|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
Why exactly are either of you Third Reich collaborating minions even
here? Is this the very best that such brown-nosed MIB rusemasters can accomplish? Am I and of otherwise the banishing of whatever's the truth actually worth that much of a Jewish effort? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
captain. wrote: "Brad Guth" wrote in message news:ef1e6bcc620f386c664f803c5a55fcba.49644@mygate .mailgate.org... "captain." wrote in message news:0lvMg.787$bf5.127@edtnps90 hmmm, i'm impressed that you knew that twink. good work! How absolutely silly does absolute silliness have a numerical value? of yourself, and proof-positive of what rusemasters you folks actually are. well yes, the twinker and myself are behind the plot to convince the public that the moon is migrating outwards with each passing year. we almost had you all fooled. Before we blindly leap ourselves onto our moon (for the first time), perhaps we should think again. You folks have got to be absolutely kidding about utilizing the physically dark surface of our extremely dusty and highly reactive moon, especially for much of anything that's on behalf of optical astronomy. aren't you the guy who thinks there should be a colony on venus? now that's crazy! Why is it cracy? There are only a limited amount of living space on this planet Earth. At the rate earth's population is growing, we should set our sight into Venus or Mars. Our scientists today should be studying these planets to see how we can make it liveable for human beings. At best, the LL-1 zone (60,000 km away from the moon) is relatively clean of debris and perhaps far enough away from that nasty moon of our's in order to humanly survive the combined solar/cosmic/moon TBI dosage, but that's only if well enough shielded by a few meters of water. Our moon's surface is highly if not entirely exposed to solar wind driven electrostatics and otherwise being that of a naked anticathode environment that's rather solar/cosmic and locally DNA lethal (far worse off than anything Van Allen belt related), plus continually and unavoidably running itself into stuff at 30+ km/s, and otherwise gravity attracting upon all that's nearby, is perhaps good for the sorts of robust robotics of those tough little SAR image receiving modules, but otherwise hardly suited for that of anything optical or otherwise end-user-friendly unless it's going deep underground. Do any of you folks even realize what absolutely terrific resolution a given focal length of 384,000 km can do on behalf SAR imaging? (I didn't think so) we'll look into it right away sir!@ Such pure robotics on behalf of accomplishing such extended SAR/VLA imaging is actually based upon extremely efficient deployments of what should not represent 10% of a given Apollo mission, and/or perhaps not even involving 1% the mass per SAR image receiving module, and without folks ever having to endure the trauma as to what that sort of nasty lunar surface environment would otherwise be nailing countless strands of human DNA per second. Of course the regular laws of physics and I could be entirely wrong. In which case, how much DNA trauma and/or physical impact trauma can a human or that of anything optical withstand? - Brad Guth it's not something that i consider on a daily basis. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
I would set my sights on Pluto. The real estate values have plummeted since
it was declared a non-planet. No one will bother you there. wrote in message ups.com... captain. wrote: "Brad Guth" wrote in message news:ef1e6bcc620f386c664f803c5a55fcba.49644@mygate .mailgate.org... "captain." wrote in message news:0lvMg.787$bf5.127@edtnps90 hmmm, i'm impressed that you knew that twink. good work! How absolutely silly does absolute silliness have a numerical value? of yourself, and proof-positive of what rusemasters you folks actually are. well yes, the twinker and myself are behind the plot to convince the public that the moon is migrating outwards with each passing year. we almost had you all fooled. Before we blindly leap ourselves onto our moon (for the first time), perhaps we should think again. You folks have got to be absolutely kidding about utilizing the physically dark surface of our extremely dusty and highly reactive moon, especially for much of anything that's on behalf of optical astronomy. aren't you the guy who thinks there should be a colony on venus? now that's crazy! Why is it cracy? There are only a limited amount of living space on this planet Earth. At the rate earth's population is growing, we should set our sight into Venus or Mars. Our scientists today should be studying these planets to see how we can make it liveable for human beings. At best, the LL-1 zone (60,000 km away from the moon) is relatively clean of debris and perhaps far enough away from that nasty moon of our's in order to humanly survive the combined solar/cosmic/moon TBI dosage, but that's only if well enough shielded by a few meters of water. Our moon's surface is highly if not entirely exposed to solar wind driven electrostatics and otherwise being that of a naked anticathode environment that's rather solar/cosmic and locally DNA lethal (far worse off than anything Van Allen belt related), plus continually and unavoidably running itself into stuff at 30+ km/s, and otherwise gravity attracting upon all that's nearby, is perhaps good for the sorts of robust robotics of those tough little SAR image receiving modules, but otherwise hardly suited for that of anything optical or otherwise end-user-friendly unless it's going deep underground. Do any of you folks even realize what absolutely terrific resolution a given focal length of 384,000 km can do on behalf SAR imaging? (I didn't think so) we'll look into it right away sir!@ Such pure robotics on behalf of accomplishing such extended SAR/VLA imaging is actually based upon extremely efficient deployments of what should not represent 10% of a given Apollo mission, and/or perhaps not even involving 1% the mass per SAR image receiving module, and without folks ever having to endure the trauma as to what that sort of nasty lunar surface environment would otherwise be nailing countless strands of human DNA per second. Of course the regular laws of physics and I could be entirely wrong. In which case, how much DNA trauma and/or physical impact trauma can a human or that of anything optical withstand? - Brad Guth it's not something that i consider on a daily basis. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
BluntForceTraumaT wrote:
I would set my sights on Pluto. The real estate values have plummeted since it was declared a non-planet. No one will bother you there. The physicsl nature of Pluto didn't change one iota just because humans re-defined it. but anyway... You don't have to go that far or that big. There's a large set of wannbe colonists who'd prefer to live among, and use the materials of the asteroids, anyway. -- Frank You know what to remove to reply... Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm "Man who say it cannot be done, should not interrupt man doing it." - Chinese Proverb |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:03:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Frank
Glover made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Even if you could make travel to Mars as cheap as intercontinental air travel is today, and had the same number of spaceships, with the same capacity, as all existing wide-bodied jets, can you even remove people *fast enough* to keep up with population growth? (and will they continue to breed after arrival?) The answer to that one is yes. We currently move more people per day in airliners than the net world population growth. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
Frank Glover wrote: wrote: captain. wrote: "Brad Guth" wrote in message news:ef1e6bcc620f386c664f803c5a55fcba.49644@myga te.mailgate.org... "captain." wrote in message news:0lvMg.787$bf5.127@edtnps90 hmmm, i'm impressed that you knew that twink. good work! How absolutely silly does absolute silliness have a numerical value? of yourself, and proof-positive of what rusemasters you folks actually are. well yes, the twinker and myself are behind the plot to convince the public that the moon is migrating outwards with each passing year. we almost had you all fooled. Before we blindly leap ourselves onto our moon (for the first time), perhaps we should think again. You folks have got to be absolutely kidding about utilizing the physically dark surface of our extremely dusty and highly reactive moon, especially for much of anything that's on behalf of optical astronomy. aren't you the guy who thinks there should be a colony on venus? now that's crazy! Why is it cracy? There are only a limited amount of living space on this planet Earth. At the rate earth's population is growing, we should set our sight into Venus or Mars. Our scientists today should be studying these planets to see how we can make it liveable for human beings. Who's lining up? There are people who are willing to live on Mars even as is it. Many more would likely be interested, if it could be quilckly terraformed into something passably Earthlike. Is that subset of people, though large, a signifigant fraction of Earth's population? No. No matter how bad things might be here, most humans don't want to emigrate. Will you force them? Which ones, and how? And even if they did... How did we populate the Americas and Australia? How about, first, we empty our prisons and ship them to the new planet, then the undesireables, the gangs, and people wanted advantures, by then people will be screaming to go once they see the blue skies and green/blue oceans, plenty of wild animals, plains of wild grains, and wide open spaces. What would they ride? Given time, scientists will come up with a mode of transportation to travel to another planet. Even if you could make travel to Mars as cheap as intercontinental air travel is today, and had the same number of spaceships, with the same capacity, as all existing wide-bodied jets, can you even remove people *fast enough* to keep up with population growth? The answer is a definite yes, yes, and yes. And nations like China would not need family planning of one child per family. Human beings can produce as much as they want. If we can make one planet liveable, why not other planets? The possibility is limitless. (and will they continue to breed after arrival?) Of course, the more the merrier. Like I said, if we can make one planet good enough to live, why not others? Why not other constallations, also? other universes, also? I don't have numbers, but I seriously doubt it. (and there's still that willingness issue, and I'm completely ignoring the questions of what to do with them on arrival, or if it's ethical to terraform Mars if there's native life) Was it ethical when the white men arrived to the Americas and transformed the Americas to their way of life? If you don't transform them, they may one day transform the earth to their way of life. Would you like that? There may be a great many reasons for space colonization and terraforming, but population relief's the least likely or practical one. I disagree with you. I say it's the most likely reason for colonization to another planet, expanding population growth, and requirement of land to grow food. -- Frank You know what to remove to reply... Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm "Man who say it cannot be done, should not interrupt man doing it." - Chinese Proverb |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
On 10 Sep 2006 16:12:05 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: There may be a great many reasons for space colonization and terraforming, but population relief's the least likely or practical one. I disagree with you. I say it's the most likely reason for colonization to another planet, expanding population growth, and requirement of land to grow food. Now this is truly dumb. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
There are people who are willing to live on Mars even as is it. Many
more would likely be interested, if it could be quilckly terraformed into something passably Earthlike. Frank Glover, I have no problems with any number of folks migrating off to our sub-frozen and cosmic TBI naked Mars where you could also get physically pulverised at no extra charge, that is as long as it's on their fully taxable nickel, of taking countless billions of dimes, and/or otherwise taking thousands upon millions of their supposedly hard earned and thus fully taxable dollars per soul, and that they each pay for their fair share of all the unavoidable environmental impact on behalf of the rest of us village idiots that are not sufficient billionaires. No matter how bad things might be here, most humans don't want to emigrate. Will you force them? Which ones, and how? And even if they did... What would they ride? Good point. I'd use very powerful stun-guns in order to get as many folks as possible onto a fleet of fat-waverider "tomcat" spaceplanes, such as perhaps something that's made by the skilled and affordable expertise of China. Even if you could make travel to Mars as cheap as intercontinental air travel is today, and had the same number of spaceships, with the same capacity, as all existing wide-bodied jets, can you even remove people *fast enough* to keep up with population growth? (and will they continue to breed after arrival?) That's no longer our problem. It's strickly first multi-billionaire come, first multi-billionaire served. The more of such dumbfounded folks we manage to get off of the Earth, the better. I don't have numbers, but I seriously doubt it. (and there's still that willingness issue, and I'm completely ignoring the questions of what to do with them on arrival, or if it's ethical to terraform Mars if there's native life) Again, so what's the difference, as long as we have all of their loot and they can't possibly come back alive to complain, nor would they ever be allowed back on Earth. Therefore, it's strictly a one-way 'Mars or bust' ticket to ride. There may be a great many reasons for space colonization and terraforming, but population relief's the least likely or practical one. I totally agree, that we'll need to stick a whole lot closer to our polluted and badly global warming Earth that's losing it's magnetosphere by roughly .05%/yr, and otherwise about to go WW-III postal no matters what. Although, technically Venus could become doable in more ways than you'd think, and of every 19 months at least it's extremely close by. Otherwise, we should be able to terraform our moon on behalf of better accommodating surface robotics, and of establishing deep underground habitats for accommodating our frail DNA. Of course, you'll also need my LSE-CM/ISS in order to pull off much of any of that moon stuff without your otherwise having to die for it. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
" wrote in message
oups.com I disagree with you. I say it's the most likely reason for colonization to another planet, expanding population growth, and requirement of land to grow food. In the near future, we'll be a little too busy with fighting over $1000/barrel oil and of everything else that's unavoidably inflated to suit, as well as dealing with the aftermath of WW-III, sustaining WW-IV and planning our last ditch efforts at surviving our next all or nothing WW-V. In another unfortunate tit for tat century or two, there may not be sufficient spare energy in order to launch replacement satellites, much less anything bigger or of that which has to go further and with sufficient supplies per passenger. Mother Earth will have gained roughly 20 meters of extensively polluted and/or dead-zones worth of ocean depths as accommodating mostly jellyfish, and a small vertical duplex (two story) unit of a two bedroom (1000 SF) home that's situated on a minimal 1500 SF lot of high ground will not likely be available for less than a million bucks per unit, or rather two million for the pair, and by then your property tax will likely be at least 3%/year ($2500/month/unit), and don't even ask about the cost of basic utilities. So, in that case Venus might not be looking all that bad off, especially since there's unlimited renewable energy per square meter, plus extra energy if your abode is situated on a Venusian lot which offers you something that's geothermally active to work with. There's actually quite a constructive list of what makes Venus our best alternative, especially once we've finished off with having raped and pillaged mother Earth for all she's worth. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt | Brad Guth | Policy | 210 | April 12th 07 06:43 PM |
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT! | Brad Guth | Policy | 3 | August 12th 06 04:11 PM |
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT! | Brad Guth | Astronomy Misc | 3 | August 12th 06 04:11 PM |
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT! | Brad Guth | History | 1 | August 12th 06 09:22 AM |
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT! | Brad Guth | UK Astronomy | 1 | August 12th 06 09:22 AM |