Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:28:48 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Son of
Serpent Esq" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"BradGuth" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Jun 10, 10:18 am, "Son of Serpent Esq" wrote:

Don't you know that NASA is just another Zionist plot for complete and
outright illegal Zionist occupation of space?

NASA is merely a Zion puppet agency, much like our DoD.

Brad, if you couldn't tell I was trying to inject a little humor here

Brad has no sense of humor. He's nuts. Please killfile him, as most
of the rest of us have, long ago, and stop feeding his illness.


Good advice. I was bored, sorry.

On 9 Jun, 13:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:

:
:You could build a proof of concept and then move it to Earth - moon L1
:to support lunar operations, which might at some point need multi MW
f power. The scaling issue would be solved by replacing the rectenna
:with lasers.
:

Now convince everyone that putting multi-megawatt lasers in space
isn't a weapons program...

No chance. Some people can't even see the difference between an anti
missile station and a nuclear base.

Now account for the fact that laser power transmission is almost an
order of magnitude less efficient than microwaves.

Grid to grid efficiency could be 25%. This would make space solar
power competitive with lunar solar power in some cases. The system
works from 5MW (output) only.

Now account for the size of your solar collector (20 square miles and
~50 tons, costing ~$400 million just to lift from earth).

The solar collectors on the lunar surface would need to be about 40m
wide. On the lunar surface, the film would weigh a few a few kg, and
be permanently orientated towards L1.

If the primary solar collector is made on Earth, then there are
further advantages in lifting it to L1, rather than to the lunar
surface.

Jonathan wrote:


Stop posting to Usenet and start talking to Congressmen --
actually *talking to Congressmen* and trying to get your message across,
not just telling people how easy it will be to convince Congressmen.



Now who is it that is showing their political shortcomings?
Politicians are convinced by votes, and large numbers of votes.

So, persuade the voters.

Do that and you will be my hero.

Hop

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Why do you assume that NASA has a goal of getting us on the moon in a
major way?

Point taken.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...

Won't work. If it's built for LEO operations, the transmitting antenna
will be an order of magnitude too small for GEO operations. And no, we
aren't going to put a GEO-sized antenna on a proof-of-concept prototype.
The GEO-sized antenna is what effectively sets the minimum scale of the
whole thing, which is to say "gargantuan".

Gotcha. Thanks.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

On Jun 7, 2:58 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

:On Jun 5, 11:54 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Joe Strout wrote:

: Again, get current. It's not 2005, either. It's 2007 and China just
: screamed past us in the last few months (a good year or two ahead of
: the projections).
:
:Cite?
:

Is it that you just don't pay attention to the news or do you simply
ignore anything you don't want to hear? See statements by Fatih Birol
of the IEA and many others.

You are correct. I had missed that snippet of news.

: :Granted, China's got a lot of power coming online in the near future,
: :but it's extreme head-in-the-sand-ism to say that US emissions don't
: :matter. We're responsible for over 20% of the CO2 emitted on the
: lanet. That's huge.
: :
:
: And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
: producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
: the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.
:
:Why should that be the metric?
:

Because other ways of measuring impact are simply silly unless your
goal is for us all to move back into caves.

My goal is to be fair and have a sustainable economy. That doesn't
imply
going back into caves at all.

:Why not CO2 production per capita?
where
:the West lags way behind China and India.) Shouldn't everyone be
:treated
:equally?
:

Yes, they should, and that treatment should be based on how much
output they get for how much carbon they emit to get it. It's the
same rule for everyone, not biased to encourage everyone being dragged
down to the lowest common denominator.

That looks quite a lot like "the rich should be allowed to pollute
more than the poor" to me. And I don't think that is fair.

Historically when contraints on usage of a resource had to be
allocated, it wasn't done on the basis of those who output more own
more. At least not in places with semi-sane governments. Take radio
frequencies for example. Typically, they are auctionned off. The
proceeds going to governments, in other words to the people. That is
because radio frequencies belonged to everyone equally until the were
sold or rented. I think the atmosphere should be the same. Every human
being has an equal right to using the atmophere, not based on ones
output but based on one being a person.

:If some use their share of CO2 production inefficiently and
:don't
:make much with that is their problem,

No, it's EVERYONE'S problem, since if you measure on a per capita
basis and believe the disaster scenarios for global warming that
essentially says that one of two things happens:

1) The planet gets an economic death spiral, as total output must fall
in a system biased to favour the less economically efficient
contributors to the problem, or

Don't be so pessimistic. We can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and
have the economy grow. Reducing CO2 emissions does not mean reducing
economic output.


Alain Fournier

"Hop David" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:


Stop posting to Usenet and start talking to Congressmen --
actually *talking to Congressmen* and trying to get your message across,
not just telling people how easy it will be to convince Congressmen.



Now who is it that is showing their political shortcomings?
Politicians are convinced by votes, and large numbers of votes.

So, persuade the voters.

Do that and you will be my hero.


Ever study how a rumor spreads. It's not so much
how many people you convince, but where and now.
A nice example is a business convention.
Somone tells a story to ten people, and they
take it back and to ten parts of the country.
Next thing ya know, it's everywhere.

Carefully designed cross posting, combined with
a message with effective form and content, can
have an effect.








Hop

On Jun 10, 1:28 pm, "Son of Serpent Esq" wrote:
Brad, if you couldn't tell I was trying to inject a little humor here with
that rediculous line about the occupation of "infinite" space then maybe you
should consider a little break from this Zionist conspiracy crap... before
you like snap completely.

That wasn't even a bit funny, as just look at what them pesky Zions
have done to Earth thus far, and to think their fat lady hasn't even
arrived to sing that last song.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 10, 1:38 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
Brad has no sense of humor. He's nuts. Please killfile him, as most
of the rest of us have, long ago, and stop feeding his illness.

I actually have lots of humor, as I think you and of your kind are
funny as ****.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

Why are Zions so deathly afraid of their own shadow?

Why are Zions opposed to whatever ETs (intelligent or not)?
-
Brad Guth