Zubrin on about Mars again

Ulla wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 19:38:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Again the adhomenim attacks.

Using lame technicalities like "adhomenim" or "straw man" is the first
resort of one who has already lost the debate. Either stick to the
facts or give up. That's all that matters.

Use lame cop-outs like labelling someone's comments "technicalities" is
a sufficient illustration that one has lost the debate! Either stick to
the facts or give up.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Feb 09]

On Feb 9, 4:51 am, wrote:


And damn near everything he came up
with prior to the Mariner missions to Mars was dead wrong,

Again, what specifically and how did that specifically impact the
estimates made in papers such as Project Mars? Obviously, it does
not.

1: His Mars landers were gliders, designed for an atmosphere that
didn't exist. They'd make nice craters, that's about it.
2: His space station was right up in the Van Allen radiation belts,
killing the crew.
3: His Ferry Rockets were made out of steel with nice sharp leading
edges, melting on re-entry.



because the
atmosphere of Mars was vastly overestimated.

Which changes the shape of the vehicle and entry angle.

Ah..... no.


Look, you said Truman and Eisenhower's concern about wasting money in
space was nutty.

No. I did not. Your whackjob conspiracy theory that Mars colonization
"was analyzed back in the 40s by vonBranu and Eriche when they were
debriefed in operation paperclip. Truman and Eisenhower classified
this report." Project Paperclip was the program to bring wartime
German scientists to the US. Von Braun had not done work of any
particualr note on Mars colonization prior to coming to the US. And
nothign he did regarding Mars was classified for any reasons. You're
deeply embeded in the same sort of lunacy that gives us Nazi flying
saucers. You're an Arndt.

On Feb 9, 2:20 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
Try working with/for him for a few years. After a while, nothing
surprises you.

I take it you found yourself in that "lucky" position?


Yes. Saw things, I did...

On Feb 9, 5:22 am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:20 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:
Try working with/for him for a few years. After a while, nothing
surprises you.

I take it you found yourself in that "lucky" position?

Pat

Scott was fired for bringing a gun to work in his lunchbox and firing
while on break.

Nope.Since it seems I'll again have to correct someone who has bought
into bull****, I was fired for bringing a gun to the gun range next
door to work on one of my days off. A bit of a subtle difference, yes?

On Feb 9, 9:34 am, OM wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:19:24 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
You're an Arndt.

...With a name like "Mook", what do you expect?

Ah, it's Mook, is it? Google Groups truncates the email addresses. I
thought I recognized the style of insane; now I know.

As such, I know that arguing with mook is about as profitable as
arguing with Arndt and similar conspiro-loons, and will back off as I
have better things to do with my life.

On Feb 9, 9:33 am, OM wrote:

...Sounds to me like you weren't working for a gun nut but a peace
freak.

I would have also accepted "control freak." Or just "freak."

Ah, how I remember those days. "THERE ARE NO SAFETY CONCERNS!" would
be screamed at the employees, and we'd laugh and laugh and laugh...

On Feb 9, 11:19*am, "
wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:51 am, wrote:

And damn near everything he came up
with prior to the Mariner missions to Mars was dead wrong,

Again, what specifically and how did that specifically impact the
estimates made in papers such as Project Mars? * Obviously, *it does
not.

1: His Mars landers were gliders,

Right, which means that the shape of the vehicle changes along with
the entry angle and rate of descent. Its not a show stopper - its a
detail adjusted for

designed for an atmosphere that
didn't exist. They'd make nice craters, that's about it.

non-sequitor - I've already agreed that this detail would need to be
changed - you have yet to agree to the obvious - that this slight
design change is not a show stopper.

2: His space station was right up in the Van Allen radiation belts,
killing the crew.

irrelevant to the point that we can easily get to mars today using
existing technology at a price hundreds would pay.

3: His Ferry Rockets were made out of steel with nice sharp leading
edges, melting on re-entry.

yep, the best they could do in the 1940s - of course by the 1960s
vonBraun had designed the Apollo/Saturn V moonship - so, I think he
was up to speed before any of us. The point remains, despite your
strawmen, we could at any time after the 1940s decided to go to Mars
and done so at a cost many would pay to go there.



because the
atmosphere of Mars was vastly overestimated.

Which changes the shape of the vehicle and entry angle.

Ah..... no.

Explain yourself. Here, let me explain my comment

Lapse rate - rate of descent - angle of descent - entry angle

Look, you said Truman and Eisenhower's concern about wasting money in
space was nutty.

No. I did not.

Yes you did.

Your whackjob conspiracy theory

Nonsense - its part of the record dude. Read it.

that Mars colonization
"was analyzed back in the 40s by vonBranu and Eriche when they were
debriefed in operation paperclip. *Truman and Eisenhower classified
this report." Project Paperclip was the program to bring wartime
German scientists to the US. Von Braun had not done work of any
particualr note on Mars colonization prior to coming to the US. And
nothign he did regarding Mars was classified for any reasons.

You would do well to actually read up on a subject before making
comments about it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wernher-von-.../dp/0275962172



You're
deeply embeded in the same sort of lunacy that gives us Nazi flying
saucers. You're an Arndt.

No I'm not - you are vainly attempting to derail rational discussion
of travel to mars by name calling an bogus analysis.

On Feb 9, 11:34*am, OM wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:19:24 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
You're an Arndt.

...With a name like "Mook", what do you expect?

To have your head handed to you?

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


--

* ]=====================================[
* ] * OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld* [
* ] * * * *Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* * * * * [
* ] * * * * *an obnoxious opinion in your day! * * * * * [
* ]=====================================[

On Feb 9, 12:09*pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:34 am, OM wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:19:24 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
You're an Arndt.

...With a name like "Mook", what do you expect?

Ah, it's Mook, is it? Google Groups truncates the email addresses. I
thought I recognized the style of insane; now I know.

As such, I know that arguing with mook is about as profitable as
arguing with Arndt and similar conspiro-loons, and will back off as I
have better things to do with my life.

More personal attacks! haha - what is it about commercial travel and
settlement of mars that irritates you so?

Fact is, Zubrin has a workable plan, with a reusable heavy lift
launcher, which also puts up ultralight solar power satellites - we
build a rocket massing about 2,100 tons at lift off and puts 50 tons
on Mars along with 20 people - with return of all components - for
less than $2 million per person. At $20 million per person - 100 of
the worlds 100,000 richest people each year would pay to travel to
mars and stay there. Many of the 9.5 million millionaires in the
world would invest in govt backed bonds to develop mars

These facts don't change regardless of your foul mouthed name calling
you prick! haha

On Feb 9, 11:36*am, OM wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:48:29 GMT, "Martha Adams"
wrote:

Ulla wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 19:38:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Again the adhomenim attacks.

Using lame technicalities like "adhomenim" or "straw man" is the first
resort of one who has already lost the debate. Either stick to the
facts or give up. That's all that matters.

Use lame cop-outs like labelling someone's comments "technicalities" is
a sufficient illustration that one has lost the debate! *Either stick to
the facts or give up.

...He's right, Martha. Mook doesn't stick to the facts and debates
point for point, he just inviolates the whole argument over bull****
points of order. It just doesn't work that way anymore.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *OM

--

* ]=====================================[
* ] * OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld* [
* ] * * * *Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* * * * * [
* ] * * * * *an obnoxious opinion in your day! * * * * * [
* ]=====================================[

What relevant points were you making when you personally attacked
Zubrin as a nutjob? or was that me? haha -