Musk plans for mars

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:48:04 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:44:49 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?


For the system that's operating in 2022 and beyond? I'd say pretty damn close to zero. Mark Roth has developed a gas based system that drops users fairly safely and keeps them in low consumption mode.


Roth has withdrawn or terminated all trials of this technology.

Hmm... if you check his website, or call him at the lab, you will find that you are wrong.

http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/#metaboli...%20anima tion

You will find that he confirms what he says on his website, "My lab is currently interested in metabolic flexibility and suspended animation"


Operational systems when available will have people spend 25 days in stasis and 3 days awake for monitoring. Passengers trade slots with one another - online pre-launch and each has its own activity planned. Typically you have 3 periods in flight. Departure, mid-journey, arrival...


There is no evidence that people can tolerate this sort of thing for
periods longer than a couple of weeks

A couple of weeks is 14 days. 28 days is double that time.

and even less evidence than that
for being able to do the sort of cycle you're talking about and do
anything when they're done.

I find it amusing that you come to such firm conclusions based only on your prejudices which are totally divorced from reality.

Mark Roth says,

Our work in suspended animation derives from the fact that many animals exhibit what we call "metabolic flexibility," the ability to dial down their respiration and heartbeat and, in effect, "turn themselves off" in response to physical or environmental stress. Mammalian examples include hibernation — from ground squirrels to bears — as well as estivation (quiescence in response to heat) and embryonic diapause, a pause in embryonic development found in about 70 species of mammals. Meanwhile, many invertebrates can go dormant for days, months, and even years before reanimating.

Hibernation for months to years before re-animating. Sounds like its a lot more than a few weeks doesn't it?

Roth continues;

Our approach to understanding this flexibility has been to develop the means to stop animals for given periods of time and then reanimate them to normal function. We use the term suspended animation to refer to a state where all observable life processes (using high resolution light microscopy) are stopped: the animals do not move nor breathe and the heart does not beat. We have found that we are able to put a number of animals (yeast, nematodes, drosophila, frogs, and zebrafish) into a state of suspended animation for up to 24 hours through one basic technique: reducing the concentration of oxygen.

So, this is the technique - reducing oxygen in the organism.

Roth adds,

By examining the precise oxygen tensions needed to induce suspended animation, we also found discrete and lethal oxygen tensions exist just above the oxygen level that enables suspended animation. In other words, there is a range of oxygen levels that is too low to support life, but going below that causes the animals to suspend. We hypothesized that perhaps we could prevent death in low oxygen situations by adding agents that effectively inhibit oxygen utilization and induce suspended animation.

Carbon monoxide, a well-known gas, is extremely toxic because it does exactly that: binds to sites where oxygen binds in the body. We found that we can successfully put nematodes into a state of suspended animation using carbon monoxide, and these results with invertebrate systems encouraged us to explore other systems and agents.

Using another highly toxic gas, hydrogen sulfide, we found we can reversibly reduce the metabolic rate of mice: exposed to 80 ppm of hydrogen sulfide, mice enter into what we call a "hibernation-like" state, where their core temperature can be reduced as much as 11 degrees and their metabolic rate as judged by carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption drops 10-fold. We've kept the animals in this state for 6 hours and they recover completely.

Got it? THEY RECOVER COMPLETELY! This is very exciting!

Roth concludes;

Our success in altering the metabolic rate of these mammals has given us the tools to pursue several promising lines of research, including whether it might be possible to 'suspend' human organs (for transplant) or to 'buy time' for human patients in trauma.

NASA of course is interested in space applications. There was even a paper given at the IAF last year. You weren't there, or at least I didn't see you. You know who was there? MUSK! He took home a copy of THIS PAPER

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploa...2010162015.pdf

Some details are interesting;

(1) 100 person habitat,
(2) 200 tons,

Musk has proposed a 10,000 ton two stage rocket that lifts 450 tons to LEO is refuelled with 1800 tons of propellant and flies on to mars carrying 200 people.

Hmm.. sounds like two of these habitats to me!








... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ...


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person.


In English sure. In other languages meanings vary.


And what language do we speak, Mook?

Well, my daughter and second wife is Swiss, and my second wife is a translator at the EU Parliament. My daughter speaks four languages, my wife speaks five, I speak four; English, French, German, Chinese



Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be described to BE a mook in that context.


It may amuse you to fantasize that, but that says more about your psychological difficulties than anything else.


Tu quoque is the best you can do? You ARE aptly named!

Dude, I pointed out that the Mook name has nothing to do with how you wish to use the word mook. That is not a logical fallacy and certainly not a Tu quoque argument.

Tu quoque argument follows the pattern:

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."

Fred: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

I pointed out that as a word, mook has many meanings. As a family name, Mook has a distinctive history and little to do with those other uses you are so fond of. The argument is not illogical is not a fallacy and is not a Tu quoque argument at all.


Yet, this has nothing to do with my name, which originates in Mongolian and means 'eternal leader' - transliterated into 'monk' throughout Asia.


Back to your yurt, you mook.

Go to hell you name shaming racist *******.



By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'.

All of them are directed by humans, being built by humans for various purposes.


Nonsense. By that claim, ALL drones are 'directed by humans' so there
is no such thing as a drone.

Logic is not your forte is it? lol.



The point is sending people in stasis in automated ships that are visited infrequently by service crews is the least costly way to send people to Mars.


Incinerating them and shipping them as ash is even more efficient.


Not if you expect repeat business you dim wit.


You are aptly named.

Thank you. There is a town called Mook in Holland - named after the Mongolian derived gypsies that attended Columbus' return to the Old World from the New, after the Alhambra Decree.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


You're so full of crap you should have been named with the Mongolian
word for 'bowel'.

In that case I would be called 'fird makaal' hahahahaha... seriously - that's mongolian for big dump. Just saying. Aptly named indeed!


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


You obviously are unaware of the requirements of high precision interplanetary flight.


You obviously are unaware of, well, almost everything.

That is you, not me, given what you write.



So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.

You are the one fantasizing and projecting your ignorance on to your betters.


You're a loonytoon ****wit.

No I'm not.






... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.

A 2002 lab paper - read it. It resulted in a 635 litre test system for LOX and LNG that maintained zero boil off for an extended period using 15 watts of power with an 8 kg pulse tube cryocooler.


I did. Lab paper.

You didn't understand it then, since you have no idea how NPD works.

In business and engineering, new product development (NPD) is the complete process of bringing a new product to market. New product development is described in the literature as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale and it can be tangible (that is, something physical you can touch) or intangible (like a service, experience, or belief).. A good understanding of customer needs and wants, the competitive environment and the nature of the market represent the top required factors for the success of a new product. Cost, time and quality are the main variables that drive the customer needs. Aimed at these three variables, companies develop continuous practices and strategies to better satisfy the customer requirements and increase their market share by a regular development of new products. There are many uncertainties and challenges throughout the process which companies must face. The use of best practices and the elimination of barriers to communication are the main concerns for the management of NPD process.


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.

You have no appreciation of the value of these things and what they mean for the art of space travel. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come to practical matters of importance.


You have no appreciation of the unreality of these things

You have no appreciation of NPD.

as other
than lab studies

You don't understand how they contribute to NPD.

and what that means when you try to roll a real
operational mission.

You've obviously never taken a product from the fuzzy front end to the fuzzy back end have you?

It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as
interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come
to practical matters of importance.

I'm not clueless. You are however.



snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.

Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'.

Compared to what? See, this is what you don't get. A business makes profit by exploiting capital to create value for their customers. When that capital sits idle, it is of no use to anyone.


So deliberately complicating things

Is not what I'm doing you don't get that.

so that more capital is 'utilized'

So that capital is used continually rather than intermittently.

(albeit not usefully)

You merely inserted that for no reason at all.

is your approach.

Look, if the launch window to Mars is three days every 25 months, you can choose to launch only those three days to Mars leaving your launch infrastructure idle for the intervening period, or you can launch every day into a parking orbit and have all the payloads that accumulate in that parking orbit, launch for mars when the window opens.


This is why Musk is making
rockets while you are merely making CO2.

You're obviously unaware of New Zealand's rocket and jet belt.

snip Mookie Fantasy

Obviously you think moving lab technologies to
RELIABLE operational technologies is 'simple'.

They've ALREADY been reduced to practice. That's the part you don't get because you don't really follow the industry in any meaningful way.


No, they haven't.

Yes they have.

They've been reduced to lab studies.

I've cited peer reviewed papers that are easily found on the internet. You wrongly conclude that gives you the current state of the art. It does not..

Obviously, YOU are
'simple'.

You are projecting again.


You are projecting again (and very dimly, too).

You're the one copying what I say because you're clueless.


snip MookSpew

You obviously have no clue, you Mook.

Let's see, you have no idea what a Hohman transfer orbit is or how it relates to a synodic period, you have no appreciation that a ship designed for a three year flight cycle could easily be extended to a five year flight cycle, you have no idea how that flight cycle impacts launch operations and the efficiency of the most expensive part of the capital equipment used to support operations, you have no clue about the current state of ZBO technologies and why SpaceX chose LNG/LOX in the first place - yet in response to someone who knows about all these things, and troubles themselves to post here to benefit this group - you respond in the most atrocious of ways - projecting your cluelessness on to them.


So YOU have fantasized in your delusions. But then, you're just a
Delusional Dip**** Dimwit (tm).

Look in the mirror when you say that and you have it just about right.



--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:48:01 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:28:32 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 11:54:14 AM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
at some point a nuke booster for travel from earth orbit to mars will be necessary..

to shorten travel time, and lessen supplies for the manned portion of flights.

a realtively small but very fast booster would be nice to have available for emergencies.

hey the water recycler is totally kaput, get earth to sen a replacement immediately!

of course sending one manned vehicle to mars with 2 backups flying close by will also help

Suspended animation, ...


Which we don't have.


Tell that to the people whose lives have been saved by placing them in suspended animation before they were transported to the ER.


So each of your people in 'suspended animation' requires a wide awake
and active anesthesiology team.

You need about 8 people to process 40 people per day - once every 25 days - so that's 1000 to 8 - or 1 person in 125. So, you have one hospital ship for every five sleeper ships with 200 on board. With folks being awake for 3 days before being put out again you have 120 people awake at one time - and so, that gives you the size of the facilities on the hospital ship.

And even then, try to do that for
very long and you'll wind up with irreversible brain damage or dead
people.

cite? Mark Roth would disagree with you. Mammals routinely hibernate for weeks to months at a time and show no loss of function.


Is this what happened to you?


You're talking about yourself again right? Calm down. Its alright.


We don't have Mars ships yet either. But we can see how they can be built. By the same token we can see that by the time we're sending large numbers of people to Mars, suspended animation will be a viable way to reduce costs dramatically and improve safety given the ability to shield people in stasis.


Delusional fantasy.

You are obviously unaware of studies that show radiation storm cellars are an effective means to reduce radiation exposure during interplanetary transit.




... improved virtual reality, ...


Which is unnecessary.

A cruise ship has about 4100 cubic feet of space for each passenger and crew. The weight of this is about one ton of displacement for every 100 cubic feet. 41 tons per passenger! This is obviously too damn heavy for a spacecraft. Advanced materials, and improved construction techniques radically reduce weight. Reducing required volume to that of a first class airline seat is possible


Then it's good we won't be hurling big cruise ships to Mars, I guess.
Instead we'll be hurling 'Mars ships', which are a totally different
thing. No, it is not possible to stick them in airline seats for
months.

If they are in stasis or in an enhanced virtual reality like the holodeck when animated - the space can be quite small. That's one of the exciting possibilities of application of VR technology NASA has outlined.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/tech...avel-heres-how




snip




in combination with a long-duration second skin type spacesuit, ...


Gods, he FINALLY suggested something that we might actually be able to
put into production in a few years.


I've been talking about mechanical counter pressure suits in this thread for 20 years - and ever since Paul Webb donned the first one in 1971 in my home state of Ohio!


How nice for you. Got one that works in an operational environment?
Webb didn't. He wrote a paper about the problems.

Proving once again you are totally clueless about what it takes to actually develop something useful.




... can do much to achieve very efficient travel along hohman transfer orbits from Earth to Mars and back.


snip remaining Mookie fantasies

You're a clueless idiot.


You don't know the difference between papers of lab tests and the real
operational world (

Yes I do.

( which is why you're a clueless idiot

No I'm not

who sprays a
lot of electrons over fantasies).

You don't have much of a sex life do you? lol.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:14:33 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:16:35 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-01 20:29, Alain Fournier wrote:

It isn't easier for a person to be functional after ~3-4 months enclosed
with 5 others to be functional than for the same person to be functional
after the trip with 100 others.


Think space for the "gym". You're not going to be able to keep 100
people fit with just one threadmill and one stationary bike. And you
can't say 24 persons can use the threamill 1 hour each day, so you only
need 4 threadmills because people don't want to exercise just before
they go to bed (otherwise you won't sleep). And since mechanical
exercise devices break down, you also need to have extra machines for
when one breks down until it is repaired.

100 people exercising every day also produces much more CO2, and
increases water requirements (which also increases need for water
reclamation capacity from sweat that has evaporated into cabin air).


These ships are BIG. Space shouldn't be a problem and you need all
that stuff anyway.

Especially if you use the 'wet' station concept of inhabiting the empty propellant tanks during the journey.


But nobody is going to do that.

Its funny you are so sure about things that no one can be sure about. The wet station concept will be analysed before any decisions are made.





So unless you do like in Avatar and put everyone into a tube where they
fall asleep for months (and none of their body functions/muscles
weaken), then you are likely to need for more space and ECLSS capacity
than for a short suborbital trip from new York to Sdyney with 100 pax..


Well, of course, Captain Obvious. Nobody is talking about people
spending 100 days sitting in an airline seat here. And nobody but
Mook thinks 'hibernation' is a viable approach.


Yeah, me and NASA ...


Paper studies.

Except for a little thing called Skylab. You ought to look it up. It was in all the papers. lol.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFVZ76SOg6Y


Not by NASA.

Hunh? Didn't you see the NASA logo? lol.

Here's what NASA's website has to say;

https://www.nasa.gov/content/torpor-...stasis-to-mars
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...PhI_Torpor.pdf



https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...PhI_Torpor.pdf


Study paper. WAY not ready for prime time yet.

You have no idea what you're talking about.



http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploa...2010162015.pdf

and since Musk was at the 2015 IAF conference in Israel, he likely was referring to this 100 person transfer vehicle in his 2016 announcement.

Just guessing.


And guessing wrong.

Not really.

He was referring to the BFS. It was the size of
that that motivated SpaceWorks to produce this paper, not the other
way around.

So, you obviously haven't seen the interior layout and consumable schedule for the BFS then have you?



Whom do you expect to be on the cutting edge? People who post to this site? Or people who attend every IAF conference and sometimes give talks? (like me and Musk)


Musk I believe. You, on the other hand, are just a buffoon.

Again, you need to be looking in the mirror when you say these things about yourself.





The other aspect: once you start to add enough gear to support 100
people for months including the gym, toilets etc, do you really want to
bring all that down to mars and then back up ? Might make sense to have
a lot fo the stuff put in orbit at Mars so you don't have to brakme it
down and accelerate it back up (depending on its mass).


A long duration garment with built in devices to keep it and its wearer clean, and can double as a spacesuit with the right attachments, and can act as a 'man multiplier' and stasis chamber (since its control of gases that bring about stasis using hydrogen sulphide according to Mark Roth's research) can also stimulate muscle activity electronically. That is, with a stereoscopic display inside a heads up display helmet, that is slaved to the motion of your eyes and head - and a fabric with optical fibres and accelerometers woven in to sense precise body motion - one can create a virtual reality simulation of any exercise required in any environment desired.


Or we can sprinkle them with magic pixie dust!

What do you imagine that will do you moron?




But now you've got the problem of connecting all that stuff with a
little narrow airlock/docking tunnel. You can build more robustly if
you make it all one piece.


The same low mass low complexity approach that makes it a joy to travel for months in space, also make it a joy to survive on the surface of Mars.


You have a strange notion of 'joy'.


You haven't experienced a real holodeck have you;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU

I have!


Survey teams, which will pre-date settlers and more casual tourists, will likely have their ships stay on orbit near Diemos or Phobos, and use resources there to refuel their ship for return. Meanwhile, early adopters will use rocket belt technology to visit as many spots on Mars as they can and follow procedures to surveil them for possible settlements - being directed by earlier orbital surveys and using a network of satellites deployed by the arriving spacecraft.


These are not the hurtling moons of Barsoom, Mook. They're little
tiny (essentially resourceless) rocks.

You have no clue do you?

https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Ships will either stay in
orbit and use their remaining fuel to return, stay in orbit and ship
fuel up from the surface of Mars, or land and use fuel made on the
surface of Mars.

Phobos and Diemos are made of the same things Mars is. Landing on either of these gives you access to the same resources as Mars. Namely, water and hydrocarbons. These two things with sunlight make methane and oxygen. The study I offer above details the savings of doing this - and using rocket belts to land on mars and return to the orbiting habitat.

In this way, the surface of mars is visited at tens of thousands of locations and 1400 city sites are selected over the first three synodic periods. The following periods then develop up to 14 cities per synodic period.

Depends on whose mission you're looking at. Only
the Mookie Mars Mission contemplates what you suggest.

Look, I predicted a lot of things that are happening right now. The Mars program will be just as I outline it here.

Presumably
Mook plans to use Magical MEMS Machines (tm) to create the materials
needed to make fuel.

MEMS machines are not fantasy. You don't get that.

https://www.ri.cmu.edu/research_guid...orobotics.html

https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/mi...ot/jmems06.pdf



snip Mookie Fantasy





It's not as if you have to unload the ship in 15 minutes. I don't see
a problem here.


How big/bulky would the spacesuits need to be for each passenger?


Why does each passenger need one?


They're useful on Mars, ...


Useful is not 'need'. I've snipped the remainder of your magical
self-cleaning, self-repairing lifeboat suit fantasy.

Its not a fantasy you don't get that.


More Mookie Magical Mystery Tour removed


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:48:04 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:44:49 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?


For the system that's operating in 2022 and beyond? I'd say pretty damn close to zero. Mark Roth has developed a gas based system that drops users fairly safely and keeps them in low consumption mode.


Roth has withdrawn or terminated all trials of this technology.


Hmm... if you check his website, or call him at the lab, you will find that you are wrong.

http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/#metaboli...%20anima tion

You will find that he confirms what he says on his website, "My lab is currently interested in metabolic flexibility and suspended animation"


Reading for comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it? His
'interest' at his lab isn't trials of the system you said he'd
developed, which he WITHDREW trials of. So I'm right and you're
illiterate.




Operational systems when available will have people spend 25 days in stasis and 3 days awake for monitoring. Passengers trade slots with one another - online pre-launch and each has its own activity planned. Typically you have 3 periods in flight. Departure, mid-journey, arrival...


There is no evidence that people can tolerate this sort of thing for
periods longer than a couple of weeks

A couple of weeks is 14 days. 28 days is double that time.

and even less evidence than that
for being able to do the sort of cycle you're talking about and do
anything when they're done.


I find it amusing that you come to such firm conclusions based only on your prejudices which are totally divorced from reality.


I don't find it amusing that you consistently fail to see the
difference between lab interest and your fantasy deployments.

snip irrelevancies that prove nothing with regard to MookFantasy


Some details are interesting;

(1) 100 person habitat,
(2) 200 tons,

Musk has proposed a 10,000 ton two stage rocket that lifts 450 tons to LEO is refuelled with 1800 tons of propellant and flies on to mars carrying 200 people.

Hmm.. sounds like two of these habitats to me!


But you're well known for leaping to conclusions based on nothing
other than tingling in your anus.








... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ...


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person.


In English sure. In other languages meanings vary.


And what language do we speak, Mook?


Well, my daughter and second wife is Swiss, and my second wife is a translator at the EU Parliament. My daughter speaks four languages, my wife speaks five, I speak four; English, French, German, Chinese


Well, you're claiming to be Mongolian. However, you were born in the
United States and we speak English here.




Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be described to BE a mook in that context.


It may amuse you to fantasize that, but that says more about your psychological difficulties than anything else.


Uh, you realize you're responding to something YOU said to ME, right?
And you're exactly correct in your response.



Tu quoque is the best you can do? You ARE aptly named!


Dude, I pointed out that the Mook name has nothing to do with how you wish to use the word mook. That is not a logical fallacy and certainly not a Tu quoque argument.


Dude, you said back to me something I said to you. That's the very
definition of tu queque.

snip Mookery


Yet, this has nothing to do with my name, which originates in Mongolian and means 'eternal leader' - transliterated into 'monk' throughout Asia.


Back to your yurt, you mook.

Go to hell you name shaming racist *******.


Go **** yourself, you humorless lunatic.




By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'.

All of them are directed by humans, being built by humans for various purposes.


Nonsense. By that claim, ALL drones are 'directed by humans' so there
is no such thing as a drone.


Logic is not your forte is it? lol.


Knowledge and intellect are not your fortes, are they? lol.




The point is sending people in stasis in automated ships that are visited infrequently by service crews is the least costly way to send people to Mars.


Incinerating them and shipping them as ash is even more efficient.


Not if you expect repeat business you dim wit.


You think the same people are going to ship themselves to Mars
multiple times, you idiot?


You are aptly named.

Thank you. There is a town called Mook in Holland - named after the Mongolian derived gypsies that attended Columbus' return to the Old World from the New, after the Alhambra Decree.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


You're so full of crap you should have been named with the Mongolian
word for 'bowel'.

In that case I would be called 'fird makaal' hahahahaha... seriously - that's mongolian for big dump. Just saying. Aptly named indeed!


Lying just to get an insult? Pathetic, Mook. Truly pathetic. Your
name should be gedesnii khödölgöön.


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


You obviously are unaware of the requirements of high precision interplanetary flight.


You obviously are unaware of, well, almost everything.


That is you, not me, given what you write.


Poor Little Lord Echo...




So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.

You are the one fantasizing and projecting your ignorance on to your betters.


You're a loonytoon ****wit.

No I'm not.


Yes you are.






... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.

A 2002 lab paper - read it. It resulted in a 635 litre test system for LOX and LNG that maintained zero boil off for an extended period using 15 watts of power with an 8 kg pulse tube cryocooler.


I did. Lab paper.


You didn't understand it then, since you have no idea how NPD works.

In business and engineering, new product development (NPD) is the complete process of bringing a new product to market. New product development is described in the literature as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale and it can be tangible (that is, something physical you can touch) or intangible (like a service, experience, or belief). A good understanding of customer needs and wants, the competitive environment and the nature of the market represent the top required factors for the success of a new product. Cost, time and quality are the main variables that drive the customer needs. Aimed at these three variables, companies develop continuous practices and strategies to better satisfy the customer requirements and increase their market share by a regular development of new products. There are many uncertainties and challenges throughout the process which companies must face. The use of best practices and the elimination of barriers to
communication are the main concerns for the management of NPD process.


No product was developed. It was a conceptual test.


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.

You have no appreciation of the value of these things and what they mean for the art of space travel. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come to practical matters of importance.


You have no appreciation of the unreality of these things

You have no appreciation of NPD.


The 'P' in NPD is 'Product'. No product resulted or was intended to
result.

as other
than lab studies

You don't understand how they contribute to NPD.


You don't understand that they're not operational products.

and what that means when you try to roll a real
operational mission.

You've obviously never taken a product from the fuzzy front end to the fuzzy back end have you?


You've obviously never. Anything.

It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as
interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come
to practical matters of importance.

I'm not clueless. You are however.


Little Lord Echo echoes again.




snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.

Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'.

Compared to what? See, this is what you don't get. A business makes profit by exploiting capital to create value for their customers. When that capital sits idle, it is of no use to anyone.


So deliberately complicating things


Is not what I'm doing you don't get that.


That is what you're doing and you don't get it.


so that more capital is 'utilized'

So that capital is used continually rather than intermittently.


Silly idea in this case.


(albeit not usefully)

You merely inserted that for no reason at all.


I inserted that because it's true.


is your approach.

Look, if the launch window to Mars is three days every 25 months, you can choose to launch only those three days to Mars leaving your launch infrastructure idle for the intervening period, or you can launch every day into a parking orbit and have all the payloads that accumulate in that parking orbit, launch for mars when the window opens.


Look, you can use the infrastructure for other things and then launch
a bunch of things during the window. You refurbish and maintain your
infrastructure during 'down' time.


This is why Musk is making
rockets while you are merely making CO2.

You're obviously unaware of New Zealand's rocket and jet belt.


You are obviously unaware that it's not a product yet (next year,
perhaps) and that you had nothing to do with it.



snip Mookie Fantasy

Obviously you think moving lab technologies to
RELIABLE operational technologies is 'simple'.

They've ALREADY been reduced to practice. That's the part you don't get because you don't really follow the industry in any meaningful way.


No, they haven't.

Yes they have.


Cite?

They've been reduced to lab studies.

I've cited peer reviewed papers that are easily found on the internet. You wrongly conclude that gives you the current state of the art. It does not.


Papers are not products.

Obviously, YOU are
'simple'.

You are projecting again.


You are projecting again (and very dimly, too).

You're the one copying what I say because you're clueless.


snicker


snip MookSpew

You obviously have no clue, you Mook.

Let's see, you have no idea what a Hohman transfer orbit is or how it relates to a synodic period, you have no appreciation that a ship designed for a three year flight cycle could easily be extended to a five year flight cycle, you have no idea how that flight cycle impacts launch operations and the efficiency of the most expensive part of the capital equipment used to support operations, you have no clue about the current state of ZBO technologies and why SpaceX chose LNG/LOX in the first place - yet in response to someone who knows about all these things, and troubles themselves to post here to benefit this group - you respond in the most atrocious of ways - projecting your cluelessness on to them.


So YOU have fantasized in your delusions. But then, you're just a
Delusional Dip**** Dimwit (tm).

Look in the mirror when you say that and you have it just about right.


You're the one copying what I say because you're clueless.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:48:01 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:28:32 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 11:54:14 AM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
at some point a nuke booster for travel from earth orbit to mars will be necessary..

to shorten travel time, and lessen supplies for the manned portion of flights.

a realtively small but very fast booster would be nice to have available for emergencies.

hey the water recycler is totally kaput, get earth to sen a replacement immediately!

of course sending one manned vehicle to mars with 2 backups flying close by will also help

Suspended animation, ...


Which we don't have.


Tell that to the people whose lives have been saved by placing them in suspended animation before they were transported to the ER.


So each of your people in 'suspended animation' requires a wide awake
and active anesthesiology team.

You need about 8 people to process 40 people per day - once every 25 days - so that's 1000 to 8 - or 1 person in 125. So, you have one hospital ship for every five sleeper ships with 200 on board. With folks being awake for 3 days before being put out again you have 120 people awake at one time - and so, that gives you the size of the facilities on the hospital ship.


Cite?

And even then, try to do that for
very long and you'll wind up with irreversible brain damage or dead
people.

cite? Mark Roth would disagree with you. Mammals routinely hibernate for weeks to months at a time and show no loss of function.


Not humans. That's why it's a research area.


Is this what happened to you?


You're talking about yourself again right? Calm down. Its alright.


Little Lord Echo mooks again.


We don't have Mars ships yet either. But we can see how they can be built. By the same token we can see that by the time we're sending large numbers of people to Mars, suspended animation will be a viable way to reduce costs dramatically and improve safety given the ability to shield people in stasis.


Delusional fantasy.

You are obviously unaware of studies that show radiation storm cellars are an effective means to reduce radiation exposure during interplanetary transit.


You are obviously illiterate and don't understand what you read.




... improved virtual reality, ...


Which is unnecessary.

A cruise ship has about 4100 cubic feet of space for each passenger and crew. The weight of this is about one ton of displacement for every 100 cubic feet. 41 tons per passenger! This is obviously too damn heavy for a spacecraft. Advanced materials, and improved construction techniques radically reduce weight. Reducing required volume to that of a first class airline seat is possible


Then it's good we won't be hurling big cruise ships to Mars, I guess.
Instead we'll be hurling 'Mars ships', which are a totally different
thing. No, it is not possible to stick them in airline seats for
months.

If they are in stasis or in an enhanced virtual reality like the holodeck when animated - the space can be quite small. That's one of the exciting possibilities of application of VR technology NASA has outlined.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/tech...avel-heres-how


So your solution to colonizing Mars is to stay here and do it VR? Just
WOW.



snip




in combination with a long-duration second skin type spacesuit, ...


Gods, he FINALLY suggested something that we might actually be able to
put into production in a few years.


I've been talking about mechanical counter pressure suits in this thread for 20 years - and ever since Paul Webb donned the first one in 1971 in my home state of Ohio!


How nice for you. Got one that works in an operational environment?
Webb didn't. He wrote a paper about the problems.

Proving once again you are totally clueless about what it takes to actually develop something useful.


Proving once again that you don't know the difference between lab
studies and operational systems.




... can do much to achieve very efficient travel along hohman transfer orbits from Earth to Mars and back.


snip remaining Mookie fantasies

You're a clueless idiot.


You don't know the difference between papers of lab tests and the real
operational world (

Yes I do.


You hide it well.

( which is why you're a clueless idiot

No I'm not


Yes you are (and you ****ed up the quoting).

who sprays a
lot of electrons over fantasies).

You don't have much of a sex life do you? lol.


Gee, there's a cogent rebuttal. As always, Mook can't actually say
anything meaningful when pressed on his idiocy.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:14:33 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:16:35 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-01 20:29, Alain Fournier wrote:

It isn't easier for a person to be functional after ~3-4 months enclosed
with 5 others to be functional than for the same person to be functional
after the trip with 100 others.


Think space for the "gym". You're not going to be able to keep 100
people fit with just one threadmill and one stationary bike. And you
can't say 24 persons can use the threamill 1 hour each day, so you only
need 4 threadmills because people don't want to exercise just before
they go to bed (otherwise you won't sleep). And since mechanical
exercise devices break down, you also need to have extra machines for
when one breks down until it is repaired.

100 people exercising every day also produces much more CO2, and
increases water requirements (which also increases need for water
reclamation capacity from sweat that has evaporated into cabin air).


These ships are BIG. Space shouldn't be a problem and you need all
that stuff anyway.

Especially if you use the 'wet' station concept of inhabiting the empty propellant tanks during the journey.


But nobody is going to do that.

Its funny you are so sure about things that no one can be sure about. The wet station concept will be analysed before any decisions are made.


No one is even suggesting it but you, which is a pretty good
indicator.






So unless you do like in Avatar and put everyone into a tube where they
fall asleep for months (and none of their body functions/muscles
weaken), then you are likely to need for more space and ECLSS capacity
than for a short suborbital trip from new York to Sdyney with 100 pax.


Well, of course, Captain Obvious. Nobody is talking about people
spending 100 days sitting in an airline seat here. And nobody but
Mook thinks 'hibernation' is a viable approach.


Yeah, me and NASA ...


Paper studies.

Except for a little thing called Skylab. You ought to look it up. It was in all the papers. lol.


Who hibernated on Skylab? Or are you unable to keep up?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFVZ76SOg6Y


Not by NASA.

Hunh? Didn't you see the NASA logo? lol.


Hunh? Didn't you look at the publisher? Pictures of hardware with a
NASA logo doesn't mean the video is by NASA, Mook. Can you not tell
the difference between fantasy and official videos? lol.


Here's what NASA's website has to say;

https://www.nasa.gov/content/torpor-...stasis-to-mars
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...PhI_Torpor.pdf


Now go look at the NASA Reference Architecture. See any 'torpor'?
Nope.



https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...PhI_Torpor.pdf


Study paper. WAY not ready for prime time yet.

You have no idea what you're talking about.


Read the paper, Mook. YOU don't know what you're talking about. In
fact, you just need to read section 8.2, where the authors themselves,
who are putting forward the most rosy picture possible, talk about a
bunch of additional work that needs to be done before this is ready
for prime time.



http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploa...2010162015.pdf

and since Musk was at the 2015 IAF conference in Israel, he likely was referring to this 100 person transfer vehicle in his 2016 announcement.

Just guessing.


And guessing wrong.

Not really.


Yeah, really. Please post a cite for MUSK talking about putting
passengers in suspended animation.

He was referring to the BFS. It was the size of
that that motivated SpaceWorks to produce this paper, not the other
way around.

So, you obviously haven't seen the interior layout and consumable schedule for the BFS then have you?


So, neither have you.



Whom do you expect to be on the cutting edge? People who post to this site? Or people who attend every IAF conference and sometimes give talks? (like me and Musk)


Musk I believe. You, on the other hand, are just a buffoon.

Again, you need to be looking in the mirror when you say these things about yourself.


Again, Little Lord Echo mooks again.






The other aspect: once you start to add enough gear to support 100
people for months including the gym, toilets etc, do you really want to
bring all that down to mars and then back up ? Might make sense to have
a lot fo the stuff put in orbit at Mars so you don't have to brakme it
down and accelerate it back up (depending on its mass).


A long duration garment with built in devices to keep it and its wearer clean, and can double as a spacesuit with the right attachments, and can act as a 'man multiplier' and stasis chamber (since its control of gases that bring about stasis using hydrogen sulphide according to Mark Roth's research) can also stimulate muscle activity electronically. That is, with a stereoscopic display inside a heads up display helmet, that is slaved to the motion of your eyes and head - and a fabric with optical fibres and accelerometers woven in to sense precise body motion - one can create a virtual reality simulation of any exercise required in any environment desired.


Or we can sprinkle them with magic pixie dust!

What do you imagine that will do you moron?


Just what your magic garment does.




But now you've got the problem of connecting all that stuff with a
little narrow airlock/docking tunnel. You can build more robustly if
you make it all one piece.


The same low mass low complexity approach that makes it a joy to travel for months in space, also make it a joy to survive on the surface of Mars.


You have a strange notion of 'joy'.


You haven't experienced a real holodeck have you;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU

I have!


You're insane. There is no such thing as "a real holodeck", so you
thinking you've experienced one is good evidence of your need for
psychiatric treatment.


Survey teams, which will pre-date settlers and more casual tourists, will likely have their ships stay on orbit near Diemos or Phobos, and use resources there to refuel their ship for return. Meanwhile, early adopters will use rocket belt technology to visit as many spots on Mars as they can and follow procedures to surveil them for possible settlements - being directed by earlier orbital surveys and using a network of satellites deployed by the arriving spacecraft.


These are not the hurtling moons of Barsoom, Mook. They're little
tiny (essentially resourceless) rocks.

You have no clue do you?

https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


You have no clue, do you? Speculation is not evidence of water on
either moon, said evidence being nonexistent.

Ships will either stay in
orbit and use their remaining fuel to return, stay in orbit and ship
fuel up from the surface of Mars, or land and use fuel made on the
surface of Mars.

Phobos and Diemos are made of the same things Mars is. Landing on either of these gives you access to the same resources as Mars. Namely, water and hydrocarbons. These two things with sunlight make methane and oxygen. The study I offer above details the savings of doing this - and using rocket belts to land on mars and return to the orbiting habitat.


Not true. There is no evidence for either water or hydrocarbons on
either moon.

snip MookLunacy


Depends on whose mission you're looking at. Only
the Mookie Mars Mission contemplates what you suggest.

Look, I predicted a lot of things that are happening right now. The Mars program will be just as I outline it here.


Of course you did, Mookie. Of course you did. Of course it will,
Mookie. Of course it will.

Presumably
Mook plans to use Magical MEMS Machines (tm) to create the materials
needed to make fuel.

MEMS machines are not fantasy. You don't get that.


They're not magic. You don't get that.



snip Mookie Fantasy





It's not as if you have to unload the ship in 15 minutes. I don't see
a problem here.


How big/bulky would the spacesuits need to be for each passenger?


Why does each passenger need one?


They're useful on Mars, ...


Useful is not 'need'. I've snipped the remainder of your magical
self-cleaning, self-repairing lifeboat suit fantasy.

Its not a fantasy you don't get that.


Cite for the existence of these suits? No cite, then it's fantasy.
Cite of some research paper that speculates, then it's fantasy.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:13:19 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:48:04 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:44:49 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?


For the system that's operating in 2022 and beyond? I'd say pretty damn close to zero. Mark Roth has developed a gas based system that drops users fairly safely and keeps them in low consumption mode.


Roth has withdrawn or terminated all trials of this technology.


Hmm... if you check his website, or call him at the lab, you will find that you are wrong.

http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/#metaboli...%20anima tion

You will find that he confirms what he says on his website, "My lab is currently interested in metabolic flexibility and suspended animation"


Reading for comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it?

You're projecting again.

His
'interest' at his lab isn't trials of the system you said he'd
developed,

You haven't read his published literature. You assume that your gut is right again. This always leads you into trouble.

which he WITHDREW trials of.

Completed you mean.

So I'm right

You sir are NEVER right it seems. It must be hard being you.

and you're
illiterate.

I know you need to believe this fantasy to preserve your fragile self image.. But like many things in your life, it just ain't true! lol.




Operational systems when available will have people spend 25 days in stasis and 3 days awake for monitoring. Passengers trade slots with one another - online pre-launch and each has its own activity planned. Typically you have 3 periods in flight. Departure, mid-journey, arrival...


There is no evidence that people can tolerate this sort of thing for
periods longer than a couple of weeks

A couple of weeks is 14 days. 28 days is double that time.

and even less evidence than that
for being able to do the sort of cycle you're talking about and do
anything when they're done.


I find it amusing that you come to such firm conclusions based only on your prejudices which are totally divorced from reality.


I don't find it amusing that you consistently fail to see the
difference between lab interest and your fantasy deployments.

You have no idea what you're talking about but a strong belief in the rightness of your gut feelings - which frequently lead you astray. The fact remains that animals already hibernate and recover fully after months of hibernation. Roth has detailed the process that is responsible for that, and is continuing to work towards practical applications of that understanding. Any reasonable analyst would look at progress cost and benefits and foresee that this will be used at some point to produce extremely low cost trips to Mars and back in the time frame Musk and others will be offering such trips.

Your assertions to the contrary are baseless tripe.


snip irrelevancies that prove nothing with regard to MookFantasy


Some details are interesting;

(1) 100 person habitat,
(2) 200 tons,

Musk has proposed a 10,000 ton two stage rocket that lifts 450 tons to LEO is refuelled with 1800 tons of propellant and flies on to mars carrying 200 people.

Hmm.. sounds like two of these habitats to me!


But you're well known for leaping to conclusions based on nothing
other than tingling in your anus.

Again, you are inappropriately projecting what is a common experience for you on to others








... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ...


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person.


In English sure. In other languages meanings vary.


And what language do we speak, Mook?


Well, my daughter and second wife is Swiss, and my second wife is a translator at the EU Parliament. My daughter speaks four languages, my wife speaks five, I speak four; English, French, German, Chinese


Well, you're claiming to be Mongolian.

No I'm not. You can't read sensibly. I'm saying the name Mook derives from a Mongolian root. My family first came to Europe with the Mongol hordes and remained. My family was on the first ships to the New World with Columbus, following the Alhambra Decree. Upon Columbus' return the Spanish Inquisition caused a disruption when resupplying in the Azores, and so the Nina was taken to Amsterdam and the Prince there was asked to create a Ghetto called Mook, which exists to this day. Mook's played an important role in the Dutch East Indies company and Mook's were early settlers in New Amsterdam later New York - and went Westward to Ohio - where they settled in Columbus.

However, you were born in the
United States and we speak English here.

I'm sure that for a racist ******* like you this seems an accurate statement. The reality is the United States is multi-cultural and has a diverse language heritage.

According to the American Community Survey 2011, endorsed by the United States Census Bureau, the languages spoken at home with over 100,000 speakers older than five a

English – 230 million
Spanish – 37.58 million
Chinese – 2.88 million (mainly Yue dialects such as Cantonese and Taishanese, Standard Mandarin Chinese, also Hokkien, Hakka)
French – 1.30 million + 750,000 French Creole
Tagalog – 1.59 million + (Most Filipinos also know other Philippine languages, e.g. Ilokano, Pangasinan, Bikol languages, and Visayan languages.)
Vietnamese – 1.41 million
Korean – 1.14 million
German – 1.08 million (High/Standard German) + (May include German dialects like Pennsylvania German, Hutterite German, Plautdietsch, Texas German)
Arabic – 951,700
Russian – 905,800
Other Indic languages – 815,345 (Includes Punjabi, Bengali, Marathi)
Italian – 723,600
Portuguese – 673,500
Hindi – 648,900
Polish – 607,500
Japanese – 436,100
Persian – 407,600
Urdu – 373,800
Gujarati – 358,400
Greek – 304,900
Serbo-Croatian – 269,600
Armenian – 246,900
Hebrew – 216,300
Khmer – 212,500
Hmong - 211,200
Navajo – 169,300
Thai - 163,200
Yiddish - 160,900
Laotian - 140,900
Tamil - 132,573
Nepali language - 185,145
American Sign Language – ~100,000




Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be described to BE a mook in that context.


It may amuse you to fantasize that, but that says more about your psychological difficulties than anything else.


Uh, you realize you're responding to something YOU said to ME, right?
And you're exactly correct in your response.

You realise that you are the one calling me a mook trying to name shame don't you? To be cleaer, your fantasy is that Mook is something I should be ashamed of. That is what I am referring to.




Tu quoque is the best you can do? You ARE aptly named!


Dude, I pointed out that the Mook name has nothing to do with how you wish to use the word mook. That is not a logical fallacy and certainly not a Tu quoque argument.


Dude, you said back to me something I said to you.

That's what yo do.

That's the very
definition of tu queque.

That is not.

Tu quoque argument follows the pattern:


Fred: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."

William: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.


snip Mookery


Yet, this has nothing to do with my name, which originates in Mongolian and means 'eternal leader' - transliterated into 'monk' throughout Asia.


Back to your yurt, you mook.

Go to hell you name shaming racist *******.


Go **** yourself, you humorless lunatic.

You're the one who is insane. I post relevant technical topics. You take great pleasure to **** on them regardless of their quality.




By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'.

All of them are directed by humans, being built by humans for various purposes.


Nonsense. By that claim, ALL drones are 'directed by humans' so there
is no such thing as a drone.


Logic is not your forte is it? lol.


Knowledge and intellect are not your fortes, are they? lol.

You're the one who's wrong dude. Or are you going to falsely say I said that like you always do?




The point is sending people in stasis in automated ships that are visited infrequently by service crews is the least costly way to send people to Mars.


Incinerating them and shipping them as ash is even more efficient.


Not if you expect repeat business you dim wit.


You think the same people are going to ship themselves to Mars
multiple times, you idiot?

Repeat business involves more than shipping. Incinerated ash for example won't create demand for local products like food and air and water.



You are aptly named.

Thank you. There is a town called Mook in Holland - named after the Mongolian derived gypsies that attended Columbus' return to the Old World from the New, after the Alhambra Decree.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


You're so full of crap you should have been named with the Mongolian
word for 'bowel'.

In that case I would be called 'fird makaal' hahahahaha... seriously - that's mongolian for big dump. Just saying. Aptly named indeed!


Lying just to get an insult?

Alright big brown dump - believe that if you want to.

Pathetic, Mook. Truly pathetic. Your
name should be gedesnii khödölgöön.

Yeah but your name is already муухай
muukhai (McCall) in Mongolian.


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


You obviously are unaware of the requirements of high precision interplanetary flight.


You obviously are unaware of, well, almost everything.


That is you, not me, given what you write.


Poor Little Lord Echo...

talking about yourself again.





So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.

You are the one fantasizing and projecting your ignorance on to your betters.


You're a loonytoon ****wit.

No I'm not.


Yes you are.

Not really.






... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.

A 2002 lab paper - read it. It resulted in a 635 litre test system for LOX and LNG that maintained zero boil off for an extended period using 15 watts of power with an 8 kg pulse tube cryocooler.


I did. Lab paper.


You didn't understand it then, since you have no idea how NPD works.

In business and engineering, new product development (NPD) is the complete process of bringing a new product to market. New product development is described in the literature as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale and it can be tangible (that is, something physical you can touch) or intangible (like a service, experience, or belief). A good understanding of customer needs and wants, the competitive environment and the nature of the market represent the top required factors for the success of a new product. Cost, time and quality are the main variables that drive the customer needs. Aimed at these three variables, companies develop continuous practices and strategies to better satisfy the customer requirements and increase their market share by a regular development of new products. There are many uncertainties and challenges throughout the process which companies must face. The use of best practices and the elimination of barriers to
communication are the main concerns for the management of NPD process.


No product was developed. It was a conceptual test.

You really don't know how to use engineering data to make products do you?


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.

You have no appreciation of the value of these things and what they mean for the art of space travel. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come to practical matters of importance.


You have no appreciation of the unreality of these things

You have no appreciation of NPD.


The 'P' in NPD is 'Product'. No product resulted or was intended to
result.

Again, you have no idea how new products are developed and brought to market.

as other
than lab studies

You don't understand how they contribute to NPD.


You don't understand that they're not operational products.

You don't understand the data produced in these tests was sufficient for anyone skilled in the art to bring it to market.

and what that means when you try to roll a real
operational mission.

You've obviously never taken a product from the fuzzy front end to the fuzzy back end have you?


You've obviously never. Anything.

I invented the computer based cash register and brought it market. I invented ultra-high intensity hyper efficient solar cells, and brought it to market. I invented zero impact farming and brought it to market.

It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as
interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come
to practical matters of importance.

I'm not clueless. You are however.


Little Lord Echo echoes again.

That's you.





snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.

Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'.

Compared to what? See, this is what you don't get. A business makes profit by exploiting capital to create value for their customers. When that capital sits idle, it is of no use to anyone.


So deliberately complicating things


Is not what I'm doing you don't get that.


That is what you're doing and you don't get it.

Nonsense


so that more capital is 'utilized'

So that capital is used continually rather than intermittently.


Silly idea in this case.


Not really


(albeit not usefully)

You merely inserted that for no reason at all.


I inserted that because it's true.


is your approach.

Look, if the launch window to Mars is three days every 25 months, you can choose to launch only those three days to Mars leaving your launch infrastructure idle for the intervening period, or you can launch every day into a parking orbit and have all the payloads that accumulate in that parking orbit, launch for mars when the window opens.


Look, you can use the infrastructure for other things and then launch
a bunch of things during the window. You refurbish and maintain your
infrastructure during 'down' time.


This is why Musk is making
rockets while you are merely making CO2.

You're obviously unaware of New Zealand's rocket and jet belt.


You are obviously unaware that it's not a product yet (next year,
perhaps) and that you had nothing to do with it.



snip Mookie Fantasy

Obviously you think moving lab technologies to
RELIABLE operational technologies is 'simple'.

They've ALREADY been reduced to practice. That's the part you don't get because you don't really follow the industry in any meaningful way.


No, they haven't.

Yes they have.


Cite?

They've been reduced to lab studies.

I've cited peer reviewed papers that are easily found on the internet. You wrongly conclude that gives you the current state of the art. It does not.


Papers are not products.

Obviously, YOU are
'simple'.

You are projecting again.


You are projecting again (and very dimly, too).

You're the one copying what I say because you're clueless.


snicker


snip MookSpew

You obviously have no clue, you Mook.

Let's see, you have no idea what a Hohman transfer orbit is or how it relates to a synodic period, you have no appreciation that a ship designed for a three year flight cycle could easily be extended to a five year flight cycle, you have no idea how that flight cycle impacts launch operations and the efficiency of the most expensive part of the capital equipment used to support operations, you have no clue about the current state of ZBO technologies and why SpaceX chose LNG/LOX in the first place - yet in response to someone who knows about all these things, and troubles themselves to post here to benefit this group - you respond in the most atrocious of ways - projecting your cluelessness on to them.


So YOU have fantasized in your delusions. But then, you're just a
Delusional Dip**** Dimwit (tm).

Look in the mirror when you say that and you have it just about right.


You're the one copying what I say because you're clueless.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:13:19 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:48:04 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:44:49 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?


For the system that's operating in 2022 and beyond? I'd say pretty damn close to zero. Mark Roth has developed a gas based system that drops users fairly safely and keeps them in low consumption mode.


Roth has withdrawn or terminated all trials of this technology.


Hmm... if you check his website, or call him at the lab, you will find that you are wrong.

http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/#metaboli...%20anima tion

You will find that he confirms what he says on his website, "My lab is currently interested in metabolic flexibility and suspended animation"


Reading for comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it?

You're projecting again.


You're mooking again.

His
'interest' at his lab isn't trials of the system you said he'd
developed,

You haven't read his published literature. You assume that your gut is right again. This always leads you into trouble.


Paper studies of lab work. Not the operational system you insist
exists.

which he WITHDREW trials of.

Completed you mean.


I mean what I said.

So I'm right

You sir are NEVER right it seems. It must be hard being you.


Not particularly, since I don't live in MookieWorld.

and you're
illiterate.

I know you need to believe this fantasy to preserve your fragile self image. But like many things in your life, it just ain't true! lol.


I'll let your demonstration of the facts prove my case.




Operational systems when available will have people spend 25 days in stasis and 3 days awake for monitoring. Passengers trade slots with one another - online pre-launch and each has its own activity planned. Typically you have 3 periods in flight. Departure, mid-journey, arrival...


There is no evidence that people can tolerate this sort of thing for
periods longer than a couple of weeks

A couple of weeks is 14 days. 28 days is double that time.

and even less evidence than that
for being able to do the sort of cycle you're talking about and do
anything when they're done.


I find it amusing that you come to such firm conclusions based only on your prejudices which are totally divorced from reality.


I don't find it amusing that you consistently fail to see the
difference between lab interest and your fantasy deployments.

You have no idea what you're talking about but a strong belief in the rightness of your gut feelings - which frequently lead you astray. The fact remains that animals already hibernate and recover fully after months of hibernation. Roth has detailed the process that is responsible for that, and is continuing to work towards practical applications of that understanding. Any reasonable analyst would look at progress cost and benefits and foresee that this will be used at some point to produce extremely low cost trips to Mars and back in the time frame Musk and others will be offering such trips.

Your assertions to the contrary are baseless tripe.


You're a lying loon who can't comprehend that he might ever be wrong.
Thus, anyone who disagrees with you or points out flaws in your
'reasoning' MUST be ignorant. Your mental illness tells you so.


snip irrelevancies that prove nothing with regard to MookFantasy


Some details are interesting;

(1) 100 person habitat,
(2) 200 tons,

Musk has proposed a 10,000 ton two stage rocket that lifts 450 tons to LEO is refuelled with 1800 tons of propellant and flies on to mars carrying 200 people.

Hmm.. sounds like two of these habitats to me!


But you're well known for leaping to conclusions based on nothing
other than tingling in your anus.

Again, you are inappropriately projecting what is a common experience for you on to others


Does this REALLY make you feel better, Mookie? From here it just
makes you look like a poorly constructed 'bot.








... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ...


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person.


In English sure. In other languages meanings vary.


And what language do we speak, Mook?


Well, my daughter and second wife is Swiss, and my second wife is a translator at the EU Parliament. My daughter speaks four languages, my wife speaks five, I speak four; English, French, German, Chinese


Well, you're claiming to be Mongolian.

No I'm not. You can't read sensibly. I'm saying the name Mook derives from a Mongolian root. My family first came to Europe with the Mongol hordes and remained. My family was on the first ships to the New World with Columbus, following the Alhambra Decree. Upon Columbus' return the Spanish Inquisition caused a disruption when resupplying in the Azores, and so the Nina was taken to Amsterdam and the Prince there was asked to create a Ghetto called Mook, which exists to this day. Mook's played an important role in the Dutch East Indies company and Mook's were early settlers in New Amsterdam later New York - and went Westward to Ohio - where they settled in Columbus.


You just did it again; you claim to be Mongolian.

However, you were born in the
United States and we speak English here.

I'm sure that for a racist ******* like you this seems an accurate statement. The reality is the United States is multi-cultural and has a diverse language heritage.


I'm sure that for a lying **** like you the preceding makes sense.

snip irrelevant MookSpew





Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be described to BE a mook in that context.


It may amuse you to fantasize that, but that says more about your psychological difficulties than anything else.


Uh, you realize you're responding to something YOU said to ME, right?
And you're exactly correct in your response.

You realise that you are the one calling me a mook trying to name shame don't you? To be cleaer, your fantasy is that Mook is something I should be ashamed of. That is what I am referring to.


You realize you were responding to something YOU said to ME, right?
And you're exactly correct in your response.




Tu quoque is the best you can do? You ARE aptly named!


Dude, I pointed out that the Mook name has nothing to do with how you wish to use the word mook. That is not a logical fallacy and certainly not a Tu quoque argument.


Dude, you said back to me something I said to you.

That's what yo do.


Dude, you said back to me something I said to you.



snip Mookery


Yet, this has nothing to do with my name, which originates in Mongolian and means 'eternal leader' - transliterated into 'monk' throughout Asia.


Back to your yurt, you mook.

Go to hell you name shaming racist *******.


Go **** yourself, you humorless lunatic.

You're the one who is insane. I post relevant technical topics. You take great pleasure to **** on them regardless of their quality.


No, you post ****e and claim it's Shinola.




By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'.

All of them are directed by humans, being built by humans for various purposes.


Nonsense. By that claim, ALL drones are 'directed by humans' so there
is no such thing as a drone.


Logic is not your forte is it? lol.


Knowledge and intellect are not your fortes, are they? lol.

You're the one who's wrong dude. Or are you going to falsely say I said that like you always do?


You're the one who's wrong dude. Or are you going to falsely say I
said that like you always do?




The point is sending people in stasis in automated ships that are visited infrequently by service crews is the least costly way to send people to Mars.


Incinerating them and shipping them as ash is even more efficient.


Not if you expect repeat business you dim wit.


You think the same people are going to ship themselves to Mars
multiple times, you idiot?

Repeat business involves more than shipping. Incinerated ash for example won't create demand for local products like food and air and water.


That's someone else's business. You're running the cargo body line.



You are aptly named.

Thank you. There is a town called Mook in Holland - named after the Mongolian derived gypsies that attended Columbus' return to the Old World from the New, after the Alhambra Decree.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


You're so full of crap you should have been named with the Mongolian
word for 'bowel'.

In that case I would be called 'fird makaal' hahahahaha... seriously - that's mongolian for big dump. Just saying. Aptly named indeed!


Lying just to get an insult?

Alright big brown dump - believe that if you want to.


I don't want to because you're still lying.

Pathetic, Mook. Truly pathetic. Your
name should be gedesnii khödölgöön.

Yeah but your name is already ??????
muukhai (McCall) in Mongolian.


Except there is no such word in Mongolian. Care to try again, liar?


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


You obviously are unaware of the requirements of high precision interplanetary flight.


You obviously are unaware of, well, almost everything.


That is you, not me, given what you write.


Poor Little Lord Echo...

talking about yourself again.


Poor Little Lord Echo...





So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.

You are the one fantasizing and projecting your ignorance on to your betters.


You're a loonytoon ****wit.

No I'm not.


Yes you are.

Not really.


Yes really.






... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.

A 2002 lab paper - read it. It resulted in a 635 litre test system for LOX and LNG that maintained zero boil off for an extended period using 15 watts of power with an 8 kg pulse tube cryocooler.


I did. Lab paper.


You didn't understand it then, since you have no idea how NPD works.

In business and engineering, new product development (NPD) is the complete process of bringing a new product to market. New product development is described in the literature as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale and it can be tangible (that is, something physical you can touch) or intangible (like a service, experience, or belief). A good understanding of customer needs and wants, the competitive environment and the nature of the market represent the top required factors for the success of a new product. Cost, time and quality are the main variables that drive the customer needs. Aimed at these three variables, companies develop continuous practices and strategies to better satisfy the customer requirements and increase their market share by a regular development of new products. There are many uncertainties and challenges throughout the process which companies must face. The use of best practices and the elimination of barriers to
communication are the main concerns for the management of NPD process.


No product was developed. It was a conceptual test.

You really don't know how to use engineering data to make products do you?


You really don't know much of anything about anything, do you?


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.

You have no appreciation of the value of these things and what they mean for the art of space travel. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come to practical matters of importance.


You have no appreciation of the unreality of these things

You have no appreciation of NPD.


The 'P' in NPD is 'Product'. No product resulted or was intended to
result.

Again, you have no idea how new products are developed and brought to market.


Again, you have no idea how anything happens, do you?

as other
than lab studies

You don't understand how they contribute to NPD.


You don't understand that they're not operational products.

You don't understand the data produced in these tests was sufficient for anyone skilled in the art to bring it to market.


Because it's not. I'll leave understanding wrong things to you.

and what that means when you try to roll a real
operational mission.

You've obviously never taken a product from the fuzzy front end to the fuzzy back end have you?


You've obviously never. Anything.

I invented the computer based cash register and brought it market.


Yeah, and other people invented more sensible things.


I invented ultra-high intensity hyper efficient solar cells, and brought it to market.


Oh, did you now? Where are these solar cells installed? Provide a
cite.


I invented zero impact farming and brought it to market.


Oh, did you now. Where is this zero impact farming used? Provide a
cite.

It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as
interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come
to practical matters of importance.

I'm not clueless. You are however.


Little Lord Echo echoes again.

That's you.


Little Lord Echo echoes again.





snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.

Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'.

Compared to what? See, this is what you don't get. A business makes profit by exploiting capital to create value for their customers. When that capital sits idle, it is of no use to anyone.


So deliberately complicating things


Is not what I'm doing you don't get that.


That is what you're doing and you don't get it.

Nonsense


Obviously you don't understand, do you?


so that more capital is 'utilized'

So that capital is used continually rather than intermittently.


Silly idea in this case.


Not really


Yeah really.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 4:43:01 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:13:19 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:48:04 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:44:49 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?


For the system that's operating in 2022 and beyond? I'd say pretty damn close to zero. Mark Roth has developed a gas based system that drops users fairly safely and keeps them in low consumption mode.


Roth has withdrawn or terminated all trials of this technology.


Hmm... if you check his website, or call him at the lab, you will find that you are wrong.

http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/#metaboli...%20anima tion

You will find that he confirms what he says on his website, "My lab is currently interested in metabolic flexibility and suspended animation"


Reading for comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it?

You're projecting again.


You're mooking again.

You're a classless name shaming racist.


His
'interest' at his lab isn't trials of the system you said he'd
developed,

You haven't read his published literature. You assume that your gut is right again. This always leads you into trouble.


Paper studies of lab work. Not the operational system you insist
exists.

Every time you say these things deepens knowledgeable person's conviction that you have no actual understanding of how products are developed.

which he WITHDREW trials of.

Completed you mean.


I mean what I said.

You are wrong. Roth is ready to go to the next step.

So I'm right

You sir are NEVER right it seems. It must be hard being you.


Not particularly, since I don't live in MookieWorld.

I live in the real world. You, not so much.

and you're
illiterate.

I know you need to believe this fantasy to preserve your fragile self image. But like many things in your life, it just ain't true! lol.


I'll let your demonstration of the facts prove my case.

I've already given lots of facts - you have already proven your incapacity to appreciate them.




Operational systems when available will have people spend 25 days in stasis and 3 days awake for monitoring. Passengers trade slots with one another - online pre-launch and each has its own activity planned. Typically you have 3 periods in flight. Departure, mid-journey, arrival...


There is no evidence that people can tolerate this sort of thing for
periods longer than a couple of weeks

A couple of weeks is 14 days. 28 days is double that time.

and even less evidence than that
for being able to do the sort of cycle you're talking about and do
anything when they're done.


I find it amusing that you come to such firm conclusions based only on your prejudices which are totally divorced from reality.


I don't find it amusing that you consistently fail to see the
difference between lab interest and your fantasy deployments.

You have no idea what you're talking about but a strong belief in the rightness of your gut feelings - which frequently lead you astray. The fact remains that animals already hibernate and recover fully after months of hibernation. Roth has detailed the process that is responsible for that, and is continuing to work towards practical applications of that understanding.. Any reasonable analyst would look at progress cost and benefits and foresee that this will be used at some point to produce extremely low cost trips to Mars and back in the time frame Musk and others will be offering such trips.

Your assertions to the contrary are baseless tripe.


You're a lying loon

No I'm not.

who can't comprehend that he might ever be wrong.

That's an idiotic statement.

Thus, anyone who disagrees with you or points out flaws in your
'reasoning' MUST be ignorant. Your mental illness tells you so.

You're projecting again.


snip irrelevancies that prove nothing with regard to MookFantasy


Some details are interesting;

(1) 100 person habitat,
(2) 200 tons,

Musk has proposed a 10,000 ton two stage rocket that lifts 450 tons to LEO is refuelled with 1800 tons of propellant and flies on to mars carrying 200 people.

Hmm.. sounds like two of these habitats to me!


But you're well known for leaping to conclusions based on nothing
other than tingling in your anus.

Again, you are inappropriately projecting what is a common experience for you on to others


Does this REALLY make you feel better, Mookie?

My feelings have nothing to do with reality, but you believe yours do. That's the problem.

From here it just
makes you look like a poorly constructed 'bot.

Hmm.. that's what you look like for sure. I mean, if you cared to engage me in meaningful conversation, you'd find the experience richer.








... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ....


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person.


In English sure. In other languages meanings vary.


And what language do we speak, Mook?


Well, my daughter and second wife is Swiss, and my second wife is a translator at the EU Parliament. My daughter speaks four languages, my wife speaks five, I speak four; English, French, German, Chinese


Well, you're claiming to be Mongolian.

No I'm not. You can't read sensibly. I'm saying the name Mook derives from a Mongolian root. My family first came to Europe with the Mongol hordes and remained. My family was on the first ships to the New World with Columbus, following the Alhambra Decree. Upon Columbus' return the Spanish Inquisition caused a disruption when resupplying in the Azores, and so the Nina was taken to Amsterdam and the Prince there was asked to create a Ghetto called Mook, which exists to this day. Mook's played an important role in the Dutch East Indies company and Mook's were early settlers in New Amsterdam later New York - and went Westward to Ohio - where they settled in Columbus.


You just did it again; you claim to be Mongolian.

No I didn't. I said I was born in Ohio if you actually to the trouble to follow the narrative.

However, you were born in the
United States and we speak English here.

I'm sure that for a racist ******* like you this seems an accurate statement. The reality is the United States is multi-cultural and has a diverse language heritage.


I'm sure that for a lying **** like you the preceding makes sense.

Yes, and to a racist ******* like you, I'm certain it drives you toward raving lunacy to have someone call you out for what you are.

snip irrelevant MookSpew





Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be described to BE a mook in that context.


It may amuse you to fantasize that, but that says more about your psychological difficulties than anything else.


Uh, you realize you're responding to something YOU said to ME, right?
And you're exactly correct in your response.

You realise that you are the one calling me a mook trying to name shame don't you? To be cleaer, your fantasy is that Mook is something I should be ashamed of. That is what I am referring to.


You realize you were responding to something YOU said to ME, right?
And you're exactly correct in your response.

You realise you are trying to confuse the casual reader into believing something that isn't so don't you? The entire context of this exchange is that you are name shaming me and my name.




Tu quoque is the best you can do? You ARE aptly named!


Dude, I pointed out that the Mook name has nothing to do with how you wish to use the word mook. That is not a logical fallacy and certainly not a Tu quoque argument.


Dude, you said back to me something I said to you.

That's what yo do.


Dude, you said back to me something I said to you.

Obviously you don't like the fact that you were wrong about what Tu quoque actually meant.



snip Mookery


Yet, this has nothing to do with my name, which originates in Mongolian and means 'eternal leader' - transliterated into 'monk' throughout Asia.


Back to your yurt, you mook.

Go to hell you name shaming racist *******.


Go **** yourself, you humorless lunatic.

You're the one who is insane. I post relevant technical topics. You take great pleasure to **** on them regardless of their quality.


No, you post ****e and claim it's Shinola.

Racist. Off to the camps with you.




By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'.

All of them are directed by humans, being built by humans for various purposes.


Nonsense. By that claim, ALL drones are 'directed by humans' so there
is no such thing as a drone.


Logic is not your forte is it? lol.


Knowledge and intellect are not your fortes, are they? lol.

You're the one who's wrong dude. Or are you going to falsely say I said that like you always do?


You're the one who's wrong dude. Or are you going to falsely say I
said that like you always do?

yawn Pathetic aren't you.




The point is sending people in stasis in automated ships that are visited infrequently by service crews is the least costly way to send people to Mars.


Incinerating them and shipping them as ash is even more efficient.


Not if you expect repeat business you dim wit.


