|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#681
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
|
#684
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
|
#685
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |