Faith Based Scientists Paranoid About Possible Mars Life

"Jim" wrote in message


Sounds like you are obsessed with Venus. Sounds like you are also a bigot.
Then you consider the truth bigot worthy. Now that's an interesting
Mormon mindset that's almost Jewish worthy.


Open minded good guy, but uninterested in a conversation with a closed
minded person with theories that insults everyone who disagrees with him.
Since I've actually agreed with some of your mindset, in other words,
you're actually a mormon wuss at heart, with damn little if any truth to
behold.


First time Mormons have been lumped with the Bibe Thumpers. Kinda cool!!
Then you see nothing wrong with the past, present nor future? (silly
question, isn't it)


I have no idea what you mean. But for me the thread is closed. I am going
back to lurking. Not nearly as exhausting.
As I'd said before, apparently you and your kind see absolutely nothing
wrong with the past, present nor future. In other words of our resident
born-again LLPOF warlord(GW Bush); so what's the difference.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Jim" wrote in message


BTW I am honored you called me a loon. A truely magnificent bird. I love to
fly too. Nothing quite like strapping into a Cheeta and going for a spin or
two.


Sounds terrific. Keep up the good vibes and fly, fly away, but do
return to poop your guano upon those you've encountered within this
godless Usenet land of Oz.

Remember that Usenet is by enlarge an anti-God zone that'll most always
side with those Old Testament thumping Jews or on behalf of their Third
Reich partners in crimes against humanity (including their own kind),
and otherwise takes rather kindly to anything their mainstream status
quo has within its borg like remorseless mindset to accomplish, much
like their having allowed their friends for putting Jesus Christ on a
stick, and then ever since blaming others.

Do mormons own a good flak jackets?
-
Brad Guth


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

"kT" wrote in message


The only thing Usenet faith based, that's of the truth and nothing but
the truth, is the ongoing ruse/sting of their mutually perpetrated cold
war century, that has become their global energy domination cold war
that has gotten seriously spendy, as well as hot and bloody to the
touch.

The truth be told; If there's any nearby planet that's alive and
kicking, in more ways than planetology, it's Venus.

In spite of most others, with all of their flak tossing faith based
ulterior motives and hidden agendas, I care about sharing the plain old
truth and nothing but the truth, about there being other intelligent
life coexisting on Venus. Such as sharing in what our somewhat recently
obtained moon has to offer our rather badly failing environment, or how
otherwise extra cold Earth would soon enough get without having that
nearby mascon of such a physically dark and nasty moon of our's. How
about yourself? GOT TRUTH ?

Our badly skewed "Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus", is
no lie, and in spite of all of their orchestrated mainstream status quo
flak and hypology of their infomercial spewing damage control, it seems
there's renewable energy to burn (sort of speak) while on Venus. To say
"Colonization Of The Stars And Contact With Aliens: The Last False Hope
Of The Secularists" isn't hardly saying squat when there has been
perfectly good evidence and the rational code of physics that's on
behalf of ETs having coexisted upon Venus.

We're past the point of no return when it comes down to smelling them
roses. There may not be Venusian roses, but there's likely damn near
anything else you can imagine. Any such newish planetology as offered
by the likes of Venus has got to be more than a wee bit interesting, and
valuable. Even John Ackerman was more than a little impressed with
Venus, and he hadn't seen or otherwise interpreted squat compared to
what I'd more recently discovered.

And yet once again and again, I see from my PC monitor that we have the
usual ongoing PC/MAC trashing game of Usenet spooks, moles and wise old
Jewish fart MIB wizards deploying their very best browser interactive
spermware/****ware, as obviously the tactical norm of their Old
Testament formulated mainstream status quo ****ology of topic/author
stalking, bashings and banishments. Therefore, we'll just have to keep
updating and reposting our truth worthy topics until a few of them nifty
NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows of their's come home.

It's getting a little bit like The Wizard of Oz on steroids;
Sorry folks, whereas it seems that we haven't quite gotten around to
having walked on our extremely big old and otherwise nearby moon that's
so physically massive in ratio to Earth, as well as being so physically
dark and nasty (hardly Apollo passive guano island like and xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated at that), but so what's the difference if one more
silly lie begets another and another?

Our moon may have to remain as a mostly robotic wonderland, as otherwise
merely that of a nasty realm of local and secondary/recoil energy that's
accessible via a safe looking glass from the moon's L1, whereas
otherwise it's somewhat physically DNA/RNA taboo. Although, Venus isn't
off limits unless you're a certified moron, and VL2 is certainly more
than space station doable as is. Venus shouldn't ever require any
terraforming on our behalf, just damn good CO2--CO/O2 air conditioning
and structural composite basalt as insulation that's worth R-1024/m.

If not in person, I hope to hell we don't summarily screw up Venus via
robotics to the extent that we've accomplished so much dastardly
commercial forms of collateral damage by way of having pillaged, trashed
and the ongoing energy raping of mother Earth without so much as a speck
of remorse.

I obviously care most about Venus, whereas our moon seriously sucks much
worse than Mars. The planet Venus is otherwise more than obviously
where all the serious action of other intelligent life is at, especially
since Pluto got the royal shaft, as seemingly Ceres is getting a similar
official NASA fid, and Mercury is simply too off-world as well as past
the point of return (similar to Mars being so much older than Earth and
about as near planetology death as you're going to get).

At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being Russian POOF/(space
depot) doable, and every 19 months it gets to within 100 fold the
distance of our moon. If that isn't the best ever Russian/POOF space
station outpost good news, or what, then nothing is.

While rather quickly roasting our wieners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), the only question is how much energy do you folks suppose
a good air conditioning system as part of your CO2--CO/O2 process is
going to demand?

Remember, at that sort of environment pressure you'll not require more
than a 1% O2 factor, and the remainder should be of H2. Thus having 99%
H2 and 1% O2 at 96 Bar is about all the atmospheric displacement of that
otherwise crystal clear and dry CO2 that's otherwise relatively harmless
that you'll ever need. Also remember that you'll be continually
fighting off the lesser gravity of 90.5%, and otherwise having all of
that pesky 64+ kg/m3 of buoyancy to fend off. Of course, if you only
had half a village idiot brain, as such you might as well utilize such
factors as to your benefit.

Say if this habitat were an application per 1000 m3/(interior 10 x 20 x
5 meter abode), and if that Venusian habitat volume were insulated at
R-1024/m2; what's the thermal energy budget of keeping your cache of
beer and vodka icy cold?

That's roughly a surface/foundation area of 264 m2, a portion of what
should be roughly a 828 m2 exterior that's in part exposed to the hotter
than hell surface that's getting rid of 20 J/m2, and otherwise fending
off the somewhat toasty atmosphere that's always cooler than the
geothermally forced surface. Therefore, without question it's nearly
always hot outside and there's just the structural composite basalt
insulated barrier of R-1024/m that's giving way to an inward flux of
thermal conduction that's worthy of having 0.00097656/m2 (0.0977% which
I believe is roughly less than 0.45 K/m2/hr) of having to deal with
fending off that bone dry heat, which seems by all manner of known
physics as being rather manageable, if not a touch overkill.

BTW; Venus is of a newish planetology which has all the raw elements
and the energy for locally processing whatever into the required items
of surviving Venus (except for having enough ice cold beer and pizza).
All that's required is the small factor of applied intelligence or
simply deductive common sense should otherwise more than do the trick.

Is there something other that's specific about accomplishing Venus that
you'd like to review or constructively contribute, such as on behalf of
those nifty composite rigid airships?

How about we review on behalf of defending yourself from those
exoskeletal Cathars that can't seem to take no for an answer? (you're
not alone, you know)

Would you folks like to talk about the Russian VL2 POOF platform/depot,
or how about laser interplanetary communications (much the same as
NASA's deep space network), for making those less spendy local
interplanetary calls that shouldn't take hardly any energy to accomplish
with a quantum binary packet mode of those 425 nm FM/(+/-25 nm) photons
or perhaps something of UV/a doing their extremely efficient thing.
-
Brad Guth


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

"kT" wrote in message


What kind of faith based anti-physics and/or naysay science fools are
these folks trying so hard to be?

Venus by all accounts simply is NOT purely greenhouse hot, and that's as
of old but replicated science that obviously yourself and most others of
your Old Testament thumping mainstream kind have obviously been into
actively excluding within your status quo or bust mindset. I have to
ask; why is that?

Compared to Mars which offers next to nothing other than possibly a few
megatonnes or possibly a gigatonne worth of uncompacted/fluffy dry-ice
plus otherwise unavoidably accommodating a few spare gigatonnes if not a
teratonne worth of meteorite debris that's been further irradiated to
death, whereas the surface environment of Venus is not only geologically
alive but otherwise thriving in surplus energy, while essentially near
100% protected from most any lethal meteorite impacts, as well as having
less solar and even less cosmic dosage than we on Earth have to deal
with. If the abundant iron and/or other heavy element molten core of
Venus ever settles itself down to any dull roar and becomes
polarised/magnetic, as this is when it'll eventually establish its own
magnetic shield that'll become similar to what's currently failing us at
the rate of 0.05%/year.

"steve" wrote in message
oups.com
Just build a sunshade at the Legrange point between Venus and the Sun
(Similar to the one that is going to have to be built to protect the
Earth).

If we could block most of the sunlight reaching Venus it is going to
cool down within a reasonable time.

It may take many years but we should be able to live on Venus
eventually.
Not that such a massive solar shade isn't technically doable. However,
with unlimited energy that's so easily available while on the Venus
deck, whereas of more than a decade ago we could have been established
on Venus, or at the very least robotically surviving on the deck and
otherwise ourselves safely situated within our cozy POOF space station
depot at VL2, and all of that's w/o any stinking solar shade that'll
demand a good century and trillions upon trillions of hard earned loot
in order to deploy and sustain such in the first place (seems a waste
since the sun isn't hardly at fault to begin with, and after all Venus
doesn't even have a massive global warming moon to deal with).

Why are you and so many others of your kind so easily sucked and/or
snookered into continually excluding the well known and replicated
science about the somewhat newish planetology of Venus?

As you all say, it might be easier to colonize the clouds first but
there are advantages of being on the surface.
Whom is "you all"? (it's certainly not me or of anyone that I know of),
and yes it should be much easier to directly utilize the surface than
establishing those above cloud habitats for us humans.

Full scale (meaning substantial) colonizing another world or whatever
moon (including our own) is not of anything that I've ever promoted,
other than in weird jest. However, doing the surface of Venus is
technically within our grasp of having a few brave souls trekking about
that sort of geothermally hot surface (Venus being a whole lot more so
doable than our moon), though how about instead of being on whatever
hot-foot basis, I'd much rather have that composite rigid airship at my
disposal.

A composite rigid airship of nearly any size is technically doable
within the existing/known realm of our accomplishing that method of
global transport as also providing our safe habitat at the same time,
whereas cruising above them cool acidic clouds is technically within the
composite rigid airship (aka fat waverider spaceplane) cards, although
perhaps for airship cruising best and a touch retrograde efficient
between 25 and 35 km off the geothermally toasty deck seems a whole lot
better notion. Landing the composite rigid airship upon that
geothermally toasty surface seems also perfectly within the realm of
what that sort of applied technology should rather nicely manage without
busting the bank or getting yourself roasted or otherwise physically
traumatised on the spot.

The consequences of having ignored Venus are more than a little
off-world consequential. Venus after all hasn't been all that
insurmountable as we've been informed by our lord NASA and of all those
butt-sucking down to that standard, whereas instead of purely local
evolved life there's a strong possibility of ETs having a full run of
access. Of course, we could have been a few of those ETs as of more
than a decade ago if it weren't for all that we'd been doing to
ourselves.

Earth's photon environment actually has an external peak solar energy
spectrum of nearly 2100 J/m2 at 470 nm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...irradiance.jpg
This makes the same 470 nm peak spectrum arriving at those highly
reflective clouds of Venus worth 4000 J/m2, which is actually within a
good opacity range of what the cloudy Venusian atmospheric transmittance
has to offer, that has filtered and shifted the surface illumination by
roughly better than 50 nm towards the cool UV spectrum, thus differing
from what our terrestrial peak of local illumination spectrum has to
offer as 555 nm, which is actually of extremely good environmental news
if you'd intended to establish a healthy anti-greenhouse configured
habitat on Venus for growing whatever (most plants and a great deal of
other life as we know it tend to favor the violet/near-UV and UV/a
spectrum).

PFS science as pertaining to what's penatrating to/from through the
Venusian atmosphere and thereby offering a better understanding as to
its spectrum opacity and of thermal layers is actually damn good
science, better yet if only their latest PFS instrument was being
allowed to function on behalf of the Venus Express mission, because that
instrument alone would have seriously nailed the thermal energy
imbalance that's clearly running in surplus of what's exiting the
nighttime season as clearly derived from the ground up, whereas the PFS
resolution could have most reasonably mapped out those multiple hot
spots of active lava, mud flows and gas ventings.
http://www.dlr.de/os/forschung/proje...index/pfs.html

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm
"The increasingly orange color is due to rayleigh scattering by the
thick atmosphere, and possibly an additional unknown blue-absorbing gas
component. Brightness is normalized. The text color for these web pages
was chosen to approximate the Venera-11 sky color."

Other than the orchestrated exclusions of hard scientific evidence
that's replicated, such as having been pointed out by John Ackerman,
there's nothing the least bit unknown about a substantial layer of S8
that's reacting/filtering and otherwise whatever rayleigh scattering of
solar energy is exactly as it should be doing, nor is it unknown as to
that of any number of geothermally forced elements that by rights should
coexist within that mostly CO2 atmosphere of such a newish planetology
phase that's including such multiple gas components. Enlarge and take
notice as to how 37.7 km and 48.6 km are offering less than half the
solar IR spectrum getting through them thick clouds, and yet while on
the deck there's lots of spare IR and off-scale FIR to behold. Gee
whiz, it's as though the planet itself is physically/geothermally hot,
as derived from the inside out, none the less. Imagine that, the long
standing greenhouse theory is blown to bits, and then some.

I and others will gladly say this again; Venus is no GREENHOUSE driven
planet by way of any known science that includes the regular laws of
physics and of planetology that's simply newish compared to that of
Earth, and otherwise via the replicated science of others that more than
proves the Venusian environment has been getting contributed to and
unavoidably roasted from the inside out, along with whatever solar
influx that's simply getting a free ride and thereby adding insult to
that otherwise geothermally traumatised environment.

The notion that "the planet Venus was born out of Jupiter" isn't at all
of what I'd agree to, whereas I'm more leaning towards the Sirius Oort
cloud as being the more likely realm of natural evolution of where the
planet Venus as having sufficient iron mass, and quite possibly the
likes of our originally icy and salty moon may each have been derived
from that sort of complex interstellar exchange, if not simply aa having
been forced inward from within our own Oort cloud. Seems the sheer mass
of Jupiter and of it's thick atmosphere would have represented a one-way
ticket of whatever touches that physical realm is pretty much a goner in
much the same as anything trying to get past our sun by way of
aerobraking via using the solar atmosphere isn't likely to survive that
encounter unless we're talking of a sufficient velocity and perhaps of
something that's mostly titanium and ceramic composites. And, thus far
there's no sign of any past Martian life to behold as having been
theorized by John Ackerman, as supposedly having migrated to Earth as
interpreted by his research (the Bible's mention of the Elohim simply
isn't an old enough record for having supported that degree of his
analogy), which doesn't in any way disqualify his ongoing honest
interpretations of the best available science that's pertaining to
Venus, whereas not everything Ackerman has to say is entirely outside
the box.

However, there's no question as to the mainstream skewed via Old
Testament intentions, and of their subsequent faith based motivations of
their modern science along with all of their hocus-pocus conditional
laws of physics, as having been focused upon delivering their one and
only scientific ruse/sting as though it's the one and only truth, of
having thus far hyped and perpetrated their infomercial spewed notions
as to hyping a greenhouse extent that's supposedly in charge of their
thermally balanced version of Venus. Of course much the same could be
said about our unusually taboo/nondisclosure rated moon that's also
based almost entirely upon infomercial science that suits the status
quo. So, why all the original and ongoing lies?
-
Brad Guth


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

"kT" wrote in message


Faith Based Scientists are just paranoid about everything, including
their own shadows.

The ongoing notions of utlizing our moon as one of the supposed
"Footsteps to Mars", sorry to say my ass, whereas I'm especially going
naysay postal on this one, especially since we can't seem to mange the
few and affordable steps on behalf of accomplishing our moon's L1, much
less those rather spendy and somewhat lethal steps upon our naked moon.

For your continuing entertainment, I've further edited and hopefully
improved upon the following rant as to what I and others should care the
most about:

Here's a little something extra special for Discovery Communications
and/or GOOGLE/NOVA to ponder their pay-per-infomercial spewing way
through. In other words, if I could pay as well as MI/NSA~NASA, they'd
gladly produce whatever as though it was the one and only truth on
Earth.

Instead of our going for the absolutely daunting and unavoidably time
comsuming as well as spendy task of our accomplishing the moon itself,
perhaps instead we or perhaps China should simply go for taking the
moon's L1 because, at least that's entirely doable and extremely
valuable as a space depot and science platform.

As I've often shared this one befo
If we're ever going to walk upon that physically dark and nasty moon of
ours that's via gravity tidal energy and a touch of IR/FIR keeping our
environment as so anti-ice-age extra warm, as such we'll need the
following basics for an earthshine illuminated mission that'll most
likely demand some banked bone marrow and possibly a few spare stem
cells in order to survive the mission gauntlet.

In order to accomplish the moon, and live to tell about it, as such
they'll need a fully mascon mapped moon, plus fully modulated (at least
8 bit computer fly-by-wire driven) set of those fuel consuming reaction
thrusters (besides their modulated rated thrusters, this should only
require butt loads of nifty sensors and a minimum of four extremely fast
rad-hard computers), plus incorporating a few (at least three) powerful
momentum reaction wheels, as well as having sufficient deorbit and
down-range energy reserves, and something a whole lot better off than a
wussy 60:1 ratio of primary rocket/payload that had nearly a 30% inert
GLOW to start off with (that's not even including whatever spare tonnes
of inital ice loading).

Geoffrey A. Landis:
Let me emphasize, the human lander is by far the hardest part of the
Mars mission. A vehicle for getting down to the surface and back up
again is the one piece that we have to develop from scratch.
Everything else is, more or less, stuff we can put together from
pieces that already have been developed.

You folks out there in Usenet's dumbfounded land of snookered fools and
village idiots do realize there's still no such proven fly-by-rocket
lander as pilot rated and certified as crew safe and sane for
accomplishing our extremely nearby moon, not even in R&D prototype
format. However, there's still time to get in on that NASA contest of
demonstrating the first such prototype fly-by-rocket lander.
Unfortunately, thus far every known and what-if trick in the book hasn't
worked out according to plan. Perhaps what they need are a few of those
smart Jewish Third Reich rocket scientists, just like they had to work
with way back in them good old mutually perpetrated cold-war days.

BTW; On behalf of a relatively short mission exposure worth of
defending their frail DNA and especially all of that radiation sensitive
Kodak film could have used a minimum of 50 g/cm2 worth of shielding,
though 100 g/cm2 would have been a whole lot safer for keeping their TBI
mission dosage under 50 rads. Their having a personal cache of banked
bone marrow back on Earth as their plan-B would also have been a damn
wise thing to do, especially since the hundreds of rads per EVA should
have been well past their bone marrow's point of no return.

BTW No.2; Since there's no possible argument as to the DR(dynamic
range) of their Kodak film having easily recorded Venus and our
physically dark moon within the same FOV, therefore in whatever's your
best 3D simulator format, where the heck is Venus as of missions A11,
A14 and A16? (from EVA or from orbit)

What if anything is stopping or in any way diverting the very same solar
and cosmic energy plus whatever's physical flak from collecting upon
and/or penetrating into the moon, as otherwise collects within our
magnetosphere's Van Allen belts?

Honest analogy; Shouldn't the gravity and robust substance of the moon
itself sort of outperform our magnetosphere's ability to collect and
hold onto such nasty solar and cosmic stuff?

In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2, not to mention each of those square meters
having their fair share of those local gamma and pesky hard-X-rays via
secondary/recoil to share and share alike, and as for yourself in that
wussy moonsuit to deal with.

At any one time it was technically impossible for such lunar surface
EVAs to have not been continually surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6
m2, and of course from such a nearby orbit there's nothing but the
physically dark and TBI dosage nasty moon to look at for as far as the
DNA/RNA frail eye could see from being at 100+ km off the deck, and
that's one hell of a solar/cosmic plus unavoidably secondary/recoil
worth of TBI exposure to deal with, wouldn't you say?
-

NOM: "The level of cosmic radiation on the moon is barely different from
the radiation at the International Space Station. They seem to manage
space walks there OK."

From what I can learn, they/ISS actually do NOT manage very well at all,
whereas ISS EVAs tend to be relatively short and those EVAs still tend
to devour into their 50 rad per mission and subsequently impact upon
their career 500 rad dosage limits real fast, and at that they have to
avoid the SAA-05 contour like the worst known plague. The solar wind
that's extensively diverted by those nifty though lethal Van Allen belts
do accomplish a fairly good job of defending ISS from the otherwise L1
naked trauma of solar and cosmic influx, and besides the ISS itself
doesn't hardly represent significant density or any amount of
secondary/recoil square meters compared to the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2
that's existing for the moon landing and EVAs, along with easily
receiving as much as 3.14e8 m2 worth of exposure to all that's reactive
and/or radioactive as being entirely possible.

A deployed ISS/(Clarke Station) at our moon's L1 would actually be as
much as 97.6% solar and otherwise nearly 100% cosmic nailed, but instead
our existing ISS is nearly 50% shielded from whatever's solar or cosmic
via Earth and rather nicely protected by a substantial magnetosphere,
whereas because of Earth's thin but extensive enough atmosphere is
hardly the least bit reactive substance like our naked moon that's
covered in heavy meteorite debris and of it's own considerable density
that makes for producing secondary/recoil dosage that apparently isn't
the least bit moderated by way of an atmosphere.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf
This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's rather interesting
but otherwise a touch outdated, not to mention way under-shielded for
long term habitat unless incorporating 8+ meters of water plus having
somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps 16+ meters
of h2o if w/o magnetosphere that's necessary because it's parked within
58,000 km from our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon
that's providing the not so DNA friendly TBI(total body irradiation)
dosage worth of gamma and hard-X-rays that are only a touch worse off by
lunar day, is simply a downright deficient document about sharing upon
all the positive science and habitat/depot considerations for others
utilizing the moon's L1/MEL1.

As for any mission command module orbiting our moon from 100 km isn't
exactly playing it DNA/RNA safe, nor more than half the time is it
representing a cool orbit or even all that mascon free of all those
pesky side to side and ups and downs because for its size the moon's
gravity is so irregular (possibly suggesting a badly distorted hallow
core).

There is however a fairly substantial sodium atmosphere that reaches out
past 9r (not to mention the comet like sodium trail of some 900,000 km),
but apparently it's not of sufficient density from 100 km down to the
deck as to significantly moderate the incoming or outgoing trauma of
gamma and hard-X-rays. Therefore, just the secondary IR/FIR has got to
be downright mission pesky to deal with, especially considering how
efficiently our moon reflects the IR and FIR spectrum, and the matter of
fact that it has to get rid of all of whatever it receives, which means
that a good 50% of the solar influx is getting returned to the same
sunny half side of space that a given mission orbiting its command
module has to survive while getting summarily roasted and otherwise TBI
traumatised from both directions, plus a little of whatever's earthshine
and of good old cosmic whatever else to boot.

On behalf of moderating whatever's incoming as well as unavoidably of
secondary/recoil outgoing radiation, what our naked moon environment
needs rather badly is an artificially forced atmosphere of almost any
sort, even if it's mostly co2 and a touch Radon toxic.
-
Brad Guth


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