|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |