|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 17, 11:12*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:47*am, (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:55:38 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: wrote: It's hard to tell around here. *There are lots of suspects. *He could even be talking to himself. Rand, when you're not spouting evil bull****, you're spouting nasty bull****. *That causes me to suspect you probably aren't very popular with the ladies! *lol. Oh, don't get him started on that; according to his descriptions he's the greatest cocksman since Casanova. :-D Yet another person who fantasizes about what I've written. No, the fantasy is that you HAVE written anything worthwhile! Actually since I typed tha above I must admit Rand posted on his blog a very nice piece about Arthur C. Clarke and the fact that Rand actually met the man. It was easily the best thing Rand has posted IMO. Perhaps Rand won't change his attitude about me but I will be open about changing my attitude about him. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 19, 12:12*pm, wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:12*am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 16, 9:47*am, (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:55:38 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: wrote: It's hard to tell around here. *There are lots of suspects. *He could even be talking to himself. Rand, when you're not spouting evil bull****, you're spouting nasty bull****. *That causes me to suspect you probably aren't very popular with the ladies! *lol. Oh, don't get him started on that; according to his descriptions he's the greatest cocksman since Casanova. :-D Yet another person who fantasizes about what I've written. No, the fantasy is that you HAVE written anything worthwhile!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...th_Baron_Byron Learn the 'underlook' that Lord Byron perfected - and say very little - leaving most the the woman's imagination - which will run rampant against the look and the silence. *lol. * This according to experts on the subject. Here's Chris Rock's take ... A woman knows if she's gonna **** you within the first five minutes of meeting you. Women know right away. They're shaking hands like, ''l'm gonna **** him. I had a friend in Germany who was keen to such a thing. He called it the "10 Second Rule". We was quite the ladies man and I'd say that he knew in 10 seconds what the women knew. I bet he'd argue that 5 minutes was waaay to long and that Chris Rock, though and the right track, was actually miscalculating by 4 minutes and 50 seconds too much. That said why bother with an awkward 4+ minutes. Be cool and smooth right away? ''l hope he don't say nothing too stupid.'' That's right, fellas, don't say nothing too stupid... because women are all about the mood. Yep and know right away. lf she's in the mood to **** you, shut up and let it happen. 'Cause if you say the wrong thing, them panties are coming up mighty fast. No, not coming down in the first place... ''What'd you say?'' She be on the phone with a girlfriend, ''Yeah, l was gonna give him some... ''but he just started talking. ''l hate a yakking man, child.'' Good luck! What started this again... |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, "
wrote: On Mar 12, 7:28 am, wrote: The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism. I'm finding the first part of your above statement a bit confusing. To me, the purpose you claim for the space shuttle -- "to transition our man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes" -- ignores the established fact that at the time, "our man in space activity" had been limited to earth orbit and moon travel. (Realistically, "general disillusionment with space travel" seems to decry moon travel, not "interplanetary schemes.") The last part of your statement is similarly difficult to accept. Although some have "marginalized by science fiction and UFO cultism," didn't they mostly do so with respect to moon landings and earth sightings reported prior to Nixon, rather than "interplanetary development schemes?" I guess I'm a bit too well grounded in "creep before you crawl" to ignore the value of having a functional space shuttle and an operational space station prior to full-blown moon exploration, let alone travel to a nearby planet. At work, I had friends with advanced degrees from Cal Tech. Their families suffered hardship when the MOL was canceled, but they picked up the pieces and started over. JTM I totally agree with your "creep before you crawl" policy, especially if it's my frail DNA that's going out on that firing line. What's your best swag or give and take on behalf of our doing a Moon L1 platform, or call it an outpost/depot sort of oasis gateway of mostly rad-hard robotics that can take the unavoidable double-IR heat as well as the gamma saturated environment, eventually along with an extremely well shielded human habitat module? .. - Brad Guth |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 23, 4:49*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, " wrote: On Mar 12, 7:28 am, wrote: The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism. I'm finding the first part of your above statement a bit confusing. To me, the purpose you claim for the space shuttle -- "to transition our man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes" -- ignores the established fact that at the time, "our man in space activity" had been limited to earth orbit and moon travel. (Realistically, "general disillusionment with space travel" seems to decry moon travel, not "interplanetary schemes.") The last part of your statement is similarly difficult to accept. Although some have "marginalized by science fiction and UFO cultism," didn't they mostly do so with respect to moon landings and earth sightings reported prior to Nixon, rather than "interplanetary development schemes?" I guess I'm a bit too well grounded in "creep before you crawl" to ignore the value of having a functional space shuttle and an operational space station prior to full-blown moon exploration, let alone travel to a nearby planet. At work, I had friends with advanced degrees from Cal Tech. Their families suffered hardship when the MOL was canceled, but they picked up the pieces and started over. JTM I totally agree with your "creep before you crawl" policy, especially if it's my frail DNA that's going out on that firing line. What's your best swag or give and take on behalf of our doing a Moon L1 platform, or call it an outpost/depot sort of oasis gateway of mostly rad-hard robotics that can take the unavoidable double-IR heat as well as the gamma saturated environment, eventually along with an extremely well shielded human habitat module? It sounds like a sensible plan to me, based on my limited knowledge of the things you mention (gained only from a few meetings I had with Dr. Van Allen in 1986, and from occasional L1 reading I've done since 2002). For an earth-lunar intermediate, the L1 platform you mention sounds like our next logical step in manned lunar exploration, since ISS rendevous has limitations for lunar travel. I'm not a Mars fan though, based on what I've read about it. http://www.space.com/news/beyond_iss_020926-1.html JTM |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 23, 4:04 pm, "
