Our moon is hot, Venus is not

Brad Guth wrote:
"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:gl7Eg.7091$Mz3.1207@fed1read07

http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html

Infomercial-science that oddly can't be replicated.

Of course it can, but it costs MONEY. You got enough lying around?
Know anybody that does?

Note more than 100 successful flights of the LLRV. The three crashes
were due to mechanical failures, not because it was impossible to fly.

MOS infomercial-science that can't be replicated.

Bull****. Come up with the cash.

What do you mean by "controlled conditions"? Outdoors hardly
qualifies as "controlled", except possibly when waiting for periods of
reasonably low wind speed. AFAIK neither the LLRV or LLTV were ever
flown indoors.

A trully fly-by-rocket prototype lander can be configured as more energy
per inert mass efficient than some atmospheric hybrid.

Wrongo. Airbreathing engines don't have to carry the oxidizer they
need to burn their fuel in, rockets do.

We're so
pathetic that still can't even manage a safe VTOL fighter jet. Shall we
bring back the Osprey for good measure?

The LLRV/LLTV would make lousy anythings including fighters for the
fairly obvious (to anyone but you) reason that all they had to do was
hover and land; they didn't have to do anything else and would have been
very bad at it.

Also note that they were _not_ designed to be any kind of
"prototype", but rather to be _simulators_ that could replicate the
_behavior_ of the Lunar Lander so pilots could practice.

None of them "practiced" squat, and that was because it was too lethal.

You are repeating your claims with nothing to back them up but your
lack of comprehension of so very many things.

What exactly would be the point of trying to fly a prototype of the
Lunar Lander in Earth's gravity and atmosphere where it couldn't
possibly fly and in fact would be guaranteed to crash?

I say "Liar Liar Pants On Fire". We nor the USSR simply couldn't do it
then and we still can't manage to accomplish it as of today. In fact,
there an X-Prise of sorts for someone to accomplish such. Would you
like me to relocate and post a link to that agenda?

You say I'm lying because I point out that a machine designed to land
in the moon's gravity (and weight-constrained to do nothing else) could
not fly in Earth's field? You are amazingly deliberately ignorant.

One more time; what the hell are these "momentum reaction wheels"
you keep going on about.

Apparently these nifty momentum reaction wheels are super
taboo/nondisclosure, thus if I told you I have to kill you.

Please try. Arizona has a nifty Dirty Harry law, and I'm armed.

Besides, since unfiltered Kodak film doesn't lie, therefore, how many
lies upon lies are you folks planning upon telling us?

Don't change the subject just yet; you've yet to refute anything I've
posted beyond calling me a liar.

Refute me substantively, then we'll get to your comprehension issues
about film.


Mark L. Fergerson

Oh, now Brad is being truly funny ... he's like an unimaginative Carlos
Yu ...


Brad Guth wrote:
Mark L. Fergerson,

How totally status quo pathetic, and otherwise how Third Reich of
yourself.

Where is the logical connection between Brad's argument and the Third
Reich?

Keep up the good work because, they're cloning a Hitler replacement just
for the likes of yourself.

Well, Mark, that should make you happy. Hitler replacement
while-u-wait! From Nazis-R-Us!

By the way, Brad, what does Mark's argument regarding Lunar albedoes
and Saturn V launch weights have to do with the Nazis? (actually, I
can think of _one_ connection, but it's an odd one).

Of cource you've already got one better in
your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

What's an "LLPOF warlord?"

Though I can think of _one_ thing GW Bush has done to **** Brad off --
he's advocated a resumption of manned Moonflights.

I can tell by your lack of constructive topic contributions and
otherwise by your evidence exclusions thus far, that your're one of them
(AKA the bad guys).

"Them?" "The bad guys?" Huh?

Where exactly did you learn to lie your incest cloned butt off, and
without a speck of remorse at that?

In order:

1) What "lies" has Mark told?

2) "Incest cloned" is a contradiction in terms (*); "cloning" is a form
of twinning while "incest" as a means of reproduction requires the
participation of a sexual partner, who is a close relative, and

3) Why should Mark feel "remorse" when he tells the truth?

- Jordan

(*) You know, Koko's neologism "dirty toilet" to mean "bad person"
actually makes more logical sense than "incest cloned."
Congratulations, Brad, you've been defeated in a contest of wits by an
acculturated gorilla!

Mark L. Fergerson wrote:

What do you mean by "controlled conditions"? Outdoors hardly
qualifies as "controlled", except possibly when waiting for periods of
reasonably low wind speed. AFAIK neither the LLRV or LLTV were ever
flown indoors.

Well, of course it was "controlled" in the sense that the _flights_
were "controlled" -- but if they hadn't been, they would have been
rather hard on both pilots and vehicles.

Brad Guth said:

If they supposedly had those sufficiently modulated main and reaction
thrusters, and w/o involving momentum reaction wheels, then why not a
full scaled version without involving all of the easily removed inert
mass (including extra fuel that's not necessary for accomplishing such
prototype fly-by-rocket testing)?

Again, why bother trying to fly something that couldn't possibly fly
in a full gee? Remember the Lunar descent and ascent engines were
designed to work in a one-sixth-Earth-gee field. The LLRV and LLTV _did_
"fly by rocket", and the airbreathing jets were there for safety's sake.

And of course, airbreathing jets would have been about as useful as
swan-wings in the _Lunar_ atmosphere!

One more time; what the hell are these "momentum reaction wheels" you
keep going on about, reaction gyros for orientation control? They were
considered too massive and not reliable enough; the Reaction Control
System was a much better option.

I've never actually heard of anything _called_ a "momentum reaction
wheel." Maybe that's what someone calls a gyro in some foreign
language -- German, maybe?

- Jordan

Brad Guth wrote:
"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:gl7Eg.7091$Mz3.1207@fed1read07

What do you mean by "controlled conditions"? Outdoors hardly
qualifies as "controlled", except possibly when waiting for periods of
reasonably low wind speed. AFAIK neither the LLRV or LLTV were ever
flown indoors.

A trully fly-by-rocket prototype lander can be configured as more energy
per inert mass efficient than some atmospheric hybrid.

Perhaps, but the LEM was a _Lunar_ lander -- as Erik Max Francis has
explained, its engine wasn't powerful enough to lift its mass against
_Earth_ gravity. It _could_ have been given a more powerful engine,
but this would have been at the cost of sacrificing capabilities more
relevant to the task of landing from and taking off into Lunar orbit,
such as extra fuel tankage. By contrast, the Earth mockup lander
described needed a more powerful engine but less fuel and cargo
capacity. Different craft for different purposes.

We're so pathetic that still can't even manage a safe VTOL fighter jet.

I wasn't aware that the AV-8 Harrier wasn't "safe." It is my
understanding that it has been flown extensively in numerous armed
conflicts, so it must be "safe" enough for normal operations.

Shall we bring back the Osprey for good measure?

Was that ever permanently cancelled? I remember its development being
stopped in the 1990's and then restarted in the 2000's -- what was the
ultimate outcome of that project?

What exactly would be the point of trying to fly a prototype of the
Lunar Lander in Earth's gravity and atmosphere where it couldn't
possibly fly and in fact would be guaranteed to crash?

I say "Liar Liar Pants On Fire". We nor the USSR simply couldn't do it
then and we still can't manage to accomplish it as of today.

Couldn't do _what_? Fly a VTOL jet aircraft in Earth's atmosphere?
The Soviet Union _had_ a VTOL jet aircraft, a Yak-something-or-other
(28?) which was based on the _Kiev_ class guided-missile aircraft
carriers, IIRC. America and Britain have operated the AV-8 Harrier
since at least the 1970's.

In fact,
there an X-Prise of sorts for someone to accomplish such. Would you
like me to relocate and post a link to that agenda?

Accomplish what?

One more time; what the hell are these "momentum reaction wheels"
you keep going on about.

Apparently these nifty momentum reaction wheels are super
taboo/nondisclosure, thus if I told you I have to kill you.

Um, what is this device supposedly capable of doing? The name sounds
like gibberish from a badly thought out pulp sf novel -- are you
talking about a _gyroscope_, or something more like a Blish
"spindizzy"?

Besides, since unfiltered Kodak film doesn't lie, therefore, how many
lies upon lies are you folks planning upon telling us?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about now.

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
Mark L. Fergerson wrote:

One more time; what the hell are these "momentum reaction wheels" you
keep going on about, reaction gyros for orientation control? They were
considered too massive and not reliable enough; the Reaction Control
System was a much better option.

I've never actually heard of anything _called_ a "momentum reaction
wheel." Maybe that's what someone calls a gyro in some foreign
language -- German, maybe?

Guth's refusal to accept the US moon landings as fact is evidently
based on his inability to understand anyone who tries to explain them to
him; he prefers to believe the whole thing was made up and is still
being kept secret through a vast conspiracy. Hence he feels free to make
**** up without explaining what he's talking about.


Mark L. Fergerson

Hi Brad,

Aren't you the record holder for the longest thread on Usenet?

Here's my posting to contribute to your endeavor.

Good luck, and counting, 99890, 99891, ...

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:8JdEg.7110$Mz3.1903@fed1read07

Guth's refusal to accept the US moon landings as fact is evidently
based on his inability to understand anyone who tries to explain them to
him; he prefers to believe the whole thing was made up and is still
being kept secret through a vast conspiracy. Hence he feels free to make
**** up without explaining what he's talking about.

Gee whiz, folks, whereas here I'd thought that I was being such a good
little Usenet fellow, by way of my sharing in whatever my research had
turned up, and otherwise asking those pesky questions, and that of my
having otherwise published a few of my alternative interpretations of
the best available science that replicates without having to violate
those regular laws of physics.

All I'm asking for is the fly-by-rocket solutions as to deploying a few
nifty little items, such as getting my JAVELIN probes to our moon, as in
accommodating a one-way ticket to ride that according to our NASA/Apollo
supposed rocket-science shouldn't demand more than a 30:1 ratio of
rocket per payload as for accomplishing that one-way task, and even
that's based upon a fairly hefty inert GLOW factor. My other ruse, or
rather not so hidden agenda, has to do with establishing the LSE-CM/ISS,
and that of the VL2TRACE science platform as station-keeping within
Venus L2. I guess that's making myself into the ultimate messenger from
hell, especially once having interpreted that 36 look/pixel composite
radar image of Venus as for such having depicted as to what I've
interpreted as looking considerably as though being intelligently
rational modifications of having created a fairly complex Venusian
infrastructure. Sorry about that.

On the matter of how Sv-hot our moon is, I've also noted as to what Van
Allen had recently to say, as more than suggesting it's a bit foolish or
at least "a terribly old fashioned idea" for manned space expeditions
when so much can be robotically accomplished without nearly the horrific
investment plus our having to survive the potentially lethal trauma to
our frail DNA.

"Paul Foley" wrote in message
nk.net

From Bob Park's online newsletter What's New:
Two years ago I visited Prof Van Allen in his office at the
U. Iowa. At 89 he was down to a 7-day work week. He showed
me an op-ed he was sending to the NY Times in which he described
human space flight as "obsolete"
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn072304.html
I don't believe they used it. Van Allen said using people to
explore space is "a terribly old fashioned idea."

Van Allen was very perceptive. He raised a point that virtually never
gets aired in the manned spaceflight debate, a point that cuts right to
the heart of the matter: sending people out in ships is old thinking. An
obsolete way of doing things.

Without a doubt I'd have to totally agree with Prof Van Allen, and then
some. Manned expeditions are not only extra spendy by a factor of at
least tens if not actually hundreds of fold, but otherwise extra time
consuming, plus even if nothing goes the least bit wrong within a given
mission is where such manned expeditions remain as risky if not lethal
DNA business, and that's not to mention whatever microbes or spores our
unintentional panspermia could infect Earth or that of the other world
or moon with whatever either environment is not prepared to deal with.

The last time I'd checked, our NASA was still not an official God nor
intelligent creator that's worthy of influencing or having otherwise
introduced ET life to/from any other world or moon. We obviously can't
seem to cope with the vast complexity of life that's available to us
right here on Earth without involving the collateral damage and carnage
imposed by multiple wars, and we obviously can't manage our own
environment for the greater good of all life, thus we have no moral
business pushing our resource fading luck nor much less causing
biological trauma upon some other world or life capable moon unless we
know for a fact that it's entirely inert dead to start with (much like
our lethal moon and perhaps even Mars being as close to a totally
expended planet as you can imagine).

Therefore, I don't refuse to appreciate upon anything that gets
independently replicated and/or can otherwise be proven to function
within the regular laws of physics. Such as on behalf of other
intelligent life as having been existing/coexisting on Venus is by
rights doable, though obviously that toasty and mostly co2 cloaked
environment is not the least bit suited for the likes of naked humanity,
especially of those of us so easily snookered and summarily dumbfounded
at the drop of another infomercial status quo hat.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In rec.arts.sf.science Jordan wrote:

I have heard that a majority of Middle Eastern Arabs disbelieve in the
Lunar landing, which is a good measure of the lack of cultural maturity
and the isolation from modernity of that part of the world, IMO. It's
a shame that this lunacy is spreading.

I recall reading a story, which I now cannot find, that a poll was taken
of some certain group of people in northern Africa and it was found that
most of them did not believe that people had walked on the moon. It wasn't
disbelief or conspiracy theory, however, they simply had never heard about
it.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

In rec.arts.sf.science Jordan wrote:

Shall we bring back the Osprey for good measure?

Was that ever permanently cancelled? I remember its development being
stopped in the 1990's and then restarted in the 2000's -- what was the
ultimate outcome of that project?

According to Wikipedia, the V-22 is in full production as of late 2005,
with total planned quantities of over 450 units. It's planned to enter
service with the Marines in 2007.

That said, could we stop feeding the troll? This thread has long since
become tiresome, and the only way to make a troll go away is to stop
responding to him.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science Jordan wrote:

Shall we bring back the Osprey for good measure?

Was that ever permanently cancelled? I remember its development being
stopped in the 1990's and then restarted in the 2000's -- what was the
ultimate outcome of that project?

According to Wikipedia, the V-22 is in full production as of late 2005,
with total planned quantities of over 450 units. It's planned to enter
service with the Marines in 2007.

That said, could we stop feeding the troll? This thread has long since
become tiresome, and the only way to make a troll go away is to stop
responding to him.

You know, I think you're right. Normally, I reply to arguments because
I feel that snubbing as a means of asserting correctness is irrational,
but this guy Brad Guth combines a total lack of understanding of basic
physics (he thinks that magnetic fields affect electrically-neutral
particles), basic astronomy (he doesn't grasp what an "albedo" is) with
absurd claims (he keeps slyly hinting that there were no manned Lunar
landings, and goes beyond it to claim no robot landers either).
Dissing one of the coolest military aircraft to leap out of the pages
Tom Swift Jr. into actual deployment is the final straw

- Jordan