A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 4th 08, 03:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

and global warming deniers.

If anyone else can come up with a better explanation for this thing,
feel free to fill us in on the details.
  #2  
Old January 6th 08, 03:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

Ian Parker wrote:

On 5 Jan, 19:33, BradGuth wrote:

I am indeed kidding. I hope everyone saw this. However the 4hr day is
perfectly correct. The serious point really is how much do we trust
our politicians to get things right. How can a creationalist sit in
judgement on scientific projects.

We have discussed Iraq (or Irak we must get correct transliteration)
ad nauseam. None of the coterie of decisions makers knew one word of
Arabic or knew anything about the Middle East. Likewise decisions
about Ares are being taken by people who are total illiterates.


Are you calling Michael Griffin an illiterate?

It was his decision and his alone.
  #3  
Old January 7th 08, 03:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Leopold Stotch[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

Ian Parker wrote:
On 5 Jan, 19:33, BradGuth wrote:

I am indeed kidding. I hope everyone saw this. However the 4hr day is
perfectly correct. The serious point really is how much do we trust
our politicians to get things right. How can a creationalist sit in
judgement on scientific projects.

We have discussed Iraq (or Irak we must get correct transliteration)
ad nauseam. None of the coterie of decisions makers knew one word of
Arabic or knew anything about the Middle East. Likewise decisions
about Ares are being taken by people who are total illiterates.

There is one thing you leave out. The story of creation was split up
into days. now a day is the time the Earth takes to spin on its axis
(roughly, the sideral day is 23hr - 56min. The solar day is 24 hr).
When the Moon was formed the day was just 4hr long.

The "story of creation" doesn't count, because there's nothing of
Earth's history, physics or science that'll support such faith-based
creation crapolla.

And beside, those nearby gravity/tidal forces would have been
downright impressive, especially along with that moon initially
spinning itself like a massive gyro out of balance.

Yes indeed. It is tidal forces that put the Moon in its present
position. The fact that the Moon originated close to Earth is certain.
Computer simulations tend to show that the protoearth collided with an
object the size of Mars. The Moon formed from the debris. There was
BTW no liquid water when the Moon formed. A 4hr day is arrived at by
looking at total angular momentum.

Just at half the lunar distance of 192,000 km, as is along with the
very best of modern humanity and our applied technology could not
possibly survive upon this planet because, every stinking square meter
of elevated land would have been getting flooded and/or erupted to
death several times per day. Imagine as to what 96,000 km worth of
lunar orbit would have been doing to mother Earth (inside and out).

There was no multicelluar life for another 3.5 billion years.

Sort of makes those most recent of floods as of the very last ice-age
this planet is ever going to see, look much like taking a shower.

In other words, you've got to be absolutely kidding.

I'm kidding about creationalism, but not about that.

When did our arctic ocean basin form?

Quite recently. The current configuration of continents is the result
of Plate Tectonics or Continental drift.

When did Earth get its seasonal tilt?

Other rotations are not in the plane of orbit. The collision gave it
an axial offset of some description. The present tilt is the result of
chaos. The Moon does in fact stabalize tilt.


- Ian Parker


Who is this creationist that is in charge of judging scientific projects?

  #4  
Old January 7th 08, 04:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

Leopold Stotch wrote:

Who is this creationist that is in charge of judging scientific projects?


President George W. Bush, apparently.

Hence, the problems.
  #5  
Old January 7th 08, 04:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Leopold Stotch[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

kT wrote:
Leopold Stotch wrote:

Who is this creationist that is in charge of judging scientific projects?


President George W. Bush, apparently.

Hence, the problems.


I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. The two are not synonymous and
given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a good
chance that he is not a creationist. Of course, I might be wrong.

  #6  
Old January 7th 08, 04:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:44:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, Leopold
Stotch made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

kT wrote:
Leopold Stotch wrote:

Who is this creationist that is in charge of judging scientific projects?


President George W. Bush, apparently.

Hence, the problems.


I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. The two are not synonymous and
given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a good
chance that he is not a creationist. Of course, I might be wrong.


In addition to that, he doesn't judge scientific projects. He
appoints other people (e.g., Mike Griffin) to do that for him.

But Elifritz is too ignorant and/or stupid to understand that.

He's a notorious troll. Killfile him, as most in this group have.
  #7  
Old January 7th 08, 05:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Delta V - Launch Vehicles for Rationalists and Adventurers

Leopold Stotch wrote:
kT wrote:
Leopold Stotch wrote:

Who is this creationist that is in charge of judging scientific
projects?


President George W. Bush, apparently.

Hence, the problems.


I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. The two are not synonymous and
given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a good
chance that he is not a creationist. Of course, I might be wrong.


I suppose typing in Bush and creationism or intelligent design into the
search bar is out of the question. Intelligent design is creationism.

How else do you explain the Ares I? I just don't have faith in Mr.
Griffin's bias. I was a little suspicious when Bush sent mankind on a
journey out into the cosmos. I thought we already lived in the cosmos.

Anyways, I wrote a white paper in a futile attempt to salvage Mr.
Griffin's career, and whatever is salvageable from the ESAS mess.

I submitted this white paper as a COTS proposal, in order to force it
into evaluation. I'm guessing a 30 day evaluation process begins
tomorrow, and will for run thirty days, until the 8th of February.

The step up from burning up automobile and outboard motor engines, to
burning up rocket engines, isn't really all that big - I'm ready for it.

Not that we really need more launch vehicles, but they have to spend
that money, and I'm certainly in need of it. As far as the other COTS
proposals are concerned, I believe they are only interested in systems
which include a launch vehicle, and that narrows it down considerably.

I did manage to dig up some dirt on Orbital's Taurus II, and Ed Kyle has
been working on it. It appears that it will be using a pair of NK-33s.

The wildcard is Andrews. It looks like they may be thinking about using
four half height ATK GEMs or some such thing, which would allow them to
use clustered smaller engines in the first stage core, and avoid NK-33s,
or they may be just planning on using the NK-33s, which would give them
a considerable edge in payload capabilities over the Orbital offering.

Of course, PlanetSpace was of the right mind to come up with something.

Right now my group is endorsing Andrews if our proposal is a priori
rejected, but I notice Doug Cooke is doing the deciderizing, so I'm
guessing Mr. Griffin is starting to think long and hard about this.

I'm envisioning a large number of NK-33 type vehicles feeding an
equatorial space station composed of clustered up Delta Vs, with the
very large nosecone aeroshield as emergency lifeboat and cargo return.

So, in summary, there are four non-EELV COTS proposals on the table, in
addition to already funded SpaceX contributions - Falcon 9 and Dragon :

Orbital - Taurus II (they could probably fund this themselves, too bad
Kistler blew all that money)

Andrews - Hercules

PlanetSpace/ATK - Athena III (Griffin may go for this just out of spite)

TLE/Formation - Delta V (cutting edge technology demonstration flight -
it may need boosters or auxiliary propulsion to limit the acceleration)

Is this a fair and balanced perspective for you? I was expecting many
more proposals, but I'm guessing people were just fed up with it.
  #8  
Old January 7th 08, 05:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:44:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, Leopold
Stotch made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

kT wrote:
Leopold Stotch wrote:

Who is this creationist that is in charge of judging scientific projects?
President George W. Bush, apparently.

Hence, the problems.

I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. The two are not synonymous and
given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a good
chance that he is not a creationist. Of course, I might be wrong.


In addition to that, he doesn't judge scientific projects. He
appoints other people (e.g., Mike Griffin) to do that for him.


George is the deciderizer. He gave the VSE speech. It's his problem.

But Elifritz is too ignorant and/or stupid to understand that.


And for that he will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

He's a notorious troll. Killfile him, as most in this group have.


A notorious troll with a COTS proposal on the table.

What have you got, Rand, besides a fascist blog?
  #9  
Old January 7th 08, 05:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:1) It would be better to make heavy indivisible loads divisible. The
:way to do this is by the smart pebble concept and also by the robotic
:assembly of large structures from smaller.
:

Which increases structural overhead, requiring more mass on orbit
(both for the structural overhead and your ever-present robots you
want to put in space).

:
:2) If Ares in intended for manned exploration of the Moon/Mars - think
:again. As I keep saying we need to think about technology as it will
:be in 2020 or 2031. We don't want to see a manned lunar base which is
bsolete before it is built.
:

But we do want to build one and not wait forever. Why those dates?
Why not think about technology as it will be in the year 2121?

:
:Creationalism is more relevant that it seems at first sight. If you
:believe that Man was created in a single act of creation and did not
:evolve from apes, your views about the capabilities of robotics vis a
:vis astronauts may well be different.
:

Then again, it may well not be, since there is no relation at all
between the two things.

:
:Ares is based on an extremly
ptimistic view of manned space flight, and an equally extreme
essimistic view about the development of AI.
:

You plan major programs based on technologies you know can be made to
work. You don't pin billions of dollars 'betting on the come' with
regard to some bit of non-existent technology.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #10  
Old January 7th 08, 11:21 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists



Leopold Stotch wrote:

I am aware that Bush considers himself to be a Christian but have not
heard him say that he is a creationist. The two are not synonymous
and given that I believe that he attends a Methodist church there is a
good chance that he is not a creationist. Of course, I might be wrong.


Actually, he described himself as a "Reborn" Christian...which left
everyone wondering how he could tell lies constantly, start wars, and
have people tortured, while somehow supporting "The Prince Of Peace" and
the concept of "turn the other cheek".
The answer is simple.
When he said he was a Reborn Christian, he was lying, as usual.
Anyway, he's off to see the Holy Land before he dies, which with our
national luck will be a matter of a few days; so that Cheney can declare
a national emergency and suspend the Constitution even more than it is
at the moment.
It's truly amazing how getting just the wrong person in the wrong seat
of power at the wrong time can screw over the whole world.
Kaiser Wilhelm comes to mind; another egotistical, strutting, ignorant,
and violent incompetent who tried to show the world what a big man he was.

Pat
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists kT Space Shuttle 114 January 17th 08 07:27 PM
in my opinion (both) Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once! ...could NASA rockets win vs. privates on launch date and prices? gaetanomarano Policy 0 May 10th 07 11:11 PM
LAUNCH VEHICLES BUDGET [email protected] Policy 2 January 4th 06 11:03 PM
Thoughts on VSE Launch Vehicles The Apprentice Policy 60 July 16th 05 10:49 PM
US to use Ariane launch vehicles? vthokie Policy 44 January 25th 04 06:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.