You think the same people are going to ship themselves to Mars
multiple times, you idiot?

Repeat business involves more than shipping. Incinerated ash for example won't create demand for local products like food and air and water.


That's someone else's business.

Not if you're hauling the food asshole.

You're running the cargo body line.

You've never actually seen what shipping companies do have you?



You are aptly named.

Thank you. There is a town called Mook in Holland - named after the Mongolian derived gypsies that attended Columbus' return to the Old World from the New, after the Alhambra Decree.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


You're so full of crap you should have been named with the Mongolian
word for 'bowel'.

In that case I would be called 'fird makaal' hahahahaha... seriously - that's mongolian for big dump. Just saying. Aptly named indeed!


Lying just to get an insult?

Alright big brown dump - believe that if you want to.


I don't want to because you're still lying.

McCall sounds a lot like Muukhai'l - nasty

Pathetic, Mook. Truly pathetic. Your
name should be gedesnii khödölgöön.

Yeah but your name is already ??????
muukhai (McCall) in Mongolian.


Except there is no such word in Mongolian. Care to try again, liar?

Care to actually learn how to use a dictionary? lol. fird?

See, this points out your lunacy. You can't figure something out so you naturally assume other folks are lying to you. That's the only thing that makes sense to your idiotic mind. You racist meaningless *******.


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


You obviously are unaware of the requirements of high precision interplanetary flight.


You obviously are unaware of, well, almost everything.


That is you, not me, given what you write.


Poor Little Lord Echo...

talking about yourself again.


Poor Little Lord Echo...

definitely talking to yourself... lol.





So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.

You are the one fantasizing and projecting your ignorance on to your betters.


You're a loonytoon ****wit.

No I'm not.


Yes you are.

Not really.


Yes really.

No, you are the racist abusive lunatic. How many court orders have your girlfriends put on you? I bet its heaps. No wonder you're such a miserable *******. You're in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUexc9W9QU






... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.

A 2002 lab paper - read it. It resulted in a 635 litre test system for LOX and LNG that maintained zero boil off for an extended period using 15 watts of power with an 8 kg pulse tube cryocooler.


I did. Lab paper.


You didn't understand it then, since you have no idea how NPD works.

In business and engineering, new product development (NPD) is the complete process of bringing a new product to market. New product development is described in the literature as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale and it can be tangible (that is, something physical you can touch) or intangible (like a service, experience, or belief). A good understanding of customer needs and wants, the competitive environment and the nature of the market represent the top required factors for the success of a new product. Cost, time and quality are the main variables that drive the customer needs. Aimed at these three variables, companies develop continuous practices and strategies to better satisfy the customer requirements and increase their market share by a regular development of new products. There are many uncertainties and challenges throughout the process which companies must face. The use of best practices and the elimination of barriers to
communication are the main concerns for the management of NPD process..


No product was developed. It was a conceptual test.

You really don't know how to use engineering data to make products do you?


You really don't know much of anything about anything, do you?

I know more than you, and that ****es you off - you miserable horny *******..


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.

You have no appreciation of the value of these things and what they mean for the art of space travel. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come to practical matters of importance.


You have no appreciation of the unreality of these things

You have no appreciation of NPD.


The 'P' in NPD is 'Product'. No product resulted or was intended to
result.

Again, you have no idea how new products are developed and brought to market.


Again, you have no idea how anything happens, do you?

I've actually developed ground breaking products, and as a result had the great good fortune to analyse new technologies and their implications for places like the White House, the Senate and the DOD. You obviously have not.

You're lucky to have someone of my calibre actually take an interest in this group and post to it. You of course don't see it that way since you're a racist bull****ting blowhard who doesn't get any.

as other
than lab studies

You don't understand how they contribute to NPD.


You don't understand that they're not operational products.

You don't understand the data produced in these tests was sufficient for anyone skilled in the art to bring it to market.


Because it's not. I'll leave understanding wrong things to you.

You're the one who's wrong - you don't get that because your ego won't let you admit the facts.

and what that means when you try to roll a real
operational mission.

You've obviously never taken a product from the fuzzy front end to the fuzzy back end have you?


You've obviously never. Anything.

I invented the computer based cash register and brought it market.


Yeah, and other people invented more sensible things.

You don't know a damn thing about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6pBS6uptE


I invented ultra-high intensity hyper efficient solar cells, and brought it to market.


Oh, did you now? Where are these solar cells installed? Provide a
cite.

INRSS -

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/...atellite2.html

https://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/...to-Mok-FINAL-1



I invented zero impact farming and brought it to market.


Oh, did you now. Where is this zero impact farming used? Provide a
cite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8u72nUrZPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcywiqgcLDs


It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as
interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come
to practical matters of importance.

I'm not clueless. You are however.


Little Lord Echo echoes again.

That's you.


Little Lord Echo echoes again.


You're pathetic you loser.





snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.

Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'.

Compared to what? See, this is what you don't get. A business makes profit by exploiting capital to create value for their customers. When that capital sits idle, it is of no use to anyone.


So deliberately complicating things


Is not what I'm doing you don't get that.


That is what you're doing and you don't get it.

Nonsense


Obviously you don't understand, do you?

Look, I'm telling you that using your launcher over the entire synodic period is a more efficient use of your launch infrastructure than using only once every 25 months. That should be obvious to even you. You're the one who sees the need of planetary alignment as an uneeded complication! lol. What an idiot you are.


so that more capital is 'utilized'

So that capital is used continually rather than intermittently.


Silly idea in this case.


Not really


Yeah really.

No, a gratuitous denial is not an answer to a well reasoned comment. You wonder why people don't like you? Why no one posts here? Jesus man, you are an idiot.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 4:43:01 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:13:19 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:48:04 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:44:49 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?


For the system that's operating in 2022 and beyond? I'd say pretty damn close to zero. Mark Roth has developed a gas based system that drops users fairly safely and keeps them in low consumption mode.


Roth has withdrawn or terminated all trials of this technology.


Hmm... if you check his website, or call him at the lab, you will find that you are wrong.

http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/#metaboli...%20anima tion

You will find that he confirms what he says on his website, "My lab is currently interested in metabolic flexibility and suspended animation"


Reading for comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it?

You're projecting again.


You're mooking again.

You're a classless name shaming racist.


You're a classless lying ****witted ****.



His
'interest' at his lab isn't trials of the system you said he'd
developed,

You haven't read his published literature. You assume that your gut is right again. This always leads you into trouble.


Paper studies of lab work. Not the operational system you insist
exists.

Every time you say these things deepens knowledgeable person's conviction that you have no actual understanding of how products are developed.


Where you define only yourself as "knowledgeable person".

which he WITHDREW trials of.

Completed you mean.


I mean what I said.

You are wrong. Roth is ready to go to the next step.


The world and everyone but Mookie is wrong. Mook's usual position.

"In spite of the term "suspended animation", this technology is not
likely to be used for long term suspension of people or other mammals
any time soon."

And your claim about me being wrong on the withdrawal of studies:

"The clinical trials commissioned by the company he founded, Ikaria,
were however withdrawn or terminated by August 2011."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Roth_(scientist)

Buy a damn clue, Mook.

So I'm right

You sir are NEVER right it seems. It must be hard being you.


Not particularly, since I don't live in MookieWorld.

I live in the real world. You, not so much.

and you're
illiterate.

I know you need to believe this fantasy to preserve your fragile self image. But like many things in your life, it just ain't true! lol.


I'll let your demonstration of the facts prove my case.

I've already given lots of facts - you have already proven your incapacity to appreciate them.


Sure you have, Mookie. Sure you have.




Operational systems when available will have people spend 25 days in stasis and 3 days awake for monitoring. Passengers trade slots with one another - online pre-launch and each has its own activity planned. Typically you have 3 periods in flight. Departure, mid-journey, arrival...


There is no evidence that people can tolerate this sort of thing for
periods longer than a couple of weeks

A couple of weeks is 14 days. 28 days is double that time.

and even less evidence than that
for being able to do the sort of cycle you're talking about and do
anything when they're done.


I find it amusing that you come to such firm conclusions based only on your prejudices which are totally divorced from reality.


I don't find it amusing that you consistently fail to see the
difference between lab interest and your fantasy deployments.

You have no idea what you're talking about but a strong belief in the rightness of your gut feelings - which frequently lead you astray. The fact remains that animals already hibernate and recover fully after months of hibernation. Roth has detailed the process that is responsible for that, and is continuing to work towards practical applications of that understanding. Any reasonable analyst would look at progress cost and benefits and foresee that this will be used at some point to produce extremely low cost trips to Mars and back in the time frame Musk and others will be offering such trips.

Your assertions to the contrary are baseless tripe.


You're a lying loon

No I'm not.


Yeah, you are, regardless of what your 'gut' tells you you obviously
don't know anything about, well, ANYTHING.

who can't comprehend that he might ever be wrong.

That's an idiotic statement.


The Mook assessment of most of reality.

Thus, anyone who disagrees with you or points out flaws in your
'reasoning' MUST be ignorant. Your mental illness tells you so.

You're projecting again.


Little Lord Echo mooks again.


snip irrelevancies that prove nothing with regard to MookFantasy


Some details are interesting;

(1) 100 person habitat,
(2) 200 tons,

Musk has proposed a 10,000 ton two stage rocket that lifts 450 tons to LEO is refuelled with 1800 tons of propellant and flies on to mars carrying 200 people.

Hmm.. sounds like two of these habitats to me!


But you're well known for leaping to conclusions based on nothing
other than tingling in your anus.

Again, you are inappropriately projecting what is a common experience for you on to others


Does this REALLY make you feel better, Mookie?

My feelings have nothing to do with reality, but you believe yours do. That's the problem.


You're correct that your feelings have nothing to do with reality, but
you obviously think your feelings ARE reality.


From here it just
makes you look like a poorly constructed 'bot.

Hmm.. that's what you look like for sure. I mean, if you cared to engage me in meaningful conversation, you'd find the experience richer.


Little Lord Echo mooks again. And you're incapable of a 'meaningful
conversation'. You're only capable of mental mooksterbation.








... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ...


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person.


In English sure. In other languages meanings vary.


And what language do we speak, Mook?


Well, my daughter and second wife is Swiss, and my second wife is a translator at the EU Parliament. My daughter speaks four languages, my wife speaks five, I speak four; English, French, German, Chinese


Well, you're claiming to be Mongolian.

No I'm not. You can't read sensibly. I'm saying the name Mook derives from a Mongolian root. My family first came to Europe with the Mongol hordes and remained. My family was on the first ships to the New World with Columbus, following the Alhambra Decree. Upon Columbus' return the Spanish Inquisition caused a disruption when resupplying in the Azores, and so the Nina was taken to Amsterdam and the Prince there was asked to create a Ghetto called Mook, which exists to this day. Mook's played an important role in the Dutch East Indies company and Mook's were early settlers in New Amsterdam later New York - and went Westward to Ohio - where they settled in Columbus.


You just did it again; you claim to be Mongolian.

No I didn't. I said I was born in Ohio if you actually to the trouble to follow the narrative.


Which brings us back to what language we speak here, you mook.


However, you were born in the
United States and we speak English here.

I'm sure that for a racist ******* like you this seems an accurate statement. The reality is the United States is multi-cultural and has a diverse language heritage.


I'm sure that for a lying **** like you the preceding makes sense.

Yes, and to a racist ******* like you, I'm certain it drives you toward raving lunacy to have someone call you out for what you are.


Yet you're the one who starts raving, lying, and insulting.


snip irrelevant MookSpew





Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be described to BE a mook in that context.


It may amuse you to fantasize that, but that says more about your psychological difficulties than anything else.


Uh, you realize you're responding to something YOU said to ME, right?
And you're exactly correct in your response.

You realise that you are the one calling me a mook trying to name shame don't you? To be cleaer, your fantasy is that Mook is something I should be ashamed of. That is what I am referring to.


You realize you were responding to something YOU said to ME, right?
And you're exactly correct in your response.

You realise you are trying to confuse the casual reader into believing something that isn't so don't you? The entire context of this exchange is that you are name shaming me and my name.


Look at the quoting levels, you ignorant *******. Everything starting
with " " was written by you. Everything starting with
" " was written by me. Everything starting with " " was
written by you. I'm not trying to confuse anyone, but you are
obviously confused and trying to 'name shame' ME with YOUR name.

YOU said, "Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be
described to BE a mook in that context." Then YOU replied to
YOURSELF, "It may amuse you to fantasize that, but that says more
about your psychological difficulties than anything else."




Tu quoque is the best you can do? You ARE aptly named!


Dude, I pointed out that the Mook name has nothing to do with how you wish to use the word mook. That is not a logical fallacy and certainly not a Tu quoque argument.


Dude, you said back to me something I said to you.

That's what yo do.


Dude, you said back to me something I said to you.

Obviously you don't like the fact that you were wrong about what Tu quoque actually meant.


Obviously you cannot even follow Usenet quoting, so I'm not surprised
you get this wrong. Tu quoque is, in it's simplest form, a 'you too'
argument. You are obviously too simple to get that.



snip Mookery


Yet, this has nothing to do with my name, which originates in Mongolian and means 'eternal leader' - transliterated into 'monk' throughout Asia.


Back to your yurt, you mook.

Go to hell you name shaming racist *******.


Go **** yourself, you humorless lunatic.

You're the one who is insane. I post relevant technical topics. You take great pleasure to **** on them regardless of their quality.


No, you post ****e and claim it's Shinola.

Racist. Off to the camps with you.


Nazi. Off to the crimes against humanity tribunal with you.




By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'.

All of them are directed by humans, being built by humans for various purposes.


Nonsense. By that claim, ALL drones are 'directed by humans' so there
is no such thing as a drone.


Logic is not your forte is it? lol.


Knowledge and intellect are not your fortes, are they? lol.

You're the one who's wrong dude. Or are you going to falsely say I said that like you always do?


You're the one who's wrong dude. Or are you going to falsely say I
said that like you always do?

yawn Pathetic aren't you.


yawn Pathetic aren't you.




The point is sending people in stasis in automated ships that are visited infrequently by service crews is the least costly way to send people to Mars.


Incinerating them and shipping them as ash is even more efficient.


Not if you expect repeat business you dim wit.


You think the same people are going to ship themselves to Mars
multiple times, you idiot?

Repeat business involves more than shipping. Incinerated ash for example won't create demand for local products like food and air and water.


That's someone else's business.

Not if you're hauling the food asshole.


But you're not, dip****. And why would anyone want to eat asshole?


You're running the cargo body line.

You've never actually seen what shipping companies do have you?


You've never actually seen anything outside the inside of your own
anus, have you?



You are aptly named.

Thank you. There is a town called Mook in Holland - named after the Mongolian derived gypsies that attended Columbus' return to the Old World from the New, after the Alhambra Decree.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


You're so full of crap you should have been named with the Mongolian
word for 'bowel'.

In that case I would be called 'fird makaal' hahahahaha... seriously - that's mongolian for big dump. Just saying. Aptly named indeed!


Lying just to get an insult?

Alright big brown dump - believe that if you want to.


I don't want to because you're still lying.

McCall sounds a lot like Muukhai'l - nasty


There's no such Mongolian word - nasty lying ****.

Pathetic, Mook. Truly pathetic. Your
name should be gedesnii khödölgöön.

Yeah but your name is already ??????
muukhai (McCall) in Mongolian.


Except there is no such word in Mongolian. Care to try again, liar?

Care to actually learn how to use a dictionary? lol. fird?


Take your own advice.


See, this points out your lunacy. You can't figure something out so you naturally assume other folks are lying to you. That's the only thing that makes sense to your idiotic mind. You racist meaningless *******.


See, this points out your lunacy. You make **** up and then make
assumptions based on your own imaginary reality. That's the only
thing that makes sense to your lunatic mind. You lying irrelevant
****.


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


You obviously are unaware of the requirements of high precision interplanetary flight.


You obviously are unaware of, well, almost everything.


That is you, not me, given what you write.


Poor Little Lord Echo...

talking about yourself again.


Poor Little Lord Echo...

definitely talking to yourself... lol.


Poor Little Lord Echo mooks again.





So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.

You are the one fantasizing and projecting your ignorance on to your betters.


You're a loonytoon ****wit.

No I'm not.


Yes you are.

Not really.


Yes really.

No, you are the racist abusive lunatic. How many court orders have your girlfriends put on you? I bet its heaps. No wonder you're such a miserable *******. You're in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history.


No, you are the delusional abusive lunatic. How many forcible
commitments to the loony bins have you had. I bet it's heaps. No
wonder you're such a delusional lying ****. You're in more dire need
of lithium than anyone (no racist sexist qualifiers required).







... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.

A 2002 lab paper - read it. It resulted in a 635 litre test system for LOX and LNG that maintained zero boil off for an extended period using 15 watts of power with an 8 kg pulse tube cryocooler.


I did. Lab paper.


You didn't understand it then, since you have no idea how NPD works.

In business and engineering, new product development (NPD) is the complete process of bringing a new product to market. New product development is described in the literature as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale and it can be tangible (that is, something physical you can touch) or intangible (like a service, experience, or belief). A good understanding of customer needs and wants, the competitive environment and the nature of the market represent the top required factors for the success of a new product. Cost, time and quality are the main variables that drive the customer needs. Aimed at these three variables, companies develop continuous practices and strategies to better satisfy the customer requirements and increase their market share by a regular development of new products. There are many uncertainties and challenges throughout the process which companies must face. The use of best practices and the elimination of barriers to
communication are the main concerns for the management of NPD process.


No product was developed. It was a conceptual test.

You really don't know how to use engineering data to make products do you?


You really don't know much of anything about anything, do you?


I know more than you, and that ****es you off - you miserable horny *******.


Poor delusional Mookie. Seek help, you miserable loony ****.


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.

You have no appreciation of the value of these things and what they mean for the art of space travel. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come to practical matters of importance.


You have no appreciation of the unreality of these things

You have no appreciation of NPD.


The 'P' in NPD is 'Product'. No product resulted or was intended to
result.

Again, you have no idea how new products are developed and brought to market.


Again, you have no idea how anything happens, do you?

I've actually developed ground breaking products, and as a result had the great good fortune to analyse new technologies and their implications for places like the White House, the Senate and the DOD. You obviously have not.


Mighty Mookie - a legend in his own mind!


You're lucky to have someone of my calibre actually take an interest in this group and post to it. You of course don't see it that way since you're a racist bull****ting blowhard who doesn't get any.


You're a sub-calibre intellect. Nobody sees you the way you see
yourself because we are sane and you are not, you lunatic lying ****
who doesn't get anything.


as other
than lab studies

You don't understand how they contribute to NPD.


You don't understand that they're not operational products.

You don't understand the data produced in these tests was sufficient for anyone skilled in the art to bring it to market.


Because it's not. I'll leave understanding wrong things to you.

You're the one who's wrong - you don't get that because your ego won't let you admit the facts.


NOBODY agrees with you, Mookie. Does this tell you nothing other than
that we're all conspiring against your greatness?

and what that means when you try to roll a real
operational mission.

You've obviously never taken a product from the fuzzy front end to the fuzzy back end have you?


You've obviously never. Anything.

I invented the computer based cash register and brought it market.


Yeah, and other people invented more sensible things.

You don't know a damn thing about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6pBS6uptE


Yeah, sure. Nobody knows anything but the Mighty Mookie and
Irrelevant YouTube Videos.


I invented ultra-high intensity hyper efficient solar cells, and brought it to market.


Oh, did you now? Where are these solar cells installed? Provide a
cite.

INRSS -

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/...atellite2.html


Nothing about Mook or his solar cells.


https://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/...to-Mok-FINAL-1


A white paper produced by people who are not Mook about cells that do
not indicate that Mook invented anything.



I invented zero impact farming and brought it to market.


Oh, did you now. Where is this zero impact farming used? Provide a
cite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8u72nUrZPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcywiqgcLDs


'Effluent management' is not "zero impact farming". I CAN believe
that you're an expert in cow****, though. After all, that's largely
what you post here.


It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as
interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come
to practical matters of importance.

I'm not clueless. You are however.


Little Lord Echo echoes again.

That's you.


Little Lord Echo echoes again.


You're pathetic you loser.


yawn





snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.

Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'.

Compared to what? See, this is what you don't get. A business makes profit by exploiting capital to create value for their customers. When that capital sits idle, it is of no use to anyone.


So deliberately complicating things


Is not what I'm doing you don't get that.


That is what you're doing and you don't get it.

Nonsense


Obviously you don't understand, do you?

Look, I'm telling you that using your launcher over the entire synodic period is a more efficient use of your launch infrastructure than using only once every 25 months. That should be obvious to even you. You're the one who sees the need of planetary alignment as an uneeded complication! lol. What an idiot you are.


I know what you think you're "telling me". You're wrong. Obviously
you've never heard of diminishing returns. You're talking about
adding huge complications and untried technologies like suspended
animation to throw out herds of 'people drones' (added expense) in
order to tie up your transfer ships for hugely longer periods of time
by launching at inefficient times. That should be obvious to even
you. MUSK is the one who sees the need of planetary alignment as a
needed efficiency! He's doing it and you are not. What an idiot you
are. lol.


so that more capital is 'utilized'

So that capital is used continually rather than intermittently.


Silly idea in this case.


Not really


Yeah really.

No, a gratuitous denial is not an answer to a well reasoned comment. You wonder why people don't like you? Why no one posts here? Jesus man, you are an idiot.


No, a gratuitous assertion is not a fact to hang a poorly reasoned
comment on. You wonder why people don't like you? Why I'm about the
only one wasting time on you? Jesus, man, you are a delusional lying
****.

Seek treatment.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine