Brad Guth's Credentials

You've GOT to be kidding! lol. Is F=ma worn out too? hahaha...

This has GOT to be a joke. Really.

A disinformation tactic!? Those who know laugh, those who don't know
are confused or they actually believe the bull****.

sigh

ROCKET EQUATON

Figure out how fast a rocket stage will go knowing only the exhaust
speed of the rocket and the fraction of propellant.

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) is still useful, despite your asinine
bull**** here.

Vf = final velocity of a rocket propelled projectile
Ve = exhaust velocity of the gases coming out of the engine
LN(..) = natural logarithm (base 'e')
u = propellant fractoin (a number between 0 (empty) and 1 (all
propellant)

Typical numbers;

ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

THRUST CALCULATION

F = mdot * Ve

F = thrust (Newtons)
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity


POWER CALCULATION

P = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2

Power = watts
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity

FRACTIONS


1 = p + s + u

p = payload
s = structure
u = propellant

Typical values for s range from 0.08 to 0.22 depending on details like
thermal protection systems, and so forth.

THRUST TO WEIGHT

The thrust to weight of a typical chemical rocket is around 70 to 1.
That is for each pound or kg of mass you have 70 pounds or kgs of
thrust. But nuclear thermal rockets have a thrust to weight of about
20 to 1 at best. And nuclear pulse rockets like Orion are likely to
have a 5 to 1 thrust to weight. Ion rockets have 1/10,000 to 1 - they
cannot lift off earth. Fusion pulse rockets that have high performance
have very high captue of reaction products which means a very large
thrust structure, so they are likely not to have high thrust to weight.
Since no one has built these systems before there is a disagreement
about what they might achieve. Studies with thrust to weight from 2 to
1 down to 1/3 to 1 have been produced. The 2 to 1 can be used on
Earth. The 1/3 to 1 cannot, but can be used on the moon and mars.

wrote:
You've GOT to be kidding! lol. Is F=ma worn out too? hahaha...

This has GOT to be a joke. Really.

A disinformation tactic!? Those who know laugh, those who don't know
are confused or they actually believe the bull****.

sigh

ROCKET EQUATON

Figure out how fast a rocket stage will go knowing only the exhaust
speed of the rocket and the fraction of propellant.

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) is still useful, despite your asinine
bull**** here.

Vf = final velocity of a rocket propelled projectile
Ve = exhaust velocity of the gases coming out of the engine
LN(..) = natural logarithm (base 'e')
u = propellant fractoin (a number between 0 (empty) and 1 (all
propellant)

Typical numbers;

ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

THRUST CALCULATION

F = mdot * Ve

F = thrust (Newtons)
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity


POWER CALCULATION

P = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2

Power = watts
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity

FRACTIONS


1 = p + s + u

p = payload
s = structure
u = propellant

Typical values for s range from 0.08 to 0.22 depending on details like
thermal protection systems, and so forth.

THRUST TO WEIGHT

The thrust to weight of a typical chemical rocket is around 70 to 1.
That is for each pound or kg of mass you have 70 pounds or kgs of
thrust. But nuclear thermal rockets have a thrust to weight of about
20 to 1 at best. And nuclear pulse rockets like Orion are likely to
have a 5 to 1 thrust to weight. Ion rockets have 1/10,000 to 1 - they
cannot lift off earth. Fusion pulse rockets that have high performance
have very high captue of reaction products which means a very large
thrust structure, so they are likely not to have high thrust to weight.
Since no one has built these systems before there is a disagreement
about what they might achieve. Studies with thrust to weight from 2 to
1 down to 1/3 to 1 have been produced. The 2 to 1 can be used on
Earth. The 1/3 to 1 cannot, but can be used on the moon and mars.

Dear William Mook,
How totally pathetic, and how otherwise typically Jewish and Third
Reich collaborating of yourself.

Good grief, since we can't possibly get ourselves safely onto the moon
or much less that of mars is why that 1/3 to 1 argument is so
absolutely pathetic beyond any fly-by-rocket joke that can be imagined.
Going one-way via nuclear is however doable, and as such should be
applied.

Apparently a Mook moon intended rocket can be made of iron, as having a
inert GLOW of nearly 30% and still get it's 50+t payload past LL-1 in
hardly any time at all. Too bad your rocket-science can't be
replicated since nothing that's considerably newer and way better can't
seem to manage 80:1 (total rocket/payload ratio) for so much as a
one-way GSO ticket to ride, much less 60:1 for accomplishing such a
quick two-way ticket to/from our moon.

There's no question that your nuclear pumped rocket will accomplish the
task with energy and payloads to spare. However, that previously
mentioned 70:1 ratio is still rather pathetic if having to include each
of the multi-stage inert mass that has to go along for the ride,
whereas some of that liftoff and in route mass has to include spare
retrothrust fuel tonnage plus even a few unavoidable tones that simply
can't ever be fully utilized.

The only liquified rocket fuel, that we honestly know of, which offers
sufficient octane and thus the best possible fuel density and thus best
ISP is somewhat limited to that of your intellectual flatulence.
Therefore, gong fully nuclear is in fact a good solution that needs to
get accomplished before be run ourselves out of terrestrial energy
alternatives to the point where we can't even pull off a good WW-IV.
ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

What's nearly frozen/slush as 98% h2o2 along with c3h4o worth?
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
wrote:
You've GOT to be kidding! lol. Is F=ma worn out too? hahaha...

This has GOT to be a joke. Really.

A disinformation tactic!? Those who know laugh, those who don't know
are confused or they actually believe the bull****.

sigh

ROCKET EQUATON

Figure out how fast a rocket stage will go knowing only the exhaust
speed of the rocket and the fraction of propellant.

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) is still useful, despite your asinine
bull**** here.

Vf = final velocity of a rocket propelled projectile
Ve = exhaust velocity of the gases coming out of the engine
LN(..) = natural logarithm (base 'e')
u = propellant fractoin (a number between 0 (empty) and 1 (all
propellant)

Typical numbers;

ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

THRUST CALCULATION

F = mdot * Ve

F = thrust (Newtons)
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity


POWER CALCULATION

P = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2

Power = watts
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity

FRACTIONS


1 = p + s + u

p = payload
s = structure
u = propellant

Typical values for s range from 0.08 to 0.22 depending on details like
thermal protection systems, and so forth.

THRUST TO WEIGHT

The thrust to weight of a typical chemical rocket is around 70 to 1.
That is for each pound or kg of mass you have 70 pounds or kgs of
thrust. But nuclear thermal rockets have a thrust to weight of about
20 to 1 at best. And nuclear pulse rockets like Orion are likely to
have a 5 to 1 thrust to weight. Ion rockets have 1/10,000 to 1 - they
cannot lift off earth. Fusion pulse rockets that have high performance
have very high captue of reaction products which means a very large
thrust structure, so they are likely not to have high thrust to weight.
Since no one has built these systems before there is a disagreement
about what they might achieve. Studies with thrust to weight from 2 to
1 down to 1/3 to 1 have been produced. The 2 to 1 can be used on
Earth. The 1/3 to 1 cannot, but can be used on the moon and mars.

Dear William Mook,
How totally pathetic, and how otherwise typically Jewish and Third
Reich collaborating of yourself.


You are MAD Guthball, literally LOONEY TUNES to say **** like this.
lol.

Good grief, since we can't possibly get ourselves safely onto the moon

Dude, the US sent astronauts to the moon from 1968 through 1972. It
was in all the papers. Where were you? lol.

Your baseless assertion that we couldn't get to the moon with the
Saturn V moon rocket is another form of madness. Its quite easy to
show using the rocket equation and the published performance figures of
each stage, how the trip was carried out.

I've gone through all this for you before. Every step. And showed not
only was it possible to send folks to the moon using the Saturn V, but
that the Saturn V was OPTIMAL for the task. Which isn't surprising
given the amount of money spent on it.


or much less that of mars is why that 1/3 to 1 argument is so
absolutely pathetic beyond any fly-by-rocket joke that can be imagined.

Dude, get a copy of Werner vonBraun's MARS PROJECT published back in
1952 and 1953 - which details how to send a fleet of vehicles to Mars.
The only difficulty we face as a nation and as a world, is our lack of
willingness to spend $500 billion on a project of this magnitude, even
while we spend $5,000 billion on preparations for war each decade.

Jack Kennedy had a vision that America could forge a new relationship
in the world, one where space exploraiton would become the moral
equivalent of war, and people and nations would compete with one
another to develop the solar system - just as European nations competed
in the great age of exploration to develop the Americas and points
West. He was assasinated in Dallas, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara
dismantled his ambitious program. Following that, Mr. Nixon pulled the
plug following the successful moon landings - grounding a half-dozen
Saturn Vs already in the production line, at more cost than flying them
off would have cost. Why? Because he wanted to focus on the Space
Shuttle - as his contribution to history, and Apollo was too strongly
associated with Kennedy and the Democrats. And because Apollo 13
raised the very sticky issue of astronaut safety far from Earth orbit.


Going one-way via nuclear is however doable, and as such should be
applied.

vonBraun who was a rocket scientist of the first order, you are not.
vonBraun showed in 1952 how to go to mars with all chemical rocket
boosters. Your comments notwithstanding.

At today's prices, this large scale program envisioned by vonBraun
would cost on the order of $500 billion - and take 5 years if done as
ambitously as he envisioned.

To lower these costs Kennedy authorized the adaptation of the
military's old Rover program into NASA's Nerva program, along with
transferring the F1 engine program of the army, to NASA to form the
basis of Saturn and Nova rockets. A Nova rocket combined with a
nuclear thermal upper stage, can do a Mars flight without a space
station or assembling a large fleet on orbit.

At its most ambitious, NASA's mars program involved sending three Nova
launched nuclear thermal rocket powered spacecraft each carrying a
dozen astronauts, to Mars.

These programs and projects were curtailed by Johnson following
Kennedy's assasination in 1963, and in 1964 the money saved was given
to helicopter production and expansion of the Vietnam conflict.


Apparently a Mook moon intended rocket can be made of iron, as having a
inert GLOW of nearly 30% and still get it's 50+t payload past LL-1 in
hardly any time at all.

What the hell are you ranting about? lol. The structural fraction of
the Saturn V are well published, and I've reproduced them here for you
- and even took you step by step through the analysis of the
performance of each, and combined performance of the whole system.


Too bad your rocket-science can't be
replicated

??? What the heck are you talking about? lol

since nothing that's considerably newer and way better can't
seem to manage 80:1 (total rocket/payload ratio) for so much as a
one-way GSO ticket to ride, much less 60:1 for accomplishing such a
quick two-way ticket to/from our moon

Again, what the hell are you talking about? You are terminally
confused on how things work in the rocket field. Too bad you attach
such deep meaning to this sort of thing while at the same time totally
clueless as to the technical details. It must be hell being you! lol.
..

There's no question that your nuclear pumped rocket will accomplish the
task with energy and payloads to spare. However, that previously
mentioned 70:1 ratio is still rather pathetic if having to include each
of the multi-stage inert mass that has to go along for the ride,

The genius of multiple staging is that the inert mass doesn't go along
for the ride. It stays behind, along with the propellant it carried.
You'd know this if you knew anything, which you don't. lol.

whereas some of that liftoff and in route mass has to include spare
retrothrust fuel tonnage plus even a few unavoidable tones that simply
can't ever be fully utilized.

Course correction capacity is well understood - not by you of course -
but it is easly provided for for both the moon mission we've completed
and the mars missions we've planned.

The only liquified rocket fuel, that we honestly know of, which offers
sufficient octane and thus the best possible fuel density and thus best
ISP is somewhat limited to that of your intellectual flatulence.

In this statement you are demonstrably wrong! lol.

Check it out;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

Size
Height 111 m (364 ft)
Diameter 10 m (33 ft)
Mass 3,038,500 kg (6,699,000 lb)
Stages 3 (2 for Skylab launch)

Capacity
Payload to LEO 118,000 kg (3-stage)
75,000 kg (2-stage)

Payload to
the Moon 47,000 kg

First Stage - S-IC
Engines 5 F-1 engines
Thrust 34.02 MN (7,648,000 lbf)
Burn time 150 s
Fuel RP-1 and liquid oxygen

Second Stage - S-II
Engines 5 J-2 engines
Thrust 5 MN (1,000,000 lbf)
Burn time 360 s
Fuel Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen

Third Stage - S-IVB
Engines 1 J-2 engine
Thrust 1 MN (225,000 lbf)
Burn time 165 + 335 s
(2 burns)
Fuel Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen

I won't go into the structural fractions, the propellant efficiencies,
and the velocities attained by each stage. But clearly, using the
rocket equation (whether worn out or not as tomass believes - haha) its
easy to show that these performances are all consistent with accepted
science and engineering principles. (aka by Guthball flatulence)

Therefore, gong fully nuclear is in fact a good solution that needs to
get accomplished before be run ourselves out of terrestrial energy

The world uses annually about 183 billion giga-joules of energy. 3
million kg of LOX/LH propellant contain 426,000 giga-joules of energy.
A nuclear rocket of the same payload capacity would use less energy for
the same payloads and missions since less propellant is needed to be
carried around. So, 426,000 giga-joules of energy is the high end.

One flight of a Saturn V every four months consumes no more than 1.28
milion giga-joules of energy per year. That's only one part in
142,968.75 - or 6.994e-6 of the total. So this subtracts essentially
NOTHING from our annual energy usage.

On the other hand the Earth's SURFACE intercepts 5,826,100 billion
giga-joules of energy per year. This is 31,836 times the amount of
energy humanity uses.

Converting available sunlight to energy at 20% efficiency implies less
surface area of Earth need be covered with solar panels in order to
supply ALL our energy needs than is currently covered by rooftops and
roadways.

So, we needn't leave the Earth to have sufficient energy, since energy
arrives at Earth from deep space everywhere the sun shines. Like Mars,
all it takes is the will to do it, and we could have a solar powered
world free of the polluting effects of oil and coal.


alternatives to the point where we can't even pull off a good WW-IV.

Lots of stupid and looney toon implications in this statement.

The first is that it takes oil and coal to run a nuclear war. No, the
bulk of the warheads and the bulk of the consumables are stockpiled and
ready to go. That's was Mutual Assured Destruction and perpetual war
footing were all about in the Cold War.

The second looney toons things in this statement is that a nuclear
conflagration would be initiated over something like energy which would
benefit the US and make it rich somehow.

Well, if you look at the data - below - you can see that even a very
limited nuclear conflict would cost the US in excess of $15,000 billion
and 20 million casualties. A larger conflict could be 5x worse in both
numbers, $75,000 bilion and 100 million casualties. Anything larger is
not sustainable even by a nation as rich and as powerful as the US.

Would the potential gain be worth it? No.

Because there's a risk a conflagration could end the US as a great
nation, and because the cost of even a limited conflict is high
compared to the cost of creating practical alternatives to oil.

Now, the US consumes about 1/4 of the world's total energy supply. So
that's 46 billion giga-joules of energy per year. This is an annual
rate of about 1.46 trillion watts. Since the sun doesn't shine all the
time you need about 2 watts of solar capacity to provide for power at
night. So, this is around 3 trillion watts. At a cost of $5.00 per
peak watt, this is less than the direct cost of the war.

When you count the indirect cost of 20 million dead you see its easily
affordable. The average US citizen has about 40 to 50 years of
productive life. Assuming the average of the 20 million killed was 25
years left in their life, that's 500 million man-years of productive
activity lost. The per capita GDP is around $35,000 per person per
year.. The value of all the labor lost of 20 million people amounts to
$17.5 trillion - more than the direct cost.

Even a limited nuclear exchange would have combined direct and indirect
costs of $32.5 trillion. That's a cost of nearly $11 per watt of solar
panel avoided. And, since even a successful war for oil would only
extend our supply of energy a short while, compared to the permanent
advantage of tapping solar energy provides, its a nonstarter for many
reasons.

A larger conflagration would be even more costly - even at $55 per watt
of solar panel the solar panels would be cheaper by far! This is 10x
the present day cost of solar panels.


So, clearly any rational person would seek to avoid war and develop
alterantives to oil like solar and others.

Oh wait! That's EXACTLY what we're doing today!

* * * *

Data on the cost of conflicts the US engaged in;

Conflict Population Enrolled Ratio
(millions) (thousands)
Revolutionary War 3.5 200.0 5.7%
War of 1812 7.6 286.0 3.8%
Mexican War 21.1 78.7 0.4%
Civil War: Union 26.2 2,803.3 10.7%
: Confederate 8.1 1,064.2 13.1%
: Combined 34.3 3,867.5 11.1%
Spanish-American War 74.6 306.8 0.4%
World War I 102.8 4,743.8 4.6%
World War II 133.5 16,353.7 12.2%
Korean War 151.7 5,764.1 3.8%
Vietnam War 204.9 8,744.0 4.3%
Gulf War 260.0 2,750.0 1.1%



------------Casualties------------
[-----Deaths---]
-----Percentages----- Duration
Conflict Enrolled Combat Other Wounded Total

Revolutionary War 200.0 4,435 * 6,188
10,623
War of 1812 286.0 2,260 * 4,505
6,765
Mexican War 78.7 1,733 11,550 4,152
17,435
Civil War: Union 2,803.3 110,070 249,458 275,175
634,703
Confederate 1,064.2 74,524 124,000 137,000 +
335,524
Combined 3,867.5 184,594 373,458 412,175 +
970,227
Spanish-American War 306.8 385 2,061 1,662
4,108
World War I 4,743.8 53,513 63,195 204,002
320,710
World War II 16,353.7 292,131 115,185 670,846
1,078,162
Korean War 5,764.1 33,651 * 103,284
136,935
Vietnam War 8,744.0 47,369 10,799 153,303
211,471
Gulf War 2,750.0 148 145 467 ^
760

Conflict Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
Current 1990s (in $1990)
The Revolution (1775-1783) .10 1.2 $ 342.86
War of 1812 (1812-1815) .09 0.7 92.11
Mexican War (1846-1848) .07 1.1 52.13
Civil War (1861-1865): Union 3.20 27.3 1,041.98
: Confederate 2.00 17.1 2,111.11
: Combined 5.20 44.4 1,294.46
Spanish American War (1898) .40 6.3 84.45
World War I (1917-1918) 26.00 196.5 1,911.47
World War II (1941-1945) 288.00 2,091.3 15,655.17
Korea (1950-1953) 54.00 263.9 1,739.62
Vietnam (1964-1972) 111.00 346.7 1,692.04
Gulf War (1990-1991) 61.00 61.1 235.00






ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

What's nearly frozen/slush as 98% h2o2 along with c3h4o worth?
-
Brad Guth

Gawd, do I want to waste another hour of my life trying to educate a
buffoon? lol. Well, anyone who ever taught a class in Calculus knows
the answer to that! lol.

Brad Guth wrote:
wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
wrote:
You've GOT to be kidding! lol. Is F=ma worn out too? hahaha...

This has GOT to be a joke. Really.

A disinformation tactic!? Those who know laugh, those who don't know
are confused or they actually believe the bull****.

sigh

ROCKET EQUATON

Figure out how fast a rocket stage will go knowing only the exhaust
speed of the rocket and the fraction of propellant.

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) is still useful, despite your asinine
bull**** here.

Vf = final velocity of a rocket propelled projectile
Ve = exhaust velocity of the gases coming out of the engine
LN(..) = natural logarithm (base 'e')
u = propellant fractoin (a number between 0 (empty) and 1 (all
propellant)

Typical numbers;

ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

THRUST CALCULATION

F = mdot * Ve

F = thrust (Newtons)
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity


POWER CALCULATION

P = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2

Power = watts
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity

FRACTIONS


1 = p + s + u

p = payload
s = structure
u = propellant

Typical values for s range from 0.08 to 0.22 depending on details like
thermal protection systems, and so forth.

THRUST TO WEIGHT

The thrust to weight of a typical chemical rocket is around 70 to 1.
That is for each pound or kg of mass you have 70 pounds or kgs of
thrust. But nuclear thermal rockets have a thrust to weight of about
20 to 1 at best. And nuclear pulse rockets like Orion are likely to
have a 5 to 1 thrust to weight. Ion rockets have 1/10,000 to 1 - they
cannot lift off earth. Fusion pulse rockets that have high performance
have very high captue of reaction products which means a very large
thrust structure, so they are likely not to have high thrust to weight.
Since no one has built these systems before there is a disagreement
about what they might achieve. Studies with thrust to weight from 2 to
1 down to 1/3 to 1 have been produced. The 2 to 1 can be used on
Earth. The 1/3 to 1 cannot, but can be used on the moon and mars.

Dear William Mook,
How totally pathetic, and how otherwise typically Jewish and Third
Reich collaborating of yourself.


You are MAD Guthball, literally LOONEY TUNES to say **** like this.
lol.

Good grief, since we can't possibly get ourselves safely onto the moon

Dude, the US sent astronauts to the moon from 1968 through 1972. It
was in all the papers. Where were you? lol.

Up until 7 years ago, I too was 100% snookered and summarily
dumbfounded just like yourself.


You mean you had your breakdown 7 years ago.


Your baseless assertion that we couldn't get to the moon with the
Saturn V moon rocket is another form of madness. Its quite easy to
show using the rocket equation and the published performance figures of
each stage, how the trip was carried out.

I've gone through all this for you before. Every step. And showed not
only was it possible to send folks to the moon using the Saturn V, but
that the Saturn V was OPTIMAL for the task. Which isn't surprising
given the amount of money spent on it.


or much less that of mars is why that 1/3 to 1 argument is so
absolutely pathetic beyond any fly-by-rocket joke that can be imagined.

Dude, get a copy of Werner vonBraun's MARS PROJECT published back in
1952 and 1953 - which details how to send a fleet of vehicles to Mars.
The only difficulty we face as a nation and as a world, is our lack of
willingness to spend $500 billion on a project of this magnitude, even
while we spend $5,000 billion on preparations for war each decade.

Jack Kennedy had a vision that America could forge a new relationship
in the world, one where space exploraiton would become the moral
equivalent of war, and people and nations would compete with one
another to develop the solar system - just as European nations competed
in the great age of exploration to develop the Americas and points
West. He was assasinated in Dallas, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara
dismantled his ambitious program. Following that, Mr. Nixon pulled the
plug following the successful moon landings - grounding a half-dozen
Saturn Vs already in the production line, at more cost than flying them
off would have cost. Why? Because he wanted to focus on the Space
Shuttle - as his contribution to history, and Apollo was too strongly
associated with Kennedy and the Democrats. And because Apollo 13
raised the very sticky issue of astronaut safety far from Earth orbit.


Going one-way via nuclear is however doable, and as such should be
applied.

vonBraun who was a rocket scientist of the first order, you are not.
vonBraun showed in 1952 how to go to mars with all chemical rocket
boosters. Your comments notwithstanding.

At today's prices, this large scale program envisioned by vonBraun
would cost on the order of $500 billion - and take 5 years if done as
ambitously as he envisioned.

To lower these costs Kennedy authorized the adaptation of the
military's old Rover program into NASA's Nerva program, along with
transferring the F1 engine program of the army, to NASA to form the
basis of Saturn and Nova rockets. A Nova rocket combined with a
nuclear thermal upper stage, can do a Mars flight without a space
station or assembling a large fleet on orbit.

At its most ambitious, NASA's mars program involved sending three Nova
launched nuclear thermal rocket powered spacecraft each carrying a
dozen astronauts, to Mars.

These programs and projects were curtailed by Johnson following
Kennedy's assasination in 1963, and in 1964 the money saved was given
to helicopter production and expansion of the Vietnam conflict.


Apparently a Mook moon intended rocket can be made of iron, as having a
inert GLOW of nearly 30% and still get it's 50+t payload past LL-1 in
hardly any time at all.

What the hell are you ranting about? lol. The structural fraction of
the Saturn V are well published, and I've reproduced them here for you
- and even took you step by step through the analysis of the
performance of each, and combined performance of the whole system.


Too bad your rocket-science can't be
replicated

??? What the heck are you talking about? lol

It takes all of the very best rocket-science of utilizing the 80:1
ratio for simply accomplishing a one-way ticket to GSO.


What the heck are you talking about? You speak as if this actually
means something.

It takes more delta-vee from low Earth orbit to send something to
geosynch orbit (4.1 km/sec) than to send something to the moon (3.2
km/sec)

Also, most rockets today use solids at lift off to improve performance
at low cost. The Saturn V didn't use solids. It used mostly LOX/LH
cryogens for the heavy lifting which is higher performing and you know
what that means don't you guthball? That's right, better mass ratios.
good boy


since nothing that's considerably newer and way better can't
seem to manage 80:1 (total rocket/payload ratio) for so much as a
one-way GSO ticket to ride, much less 60:1 for accomplishing such a
quick two-way ticket to/from our moon

Again, what the hell are you talking about? You are terminally
confused on how things work in the rocket field. Too bad you attach
such deep meaning to this sort of thing while at the same time totally
clueless as to the technical details. It must be hell being you! lol.
.

There's no question that your nuclear pumped rocket will accomplish the
task with energy and payloads to spare. However, that previously
mentioned 70:1 ratio is still rather pathetic if having to include each
of the multi-stage inert mass that has to go along for the ride,

The genius of multiple staging is that the inert mass doesn't go along
for the ride. It stays behind, along with the propellant it carried.
You'd know this if you knew anything, which you don't. lol.

whereas some of that liftoff and in route mass has to include spare
retrothrust fuel tonnage plus even a few unavoidable tones that simply
can't ever be fully utilized.

Course correction capacity is well understood - not by you of course -
but it is easly provided for for both the moon mission we've completed
and the mars missions we've planned.

The only liquified rocket fuel, that we honestly know of, which offers
sufficient octane and thus the best possible fuel density and thus best
ISP is somewhat limited to that of your intellectual flatulence.

In this statement you are demonstrably wrong! lol.

I don't think so.

Yeah, but you'd be wrong about that too! lol.

Your intellectual farts are of extremely high-test
octane.

Because they're right while your farts are wrong.


Check it out;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

Size
Height 111 m (364 ft)
Diameter 10 m (33 ft)
Mass 3,038,500 kg (6,699,000 lb)
Stages 3 (2 for Skylab launch)

Capacity
Payload to LEO 118,000 kg (3-stage)
75,000 kg (2-stage)

Payload to
the Moon 47,000 kg

First Stage - S-IC
Engines 5 F-1 engines
Thrust 34.02 MN (7,648,000 lbf)
Burn time 150 s
Fuel RP-1 and liquid oxygen

Second Stage - S-II
Engines 5 J-2 engines
Thrust 5 MN (1,000,000 lbf)
Burn time 360 s
Fuel Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen

Third Stage - S-IVB
Engines 1 J-2 engine
Thrust 1 MN (225,000 lbf)
Burn time 165 + 335 s
(2 burns)
Fuel Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen

I won't go into the structural fractions, the propellant efficiencies,
and the velocities attained by each stage. But clearly, using the
rocket equation (whether worn out or not as tomass believes - haha) its
easy to show that these performances are all consistent with accepted
science and engineering principles. (aka by Guthball flatulence)

Therefore, gong fully nuclear is in fact a good solution that needs to
get accomplished before be run ourselves out of terrestrial energy

The world uses annually about 183 billion giga-joules of energy. 3
million kg of LOX/LH propellant contain 426,000 giga-joules of energy.
A nuclear rocket of the same payload capacity would use less energy for
the same payloads and missions since less propellant is needed to be
carried around. So, 426,000 giga-joules of energy is the high end.

One flight of a Saturn V every four months consumes no more than 1.28
milion giga-joules of energy per year. That's only one part in
142,968.75 - or 6.994e-6 of the total. So this subtracts essentially
NOTHING from our annual energy usage.

On the other hand the Earth's SURFACE intercepts 5,826,100 billion
giga-joules of energy per year. This is 31,836 times the amount of
energy humanity uses.

Converting available sunlight to energy at 20% efficiency implies less
surface area of Earth need be covered with solar panels in order to
supply ALL our energy needs than is currently covered by rooftops and
roadways.

So, we needn't leave the Earth to have sufficient energy, since energy
arrives at Earth from deep space everywhere the sun shines. Like Mars,
all it takes is the will to do it, and we could have a solar powered
world free of the polluting effects of oil and coal.


alternatives to the point where we can't even pull off a good WW-IV.

Lots of stupid and looney toon implications in this statement.

The first is that it takes oil and coal to run a nuclear war. No, the
bulk of the warheads and the bulk of the consumables are stockpiled and
ready to go. That's was Mutual Assured Destruction and perpetual war
footing were all about in the Cold War.

The second looney toons things in this statement is that a nuclear
conflagration would be initiated over something like energy which would
benefit the US and make it rich somehow.

Well, if you look at the data - below - you can see that even a very
limited nuclear conflict would cost the US in excess of $15,000 billion
and 20 million casualties. A larger conflict could be 5x worse in both
numbers, $75,000 bilion and 100 million casualties. Anything larger is
not sustainable even by a nation as rich and as powerful as the US.

Would the potential gain be worth it? No.

Because there's a risk a conflagration could end the US as a great
nation, and because the cost of even a limited conflict is high
compared to the cost of creating practical alternatives to oil.

Now, the US consumes about 1/4 of the world's total energy supply. So
that's 46 billion giga-joules of energy per year. This is an annual
rate of about 1.46 trillion watts. Since the sun doesn't shine all the
time you need about 2 watts of solar capacity to provide for power at
night. So, this is around 3 trillion watts. At a cost of $5.00 per
peak watt, this is less than the direct cost of the war.

When you count the indirect cost of 20 million dead you see its easily
affordable. The average US citizen has about 40 to 50 years of
productive life. Assuming the average of the 20 million killed was 25
years left in their life, that's 500 million man-years of productive
activity lost. The per capita GDP is around $35,000 per person per
year.. The value of all the labor lost of 20 million people amounts to
$17.5 trillion - more than the direct cost.

Even a limited nuclear exchange would have combined direct and indirect
costs of $32.5 trillion. That's a cost of nearly $11 per watt of solar
panel avoided. And, since even a successful war for oil would only
extend our supply of energy a short while, compared to the permanent
advantage of tapping solar energy provides, its a nonstarter for many
reasons.

A larger conflagration would be even more costly - even at $55 per watt
of solar panel the solar panels would be cheaper by far! This is 10x
the present day cost of solar panels.


So, clearly any rational person would seek to avoid war and develop
alterantives to oil like solar and others.

Oh wait! That's EXACTLY what we're doing today!

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.


So, by this foolish ranting you are implying that we aren't doing solar
and biodiesel and hydrates? Hmm.. Prove it.



* * * *

Data on the cost of conflicts the US engaged in;

Conflict Population Enrolled Ratio
(millions) (thousands)
Revolutionary War 3.5 200.0 5.7%
War of 1812 7.6 286.0 3.8%
Mexican War 21.1 78.7 0.4%
Civil War: Union 26.2 2,803.3 10.7%
: Confederate 8.1 1,064.2 13.1%
: Combined 34.3 3,867.5 11.1%
Spanish-American War 74.6 306.8 0.4%
World War I 102.8 4,743.8 4.6%
World War II 133.5 16,353.7 12.2%
Korean War 151.7 5,764.1 3.8%
Vietnam War 204.9 8,744.0 4.3%
Gulf War 260.0 2,750.0 1.1%



------------Casualties------------
[-----Deaths---]
-----Percentages----- Duration
Conflict Enrolled Combat Other Wounded Total

Revolutionary War 200.0 4,435 * 6,188
10,623
War of 1812 286.0 2,260 * 4,505
6,765
Mexican War 78.7 1,733 11,550 4,152
17,435
Civil War: Union 2,803.3 110,070 249,458 275,175
634,703
Confederate 1,064.2 74,524 124,000 137,000 +
335,524
Combined 3,867.5 184,594 373,458 412,175 +
970,227
Spanish-American War 306.8 385 2,061 1,662
4,108
World War I 4,743.8 53,513 63,195 204,002
320,710
World War II 16,353.7 292,131 115,185 670,846
1,078,162
Korean War 5,764.1 33,651 * 103,284
136,935
Vietnam War 8,744.0 47,369 10,799 153,303
211,471
Gulf War 2,750.0 148 145 467 ^
760

Conflict Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
Current 1990s (in $1990)
The Revolution (1775-1783) .10 1.2 $ 342.86
War of 1812 (1812-1815) .09 0.7 92.11
Mexican War (1846-1848) .07 1.1 52.13
Civil War (1861-1865): Union 3.20 27.3 1,041.98
: Confederate 2.00 17.1 2,111.11
: Combined 5.20 44.4 1,294.46
Spanish American War (1898) .40 6.3 84.45
World War I (1917-1918) 26.00 196.5 1,911.47
World War II (1941-1945) 288.00 2,091.3 15,655.17
Korea (1950-1953) 54.00 263.9 1,739.62
Vietnam (1964-1972) 111.00 346.7 1,692.04
Gulf War (1990-1991) 61.00 61.1 235.00

As per usual, YOUR CIA WORLD FACT BOOK SUCKS!

And you say this because? Why? You're not being clear. Oh wait a
minute! I'm talking to Guthball - THAT'S why that statement makes NO
sense at all.



ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

What's nearly frozen/slush as 98% h2o2 along with c3h4o worth?
-
Brad Guth

I still happen to agree that your nuclear option is a perfectly spendy
though good way to go.

I agree. If you want to develop the solar system industrially its an
important development phase until we get something better going. In
part because its very high performing and in part because its a cheap
way to move things - so, ...

that would make you wrong again guthball for saying it was spendy.
Sure it takes a few tens of billions of dollars per vehicle, but on a
dollars per momentum basis, its hard to beat - until something better
comes along.

However, and in a few other words, you're
obviously not about to share with us as to what the h2o2/c3h4o method
has to offer. Why is that?

Are you saying you are mixing hydrogen peroxide and methane in a slush
mixture in the same tank?

That's clever though dangerous. I thought the same thing with oxygen
ice encased in a thin coating of CH4 floating in liquid hydrogen, with
more CH4 ice crystals thrown in as desired to achieve whatever
propellant density and range of features you like.

Do you know anything about Gibbs free energy? And the molecular
weight? And how the energy per unit weight determines the available
exhaust speeds? And how exhaust speed is a measure of propellant
performance?

A little over your head eh?

Well, lets go back to simple dynamics. ok? E = 1/2 * m * V^2

The energy in a moving mass is equal to the mass times the velocity
squared divided by two. Simple enough.

Why don't you ever include the entire picture of what each space
mission involves in raping and of unavoidably polluting mother Earth

Why don't you make the picture and I'll look at it and tell you where
you're wrong. The first thing I'll say is that we had to go to the
moon to actually have an environmental cost in going to the moon.

(the launch phase being the least part of their energy and pollution
factors)?

What other factors are you talking about?

Got any numbers to back that up?

Of course not. Because if you did, you would know that you are wrong.

If we take a structural fraction of 15% - the Saturn V moon rocket
which masses 3,300 tons at launch requires about 500 tons of metals,
plastics and ceramics.

The world in 2005 made 1,100 million metric tons of steel! lol.

The US in 1996 made 7.5 million tons of aluminum.

You're talking about 1,500 freakin tons per year of whatever its made
of at the peak of the Apollo moon program.

The burning of a thousand dollar bill is not the actual pollution that

The program cost $22 billion or thereabouts depending on what you want
to include - about $100 billion in today's currency. The money was
spent in the US and created hundreds of thousands of high paying high
technology jobs.

This was spent over a 10 year period. About $10 billion per year in
today's currency.

Today the US generates nearly $14 trillion in GDP. The Earth generates
$55 trillion in GDP.

So, your implication that its wasteful and we cannot afford it is also
off-the-mark.


I'm talking about, but obviously it represents the one and only
consideration that's allowed in the all-knowing Mook koran.

Just tryin' to keeps it real.

Payload to the Moon 47,000 kg

BTW; you forgot about having to include the 14t LES and of their
retrothrust loads of fuel, plus the portions of unused fuel and of
those secondary satellites as having been taken along for the ride.

Are you seriously implying that a 14t (28,000 lb) launch escape tower
would seriously impact the performance of a 3,300 ton launch vehicle at
takeoff? Idiot!

You're wrong in your implication as you are wrong in your figures.
Sheez

Specifications:
Total Length: 10.2 m
Diameter: 0.66 m
Total mass: 9,200 lb (4,170 kg)
Thrust: 155,000 lbf (689 kN)


Honest folks simply don't have to be in on it, as they only have to
accept whatever's handed to them or else they lose their spendy jobs
and benefits.

In on what exactly you freakin' moron? lol.

Thus the grand ruse/sting of the century moves onward as
though it's the truth.

What ruse are you talking about? Are you saying moonlandings were
faked?

Hmm.. So you are saying the President of the United States despite his
best efforts, was forced to step down and turn the office over to his
Vice President because he couldn't escape the consequences discovery of
a piece of tape left on the door of the Democratic National
Headquarters at the Watergate hotel by a low level security guard, yet
at the same time and in the same period over $100 billion (today's
accounting) is spent and 200,000 people employed, over a 10 year period
to achieve something that anyone could look up with a radio telescope
to see if it was for real - you know those folks at Greenbank, and
Jodrell, and oh yeah the Soviets who would have just LOVED to catch us
in the act, they were all asleep right? The KGB was fooled too huh?
hahahahaha... What a freakin IDIOT!

These very same pro-NASA/Apollo folks (including yourself) had also
thought there were WMD in Iraq.

There MIGHT have been WMDs in Iraq. We know there was WMD program
broken up during the first gulf war. We knew the Kurds were killed
like mayflies by chemical weapons, babies in arms. There MIGHT have
been WMDs. There was intelligence that suggested he MIGHT be trying to
obtain yellow cake. Just maybe.

Well, we might have been wrong.

I admit it.

But tell me

Which would you rather have? A president that goes to war on sketchy
evidence to protect the US, and turns out to have been wrong?

Or a president that refuses to go to war on sketchy evidence leaving
the US vulnerable, and turns out to be wrong?

Because people make mistakes. Even presidents. Its just which side of
the mistake do you want OUR president to be on?

Clearly, we sent serious signals to Saddam.

Plainly, he thought he could ignore the US and its concerns.

Obviously, he paid the price, along with the US -

Unequivically, future tyrants will pay more attention to our concerns
in the future.

Kim Il Jong are you listening? lol

Now all we have are tens of thousands
of dead bodies (mostly Muslim) that are quite real, and a ten+ trillion
dollars worth of debt, plus loads of the interest piling up that's as
real as it gets, along with fuel that's headed for $5/gallon.

these are related how? Its a mess. We should have done things
differently. The President believed Rowe when he said we'd be greeted
as Liberators like the French greeting us after the Germans pulled out.
Rowe's an idiot. The president is a fool to listen to such ****.
There were plenty of reasons to take out Saddam during the Clinton
Administration. Clinton didn't do it because he didn't think there was
a clear and present danger, and he had better advisors, and he is
smarter (in some ways) than Bush - and so he negotiated and use our
intelligence infrastructure to undermine Saddam's abilities from
inside. Lots of smart Iraqi scientists came to the US during Clinton's
administration. haha.. Do you recall Newt Gingrich ranting against
Clinton for sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan to blow up Al
Queda targets following the FIRST bombing of the World Trade Center?
Do you recall the Hart Rudman study that urged we spend more money on a
flexible force supported by intelligence operations in the muslim world
- rather than star wars? Do you recall Bush ignoring all of that?
lol.

I'm not a Bush defender by any means. But if he's going to make a
mistake, I'm glad Saddam had to pay for it rather then the American
people.

Whereas
the hocus-pocus images from the supposed surface of our dark and nasty
moon are simply not the least bit real, any more so than any 30% inert

So, because President Bush made a mistake in defending the republic
against a madman in thinking he was further along in his active WMD
program than he was, you think it makes perfect sense to question the
validity of the moon program? lol. Like I said, you are a freakin'
idiot.


GLOW that accomplished a two-way mission within a 60:1 rocket per
payload ratio had accomplished that task, and so quickily at that.

Because its easier to send a payload crashing into the moon than it is
to send a payload to Geosynch orbit. AND because modern rockets, use
solids at lift off which is lower performing than cryogens used to do
the heavy lifting on the saturn V.

Others and I've already posted dozens of shots as having included our
moon along with multiple other planets and even a few of those as
having included the brighter of available stars (a little tough to
achieve this from Earth since our polluted atmosphere accomplishes such
terrific job of spectrum filtering of the starshine from the likes of
Spica and especially that of Sirius).

Do you know anything about photography? Did you study those sites I
referenced for you as closely as you studied the insane folks who
believe stupid things?

The answer to both is obviously no.

When you set the shutter speed to 1/250th sec and stop down the camera
so that you don't overexpose the film, when shooting on the lunar
surface, you're not going to see freakin' stars in the sky.

And another lie you constantly repeat you freakin' lunatic, the albedo
of the moon averages 12% but it is highly directional and non
lambertian. It can range from 10% to 20%.

Now the albedo of Earth averages 30% - 3x brighter right? NO! Because
the Earth has white fleecy clouds that are 95% reflective, and white
snows and ices, that are 90% reflective - haha... do you know what the
albedo of a sandy beach is? hmmm? Depending on whether its white or
black - it can range from 6% to 18% - but most beaches are ta da -
AROUND 12% - the average of the freakin moon. Ever take a picture on a
beach? Its as reflective as the freakin moon.

Charcoal and coal are 4% and 3% reflective - you constantly compare the
dark moon to coal. And then say the Earth is 3x brighter than the moon.


The reality is you claim the Earth is 3x brighter than the moon without
detailing why. Hiding the truth that clouds and snow and ice, and even
vegetation is brighter than sand and rock and dirt. At the same time
make a wrong comparison with coal which is 1/3 as reflective as dirt -
YOU ARE THE FREAKIN' DISINFORMATION KING HERE - SHUT THE **** UP!

Fact is, plain Earth like that found on a beach or in freshly turned
Earth, is EXACTLY the same average as the Moon - ever take a picture at
a beach dude? Ever go to Tahiti dude? Ever see the stars at night on
a black beach in Tahiti? Ever take a picture of someone standing on a
black beach in tahiti? 6% reflective dude, twice as bright as charcoal
- half as bright as a regular beach 1/3 as bright as a white sand
beach.

Your analysis doesn't stand up. It picks and chooses the numbers it
wants without any reference whatever to reality - and if you can't know
it, you make **** up. Like in the launch escape system. You quoted a
number 3x larger than the actual number. And you failed to point out
that it is jettisoned before the first stage falls off - and so isn't
carried very far at all.


Photographic DR is DR, it's that
freaking simple. The NASA/Apollo images of our sunlit moon along with
Earth in the same shot is proof-positive that I'm right,

Ever take a picture on a beach showing the moon in the picture in broad
daylight? Why the hell wouldn't we see the Earth in a picture the
other way, since the Earth is 9x the area and twice as bright at the
moon on average (due to clouds and snow and stuff)

and offering
boat-loads of proof-positive that you're not.

You are talking out of your ass - guthball

Good Christ almighty on another stick. Their very own photographs as
obtained from orbit is what absolutely proves as to what the DR
capability of that film represents. Even those hocus-pocus
photographics that were supposedly taken while physically walking on
the moon is what proves that there was more than sufficient DR as to
include whatever represented less than of the 0.025 albedo

The moon's albedo is 0.12 on average and varies from 0.06 to 0.18 to
the 90th percentile. So, what the hell are you talking about?

Where do I get these numbers? Well I looked them up from university
sources on the internet. Are they mainstream science? Sure. Are they
lies? Not likely. How do I know? Because I can also look up on the
internet an experiment you can do with a photometer and a telescope on
any clear night by looking at the moon yourself to confirm them.
That's what it means to be science. INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION.

portions of
mother Earth along with a 0.85 albedo white moonsuit

Ever see a girl in a white bikini on a volcanic sand beach in tahiti?
I have. I've even taken pictures. Actually, she only had bottoms on
because it was a nude beach, and I asked her to take them off, but she
wouldn't because I wouldn't. But that's another story.

lol

Dude, look at any vacation picture in the freakin world. Now, moonsuit
albedo isn't reported in any of the literature I can see. So, where
the hell do you get your numbers? I put in 'moonsuit albedo' in my
search engine and guess what? I got 15,000 hits against guthball
making claims about moonsuit albedo. NOT ONE REFERENCE! Is he making
85% albedo up? That's likely. Why? Because back in 1990s he was
saying moonsuit albedo was 55% - THEN it gradually worked its way up to
85% today. Always ending in 5% - obviously as a very good liar
guthball knows the importance of overspecification. If you say to a
mark the price is $10 - they'll likely argue with you about the price.
If you say to a mark the price is $10.83 - they'll take it as gospel
that's the price. I don't know why this works - but it does. And
guthball being a damned good liar - knows this, and uses it without
mercy. And he calls me and others who know a thing or two liars and
worse. What a pathetic excuse for a human being you are guthball. Do
you have any idea what the albedo of white cloth is? beta cloth? I
don't. The closest I could see, after eliminating guthball's rants on
the internet is a study done to simulate cloth in animation. A white
cloth against a bright sky, is more in the 60% range than the 90%
range. But like I said, a bright moonsuit on the lunar surface isn't
any more difficult to photograph than a lovely person in a white bikini
on a volcanic beach in Tahiti.

and even a few of
those shots with our red, white and blue American flag in the very same
frame that included the 0.07 albedo worth of lunar terrain,

Liar - the average albedo of the moon is 0.12 - this is non lambertian,
that means its brigher at shallow angles. Which is why the center of
the moon looks darker and better defined than the limbs of the moon.
If you're on the moon's surface shooting across it, you're looking at
it at a shallow angle, and albedo could rise to 0.20 or more. About as
bright as sand on a white beach. The darker parts would look like
freshly turned Earth - which looks quite dark against the sky and
against grass and vegetation -but if the landscape is covered with the
stuff, as in a desert, its pretty damned bright despite its albedo
being 0.12 - THE SAME AS THE AVERAGE ON THE MOON.

which oddly
recorded as though being a composite of portland cement, cornmeal and
guano instead of the 0.07 worth of basalt

The moon's averagel albedo is 0.12 twice the figure you quote, and at
shallow angles as in shooting across the surface to the horizon its
higher.

and nearly coal like surface

Liar. Coal has an albedo of 0.04 to 0.03 - 1/4th the true figure. You
would know this if you troubled yourself to actually look at a piece of
coal and look at the moon in the night sky.

that our moon represents (especially as being illuminated at such low
angles and with a polarised lens element which should only have made
that surface appear as darker).

LIAR! The moon is a non lambertian reflector. It is brighter at
shallow angles than straight on. Which is why if you would trouble
yourself to look at a full moon on a dark night, you'd see the limb is
brighter than the center.

That's only a range of slightly better than 5 f-stops, and it's only 6
f-stops of 0.0125 to 0.8 albedo by which far more than includes Mars.

The moon's average is 0.12 and variations can range from 0.06 to 0.18 -
the same as dirt on Earth. Because its the same stuff as Earth.
Earth's average albedo is raised to 0.30 because its covered with
clouds and snow and ice with albedos larger than 0.90 - you freakin
moron.


Since Venus would have unavoidably represented that of a brighter orb
than Earth, so where the heck was Venus, and where exactly were a
couple of those near-UV spectrums worth of those extremely bright stars
throughout each of those missions. The unfiltered Kodak moments should
have unavoidably recorded the very least of Spica and Sirius as plain
as day, and where exactly were each of those stars in relationship to
the physically dark lunar horizon?


What is the exposure time? What is the filter setting? What are the
lighting conditions? You have avoided detailing anything that would
prove anything one way or another. Why? One, because you don't know
what proof is, two you don't know what constitutes important versus
nonimortant features, three if you did understand all this and take
half the trouble to actually know what you're talking about before
spouting your BULL**** - you would find you were WRONG in the first
place. lol.


Which means that you are a liar, as well as "Scott Dorsey"

Scott Dorsey; Ektachrome doesn't even have the range to
capture sun-lit landscapes all by themselves...

Bull**** - you're the one lying about the moon's albedo. And making up
numbers about suit albedos that have never been tested.




Without question, you folks are each and even one of nothing but liars
and pagan intellectual bigots of the worse possible kind!

Um, that would be you fart face.


Besides, the
very same arguments can be said of their B&W film as having even better
DR, that which only further proves that I'm right, and proves that
you're the liars as I've said,

It proves nothing of the sort since your numbers are all bull****
anyway.

as well as for the xenon lamp
illuminated exposures is what simply further proves if not offering the
best available proof-positive that I'm right.

So this means you DIDN'T read the reference I gave you on filter
settings. Got it.

For the likes of our warm and fuzzy borg "George Evans", I'll make this
one easy for even a LLPOF bigot like yourself; Just tell us where the
heck Venus was, as having been from time to time unavoidably situated
above the lunar horizon throughout each of those Apollo missions.

yawn You can't get the basics right, why should anyone believe you
got the rest of it right? lol.


Then please do try to explain as to how any damn fool in a moonsuit
could have possibly avoided having included Venus within any number of
those unfiltered (full spectrum) Kodak moments.

Because you lied about the albedo of the moon itself, the way it
reflects light, and made up the numbers about the moonsuit.

How did I do? lol.

Unlike yourself, I've learned to ignore most all of the "obvious
evidence" via your NASA/Apollo infomercial-science that's related to
their supposed moonsuit naked EVAs.

What do you mean ?? You ignore ALL evidence and replace it with your
fallacies.

Fool

wrote:
Unlike yourself, I've learned to ignore most all of the "obvious
evidence" via your NASA/Apollo infomercial-science that's related to
their supposed moonsuit naked EVAs.

What do you mean ?? You ignore ALL evidence and replace it with your
fallacies.

Fool

Show me an image from your NASA/Apollo koran that's including Venus, or
shut the hell up.
-
Brad Guth