Cheap Access to Space

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:35:21 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Most reputable economists are stupid and ignorant too. All this has in
fact been thrashed out by the EU. EU rules do not allow nationalised
indusries to compete directly for precisely the reasons given.

Your nutty fantasies about what I want, or am "inclined to want" have
nothing to do with what economists think, or EU rules.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep showing your complete ignorance of everything. It should be
obvious to anyone that you cannot have a nationalized industry with a
large subsidy competing in the marketplace. However you seem ununually
dense.

If you are talking about fantasies - well space colonies and space
tourism really are. As I have said before what you want is space
tourism based on an industry which is both nationalized and
subsidized.

Again talking about my fantasies. I speak (and read) French and German
fluently. Seeing a translation was NOT a fantasy. Google has achieved
what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. To
listen to ypou one can only come to two conculsions. The first of
these is that space cannot survive in the commercial world. Progress
cannot be made without a massive subsidy. Computing and AI are doing
very well without subsidies without which space by your own admission
cannot surviive. The second is of course the fact that the US can
never win hearts and minds anywhere.

To my way of thinking there is only one justification for bucking a
market, and that is to level it for the less fortunate. Provide
Medicare and Medicade. Socialism for the rich is fascism, it is
National Socialism.

You really should seek treatment for your attention deficit problem.
Not to mention your inability to follow or complete a train of
thought.

On 19 Dec, 23:04, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:35:21 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:





A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Most reputable economists are stupid and ignorant too. All this has in
fact been thrashed out by the EU. EU rules do not allow nationalised
indusries to compete directly for precisely the reasons given.

Your nutty fantasies about what I want, or am "inclined to want" have
nothing to do with what economists think, or EU rules.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep showing your complete ignorance of everything. It should be
obvious to anyone that you cannot have a nationalized industry with a
large subsidy competing in the marketplace. However you seem ununually
dense.

If you are talking about fantasies - well space colonies and space
tourism really are. As I have said before what you want is space
tourism based on an industry which is both nationalized and
subsidized.

Again talking about my fantasies. I speak (and read) French and German
fluently. Seeing a translation was NOT a fantasy. Google has achieved
what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. To
listen to ypou one can only come to two conculsions. The first of
these is that space cannot survive in the commercial world. Progress
cannot be made without a massive subsidy. Computing and AI are doing
very well without subsidies without which space by your own admission
cannot surviive. The second is of course the fact that the US can
never win hearts and minds anywhere.

To my way of thinking there is only one justification for bucking a
market, and that is to level it for the less fortunate. Provide
Medicare and Medicade. Socialism for the rich is fascism, it is
National Socialism.

You really should seek treatment for your attention deficit problem.
Not to mention your inability to follow or complete a train of
thought.- Hide quoted text -

Well for a start you never make a point by point reply. You always
respond with general abuse, so who are you to talk.

To me Capitalism represents truth. Under a Captalist system assertions
can be tested. Under Socialism every fact is spun, that is probably
why you like it.

Let us take a few simple facts. Risk - The Suttle was safe. It made
120 flights with 2 total losses. This would hardly impress any
underwriter. Under a capitalist system underwriters at Lloyds, have to
provide capital themseves and have unlimited liability. The
traditional phrase is "the buttons on your shirt". In the 18th century
fashionable shirts had expensive buttons.

Sylvia Else has taked abut a resusable vehicle making 250 flights and
the insurance issues. To me it is absolutely clear that if there is
any question of a vehicle NOT making 500 flights the ordinary Joe
should not be riding on it. The people to decide on 500 flights should
not be NASA but Lloyds. If they are happy with their buttons. The
insurance industry is traditionally cautious and looks for an
actuarial precedent.

I would in fact go further than privatising NASA, I would also
privatise the State Department, or at any rate that part of it that
gives advice to travellers. If Condolezza Rice wants to replace Assad
with some Mullah - new tyrants for old, she should not be making
dishonest risk assessments. BTW - Typically American - apparantly
being a lesbian is more important than all the lies she has told.
Still perhaps she should be condemned for being a lesbian. After all
she is backing the people who would impose a death penalty.


- Ian Parker

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:52:20 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On 19 Dec, 23:04, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:35:21 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:





A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Most reputable economists are stupid and ignorant too. All this has in
fact been thrashed out by the EU. EU rules do not allow nationalised
indusries to compete directly for precisely the reasons given.

Your nutty fantasies about what I want, or am "inclined to want" have
nothing to do with what economists think, or EU rules.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep showing your complete ignorance of everything. It should be
obvious to anyone that you cannot have a nationalized industry with a
large subsidy competing in the marketplace. However you seem ununually
dense.

If you are talking about fantasies - well space colonies and space
tourism really are. As I have said before what you want is space
tourism based on an industry which is both nationalized and
subsidized.

Again talking about my fantasies. I speak (and read) French and German
fluently. Seeing a translation was NOT a fantasy. Google has achieved
what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. To
listen to ypou one can only come to two conculsions. The first of
these is that space cannot survive in the commercial world. Progress
cannot be made without a massive subsidy. Computing and AI are doing
very well without subsidies without which space by your own admission
cannot surviive. The second is of course the fact that the US can
never win hearts and minds anywhere.

To my way of thinking there is only one justification for bucking a
market, and that is to level it for the less fortunate. Provide
Medicare and Medicade. Socialism for the rich is fascism, it is
National Socialism.

You really should seek treatment for your attention deficit problem.
Not to mention your inability to follow or complete a train of
thought.- Hide quoted text -

Well for a start you never make a point by point reply. You always
respond with general abuse, so who are you to talk.

Most of your "points" are too nutty, stupid, rambling, and
disconnected to waste time replying to.

On 20 Dec, 13:30, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:52:20 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:





On 19 Dec, 23:04, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:35:21 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Most reputable economists are stupid and ignorant too. All this has in
fact been thrashed out by the EU. EU rules do not allow nationalised
indusries to compete directly for precisely the reasons given.

Your nutty fantasies about what I want, or am "inclined to want" have
nothing to do with what economists think, or EU rules.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep showing your complete ignorance of everything. It should be
obvious to anyone that you cannot have a nationalized industry with a
large subsidy competing in the marketplace. However you seem ununually
dense.

If you are talking about fantasies - well space colonies and space
tourism really are. As I have said before what you want is space
tourism based on an industry which is both nationalized and
subsidized.

Again talking about my fantasies. I speak (and read) French and German
fluently. Seeing a translation was NOT a fantasy. Google has achieved
what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. To
listen to ypou one can only come to two conculsions. The first of
these is that space cannot survive in the commercial world. Progress
cannot be made without a massive subsidy. Computing and AI are doing
very well without subsidies without which space by your own admission
cannot surviive. The second is of course the fact that the US can
never win hearts and minds anywhere.

To my way of thinking there is only one justification for bucking a
market, and that is to level it for the less fortunate. Provide
Medicare and Medicade. Socialism for the rich is fascism, it is
National Socialism.

You really should seek treatment for your attention deficit problem.
Not to mention your inability to follow or complete a train of
thought.- Hide quoted text -

Well for a start you never make a point by point reply. You always
respond with general abuse, so who are you to talk.

Most of your "points" are too nutty, stupid, rambling, and
disconnected to waste time replying to.- Hide quoted text -

Which ones? Point by point. This is supposed to be a scientific
discussion group. We require a point by point rebuttal. My point
essentially is that of credibility. Until you have made 10,000 flights
accident free all risk analysis is pure spin. That is one reason why
tourism cannot be the killer app except in another sense of the word.

Lets have a little reality.


- Ian Parker

On 17 Dec, 08:22, "Jim Relsh" wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message

...





Jim Relsh wrote:
wrote in message
...
There has been lots of interest in Scramjets because of their
potential to lower the cost of access to space, or Single Stage to
Orbit as a means of lowering cost of access to space.

I personally believe we won't see cheap (as in: every ordinary Joe can go
into space for the price of an expensive airplane ticket) access to space
for hundreds of years. Why? Because no matter how you view it we're still
using good-old fashioned momentum-transfer technology where we spit out
something in one direction and we and the rocket move in the other.
Rocket technology is and will most likely continue to be the easiest and
best way to get into space but due to the size and explosiveness of these
vehicles it will remain something of a hazardous experience making it
impossible to launch millions of people into space.

If we can make a anti-gravitic drive which is relatively cheap to build,
small and uses a safe nuclear power source will mass-transportation into
space be possible. But this first requires full-understanding of the laws
of physics which we, at the moment, don't have and could be decades or
hundreds of years away.

I'd say that we have a very good hold on the laws of physics in so far as
they impact on space travel. The anti-gravitic drive is just science
fiction, and there's absolutely no reason to think that such a thing is
possible.

Our understanding of the laws of physics only allows for non-FTL drive kind
of propulsion. For us to really become a space-faring race we need to be
able to understand the laws of physics completely so we can determine if FTL
travel is possible, and if so, how.

Momentum transfer drives are simply to cumbersome to allow for cost
effective mass transport of people into space. My example of a anti-gravitic
drive is just a possible example, it may be something completely different.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

The question of FTL is bound up in terms of the theory of Relativity
by time travel. In crude terms of special relattivity we can point to
the Lorenz transformation equations. In one frame of reference you are
travelling FTL, in another you are going backwards in time.

An interesting thread is the following from sci.physics.research

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...d348ca1a2599a4

This started off with a proposal to use quantum entanglement to convey
information FTL. As I pointed out all entanglement experiments can be
transformed using SU2 (Lorentz can be written in this form) hence any
FTL behaviour must be a paradox. A little bit more sophisticated that
rods passing over holes, but a paradox none the less.

There is some interesting discussion as to the grandfather paradox.
You cannot go back and kill your grandfather. Someone in a thread
suggested that you ask your grandmother to guess under pain of death
the factors of a product of two large primes (RSA). This, in effect,
is what a quantum mechanical computer will be doing when it factorizes
for RSA. Well not exacltly, it will use Aitken's algorithm, and simply
use the quantum "parallelism" to perform calculations with a low bit
number.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027

This is an extremely interesting paper, or I think it is. It allows a
limited time travel, time travel for particles with a quantum
uncertainty. The past is fixed and an uncertainty principle applies to
the future.

It would seem therefore that FTL is completely impossible for bulk
matter, that is to say spaceships. Particles are tremendously
interesting from a theoretical stand point but are of little
consequence here.

There are principles that do not violate relativity or causation and
which are fruitful approaches. Building a Von Neumann machine, using
the resources of space, putting space ships in quadratures are all
avenues that we can explore.

There is one thing that worries me about this group in general. I do
not believe that it is the place to put forward any sort of new idea,
sound or unsound. Personally I like to have a lot of ideas that are
unsound, but only just. Something might even be built out of them. I
do not believe either that this is really a scientific group.

In science we are sometime, perhaps often, wrong. We do however :-

a) Express views which we believe sincerely at the time to be right.
b) Do a proper analysis of why the viewpoint is unsound.

I have looked at FTL from a relativistic view point. The viewing of
tachyons from a quantum uncertainty perspective is something which can
be carried forward. But not spaceships.


- Ian Parker

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:32:57 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


To my way of thinking there is only one justification for bucking a
market, and that is to level it for the less fortunate. Provide
Medicare and Medicade. Socialism for the rich is fascism, it is
National Socialism.

You really should seek treatment for your attention deficit problem.
Not to mention your inability to follow or complete a train of
thought.- Hide quoted text -

Well for a start you never make a point by point reply. You always
respond with general abuse, so who are you to talk.

Most of your "points" are too nutty, stupid, rambling, and
disconnected to waste time replying to.- Hide quoted text -

Which ones? Point by point. This is supposed to be a scientific
discussion group. We require a point by point rebuttal.

As I said, one can't make a "point-by-point" rebuttal when the
"points" ramble meaninglessly and incoherently from one to another, as
yours almost always do. Generally, the only time I respond to you is
when you express your unsupported delusions about what I think and
say, which unfortunately continues to occur on an almost daily basis.

My point
essentially is that of credibility. Until you have made 10,000 flights
accident free all risk analysis is pure spin. That is one reason why
tourism cannot be the killer app except in another sense of the word.

Yet another rambling change of subject.

Lets have a little reality.

Physician, heal thyself. Let's have a little sanity. Or perhaps a
medication increase or decrease for Ian.

On 20 Dec, 15:50, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:32:57 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:





To my way of thinking there is only one justification for bucking a
market, and that is to level it for the less fortunate. Provide
Medicare and Medicade. Socialism for the rich is fascism, it is
National Socialism.

You really should seek treatment for your attention deficit problem.
Not to mention your inability to follow or complete a train of
thought.- Hide quoted text -

Well for a start you never make a point by point reply. You always
respond with general abuse, so who are you to talk.

Most of your "points" are too nutty, stupid, rambling, and
disconnected to waste time replying to.- Hide quoted text -

Which ones? Point by point. This is supposed to be a scientific
discussion group. We require a point by point rebuttal.

As I said, one can't make a "point-by-point" rebuttal when the
"points" ramble meaninglessly and incoherently from one to another, as
yours almost always do. *Generally, the only time I respond to you is
when you express your unsupported delusions about what I think and
say, which unfortunately continues to occur on an almost daily basis.

My point
essentially is that of credibility. Until you have made 10,000 flights
accident free all risk analysis is pure spin. That is one reason why
tourism cannot be the killer app except in another sense of the word.

Yet another rambling change of subject.

Lets have a little reality.

Physician, heal thyself. *Let's have a little sanity. *Or perhaps a
medication increase or decrease for Ian.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words you can't.

- Ian Parker

On Dec 19, 7:36 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 19 Dec, 13:34, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:49:02 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Their more than qualified expertise in such physics and now more than
proven as reliable fly-by-rocket technology doesn't or at least
shouldn't require a "lost leader", especially when just about every
other nation on Earth is begging for the best and least cost
alternatives of getting the most of whatever payload deployed while
using the best failsafe of methods in exchange for each of their hard
earned loot. Unless artificially created by the likes of us, there's
no ulterior or even perpetrated cold-war motives for China to fail at
delivering the most rocket deployed bang for our badly energy inflated
buck, perhaps a good enough deal for us even if they charged ten fold
whatever it's costing for the same as having deployed one of their
own.
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know whether this is true of false but any claim needs
extensive verification.

You can count on almost anything Guth writes being false. If you were
a little smarter, you'd have realized that years ago, as we have.

As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator.

You postulate nonsense. NASA has no such role.- Hide quoted text -

First of all Brad Guth. Where he is taking about Venus not being hot -

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????

Where exactly have I ever once said such a silly thing?


BTW, why do you folks or perhaps something robo about Usenet keep
running those words together, so that whatever 'search for' does not
work properly?

I happen to agree that our "NASA is incompetant" (incompetent).
- Brad Guth

On 21 Dec, 12:54, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 19, 7:36 am, Ian Parker wrote:





On 19 Dec, 13:34, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:49:02 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Their more than qualified expertise in such physics and now more than
proven as reliable fly-by-rocket technology doesn't or at least
shouldn't require a "lost leader", especially when just about every
other nation on Earth is begging for the best and least cost
alternatives of getting the most of whatever payload deployed while
using the best failsafe of methods in exchange for each of their hard
earned loot. *Unless artificially created by the likes of us, there's
no ulterior or even perpetrated cold-war motives for China to fail at
delivering the most rocket deployed bang for our badly energy inflated
buck, perhaps a good enough deal for us even if they charged ten fold
whatever it's costing for the same as having deployed one of their
own.
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know whether this is true of false but any claim needs
extensive verification.

You can count on almost anything Guth writes being false. *If you were
a little smarter, you'd have realized that years ago, as we have.

As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator.

You postulate nonsense. *NASA has no such role.- Hide quoted text -

First of all Brad Guth. Where he is taking about Venus not being hot -

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????

Where exactly have I ever once said such a silly thing?

BTW, why do you folks or perhaps something robo about Usenet keep
running those words together, so that whatever 'search for' does not
work properly?

I happen to agree that our "NASA is incompetant" (incompetent).
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

You have posted several times on Venus. That is bye and bye.

I think the real question about NASA is what it is being asked to do
and the evvironment in which it works. NASA was set up in the cold war
for nationalistic reasons. The mission given by President Kennedy was
to get to the Moon first. reason - National Prestige. My main beef
with Rand and to some extent with Fred McCall is that they don't
answer straight questions.

1) What is the purpose of space? Is it the Kennedy "national prestige"
or is it something different.

2) If it is not "national prestige" why cant it be treated the same as
anything else. T shirts for example.

3) Are military uses an important comsideration?

4) Is space tourism a main driver or is it something else?

5) What level of risk is appropriate for space tourists (that is the
ordinary Joe) and how is this risk quantified. I can't trust
establishment figures seeing the way they spin risks in other areas.
BTW - It is NOT a good idea to get rid of Assad anyway, relevant in so
far as it shows general levels of competance. I want a simple unspun
actuarial risk. That is what I am talking about.

You simply can't pin anyone down to a straight answer. In the thread

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...9e779bfb?hl=en

we see that something like $3million is being spent just on a
feasibility study for a fully reusable space vehicle. It is, at best,
a fair way in the future. At last we have recognition of that fact.

I am indeed not Jewish but I do find your antisemitism a little bit
off putting. The Jews work hard and develop their intellects to the
full. Something the Arabs have got to learn to do. Assad in in fact
trying to teach them, but the camel is stubborn.


- Ian Parker

On Dec 21, 11:41 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 21 Dec, 12:54, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 19, 7:36 am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 19 Dec, 13:34, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:49:02 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Their more than qualified expertise in such physics and now more than
proven as reliable fly-by-rocket technology doesn't or at least
shouldn't require a "lost leader", especially when just about every
other nation on Earth is begging for the best and least cost
alternatives of getting the most of whatever payload deployed while
using the best failsafe of methods in exchange for each of their hard
earned loot. Unless artificially created by the likes of us, there's
no ulterior or even perpetrated cold-war motives for China to fail at
delivering the most rocket deployed bang for our badly energy inflated
buck, perhaps a good enough deal for us even if they charged ten fold
whatever it's costing for the same as having deployed one of their
own.
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know whether this is true of false but any claim needs
extensive verification.

You can count on almost anything Guth writes being false. If you were
a little smarter, you'd have realized that years ago, as we have.

As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator.

You postulate nonsense. NASA has no such role.- Hide quoted text -

First of all Brad Guth. Where he is taking about Venus not being hot -

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????

Where exactly have I ever once said such a silly thing?

BTW, why do you folks or perhaps something robo about Usenet keep
running those words together, so that whatever 'search for' does not
work properly?

I happen to agree that our "NASA is incompetant" (incompetent).
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

You have posted several times on Venus. That is bye and bye.

I think the real question about NASA is what it is being asked to do
and the evvironment in which it works. NASA was set up in the cold war
for nationalistic reasons. The mission given by President Kennedy was
to get to the Moon first. reason - National Prestige. My main beef
with Rand and to some extent with Fred McCall is that they don't
answer straight questions.

1) What is the purpose of space? Is it the Kennedy "national prestige"
or is it something different.

2) If it is not "national prestige" why cant it be treated the same as
anything else. T shirts for example.

3) Are military uses an important comsideration?

4) Is space tourism a main driver or is it something else?

5) What level of risk is appropriate for space tourists (that is the
ordinary Joe) and how is this risk quantified. I can't trust
establishment figures seeing the way they spin risks in other areas.
BTW - It is NOT a good idea to get rid of Assad anyway, relevant in so
far as it shows general levels of competance. I want a simple unspun
actuarial risk. That is what I am talking about.

You simply can't pin anyone down to a straight answer. In the thread

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/9...

we see that something like $3million is being spent just on a
feasibility study for a fully reusable space vehicle. It is, at best,
a fair way in the future. At last we have recognition of that fact.

I am indeed not Jewish but I do find your antisemitism a little bit
off putting. The Jews work hard and develop their intellects to the
full. Something the Arabs have got to learn to do. Assad in in fact
trying to teach them, but the camel is stubborn.

- Ian Parker

Unlike those Yids here in this mostly anti-think-tank Usenet, that as
you know sucks and blows by way of never giving anything up or much
less assisting or promoting of others (such as yourself), whereas most
other Jews that exist outside of Usenet are simply good and often
smart folks that either can't manage or perhaps wouldn't dare police
their own kind. Go figure.

As you say: "You simply can't pin anyone down to a straight answer."

How much of our MI5/CIA~NASA is isolated and/or free of those Skull
and Bones rusemasters of our mutually perpetrated cold-wars?
- Brad Guth -