GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy

Jay Windley wrote:

The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
literature.

And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
up with there were landings but they were unmanned.

"Ami A. Silberman" wrote in message ...
Jay Windley wrote:

The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
literature.

And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
up with there were landings but they were unmanned.


Yes I can, as I never stipulated those weren't crash landings,
somewhat like we have to do today with just about anything we send off
to Mars, even though Mars offers a wee bit of atmosphere that should
give options, though the crash and bounce until everything comes to a
halt seems to be the best we can accomplish.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

"DrPostman" wrote in message
...


You incredible idiot, do you have a better method than using airbags,
which has so far been the most successful way of landing on Mars?

Really? One success is more successful than two rocket/parachute landings?

Nice to know.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:29:20 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"DrPostman" wrote in message
.. .


You incredible idiot, do you have a better method than using airbags,
which has so far been the most successful way of landing on Mars?

Really? One success is more successful than two rocket/parachute landings?

Nice to know.


From what I have heard it seems to be the favorite way of looking at
landing. Perhaps not the most prevalent, but one of the favorites.




--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

(Brad Guth) wrote in message . com...
"Ami A. Silberman" wrote in message ...
Jay Windley wrote:

The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
literature.

And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
up with there were landings but they were unmanned.


Yes I can, as I never stipulated those weren't crash landings,

So you're saying we haven't landed on the Moon, just crashed on it?
If so, that is incorrect - see below. If that's not what you meant,
please clarify.

somewhat like we have to do today with just about anything we send off
to Mars, even though Mars offers a wee bit of atmosphere that should
give options, though the crash and bounce until everything comes to a
halt seems to be the best we can accomplish.

Factually incorrect. We have accomplished one airbag landing of a
space probe. We have landed numerous probes in the conventional way
with rockets (sometimes combined with parachutes). For example:

- Venus - Venera 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; Vega 2
- Moon - Luna 9, 13, 16*, 17, 20*, 21, 24*; Surveyor 1, 3, 5, 6, 7;
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17
- Mars - Viking 1, 2
* - sample return successful

There have been numerous failures, but they have been due to a wide
range of reasons. The fact is that to date we have about two dozen
successful unmanned soft landings and one airbag landing. Airbag
landings are a clever solution, and seem to work quite well in our
limited experience, but the vast bulk of landings on other celestial
bodies have been made by rocket soft landers. Anyway, the single
airbag success to date is irrelevant to your apparent premise that
successful Lunar landings did not take place.

BTW, Vega 1 and 2 both release balloons which successfully floated
around over Venus for a short time. Thought you would like that,
given your talk of airships on Venus...

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brad Guth) wrote:

Instead of your critiquing for the purely unadulterated sake of your
always be right criteria, just try for once to suppose someone other
needed your ideas along with a little further information or
consideration on the "what if" aspects of a relatively tiny percentage
of a certain location on Venus that's otherwise loaded with purely
natural formations as surrounding what is otherwise far more likely
artificial than not, be these of patterns entirely unusual and
otherwise entirely unrecorded as of existing anywhere other as being
so natural (including Earth).

Try writing fewer run-on, content-free sentences. Better yet, just stop
spewing your insanity. Really, check your medication dosages. They are
clearly too low.

I'll have to ask; Have you no shame, no moral responsibility, no worth
as a human?

Sorry about that, I couldn't resist because, you're all speaking of
Venus as though there has never been nor will there ever be life as
you know it existing on Venus. Otherwise, I do like very much your
inference that, where there's a will there's a way of doing just about
anything.

I already stipulated that "there's other life NOT as we know it on
Venus", or at least the biggest ever remains discovered of
pre-greenhouse life: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

I've recently indicated upon the notion of our establishing
interplanetary communications, along with lots of numbers and
alternate ideas that should work:
http://guthvenus.tripod.laser-call-01.htm

I've just introduced the notion of establishing the lunar/moon L1.1
space elevator, thereby a moon-dirt depot and possibly even a new ISS
outpost within the massive CM:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm

There now, I've offered three perfectly good sentences, posting three
perfectly good discoveries and/or village idiot ideas that are moon
dirt cheap and a whole lot safer than anything you've got to offer,
unless flak is valuable, as in that case I'm broke, as in flat out of
warm and fuzzy ammo, though I'll gladly gather up whatever flak comes
my way and subsequently return the favor.

BTW; there's lots of natural (green renewable) energy already esisting
on Venus, as within the pressure differentials of 4+bar/km and of the
likely 10 degrees K/km of the near surface nighttime, especially of
elevated territories.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

Just like you've stipulated, we've accomplished various landings, all
over the solar system (100 fold more complicated than our re-doing
anything lunar), including a few robotic probes that mostly crashed
into our moon (rather odd there's nothing interactive remaining on the
moon, nor of any subsequent highly worthwhile SAR aperture receiving
module established. Though by far unmanned landings are sufficiently
documented with all the correct numbers that seem to add up to
supporting every step of the way. Too bad that still can't be said of
those Apollo landings.
Http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm


Here is another means to an end (actually several means), including
the salvage of Hubble along with the task of getting ourselves to/from
and of surviving places like Venus L2 and even Mars.

Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS situated within the CM

Lunar Space Elevator Linear Tether Considerations (CM @1^9 kg):
363,300 km, ME-L1 = 58,128 km, L1.1 = 63,941 km (-1738 km = 62,203 km)
405,500 km, ME-L1 = 64,880 km, L1.1 = 71,368 km (-1738 km = 69,630 km)

Not that I'm telling anyone what they shouldn't already know, such as
about dealing with space radiation is where I've learned from others
(including NASA) of what to expect at Earth L2, within the Van Allen
zone and of a couple of altitudes below or in between the Van Allen
zone and the surface of Earth. What's oddly missing is any concise
definition of what Earth L4/L5 have to offer and thereby of what the
lunar surface is like. Even clear information of what's to be expected
at ES-L1 seems to have become a secret because, of what there is to be
found simply doesn't compute for what those Apollo missions endured by
any long shot.

Of course, if you have something measured and/or calculated of Earth
L4/L5, for the solar maximum year and/or for the solar minimum year,
that's exactly what we all need to learn about, so that others or at
least that I can estimate what to expect at Venus L2, where I believe
the space environment of VL2 or VE-L2 is worth knowing, since even a
robotic mission such as a TRACE-II would need to be designed for the
radiation environment, as it's highly unlikely that the sun is going
to represent a purely UV--IR source of energy, such as during those
extremely lucky Apollo missions and, even though the VL2 position is
roughly 90% shaded by Venus itself, there's still a good deal of solar
influx/weather that'll represent a whole lot more Sv dosage than any
human expedition can tolerate within the existing ISS shield
capabilities, especially if that's having to be based upon a 2 year
mission.

This radiation tit for tat is where the idea of affordably obtaining
tonnes of that nifty clumping moon dirt comes in real handy. Since we
can launch a manned mission, if need be in stages and assembled
somewhat like ISS. The only stumbling block is the issue of our having
to launch sufficient mass that'll surround the likes of yourself with
good enough density that'll effectively shield those onboard from the
worst the sun has to offer, not to mention whatever the galaxy has to
offer. Unfortunately, besides the rather enormous cost per tonne
delivered, the side effect of launching that amount of mass is the
resulting deposit of artificially created CO2 for the rest of us back
here on Earth, where this being from what I've learned that the
overall process of creating such mass and of having to launch along
with sufficient energy for a interplanetary mission could represent a
100 fold creation of CO2, which is a darn good thing if it were for a
planet like Mars that may need to be warmed up and simply didn't care
about further CO2 pollution but, for Earth that another confirmed "no
no".

Since I've found some references to the EL5 environment in need of as
much as 1000 g/cm2 and, I've located information upon the Earth L2
environment and of what certain densities of shielding accomplish, as
such I've interpreted and/or extrapolated upon what the EL5 radiation
environment must be. Again, if there were a concise set of radiation
tables and of sources other than just the cold-war NASA moderated
verity, then I'd not have had to bother the wizardly likes of
http://clavius.org which no matters what can't stray from their
pretentious cold-war outcome of those Apollo missions.

As another means to an end, for the prospect of accommodating a depot
of moon dirt situated in a nearly Zero-G environment seemed too good
to pass up. The idea of constructing a lunar based space elevator even
seems entirely possible, especially if the likes of those claiming any
Earth based (EM-L1) space elevator should be accomplish, as there's no
freaking contest in the fact that a lunar based elevator will become a
whole lot simpler and, that it could be accomplished within the
current level of expertise and by way of existing materials
application technology. The idea of having another ISS configured
within the massive lunar space elevator CM depot is yet another win
win for all sorts of things.

I've proposed a number of my village idiot ideas and benefits
associated with having a moon-dirt depot situated at ME-L1.1 (LL1.1),
and as usual, all I've gotten in return is either their black-hole
voids of nothingness or loads of sanctimonious flak instead of other
ideas or specific numbers, as God forbid, should some of our crack
space wizards actually stipulate upon anything specific that might end
their career that was probably phony to begin with. The following page
is simply an ongoing build, receiving corrections as well as whatever
feedback that can be put to the test (your input is welcome);
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm

If you don't know what works but otherwise seem to know for a fact
what doesn't work, then that's the sort of information we need, as
either way this moon space elevator is a doable thing, especially as
compared to accomplishing any Earth based space elevator and/or of our
going to/from any frozen and irradiated to death planet such as Mars.

BTW; I'm all for saving the butts of those Hubble huggers (I'd even
pay or it out of my own pocket), though if only I could think of
something morally worthy for such a fine instrument and of supposedly
such qualified souls to be focused upon, such as a nighttime side of a
certain planet that just might be capable of artificially illuminating
portions of their otherwise pitch black though sufficiently
transparent nighttime clouds. But gee whiz folks, I guess I can't
think of a single god damn worthy thing for that otherwise
horrifically spendy instrument that'll soon make for another terrific
display as it burns itself up upon reentry (I guess it'll be good
riddance to a source of such terrific images of places humans will
never obtain an ounce nor a gram of worth in a thousand generations).

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

"Ami A. Silberman" wrote in message ...
Jay Windley wrote:

The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
literature.

And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
up with there were landings but they were unmanned.

Yes you can.

Robotic landings are possible, even with some dumb luck those Apollo
landings could have been robotic, though if anything went horribly
wrong there wouldn't have been any information nor images that weren't
entirely moderated by NASA.

Just like you and others have stipulated, we've accomplished various
landings, all over the solar system (100 fold more complicated than
our re-doing anything lunar), including a few robotic probes that
mostly crashed into our moon (rather odd there's nothing interactive
remaining on the moon, nor of any subsequent highly worthwhile SAR
aperture receiving module established. Though by far unmanned landings
are sufficiently documented with all the correct numbers that seem to
add up to supporting every step of the way. Too bad that still can't
be said of those Apollo landings.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| Not that I'm telling anyone what they shouldn't already know,
| such as about dealing with space radiation is where I've
| learned from others (including NASA) of what to expect at
| Earth L2 ...

No, you haven't learned anything. And you resist the concerted efforts of
people to correct you.

And besides, you only learn the bare minimum -- or what you take to be the
bare minimum. What assurance do you have that your bare minimum standard is
sufficient to achieve correct understanding?

| ... what there is to be found simply doesn't compute for what
| those Apollo missions endured by any long shot.

But even though you admit to being the "village idiot," you don't for a
second examine any of your prior work to see whether an error in that -- and
not some insubstantial conspiracy -- might be the cause of the discrepancy
you believe exists.

| I'd not have had to bother the wizardly likes of
| http://clavius.org which no matters what can't stray from their
| pretentious cold-war outcome of those Apollo missions.

You seem to be the only person who has a hard time learning anything at our
web site.

Instead of sticking to the questions I ask you, you instead keep rambling on
about your various wacky theories and thereby persist in dodging those
questions. Your replies consist mostly of evasion, name-calling,
misrepresentation, and pleas to "agree to disagree."

If you really plan to give up, as you said you had, then it shouldn't be too
hard for you to say, in so many words: "I admit I have no substantiation
for my claim that the Apollo missions did not succeed as advertised."

How about it?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| Though by far unmanned landings are sufficiently documented
| with all the correct numbers that seem to add up to supporting
| every step of the way. Too bad that still can't be said of those
| Apollo landings.

Of course it can. You have been provided with the name, address, and
telephone number of the official responsible for those records, whose duty
is to provide it to those who need it. You have been provided with
commercial sources of the information to satisfy your criteria.

Unfortunately instead of evaluating that evidence and accommodating it into
your theories, you perform an ad hoc refinement of your standards. What you
claim didn't exist is shown to exist (or rather, you are shown how to prove
its existence for yourself), so you now say that something *else* is
required in order to refute yuour claim, and now *that* new thing isn't
available or doesn't exist. All this without lifting a figure to examine
the evidence itself.

That's consummate crackpottery. You obviously aren't intersted in knowing
the truth. You are only interested in creating the illusion that there is
something fishy. Your changing standards, your unwillingness to follow up
sources that may contradict you, and your general ignorance of the equipment
involved is ample evidence of that. So having made these observations, why
should anyone take you seriously? And if you have no justification for
being taken seriously, why do you continue to hose Usenet with URLs
outlining your ignorance in detail?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org