Murder on the Moon

William Mook wrote:

I agree. We should withdraw from the UN. I give the reasons why.


You apparently 'agree' with something no one has suggested and that
isn't part of the conversation. No one said 'withdraw from the UN'.

snip MookLunacy trying to justify MookJacking a thread


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

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:29:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


One of the difficulties surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death is that there are no permanent residents in the park. So, its impossible to organise a jury. This is part of Musk's genius in insisting that people volunteer for one way journeys. This means they become residents and indigenous peoples on the planet they end up on. This gives them certain capacities and rights - and allows then to do what you suggest.


Where does Musk say what you claim? From what I've read, his position
is just the opposite. After all, he's got all those supply rockets
coming back from Mars essentially empty.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/elo.../11/id/733387/

http://www.itechpost.com/articles/20...s-one-nasa.htm

http://www.iflscience.com/space/mars...own-final-100/

The highest best use of hardware on Mars is to sustain the colonists. So, the calculus is;

(1) return it to Earth to refurbish it and reuse in the next synodic cycle - 4.3 years away,
(2) sell it off to Mars colonists for spare parts, raw material, sub-systems.

Both earn money. #2 earns money faster and even more money, which gives a higher net present value.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

I'm sorry, I made the mistake of trying to make sense of something you've said. Obviously that is a fools errand.

Rational people read 'I think we should withdraw' in the context of a UN treaty, as a withdrawal of the USA from the UN.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-...amexit-from-un

Clearly, you're irrational. You plainly think the US a member of the security council and a founding member, can promote and sign UN treaties and withdraw from them, without that adversely affecting the seriousness of the UN as an institution.

What a lunatic.


On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 10:08:05 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

I agree. We should withdraw from the UN. I give the reasons why.


You apparently 'agree' with something no one has suggested and that
isn't part of the conversation. No one said 'withdraw from the UN'.

snip MookLunacy trying to justify MookJacking a thread


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

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:29:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


One of the difficulties surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death is that there are no permanent residents in the park. So, its impossible to organise a jury. This is part of Musk's genius in insisting that people volunteer for one way journeys. This means they become residents and indigenous peoples on the planet they end up on. This gives them certain capacities and rights - and allows then to do what you suggest.


Where does Musk say what you claim? From what I've read, his position
is just the opposite. After all, he's got all those supply rockets
coming back from Mars essentially empty.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/elo.../11/id/733387/


Doesn't support your claim. This just says that Musk recognizes that
some people will die in any effort to colonize Mars.


http://www.itechpost.com/articles/20...s-one-nasa.htm


Again does not support your claim, but rather says that some people
are going to die in any effort to colonize Mars.


http://www.iflscience.com/space/mars...own-final-100/


Mars One. Not Musk. Does not support your claim.


The highest best use of hardware on Mars is to sustain the colonists. So, the calculus is;

(1) return it to Earth to refurbish it and reuse in the next synodic cycle - 4.3 years away,
(2) sell it off to Mars colonists for spare parts, raw material, sub-systems.

Both earn money. #2 earns money faster and even more money, which gives a higher net present value.


But what Musk plans to do is #1, so it seems he disagrees with you.
Since he actually runs real companies and makes real money, I'll take
his judgment over yours pretty much any day.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

William Mook wrote:


I'm sorry, I made the mistake of trying to make sense of something you've said. Obviously that is a fools errand.


I'm sorry you're crazy as a sack of rats, you MookJacking asshole.


Rational people read 'I think we should withdraw' in the context of a UN treaty, as a withdrawal of the USA from the UN.


Nonsense. Stop trying to MookJack the thread, you ill-mannered
monomaniac.

snip MookLunacy


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

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message ...


If there is a particularly interesting spot on Mars you might have a
US colony and next to it a European colony, and also Russian,
Chinese... Pretty soon, you don't want to do an EVA to go see your
neighbour so you install some kind of connecting passages. Voilà. You
don't always get the settlement you planned for.


Yes, just like on Antarctica all the interesting stuff is in one spot and...
oh wait.. no.

We're talking the surface of an entire planet. I can't imagine there's a
single spot that's THAT interesting that all nations converge on that spot.

Also, it is true that there has been some international collaboration à
la ISS that where disasters. There are also some examples of
international collaborations where different countries provide different
segments that have worked very well (Airbus A380 for instance). There
has also been numerous examples of single nation projects which were
disasters. I don't know why you say nobody sane would do it that way.


Alain Fournier
You're comparing a base with producing an object built for profit.

Big difference.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:16:31 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:29:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


One of the difficulties surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death is that there are no permanent residents in the park. So, its impossible to organise a jury. This is part of Musk's genius in insisting that people volunteer for one way journeys. This means they become residents and indigenous peoples on the planet they end up on. This gives them certain capacities and rights - and allows then to do what you suggest.


Where does Musk say what you claim? From what I've read, his position
is just the opposite. After all, he's got all those supply rockets
coming back from Mars essentially empty.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/elo.../11/id/733387/


Doesn't support your claim. This just says that Musk recognizes that
some people will die in any effort to colonize Mars.


http://www.itechpost.com/articles/20...s-one-nasa.htm


Again does not support your claim, but rather says that some people
are going to die in any effort to colonize Mars.


http://www.iflscience.com/space/mars...own-final-100/


Mars One. Not Musk. Does not support your claim.


The highest best use of hardware on Mars is to sustain the colonists. So, the calculus is;

(1) return it to Earth to refurbish it and reuse in the next synodic cycle - 4.3 years away,
(2) sell it off to Mars colonists for spare parts, raw material, sub-systems.

Both earn money. #2 earns money faster and even more money, which gives a higher net present value.


But what Musk plans to do is #1, so it seems he disagrees with you.
Since he actually runs real companies and makes real money, I'll take
his judgment over yours pretty much any day.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn


Settlers like Mars One plans to buy the hardware and use it on Mars once they're on Mars. Elon Musk is working on reusable launchers to launch these payloads and a supply chain to supply these payloads for the end user. Crew is different than settlers.

Musk is a smart business person. He doesn't ignore the realities of the situation or the demands of his client base.

Musk is building reusable launchers and a supply chain for mars colonisation. He will return crew members. Settlers will buy hardware to keep and use on Mars. The first persons to Mars will be crew members not settlers.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:29:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


One of the difficulties surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death is that there are no permanent residents in the park. So, its impossible to organise a jury. This is part of Musk's genius in insisting that people volunteer for one way journeys. This means they become residents and indigenous peoples on the planet they end up on. This gives them certain capacities and rights - and allows then to do what you suggest.


Where does Musk say what you claim? From what I've read, his position
is just the opposite. After all, he's got all those supply rockets
coming back from Mars essentially empty.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:16:31 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:29:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


One of the difficulties surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death is that there are no permanent residents in the park. So, its impossible to organise a jury. This is part of Musk's genius in insisting that people volunteer for one way journeys. This means they become residents and indigenous peoples on the planet they end up on. This gives them certain capacities and rights - and allows then to do what you suggest.


Where does Musk say what you claim? From what I've read, his position
is just the opposite. After all, he's got all those supply rockets
coming back from Mars essentially empty.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/elo.../11/id/733387/


Doesn't support your claim. This just says that Musk recognizes that
some people will die in any effort to colonize Mars.


http://www.itechpost.com/articles/20...s-one-nasa.htm


Again does not support your claim, but rather says that some people
are going to die in any effort to colonize Mars.


http://www.iflscience.com/space/mars...own-final-100/


Mars One. Not Musk. Does not support your claim.


The highest best use of hardware on Mars is to sustain the colonists. So, the calculus is;

(1) return it to Earth to refurbish it and reuse in the next synodic cycle - 4.3 years away,
(2) sell it off to Mars colonists for spare parts, raw material, sub-systems.

Both earn money. #2 earns money faster and even more money, which gives a higher net present value.


But what Musk plans to do is #1, so it seems he disagrees with you.
Since he actually runs real companies and makes real money, I'll take
his judgment over yours pretty much any day.


Settlers like Mars One plans to buy the hardware and use it on Mars once they're on Mars. Elon Musk is working on reusable launchers to launch these payloads and a supply chain to supply these payloads for the end user. Crew is different than settlers.


But Mars One is not Elon Musk. Elon Musk isn't talking about crew
returning. He's talking about colonists being able to come back for
vacations and such.


Musk is a smart business person. He doesn't ignore the realities of the situation or the demands of his client base.


Yes, he is. And you are not. Again, I'm going to go with what he
says over what you say pretty much every time.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

William Mook wrote:

Musk is building reusable launchers and a supply chain for mars colonisation. He will return crew members. Settlers will buy hardware to keep and use on Mars. The first persons to Mars will be crew members not settlers.


The facts didn't support your claim so now you just lie. Typical
Mookie.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:29:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


One of the difficulties surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death is that there are no permanent residents in the park. So, its impossible to organise a jury. This is part of Musk's genius in insisting that people volunteer for one way journeys. This means they become residents and indigenous peoples on the planet they end up on. This gives them certain capacities and rights - and allows then to do what you suggest.


Where does Musk say what you claim? From what I've read, his position
is just the opposite. After all, he's got all those supply rockets
coming back from Mars essentially empty.