NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
wrote:

In article . net,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:


In fact most of the meals probably WILL be planned in advance.

That will not help morale. I thought the goal was variety, not
a high school cafeteria menu (if it's Thursday, it must be SOS).

Are you really so clueless as to believe that high school cafeteria
menu planning represents the acme of the art? Are you really so
clueless to believe that variety and preplanning are incompatible?

I detect people who have never had to live on little.

/BAH

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
wrote:
Fussy was my descriptive word. You have already stated
that there are lots of things that cannot be done or the
bread will not behave. That is what I'm talking about.

No, bread is not fussy - if you follow your recipe and pay attention
to your ingredients. An omelette is fussy. A souffle is fussy.
Bread is cat iron, you have to *try* (hard) to screw it up.

Now take breadmaking up into a space ship where all conditions are
different.
What we are trying to do is examine, without the benefits of a lab,
what the problems will be. The choice of making bread was an
example of something people do on Earth that may, or may not,
work in a spaceship going to Mars.

Why do have problems with people who pick one thing and then
examine all aspects within the context of free-fall, no resource
replacement, and a very long timeframe.

The problem we have is with people who don't understand what they
talking about assuming that they do, and making projections based on
that faulty knowledge. (And then refusing to acknowledge they don't
know what they are talking about.)

How do you think people design stuff that has never been
built before? What we've been doing is starting from
scratch; we are used to doing that.

/BAH

In article ,
Alan Anderson wrote:
wrote:

If your bread "collapses at the most inopportune moments" then the
obvious conclusion is that you're not following a good recipe.

It's my own recipe, developed after trial and error.

Since the bread "collapses at the most inopportune moments",

Where did I say this? Bread is fussy.

the recipe
is not yet fully developed.

The recipe is just fine since it works most of the time.

You still have some error and still need
some more trials.

If the recipe wasn't working at all, my posts would have
a completely different flavor. How did you get the idea
that none of my bread baking was successful?

/BAH

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
wrote:

It's my own recipe, developed after trial and error.

That explains why you are so ****ing clueless about bread baking.

The goal was to eliminate as much hoopla as possible and be
dependent on a grocery store for as little as possible.

Unless you grow your own wheat, milk your own cows, etc.. etc..

But I have done that.

You
haven't reduced your dependency on a grocery store in least.

You should have asked what I've managed to eliminate.

Again,
it becomes increasing clear why your posts are so addled.

Well, I'm about done with you.

/BAH

wrote:

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
wrote:

In article . net,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:


In fact most of the meals probably WILL be planned in advance.

That will not help morale. I thought the goal was variety, not
a high school cafeteria menu (if it's Thursday, it must be SOS).

Are you really so clueless as to believe that high school cafeteria
menu planning represents the acme of the art? Are you really so
clueless to believe that variety and preplanning are incompatible?

I detect people who have never had to live on little.

An utter and bizzare non-sequitur. I'm not surprised.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote:

In article ,
Alan Anderson wrote:
wrote:

If your bread "collapses at the most inopportune moments" then the
obvious conclusion is that you're not following a good recipe.

It's my own recipe, developed after trial and error.

Since the bread "collapses at the most inopportune moments",

Where did I say this? Bread is fussy.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...69aa671454b08d

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote:

In article ,
Alan Anderson wrote:
wrote:

Alan Anderson wrote:
Boiling for cooking is used mostly to provide a consistent temperature,
not for killing germs. For that, 80 Celsius will do just as well as
100...

Then why does the health advisories say boil your water for
5 minutes?

Because it's easier to bring water to a boil than to monitor its
temperature with a thermometer.

Sigh! I understand that part. I want to know about the 5 minutes.


Because when water starts boiling (to noncooks meaning generally
somewhere around a low rolling boil) generally the entire mass of the
water isn't at boiling, especially if the quantity is above a gallon
or two. Letting it go for five minutes allows the entire mass to mix
and get above 160F.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In sci.physics, Derek Lyons

wrote
on Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:45:06 GMT
:
wrote:

In article ,
Alan Anderson wrote:
wrote:

Alan Anderson wrote:
Boiling for cooking is used mostly to provide a consistent temperature,
not for killing germs. For that, 80 Celsius will do just as well as
100...

Then why does the health advisories say boil your water for
5 minutes?

Because it's easier to bring water to a boil than to monitor its
temperature with a thermometer.

Sigh! I understand that part. I want to know about the 5 minutes.


Because when water starts boiling (to noncooks meaning generally
somewhere around a low rolling boil) generally the entire mass of the
water isn't at boiling, especially if the quantity is above a gallon
or two. Letting it go for five minutes allows the entire mass to mix
and get above 160F.

D.

I suspect it gets complicated at this point. The water at
bottom is the water usually receiving the heat. It will
of course vaporize; the bubbles of vapor will rise as they
are less dense. Depending on water temperature above, the
vapor may simply collapse (and rather noisily), or will
continue to the surface and evolve as steam. Since most
boiling water boils into air (although high-pressure
boilers might let the steam into piping), it will cool and
generate fog/water vapor droplets, unless it's really hot.

As for sterilization, I for one can't say. One form of
pasteurization requires a temperature of only about 160 F,
although there are lifeforms that can live near the very high
temperatures of "smoker vents" at the ocean floor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization

So 5 minutes is quite literally overkill, but there are
issues in heating the rest of the water above the water
that's actually vaporizing on the bottom. I for one could
see cold water boiling at the bottom almost immediately
over a gas flame (I have electric), but that's hardly
enough to sterilize the whole batch.

--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:49:08 +0100, in a place far, far away, Ben
Newsam made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On 10 Aug 2006 09:32:37 -0700, "Eric Chomko"
wrote:

The Great Depression happened in 1929, the war started in late 1941.

No, the war started in 1939. You were late as usual.

Also, the Depression didn't start until late 1930 or 1931, after Smoot
Hawley kicked in.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Look at the coin minatges in the US from 1928-34. Why stop making money
in 1929 if the depression didn't happen until later? Sure Wiki stated
"full effects", but do note start date.

And for all you folks that claim the war got us out of the depression,
look at the coin mintage figures for 1928-1941, especially from 1934
onward. Those figures don't lie and tell you EXACTLY the state of our
economy.

It is a Republican lie that FDR didn't get us turned around by 1934 and
on the road to recovery. They can't fathom giving him credit and write
it off as the war did it. Wait, and next they say yes, in 1934, but it
was the Federal Reserve System that did it and not FDR.

Eric

Ben Newsam wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 09:32:37 -0700, "Eric Chomko"
wrote:

The Great Depression happened in 1929, the war started in late 1941.

No, the war started in 1939. You were late as usual.

We didn't get in until 1941. Late maybe but ended it, as usual.

Eric


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com