Successful flight by Blue Origin

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 2:50:17 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 10:28:51 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

SpaceX chooses to avoid all of the issues with hypergolics. I don't
blame them.

If hovering was a huge advantage, SpaceX could just use a smaller center
engine.

They could, but commonality with the other Merlin engines reduces costs.
SpaceX is all about minimizing costs. Adding complexity increases
costs.

Unless those costs are already spent and sunk anyway.

Development costs are mostly spent and sunk if one assumes that there
won't be much of a difference between how SuperDracos are installed on
the stage when compared to how they're already installed on Dragon V2.
But even then, there will be differences which require some development.

Agreed.


But, adding SuperDraco engines, tankage, and plumbing in support of
hypergolic propellants (not already carried by the stage) is adding cost
and complexity to each manufactured stage when compared with the current
Falcon 9 Full Thrust first stage. It also introduces handling issues
not already on the existing first stage due to the toxicity of the
hypergolic propellants.

True.

As a reusable vehicle, the shuttle orbiter experience is applicable
here.

After the 2003 upgrades, yes.

Non-toxic OMS/RCS fuel and oxidizer was on the list of proposed
upgrades precisely because of the added handling costs which increased
turn-around times.

Correct. The reports however, related various approaches, which caused them not to adopt LOX/RP1, which is directly applicable here. The pintle fed engines developed by TRW have an ability to be easily adapted to many different propellant combinations.

The development of a module that uses the experience of SpaceX to create something that might turn into a service for other launch providers, is something that SpaceX may partner with others to develop, whether they use hypergolics or not.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley wrote:
They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
a good trade to make.

If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
deeply-throttled Merlin?


Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
bureaucrat bull****.


Cite?


Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bull****.


Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
(which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.

Stop making up lies, Chimp.

Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.


Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.

Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
environment.


Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.

Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
diapers on their babies since antiquity.


It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid ****.

Cloth is raw stock.

Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid ****.


And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
dumb ****.


So what, space cadet?


So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
chimp****, chimp****.


Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.


Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.


Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
Sri Lanka, space cadet?


There's more of that chimp**** wriggling between "survive" and "live
in a rich suburb"...


Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
21st century technology, and a lot of it.


And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.


Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.


But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
dishonest ****.


As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...


And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.

It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
with imported diseases.


Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
it when it HELPS survival.

No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
indiginous population is irrelevant.


Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.


Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
carrying any to Mars.


So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
odds, then, Jim?

I's say somewhere around .9 with a ****load of 9s after it to 1.


And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

"There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."

Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.

Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
be called wrong.


Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
intrudes into a Chimp Position.

Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
number YOU demanded from me.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
odds are a lot higher than your opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
I think we've discovered the problem...


Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.


How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?

How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
is highly unlikely, space cadet?

Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.

Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.



Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
as you demanded of me, space cadet.


"Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
"I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.

The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
evidence.

That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
small is not my problem, space cadet.


None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
includes diseases.


Unproven.

The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.


... and you can not live
longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...


So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
right?

So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?

the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.


Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.


Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
of the support equipment, space cadet.


For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
technology in support.

Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.

About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
wouldn't NEED if they didn't **** of the natives.


Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?

Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
as it had been for a thousand years or so.


Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
Europe.

Don't be an ignorant fool.


Don't be stupid chimp droppings.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.

Talking to yourself?


Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
involved.

Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.


--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley wrote:
They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
a good trade to make.

If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
deeply-throttled Merlin?


Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
bureaucrat bull****.


Cite?


Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bull****.


Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
(which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.

Stop making up lies, Chimp.

Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.


Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.

Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
environment.


Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.

Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
diapers on their babies since antiquity.


It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid ****.

Cloth is raw stock.

Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid ****.


And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
dumb ****.


So what, space cadet?


So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
chimp****, chimp****.


Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.


Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.


Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
Sri Lanka, space cadet?


There's more of that chimp**** wriggling between "survive" and "live
in a rich suburb"...


Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
21st century technology, and a lot of it.


And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.


Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.


But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
dishonest ****.


As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...


And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.

It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
with imported diseases.


Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
it when it HELPS survival.

No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
indiginous population is irrelevant.


Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.


Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
carrying any to Mars.


So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
odds, then, Jim?

I's say somewhere around .9 with a ****load of 9s after it to 1.


And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

"There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."

Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.

Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
be called wrong.


Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
intrudes into a Chimp Position.

Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
number YOU demanded from me.


I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
and now you're caught.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?

Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
odds are a lot higher than your opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
I think we've discovered the problem...


Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.


How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?

How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
is highly unlikely, space cadet?


Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
position" that magic makes everything work.

Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
exist in some shelted, special place.

And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
years ago when Mars may have had oceans.



Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.

Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.


The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?



Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
as you demanded of me, space cadet.


"Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
"I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.

The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
evidence.


The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
nothing but your own biases.

What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.

If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
too bad.


That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
small is not my problem, space cadet.


Except it doesn't, chimp****.


None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
includes diseases.


Unproven.

The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.


... and you can not live
longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...


So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
right?

So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?

the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.


Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.


Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
of the support equipment, space cadet.


For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
technology in support.

Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.

About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
wouldn't NEED if they didn't **** of the natives.


Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?

Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
as it had been for a thousand years or so.


Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
Europe.

Don't be an ignorant fool.


Don't be stupid chimp droppings.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.

Talking to yourself?


Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
involved.


Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.


Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.

My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.



--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley wrote:
They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
a good trade to make.

If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
deeply-throttled Merlin?


Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
bureaucrat bull****.


Cite?


Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bull****.


Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
(which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.

Stop making up lies, Chimp.

Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.


Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.

Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
environment.


Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.

Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
diapers on their babies since antiquity.


It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid ****.

Cloth is raw stock.

Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid ****.


And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
dumb ****.


So what, space cadet?


So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
chimp****, chimp****.


Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.


Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.


Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
Sri Lanka, space cadet?


There's more of that chimp**** wriggling between "survive" and "live
in a rich suburb"...


Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
21st century technology, and a lot of it.


And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.


Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.


But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
dishonest ****.


As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...


And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.

It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
with imported diseases.


Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
it when it HELPS survival.

No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
indiginous population is irrelevant.


Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.


Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
carrying any to Mars.


So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
odds, then, Jim?

I's say somewhere around .9 with a ****load of 9s after it to 1.


And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

"There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."

Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.

Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
be called wrong.


Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
intrudes into a Chimp Position.

Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
number YOU demanded from me.


I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
and now you're caught.


When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?


It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
job to research your **** for you and disprove your silly opinions.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?

Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.

Can you PROVE that wrong, chimp****?

Of course.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
odds are a lot higher than your opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
I think we've discovered the problem...


Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.


How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?

How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
is highly unlikely, space cadet?


Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
position" that magic makes everything work.


Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
exist in some shelted, special place.


Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
(which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
Mars is outside of.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
years ago when Mars may have had oceans.


Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
(again).

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?




Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.

Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.


The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?



Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
as you demanded of me, space cadet.


"Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
"I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.

The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
evidence.


The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
nothing but your own biases.


What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.


Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
your pathologically opinionated view.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?



If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
too bad.


Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?



That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
small is not my problem, space cadet.


Except it doesn't, chimp****.


None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
includes diseases.


Unproven.

The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.


... and you can not live
longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...


So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
right?

So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?

the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.


Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.


Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
of the support equipment, space cadet.


For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
technology in support.

Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.

About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
wouldn't NEED if they didn't **** of the natives.


Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?

Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
as it had been for a thousand years or so.


Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
Europe.

Don't be an ignorant fool.


Don't be stupid chimp droppings.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.

Talking to yourself?


Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
involved.


Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.


Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.


My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.


Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
quoque).

Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.


--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley wrote:
They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
a good trade to make.

If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
deeply-throttled Merlin?


Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
bureaucrat bull****.


Cite?


Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bull****.


Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
(which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.

Stop making up lies, Chimp.

Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.


Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.

Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
environment.


Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.

Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
diapers on their babies since antiquity.


It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid ****.

Cloth is raw stock.

Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid ****.


And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
dumb ****.


So what, space cadet?


So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
chimp****, chimp****.


Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.


Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.


Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
Sri Lanka, space cadet?


There's more of that chimp**** wriggling between "survive" and "live
in a rich suburb"...


Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
21st century technology, and a lot of it.


And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.


Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.


But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
dishonest ****.


As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...


And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.

It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
with imported diseases.


Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
it when it HELPS survival.

No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
indiginous population is irrelevant.


Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.


Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
carrying any to Mars.


So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
odds, then, Jim?

I's say somewhere around .9 with a ****load of 9s after it to 1.


And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

"There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."

Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.

Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
be called wrong.


Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
intrudes into a Chimp Position.

Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
number YOU demanded from me.


I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
and now you're caught.


When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.


Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?


It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
job to research your **** for you and disprove your silly opinions.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.

Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.

Can you PROVE that wrong, chimp****?

Of course.


Do so.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
odds are a lot higher than your opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
I think we've discovered the problem...


Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.


How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?

How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
is highly unlikely, space cadet?


Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
position" that magic makes everything work.


Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
exist in some shelted, special place.


Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
(which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
Mars is outside of.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
years ago when Mars may have had oceans.


Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
(again).

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.




Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.

Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.


The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?



Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
as you demanded of me, space cadet.


"Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
"I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.

The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
evidence.


The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
nothing but your own biases.


What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.


Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
your pathologically opinionated view.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.



If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
too bad.


Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.



That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
small is not my problem, space cadet.


Except it doesn't, chimp****.


None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
includes diseases.


Unproven.

The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.


... and you can not live
longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...


So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
right?

So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?

the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.


Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.


Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
of the support equipment, space cadet.


For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
technology in support.

Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.

About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
wouldn't NEED if they didn't **** of the natives.


Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?

Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
as it had been for a thousand years or so.


Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
Europe.

Don't be an ignorant fool.


Don't be stupid chimp droppings.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.

Talking to yourself?


Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
involved.


Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.


Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.


My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.


Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
quoque).

Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.


You're a lying sack of ****, Jim.

Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to.



--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley wrote:
They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
a good trade to make.

If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
wouldn 't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
deeply-throttled Merlin?


Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
bureaucr at bull****.


Cite?


Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bull****.


Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
(which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.

Stop making up lies, Chimp.

Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.


Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.

Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
environment.


Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.

Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
diapers on their babies since antiquity.


It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid ****.

Cloth is raw stock.

Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid ****.


And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
dumb ****.


So what, space cadet?


So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
chimp****, chimp****.


Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.


Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.


Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
Sri Lanka, space cadet?


There's more of that chimp**** wriggling between "survive" and "live
in a rich suburb"...


Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
21st century technology, and a lot of it.


And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.


Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.


But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
dishonest ****.


As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...


And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.

It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
with imported diseases.


Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
it when it HELPS survival.

No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
indiginous population is irrelevant.


Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.


Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
carrying any to Mars.


So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
odds, then, Jim?

I's say somewhere around .9 with a ****load of 9s after it to 1.


And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

"There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."

Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.

Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
be called wrong.


Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
intrudes into a Chimp Position.

Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
number YOU demanded from me.


I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
and now you're caught.


When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.


Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?


It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
job to research your **** for you and disprove your silly opinions.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.

Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.

Can you PROVE that wrong, chimp****?

Of course.


Do so.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
odds are a lot higher than your opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
I think we've discovered the problem...


Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.


How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?

How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
is highly unlikely, space cadet?


Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
position" that magic makes everything work.


Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
exist in some shelted, special place.


Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
(which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
Mars is outside of.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
years ago when Mars may have had oceans.


Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
(again).

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.




Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.

Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.


The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?



Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
as you demanded of me, space cadet.


"Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
"I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.

The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
evidence.


The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
nothing but your own biases.


What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.


Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
your pathologically opinionated view.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.



If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
too bad.


Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.



That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
small is not my problem, space cadet.


Except it doesn't, chimp****.


None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
includes diseases.


Unproven.

The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.


... and you can not live
longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...


So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
right?

So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?

the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.


Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.


Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
of the support equipment, space cadet.


For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
technology in support.

Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.

About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
wouldn't NEED if they didn't **** of the natives.


Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?

Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
as it had been for a thousand years or so.


Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
Europe.

Don't be an ignorant fool.


Don't be stupid chimp droppings.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.

Talking to yourself?


Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
involved.


Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.


Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.


My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.


Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
quoque).

Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.


You're a lying sack of ****, Jim.


Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to.


Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.


Is is obvious you concider the indiginous peoples of the Americas to
be wogs and you are in denial of what happened to them.

Racist deniers aren't worth talking to.


--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley wrote:
They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
a good trade to make.

If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
wouldn 't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
deep ly-throttled Merlin?


Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
bureaucr at bull****.


Cite?


Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bull****.


Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
(which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.

Stop making up lies, Chimp.

Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.


Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.

Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
environment.


Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.

Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
diapers on their babies since antiquity.


It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid ****.

Cloth is raw stock.

Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid ****.


And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
dumb ****.


So what, space cadet?


So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
chimp****, chimp****.


Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.


Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.


Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
Sri Lanka, space cadet?


There's more of that chimp**** wriggling between "survive" and "live
in a rich suburb"...


Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
21st century technology, and a lot of it.


And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.


Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.


But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
dishonest ****.


As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...


And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.

It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
with imported diseases.


Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
it when it HELPS survival.

No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
indiginous population is irrelevant.


Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.


Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
carrying any to Mars.


So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
odds, then, Jim?

I's say somewhere around .9 with a ****load of 9s after it to 1.


And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

"There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."

Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.

Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
be called wrong.


Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
intrudes into a Chimp Position.

Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
number YOU demanded from me.


I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
and now you're caught.


When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.


Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?


It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
job to research your **** for you and disprove your silly opinions.

When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?


When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.

Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.

Can you PROVE that wrong, chimp****?

Of course.


Do so.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
odds are a lot higher than your opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
I think we've discovered the problem...


Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.


How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?

How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
is highly unlikely, space cadet?


Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
position" that magic makes everything work.


Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
exist in some shelted, special place.


Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
(which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
Mars is outside of.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
years ago when Mars may have had oceans.


Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
(again).

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.




Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.

Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.


The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?



Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
as you demanded of me, space cadet.


"Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
"I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.

The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
evidence.


The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
nothing but your own biases.


What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.


Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
your pathologically opinionated view.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.



If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
too bad.


Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.

So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?


You tell me.



That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
small is not my problem, space cadet.


Except it doesn't, chimp****.


None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
includes diseases.


Unproven.

The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.


... and you can not live
longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...


So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
right?

So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?

the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.


Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.


Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
of the support equipment, space cadet.


For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
technology in support.

Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.

About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
wouldn't NEED if they didn't **** of the natives.


Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?

Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
as it had been for a thousand years or so.


Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
Europe.

Don't be an ignorant fool.


Don't be stupid chimp droppings.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.


Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.

Talking to yourself?


Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
involved.


Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.


Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.


My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.


Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
quoque).

Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.


You're a lying sack of ****, Jim.


Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to.


Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.


Is is obvious you concider the indiginous peoples of the Americas to
be wogs and you are in denial of what happened to them.


It seems like many things are 'obvious' to you that aren't in precise
1:1 accord with our present reality. It's a product of you being so
pathologically opinionated.


Racist deniers aren't worth talking to.


Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.

Bully, liar, racist; not worth talking to.

--
Jim Pennino