Our moon is hot, Venus is not

Brad Guth wrote:
"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:iJIDg.6997$Mz3.2626@fed1read07

Ok, Brad, then how did the ten astronauts who actually walked on Luna's
surface, two of whom stayed there for about an Earth-day, survive their
experience unharmed? If the radiation levels were as high as you're
claiming, I doubt that they would have lived long enough to return to
the Earth, yet several of them are still alive today, decades later!

First of all, they had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander,

How do you justify that claim?

Got any such scaled to suit Earth gravity of their fly-by-rocket
prototypes, as representing their essential step by step R&D to show us?

That would be the LLRV and LLTV which used a jet engine to get to
test altitude and rockets to control descent.

Got anything that's of fly-by-rocket that doesn't involve momentum
reaction wheels?

"Momentum reaction wheels"? Sorry, Dean Drives are fictional.

Secondly, our Saturn 5 at nearly 30% inert GLOW and somehow having
accomplished nearly a 60:1 ratio of rocket per payload so quickly into
getting such horrific tonnage into orbiting our moon is a wee bit more
than impressive by even modern day rocket-science.

I must say, your deliberate ignorance is spectacular.

therefore
just getting to/from that physically dark sucker is still in the works
of getting R&D applied, as not even a viable test prototype seems to
exist,

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

Infomercial-science and of those hocus-pocus conditional laws of physics
doen't count.

"Hocus-pocus conditional laws of physics"?

I see. You simply deny reality in order to support your fantasies.
I'm certain that you'll refuse to accept that the LLTV's existed either.

and that goes for those AI/robotic Russian landers as well.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...nned_Moon.html

specifically the section L-3 must be a total fabrication too?

YES! not that they too didn't try like hell to actually pull it off,
just as we'd made the all-our effort of accomplishing the same.

Since you obviously didn't check to see what the (non-NASA) link
referred to, I'll tell you; it's about the Russians testing their
lander's systems in Earth orbit, specifically that they could maneuver
and join up. It worked just fine but as we know they ran out of
enthusiasm when they realized they just couldn't catch up.

So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us
village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task
was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran.

Kinda difficult to do that without referencing NASA.

That's just it, whereas it should not be all that difficult since every
bit of the required R&D and of the actual items sent on those missions
was commercially accomplished outside of NASA, as somewhat delivered to
their perpetrated cold-war hands COD.

Um, no. While it was indeed all built by private contractors, all
their paperwork went to NASA; those companies that still exist had no
reason to hold onto it. Have you never cleared out old paperwork? No,
wait, what am I saying? Obviously not, otherwise you'd not still be
living in your fantasyland based on 17th century physics and what, 12th
century technology?

How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing
anything at all from NASA?

Already been there and done that. Where the heck have you folks been
all of these years?

IOW no, you can't. If you could you'd simply provide links to a neat,
explicit set of data _that you didn't massage_ for independent review,
just as you require others to do.


Mark L. Fergerson

"Urban Fredriksson" wrote in message


Sort of: It had a gimballed jet engine which lifted 5/6 of
the vehicle, in simulation mode always oriented vertically (but
it could lift all of it). This way reduced gravity was
simulated with its pair of (no place for a single) rocket
engines giving the same vertical rates as on the moon.

That supposed prototype lander was nothing but a total fiasco that you
wouldn't dare to publicly demonstrate, and otherwise so much so freaking
lethal that none of the astronauts ever once managed a safe down-range
test flight and/or having managed a controlled soft landing, and to
think that even that much of an effort was under the utmost of locally
controlled conditions at that.

If they supposedly had those sufficiently modulated main and reaction
thrusters, and w/o involving momentum reaction wheels, then why not a
full scaled version without involving all of the easily removed inert
mass (including extra fuel that's not necessary for accomplishing such
prototype fly-by-rocket testing)?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
"Urban Fredriksson" wrote in message


Sort of: It had a gimballed jet engine which lifted 5/6 of
the vehicle, in simulation mode always oriented vertically (but
it could lift all of it). This way reduced gravity was
simulated with its pair of (no place for a single) rocket
engines giving the same vertical rates as on the moon.

That supposed prototype lander was nothing but a total fiasco that you
wouldn't dare to publicly demonstrate, and otherwise so much so freaking
lethal that none of the astronauts ever once managed a safe down-range
test flight and/or having managed a controlled soft landing, and to
think that even that much of an effort was under the utmost of locally
controlled conditions at that.

You are, as usual, full of crap:

http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html

Note more than 100 successful flights of the LLRV. The three crashes
were due to mechanical failures, not because it was impossible to fly.

What do you mean by "controlled conditions"? Outdoors hardly
qualifies as "controlled", except possibly when waiting for periods of
reasonably low wind speed. AFAIK neither the LLRV or LLTV were ever
flown indoors.

Also note that they were _not_ designed to be any kind of
"prototype", but rather to be _simulators_ that could replicate the
_behavior_ of the Lunar Lander so pilots could practice.

What exactly would be the point of trying to fly a prototype of the
Lunar Lander in Earth's gravity and atmosphere where it couldn't
possibly fly and in fact would be guaranteed to crash?

If they supposedly had those sufficiently modulated main and reaction
thrusters, and w/o involving momentum reaction wheels, then why not a
full scaled version without involving all of the easily removed inert
mass (including extra fuel that's not necessary for accomplishing such
prototype fly-by-rocket testing)?

Again, why bother trying to fly something that couldn't possibly fly
in a full gee? Remember the Lunar descent and ascent engines were
designed to work in a one-sixth-Earth-gee field. The LLRV and LLTV _did_
"fly by rocket", and the airbreathing jets were there for safety's sake.

One more time; what the hell are these "momentum reaction wheels" you
keep going on about, reaction gyros for orientation control? They were
considered too massive and not reliable enough; the Reaction Control
System was a much better option.


Mark L. Fergerson

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Jordan" wrote in message

So wait, Brad is actually claiming that nobody ever landed on the Moon?

Among other things, yes.

From what I've seen, that's not even one of the crazier things he's
claiming.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
With such a weapon I could boil the Earth to vapor.
-- Chmeee

Mark L. Fergerson,
How totally status quo pathetic, and otherwise how Third Reich of
yourself.

Keep up the good work because, they're cloning a Hitler replacement just
for the likes of yourself. Of cource you've already got one better in
your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

I can tell by your lack of constructive topic contributions and
otherwise by your evidence exclusions thus far, that your're one of them
(AKA the bad guys).

Where exactly did you learn to lie your incest cloned butt off, and
without a speck of remorse at that?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:21:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Erik Max
Francis made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Jordan" wrote in message

So wait, Brad is actually claiming that nobody ever landed on the Moon?

Among other things, yes.

From what I've seen, that's not even one of the crazier things he's
claiming.

No, if that were all he was claiming, he'd be a member of an
astonishingly (and depressingly) large number of people.

Greg D. Moore,
Thanks for the same old wag-the-dog of your crapolla that's flowing up
hill. Is that it?

Apparently you haven't any replicated hard scientific as independent
facts to share and share alike.

I must be a whole lot more right than I'd thought. Gee whiz, what a
surprise.

I see that you've still got that all-knowing fuggy stuck in your wedgy,
or is it just your big head that's stuffed up your ass?
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:gl7Eg.7091$Mz3.1207@fed1read07

http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html
Infomercial-science that oddly can't be replicated.

Note more than 100 successful flights of the LLRV. The three crashes
were due to mechanical failures, not because it was impossible to fly.
MOS infomercial-science that can't be replicated.

What do you mean by "controlled conditions"? Outdoors hardly
qualifies as "controlled", except possibly when waiting for periods of
reasonably low wind speed. AFAIK neither the LLRV or LLTV were ever
flown indoors.
A trully fly-by-rocket prototype lander can be configured as more energy
per inert mass efficient than some atmospheric hybrid. We're so
pathetic that still can't even manage a safe VTOL fighter jet. Shall we
bring back the Osprey for good measure?

Also note that they were _not_ designed to be any kind of
"prototype", but rather to be _simulators_ that could replicate the
_behavior_ of the Lunar Lander so pilots could practice.
None of them "practiced" squat, and that was because it was too lethal.

What exactly would be the point of trying to fly a prototype of the
Lunar Lander in Earth's gravity and atmosphere where it couldn't
possibly fly and in fact would be guaranteed to crash?
I say "Liar Liar Pants On Fire". We nor the USSR simply couldn't do it
then and we still can't manage to accomplish it as of today. In fact,
there an X-Prise of sorts for someone to accomplish such. Would you
like me to relocate and post a link to that agenda?

One more time; what the hell are these "momentum reaction wheels"
you keep going on about.
Apparently these nifty momentum reaction wheels are super
taboo/nondisclosure, thus if I told you I have to kill you.

Besides, since unfiltered Kodak film doesn't lie, therefore, how many
lies upon lies are you folks planning upon telling us?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
Mark L. Fergerson,
How totally status quo pathetic, and otherwise how Third Reich of
yourself.

Keep up the good work because, they're cloning a Hitler replacement just
for the likes of yourself. Of cource you've already got one better in
your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

I can tell by your lack of constructive topic contributions and
otherwise by your evidence exclusions thus far, that your're one of them
(AKA the bad guys).

Where exactly did you learn to lie your incest cloned butt off, and
without a speck of remorse at that?

You've run out of substantive arguments, and respond to direct
challenges to your claims with spewed vitriol.

Is that all you've got? If so, consider yourself killfiled.


Mark L. Fergerson

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:21:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Erik Max
Francis made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Jordan" wrote in message

So wait, Brad is actually claiming that nobody ever landed on the Moon?

Among other things, yes.

From what I've seen, that's not even one of the crazier things he's
claiming.

No, if that were all he was claiming, he'd be a member of an
astonishingly (and depressingly) large number of people.

This is a good example of how historical memory can fade, even of a
fairly recent and well-reported event. In this case, I think the
motives are that some people (a) want to accuse the US Government of
various Evil Conspiracies (and don't understand enough about the world
to grasp that pretty much ALL the Great Powers would have to collude in
this, for no obvious reason in the world of 1969); and (b) don't like
the fact that America accomplished something great.

Though note: the faked Lunar landing lunatics actually started
claiming that the landing had been hoaxed as early as the 1970's. But
back then, the landing was a more recent event and hence people weren't
as gullible about this claim.

I have heard that a majority of Middle Eastern Arabs disbelieve in the
Lunar landing, which is a good measure of the lack of cultural maturity
and the isolation from modernity of that part of the world, IMO. It's
a shame that this lunacy is spreading.

I wonder if, when we've returned to the Moon in the late 2010's, the
Lunar denial people will claim that it's a _new_ fake (CGI tech and all
that) or that we have reached the Moon for the _first time?_

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan