NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

On Jun 22, 1:11 pm, kT wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:32 pm, kT wrote:
NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

I like the sound of that. That's going to be your new NASA in 2009.

I agree that NASA could use a name change.

However, I think changing back to NACA would
be approproptiate: the National Advisory Committee
for Aerospace.

You certainly can be accused of living in the past.

Yes, I worked at NACA in 1951 as a summer
intern and at NASA headquarters in 1958 as a
staff scientist.

However, this just might mean that
I am old enough to offer some clear perspective
from the point of view of why NASA was formed
in the first place--and where some of us feel that
NASA has gone off track.

Those who know me well
know that I live very much in the present and future--
in spite of my age. Even though I learned to fly
in WWII, I am still healthy enough that I expect to
be able to renew my FAA Class II medical without
glasses or other restrictions. Don't write off all
seniors as being incapable to make contributions
to the present and future.


The main message:

You are the problem, not the solution.

Wow. What an astute observation. You must
have done a lot of analysis to come up with that
conclusion.

I agree that the atmosphere is very important, but
it is not primarily NASA's job.

I believe that was exactly why I am demanding this name change.


Your intent is clear. But some of us are rather
wary of industrialization policies and solutions.
The Soviet Union--with its socialist policies--
commited some of the worst environmental
sins ever committed.

All agencies and
all individuals should strive "not to do harm." As
for climate control and change, I don't know who
should be allowed to pick the winners and losers.

Oh, go **** yourself. We're losing. Any winner will do.

And you obviously don't give a **** for the
losers--no matter how unfair that may be.
Climate control is likely to be a zero-sum
game. However, you are so lofty, knowledgeable,
and would-be omnipotent, that playing god with
all of humanity doesn't seem to phase you
with respect to what some of us feel is
responsible behaviour.

Perhaps space shields, mirrors, and/or scatterers
that compensate for harm may be technically,
economically, and socially appropriate; but again,
this is probably not primarily a NASA job--although
NASA could well be involved.

Wow, I'm just speechless. I certainly haven't mentioned any of those
lame proposals. All I am proposing is using NOAA and NASA to demonstrate
credible some solar and hydrogen propulsion solutions to the energy
conversion problem, and to scrub the atmosphere back to 320 ppm CO2.

I am certainly not against greener approaches to
supplying and using energy--providing they really
provide a net gain when the total picture is analyzed
objectively. Many of the proposed schemes are
likely to turn out to be unrealistic. We could end up
wrecking the world's economies, and not really solving
the problem. Addressing the overall problem in terms
of compensating for man-caused deleterious inputs to
the atmosphere and the environment deserves
consideration--along with other potential solutions.
These are hardly lame proposals; some of us feel that
such proposals could turn out to be better thought-out
--and much more practical--than some of the proposed
"edicts" that could turn out to be rather lame-brained
under objective analysis.

We should also keep man-caused effects in proper
perspective to long-term natural variations in the
world's climate. This does not mean we should not
make reasonable efforts to minimize, eliminate--or
compensate for--man-caused deleterious inputs
to the environment.

Get off your high horse and do some
serious, practical thinking. You don't
have a monopoly on such thinking.
In fact, it's looking more and more like you
don't even have a clue.

Len

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"GO Mavs" wrote in message
news:%YGei.4881$AR5.4416@trnddc06...


Dallas Mavericks? Being from Miami, and a fan of stock
trading, I feel it necessary to tell you just what I think
of your spoiled, loudmouthed f'ed up whining little sprout
of a gonad owner Mark Cuban.

What a dick. And everyone down here in Miami to
a person thinks pretty much the same thing. And they
don't even know just what a flaming ass Cuban is in
his stock trading. All he does is look for companies that
are struggling for one reason or another, and then just
when it would hurt the most, he swoops in and shorts
the hell out of that stock. Which drives the price into
the ground and with it the company.

He makes his billions off the backs of small failing
companies which he finishes off just for the fun of it.
I'm sure he pulled the wings off of flies when he was
a child.

Damn shame his billions couldn't stop Dwayne Wade from
getting to the basket or the foul line every time he got the ball.
I bet Cuban still has nightmares over his visit to our lovely Miami.

I can still here the immortal words of the world's sorest loser.....


"Cuban then turned to Stern and other NBA officials who were
seated at the scorer's table and was overheard to shout
enomously in the jubilant din, '[Bleep] you! [Bleep] you!
Your league is rigged!' "
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ory?id=2491783


Cheers!






I agree about that being a fault of Bush. There is no reason we need to
send
men to Mars or set up a space station on the Moon.

We have learned there is a ton we can do with cameras, machines, robots,
and
magnetic and inferred technology. Going as far as we can into space should
only be funded privately.


"kT" wrote in message
...
NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration

I like the sound of that. That's going to be your new NASA in 2009.

That gives direct overlap with NOAA, where is counts the most, and puts
the agencies at the forefront of atmospheric research and remediation,
where they belong. This is the way it's going to be. Get used to it.

George W. Bush's vision of visiting space expensively and exploring
space
as stupidly as possible, will soon be relegated to the scrap heap of
history, where everything he does belongs. Screw you Michael Griffin.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Len wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:11 pm, kT wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:32 pm, kT wrote:
NASA - National Atmospheric and Space Administration
I like the sound of that. That's going to be your new NASA in 2009.
I agree that NASA could use a name change.
However, I think changing back to NACA would
be approproptiate: the National Advisory Committee
for Aerospace.
You certainly can be accused of living in the past.

Yes, I worked at NACA in 1951 as a summer
intern and at NASA headquarters in 1958 as a
staff scientist.

However, this just might mean that
I am old enough to offer some clear perspective
from the point of view of why NASA was formed
in the first place--and where some of us feel that
NASA has gone off track.

Those who know me well
know that I live very much in the present and future--
in spite of my age. Even though I learned to fly
in WWII, I am still healthy enough that I expect to
be able to renew my FAA Class II medical without
glasses or other restrictions. Don't write off all
seniors as being incapable to make contributions
to the present and future.

The main message:
You are the problem, not the solution.

Wow. What an astute observation. You must
have done a lot of analysis to come up with that
conclusion.

Anybody who still thinks we're still living in the NACA age needs a
little heads up.

I agree that the atmosphere is very important, but
it is not primarily NASA's job.

I believe that was exactly why I am demanding this name change.


Your intent is clear.

Is it? You seemed to have missed the point entirely. The point is, to
start living in your home as if your home was a space station.

But some of us are rather
wary of industrialization policies and solutions.

I know, you old farts are into the capitalism uber alles. You are the
people that brought us the Bush administration, and the mess of Earth.

The Soviet Union--with its socialist policies--
commited some of the worst environmental
sins ever committed.

Well, America's off the hook then.

All agencies and
all individuals should strive "not to do harm." As
for climate control and change, I don't know who
should be allowed to pick the winners and losers.

Oh, go **** yourself. We're losing. Any winner will do.

And you obviously don't give a **** for the
losers--no matter how unfair that may be.

How do you infer that? We're all losers. All I see everywhere I look in
America is a bunch of ignorant redneck hillbillies more concerned about
their pickup trucks and SUVs and McMansions than they are about Earth,
totally disconnected from both nature, the universe, and reality itself.

Climate control is likely to be a zero-sum
game. However, you are so lofty, knowledgeable,
and would-be omnipotent, that playing god with
all of humanity doesn't seem to phase you
with respect to what some of us feel is
responsible behaviour.

I'm not talking about controlling the climate, Len, I'm just saying
let's clean up the space station and pin the carbon dioxide
concentration to a level which will prevent future ice ages. Clearly
that level is in the range of roughly 300 to 320 ppm CO2 according to
paleoclimatology. Sun shades and crap work well for space stations, not
full blown water and ice bearing nickel iron cored rock mantled planets.

Perhaps space shields, mirrors, and/or scatterers
that compensate for harm may be technically,
economically, and socially appropriate; but again,
this is probably not primarily a NASA job--although
NASA could well be involved.

I intend on making it NASA's job, on January 20, 2009, by rewriting
NASA's charter back to National Atmospheric and Space Administration.

Wow, I'm just speechless. I certainly haven't mentioned any of those
lame proposals. All I am proposing is using NOAA and NASA to demonstrate
credible some solar and hydrogen propulsion solutions to the energy
conversion problem, and to scrub the atmosphere back to 320 ppm CO2.

I am certainly not against greener approaches to
supplying and using energy--providing they really
provide a net gain when the total picture is analyzed
objectively. Many of the proposed schemes are
likely to turn out to be unrealistic.

What, pray tell, is unrealistic about zero emission energy conversion
and energy conservation theorems in general? I see nothing in the laws
of physics that prevent this sort of approach to energy conversion.

We could end up
wrecking the world's economies, and not really solving
the problem.

The world economy is the problem, Len. It's fraudulent, just like the
Bush administration, clearly it must be wrecked in order to proceed.
Nature will easily accomplish that for me, in very short order too.
Either you can get on board, or you can suffer the consequences.

Addressing the overall problem in terms
of compensating for man-caused deleterious inputs to
the atmosphere and the environment deserves
consideration--along with other potential solutions.

Yak yak yak, that's all you old farts do.

These are hardly lame proposals; some of us feel that
such proposals could turn out to be better thought-out
--and much more practical--than some of the proposed
"edicts" that could turn out to be rather lame-brained
under objective analysis.

Like us conservation theorists, for instance.

We should also keep man-caused effects in proper
perspective to long-term natural variations in the
world's climate.

When all else fails, invoke denialism.

This does not mean we should not
make reasonable efforts to minimize, eliminate--or
compensate for--man-caused deleterious inputs
to the environment.

Which would be ... civilization itself!

Get off your high horse and do some
serious, practical thinking.

I'm the guy with the single SSME powered SSTO, Len, you're the guy with
the unrealistic space plane, remember?

You don't have a monopoly on such thinking.

From the looks of it, apparently I do, unless you know of some other
individual who promotes straight forward cryogenic propulsion.

In fact, it's looking more and more like you
don't even have a clue.

Good luck with that futuristic space plane.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Fred J. McCall wrote:
rhw007 wrote:

:On Jun 21, 11:02 pm, "GO Mavs" wrote:
: I agree about that being a fault of Bush. There is no reason we need to send
: men to Mars or set up a space station on the Moon.
:
: We have learned there is a ton we can do with cameras, machines, robots, and
: magnetic and inferred technology. Going as far as we can into space should
: only be funded privately.
:
:
:And the next time several NEO's go whizzing by the Earth and we only
:know about them AFTER they have zipped by...we can count on the
:'private sector' to insure humanity doesn't become the next dinosaurs
:when NEOs come stumbling, tumbling and bumbling from behind the Sun
:and either miss us by the smallest of time like 33 seconds or so or
:actually wipe us out?
:
:WE NEED TO GET HUMANITY OFF EARTH TO STAY !!!
:

Why?

Lake Cheko :

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=N+60+57'+49%22+E+101+51'+36%22&ie =UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=60.963339,101.860213&spn=0.00874 9,0.029182&z=15

Please do try to pay attention.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

z wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
u:

z wrote:
BradGuth wrote in
oups.com:

On Jun 22, 10:35 am, z wrote:
BradGuth wrote
groups.com:

On Jun 22, 1:55 am, z wrote:
What is the other first step? We need to get out of here
eventually -- sun only last so long.
Relocate our moon to Earth's L1, then we go for Venus (or vise
versa). -
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
BradGuth
Venus is not a place where you want to go.. sulfuric acid clouds
and 400 degree temps etc. You must be Bush's science advisor
Which other planet or moon were you silly folks planning upon going
butt naked?
dude. sulferic acid clouds and 400 degree tmps.. and nothing to
stand on and its closer to the sun. We need to get AWAY from the sun
-- its due to blow up!
That'll be news to most people. The sun is too small.

It is slowly warming up though, which will become an issue sooner or
later.

Sylvia.


well its due to go red giant right? And so it'll become much larger and
occupy the space where the earth is now (thus it will 'blow up'.. like a
puffer fish, rather than an explosion). The Earth may well get pushed
out to a wider orbit, but believe me. We need to be well gone by then!!!

I'm would be reluctant to describe an event that will occur in 5,000
million years time to be "due", at least, not without stating the timescale.

If we just say "the train is due" we mean that it should be arriving
pretty much any moment now.

I don't see the Earth being pushed out into a wider orbit as a result of
the Sun's expansion into a red giant. More likely it will just be
vapourised.

Sylvia.

z wrote:

:
:well its due to go red giant right? And so it'll become much larger and
ccupy the space where the earth is now (thus it will 'blow up'.. like a
uffer fish, rather than an explosion). The Earth may well get pushed
ut to a wider orbit, but believe me. We need to be well gone by then!!!
:

Well, I certainly expect to be...


--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Sylvia Else wrote in
:

z wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
u:

z wrote:
BradGuth wrote in
oups.com:

On Jun 22, 10:35 am, z wrote:
BradGuth wrote
groups.com:

On Jun 22, 1:55 am, z wrote:
What is the other first step? We need to get out of here
eventually -- sun only last so long.
Relocate our moon to Earth's L1, then we go for Venus (or vise
versa). -
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
BradGuth
Venus is not a place where you want to go.. sulfuric acid clouds
and 400 degree temps etc. You must be Bush's science advisor
Which other planet or moon were you silly folks planning upon
going butt naked?
dude. sulferic acid clouds and 400 degree tmps.. and nothing to
stand on and its closer to the sun. We need to get AWAY from the
sun -- its due to blow up!
That'll be news to most people. The sun is too small.

It is slowly warming up though, which will become an issue sooner or
later.

Sylvia.


well its due to go red giant right? And so it'll become much larger
and occupy the space where the earth is now (thus it will 'blow up'..
like a puffer fish, rather than an explosion). The Earth may well
get pushed out to a wider orbit, but believe me. We need to be well
gone by then!!!

I'm would be reluctant to describe an event that will occur in 5,000
million years time to be "due", at least, not without stating the
timescale.

If we just say "the train is due" we mean that it should be arriving
pretty much any moment now.

I don't see the Earth being pushed out into a wider orbit as a result
of the Sun's expansion into a red giant. More likely it will just be
vapourised.

Sylvia.


Ya well you know how when you get procrastinating and next think you
know.. So I figure its better to get out sooner than later.

For one thing the ol sun just might decide do increase output by 5% or
any number of things could just wipe us out.

No reason to stick around to the last minute

On Jun 22, 10:11 pm, kT wrote:
Len wrote:

....snip,,,

Anybody who still thinks we're still living in the NACA age needs a
little heads up.

Unfortunately, we are not living in the NACA age.
It's just that some of us feel that NACA-type
management was far superior to NASA-type
management.

....snip...

How do you infer that? We're all losers. All I see everywhere I look in
America is a bunch of ignorant redneck hillbillies more concerned about
their pickup trucks and SUVs and McMansions than they are about Earth,
totally disconnected from both nature, the universe, and reality itself.

I don't totally disagree with this. But compensation
schemes--together with appropriate incentives for
better behaviour--may be able to balance this out without
one "holier than thou" group dictating to another
group that may have less than admirable behavior.


Climate control is likely to be a zero-sum
game. However, you are so lofty, knowledgeable,
and would-be omnipotent, that playing god with
all of humanity doesn't seem to phase you
with respect to what some of us feel is
responsible behaviour.

I'm not talking about controlling the climate, Len, I'm just saying
let's clean up the space station and pin the carbon dioxide
concentration to a level which will prevent future ice ages. Clearly
that level is in the range of roughly 300 to 320 ppm CO2 according to
paleoclimatology. Sun shades and crap work well for space stations, not
full blown water and ice bearing nickel iron cored rock mantled planets.

Au contraire. With good enough space transportation,
then truly massive approaches may become economically,
as well as technically reasonable. This doesn't mean that
we shouldn't address the emissions problem at the same
time. Complex problems usually require complex,
multi-facet solutions.

Perhaps space shields, mirrors, and/or scatterers
that compensate for harm may be technically,
economically, and socially appropriate; but again,
this is probably not primarily a NASA job--although
NASA could well be involved.

I intend on making it NASA's job, on January 20, 2009, by rewriting
NASA's charter back to National Atmospheric and Space Administration.

Well, as a "small-l" libertarian, I don't have a lot
of use for either major party. And the Republicans
have had their share of screwups. So changes
on January 20, 2009 could well happen. However,
I hope that this doesn't mean that we end up
with a bunch of well-intentioned, but lame-brained
edicts that do not solve the problem, but cause
considerable mischief in the process. "Carrot"
schemes would be more welcome than edicted
"stick" shemes.
....

Wow, I'm just speechless. I certainly haven't mentioned any of those
lame proposals. All I am proposing is using NOAA and NASA to demonstrate
credible some solar and hydrogen propulsion solutions to the energy
conversion problem, and to scrub the atmosphere back to 320 ppm CO2.

I am certainly not against greener approaches to
supplying and using energy--providing they really
provide a net gain when the total picture is analyzed
objectively. Many of the proposed schemes are
likely to turn out to be unrealistic.

What, pray tell, is unrealistic about zero emission energy conversion
and energy conservation theorems in general? I see nothing in the laws
of physics that prevent this sort of approach to energy conversion.

Nothing wrong with "zero emission" as a goal,
but don't expect it to be real with full accounting.
We probably agree that good space transportion
--whatever that means to each of us--could result
in new energy supply options that are technically
and economically sound. BTW, I think that
conservation offers the best near-term solution
for cutting the size of the problem down. I have
proposed ideas that would store energy wasted
at night by big plants for use during peak-demand,
peak-demand periods. At the present time,
peak-power demand is probably a bigger problem
for production of electricity than energy.

We could end up
wrecking the world's economies, and not really solving
the problem.

The world economy is the problem, Len. It's fraudulent, just like the
Bush administration, clearly it must be wrecked in order to proceed.
Nature will easily accomplish that for me, in very short order too.
Either you can get on board, or you can suffer the consequences.

Addressing the overall problem in terms
of compensating for man-caused deleterious inputs to
the atmosphere and the environment deserves
consideration--along with other potential solutions.

Yak yak yak, that's all you old farts do.

These are hardly lame proposals; some of us feel that
such proposals could turn out to be better thought-out
--and much more practical--than some of the proposed
"edicts" that could turn out to be rather lame-brained
under objective analysis.

Like us conservation theorists, for instance.

I like conservation schemes.

We should also keep man-caused effects in proper
perspective to long-term natural variations in the
world's climate.

When all else fails, invoke denialism.

This does not mean we should not
make reasonable efforts to minimize, eliminate--or
compensate for--man-caused deleterious inputs
to the environment.

Which would be ... civilization itself!

Get off your high horse and do some
serious, practical thinking.

I'm the guy with the single SSME powered SSTO, Len, you're the guy with
the unrealistic space plane, remember?

With a sufficient degree of optimism, I can
make a four-SSME SSTO--with a stowed
rotor for landing--work. SSTO won't
come in smaller sizes without some presently
unrealistic technology. IMO, my TSTO
Space Van 2011 requires a lot less optimism.

Hydrogen propulsion--a steam rocket--has always
been appealling to me from the environmental
point of view. However, I'm not sure that there
aren't siginicant NOx aspects. Our current vehicle
uses only LOx / kero in both stages. This is a lot
more practical than LOx / LH2--and perhaps not
all that much worse from the environmental point
of view. Both sets of propellants appear to be
far more environmentally acceptable than solids.

You don't have a monopoly on such thinking.

From the looks of it, apparently I do, unless you know of some other
individual who promotes straight forward cryogenic propulsion.

In fact, it's looking more and more like you
don't even have a clue.

Good luck with that futuristic space plane.

I'll take that from the sincere, rather than
satirical point of view. And the same to you.

Len

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Len wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:11 pm, kT wrote:
Len wrote:

...snip,,,
Anybody who still thinks we're still living in the NACA age needs a
little heads up.

Unfortunately, we are not living in the NACA age.
It's just that some of us feel that NACA-type
management was far superior to NASA-type
management.

And all without personal computers. The good old days are coming back.

...snip...
How do you infer that? We're all losers. All I see everywhere I look in
America is a bunch of ignorant redneck hillbillies more concerned about
their pickup trucks and SUVs and McMansions than they are about Earth,
totally disconnected from both nature, the universe, and reality itself.

I don't totally disagree with this. But compensation
schemes--together with appropriate incentives for
better behaviour--may be able to balance this out without
one "holier than thou" group dictating to another
group that may have less than admirable behavior.

Nature and reality in a violent universe is holier than thine nonsense.

Climate control is likely to be a zero-sum
game. However, you are so lofty, knowledgeable,
and would-be omnipotent, that playing god with
all of humanity doesn't seem to phase you
with respect to what some of us feel is
responsible behaviour.
I'm not talking about controlling the climate, Len, I'm just saying
let's clean up the space station and pin the carbon dioxide
concentration to a level which will prevent future ice ages. Clearly
that level is in the range of roughly 300 to 320 ppm CO2 according to
paleoclimatology. Sun shades and crap work well for space stations, not
full blown water and ice bearing nickel iron cored rock mantled planets.

Au contraire. With good enough space transportation,
then truly massive approaches may become economically,
as well as technically reasonable. This doesn't mean that
we shouldn't address the emissions problem at the same
time. Complex problems usually require complex,
multi-facet solutions.

Which is why America is returning to the moon with J2s.

With idiots like you and Jim Muncie in charge, 4:20 PM can't come soon
enough for us reality based afficianados.

Perhaps space shields, mirrors, and/or scatterers
that compensate for harm may be technically,
economically, and socially appropriate; but again,
this is probably not primarily a NASA job--although
NASA could well be involved.
I intend on making it NASA's job, on January 20, 2009, by rewriting
NASA's charter back to National Atmospheric and Space Administration.

Well, as a "small-l" libertarian, I don't have a lot
of use for either major party. And the Republicans
have had their share of screwups.


Let's see, George W. Bush stole two elections, lied us into a war that
killed more American citizens than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
combined, bankrupted the country, and trashed space, life and earth
sciences to support a space program that will set us back 40 years,
which he demonstrably doesn't even support. Minor screwups all.

So changes
on January 20, 2009 could well happen. However,
I hope that this doesn't mean that we end up
with a bunch of well-intentioned, but lame-brained
edicts that do not solve the problem, but cause
considerable mischief in the process. "Carrot"
schemes would be more welcome than edicted
"stick" shemes.

You are one stupid ****. Fiddle that fiddle, while the adults try to put
out a forest fires that you started by burning your trash in a drought.

Wow, I'm just speechless. I certainly haven't mentioned any of those
lame proposals. All I am proposing is using NOAA and NASA to demonstrate
credible some solar and hydrogen propulsion solutions to the energy
conversion problem, and to scrub the atmosphere back to 320 ppm CO2.
I am certainly not against greener approaches to
supplying and using energy--providing they really
provide a net gain when the total picture is analyzed
objectively. Many of the proposed schemes are
likely to turn out to be unrealistic.
What, pray tell, is unrealistic about zero emission energy conversion
and energy conservation theorems in general? I see nothing in the laws
of physics that prevent this sort of approach to energy conversion.

Nothing wrong with "zero emission" as a goal,
but don't expect it to be real with full accounting.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../electrol.html

Looks real enough to me, where do you get your physics, the Journal of
Business Administration? Oh, I forgot you're a fascist, oops, I mean a
libertarian. Sorry. Silly me.

We probably agree that good space transportion
--whatever that means to each of us--could result
in new energy supply options that are technically
and economically sound. BTW, I think that
conservation offers the best near-term solution
for cutting the size of the problem down. I have
proposed ideas that would store energy wasted
at night by big plants for use during peak-demand,
peak-demand periods. At the present time,
peak-power demand is probably a bigger problem
for production of electricity than energy.

So an asteroid is headed for Earth, and you're swatting mosquitos.

Carbon dioxide is at 383 ppm and rising at 2 ppm/year, and you are
talking about cutting back slightly. Science is ever so optimistic.

We could end up
wrecking the world's economies, and not really solving
the problem.

The world economy is the problem, Len. It's fraudulent, just like the
Bush administration, clearly it must be wrecked in order to proceed.
Nature will easily accomplish that for me, in very short order too.
Either you can get on board, or you can suffer the consequences.

Addressing the overall problem in terms
of compensating for man-caused deleterious inputs to
the atmosphere and the environment deserves
consideration--along with other potential solutions.
Yak yak yak, that's all you old farts do.

These are hardly lame proposals; some of us feel that
such proposals could turn out to be better thought-out
--and much more practical--than some of the proposed
"edicts" that could turn out to be rather lame-brained
under objective analysis.
Like us conservation theorists, for instance.

I like conservation schemes.

You've just got a problem with conservation theorems.

We should also keep man-caused effects in proper
perspective to long-term natural variations in the
world's climate.
When all else fails, invoke denialism.

This does not mean we should not
make reasonable efforts to minimize, eliminate--or
compensate for--man-caused deleterious inputs
to the environment.
Which would be ... civilization itself!

Get off your high horse and do some
serious, practical thinking.
I'm the guy with the single SSME powered SSTO, Len, you're the guy with
the unrealistic space plane, remember?

With a sufficient degree of optimism, I can
make a four-SSME SSTO--with a stowed
rotor for landing--work. SSTO won't
come in smaller sizes without some presently
unrealistic technology.

Any number of SSMEs will work. The SSME is a SSTO rated engine.

IMO, my TSTO
Space Van 2011 requires a lot less optimism.

Less optimism than an SSTO rated engine that already exists by the
dozens, and has flown almost 350 times? Fascists sure are optimistic.

Hydrogen propulsion--a steam rocket--has always
been appealling to me from the environmental
point of view. However, I'm not sure that there
aren't siginicant NOx aspects. Our current vehicle
uses only LOx / kero in both stages. This is a lot
more practical than LOx / LH2--and perhaps not
all that much worse from the environmental point
of view. Both sets of propellants appear to be
far more environmentally acceptable than solids.

So you propose that we embark on an propulsion development program with
little or no actually basis in history. That's a wonderful faith based
approach to engine and launch development. What refreshing change from
NASAs approach of repeating past glories with nearly identical hardware.

You don't have a monopoly on such thinking.
From the looks of it, apparently I do, unless you know of some other
individual who promotes straight forward cryogenic propulsion.

In fact, it's looking more and more like you
don't even have a clue.

Good luck with that futuristic space plane.

I'll take that from the sincere, rather than
satirical point of view. And the same to you.

Whatever. You'll be gone soon, and your grandchildren will have to pick
up the pieces and start over. It's so grand that you are educating them
with the wonderful programming of mainstream media and television, so
they'll be eminently prepared to handle the problems of the future.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On Jun 23, 11:23 am, kT wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:11 pm, kT wrote:
Len wrote:

...snip...lots of irrelevant comments....

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../electrol.html

Interesting and good--but hardly full accounting.
I personally believe electrolysis of water in orbit
and on Earth has a lot of potential. So I am not
about to knock it.

Looks real enough to me, where do you get your physics, the Journal of
Business Administration? Oh, I forgot you're a fascist, oops, I mean a
libertarian. Sorry. Silly me.

Libertarian is diametrically opposed to fascism;
you were expecting perhaps Lyndon LaRouche?
Your ignorance is glowing brightly.
BTW, my degree is in physics from the
University of California.

....snip...

Get off your high horse and do some
serious, practical thinking.
I'm the guy with the single SSME powered SSTO, Len, you're the guy with
the unrealistic space plane, remember?

With a sufficient degree of optimism, I can
make a four-SSME SSTO--with a stowed
rotor for landing--work. SSTO won't
come in smaller sizes without some presently
unrealistic technology.

Any number of SSMEs will work. The SSME is a SSTO rated engine.

Boy, that is some non-sequitur.
Again your ignorance is glowing brightly.

IMO, my TSTO
Space Van 2011 requires a lot less optimism.

Less optimism than an SSTO rated engine that already exists by the
dozens, and has flown almost 350 times? Fascists sure are optimistic.

Hydrogen propulsion--a steam rocket--has always
been appealling to me from the environmental
point of view. However, I'm not sure that there
aren't siginicant NOx aspects. Our current vehicle
uses only LOx / kero in both stages. This is a lot
more practical than LOx / LH2--and perhaps not
all that much worse from the environmental point
of view. Both sets of propellants appear to be
far more environmentally acceptable than solids.

So you propose that we embark on an propulsion development program with
little or no actually basis in history.

No I am talking about well-proven, well-tested
Russian/Aerojet engines that are far more reliable
than the SSME. The NK-33 in the first stage
is highly reliable with remarkable perfromance.
The RD-0124/0125 is derived from the RD-110,
which has flown many times more than the
SSME without a failure.

....

Whatever. You'll be gone soon,

....don't count on it--I may surprise you with
what we expect to accomplish in the next
five years....

and your grandchildren will have to pick
up the pieces and start over. It's so grand that you are educating them
with the wonderful programming of mainstream media and television, so
they'll be eminently prepared to handle the problems of the future.

Where do you get all of this incorrect,
irrelevant bull****?

Len

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html