How cool is VL2

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:15:42 +0100, "T Wake"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 17, 8:09 am, "John \"C\"" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message
A wise warning, thank you. I shall take steps to prevent further
outbreaks.

So you're going through with your plan to blow your (small) brains out?

HJ

Their blowing of brains out is similar to their blowing of other
private parts. (as a borg collective, it's what they do best)

Awww, k0okl0ve blossoms.

Pretty quickly, too, judging by the references to blowing and private
parts. Bet they've rented a room already.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]

Perhaps you and others of your honest kind can help;

What if anything is all that hocus-pocus or otherwise insurmountable
about a Bigelow Aerospace / Nautilus (aka POOF) city at VL2?
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 15, 4:24 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article ,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

How does the Moon generate these high-energy photons, Brad?

EGRET in fact shows that gamma ray radiation on the Moon is higher than
the Sun's.

The moon is not GENERATING those photons.


Can you folks say: AINTICATHODE ?

How do we photograph a gamma spectrum band-pass image as obtained by
looking through the entire nasty expanse of the Van Allen badlands, of
having recorded such a gamma and otherwise unavoidably Xray hot moon,
unless the moon itself was a good 100 fold worse off than all that's
in between?

Even if it were down to a mere one DB worse off, whereas that's double
the in between dosage that's DNA lethal as all get out (~0.05 rad/sec
in those red zones, that only gets worse on a given bad solar day, as
well as especially distorted and thereby extended a good 2X towards
the moon)
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/weekly/3Page7.pdf
-
Brad Guth

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 15, 4:24 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article ,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

How does the Moon generate these high-energy photons, Brad?

EGRET in fact shows that gamma ray radiation on the Moon is higher than
the Sun's.

The moon is not GENERATING those photons.


Can you folks say: AINTICATHODE ?


Yes, now can you spell anticathode? Do you know what one is?

How do we photograph a gamma spectrum band-pass image as obtained by
looking through the entire nasty expanse of the Van Allen badlands, of
having recorded such a gamma and otherwise unavoidably Xray hot moon,
unless the moon itself was a good 100 fold worse off than all that's
in between?

Even if it were down to a mere one DB worse off, whereas that's double
the in between dosage that's DNA lethal as all get out (~0.05 rad/sec
in those red zones, that only gets worse on a given bad solar day, as
well as especially distorted and thereby extended a good 2X towards
the moon)
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/weekly/3Page7.pdf

Amazing.

On Apr 18, 11:28 am, "T Wake" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 15, 4:24 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article ,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

How does the Moon generate these high-energy photons, Brad?

EGRET in fact shows that gamma ray radiation on the Moon is higher than
the Sun's.

The moon is not GENERATING those photons.

Can you folks say: AINTICATHODE ?

Yes, now can you spell anticathode? Do you know what one is?


Thanks much for catching my pesky dyslexic mindset, that usually
thinks and otherwise too often types in reverse.

You get an A+ in dyslexic code breaking.

Yes, I know what a good anticathode is when I see one, though
obviously you folks do not see that naked moon as representing
anything, much less anticathode worthy, or otherwise the least bit DNA/
RNA nasty.

Some how your NASA/Apollo moon is much less DNA/RNA trauma worthy than
any portion of those Van Allen magnetosphere badlands. In fact, a
poorly shielded LEO if merely trekking through the SAA contoure is
actually far more TBI trauma worthy than any EVA walks on that hocus-
pocus moon of theirs.
-
Brad Guth

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 18, 11:28 am, "T Wake" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 15, 4:24 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article ,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

How does the Moon generate these high-energy photons, Brad?

EGRET in fact shows that gamma ray radiation on the Moon is higher
than
the Sun's.

The moon is not GENERATING those photons.

Can you folks say: AINTICATHODE ?

Yes, now can you spell anticathode? Do you know what one is?


Thanks much for catching my pesky dyslexic mindset, that usually
thinks and otherwise too often types in reverse.

Hmm. I dont think "thinking" is your problem. Although reverse thinking
could explain some of your posts.

You get an A+ in dyslexic code breaking.

Yes, I know what a good anticathode is when I see one, though
obviously you folks do not see that naked moon as representing
anything, much less anticathode worthy, or otherwise the least bit DNA/
RNA nasty.

Oh how you love your long sentences. Do you think the more words you vomit
out, the less obvious the nonsense is?

Seriously, do you know what an anticathode is?

On Apr 19, 10:42 am, "T Wake" wrote:

Seriously, do you know what an anticathode is?

Yes, but are you asking merely because you don't have a freaking clue
as to what creates secondary/recoil photons?

Is there something of this universe (besides antimatter and that of
your alt.usenet.kooks black hole) that doesn't cause/create those
pesky senconary/recoil photons?
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics, Art Deco

wrote
on Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:15:59 -0600
:
wrote:

And of course an H2/O2 mixture would be rather dangerous.
Fortunately, it is also generally nonexistent, at least
on Venus' surface; the biggest component thereon is
carbon dioxide, the next is nitrogen, according to
the standard measurements. Where you get your idea
that there's hydrogen on Venus, I for one don't know.
Presumably anyone stupid enough to stand on the Venusian
surface, assuming the heat and the oxygen problem were
solved, would succumb from the aforementioned nitrogen
narcosis and some bad effects from CO2 acidic poisoning --
an issue that almost doomed the Apollo 13 mission, but was
worked around by some clever engineering using duct tape,
the flight manual, and a spare filtration unit.

H2/O2 is a proven safe alternative to the N2/O2. Obviously you're not
quite smart enough to know such things. Keeping the O2 at less than
5% is of course the anti-exploding requirement, of which I see no need
of exceeding 1% O2. At such good pressure, there's much less need of
O2, and thus our getting rid of much less CO2 seems the case.

BTW; As with most everything in the universe, there's no shortage of
hydrogen, that is unless you happen to live within a black hole.

A reducing atmosphere? You're crazy.


No, he's right -- just not on Venus. Jupiter is mostly hydrogen,
according to Wiki, for example.

I wouldn't want to breathe the stuff, admittedly, and 152 K would
probably freeze my blood -- not to mention the rest of me. ;-)
At least on Venus I'd be toasty warm...or just toast.

I'll admit to some curiosity as to where anyone has proven that H2/O2 is
a safe alternative for such applications as SC[u]BA apparatus. He/O2,
maybe, if one can stand the odd modulation of speech caused by the
lighter density.

--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics, Art Deco

wrote
on Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:32:10 -0600
:
wrote:

Obviously the mostly Jewish mainstream status quo is not a very happy
camper these days, but then not much of anything made their Hitler and
the likes of their resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) a happy camper,
especially as long as those pesky Muslims were sitting on all of that
oil.

Too bad that VL2 simply isn't as worthy of being as perpetrated cold-
war cloak and dagger worthy.

Why are you obsessed with "salt", Brad?


Because of the Moon's sodium tail, presumably; plus, if his hypothesis
is correct (I'm not all that hopeful!), we captured it from Sirius about
15,000 years back, with far more salt and water than it has now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/363105.stm

--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics, Art Deco

wrote
on Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:28:52 -0600
:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics, TheBookman

wrote
on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:24:12 -0500
:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:41:12 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics, Art Deco

wrote
on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:15:47 -0600
:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics, Art Deco

wrote
on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:12:26 -0600
:
Brad Guth wrote:

plus that other one of their not
having to deal with that pesky gamma and Xray dosage of a moon

How does the Moon generate these high-energy photons, Brad?


EGRET in fact shows that gamma ray radiation on the Moon is higher than
the Sun's.

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas...s/S025002.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970210.html

Granted, this doesn't answer how, but it might answer what.

It's not clear to me how many sieverts or grays this would be.

That's pretty interesting. Still it doesn't support Guth's assertion
that humans would be DOA as soon as they got anywhere near the Moon.
Also, the return of 36 humans from lunar orbit in good health seals the
issue.


Hmm...was it that many? I count 21 but don't know how many missions
played "sling around the moon" before Apollo 11.

There were nine total Apollo missions that encountered the Moon:

8, 10-17

13 only did a sling-around, of course, but it was still within a few
miles of the surface.

Did al your contact with teh Guthball affect your math skillz?
IIRC, Apollo missions had a crew of three.

I counted 11-17 and missed two. That makes for 27 humans that got near
to the moon, and 12 that actually set foot thereon.

You are correct, I am no longer able to multiply 3*9. Alas.

Could be worse. One of our, erm, regulars, is of the opinion that
a round trip to the moon would take zero seconds for light -- or any
spacecraft -- since the distance from A to A is zero, never mind B.

Consider yourself fortunate. :-)




But you're right; this doesn't come close to supporting BG's
assertion.

Yup.

Yup.

ESL!





--
#191,
/dev/signatu Resource temporarily unavailable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com