A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 23rd 08, 07:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Tow The Line

Elfritz Non Grata wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:38:18 -0600, kT wrote:

When I tow lines, usually it's in real life.


Quoting Robert Mosley III from Austin, Texas USA, from the headers :

Organization : ***** you, Tommy, you child molesting *******!*

More like *snort* lines. Whether it's Coke or Ajax will be up to a
medical examiner.


The ****tards sure are getting nervous on the usenet tonight.

Must be a change of administration coming up.
  #52  
Old December 23rd 08, 01:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

On 22 Dec, 21:50, Ian Parker Non Grata wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:00:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall

wrote:
Yeah, I do. *That's part of why I don't give a **** what a loonytoon
like you thinks.


Fred, the only reason people put you in their killfiles is that you
insist on getting into worthless flamefests with retarded dickwads
like Ian and Chimpko. If you'd just kill file them, then you'd
actually be a respected member of the sci.space.* community. I've seen
your posts on google groups from 15-16 years ago, before you and
Chimpko got into your feud, and you actually were a positive
contributor.

Please, kill file Ian as you claim you did Chimpko, and let the
retarded ******* masturbate by himself.


I am not the one to be killfiled,. All I have ever done is insist on
certain standards for debate in a ascientific discussion group. I am
one of the people who is insisting on the fact that you must take AI
into account when deliberating. This MUST influence our decisions on
manned versus unmanned spaceflight.

The comments I have had on the subject have been completely uncalled
for. If anyone killfiles me they will be creatng a group which
consists of failed astronauts. I think I have said this before. There
is one additional point that should be made about ad hominem arguments
and that is that the beloved Pentagon is itswelf lunatic. It is going
into AI more enthusiasically than anyone else. DARPA promoted the
200km Las Vegas challenge and the Urban chhallenge and is thinking of
helicopters that land on a windowsill.

Is politics/Iraq the point. It is and it isn't. I feel that home
truths should be told. They claim "sanity" yet they have promoted
insane wars.

Do their activities hamper discussion. Undoubtedly, quite apart from
AI there is the example of hypersonic flight.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...6c3c543d?hl=en

Peter Stickney (Contribution 12) is absolutely correct in everything
he says. Only one problem though. When this was discussed in
rec.aviation.mititary (admittedly does not begin with sci.) I was
called a lunatic for suggesting very similar things.

Space Colonies - This was where it all started. Stephen Hawking said
that we needed space colonies "TO SAFEGUARD THE EARTH". I think it is
perfectly correct and proper to point out that the main risks are
anthropogenic and that there are more cost effective ways of ensurinb
the survival of Humanity even there.

In modern dancing people often lift their pareners and throw them
around. If anyone on "strictly come dancing" had sggested a stage in
space at reduced gravity (O'Neill type), or suggested any other reason
than "saving the World" it would indeed be inappropiate to comment in
the way I did. The fact that I met with a series of lies and
obtefusions seems fairly typical.

In terms of the general quality of contributions I feel I should say
this. Simple_language has layed down the gauntlet. If what he says is
correct there are clear implications for low cost spaceflight. Clearly
we should be mass producing expendible rockets.

Is there an "Al-kalb" training course? I really don't know. I must say
that the remarks that have been made to me are similar to remarks made
to other people in different circumstances. This suggests to me that
they all come from a common source. I feel it is the Establishment at
work. In a scientific discussion group it is concomitant on them to
justify the views they hold. The fact that they fail to do so is
indicative of the paucity of any real argument.

I will repeat. If you do not allow opinions contrary to the
"Establishment" you might as well simply read NASA's bulletin board.


- Ian Parker
  #53  
Old December 23rd 08, 01:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar


Space Colonies - This was where it all started. Stephen Hawking said
that we needed space colonies "TO SAFEGUARD THE EARTH". I think it is
perfectly correct and proper to point out that the main risks are
anthropogenic and that there are more cost effective ways of ensurinb
the survival of Humanity even there.

In modern dancing people often lift their parteners and throw them
around. If anyone on "strictly come dancing" had sggested a stage in
space at reduced gravity (O'Neill type), or suggested any other reason
than "saving the World" it would indeed be inappropiate to comment in
the way I did. The fact that I met with a series of lies and
obtefusions seems fairly typical.

This is particularly true when you remember that a "siege" colony,
that is to say a colony that can exist completely independently of
Earth is a complete pipedream. What is more they (Fred, Rand et al)
all know this as well as me, and have done all along.


- Ian Parker
  #54  
Old December 23rd 08, 02:21 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:37:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

snip much typical Ian lunacy

Is there an "Al-kalb" training course? I really don't know. I must say
that the remarks that have been made to me are similar to remarks made
to other people in different circumstances. This suggests to me that
they all come from a common source. I feel it is the Establishment at
work. In a scientific discussion group it is concomitant on them to
justify the views they hold. The fact that they fail to do so is
indicative of the paucity of any real argument.

I will repeat. If you do not allow opinions contrary to the
"Establishment" you might as well simply read NASA's bulletin board.


This is classic paranoid schizophrenia, folks.
  #55  
Old December 23rd 08, 02:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

On 23 Dec, 13:21, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:37:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

snip much typical Ian lunacy

Is there an "Al-kalb" training course? I really don't know. I must say
that the remarks that have been made to me are similar to remarks made
to other people in different circumstances. This suggests to me that
they all come from a common source. I feel it is the Establishment at
work. In a scientific discussion group it is concomitant on them to
justify the views they hold. The fact that they fail to do so is
indicative of the paucity of any real argument.


I will repeat. If you do not allow opinions contrary to the
"Establishment" you might as well simply read NASA's bulletin board.


This is classic paranoid schizophrenia, folks.


Honestly you do wonder. My contribution was very reasoned. I did not
ask for embarrassing remarks on Obama or anything else. I was asking a
number of questions that are very pertinant to space and I get a reply
like that.

Really what can you say? This group is one for failed astronauts and
Establishment cronies.

All the remarks I have made deserve a decent reply. I will ask again.

1) How can manned spaceflight be justified with the enormous expansion
in AI and robatic capability in general?

2) Should winged craft be considered at all in view of what
simple_language has said? What about the 2 tons of lead?

3) If you are going to have space colonies (to save the World that is)
should not anthpogenic threats be considered?

It has become increasingly clear that there is indeed an "Al-kalb"
course. No one is prepared to arge anymore in a proper scientific way.
This group is not a science group. I don't know what it is but it is
definitely not scientific. How anyone can pretend it is I don't know.
It is a group for failed astronauts and progeny of dogs.


- Ian Parker
  #56  
Old December 23rd 08, 03:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar


"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 23 Dec, 13:21, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:37:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

snip much typical Ian lunacy

Is there an "Al-kalb" training course? I really don't know. I must say
that the remarks that have been made to me are similar to remarks made
to other people in different circumstances. This suggests to me that
they all come from a common source. I feel it is the Establishment at
work. In a scientific discussion group it is concomitant on them to
justify the views they hold. The fact that they fail to do so is
indicative of the paucity of any real argument.


I will repeat. If you do not allow opinions contrary to the
"Establishment" you might as well simply read NASA's bulletin board.


This is classic paranoid schizophrenia, folks.


Honestly you do wonder. My contribution was very reasoned. I did not
ask for embarrassing remarks on Obama or anything else. I was asking a
number of questions that are very pertinant to space and I get a reply
like that.

Really what can you say? This group is one for failed astronauts and
Establishment cronies.

All the remarks I have made deserve a decent reply. I will ask again.

1) How can manned spaceflight be justified with the enormous expansion
in AI and robatic capability in general?


Robots still can't do 1/10th of what a man in a suit can do. The rovers on
Mars have taken years to move less distance than the manned lunar rovers did
during Apollo.

2) Should winged craft be considered at all in view of what
simple_language has said? What about the 2 tons of lead?


You can't damn all winged craft based on a sample size of one experimental
craft (the US space shuttle). I don't count the Russian shuttle since it's
a clone of the US shuttle.

3) If you are going to have space colonies (to save the World that is)
should not anthpogenic threats be considered?


WTF are you talking about? It's statements like this that make you look
like a complete nut job.

It has become increasingly clear that there is indeed an "Al-kalb"
course. No one is prepared to arge anymore in a proper scientific way.



Actually, I am, it's you that's putting faith in things like robotics and
"AI" when such faith is unwarrented. The utility of people in spacesuits is
well demonstrated. The utility of robotics and AI to replace them is not.

This group is not a science group. I don't know what it is but it is
definitely not scientific. How anyone can pretend it is I don't know.
It is a group for failed astronauts and progeny of dogs.



Well, if you didn't appear to the rest of the group as a wounded animal,
then perhaps the dogs would not attack.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson


  #57  
Old December 23rd 08, 05:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

On 23 Dec, 14:56, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message
Really what can you say? This group is one for failed astronauts and
Establishment cronies.


All the remarks I have made deserve a decent reply. I will ask again.


1) How can manned spaceflight be justified with the enormous expansion
in AI and robatic capability in general?


Robots still can't do 1/10th of what a man in a suit can do. *The rovers on
Mars have taken years to move less distance than the manned lunar rovers did
during Apollo.

Apollo was in 1969/70 a lot has changed since then. In 1969 the only
way to get a quality Moon mission was to send astronauts. This is not
true today.

I think we must look at robots not only today but at the critical
dates. Moon base 2020. Manned expedition to Mars 2030. These are not
my dates BTW, I regard them as being very optimistic. They assume that
space is going to be a high priority for administrations.

As I think I have said you don't need full AI a la Kurtzweil. You just
need human manual dexterity + some pattern recognition capability.
This is in fact being worked on now.

2) Should winged craft be considered at all in view of what
simple_language has said? What about the 2 tons of lead?


You can't damn all winged craft based on a sample size of one experimental
craft (the US space shuttle). *I don't count the Russian shuttle since it's
a clone of the US shuttle.

Indeed not. I think in fact "simple language" was oversimlified. There
are a few points that can be made. One ad hominem point is that
Arianespace has built an extremely successful COMMERCIAL business on
the Ariane 5 expendible. If your load is too small perhaps a Soyuz
would suit you sir.

There is one point about Physics and it is this. The kinetic theory of
gases tells us that thermal conductivity is independent of pressure.
This tells us that the total thermal transfer is minimized by braking
hard (with a capsule) the rate of heat transfer is higher, a lot
higher, than for wings. The total transfer is less.

This means that if we can reduce thermal loading to the point where
you can reenter without ablation a winged craft has advantages, along
with some disadvantages, over a capsule. If you need thermal tiles (as
the Shuttle does) you might as well have a capsule as the total
ablation will be less.

There are, of course other types of winged craft. There has been the
suggestion that Ariane should replace its solid fuel boosters with a
liquid fuel rocket plane. Indeed Ariane (and the Shuttle) destroy the
ozone layer. The only reason why they don't do more damage is because
of infinite dilution. There are very few flights.

My point though was this. People should have told Simple_language the
error of his ways as soon as he posted.

3) If you are going to have space colonies (to save the World that is)
should not anthpogenic threats be considered?


WTF are you talking about? *It's statements like this that make you look
like a complete nut job.


I disagree. As I pointed out there are reasons for space colonies
other than "saving the world". In view however of trends in automation
it is hard to see any real scientific value, if that is your
criterion. Youu need to find a humanistic reason. Perhaps throwing
your partner over your head is as good as any.

Hawking however expressly mentioned "saving the world". When you say
that you immediately ask "are there better ways of doing this?". Risks
fall into 2 classes. There are natural risks like asteroids and
volcanic eruptions, and there are antropgenic risks like genetically
engineered lurgis. Most people who have studied this question believe
that antropogenic risks are much greater. My feelings are and have
always been these.

1) These risks should be tackled on Earth. Talking about space
colonies only gives an excuse to the establishment to ignore them.

2) A space colony will NOT be immune from antropogenic risk. Indeed
space colonies may even increase the risk.

3) A siege colony is an impossibility in any event.

It has become increasingly clear that there is indeed an "Al-kalb"
course. No one is prepared to arge anymore in a proper scientific way.


Actually, I am, it's you that's putting faith in things like robotics and
"AI" when such faith is unwarrented. *The utility of people in spacesuits is
well demonstrated. *The utility of robotics and AI to replace them is not.

Well, after Hawking had made his remarks and I had made my first
posting I made a few errors about the Antrax attacks. The point, which
I wanted to make, was that the attacks had originated in the US, were
of US military manufacture and had done immense damage. This is
undeniable. I got the impression that I knew the truth and they knew
the truth.

As a token of their concern about the risk of meteorites they
deliberated hijacked a discussion on that very subject.

Mrs. Stevens is someone I feel very sorry for. How relevant is this?
Well the fact that the sons of dogs argued that they were not
responsible speaks volumes about them.

As I said I don't know whether there is conspiracy or not. There are
just too many cooincidences/

This group is not a science group. I don't know what it is but it is
definitely not scientific. How anyone can pretend it is I don't know.
It is a group for failed astronauts and progeny of dogs.


Well, if you didn't appear to the rest of the group as a wounded animal,
then perhaps the dogs would not attack.

Such behaviour would be completely unacceptable in any scientific
conference. No one can deny this. I will not put up with this and I do
not see why I should have to.


- Ian Parker
  #58  
Old December 23rd 08, 05:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

Getting onto the main point. Was he a liar. NASA receives a great many
ideas from people, some good some cracked. I think what is being said
(in a nutshell) is that NASA has not adopted their hobbyhorse.

A winged vehicle may be the right answer in the far future. To me
there are 3 areas.

1) Conventional expendibles - the preferred NASA route.

2) Winged vehicles - They are in fact being investigated.

3) Nuclear - only suitable FROM LEO and likely to raise political
problems.

4) Ion propulsion - only suitable from LEO. A quadrature spacecraft
could take astronauts to Mars

Of those the only real possibility is "4". This leaves us with the
more exotic possibilities. What about William Mook, what about heating
hydrogen with lasers? NASA has in point of fact investigated this
possibility also. It has investigated small payloads propelled by
lasers.


- Ian Parker
  #59  
Old December 23rd 08, 06:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

On Dec 23, 5:21*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:37:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

snip much typical Ian lunacy

Is there an "Al-kalb" training course? I really don't know. I must say
that the remarks that have been made to me are similar to remarks made
to other people in different circumstances. This suggests to me that
they all come from a common source. I feel it is the Establishment at
work. In a scientific discussion group it is concomitant on them to
justify the views they hold. The fact that they fail to do so is
indicative of the paucity of any real argument.


I will repeat. If you do not allow opinions contrary to the
"Establishment" you might as well simply read NASA's bulletin board.


This is classic paranoid schizophrenia, folks.


That's exactly what Hitler was telling everyone, and come to think,
the same as what our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) was telling us.

~ BG
  #60  
Old December 23rd 08, 07:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

On Dec 23, 6:56*am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...



On 23 Dec, 13:21, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:37:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


snip much typical Ian lunacy


Is there an "Al-kalb" training course? I really don't know. I must say
that the remarks that have been made to me are similar to remarks made
to other people in different circumstances. This suggests to me that
they all come from a common source. I feel it is the Establishment at
work. In a scientific discussion group it is concomitant on them to
justify the views they hold. The fact that they fail to do so is
indicative of the paucity of any real argument.


I will repeat. If you do not allow opinions contrary to the
"Establishment" you might as well simply read NASA's bulletin board.


This is classic paranoid schizophrenia, folks.


Honestly you do wonder. My contribution was very reasoned. I did not
ask for embarrassing remarks on Obama or anything else. I was asking a
number of questions that are very pertinant to space and I get a reply
like that.


Really what can you say? This group is one for failed astronauts and
Establishment cronies.


All the remarks I have made deserve a decent reply. I will ask again.


1) How can manned spaceflight be justified with the enormous expansion
in AI and robatic capability in general?


Robots still can't do 1/10th of what a man in a suit can do. *The rovers on
Mars have taken years to move less distance than the manned lunar rovers did
during Apollo.


What good to science are dead astronauts?

What good is yet another decade of horrifically spendy R&D on behalf
of manned fly-by-rocket missions that haven't even accomplished our
Selene/moon?


2) Should winged craft be considered at all in view of what
simple_language has said? What about the 2 tons of lead?


You can't damn all winged craft based on a sample size of one experimental
craft (the US space shuttle). *I don't count the Russian shuttle since it's
a clone of the US shuttle.


What a born-again liar. US and USSR/Russia are one in the same, as
using the same Zionist/Nazi expertise.


3) If you are going to have space colonies (to save the World that is)
should not anthpogenic threats be considered?


WTF are you talking about? *It's statements like this that make you look
like a complete nut job.

It has become increasingly clear that there is indeed an "Al-kalb"
course. No one is prepared to arge anymore in a proper scientific way.


Actually, I am, it's you that's putting faith in things like robotics and
"AI" when such faith is unwarrented. *The utility of people in spacesuits is
well demonstrated. *The utility of robotics and AI to replace them is not.


Without robotics and advanced technology we wouldn't know 100% of what
little we do about our Selene/moon, as well as 100% of all other off-
worldly places. You need to get a fresh grip.


This group is not a science group. I don't know what it is but it is
definitely not scientific. How anyone can pretend it is I don't know.
It is a group for failed astronauts and progeny of dogs.


Well, if you didn't appear to the rest of the group as a wounded animal,
then perhaps the dogs would not attack.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." *-- Freeman Dyson


You mean that suddenly you are no longer going to lie through your
mainstream status quo butt-cheeks?

~ BG
 




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
Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar kT Space Shuttle 151 December 29th 08 08:50 AM
Astronaut Steve MacLean Appointed President of the CSA (Forwarded) Andrew Yee[_1_] News 0 September 6th 08 06:26 PM
AG LIAR Rick Nelson Space Shuttle 0 February 7th 06 12:15 AM
Canadian Space Agency Astronaut Steve MacLean Honoured by Israeli Delegation Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 July 21st 03 08:20 PM
Canadian Space Agency Astronaut Steve MacLean Honoured by Israeli Delegation Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 July 21st 03 08:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:59 PM.


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.