GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy

Why don't you build a "Guth Sol" and fly it to its logical destination,
yourself.


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB
Discuss Bad Astronomy here!

That's sort of hard to do that if "You have been banned from this
forum"

Perhaps it had a little something to do with my space radiation page
that's not exactly favorable for supporting those Apollo missions:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

However, this is what I first posted;

Subject/title: "Venus supports other life NOT as we know it"

In spite of my dyslexia and inabilities to tollerate those solely
intent upon destroying whatever's not there idea; first of all, this
topic is not of any mere idea, it's not a conjecture based upon
another black hole of nothingness, but of what can be seen unless
you're restricted to braille format, as there's been life NOT as we
know it and perhaps (most likely) surviving on Venus and, I sincerely
believe we (that's you and I) can sufficiently prove that point, at
least a whole lot better off than you or I can prove we've been to and
walked on the moon.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-187.htm


badastronomy reply/post;

Since the rest of you disbelievers are merely snookered Borgs, pawns
in someone others game of death and death (I've excluded "life" as
even an option because so many opposing GUTH Venus simply should have
known better), are apparently not accepting any possibility of there
being other life, even if that's pertaining to their own past and/or
future existence and, especially if that's pertaining to someone
other's existance, as though that doesn't even matter.

Unlike yourself, I've made lots of mistakes, one of which was
contacting NASA over two and a half years ago, then onto many word,
syntax and even a few math mistakes, so sue me. There's still the
remains or of what's current on Venus that's not naturally formed,
unless of course you can locate something similar that's proven as
purely natural, as I'll post a link to that and insure that you
receive all the credits.

In case you haven't bothered to notice, the foundation of this
discovery has been rather remarkably benefiting from the surrounding
rugged terrain that's about as natural as it comes, even of what
terrain is found throughout the community, of terrain that's most
likely entirely natural by every definition of geology, where this
accepted natural element is what's been further defining for the
rather markable comparison between that which is well recognized and
accepted as for being natural and, of what's otherwise most likely
artificial (as in perhaps lizard made). Where the purest and
subsequently ultra negative sort of person will only concede of what's
looking so artificial is simply representing a strange and/or unusual
collection of so many unrecorded natural things that just so happened
to be collected into a highly structured community like setting, in
this instance having it's own tarmac, it's own suspension bridge, it's
own symmetrical collection of interconnected reservoirs, it's own
highrise and other massive buildings and of it's own rigid metro
airship, plus a few spheres and parabolic issues tossed in to boot,
plus excavated roadbeds just for good community infrastructure impact.

OK, I'll suppose in theory, odds being at least a trillion to one,
this purely natural sort of complex thing could happen in nature.
Though looking at what's there to be seen, it seems rather odd to
another somewhat high degree that at 180° there'd be another couple of
sites worth a closer look-see. These sites being equally elevated and
at least one of which is indicating a similar hangar/silo for that
rigid airship. OK, so we've just crossed over the line into the
trillion-trillion to one chances of that happening in nature. I'm not
sure but, either of those seem like fairly bad odds, but then I'm not
even a member of the "Right Stuff" cult, so apparently I'm not smart
enough to know about such things. This is where you come into the
picture, with even better ideas and/or proof positives either way.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com


Well folks, this following was yet another fairly complex reply I'd
posted at "Bad Astronomy" and, lo and behold, for whatever it's worth,
I can't seem to get any useful information information whatsoever
unless it's essentially the same as that published and/or moderated by
lord NASA.

badastronomy reply/post:

I'm not going to even try to answer every question, or even return all
the warm and fuzzy flak but, I'll give these few nice folks a try.

From: Musashi
"I am trying not to read things from your posts that are not there,
and I would appreciate it if you did the same. I looked at your site a
bit, and I am going to check it out some more, but there are some
organizational difficulties there and I have a hard time understanding
the point of some of the paragraphs there."

"There for example, I do not see many of the things you point out. The
aircraft, the roads, the quaries, the reserviors, the domes, etc."

"Many of the features you point out look just like other features, but
are called different things. The connection between the reservoirs
looks just like the features on the natural rock
formations. The monument looks just like 50 other blobs in the
picture. Cable crossing with passenger pod? I
don't see it."

