear reactor, and enjoy yourself
> > making the 'Big Bucks' mining He-3, titanium, aluminum, and uranium.
> > This is what Capitalism is all about. Then hop in your tomcat
> > waverider and take it all back to Earth.
>
> tomcat,
> Think rad-hard robotics rather than DNA.
Robotics is fine, but within limits. Right now we are getting some
incredible pictures from the Mars Rovers. The Orbiters have also
taught us much about Moons and Planets. But we need to go there to
reap the riches that abound on these seeminly desert like Orbs.
Yes, there are dangers and radiation is one of them. High
temperatures, tornado velocity winds, and unbreathable atmospheres have
to be taken into consideration as well.
All this means is that we have to terraform, not entire planets as some
suggest however. It simply means setting up sturdy -- radiation proof
-- quarters for our scientists and explorers. This might mean
underground quarters especially where meteorites are a deadly threat.
Or habitats made of titanium alloy partially or wholly buried to
minimize radiation.
These quarters, whether caverns or titanium habitats, will have to be
air tight and have electrical generators for myriad tools and life
support equipment. On Venus geothermal might supply all needs with
energy left over. On Mars, however, nuclear power production is the
better choice. On Mercury solar panels would probably do the trick.
Today's science will take care of all needs, even the production of
home grown food. Hydroponics is a developed science and can be applied
out in Space. Canned goods are good for several years. Today's water
filtration techniques should suffice for just about any Alien water
source. Distillation and reverse osmosis are two powerful water
purification capabilities, with a super hot distillation process
eliminating bacterial and viruses as well.
Our rockets stand ready. The addition of high payload waverider
capability would be desirable but, nonetheless, we are ready. It will
just take the 'will to conquer' and Outer Space will succumb.
In short, robots are good advance scouts and their pictures are
thrilling peeks at what lies ahead. But to take advantage of the
riches of Outer Space mankind must step forward and ride those rockets
to the far reaches of Space.
tomcat
Brad Guth
> In short, robots are good advance scouts and their pictures are
> thrilling peeks at what lies ahead. But to take advantage of the
> riches of Outer Space mankind must step forward and ride those rockets
> to the far reaches of Space.
tomcat,
In that case, you're not only an old fart that's stuck in a serious rut,
but you're also an intellectual bigot as well as a dead man walking.
Did I mention that you're still a born-again liar and pagan Third Reich
minion to boot?.
There's so much that's terribly dead wrong and downright immoral about
this never ending mindset of yours, so much so that you must be an
incest clone of GW Bush.
We can put 100+ fancy, do-everything and reliable robots into space,
onto planets and of their moons for less than the cost of accommodating
one human. There is no argument here to being had. You lose, I win,
it's that simple. Unless you'd care to go to Venus whenever it's so
nearby, whereas otherwise your DNA isn't going to survive the likes of
Mars, much less the to/from passage.
You know damn good and well that we can't even accomplish our own moon.
I mean, how pathetic is that?
BTW; you recall that 7 out of the 12 DC-X/DC-XA prototypes failed.
Why are you avoiding the topic of your fat-waverider accomplishing
Venus, or on behalf of using the LSE-CM/ISS?
I forgot, that you really don't know anything about Venus nor about
LL-1. Sorry that I asked those silly questions.
tomcat
Brad, here's something that's as close to proof as you can imagine that
NASA put a man on the Moon July 20, 1969.
"Shooting the moon
By Bruce Lieberman Sunday, August 13 2006, 05:20 PM"
MEASURING THE MOON
"On July 21, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin propped an array of
reflectors in the lunar soil - one of several science experiments they
deployed a day after becoming the first humans to set foot on the moon.
A month later, a small group of astronomers bounced a pulse of laser
light off the reflectors and caught the return signal with a telescope
at Lick Observatory near San Jose, in Northern California. By measuring
the time it took for the pulse traveling at the speed of light to
return, scientists could determine the distance between the Earth and
moon.
And so in the summer of 1969, the era of modern lunar ranging was born.
Today, 37 years later, scientists at University of California San Diego
are firing lasers at the same reflectors. Equipped with 21st century
technology and new techniques, they plan to measure the distance
between the Earth and moon down to an astounding 1 millimeter - the
width of a paper clip."
tomcat
Brad Guth
> Brad, here's something that's as close to proof as you can imagine that
> NASA put a man on the Moon July 20, 1969.
>
> "Shooting the moon
> By Bruce Lieberman Sunday, August 13 2006, 05:20 PM"
>
> MEASURING THE MOON
>
> "On July 21, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin propped an array of
> reflectors in the lunar soil - one of several science experiments they
> deployed a day after becoming the first humans to set foot on the moon.
>
> A month later, a small group of astronomers bounced a pulse of laser
> light off the reflectors and caught the return signal with a telescope
> at Lick Observatory near San Jose, in Northern California. By measuring
> the time it took for the pulse traveling at the speed of light to
> return, scientists could determine the distance between the Earth and
> moon.
>
> And so in the summer of 1969, the era of modern lunar ranging was born.
> Today, 37 years later, scientists at University of California San Diego
> are firing lasers at the same reflectors. Equipped with 21st century
> technology and new techniques, they plan to measure the distance
> between the Earth and moon down to an astounding 1 millimeter - the
> width of a paper clip."
Christ almighty on a stick, tomcat, we've been over and over this a
million times, and no matters how hard and/or how often you'd care to
stipulate that we've walked on that moon, there's simply no such
replicated proof (the required physics nor their supposed replicated
science simply isn't there to behold), and especially not even via those
absolutely wussy retroreflectors that at best contribute fewer photons
than any of their Apollo impact craters that's subsequently coated with
the vaporised remains of whatever we'd sent to it's demise. Besides,
that naked moon of ours is simply and unavoidably too anticathode gamma
and hard-X-ray lethal, not to mention double-IR roasting by day and/or
as continually pulverised enough to vaporise salt. How end-user
friendly do you actually think the cosmic influx and of that solar wind
actually is?
Do you actually think and/or want others to perceive that such warm and
fuzzy solar and cosmic influx is passive?
Do you expect others to perceive the raw solar illumination influx is
exactly as though derived from the spectrum of a xenon lamp?
At merely an average of one micron per year of collecting from the
available space debris and of meteorites and of their subsequent impact
dust, plus from whatever's subsequently contributed via horrific
secondary impact shards; just how little dust should that moon have,
and how fluffy, clumping or otherwise compacted should that moon-dust
actually be?
Our NASA can't hardly even shine when their stuff finally/(sort of)
works.
For example; their old DC-X test flights / DeltaClipper.mov
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/DCX/DeltaClipper.mov
http://www.orbitersim.com/v2/read.asp?id=19376
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-X
With 24,000+ kgf, it had actually worked with energy and thus payload to
spare, though I believe we still haven't been properly informed as to
the extent of their applied rocket-science, nor as to appreciating the
rather excessive amount of their GLOW or of their nearly 50% inert
portion thereof (that's without shielding and without live payloas of
crew nor of any expedition outfitting), much less as to the 9800 kg of
fuel which had been intended to last only a few minutes (I'm thinking
they should have used h2o2/RP-1 or better yet h2o2/c3h4o), nor sharing
as to whatever extent they'd instead relied upon highly advanced
computers plus so easily could have incorporated momentum reaction
wheels. The DC-X had otherwise proven that as of three decades after
our initial Apollo fiasco, in that we'd finally accomplished what it
would have taken (though still representing a rather hefty sucker,
flight time limited and never once drop tested) as a remote pilotted
and/or AI/robotic controlled fly-by-rocket capability.
Unfortunately, of having applied nearly three decades more advanced
rocket-science and under the ultimate of locally controlled conditions,
they had 7 out of 12 as failures. (not exactly a great confidence
builder, especially if it was your butt headed for that physically dark
and nasty moon)
In other words, our NASA had invested into another extremely spendy
effort that can't be openly touted nor much less shared for whatever the
truth it represents. As in no matters what, the public and of the
international science and of the space exploration groups within are
simply not allowed to realize the full potential and/or grief of
whatever the spendy learning curve, nor otherwise as to learning exactly
how badly snookered they have all been, as in summarily screwed, blued
and tattooed for life.
The NASA Delta Clipper was their best effort prototype of any such
fly-by-rocket spaceship/lander is essentially devoid of sufficient
internal specifics, whereas such expertise remains as somewhat
stealth/invisible as were those WMD in Iraq. Obviously the DC-X/DC-XA
had functioned at least part of the time, though apparently they'd
cheated by way of having eliminated those pesky pilot error factors by
way of being so extensively AI/computerised, and otherwise as having
spent their fun and games budget for the next decade on behalf of
accomplishing just that much.
Of course, attempting to honestly discuss anything remotely similar as
to those previous hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo fly-by-rocket landers that had
to deal with those pesky lunar mascons, plus hauling a fairly good
amount of live and accessory payloads, including sufficient fuel loads
that was unavoidably changing their CG by the second, and otherwise
having incorporated plenty of other unavoidable inert mass to deal with
(such as packing along their return-home package), though officially
never once having accomplished an actual prototype (reduced
mass/increased thrust) test craft on behalf of any honest efforts for
accomplishing the controlled task of an incoming, down-range and soft
landing of their very own, certainly not as directly astronaut pilotted
nor even as having been remote piloted, nor much less as fully
AI/robotically having acconmplished squat.
Yet supposedly never a single hitch within any of those controlled
deorbits from 100 km, of getting their butts safely down-range past each
of those lunar mascons and then maneouvered to each of their soft
landings where there wasn't hardly any depth of dust to be found, and
not even all that dusty nor all that dark of terrain for as far as their
EVAs and unfiltered Kodak eye could see, and all of that accomplished
without benefit of their landers having the sorts of computer interfaced
fly-by-wire management of flight stability via those above GC reaction
thrusters, nor having any of those airframe momentum reaction wheels as
likely incorporated within NASA's Delta Clipper.
It's as though all the good folks associated with those DC-X/DC-XA
flights were sworn to their usual cloak and dagger and otherwise lethal
nondisclosure policy (each having signed their soul to that internal
policy in their own blood) because, at all cost the truth simply
couldn't ever be told, much less publicly demonstrated at even a fully
secured (AKA need to know) air show without spilling a few too many
beans, such as our not even having so much as the unreliable
fly-by-rocket capability as of the Apollo era.
You folks that insist upon believing we've walked on that physically
dark and nasty moon, and somehow our astronauts and their Kodak film
that was near-UV and UV-a sensitive as well as easily prone to being
affected by radiation, as somehow having lived entirely unscaved as to
tell us about it, are either sick little puppies or you've become the
very worse of collaborating minions in support of whatever your LLPOF
Skull and Bones cult represents.
I for one totally agree that we need to focus our best talents and
resources upon those new and improved missions as per sending off the
sorts of sufficiently rad-hard robotic probes. However, what we have
here is a serious priority need of kicking Usenet butt, then as to kick
a few other sorry butts that have been nothing but mainstream liars and
systematic intellectual bigots of the worse possible kind.
Don't suppose there's any honest Usenet intentions of these insider
folks, as for their ever becoming the least bit open mindset, any more
so likely than hearing from our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) that his
actions and of those closely associated and of a few too many before his
administration were nothing short of having imposed their crimes against
humanity and of otherwise continually raping our global warming
environment to boot.
As to their excluding of whatever's evidence that doesn't happen to
please your mainstream status quo or bust mindset, whereas the
NASA/Apollo ruse of the century simply isn't working, now is it, any
more so than is their perpetual denial of denial being of any further
use. But then liars are in auto-default of their denial being in
auto-protect denial; so what's the difference?
We need to think along the lines of the somewhat mass produced and
thereby affordable and fully expendable rad-hard science for obtaining
those new and improved instruments and of deploying such as robotics
rather than pushing our frail DNA over the edge, along with all the
necessary applied technology that we simply do not have for sustaining a
mission with human crew. As of today's capability, of what micro-probes
and/or of relatively small robotics can obviously survive in the most
extreme of places, that are of places otherwise taboo/off-limits as to
even the most advanced forms of applied technology that's intended for
sustaining our frail DNA, and supposedly of returning it home as none
the worse off for wear, of which thus far simply can not be
accomplished.
For the old hocus-pocus Apollo gipper; Here's one more of my somewhat
dyslexic alternative reviews, at considering the cosmic radiation impact
upon your frail DNA while situated on or anywhere near that anticathode
moon of our's, thus making my argument for having the 50t/m2 available
to the CM/ISS abode as being within spec of what long-term survival at
even 60,000 km away from our physically dark and nasty moon has to
offer, as being not such a bad idea.
According to our NASA certified science with regards to the cosmic
influx of roughly one hit per second per cm2, the following is merely
extrapolated in order to estimate the lunar surface environment that's
without benefit of having a magnetosphere, therefore by rights I'm being
rather conservative, as if anything the naked moon unavoidably receives
more than it's fair share of merely one cosmic hit/cm2/sec.
However, at taking on merely those 36e6 cosmic hits/m2/hr, and for using
the conservative square root of that amount = 6e3 mrem or 6 rem/hr. A
TBI(total body irradiation) of .06 Sv/hr is obviously survivable for
several hours worth of exposure, that is if that were the one and only
amount of dosage your DNA had to worry about.
Humans living with gamma and of the unavoidable hard-X-rays isn't
exactly doable:
Of course, outer space and essentially that of our naked moon is not 2D,
but rather 3D/cubic, whereas your 3D body and of the 3D spacecrafe
and/or lunar terrain surrounding it is therefore not limited to the m2
worth of cosmic influx. Instead, your 3D body might be worth roughly
0.1 m3 which equals 100,000 cm3, making it into a cosmic target that's
10 fold as bad off. Therefore taking on 360e6 cosmic hits/hr, and if
we're using the same conservative conversion into mrem of taking the
square root makes that internal dosage of DNA trauma worthy of 19e3 mrem
or 19 rem/hr.
Unfortunately, you're never alone while moonsuit walking about, whereas
you're entire body and frail DNA within are continually surrounded by at
least 3.14e6 m2 of that physically dark and nasty lunar anticathode
terrain of physical matter, that's roughly half again as dense as
aluminum and otherwise better than 3 times the density of your body, and
thereby unavoidably more reactive in a bad sort of way of generating
those nastier forms of secondary/recoil energies of soft-gamma and
hard-X-rays.
Since the lunar atmosphere is supposedly so sparse (merely a little
sodium/salty by day), the amount of mass or atmospheric shield density
that's between yourself and any of those surrounding 3.14e6 m2 that are
naturally and unavoidably being anticathode at doing their thing, of
each m2 emitting humanly lethal dosage, whereas this outcome is not by
any means a good sign.
3.14e6 * 0.06 Sv = 188.4e3 Sv/hr, whereas if your body were only getting
0.1% of that surrounding dosage is still worth 188 Sv/hr. This is where
being a rad-hard robot gets to looking as a really good idea.
Of course, if we'd ever established those interactive science probes on
the lunar deck, or even having established that science platform as
efficiently station-keeping itself within the interactive LL-1 zone, as
such these efforts would have long ago eliminated all of the swag of
such speculations that myself and others have had to make do with. Thus
far we're not even getting the honest science about our moon from ACE
that once a month has a really good look-see, and not surprisingly our
moon was even banished by our MESSENGER flyby. It's as though our moon
is the most taboo/nondisclosure orb next to Venus and then Sirius,
whereas any of those three items are never getting the attention they
deserve, and subsequently generation after generation of students are
essentially having to learn via infomercial-crapolla-science instead of
the truth.
Unfortunately, each and every time I've taken the initiative upon
myself, as having suggested deploying extremely low cost alternatives,
for getting small/micro science probes or of those within my JAVELINs as
implanted into our moon, whereas this is when all the usual mainstream
status quo of their wag-thy-dogs to death of their infomercial flak
started to fly. Instead of getting a productive Usenet community
think-tank of folks honestly sharing in the best available science
that's replicated, and of sharing upon other viable ideas and/or
alternatives, instead we get MOS anti-think-tankism of their
insufferable Usenet naysayism in the forms of topic/author stalking,
bashings and wherever possible banishments applied, along with
whatever's the evidence that's shared on behalf of our constructive
arguments getting excluded if such evidence represents the least bit of
whatever rocks their good ship LOLLIPOP.
If that's not bad enough, we also get to receive an extra worth of PC
infecting dosage from their NOVA/GOOGLE/Usenet server accommodated
gauntlet, of delivering those absolutely pesky spermware/fuckware to
continually deal with, plus that of our email accounts getting trashed
with further butt-loads of their worse possible infected files, and
otherwise for years I've had hundreds of those pesky hang-up phone calls
that are obviously intended to impose as much damage as possible by
remote means, that which our cloak and dagger MI/NSA spooks have
entirely at their disposal and within their intentions as to utilize
every means available without spilling any of their precious
nondisclosure beans (such as our perpetrated cold-wars that as of lately
have produced such extensive collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent).
In other words, there's apparently so much that I'm right about that
it's getting a wee bit hot and nasty to be sharing whatever without
involving yet another round of status quo flak. So, if you're at all
interested in our moon, Venus or our orbital association with the Sirius
star/solar system, as such I'd advise being prepared for taking on the
absolute worse of the worse sorts of nasty things to happen, and so much
so that it could become a whole lot safer for those Venusians or
visiting ETs as having existed/coexisted on Venus than it is for those
of us right here on this polluted and subsequently global warming Earth
that's about to go WW-III postal in order to further cover thy
perpetrated cold-war butts.
