Time to Think ‘Horizontal’ for Future Space Launches

On Sep 27, 6:32*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/27/2010 9:41 AM, Invid Fan wrote:

Greg Bear has commented that his theories on evolutionary biology are
likely correct, and that he has the advantage over real scientists in
that he doesn't have to prove it

I still like Sagan and his exobiology work.
"Now, as we fly our hash seed of the imagination to the furthest reaches
of the galaxy, we see a dead world that was destroyed in a ecological
catastrophe created when warmongers started hundreds of oil *wells on fire.
What a pity they did not read my article in Parade Magazine that
predicted this horrible outcome. Unfortunately, having no eyes, it would
have been difficult for them to do so, even though the suction cups on
their seventy-eight fingertips would have made turning the pages very easy."

Pat

The Science Channel (with Geoffrey Landis of all people) have done one
better;
http://science.discovery.com/videos/sci-fi-science/

Floating city on Venus - something I spoke of decades ago (and which
Landis attacked! lol)

On Sep 27, 3:37*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 248beba1-15af-4abb-bdac-2a4e44028368
@a19g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...



On Sep 27, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
More repeated assertions backed up by a cursory, high level,
parametric
based design. *In other words, a napkin drawing.

Wait a minute, I have a parametric study, some detailed CFD and FEA
along with wind tunnel tests of models, and you have just hand waving
comparisons with no numbers whatever. *Your assertions are gratuitous
and may be gratuitously rejected.

You have nothing which you've shared with the group. *

I've shared enough to show that it could work.

"detailed CVD and
FEA" could mean anything. *

Of course it could. It means more than what you've done to support
your view that the idea is unworkable.

Besides, when I asked you pointed, specific
questions about the FEA, you "punted" and it was clear from your answers
that all you have is some extremely high level FEA analysis. *

No, I asked what you were going to do with the data. There is nothing
to suggest the vehicle I have designed won't work. You act as if you
know it won't and then won't say why specifically. All your
'objections' are just gratuitous based on nothing concrete.

It's no wonder why I keep calling your "design" a napkin drawing. *

haha - nonsense. You keep pounding away with demeaning words and
descriptions and have zero real analysis to back it up.

A dimensioned print is more than a napkin drawing. *

In this day and age, not much.

Why?

*A high school student can crate a
"dimensioned print".

create you mean - there are things called spell checkers you know.

The numbers I've
published are well within the range of experience. *

Simple parametric analysis which ignores the details and systems
engineering required to make this a reality. *

A more advanced parametric analysis - involving linked differential
equations - does not.

You keep saying things that suggest what I propose cannot work. You
fail to state specifically why you think this.

The procedure and
process I've described is based on real world experience with flight
hardware.

Most of your chosen technologies have not been proven at the large scale
you propose. *

All of them have been flown and detailed engineering data exists based
on real flight data sufficient to produce advanced models needed to do
a preliminary design as I have done.

Your objections suggest what I propose cannot work. You fail to say
why specifically you believe this to be so.

Others have not been proven on a launch vehicle in the
actual conditions experienced by a launch vehicle. *

The entire system is well thought out and quite workable.


Still others are
simply Rube Goldberg in appearance (e.g. your "catcher's mit" ground
support hardware

For reference, Rube Goldberg machines are over-engineered for what
they are designed to do. Here's a machine for brushing your teeth

http://vedicsciences.net/intelligent/rube-goldberg.jpg

Here's a catcher's mitt;

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/G...88302_4831.jpg

Here's my mobile landing platform

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30988234/E...Ground-Process

This is a space launch vehicle. Not a tootbrush. Do you imagine that
some things might be a little complex for such a vehicle? Of course
you do.

So, what is your beef dude? What is wrong with putting the shocks and
other stuff into the landing platform to save weight on the rocket?
Specifically what is unworkable about it? Especially given the fact
that advanced automation exists that can easily track the descending
vehicle and stay under it.

which is intended to catch your landing rocket stage
and balance it like a Segway).

Not *exactly* like a Segway - but close.

The fact that you can't see how "far out" your "design" really is speaks
volumes.

What is far out about using External Tank sized air frames in parallel
staging? What is far out about a multi-stage rocket? What is far out
about ballistic re-entry and downrange recovery without a bunch of
pointless and difficult aerial maneuvers? What is far out about a tow
plane snagging a glider during descent? What is far out about a tow
plane dragging a glider back to a destination? What is far out about
executing a tail sitting maneuver? What is far out about a baseball
mitt? What is far out about an inverse pendulum controller?

Nothing! Absolutely NOTHING!

You've got nothing, except just calling names for no freaking reason.

You can't even back up your far out remark.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Sep 27, 2:45*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 25, 2:44*pm, William Mook wrote: Given the unfortunate statements made by George Bernard Shaw

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

who was a Nobel Prize winner and founder of the London School of
Economics, it is entirely likely that there are those working in one
or more nation's secret service, dedicated to depopulating the Earth
in deniable ways so as to preserve the standard of living enjoyed by
those they work for.

No doubt, such as those pesky Rothschilds.





Obviously, those that contribute least to the prosperity of society
are a burden, and are the ones that would be likely to be targeted for
elimination.

Clearly, a disease that was costly to treat, and fatal if untreated,
would fulfill this role.

If it were felt that this 'depopulation bomb' - to use Shaw's phrase -
arose naturally - there would be *high degree of deniability - and the
provision of money for treatment would be another lever whereby
wealthy nations could exercise control over poorer nations.

This all fits in with Shaw's rather bleak world view.

He died in 1950 and didn't credit anything to do with space travel or
off world assets. *He dealt strictly on this world.

Now, what if this were true?

What if there were a dedicated cadre of folks in the secret services
somewhere who cooked up diseases that would be costly to treat and
provide us with Shaw's depopulation bomb - easy to spread costly to
treat - always fatal.

AIDS is a likely candidate for being a depopulation bomb created by
the US military in the 1960s. *It meets all the criterion.

If there were a massive die off and the survivors were immune after a
few generations - it would serve its purpose - provided those
survivors were in your country.

What if we were to expand into interplanetary space and tap into the
resources that are there? *Unlimited energy! *Unlimited raw
materials! *Unlimited space for growing crops, trees, and people!

Those who unleashed the depopulation bomb would feel rather foolish.
They may even be 'outed'!

This would then attract negative attention to the governments that
supported the program, and put them at a disadvantage - something the
program was not intended to do.

So, they would likely oppose anything that reduced the deniability of
their program - if the program indeed exists.

Of course such opposition if it exists would itself be deniable. *This
means it is characterized as something else. * Nuclear and missile
controls would fit the bill. *Making sure aerospace doesn't shake its
leash to the government. *etc.

We cannot know these things, they are highly speculative. *They do
form a consistent pattern though that is vaguely reflected in events
over the past 50 years.

The only thing we can do as supporters of space development, is focus
on the things we want to do, and make sure they can be done with
technology at hand. *Once a foothold is gained, then things will
unfold revealing themselves to be what they are - whatever that is.

Those "what ifs" along with all those "could have been and should have
been" outcomes are certainly adding up to a very comprehensive
chapter.

Your idea of focus seems anything but. *Whatever happened to all of
that cheap and essentially renewable hydrogen, as well as those other
easily related elements and subsequent other energy related products
and transportation made better, cheaper and way cleaner for the
environment?

How is saving Earth from ourselves and raw nature of what our sun is
doing to us, not a good enough focus?

*~ BG

Brad,

If you want to put $4 million loan to a project company I will use the
money to buy an unused coal fired power plant and restart it. Once
successfully producing power at this unused coal fired power plant
your investment will be worth $400 million. Expect completion within
three years after receipt of funds.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/T...port-of-SB-221


If you want to put $10 million loan to project company that buys
depleted gas and oil wells and injects them with hydrogen gas to
restart production, your investment once successful, will be worth
$100 million within 36 months.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22723305/G...-With-Hydrogen

If you want to put $25 million loan to a SPAC, I will use the money to
merge Sunoco of Philadelphia and Cloud Peak Energy of Gillette Wyoming
and get the coal reserves of the coal company valued as oil reserves
in the oil company using new SEC rules (sponsored by Senator Barack
Obama in 2007)

http://seekingalpha.com/article/9402...eporting-rules

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33089455/sunoco-2

Once successful, your holdings will amount to $2.5 billion in a
company worth over $180 billion. All within 18 months.

If you want to place a power purchase agreement for $131.49 billion
with a nonrefundable deposit of $131.49 million - I will deliver to
you all the output of a 10,000 MW solar power satellite in six years
after receipt of order at $0.05 per kWh to any of 8,000 ground
stations which I will also supply.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Since today's average cost of power in America exceeds $0.10 per kWh,
this contract will be worth over $100 billion the day power starts
flowing - and you will have follow-on rights to buy more under the
same terms as the first.

I will have the ability to launch 20 to 30 per year.

So, rather than bitch about it dude, put up your money - or shut up.

In article , says...

What is far out about using External Tank sized air frames in parallel
staging? What is far out about a multi-stage rocket? What is far out
about ballistic re-entry and downrange recovery without a bunch of
pointless and difficult aerial maneuvers? What is far out about a tow
plane snagging a glider during descent? What is far out about a tow
plane dragging a glider back to a destination? What is far out about
executing a tail sitting maneuver? What is far out about a baseball
mitt? What is far out about an inverse pendulum controller?

Nothing! Absolutely NOTHING!

You've got nothing, except just calling names for no freaking reason.

You can't even back up your far out remark.

What's wrong with your design is that it's "unique" to put it lightly.
It's absolutely unlike any launch vehicle ever flown. It's up to you to
prove to the world it will work. It's not up to the world to prove that
it won't. So far your proof has been sorely lacking, IMHO.

But your mileage may vary and you may yet attract investors. Good luck
with that. History is littered with failed launch start ups with
vehicle designs far less ambitious than what you propose.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On 9/27/2010 5:11 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Yes. Some thought sabotage at the time,

Only loony conspiracy theorists.

I'll tell you one thing that incident taught: Next time around, _five_
not _four_, landing legs. ;-)

Pat

On 9/27/2010 9:41 AM, Invid Fan wrote:


Greg Bear has commented that his theories on evolutionary biology are
likely correct, and that he has the advantage over real scientists in
that he doesn't have to prove it

I still like Sagan and his exobiology work.
"Now, as we fly our hash seed of the imagination to the furthest reaches
of the galaxy, we see a dead world that was destroyed in a ecological
catastrophe created when warmongers started hundreds of oil wells on fire.
What a pity they did not read my article in Parade Magazine that
predicted this horrible outcome. Unfortunately, having no eyes, it would
have been difficult for them to do so, even though the suction cups on
their seventy-eight fingertips would have made turning the pages very easy."

Pat

On 9/27/2010 1:05 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In , says...

What is far out about using External Tank sized air frames in parallel
staging? What is far out about a multi-stage rocket? What is far out
about ballistic re-entry and downrange recovery without a bunch of
pointless and difficult aerial maneuvers? What is far out about a tow
plane snagging a glider during descent? What is far out about a tow
plane dragging a glider back to a destination? What is far out about
executing a tail sitting maneuver? What is far out about a baseball
mitt? What is far out about an inverse pendulum controller?

Nothing! Absolutely NOTHING!

You've got nothing, except just calling names for no freaking reason.

You can't even back up your far out remark.

What's wrong with your design is that it's "unique" to put it lightly.
It's absolutely unlike any launch vehicle ever flown. It's up to you to
prove to the world it will work. It's not up to the world to prove that
it won't. So far your proof has been sorely lacking, IMHO.

But your mileage may vary and you may yet attract investors. Good luck
with that. History is littered with failed launch start ups with
vehicle designs far less ambitious than what you propose.

Has anyone ever used a tow plane to grab onto a glider as it descended?
I can't think of a case of that being done.
You can snag parachutes on a descending space capsule with an aircraft;
that was the standard method of grabbing spy satellite film return capsules.
But hooking on to a glider in flight would be difficult to do. You would
have to fly above it or ahead of it and figure out some way to attach to
it with a line or boom of some sort.

Pat

On Sep 27, 5:05*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...



What is far out about using External Tank sized air frames in parallel
staging? *What is far out about a multi-stage rocket? *What is far out
about ballistic re-entry and downrange recovery without a bunch of
pointless and difficult aerial maneuvers? *What is far out about a tow
plane snagging a glider during descent? *What is far out about a tow
plane dragging a glider back to a destination? *What is far out about
executing a tail sitting maneuver? *What is far out about a baseball
mitt? *What is far out about an inverse pendulum controller?

Nothing! *Absolutely NOTHING!

You've got nothing, except just calling names for no freaking reason.

You can't even back up your far out remark.

What's wrong with your design is that it's "unique" to put it lightly. *

In what way?

It's absolutely unlike any launch vehicle ever flown.

In what way is it fundamentally unlike any launch vehicle ever flown?
It uses parallel staging of External Tank sized airframes equipped
with cross-feeding. The space shuttle has used parallel staging of
External Tank sized airframe equipped with cross-feeding for the past
40 years. So, what's up with your objection?

*It's up to you to
prove to the world it will work.

I have done that.

I've given you the numbers, they are accurate and resonable

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

Seven 49.5 tonne air frames carrying 730 tonnes of propellant with
exhaust velocity ranging from 4,358 m/sec to 4,541 m/sec as the
aerospike engines ascend through the atmosphere along Goddard
trajectory achieves an ideal delta vee of 9.2 km/sec a delta vee
matched by the Space Shuttle, while carrying 632 metric tons of
payload.


*It's not up to the world to prove that
it won't. *

If I give ample evidence that a thing will work, and anyone says in
the face of that evidence that it doesn't work, then they've got to
tell me what it is they think stands in the way of it working. You
are the one saying it won't work. I am just asking to state why? You
have a reason don't you? The hand waving and bull**** you've trotted
out thus far doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You claim to be an
engineer, prove it. Show me where my numbers are wrong and back it up
with solid evidence. You haven't done that. You've only engaged in
baseless innuendo.


So far your proof has been sorely lacking, IMHO.

Lacking in what way?


But your mileage may vary and you may yet attract investors.

That depends on what my vendor group says and their background more
than anything I say.

*Good luck
with that. *

Yeah, haha, I can feel the love.

NOT! lol.

History is littered with failed launch start ups

So? History is also filled with systems that have succeeded.

with
vehicle designs far less ambitious than what you propose.

In what way is the system ambitious? The ET is already flying. The
RS-68 is already operational. Aerospike engines have been built in
the 9 million lbf thrust range. We're only looking at 2.2 million lbf
thrust. So, how is this ambitious? Then, how does that ambition
specifically translate to risk? And how is that risk irreducible by a
well thought out development test flight program?

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

Like I said, a $50 million investment starts with a $4.5 million
flight element using a single RL-10 pump - producing 18,000 lbf -
similar to the AMPS-1 engine, but not using the exotic propellants.
The 1,800 lb airframe will carry up to 12,600 lbs of propellant that's
5.5 ft in diameter and less than 32 ft long. This reusable flight
element allows a wide range of flight speeds and builds upon the
computer and wind tunnel modeling already done. The development of a
second flight element attains orbit. The operation of seven flight
elements allows 5,575 lbs to be placed on orbit and testing of the
entire flight vehicle concept. 14 flight elements built for $50
million provides a very flexible range of flight capabilities up to
5,525 lbs, and at $10,000 per lb on orbit, along with high
reliability, self insurance, and quick response, earns $55.25 million
per launch and 30 flights per year - only 25% of the world's total
demand for space launch in this size range - this company has a
greater free cash flow than Boeing each year!

Achieving this level of success, provides a means to build a larger
vehicle that lifts 77,000 pounds into LEO using the same process.
This vehicle supports the deployment of 800+ comsats that are
networked on orbit by open optical peta bit laser beam, and are
launched by this vehicle two at a time. This creates a network of
satellites that once operating produces a free cash flow 100x that of
Boeing!

Achieving this level of success provides a means to build an even
larger vehicle, the one described, with over 1.56 million pounds into
LEO, this vehicle deploys 17,058 ft diameter power satellite that
beams 10,000 MW to 8,000 ground stations (at 1.25 MW each)
simultaneously - earning twice the free cash flow of Boeing PER
SATELLITE!

The world presently uses energy at a rate of 17 million MW and that is
growing at 680,000 MW per year. So, 68 satellites PER YEAR at 10,000
MW each, would just meet today's demand. 136 satellites would
displace conventional fuels at a rate of 4% per year.

The wealth of the oil rich kingdoms would flow into our companies
coffers at this level of success.

On Sep 27, 8:29*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/27/2010 1:05 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:



In , says...

What is far out about using External Tank sized air frames in parallel
staging? *What is far out about a multi-stage rocket? *What is far out
about ballistic re-entry and downrange recovery without a bunch of
pointless and difficult aerial maneuvers? *What is far out about a tow
plane snagging a glider during descent? *What is far out about a tow
plane dragging a glider back to a destination? *What is far out about
executing a tail sitting maneuver? *What is far out about a baseball
mitt? *What is far out about an inverse pendulum controller?

Nothing! *Absolutely NOTHING!

You've got nothing, except just calling names for no freaking reason.

You can't even back up your far out remark.

What's wrong with your design is that it's "unique" to put it lightly.
It's absolutely unlike any launch vehicle ever flown. *It's up to you to
prove to the world it will work. *It's not up to the world to prove that
it won't. *So far your proof has been sorely lacking, IMHO.

But your mileage may vary and you may yet attract investors. *Good luck
with that. *History is littered with failed launch start ups with
vehicle designs far less ambitious than what you propose.

Has anyone ever used a tow plane to grab onto a glider as it descended?


Yes.

I can't think of a case of that being done.

Typically gliders are launched with tow planes, not grabbed after
being released. But, with the right equipment it can be done, and has
been done in test. Its not that hard.

You can snag parachutes on a descending space capsule with an aircraft;

Yes, and if you look at the rate of descent and maneuverability of the
parachute relative to the glider, its a far harder thing to do. So,
since that has already been done with 1950s guidance technology, for
parachutes, its a slam dunk certainty that a glider guided by GPS
signals can be picked up by a far faster aircraft also guided by GPS
signals - with wireless networking operating between the two aircraft.

that was the standard method of grabbing spy satellite film return capsules.

Correct and if you look at the primitive methods used to track the
capsule and bring the capsule to the aircraft, if you look at the rate
of descent of a parachute versus a glider, if you look at the
controllability of an aircraft versus a parachute, if you look at the
methods of communication guidance and control available today, and if
you look at the speed and range of a Boeing 737 versus a C-119 its an
absolute certainty that gliders can be retrieved far more easily than
the Corona capsules ever were.

But hooking on to a glider in flight would be difficult to do.

No it isn't. Drop a tow line from the nose of the glider aircraft and
a harness from the tail of the pick up aircraft and fly the harness
beneath the glider - as the pick up aircraft flies bove - snagging the
tow line with the harness - and then apply power to the pick up
aircraft to maintain altitude of both craft once locked together.
Then when over the landing threshold release one end of the harness
line - which looks like a 'U' in flight - which releases the two
aircraft (the other side of the harness line may also be released if
there is a problem - as well as the tow line) The lines are
retracted and the glider glides in for a landing as described as the
tow plane lands at a separate airfield.

You would
have to fly above it or ahead of it and figure out some way to attach to
it with a line or boom of some sort.

We've already done it and done it with gliders and small aircraft.
So, its not that hard.

Pat

On Sep 27, 1:23*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:45*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Sep 25, 2:44*pm, William Mook wrote: Given the unfortunate statements made by George Bernard Shaw

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

who was a Nobel Prize winner and founder of the London School of
Economics, it is entirely likely that there are those working in one
or more nation's secret service, dedicated to depopulating the Earth
in deniable ways so as to preserve the standard of living enjoyed by
those they work for.

No doubt, such as those pesky Rothschilds.

Obviously, those that contribute least to the prosperity of society
are a burden, and are the ones that would be likely to be targeted for
elimination.

Clearly, a disease that was costly to treat, and fatal if untreated,
would fulfill this role.

If it were felt that this 'depopulation bomb' - to use Shaw's phrase -
arose naturally - there would be *high degree of deniability - and the
provision of money for treatment would be another lever whereby
wealthy nations could exercise control over poorer nations.

This all fits in with Shaw's rather bleak world view.

He died in 1950 and didn't credit anything to do with space travel or
off world assets. *He dealt strictly on this world.

Now, what if this were true?

What if there were a dedicated cadre of folks in the secret services
somewhere who cooked up diseases that would be costly to treat and
provide us with Shaw's depopulation bomb - easy to spread costly to
treat - always fatal.

AIDS is a likely candidate for being a depopulation bomb created by
the US military in the 1960s. *It meets all the criterion.

If there were a massive die off and the survivors were immune after a
few generations - it would serve its purpose - provided those
survivors were in your country.

What if we were to expand into interplanetary space and tap into the
resources that are there? *Unlimited energy! *Unlimited raw
materials! *Unlimited space for growing crops, trees, and people!

Those who unleashed the depopulation bomb would feel rather foolish.
They may even be 'outed'!

This would then attract negative attention to the governments that
supported the program, and put them at a disadvantage - something the
program was not intended to do.

So, they would likely oppose anything that reduced the deniability of
their program - if the program indeed exists.

Of course such opposition if it exists would itself be deniable. *This
means it is characterized as something else. * Nuclear and missile
controls would fit the bill. *Making sure aerospace doesn't shake its
leash to the government. *etc.

We cannot know these things, they are highly speculative. *They do
form a consistent pattern though that is vaguely reflected in events
over the past 50 years.

The only thing we can do as supporters of space development, is focus
on the things we want to do, and make sure they can be done with
technology at hand. *Once a foothold is gained, then things will
unfold revealing themselves to be what they are - whatever that is.

Those "what ifs" along with all those "could have been and should have
been" outcomes are certainly adding up to a very comprehensive
chapter.

Your idea of focus seems anything but. *Whatever happened to all of
that cheap and essentially renewable hydrogen, as well as those other
easily related elements and subsequent other energy related products
and transportation made better, cheaper and way cleaner for the
environment?

How is saving Earth from ourselves and raw nature of what our sun is
doing to us, not a good enough focus?

*~ BG

Brad,

If you want to put $4 million loan to a project company I will use the
money to buy an unused coal fired power plant and restart it. *Once
successfully producing power at this unused coal fired power plant
your investment will be worth $400 million. *Expect completion within
three years after receipt of funds.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/T...-of-Representa...

If you want to put $10 million loan to *project company that buys
depleted gas and oil wells and injects them with hydrogen gas to
restart production, your investment once successful, will be worth
$100 million within 36 months.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22723305/G...-With-Hydrogen

If you want to put $25 million loan to a SPAC, I will use the money to
merge Sunoco of Philadelphia and Cloud Peak Energy of Gillette Wyoming
and get the coal reserves of the coal company valued as oil reserves
in the oil company using new SEC rules (sponsored by Senator Barack
Obama in 2007)

http://seekingalpha.com/article/9402...uld-revamp-oil...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33089455/sunoco-2

Once successful, your holdings will amount to $2.5 billion in a
company worth over $180 billion. *All within 18 months.

If you want to place a power purchase agreement for $131.49 billion
with a nonrefundable deposit of $131.49 million - I will deliver to
you all the output of a 10,000 MW solar power satellite in six years
after receipt of order at $0.05 per kWh to any of 8,000 ground
stations which I will also supply.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Since today's average cost of power in America exceeds $0.10 per kWh,
this contract will be worth over $100 billion the day power starts
flowing - and you will have follow-on rights to buy more under the
same terms as the first.

I will have the ability to launch 20 to 30 per year.

So, rather than bitch about it dude, put up your money - or shut up.

I'll see what I can do. However, don't hold your breath.

btw; since your family line of credit is nearly unlimited, why don't
you do exactly as you are telling me and others?

~ BG