Brad Guth wrote:
: Get rid of all the unessential mass,
There _was_ no "unessential" mass. It had to be lifted all the way
from Earth and that costs ****loads of fuel for every ounce, remember?
Absolute horsepucky on a stick, as there was sufficient outfitting and
payload tonnage (including the rather excessive amount of fuel that
needn't be included for their terrestrial prototype fly-by-rocket
proof-testing. If need be a more powerful main thrust engine and
hauling only enough fuel for a few minutes instead of an entire deorbit
and extended down-range requirement.

Assuming that's actually true (and I'd like you to go through the LLM
design and show exactly what should be left out resulting in 1/6th the
original mass and still be flyable), then you have something that will
not fly the same as the fully-configured lander. No point in practicing
on it, which is what the LLTV/LLRVs were for.
: Or, no onboard pilot at all, just a wired and/or
: radio remote controlled fly-by-rocket prototype lander.
Which removes the intimacy of practicing on the actual hardware.
Remember that the attitude control system's feedback loop went through
the pilot.
The remote fly-by-wire and/or AI/robotic flight capability of our
prototype landers was 100% doable, and way more reliable than any
fly-by-butt interface that could only have managed if there were
sufficiently powerful momentum reaction wheels involved (of which there
were none). After all, those smarter Russians had supposedly
accomplished that much, and then some, or didn't they? (not
surprisingly, there's nothing of any Russian prototype fly-by-rocket
landers either, and we currently have somewhat of an X-prize that's
ongoing for the very first of a demonstrated prototype that'll prove
itself without demonstrating how to impact and terminate the crew.

: So why do your actions and those of so many other Usenet lords and
: wizards (including those Democrat Jews) remain in full support of that
: absolute *******?
I call you on your bull**** and you accuse me of supporting The Man.
Which bunch of *******s are you supporting by distracting us from them
with your bull****?
A mainstream status quo bystander (such as yourself) that's within the
audience of a given perpetrated fiasco is every bit as guilty as the
ones you're getting so much personal enjoyment if not wealth out of
watching, and I do think within at least some civilized states there's
even constitutionally accepted laws on the books that are being enforced
to that affect.

: How many loyal/insider follers and brown-nosed minions as
: official butt-wipes did the likes of Hitler have to have?
Thousands, many of which yelled as loud as they could at Nuremburg in
hopes of not being hanged for ex post facto whistleblowing. Besides,
that's not a good comparison, because:
But there hasn't been any such "Nuremburg" trials for what our kind have
recently done. When if ever are you folks planning on putting our
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) on trial for similar crimes against
humanity?

The Nazis had nothing to gain and everything to lose by
whistleblowing _before_ Nuremburg. The opposite is true ever since
the Apollo program began; prove it was a fake with inside data and
get instant wealth and fame.
I've more than done just that, except I'm still a rather poor soul
and/or under-funded mad scientist.

Doesn't matter; if you're right the evidence has been right in
front of them every day from day one, and NOBODY took advantage
of it?
It actually does matter a great deal, however you're denial is just too
deeply sequestered in a bigotry cesspool of unlimited denial, whereas
that's the only part that's apparent which "doesn't matter" within your
NASA/Apollo koran of lies upon lies until each and every one of them
NASA/Apollo cows come home.

: When did I ever mention that we weren't doing everything we could in
: order to walk on that physically dark, salty and otherwise nasty moon
: of ours?
Yet you claim the known hardware wasn't up to the task even while you
display your total lack of familiarity with it.
Prove otherwise, as in put-up or shut-up. You're the one sayting the
moon is entirely passive as a guano island, as well as xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated and also saying that a nearly 30% inert GLOW
massive rocket was good for a two-way ticket to ride.

Why don't you tell us what kind of hardware _is_ necessary to get
the job done? Please avoid any "infomercial, conditional science".
NASA has essentially already demonstrated as to their one-way ticket to
ride requirements per payload kg that gets into lunar orbit, as having
transpired with much newer and improved rockets (meaning as having far
less inert GLOW to deal with) ever since their hocus-pocus Apollo era,
as well ESA and soon enough China will be doing just that.

And where do you get this "salty moon" crap?
Essentially from NASA certified links to external research that was
publicly funded; where else?

Why is there no reflectance spectroscopic data revealing salt on Luna?
Why are you such a born-again certified (AKA dumbfounded) liar, or is
being downright stupid your norm?

You ever stop to think what any proportion of salt in the regolith
would do to Luna's albedo?
Most certainly I do. Carbon/sooty salt isn't very reflective,
especially if having been mostly covered in those tens of meters deep
layers of fluffy and highly electrostatic dust.

: Double Extra Duh! I'm sorry but, you've got to be kidding, as in
: "chapel bell" S-band transponder kidding as all get out. That's
: nothing but hocus-pocus-101, especially if our Apollo missions were
: in fact headed to/from LL-1, as that much I could buy into.
No, I'm dead serious. They had no loyalty to any US agency or
individuals, and have found plenty of motivation to embarass the US
since then. You'd think at least one of them would take advantage.
Money and of those extremely valuable retirement benefits talks really
good, and otherwise by way of that absolutely lethal nondisclosure
agreement they each had to sign with their own blood is more than
sufficient incentive for keeping their mouth as well as their butt-cheek
brains shut as tightly as needed, or else. Spilling whatever beans
(though I don't know why any upside-down Australian would have had any
beans to spill, would only represent instant death to that individual
and of any close family and associates that might impose further risk.
However, as I'd said, money usually talks, though a bullet to your head
or of whatever else accomplishes the task of nullifying a given threat
would be a whole lot cheaper and of much better insurance if there's any
remaining doubt.

: Jews still insist they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
: getting and/or having allowed Jesus Christ (clearly one of their own
: kind) for having gotten put on that stick,
Bull****. Cite or retract.
No retract, at least not until I learn otherwise. There were those
mostly nice Romans, and then there were all of those collaborating Roman
Jews that were seriously ****ed off at one of their own kind. Go
figure.

: and the Pope really doesn't want to discuss those nice Cathars.
Popes are warlords in dresses, **** 'em all. Don't get me started.
Good for you. Kick another Pope butt on my behalf.

: How about those US Mexican wars,
They lost, we won. So what? **** the Mexican Permanent Kleptocratic
government (the direct descendant of the Catholic Spanish government of
Conquistador days) too.
Fair/moral fight? (I think not!)

: or that of our 7 failed efforts at TAKING Cuba by force?
I only know of five, all of which AFAICT were deliberately designed
to fail spectacularly. That they were kept from being spectacles merely
indicates interagency infighting in DC. What else is new?
The norm of incest cloned LLPOF politics isn't new, nor was our mutually
perpetrated cold-war or that of our MI/NSA hocus-pocus of those
NASA/Apollo missions.

: Prior to 911, How many personal letters or that of whatever other
: serious communications from Usama bin Laden did our resident LLPOF(GW
: Bush) and of those other pricks before his personally corrupt
: administration (like his own father), manage to disregard?
Prolly as many as Billary Clinton did. So what?
You mean "so what's the difference", as being within your status quo or
bust mindset.

BTW I'd like somebody to explain why a law prohibiting nice, neat,
low-risk assassinations of foreign leaders is a good idea.
We've been there and at least attempted to do just that. We're just not
very good at doing such things in the most effective manner unless
there's something like oil or some other energy reserves involved,
although even that much of an incentive as of lately has been nothing
but a sorry butt load of collateral damage and blood-bath carnage of the
innocent, at thus far costing us 10+ trillions and counting, with no
apparent end in sight.

Dr. HotSalt and Mark L. Fergerson,
Why are we constructing that multi-hundred million if not multi-billion
dollar 104 acre fantasy world/fortress of ours within Iraq?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG