Our moon is hot, Venus is not

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com

: You know, I think you're right. Normally, I reply to arguments
because
: I feel that snubbing as a means of asserting correctness is
irrational,
: but this guy Brad Guth combines a total lack of understanding of basic
: physics (he thinks that magnetic fields affect electrically-neutral
: particles), basic astronomy (he doesn't grasp what an "albedo" is)
with
: absurd claims (he keeps slyly hinting that there were no manned Lunar
: landings, and goes beyond it to claim no robot landers either).
: Dissing one of the coolest military aircraft to leap out of the pages
: Tom Swift Jr. into actual deployment is the final straw

Where are your hard-science numbers as replicated moon/Earth/Venus data?

What's the teravoltage and/or terajoule worth, and the polarity of our
moon?

How much spare energy does the 40 mm/yr recession of our moon represent?

How much more or less Sv-hot and nasty is our moon?

What's your best fly-by-rocket expertise?

You're obviously very big if not snookered and dumbfounded into your
status quo naysay box of mindset thinking, arnt you.

Get youself off this polluted and global warming Earth that's about to
go absolutely WW-III postal over Islamic/Muslim oil, and as for
accomplishing that task via using whatever conventional method works
(our NASA supposedly went to/from our moon with a nearly 30% inert GLOW
package that essentially accomplished a 60:1 ratio of rocket per
payload, and even having managed to do so very quickly), and then
restart yourself constructively thinking outside of that all-or-nothing
status quo box.

You folks might even try rethinking as to whatever offers the most fuel
density, and otherwise tosses out the most mass and at the greatest exit
velocity. Perhaps if you can't stand the mere thought of using
beer--****--h2o, or much less becoming h2o2, perhaps think
Ra--LRn--Rn--ion thrusters.

Try rethinking as to constructively contributing as to my LSE-CM/ISS
topics, or merely on behalf of accomplishing the VL2TRACE platform. (I
bet you folks can't accomplish any of the above)
-
Brad Guth


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

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com

: You know, I think you're right. Normally, I reply to arguments
: because I feel that snubbing as a means of asserting correctness
: is irrational, but this guy Brad Guth combines a total lack of
: understanding of basic physics (he thinks that magnetic fields
: affect electrically-neutral particles), basic astronomy (he doesn't
: grasp what an "albedo" is) with absurd claims (he keeps slyly
: hinting that there were no manned Lunar landings, and goes beyond it
: to claim no robot landers either). Dissing one of the coolest
: military aircraft to leap out of the pages Tom Swift Jr. into actual
: deployment is the final straw

As I've said before, I'll buy into that semi-controlled hard/impact
probe landing as being a possibility, although that's far from
representing any sort of controlled fly-by-rocket expertise, much less
AI/robotic fly-by-rocket worthy.

Where are your independent hard-science numbers as replicated
moon/Earth/Venus data?

What's the teravoltage and/or terajoule worth, and the polarity of our
moon?

How much spare energy does the 40 mm/yr recession of our moon represent?

How much more or less Sv-hot and nasty is our physically dark and salty
moon?

What's your best fly-by-rocket expertise or even your best SWAG?

You're obviously very big if not snookered and dumbfounded into your
status quo naysay box of mindset thinking, arnt you.

Get youself off this polluted and global warming Earth that's about to
go absolutely WW-III postal over Islamic/Muslim oil, and as for
accomplishing that task via using whatever conventional method works
(our NASA supposedly went to/from our moon with a nearly 30% inert GLOW
package that essentially accomplished a 60:1 ratio of rocket per
payload, and even having managed to do so very quickly), and then
restart yourself constructively thinking outside of that all-or-nothing
status quo box.

You folks might even try rethinking as to whatever offers the most
reaction worthy fuel density, and otherwise of whatever tosses out the
most mass and at the greatest exit velocity. Perhaps if you can't stand
the mere thought of using beer--****--h2o, or much less as having been
onboard processed into becoming h2o2, perhaps think Ra--LRn--Rn--ion
thrusters that's good for a 1600 year ISP half life.

Try rethinking as to constructively contributing to my LSE-CM/ISS
topics, or merely on behalf of accomplishing the VL2TRACE platform. (I
bet you folks can't accomplish any of the above without blowing yet
another infomercial gasket)
-
Brad Guth


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

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

: For that matter, even if it weren't, there are a number of
: obvious solutions to the problem of landing a spacecraft
: under poor lighting conditions, ranging from radars to
: starlight scopes to simply mounting floodlights on the
: spacecraft. So I don't see what you're going on about.

Actually, you folks don't seem to have much of a clue about anything.
Besides, earthshine is way more than sufficient illumination, especially
if it were of a nearly full Earth would offer 76 fold more working
illumination than moonshine represents upon Earth.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com

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

That's the ticket. At best having orbited (though I can't even manage
to prove that much transpired as manned; can you?) that physically dark
and nasty sucker, but that's about it.

How the heck could Venus have remained as so WMD invisible/stealth?
-
Brad Guth


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

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

1) What "lies" has Mark told?
Most everything that's in support of those hocus-pocus Apollo EVAs are
without a stitch of truth, as based entirely upon NASA's koran of
infomercial-science and otherwise on their conditional laws of physics.

2) "Incest cloned" is a contradiction in terms (*); "cloning" is a form
of twinning while "incest" as a means of reproduction requires the
participation of a sexual partner, who is a close relative, and
You folks are so snookered and summarily shock and awe dumbfounded that
you simply don't get it, do you.

3) Why should Mark feel "remorse" when he tells the truth?
Your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), and of others that remain on his
side obviously have no remorse, and I could certainly think of a few
dozen others that were and of many that still are as bad off if not
worse than Hitler's Third Reich.
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
[...]

worse than Hitler's Third Reich.

Some things never change...

-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

1) What "lies" has Mark told?

Most everything that's in support of those hocus-pocus Apollo EVAs are
without a stitch of truth,

You keep saying that but provide nothing to support it except repetition.

as based entirely upon NASA's koran of
infomercial-science and otherwise on their conditional laws of physics.

Stop inventing terminology. There's nothing "infomercial" or
"conditional" about why expecting anyone to try to fly anything
resembling a real prototype of the Lunar Lander in Earth's g-field is a
priori dumb. The best response you've come up with is insults. Got any
"science" to back up your expectation that a prototype _could_ fly in
Earth's g-field? Hello, does the phrase "not enough thrust" mean
anything to you?

Got any direct response other than "it ain't so" to my refutation of
your claim that the LLRV and LLTV were "deathtraps"?

2) "Incest cloned" is a contradiction in terms (*); "cloning" is a form
of twinning while "incest" as a means of reproduction requires the
participation of a sexual partner, who is a close relative, and

You folks are so snookered and summarily shock and awe dumbfounded that
you simply don't get it, do you.

We get that you have a penchant for improper terminology when you get
your back hair up.

3) Why should Mark feel "remorse" when he tells the truth?

Your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), and of others that remain on his
side obviously have no remorse, and I could certainly think of a few
dozen others that were and of many that still are as bad off if not
worse than Hitler's Third Reich.

Back the **** off there bub, I'm an anarchist. Dubya is exactly as
trustworthy as all other politicians that ever lived, which is to say
not at all.

However that's almost completely irrelevant; you've been claiming
that NASA itself has been the source of a ridiculously, in fact
impossibly unwieldy conspiracy involving thousands of government
employees _and_ contractors _and_ their employees _and_ their
consultants _and_ all their families. Face it, we're talking millions of
people allegedly keeping this secret of yours.

Now granted that the administrations and legislations that decide
NASA funding are party-line motivated and could be expected to pass down
unpublished agendas for the NASA administration to follow on pain of
being excluded from any other "cushy" government jobs, especially as
many of them are party-dependent political appointees, but that
completely disregards the rank and file NASA employees who are not
required to have any particular party loyalty and could get a lot of
mileage out of breaking your alleged NASA Omerta.

There's also the fact that a given NASA administrator may be carried
over from an administration of one flavor to the next of another yet
have also consistently failed to break Omerta due to not being loyal to
the new boss. Don't forget the obvious revenge angle for those that were
kicked out just because of a shift change in the White House.

And how about all those contractors' employees, consultants, and all
their families? What do you claim was the mechanism used to keep all of
them silent?

Then we have stuff like the Australian-national-operated relay
stations that passed non-delayed video from Luna to JPL; what kept the
Aussies silent?

Sorry, there's just no way to keep millions of mouths shut when,
according to you, any one of them, _for the last forty frigging years_
could have snuck out and presented irrefutable evidence supporting your
claims for a multimillion dollar book/movie/etc. deal and more than
adequate publicity to prevent assassination. Hence, there's no secret to
keep.


Mark L. Fergerson

"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:P2dEg.7103$Mz3.4193@fed1read07

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.

Sorry, if you can't constructively contribute to the topic, then what if
anything can I do?

You're answering to my statements and/or questions with either loaded
questions or your own, as per having to use that NASA/Apollo infomercial
koran about whatever can't be replicated, and otherwise having to
exclude damn near everything else in sight that rocks your status quo
boat.

You're also into using Arthur Andersen accounting as for the operational
mass and thrust energy per kg of those prototype landers. In other
words, you're being a liar on behalf of your status quo (AKA save thy
butt, or else).

Obviously you have no honest intentions of ever dealing constructively
with the primary topic at hand.
-
Brad Guth


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

Jordan wrote:

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.

That's probably part of it. I think there's also some element of a new
sort of pseudointellectualism that has arisen recently. This takes the
concept of "skepticism" meaning not that you don't automatically believe
everything an authority figure tells you, but rather you automatically
_disbelieve_ it. Which, of course, doesn't exactly add much to the
debate other than difficulty.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
No man is more cheated than the selfish man.
-- Henry Ward Beecher

"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:0xrEg.7157$Mz3.5251@fed1read07

Stop inventing terminology. There's nothing "infomercial" or
"conditional" about why expecting anyone to try to fly anything
resembling a real prototype of the Lunar Lander in Earth's g-field
is a priori dumb. The best response you've come up with is insults.
Got any "science" to back up your expectation that a prototype
_could_ fly in Earth's g-field? Hello, does the phrase "not enough
thrust" mean anything to you?
Get rid of all the unessential mass, having only one operator and
perhaps a 10th the fuel load, and lo and behold you're at something less
than 1/6th the mass. Or, no onboard pilot at all, just a wired and/or
radio remote controlled fly-by-rocket prototype lander.

Back the **** off there bub, I'm an anarchist. Dubya is exactly as
trustworthy as all other politicians that ever lived, which is to say
not at all.
So why do your actions and those of so many other Usenet lords and
wizards (including those Democrat Jews) remain in full support of that
absolute *******?

: However that's almost completely irrelevant; you've been claiming
: that NASA itself has been the source of a ridiculously, in fact
: impossibly unwieldy conspiracy involving thousands of government
: employees _and_ contractors _and_ their employees _and_ their
: consultants _and_ all their families. Face it, we're talking millions
: of people allegedly keeping this secret of yours.

How many loyal/insider follers and brown-nosed minions as official
butt-wipes did the likes of Hitler have to have?
How many rusemaster insiders did our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
require?

: Now granted that the administrations and legislations that decide
: NASA funding are party-line motivated and could be expected to pass
down
: unpublished agendas for the NASA administration to follow on pain of
: being excluded from any other "cushy" government jobs, especially as
: many of them are party-dependent political appointees, but that
: completely disregards the rank and file NASA employees who are not
: required to have any particular party loyalty and could get a lot of
: mileage out of breaking your alleged NASA Omerta.

I never once said the vast majority of our NASA collective wasn't
perfectly nice and honest. Isn't that a rather important function of
any good perpetrated cold-war game plan?

: And how about all those contractors' employees, consultants, and
all
: their families? What do you claim was the mechanism used to keep all
of
: them silent?
When did I ever mention that we weren't doing everything we could in
order to walk on that physically dark, salty and otherwise nasty moon of
ours?

Then we have stuff like the Australian-national-operated relay
stations that passed non-delayed video from Luna to JPL; what kept the
Aussies silent?
Double Extra Duh! I'm sorry but, you've got to be kidding, as in
"chapel bell" S-band transponder kidding as all get out. That's nothing
but hocus-pocus-101, especially if our Apollo missions were in fact
headed to/from LL-1, as that much I could buy into.

Sorry, there's just no way to keep millions of mouths shut when,
according to you, any one of them, _for the last forty frigging years_
could have snuck out and presented irrefutable evidence supporting your
claims for a multimillion dollar book/movie/etc. deal and more than
adequate publicity to prevent assassination. Hence, there's no secret to
keep.
Jews still insist they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
getting and/or having allowed Jesus Christ (clearly one of their own
kind) for having gotten put on that stick, and the Pope really doesn't
want to discuss those nice Cathars. How about those US Mexican wars, or
that of our 7 failed efforts at TAKING Cuba by force?

Prior to 911, How many personal letters or that of whatever other
serious communications from Usama bin Laden did our resident LLPOF(GW
Bush) and of those other pricks before his personally corrupt
administration (like his own father), manage to disregard?
-
Brad Guth


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