A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Brad Guth's Credentials



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #681  
Old July 5th 06, 12:30 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Brad Guth's Credentials

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:18:05 -0700, in a place far, far away, "AZ
Woody" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Brad, you idiot.. Please edit your cross-posts so that you only post to the
newsgroups that give a darn.


That's the null set.
  #682  
Old July 5th 06, 12:42 PM posted to rec.models.rockets,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Brad Guth's Credentials


Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Tankfixer wrote:
In article om,
mumbled

What are Beta Lights?

The glowing numbers on the front of Brad's Sony VCR...




Officially Beta Lights are tritium glow lights. But they have been
said to protect against external radiation? Perhaps this was an error
on the author's part, or it may indicate some possible 'classified'
technology used on the Apollo Missions.


There's nothing all that magical about stopping gamma and hard-X-rays,
and the moon is physically much worse off than what the Van Allen belts
have to offer.

Generating a few spare terajoules of energy for that of sustaining an
artificial lunar magnetosphere seems doable. Although that's only
trapping the nasty stuff as much as it's capable of deflecting solar
wind. Then what? Don't you still need a robust atmosphere?
-
Brad Guth





Once again, Brad, we are not talking about people walking around in
shorts and T-shirts. No, the Moon doesn't need a "robust atmosphere."

What's needed on the Moon are tunnels, lots and lots of tunnels, as
well as large underground chambers. And, yes, a nuclear reactor or
two. The magnetosphere idea would work well and easily. Leaded glass
protected by Lexan could be used for a few windows on surface
structures.

The mines would produce water, lead, titanium, aluminum, silicon. So,
building materials, rocket fuel, and drinking water are all 'up there'
waiting for us.


tomcat

  #683  
Old July 5th 06, 12:50 PM posted to rec.models.rockets,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Brad Guth's Credentials


wrote:
And yet have not listend to ONE answer! ****, you asked an intelligent
question once about mass ratio - and I went into gory detail going over
every mass fraction of every stage, and the performance of every
engine, and went through the delta vee requirements and all the rest to
show you how the Saturn V not only was capable of sending Apollo to the
Moon and bringing it back, but showing that the Saturn V was OPTIMAL
for that journey. SURPRISE SURPRISE why the hell wouldn't it be? The
best and the brightest of a generatiion designed and built it sparing
no expense. Sheez. You are a freakin' LUNATIC with no respect for the
truth, no capacity for logic, and no appreciation of the hard work of
others - even those who are trying to get you through whatever bad spot
you're obviously going through.




Delta Vee is an obsolete formula. It is Tsiolkovsky's old, used, worn
out Rocket Equation. Today, it is tomcat's Rocket Formula that works.
It is, of course, a confidential thing at present to prevent
unauthorized use.

No wonder Brad didn't buy that old, worn out Tsiolkovsky thing. The
"Delta Vee" formula says that a rocket with no dry weight can't make
orbit. Bull. My formula, on the other hand, will show that a rocket
with no dry weight will achieve escape velocity. Which is better?
Mine, of course.


tomcat

  #684  
Old July 5th 06, 03:00 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
Tankfixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Brad Guth's Credentials

In article , l
mumbled
Brad, you idiot.. Please edit your cross-posts so that you only post to the
newsgroups that give a darn.



That would be a total of, hmmm let me see

Zero newsgroups...
  #685  
Old July 5th 06, 05:22 PM posted to rec.models.rockets,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
Brad Guth[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 679
Default Brad Guth's Credentials

tomcat wrote:
No wonder Brad didn't buy that old, worn out Tsiolkovsky thing. The
"Delta Vee" formula says that a rocket with no dry weight can't make
orbit. Bull. My formula, on the other hand, will show that a rocket
with no dry weight will achieve escape velocity. Which is better?
Mine, of course.

Say what?
I never once said anything about any stinking "no dry weight" rocket.
What kind of an absolute freaking idiot are you, that you have to put
words in my dyslexic mouth?

I'll agree that the less inert GLOW the better it makes for the ratio
of rocket per payload getting whatever to/from that physically dark and
TBI nasty moon of ours.

A nearly 30% inert GLOW (as was the case on behalf the Saturn 5) isn't
exactly going to cut the mustard, no matters how much the hocus-pocus
likes of William Mook or others care to say otherwise, and especially
not within 75 hours of getting nearly 50t into orbiting that moon of
ours is simply out of the question unless there's one hell of a solar
tail wind involved.

That's not to say that a much less tonnage of a robotic portion
couldn't have managed to orbit and having photographed that moon of
ours.
-
Brad Guth

  #686  
Old July 6th 06, 12:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,rec.models.rockets,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
Brad Guth[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 679
Default Brad Guth's Credentials

The continual sticking of one's mainstream infomercial saturated head
into the nearest disinformation-R-us space-toilet of your mainstream
status quo or bust mindset, and of expecting all others do the very
same, that's otherwise of a badly overflowing infomercial toilet along
with all of your naysayism on a stick, simply isn't going to work, now
is it?

The planet Venus has been very much so geothermally alive, and it's
most certainly worth our discussing the various options that are
available to those few of us that are still able to independently think
and process honest thoughts clearly outside the box. God forbid, you
folks should try it sometime because, it's a real blast.

In spite of ourselves so often thinking and/or being told to think that
this entire universe is all about sustaining and entertaining us
Earthly humans, including those of us as being more than just a little
pagan arrogant and as incest bigoted as the likes of Art Deco,
Tankfixer and company, whereas I honestly believe that we can actually
accomplish Venus, especially since it doesn't actually matter that
there's still no such fly-by-rocket landers, not even so much as any
R&D scaled prototypes as having been documented for other than being
impact/crash mode tested, and it certainly doesn't matter that the moon
is still very much hotter than a Van Allen fart when it comes down to
the available gamma and of the unavoidable hard-X-rays that'll nail our
frail DNA, not to mention the unavoidable double-IR by day plus the
otherwise lethal TBI dosage impact upon whatever Kodak film. Of
course, just the horrific amounts of raw solar near-UV and of the
intense UV spectrum itself is offering more than enough spectrum skewed
photographic impact, that which via those unfiltered Kodak moments has
more than proven that our physically dark and nasty moon (not the 55%
albedo worth of their guano island as lightly dusted with portland
cement and cornmeal) shouldn't have been as though xenon lamp spectrum
illuminated.

The much delayed science as having been processed by the ESE team of
Venus EXPRESS and perhaps as having been somewhat diverted by FW
Taylor, of thermal and other info coming in from their polar orbiting
mission, should be worth a little something better than being
topic/author stalked, bashed and/or banished simply because it doesn't
have your NASA good housekeeping stamp of approval. It's obviously not
intended as any match for the terrific imaging resolution obtained from
our NSA spy satellite as utilized by the Magellan mission, although
it's giving us new and improved science that's for the moment of more
importance than all of the infomercial eye-candy that you folks seem to
thrive upon.
-
Brad Guth

  #687  
Old July 6th 06, 01:28 AM posted to rec.models.rockets,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
Brad Guth[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 679
Default Brad Guth's Credentials

I mean, you went off the deep end talking about how bad the radiation
environment was, and TOTALLY IGNORE and TALK DOWN, clearly obvious
evidence like the actual record of radiation exposure of the Apollo
astronauts taken on their voyage.

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. If you can't trust those Kodak
moments, then what can you trust?

Besides, without a viable fly-by-rocket lander that has yet to be R&D
demonstrated or otherwise proof-tested, what's left to trust about much
of anything that's NASA/Apollo?

A nearly 30% inert Saturn 5 GLOW does not get 50+t past LL-1, much less
into orbiting our physically dark and DNA lethal moon within 75 hours.
That sort of cold-war fancy rocket-science simply can not be replicated
without involving a rather serious hocus-pocus extra butt-load of smoke
and mirrors.
-
Brad Guth

  #688  
Old July 6th 06, 05:30 AM posted to rec.models.rockets,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Brad Guth's Credentials


Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Once again, Brad, we are not talking about people walking around in
shorts and T-shirts. No, the Moon doesn't need a "robust atmosphere."

Without even so much as a toxic atmosphere it's going to remain as
somewhat tough for even the likes of robotics having to work the naked
solar/cosmic exposed surface, as the continual gauntlet of solar wind
comes ripping past at velocities as great as 2400 km/s that'll also
from time to time easily blow the lethal trail of our magnetosphere
entirely past the moon. Thus taking cover in whatever's robust or deep
underground is the one and only alternative unless you're a seriously
rad-hard and otherwise physically robust robot.


What's needed on the Moon are tunnels, lots and lots of tunnels, as
well as large underground chambers. And, yes, a nuclear reactor or
two. The magnetosphere idea would work well and easily. Leaded glass
protected by Lexan could be used for a few windows on surface
structures.

The mines would produce water, lead, titanium, aluminum, silicon. So,
building materials, rocket fuel, and drinking water are all 'up there'
waiting for us.


I agree that being sufficiently underground most of the time is the
only safe and sane way to fly our frail DNA onboard that physically
dark and nasty gamma plus otherwise unavoidably hard-X-ray moon of
ours.

I also agree that the required energy as to accomplish such things is
already up there and usable as is, especially once the LSE-CM/ISS is
delivering all the terajoules you could possibly demand, and making the
to/from access to the cool earthshine illuminated surface by way of an
energy efficient and safe method that obviously doesn't involve
unproven fly-by-rocket landers that have yet to be demonstrated.

Hollow rilles and large salty geode pockets may already exist as is.
Too bad we still haven't those JAVELIN probes stuck into the moon for a
good 3D look-see, or those of any other interactive science instruments
reporting back to Earth. It's exactly as though we've never been there
or otherwise done that moon thing (don't you think!).
-
Brad Guth





Actually there is a 'Conspiratorial Theory' that the U.S. already has a
large underground Moon base. Secret USAF Shuttles fly from Vandenberg
AFB in California. Scientists lounge around in large natural Moon
Caverns with small pools of Moon water amidst the boulders, basking in
the the soft glow of green Beta Lights that line the cavern walls.

Perhaps this explains the ISS photograph showing large rectangular
areas on the Moon. It might be indicative of strip mining He-3 and
other valuable Moon minerals. There may have been Moon Wars with the
'Conspiratorial Theory' that Russia has a big Moon base on the dark
side of the Moon. And, of course, the Russians get caught doing
'illegal' trade with the Outer Space Aliens, their silvery saucers
descending into large craters near the Russian base.

Some tunnels, a little lead, a reactor or two, some strip mining, and
all the problems are solved. No wonder there are so many
'Conspiratorial Theories'.


tomcat

  #689  
Old July 6th 06, 08:20 AM posted to rec.models.rockets,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default Brad Guth's Credentials


Brad Guth wrote:
I mean, you went off the deep end talking about how bad the radiation
environment was, and TOTALLY IGNORE and TALK DOWN, clearly obvious
evidence like the actual record of radiation exposure of the Apollo
astronauts taken on their voyage.

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. If you can't trust those Kodak
moments, then what can you trust?

Besides, without a viable fly-by-rocket lander that has yet to be R&D
demonstrated or otherwise proof-tested, what's left to trust about much
of anything that's NASA/Apollo?

A nearly 30% inert Saturn 5 GLOW does not get 50+t past LL-1, much less
into orbiting our physically dark and DNA lethal moon within 75 hours.
That sort of cold-war fancy rocket-science simply can not be replicated
without involving a rather serious hocus-pocus extra butt-load of smoke
and mirrors.
-
Brad Guth





The Apollo 15 Mission burn marks have been found on the Moon.

See:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...os_010427.html


This is the best proof yet that the Apollo Missions really took place.



tomcat

  #690  
Old July 6th 06, 04:22 PM posted to rec.models.rockets,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,rec.aviation.military
Brad Guth[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 679
Default Brad Guth's Credentials

tomcat wrote:
The Apollo 15 Mission burn marks have been found on the Moon.

See:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...os_010427.html

This is the best proof yet that the Apollo Missions really took place.


Good grief that's another old and fuzzy image that has been PhotoShop
processed to the max, that which proves nothing but for showing us what
such relatively newish impact craters look like. Can you point to any
one of the NASA/Apollo EVA obtained images showing us the similar 0.035
surrounding albedo as going for a hundred meters in all directions away
from each of their supposed landing sites? I'd also like to see a
little down-range burn pattern prior to impact.

Good grief that's another old and fuzzy image that has been PhotoShop
processed to the max, that proves nothing but for showing us what such
relatively newish impact craters look like. Can you point to any one
of the NASA/Apollo EVA obtained images showing us the similar 0.035
surrounding albedo as going for a hundred meters in all directions away
from each of their supposed landing sites? I'd also like to see a
little down-range burn pattern prior to impact.

Good Christ almighty, their very own words and Kodak moments having
stipulated that there was no such retrothrust impressions, much less
having created any physical burn or even blow-off of the dusty lunar
surface, as each lander seemingly had the very same thin layer of local
moon-dust as still coexisting directly under their rocket engine, as
for the same as the nearby dust where all of those supposed moonboot
foot prints are to be found. There's even an image of footprints that
somehow managed to get directly below that rocket nozzle (that's a
rather neat trick in of itself), and otherwise never once having
indicated a darker landing surface than what's otherwise having
surrounded each of their supposed fly-by-rocket landers. Are we good
at hocus-pocus, or what?

You do realize that the official NASA/Apollo images as having been
obtained from their extremely nearby orbit, as having at the very least
a ten fold better resolution to start with, plus actually offering
another 10 fold resolution boost by way of film being of so much better
off than CCD and via 10X telephoto lens means having easily obtained a
good 100 fold better image resolution than of that pathetic Clementine
obtained image, as for their own efforts having offered absolutely
zilch of each and every one of their own landing sites, that which they
unavoidably passed directly over how many times?

Besides your having ignored the facts and the hard-science truth(s) of
what their very own Kodak images and especially of their more recent
science has had to offer, it seems that you folks obviously don't know
much about body language or vocal stress, do you?

It's certainly obvious that you couldn't even tell by way of the
big-ass smirk on the butt-face of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush),
of which that sorry ******* having been nothing but a born-again liar
from the very get-go.

There were so many facial ticks and body squirms as Neil Armstrong
replied to that 60 MINUTES interview, and that was ongoing even as he
listened to the various questions, as there were uncontrolled eye and
of other body functions that were those of a guilty soul, so much so
that I'm not sure of what if anything was the truth. After all, I
believe that he'd be quite dead and of his entire family and close
friends sequestered and/or equally terminated before having said
anything else that wasn't approved/scripted. You do know that others
had been eliminated, don't you?

-

Speaking about some of the "assholness" of this anti-think-tank Usenet
from hell;
If Catholics still have no problems with their having mass exterminated
Cathars, plus anyone else within a days's march, then why not allow the
Pope to do the same to any unsuspecting ETs that might exist/coexist on
any other planet or moon, especially if they are merely those of other
Christ like Cathars, whereas Jews or perhaps even Muslims might
seemingly deserve the same demise?

Although, our born-again Christian warlord is actually doing a simply
damn fine job of it as is, so much so that we may not even require the
exterminating expertise of the Catholic Pope if we should run into
those ETs as Venusian heathens.

Actually, Venus could become a good place for Muslims that already seem
to like it dry and hot. They should also get along with whatever
Cathars and visiting ETs that may already be there.

"The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I
reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing." - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005

I totally agree with "Anthony Flew", that the Roman Catholic idea of
such a blood and guts sucking God that otherwise intellectually and
morally sucks and blows (especially within some realms of the Jewish
sector) is of nothing but seriously bad news, especially if that
represents the very best we've got to work with.
-
Brad Guth

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brad Guth's Credentials Robert Juliano Policy 715 July 15th 06 02:28 AM
Brad Guth's Credentials Robert Juliano Policy 0 February 19th 06 11:01 PM
Brad Guth's Credentials Robert Juliano History 0 February 19th 06 11:01 PM
Brad Guth's Credentials AM Amateur Astronomy 0 February 19th 06 03:26 AM
Brad Guth's Credentials Robert Juliano History 8 February 9th 06 01:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.