As I've said before, the geothermally active surface environment of
Venus is simply a whole lot safer than Earth when it comes down to the
solar/cosmic levels of Sv. That Venusian environment is obviously not
Earth like (more or less hell like), but as such it also isn't all that
humanly insurmountable if a gram of intelligent common sense gets
applied (a halfwit village idiot should be qualified). The ESA Venus
EXPRESS mission has been helping to prove this argument to be true,
especially once their PFS instrument gets into action (as by rights it
should), that will better map the surface of that geothermally active
terrain to a much greater resolution and extent than previously obtained
(as limited only by their highly elliptical polar orbit or otherwise
foiled by way of our spooks interfering with their to/from command
instructions and/or merely corrupting their mission data).
Jordan
tomcat wrote:
> That LL-1 is a 'hill' is a good point. There is no perfect fit.
> Therefore, you will gradually have a decaying 'perfect Lagrange' orbit,
> which is a little less than perfect.
>
> Better to make an isoceles triangle with the planetary body you wish to
> a stable position with and simply swing along behind, or in front.
... as at the L-4 and L-5 points, which are _good_ positions for
Earth-orbital space habs.
Keep in mind that Brad has some rather weird notions of physics and
space history. Among other things, he believes that Luna is lethally
radioactive and that therefore the whole Apollo Program was a hoax.
- Jordan
Rand Simberg
<JSBass...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>
"tomcat" has equally weird notions of physics, and unaccountably
worships Brad, despites Brad's continuous insults of him. It's some
kind of weird domination thing, I think.
tomcat
Actually, I take a swing at Brad from time to time. He really does
have this 'lethal Moon' thing as well as the 'Apollo hoax' mind set.
My views of physics, however, do not deserve to be called 'weird'. But
there is 'old science' and there is 'new science'. Old science
emphasizes laws above fact, structure above efficacy. New science
looks ahead, uses new materials with amazing properties, and ignores
stop signs and warnings coming from classical 'commonsense' which has
proven, time and again, to be mere illusion, goblins of the mind.
Why stop the DC-X for instance? Well, it's 'commonsense' it couldn't
fly. But, in fact, it did fly, and amazingly well. It had an
accident, that's all.
Why not use water for fuel? Well, it's 'commonsense' that water
doesn't do much at ordinary temperatures here on Earth. We use it to
cook with -- simple convection. But in Outer Space it has different
properties. Vacuum causes it to explode. High temperatures atomize it
with enormous energy released when they recombine. And, it vaporizes
at 1600 times it's inert volume.
Waveriders can't fly. None of those planned were ever completed. Why?
Because heating problems and engines hadn't been properly designed
yet. New materials, ideas, and well proven engines have changed
things. Putting a million pounds in orbit, even two million pounds per
flight is now possible. But watch out for the stop signs and warnings.
Failure flashes into the mind based on PAST experiences that are no
longer valid. And those fearsome goblins are waiting.
tomcat
Brad Guth
> "tomcat" has equally weird notions of physics, and unaccountably
> worships Brad, despites Brad's continuous insults of him. It's some
> kind of weird domination thing, I think.
Our "tomcat" is merely a sadly confused little old soul that has no
apparent morals nor a stitch of remorse within his mostly pro-white
and/or pro-Jewish body, that can't quite get the picture of having been
snookered for all of his life. His fat-waverider of mostly composites
and thereby of little inert mass (except for the 10,000 pounds of
infrastructure for having accommodated each and every SSME, plus another
inert 50+ tonnes worth of takeoff/landing gears and related structural
infrastructure that's unavoidable if still planning upon using such as
any surface to surface application, is perfectly doable (much like the
nearly 30% inert GLOW of the Saturn 5 apparently didn't count). Even
some of his related spaceplane application notions for the ultra wealthy
and of whatever's consumer/taxpayer funded are doable, that is as long
as that horrifically spendy and unavoidably polluting per payload kg of
a spaceplane remains below the altitude of 400 km, and at all cost keeps
a safe distance away from the ever expanding SAA, and all of his crew
have established banked bone marrow as their DNA butt saving plan-B.
Exiting our protective realm of what that 70,000 km magnetosphere
expanse has to offer, and thereby especially pesky once even external to
our Van Allen belts, and to otherwise entirely forget about going
anywhere near that anticathode moon of ours is well and good enough for
his pathetic status quo screwed up mindset. His notion of thinking
outside the box is actually still that of a box within a much greater
and more powerful box that protects his pagan gods of everything that's
MI/NSA~NASA, and then some.
Therefore, our warm and fuzzy "tomcat" doesn't exactly worship me, he's
just sufficiently impressed with what an open mindset has to offer, and
that of whatever I've discovered and/or having uncovered and
subsequently having been willing to share and share alike in spite of
whatever mainstream flak is hitting the fan, that is short of accepting
anything that's the least bit anti-NASA/Apollo. Of course nearly
everything I have to say can be interpreted by a traditional Usenet
naysayer as being anti-NASA/Apollo, and then some.
Pretending that our moon is nothing but a passive guano island in the
sky, that's entirely none-reactive and otherwise somehow creating those
new and improved laws of physics (such as rad-hard Kodak film and of
those TBI invincible astronauts), while otherwise converting the raw
solar spectrum of illumination into the very terrestrial xenon lamp
worth of spectrum, is the same as his hocus-pocus belief that our
government and of those pulling the strings can do no wrong, whereas our
"tomcat" must continually accept such a fantasy world in order to
prevent himself from going intellectually postal, and/or to prevent
taking his own life plus the lives of anyone else that's within his
personal black hole event horizon.
Often "tomcat's" math is unintentionally skewed, as is his frequent
usage of those conditional laws of physics and of the backing of such
conditional physics via those really spiffy looking infomercial-science
and eye-candy hyped publications that are otherwise so gosh darn
impressive. Meanwhile, Mother Earth is still getting pillaged and raped
in front of the kids, and our "tomcat" as well as most other Usenet
rusemasters see absolutely nothing the least bit improper or much less
immoral about such, and that's even if there's continued collateral
damage and the carnage of the innocent is just perfectly fine and dandy
by way of their "so what's the difference" policy, of implementing their
version of "up your's" if you're not 100+% on our side of their global
domination quest.
All that I can do is to honestly relate my somewhat dyslexic research
and honest interpretations as to the best available science and of
whatever's supported by the regular laws of physics. Unfortunately, I'm
on a purely exploratory research mission of having to seek information
and/or being stuck with the usual nondisclosure of a need-to-know or the
usual make-do with loads of the same infomercials of limited or
disinformation basis, and otherwise having been getting Usenet
topic/author stalked, bashed and wherever possible I'm usually banished
because of the sorts of questions I'm asking, and/or because of notions
that I'm imposing upon those sucking up to the nearest mainstream status
quo butt. If I perceive that I'm not being informed or getting diverted
away from the topic at hand that was intended as to obtaining the honest
matter of truth of whatever shouldn't be top-secret or national security
related, as such I can only assume there's a hidden agenda or ulterior
motive in play, and this assumption goes for our "tomcat" as well as so
many others that seem a wee bit too smart to not have been in on the
great ruse/sting of the century (that being our mutually perpetrated
cold-war and of that supposed space-race to our moon).
There's just way too much status quo or bust flak (plus more than my
fair share of my PC having received their spermware/fuckware) as to be
anything but a huge amount of ongoing cover-thy-butt and ulterior
motives at risk. Our "tomcat" knows this but isn't nearly as lose
cannon willing as to pushing those do-not-push buttons. That's too bad
because, that makes the likes of our "tomcat" into a willing spectator
and/or knowledgable bystander that otherwise knows better, and will be
held accountable.
Danny Dot
--
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org
"tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1156175766.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Because it could not, nor ever could have made a SSTO flight. It was not
even close.
But having said that I loved the program in many, many ways. I loved the
quick turn around. I loved the "just go do it" attitude of the program.
But it was not a SSTO design
>
> Why not use water for fuel? Well, it's 'commonsense' that water
> doesn't do much at ordinary temperatures here on Earth. We use it to
> cook with -- simple convection. But in Outer Space it has different
> properties. Vacuum causes it to explode.
Only a bit (a very small bit) explodes. The latent heat of evaperation turn
the water into ice and then it slowly sublimates. Let me repeat this. If
you expose a bunch of liquid water to a vacuum, you end up with a bunch of
ice.
Danny
Brad Guth
>the water into ice and then it slowly sublimates. Let me repeat this. If
>you expose a bunch of liquid water to a vacuum, you end up with a bunch of
>ice.
Hot/superheated water as steam/vapor blasted out into 1e-18 bar is not
going to recombine and turn itself into ice unless it finds shade.
GOT SHADE?
But otherwise, of outer-space that's anywhere near Earth is relatively
hot unless you've got one terrifically reflective albedo to work with.
Besides, there's no real hard-science as to raw ice in space, much less
orbiting anywhere near or especially on the physically dark moon.
Jordan
For that purpose, it _does_ make sense as reaction mass. But that
requires that you have a means of heating it, which means a nuclear
reactor.
One type of nuclear thermal rocket that will probably fly someday,
especially for interplanetary missions, is a steam rocket. This is
because water is common in the Solar System (mostly as ice) and because
it can easily be stored (as ice) in tanks until needed.
Hydrogen (by itself) is even better for this purpose, but hydrogen is
more difficult to store in reaction mass tanks. If you store it as a
liquid you have to put serious energy into cooling it; if you store it
as a gas it tends to leak through the walls of your storage tank.
- Jordan
Jordan
Brad Guth wrote:
> "John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
> news:44d67def$0$11...@dingus.crosslink.net
>
> >
> > Whatever happend to the "L-5 Society?
> >
> > EMWTK
>
> John Gilmer,
> I think someone from that group actually went there for a few minutes,
> and soon thereafter died rather badly from the inside out, from having
> their DNA irradiated to death, and/or merely impacted clean through and
> through from damn near anything that so happened to be moving through
> that naked L5 zone at 30+ km/s.
The idea was to put up _thick-walled_ habs at the L-4 and L-5 points,
so as to protect the occupants from solar storms. The meteorite danger
is not as great as you're imagining, especially given that the habs
would have to be thick-walled anyway for the occupants to survive peak
bursts of solar radiation.
An alternative, "on the cheap" plan was to use thinner-walled habs with
thick-walled "storm shelters" in which the occupants could wait out
solar storms.
- Jordan
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> Our "tomcat" is merely a sadly confused little old soul that has no
> apparent morals nor a stitch of remorse within his mostly pro-white
> and/or pro-Jewish body, that can't quite get the picture of having been
> snookered for all of his life.
> . . . his pathetic status quo screwed up mindset. His notion of thinking
> outside the box is actually still that of a box within a much greater
> and more powerful box that protects his pagan gods of everything that's
> MI/NSA~NASA, and then some.
> Therefore, our warm and fuzzy "tomcat" doesn't exactly worship me, he's
> just sufficiently impressed with what an open mindset has to offer, and
> that of whatever I've discovered and/or having uncovered and
> subsequently having been willing to share and share alike in spite of
> whatever mainstream flak is hitting the fan, that is short of accepting
> anything that's the least bit anti-NASA/Apollo.
> whereas our
> "tomcat" must continually accept such a fantasy world in order to
> prevent himself from going intellectually postal, and/or to prevent
> taking his own life plus the lives of anyone else that's within his
> personal black hole event horizon.
>
> Often "tomcat's" math is unintentionally skewed, as is his frequent
> usage of those conditional laws of physics and of the backing of such
> conditional physics via those really spiffy looking infomercial-science
> and eye-candy hyped publications that are otherwise so gosh darn
> impressive.
>
> . . . and this assumption goes for our "tomcat" as well as so
> many others that seem a wee bit too smart to not have been in on the
> great ruse/sting of the century (that being our mutually perpetrated
> cold-war and of that supposed space-race to our moon).
>
> Our "tomcat" knows this but isn't nearly as lose
> cannon willing as to pushing those do-not-push buttons. That's too bad
> because, that makes the likes of our "tomcat" into a willing spectator
> and/or knowledgable bystander that otherwise knows better, and will be
> held accountable.
Yes, everything is OK because God's in the Quad and my enemies do
perceive me as a 'black hole' with an event horizon. While I get
'snookered' from time to time I keep myself in the God Box for
protection, peeking out from time to time to see if the coast is clear.
And, yes again, Brad has an 'open mindset' as long as you don't get
into philosophical discussions of either 'open' or 'mindset'. Fantasy
Island was an enjoyable show but I perceive that as fiction not fact.
My mathematics is a little 'skewed' but I prefer it that way. Each to
his own. Since it is mere convention you might as well dream a little.
I viewed college as the 'candy store' because there was so much to
take in and, indeed, it was eye popping.
Brad is a loose cannon but he prefers it that way. It allows him to
'rant and rave' about Usenet and computer attacks as well as accuse
NASA of the World's Greatest RuseSting. He can't get away from 'Lethal
Moon' or 'Cold War Scam' either.
But what has all this got to do with Steam Rockets? It was Rand
Simberg that got all this psychological nonesense started. Probably a
Borg attack.
tomcat
Brad Guth
> For that purpose, it _does_ make sense as reaction mass. But that
> requires that you have a means of heating it, which means a nuclear
> reactor.
>
> One type of nuclear thermal rocket that will probably fly someday,
> especially for interplanetary missions, is a steam rocket. This is
> because water is common in the Solar System (mostly as ice) and because
> it can easily be stored (as ice) in tanks until needed.
thermal nuclear source of heat is doable, so is using a multitude of
solar units doable if operating inside of the Mars orbit, especially if
near Earth, station-keeping in LL-1 or going for Venus is a no brainer.
Why not instead of storing plain old h2o, instead go for the likes of
frozen or slush h2o2?
Or, why not instead of using a hefty nuclear thermal method of creating
relatively wussy steam, instead use the Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion as offering
the best ISP and by far offering the fastest exiting thrust?
> Hydrogen (by itself) is even better for this purpose, but hydrogen is
> more difficult to store in reaction mass tanks. If you store it as a
> liquid you have to put serious energy into cooling it; if you store it
> as a gas it tends to leak through the walls of your storage tank.
I think that's also true as of terrestrial uses, whereas hydrogen takes
considerable energy in order to artificially produce, store, transport,
apply into end-use insulated storage again and then to utilize isn't the
least bit cheap nor all that safe, especially if you're planning upon
using it with Lox.
As long as you're intent upon living life on the energy consuming, risky
and spendy side, why is h2o2 still getting treated as
taboo/nondisclosure?
Brad Guth
> Brad is a loose cannon but he prefers it that way. It allows him to
> 'rant and rave' about Usenet and computer attacks as well as accuse
> NASA of the World's Greatest RuseSting. He can't get away from 'Lethal
> Moon' or 'Cold War Scam' either.
>
> But what has all this got to do with Steam Rockets?
tomcat,
It has absolutely everything to do with "Steam Rockets".
I'm terribly sorry but, you can't possibly have an open mindset upon of
much of anything if you're continually having to worship false gods,
such as your NASA/Apollo gods of those conditional laws of physics and
of their infomercial-science that simply can't be replicated. If you're
living within such a perverted cesspool of such lies upon lies, and thus
perpetuating whatever else as based upon your having to support such
lies, then what's the point of even dreaming about any fat-waverider or
"tomcat" spaceplane that has to be just a hocus-pocus worthy?
Here's a little something as contributed from "Jordan" that I'd managed
to get on your behalf.
>The specific impulse of steam is very low, unless it is very hot steam.
>For that purpose, it _does_ make sense as reaction mass. But that
>requires that you have a means of heating it, which means a nuclear
>reactor.
>One type of nuclear thermal rocket that will probably fly someday,
>especially for interplanetary missions, is a steam rocket. This is
>because water is common in the Solar System (mostly as ice) and because
>it can easily be stored (as ice) in tanks until needed.
Jordan's internal thermal nuclear source for a steam rocket's core of
superheat is certainly doable, but so is using a multitude of solar
units perfectly doable if the operating realm is inside the Mars orbit,
especially effective if being anywhere near Earth, whereas
station-keeping in LL-1 is essentially solar and secondary IR ideal, or
especially going for Venus is yet another no brainer for application of
multiple solar focused units of easily applied thermal energy that
doesn't have to be hauled along for the ride nor much less having to be
launched away from Earth.
However, why not instead of hauling plain old h2o, I say instead go for
the likes of frozen or slush h2o2, or if the most of thrust capable
energy density bang per kg is necessary, then why not use the highly
reactive likes of h2o2/c3h4o (each of which can also be made as hot as
the pressure tankage or thermal processing chamber/vessel can withstand)
?
Or, why not instead of using a hefty nuclear thermal method of creating
relatively wussy steam as rocket thrust, instead use the alternative of
Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion as offering the best ISP and by far offering the
fastest format of exiting thrust?
>Jordan;
>Hydrogen (by itself) is even better for this purpose, but hydrogen is
>more difficult to store in reaction mass tanks. If you store it as a
>liquid you have to put serious energy into cooling it; if you store it
>as a gas it tends to leak through the walls of your storage tank.
I think that's also true as of terrestrial uses, whereas hydrogen (by
itself) takes considerable energy in order to have artificially
produced, initially stored, as to have transported, apply into end-use
insulated storage once again and then to utilize such isn't the least
bit cheap nor all that safe, especially if you're planning upon using it
along with Lox that's just as spendy, complex to deal with and downright
testy unless it's stored, managed and utilized with extreme care.
As long as you're so intent upon living life on the energy consuming and
thus unavoidably global polluting, and of involving such complex, risky
and on the utmost spendy side of using LH2/LO2, therefore why the heck
is good old h2o2 still getting treated as though taboo/nondisclosure?
Essentially, there's something that's dead wrong with the fundamental
basis of your mainstream thinking and thus unavoidably influencing your
actions, and it's not working because, your entire life is as
phony-baloney as our perpetrated cold-war(s) as were those Iraq WMD.
You pagan God sucks and blows because it's a god that based upon lies
and thus unavoidably arrogant and as bigoted as all get out. What
"tomcat" represents is exactly of what's terribly wrong with America,
and of where such "tomcat's" have been taking the rest of us honest
folks.
Obviously you don't get it, as well as your kind never has in the past
nor ever will. You can't be honest because you've never known honesty
to begin with. Believing in and thus promoting those NASA/Apollo lies
is what makes yourself part of that lie, and just as responsible for the
consequences. There's so many good analogies as to folks like yourself
that I could go on and on quoting example after example from the very
beginnings of recorded time. At this point, you absolutely suck and
blow every bit as did the Third Reich and of those currently in power
via your Skull and Bones approved cultism, that which clearly approves
of doing the very same if not worse things to humanity and our
environment that's currently going postal on us.
Brad Guth
> Brad is a loose cannon but he prefers it that way. It allows him to
> 'rant and rave' about Usenet and computer attacks as well as accuse
> NASA of the World's Greatest RuseSting. He can't get away from 'Lethal
> Moon' or 'Cold War Scam' either.
>
> But what has all this got to do with Steam Rockets? It was Rand
> Simberg that got all this psychological nonesense started. Probably a
> Borg attack.
tomcat,
Sorry for this corrected update:
I honestly believe that it has absolutely everything to do with "Steam
Rockets".
I'm terribly sorry but, yourself and others simply can't possibly have
an open mindset upon of much of anything if you're all continually
having to worship and/or brown-nose those nasty butts of false gods,
such as your NASA/Apollo gods and of having to accept their conditional
laws of physics along with loads of their spendy eye-popping formulated
infomercial-science that simply can't be honestly replicated. If you're
living within such a perverted cesspool of such lies upon lies, and thus
perpetuating whatever else as based upon your mindset having to support
such lies, then what's the point of even dreaming about any composite
fat-waverider or "tomcat" spaceplane that has to be just a hocus-pocus
worthy?
Here's that little something extra as contributed from "Jordan", that
I'd managed to obtain on your "Steam Rocket" behalf.
>Jordan;
>The specific impulse of steam is very low, unless it is very hot steam.
>For that purpose, it _does_ make sense as reaction mass. But that
>requires that you have a means of heating it, which means a nuclear
>reactor.
>One type of nuclear thermal rocket that will probably fly someday,
>especially for interplanetary missions, is a steam rocket. This is
>because water is common in the Solar System (mostly as ice) and because
>it can easily be stored (as ice) in tanks until needed.
Jordan's internal thermal nuclear source for a steam rocket's core of
superheat is certainly doable, but so is using a multitude (mirror
reflected) thermal resource of solar units perfectly doable if the
spacecraft/spaceplane operating realm is inside the Mars orbit, and
that's going to be especially effective if operating anywhere near
Earth, whereas station-keeping in LL-1 is getting essentially solar and
secondary IR ideal, or especially if going for Venus is yet another no
brainer for the application of multiple solar focused units of easily
applied thermal energy that doesn't have to be hauled along for the ride
nor much less having to be launched away from Earth.
However, why not instead of hauling whatever supply of plain old h2o, I
say instead go for the likes of frozen or slush h2o2, or if the most of
thrust capable energy density bang per kg is necessary, then why not use
the highly reactive likes of h2o2/c3h4o (each of which can also be made
as hot as the pressure tankage or thermal processing chamber/vessel can
withstand) ?
Or, why not instead of using a hefty nuclear thermal method of creating
relatively wussy steam as rocket thrust, instead use the alternative of
Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion as offering the best of ISP and by far offering the
fastest format of exiting thrust?
>Jordan;
>Hydrogen (by itself) is even better for this purpose, but hydrogen is
>more difficult to store in reaction mass tanks. If you store it as a
>liquid you have to put serious energy into cooling it; if you store it
>as a gas it tends to leak through the walls of your storage tank.
I think that's also true as of terrestrial uses, whereas hydrogen (by
itself) takes considerable energy in order to have artificially
produced, initially stored, as well as to having transported, then
applied into end-use insulated storage once again and then to utilize
such isn't the least bit cheap nor all that safe, especially if you're
planning upon using it along with Lox that's just as spendy, complex to
deal with and downright testy unless it's stored, managed and utilized
with equally extreme care.
As long as you folks are so intent upon living life on the energy
consuming and thus unavoidably global polluting edge, and of those
applied efforts involving such complex, risky and on the utmost spendy
side of using LH2/LO2, therefore why the heck is good old h2o2 still
getting treated as though taboo/nondisclosure?
Essentially, there's something that's entirely dead wrong with the
fundamental basis of your mainstream thinking, and thus unavoidably
influencing your actions, and I do believe it's not working because,
your entire life has been as phony-baloney as were our perpetrated
cold-war(s) and as were those Iraq WMD. Your pagan God sucks and blows
because it's a god that's based upon lies and thus becomes unavoidably
arrogant and as bigoted as all get out. What "tomcat" represents is
exactly of what's terribly wrong with America, and of where such
"tomcat's" have been taking the rest of us honest folks.
Obviously you folks don't get it, as well as your kind never has in the
past nor ever will. You can't be honest because you've never known
honesty to begin with. Believing in and thus promoting those
NASA/Apollo lies is what makes yourself a big part of that lie, and just
as responsible for the consequences. There's so many good analogies as
to folks like yourself that I could go on and on quoting example after
example from the very beginnings of recorded time. At this point, I say
that you and of your kind absolutely suck and blow every bit as did the
Third Reich and of those currently in power via your Skull and Bones
approved cultism, that which clearly approves of having been doing the
very same if not worse things to humanity and our environment that's
currently going postal on us.
Danny Dot
--
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0f6f7b8195a97acbfc...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> >Only a bit (a very small bit) explodes. The latent heat of evaperation
> >turn
>>the water into ice and then it slowly sublimates. Let me repeat this. If
>>you expose a bunch of liquid water to a vacuum, you end up with a bunch of
>>ice.
>
> Hot/superheated water as steam/vapor blasted out into 1e-18 bar is not
> going to recombine and turn itself into ice unless it finds shade.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong on this. On the shuttle and in Apollo we did
water dumps into the sun and got ice. Sorry, but we already this.
Danny Dot
Danny Dot
--
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org
"Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156225187.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
I agree with every word you say here.
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org
> - Jordan
>
Danny Dot
--
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e5ba71ec4d3d50709f...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>> The specific impulse of steam is very low, unless it is very hot steam.
>> For that purpose, it _does_ make sense as reaction mass. But that
>> requires that you have a means of heating it, which means a nuclear
>> reactor.
>>
>> One type of nuclear thermal rocket that will probably fly someday,
>> especially for interplanetary missions, is a steam rocket. This is
>> because water is common in the Solar System (mostly as ice) and because
>> it can easily be stored (as ice) in tanks until needed.
> Thanks for that constructive topic contribution. However, an internal
> thermal nuclear source of heat is doable, so is using a multitude of
> solar units doable if operating inside of the Mars orbit, especially if
> near Earth, station-keeping in LL-1 or going for Venus is a no brainer.
>
> Why not instead of storing plain old h2o, instead go for the likes of
> frozen or slush h2o2?
h2o2 is a MUCH better rocket fuel than water. It provides in own energy in
the rocket engine. For a water rocket you need LOTS of heat to turn the
water into steam. I want someone to look at my estimate for 100 Megawattts
for a 50K pound force engine. I think I made a mistake. I don't think the
power requiremet would be this high. But I worked the VASMIR project for a
while and it needed a big electrical source to produce power. Maybe it does
take this much power to generate thrust from water. Someone out there
please double check my math.
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org
Brad Guth
news:usMGg.23897$3l....@tornado.texas.rr.com
> You are wrong, wrong, wrong on this. On the shuttle and in Apollo we did
>water dumps into the sun and got ice. Sorry, but we already this.
Terribly sorry folks, but it seems rather unfortunate that "we" can't
seem to find the physics nor the hard-science that's replicated as to
ice in space.
Perhaps your conditional laws of physics and the subsequent
infomercial-science as to that supposed ice in space is still
top-secret/nondisclosure.
We also can't seem to find anything as to those Van Allen belt or
magnetosphere attenuation factors, of whatever's supposedly protecting
our DNA from all of that horrific solar and cosmic influx. How about an
attenuation chart for the more lethal of those radiation spectrums that
matter the most?
How much magnetosphere attenuation of gamma or that of hard-X-rays are
we talking?
2 db?
4 db?
6 db?
8 db?
12 db?
16 db?
Jordan
Brad Guth wrote:
>
> Terribly sorry folks, but it seems rather unfortunate that "we" can't
> seem to find the physics nor the hard-science that's replicated as to
> ice in space.
I have no idea what you mean by thie repeated phrase "hard-science that
is replicated," but as you can plainly see from massive quantities of
photos taken from orbiting spacecraft, dumped water turns into ice
crystals which then drift along with the spaceship. In the first
series of Mercury flights, the astronauts didn't know what these
crystals were; eventually they realized that they were their own dumped
urine, freezing in the void and following them like a little piss
constellation :D
> We also can't seem to find anything as to those Van Allen belt or
> magnetosphere attenuation factors, of whatever's supposedly protecting
> our DNA from all of that horrific solar and cosmic influx. How about an
> attenuation chart for the more lethal of those radiation spectrums that
> matter the most?
>
> How much magnetosphere attenuation of gamma or that of hard-X-rays are
> we talking?
> 2 db?
> 4 db?
> 6 db?
> 8 db?
> 12 db?
> 16 db?
0, whatever. Magnetic fields have NO EFFECT on neutral particles.
Gamma and X-rays are _photons_, which are _neutral particles_. Sheesh!
This is VERY BASIC physics.
How does the Earth's magnetosphere protect it from solar storms, then?
Because the magnetosphere deflects _charged particles_, which the Sun
emits in very great amounts.
What protects the Earth from solar x-rays and gamma-rays, then? The
Earth's _atmosphere_, but fortunately the Sun produces relatively
little x-rays and gamma rays. Most of the Sun's energy is in the form
of light, with the peak in the yellow part of the spectrum, which is
why the Sun is a YELLOW main sequence star.
Why can sunlight burn you, then? Because the Sun _does_ produce
signfiicant amounts of _ultraviolet_ radiation (aka "actnic
radiation.") These photons are too weak to knock nuclear particles out
of atoms, which is why they cannot produce secondary radioactivity.
But they are perfectly capable of knocking electrons around, enough to
damage your skin cells.
This is not some magic special NASA physics, this is basic physics and
you can find it in any high school level textbook. Heck, some of this
was in my _junior_ high school textbooks!
- Jordan
- Jordan
Monte Davis
>This is not some magic special NASA physics, this is basic physics and
>you can find it in any high school level textbook.
That's right, I can. So I don't need to read USENet for it.
Your self-esteem may require these daily doses of "I'm cleverer than
Brad," but I'm sure it will work without me.
<plonk>