"So, if you came here to talk to people in a rational manner, I would
cut out the snotty tone and the insulting words."


Hay Musashi, only warlord bush can still see those WMDs and, for that
little indiscretion, thousands of nice folks have bought the farm
because of it. I suppose that's perfectly OK by your anti "snotty
tone" standards of observation?

Now folks, I'm certainly not the one being the "all knowing" expert
here, just the goodwill messenger fore knowing that I still can't seem
to locate another SAR image of anything so naturally formed that looks
anything the least bit like a 2 km spanning bridge (otherwise lots of
artificial stuff), nor of those interconnected reservoirs or of any
collected community of structures, or of a rather significantly flat
and substaintil tarmac that's situated within a very mountainous plus
canyon ridge side location. Whereas my esteemed opposition seems to
have become the all knowing snott about everything being entirely
natural. Natural my ass, show me anything that's so natural and,
otherwise don't give me any of your "snotty tone" about any of it.

If you have any source of such geological images that come even
remotely close in size and/or spectrum, I'm interested to learn of
such because, the vast majority of terrain that's imaged at GUTH Venus
site No.1 is certainly entirely natural, hot rocks and all but, that
doesn't explain away the patterns of what's looking so artificially
created.


From: ocasey3
"Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the surface of Venus way too hot
to support these kinds of structures? What would they be made of?"

"Maybe the picture is a microscopic image and the structures were
built by intellegent anaerobic bacteria."


Just a few more of my dyslexic pages, along with numerous errors but,
I'm certainly wide open for not only correcting whatever but for
giving you the fullest of credits.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/heat-is-relative.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-numbers.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lizard-folk.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-air.htm

As you should know, heat is simply relative to pressure; the laws of
thermal dynamics and all, including those which involve biology. You
do realize that blood doesn't boil at such pressure, especially at the
elevated nighttime season of Venus.

As for microbes getting involved; if those complex structures were
created by any such capable microbe, then we've got ourselves a whole
lot more to worry about than of anything ET existing on Venus. Lizard
folk or not, big ass microbes with an attitude for surviving seriously
hot places is certainly a whole lot more troubling than merely
revengeful lizard folk Cathars.


From: freddo
"You're right - anything that wants to survive there is up against it:
enormous temperature and acid rain... Not my idea of a vacation spot!"

You really should know better than to stipulate "acid rain", as
there's no such thing. Haven't you heard; it's way too freaking damn
hot on Venus for there to be any rain and, without sufficient H2O (at
least nowhere near the surface), sulphur is an entirely harmless
crystal or powder but, otherwise quite useful. If you want acid rain,
for that substance you'll need a good rigid airship and, to go
nighttime fishing into those much cooler and lower elevation clouds,
where you'll have access to mega tonnes worth of pure H2O. Of course,
you need to apply the laws of physics for vacuum distilling out the
H2O portion, then perhaps doing a little something further in order to
convert it into H2O2 for safe keeping, as otherwise pure H2O will need
to be slightly pressurized and/or refrigerated. Once you've got the
H2O or that in the form of H2O2, there's several methods that'll
convert either substance into great volumes of just plain old H2 (on
demand if need be).


From: kucharek
"I'm sorry I can't really welcome Brad here. This guy is messing
around in some Usenet groups since ages with his claims only he can
see. It's impossible to change his opinion any bit. Any discussion or
argument with him his wasting time. You can imagine in which league
this guy plays..."

That's not true about "impossible to change his opinion any bit", as
I'll learn from others and, I'll even post credits as well as posting
links to whatever resources you've got that'll qualify such patterns
as for being created by natural causses. Geology and of the erosions
that contribute to creating nearly all that we see on Earth, as well
as for Mars, seems to be working just fine and dandy, so I have no
difficulty whatsoever, as I see all those common rock formations and
mountains, just as I clearly see the primary rille or channel/canyon
formation and erosions or tectonics and, I even clearl see those
secondary (newer) erosions associated with all sorts of most likely
natural causses such as the "fluid arch" consideration, unless of
course you've got another better idea and the supportive image of how
those sorts of items are not of natural formation, as in that case I
don't know what it is that you're driving at.


From: nebularain
"I remember a previous thread we had going discussing the possibility
of microscopic life in Venus' atmosphere, or something like that,
based off some article presenting the possibility. Many of us,
including myself, thought that would be interresting if true, but
there just needs to be more evidence for us to "believe" it. "

I do believe ESA's Venus Express will in fact deliver that evidence,
even though I've come to believe that life on the surface is a whole
lot more possible than not, especially when there's so freaking much
natural energy all about in order to do something for improving upon
the likelihood of survuiving a truly tough greenhouse environment.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/co2-windpower-03.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/energy-options.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/positive.htm

At least unlike Mars, Venus surface radiation isn't a factor,
especially during their cooler season of nighttime. Speaking of
radiation; I've been building my knowledge upon such the hard way, on
the "need to know" basis of doing this without the help of others a
whole lot smarter than myself. The page is becoming another worth a
look-see and, I'm entirely open for corrections and/or better ideas
for shielding something like ISS for VL2.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm


From: sts60
"Well, Brad, I looked at your site. Sorry to say, but just like
HWSNBN, your conclusions seem rather heavily over-extrapolated from
the data. I've seen plenty of natural formations which look more
artificial than the features called out in your images."

Great words of wisdom; lets see those images. I'll not only learn from
them but, I'll post a direct link as well as give you all the credits.


"I liked your bit about how nasty Earth's environment would seem to
someone evolved in Venus'. However, I must confess I didn't understand
the reference to "Islamic lizards"."

I've recently changed my views upon the Islamic factor, as they could
be Muslim lizard folk or just nasty Cathar lizard folk. I'm thinking,
if any could survive, they'll likely have to be about a tough to kill
off as bin Laden or Saddam.


"By the way, if you are trying to convince people on this board of
your views, you might want to adopt a less superior tone, and avoid
labeling everyone who disagrees with you as some sort of NASA disinfo
agent or similar term. Or at least, since you likely have put me and
several others on this board in that category, offer some evidence to
back up such a claim. (Disagreeing with you is not evidence. No, I
don't work for NASA.)"


I'm only being difficult (returning the favor) when others are
counter-imposing by their views based upon nothing whatsoever, not
willing to fork over their images of such creative natural formations
that supposedly look so much like a rational community that's hosting
a tarmac, a substantial bridge, of multiple reservoirs, an airship and
otherwise all sorts of interesting structures as wellas infrastructure
that just so happen to be located at a fairly good elevation and
within a fairly rugged one at that.

I'd have to assume, if there's no documented reference material nor
laws of science and/or of physics backing up the opposition (geology
as well as biology I believe still functions within those factors),
that there must therefore be some ulterior motive at play, perhaps
even pagan worshiping going on. Such as those Apollo pictures taken on
the moon can't possibly be used in any court of law because, there's
still no original negatives or transparencies, not to mention that so
many of those images indicated nearly 50% reflective terrain as well
as for containing illumination "hot spots", plus none of the thousands
of such images never indicated any radiation fogging nor thermal
stress (how pathetically odd).

I certainly have no problem with anyone disagreeing, though most
pro-NASA souls seem quite willing to toss out a little flak by their
stipulating that those very artificial looking patterns are merely of
common hot rock, even though there's no other image being offered of
such creative hot rocks nor even of any creative frozen and radiated
to death Mars rocks, where I'd even be receptive to polluted Earth
rocks. This discovery is hardly as pathetic nor as pixel limited as
the Mars face, although the frozen Mars forest certainly looks
interesting.

Many of my supporters that are not entirely convinced, they haven't
been so rude as to insist that everything in the image is entirely
natural, as that would not only be foolish but, it'll obviously ****
me off to no end, unless of course they're offering something of merit
in order to back up their stance, as for that I'm willing to concede.

BTW; I'm not "superior", at least nowhere as superior as most Borg and
not to mention braille opponents, as I'm only the village idiot that
can still see without utilizing a Borg implant and, one that knows
damn well what something looks like if viewed from an airplane, even
though I simply can't put two and two together without making a few
too many mistakes while also having to flinch over those involved with
the Apollo sting/ruse that has bled over into the Magellan mapping of
Venus, now adversely affecting what's to be seen in at least some of
those Magellan images. Not to mention 9/11, there's Apollo bad blood
and subsequent bad DNA just about everywhere.

So, if as you say you're not a pro-NASA Borg and, if you're the least
bit capable of working a little outside the "nondisclosure" box, then
there's lots of most interesting things to be getting involved with.
The fact that you see something other than I do is certainly not to be
unexpected, as I've been taunted by many on just about every item and
subject, such as the following page is where I've tried to focus upon
the bridge consideration, as for being one of the least complicated of
issues to discuss. If it's not a constructed bridge; then what the
hell is it?
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-bridge.htm

end of my last badastronomy post that got through:

It seems those unable to budge from the "status quo" about Venus,
among several other issues, are exactly those very same Borgs
stipulating that we accomplished exactly how and what those having
"The Right Stuff" claim, where I'll just bet they also support
invasions and subsequent killings while looking for all those
invisible WMDs (BTW; only warlord Bush can see those, and I don't see
you criticizing his vision), as somehow entirely justified. Perhaps
that warm and fuzzy analogy needs to be inclusive of all the friendly
fire and friendly war games that have taken out numerous other
military as well as a good number of our own, plus far too many
civilians (at least a half century worth). So clearly as Mr. Kucharek
stipulated that "it's impossible to change his opinion any bit" more
than equally applies to those still deeply embedded within their
cold-war process of believing in whatever disinformation comes along,
especially if that's supporting their favorite pagan religion.

Those were not necessarily bad words or inferences focused upon honest
and moral individuals, as they wouldn't have been so arrogant and
otherwise disrespectful of what the truth has to offer. Therefore, if
you're the one taking any of this poorly, as though it's somehow my
fault that so many others screwed up, so much so that your perception
is that my finger has somehow ended up pointing at yourself, perhaps
there's a connection that I'm making that's justified. After all, I'm
certain you've got nothing but despicable things to say about the
likes of bin Laden, of Hitler, of Saddam and of a few others that
somehow qualify, or at least I hope they qualify, sufficiently in
order to be within your good book of *******s, as for being entirely
deserving of whatever flak goes their way.

What it boils down to; I have absolutely nothing respectful to say to
those involved in such cold-war adventures at the expense of humanity,
not to mention of those putting our morality into the nearest toilet.
This is where skewed history, skewed science and of skewed physics
simply isn't going to cut it, as the cat is nearly out of the bag,
otherwise the horse pucky is seriously hitting the fan. Whether or not
you like it; there's some kind of other life (NOT as we know it)
residing on Venus, or at the very least there's some rather
considerable pre-greenhouse remains just sitting there in plain sight,
and darn if I don't know where there's likely more to be found.

What we need are other good or even weird ideas as to what can be
seen, plus whatever the known laws of physics and of exobiology
extremes can contribute. Your contributions are worth a great deal,
even if they're found to be incorrect, whereas your flak is going to
be coming right back at you.

Not all that bad for just a village idiot, if I don't say so myself.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS "GUTH Venus" http://guthvenus.tripod.com
and as an alternate: http://geocities.com/bradguth

You're absolutely right on, the truth stinks. I'm just glad I'm the
one that's up-wind of it all.

All that the "Bad Astronomer" needs to do, is provide your own
superior numbers and/or offer a web page that I can post a link into
(NASA moderated pictures of a clumping lunar surface that's reflecting
at nearly 50% isn't going to cut it, neither are those terrific still
photos of any frail test flight that's not likely as stable nor as
reliable as the V-22 Osprey, which can't fly either yet we've got
quality stills of it hovering before any crash and even a few movie
minutes before it crached while killing everyone onboard, even the
latest strike force vertical jet aircraft is unstable at best, that's
after throwing every possible level of modern fly-by-wire technology
that operating from a bloody cash of nearly CRAY computers that can't
miss a single bit out of millions of bits worth of instruction code
that we've got invested in the damn thing, which BTW we didn't have
back then) so, offer whatever it is that others and myself can compare
of whatever it is that you have to stipulate as opposed to my
uneducated arguments. In the mean time, I'll continue to read of what
others have to say and, I'll even do my best to understand it, even
though you seem to have far more ulterior motives at risk than you or
I can shake a flaming stick at.

In spite of others such as your pretentious club contributing squat
worth of specifics, certainly nothing but infomercials on behalf of
Club NASA, I believe I'm getting somewhat closer to understanding the
harsh environment of Earth L4 or L5, thereby I'm slowly gaining ground
upon what Venus L2 may have to offer, so that the following updated
page is becoming both "good news" and "bad news".

Here's my latest update and, as far as this village idiot can figure,
it's become somewhat worse off than I thought, at least the Van Allen
zone as representing any significant radiation buffer for Earth simply
isn't what the pro-Apollo cults have to say, even though it's a fairly
nasty place to spend any amount of time in a craft as ****-poorly
shielded as what the Apollo missions had to work with and, don't even
mention anything of TRW Space Data, as that's 27 times worse off.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

There's been another metric tonne worth of new information that I've
learned about the radiation environment at Earth L4/L5, not to mention
the greater risk imposed from secondary (X-Ray) dosage that's
attributed to solar minimum cosmic radiation interacting with the
likes of any shield and/or the lunar surface.

This is where the opposition (perhaps that's you) offers somewhat
intentional disinformation, as being tossed out like so much warm and
fuzzy flak at my position, where actually that's what's been giving me
insight and further motivation into learning what's more likely the
case than not, like what our atmosphere and of the void or space in
between Earth's atmosphere and 590 km has to offer, a factor of
roughly 274,000:1 in reducing radiation exposure as opposed to the Van
Allen zone attributing another mere 200:1 influx buffer.

For some odd reason(s), I was previously under the impression or
allusion, as kindly provided by all the pro-NASA as well as pro-Apollo
camps, that our Van Allen belts or zones were of the major benefit to
our survival, responsible for creating the bulk of Earth's shield,
achieving our current level of exposure and, if in fact the Van Allen
imposes a mere 200:1 benefit, that's certainly worth the effort, as
I'll take 1 mrem/day as opposed to 200 mrem/day any day of the week,
month or year, not to mention a lifetime that wouldn't be all that
long if we couldn't adapt/evolve into managing with such dosage.
Although, that also represents of what's existing beyond the Van Allen
zone of death is in fact considerably more irradiated hot and nasty
then we've been told, especially the likes of L4/L5 and of the moon
itself.

BTW; The moon landings are not any hoax, they just weren't manned,
because if they were there'd be a whole lot more radiation fogging of
film (especially of that thermally roasted and then subfrozen Kodak
film) and of measurably but survivable TBI dosage applied to those
otherwise radiation proof astronauts and, there'd also have been a
lunar SAR/VLA aperture receiving station (robotic) up and running as
of decades ago;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

Regards, Brad Guth "GUTH Venus"

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| All that the "Bad Astronomer" needs to do, is provide your own
| superior numbers and/or offer a web page

Try www.badastronomy.com

Oh, wait. You were banned there for being a troll.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Instead of your critiquing for the purely unadulterated sake of your
always be right criteria, just try for once to suppose someone other
needed your ideas along with a little further information or
consideration on the "what if" aspects of a relatively tiny percentage
of a certain location on Venus that's otherwise loaded with purely
natural formations as surrounding what is otherwise far more likely
artificial than not, be these of patterns entirely unusual and
otherwise entirely unrecorded as of existing anywhere other as being
so natural (including Earth).

In which case, how would you and of your superior intellect undertake
to share your ideas and to review upon the options at hand, the Darwin
double-twist at hand, the entirely unexpected surprise that's become
way more than apparent, or how about just pondering the extremely
remote possibility that you really don't know absolutely everything
there is to know about the following;

1) Other life need not be human like

2) Other life need not require nearly as much O2

3) Other life need not be as pathetically stupid as humans

4) There's actually all the O2 you could possibly want (CO2--CO/O2)

5) There actually all the H2O you could want, if you had a rigid
airship

6) Available energy is abundant, as natural and as green as you can
imagine

7) Notable structures and community infrastructure is not anything so
natural

8) If something is not natural, then what other explanation is there
but life?

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/positive.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-air.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-learned.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-bridge.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/significant-life.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-nocturnals.htm

There's a few dozen other papers that'll probably rub you the wrong
way if you're inclined to remain in staunch opposition to other life
NOT as we know of, or other intelligence NOT as we know of, or even
the pretext that's I'm just a little bit more right about the
observationology of what's existing on Venus in spite of it being so
hot and nasty, in spite of all the status quo god-like communities of
astronomy, astrophysics and even of astro/exobiology purest that can't
foresee any other habitat that's not capable of sustaining our humanly
existence, at our pathetic level of intelligence, not to mention
vastly superior arrogance to whatever ET there is.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

In article ,
(Brad Guth) wrote:

Instead of your critiquing for the purely unadulterated sake of your
always be right criteria, just try for once to suppose someone other
needed your ideas along with a little further information or
consideration on the "what if" aspects of a relatively tiny percentage
of a certain location on Venus that's otherwise loaded with purely
natural formations as surrounding what is otherwise far more likely
artificial than not, be these of patterns entirely unusual and
otherwise entirely unrecorded as of existing anywhere other as being
so natural (including Earth).

Try writing fewer run-on, content-free sentences. Better yet, just stop
spewing your insanity. Really, check your medication dosages. They are
clearly too low.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

"Jay Windley" wrote in message ...
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| Instead of your critiquing for the purely unadulterated sake of your
| always be right criteria ...

I don't criticize your posts because I'm insufferably right. I criticize
your posts because they're insufferably wrong. Your self-deprecations
notwithstanding, you seem utterly alien to the concept that you, yourself,
might be so utterly wrong that we simply don't don't where to begin to tell
you how to improve.

| just try for once to suppose someone other needed your
| ideas ...

Lots of people need my ideas. They sit calmly and listen to them, ask me
questions about them, and then ultimately pay me for them. You obviously
don't need any of my ideas because you've thrown most of them out.

| ...of a certain location on Venus

Sorry, not interested in Venus. I can't vouch for whether my intellect is
"superior" or not, but right now it's telling me that your ideas on Venus
shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot contact probe.

If, on the other hand, you'd be willing to substantiate any of the
outlandish claims you've made regarding the Apollo moon landings, I'll speak
to those.

I really have extremely little interest in anything Apollo, as I can't
seem to pull much value from hardly any of it, although you should
have been all over the moon-sar/vla thing, as that's entirely robotic
and, it's well within our existing technology.

I am still trying to ascertain the Earth L4/L5 environment, even if
it's nothing as radiation cool as the Apollo moon, as at least that
way I'd have some idea as to what Venus L2 could turn out being.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| I really have extremely little interest in anything Apollo

Then why do you keep saying it was faked, and talking about supposedly
non-existent 1/6-gravity trainers and "Van Allen zones of death"? You
couldn't shut up about it until someone came along who knew what he was
talking about, and now all of a sudden you say it's no big deal.

Put up or shut up.

| although you should have been all over the moon-sar/vla
| thing

Why? I don't chase after *every* loony idea that comes my way.

| .. as radiation cool as the Apollo moon

.... which, of course, you have little interest in.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

(Brad Guth) wrote in message . com...
snip
All that the "Bad Astronomer" needs to do, is provide your own
superior numbers and/or offer a web page that I can post a link into
(NASA moderated pictures of a clumping lunar surface that's reflecting
at nearly 50% isn't going to cut it, neither are those terrific still
photos of any frail test flight that's not likely as stable nor as
reliable as the V-22 Osprey, which can't fly either yet we've got
quality stills of it hovering before any crash and even a few movie
minutes before it crached while killing everyone onboard, even the
latest strike force vertical jet aircraft is unstable at best, that's
after throwing every possible level of modern fly-by-wire technology
that operating from a bloody cash of nearly CRAY computers that can't
miss a single bit out of millions of bits worth of instruction code
that we've got invested in the damn thing, which BTW we didn't have
back then)
snip

Is this part related to your claim that the Apollo landings did not
take place? If so, does it have something to do with claims that the
LEM wouldn't work?

Anway, the V-22 actually does fly; it has been tested in all of its
flight modes, has landed/taken off from ships at sea, etc. There have
been a number of fixes both technical and operational to address the
problems which led to two (IIRC) fatal crashes.

As for "strike force" VTOL jets, the Harrier has been flying for a
*long* time, and the STOVL F-35 seems to perform quite well. The
Harrier never used much in the way of processing power.

If you are linking VTOL aircraft to VTOL spacecraft, specifically the
LEM, they are significantly different control regimes. Nevertheless,
both have been demonstrated to work quite well. I've already
mentioned relevant aircraft. In the spacecraft realm, there are the
Soviet lunar sample return missions, the LEM itself, and the DC-X
(which flew quite well; its loss was due to failure of a landing gear
leg to extend).

None of this is related to your imaginative Venus claims, but you
brought the VTOL subject up, so...

sts060 wrote:

Is this part related to your claim that the Apollo landings did not
take place? If so, does it have something to do with claims that the
LEM wouldn't work?

Anway, the V-22 actually does fly; it has been tested in all of its
flight modes, has landed/taken off from ships at sea, etc. There have
been a number of fixes both technical and operational to address the
problems which led to two (IIRC) fatal crashes.

As for "strike force" VTOL jets, the Harrier has been flying for a
*long* time, and the STOVL F-35 seems to perform quite well. The
Harrier never used much in the way of processing power.

If you are linking VTOL aircraft to VTOL spacecraft, specifically the
LEM, they are significantly different control regimes. Nevertheless,
both have been demonstrated to work quite well. I've already
mentioned relevant aircraft. In the spacecraft realm, there are the
Soviet lunar sample return missions, the LEM itself, and the DC-X
(which flew quite well; its loss was due to failure of a landing gear
leg to extend).

None of this is related to your imaginative Venus claims, but you
brought the VTOL subject up, so...

Yup, as I pointed out, if the LM crashed at ten times the rate that
Osprey did (per hour of powered flight), we would have an expected value
of 1/10 of a crashed LM.

"sts060" wrote in message
om...
|
| Anway, the V-22 actually does fly; it has been tested in all of its
| flight modes, has landed/taken off from ships at sea, etc.

It's important to realize the vast qualitative differences between an
aircraft such as the V-22 and a vehicle such as the Apollo lunar module.
The latter was never intended to be more than an experimental craft. The
Osprey, on the other hand, is expected to be made in droves, flown by pilots
of average skill (by military standards), and maintained according to
straightforward procedures by relatively inexpert people.

This is not to diminish the skill of military pilots and technicians. Far
from it. The point is simply that the LM could be serviced literally by
only a handful of people in the world. It was easier to build, in many
ways, than the V-22 because it didn't have to be built so that it was cheap
and easy to make in large quantities, or so that it had parts that could be
easily exchanged under battlefield conditions.

The V-22 has to fulfill a military role. That involves certain standards of
reliability and tolerance of hostile conditions. True, the LM had to
guarantee a certain degree of reliability too, but the means of getting
there was different. The V-22 strives to find a single means of
construction and operation that results in reliable service. That process
requires a long period of testing and refinement. The LM team addressed
that problem using a high degree of flexibility in the design. This
provided a highly fault-tolerant design, but one which required considerable
ongoing support from the original design team. One cannot easily appreciate
the power of that design after the fact.

| The Harrier never used much in the way of processing power.

The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
literature. I note that none of the principal authors of these works seems
to be a pilot, or to have any notable experience in designing and building
flying machines. It seems that their opinions suffer greatly from those
deficiencies.

| None of this is related to your imaginative Venus claims, but you
| brought the VTOL subject up, so...

Contrary to Brad's protests, I am simply responding to subjects he himself
has raised. If they are not important to his other theories, then he should
have no ideological problem in conceding that he is wrong about them.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org