wrote: On Mar 23, 4:49 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, " wrote: On Mar 12, 7:28 am, wrote: The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism. I'm finding the first part of your above statement a bit confusing. To me, the purpose you claim for the space shuttle -- "to transition our man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes" -- ignores the established fact that at the time, "our man in space activity" had been limited to earth orbit and moon travel. (Realistically, "general disillusionment with space travel" seems to decry moon travel, not "interplanetary schemes.") The last part of your statement is similarly difficult to accept. Although some have "marginalized by science fiction and UFO cultism," didn't they mostly do so with respect to moon landings and earth sightings reported prior to Nixon, rather than "interplanetary development schemes?" I guess I'm a bit too well grounded in "creep before you crawl" to ignore the value of having a functional space shuttle and an operational space station prior to full-blown moon exploration, let alone travel to a nearby planet. At work, I had friends with advanced degrees from Cal Tech. Their families suffered hardship when the MOL was canceled, but they picked up the pieces and started over. JTM I totally agree with your "creep before you crawl" policy, especially if it's my frail DNA that's going out on that firing line. What's your best swag or give and take on behalf of our doing a Moon L1 platform, or call it an outpost/depot sort of oasis gateway of mostly rad-hard robotics that can take the unavoidable double-IR heat as well as the gamma saturated environment, eventually along with an extremely well shielded human habitat module? It sounds like a sensible plan to me, based on my limited knowledge of the things you mention (gained only from a few meetings I had with Dr. Van Allen in 1986, and from occasional L1 reading I've done since 2002). For an earth-lunar intermediate, the L1 platform you mention sounds like our next logical step in manned lunar exploration, since ISS rendevous has limitations for lunar travel. I'm not a Mars fan though, based on what I've read about it. http://www.space.com/news/beyond_iss_020926-1.html JTM We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon. A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run anything you could imagine. I believe there's nearly 98% solar illumination available for this moon L1 location. .. - Brad Guth |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 23, 4:04 pm, "
wrote: On Mar 23, 4:49 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, " wrote: On Mar 12, 7:28 am, wrote: The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism. I'm finding the first part of your above statement a bit confusing. To me, the purpose you claim for the space shuttle -- "to transition our man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes" -- ignores the established fact that at the time, "our man in space activity" had been limited to earth orbit and moon travel. (Realistically, "general disillusionment with space travel" seems to decry moon travel, not "interplanetary schemes.") The last part of your statement is similarly difficult to accept. Although some have "marginalized by science fiction and UFO cultism," didn't they mostly do so with respect to moon landings and earth sightings reported prior to Nixon, rather than "interplanetary development schemes?" I guess I'm a bit too well grounded in "creep before you crawl" to ignore the value of having a functional space shuttle and an operational space station prior to full-blown moon exploration, let alone travel to a nearby planet. At work, I had friends with advanced degrees from Cal Tech. Their families suffered hardship when the MOL was canceled, but they picked up the pieces and started over. JTM I totally agree with your "creep before you crawl" policy, especially if it's my frail DNA that's going out on that firing line. What's your best swag or give and take on behalf of our doing a Moon L1 platform, or call it an outpost/depot sort of oasis gateway of mostly rad-hard robotics that can take the unavoidable double-IR heat as well as the gamma saturated environment, eventually along with an extremely well shielded human habitat module? It sounds like a sensible plan to me, based on my limited knowledge of the things you mention (gained only from a few meetings I had with Dr. Van Allen in 1986, and from occasional L1 reading I've done since 2002). For an earth-lunar intermediate, the L1 platform you mention sounds like our next logical step in manned lunar exploration, since ISS rendevous has limitations for lunar travel. I'm not a Mars fan though, based on what I've read about it. http://www.space.com/news/beyond_iss_020926-1.html JTM We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon. A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run anything you could imagine. I believe there's nearly 98% solar illumination available for this moon L1 location. .. - Brad Guth |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 24, 9:11*am, BradGuth wrote:
We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon. I guess I've been too involved with getting out the truth about Mission 51-L to have heard about any of the above. At least that's my excuse anyway. A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run anything you could imagine. *I believe there's nearly 98% solar illumination available for this moon L1 location. That concept makes sense to me, because during this decade my interest in eventual manned missions to the moon has shifted almost entirely.to our moon's value as a great resource for solar energy. I don't know how close it is to "98%" though. I think you're on the right track with first getting to our moon's L1 safely. JTM |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 24, 7:39 am, "
wrote: On Mar 24, 9:11 am, BradGuth wrote: We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon. I guess I've been too involved with getting out the truth about Mission 51-L to have heard about any of the above. At least that's my excuse anyway. A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run anything you could imagine. I believe there's nearly 98% solar illumination available for this moon L1 location. That concept makes sense to me, because during this decade my interest in eventual manned missions to the moon has shifted almost entirely.to our moon's value as a great resource for solar energy. I don't know how close it is to "98%" though. I think you're on the right track with first getting to our moon's L1 safely. JTM Boeing OASIS: Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001 http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf Clarke Station: An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf Getting the most tonnage per given fly-by-rocket method is doable if it's intended for deployment into the moon's L1. This location is an interactive zone of otherwise efficiently station-keeping as much tonnage as you'd like. My tethered LSE-CM/ISS along with its tether dipole element reaching to within 2r of Earth is far better than either of the above. .. - Brad Guth |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 24, 7:39 am, "
wrote: On Mar 24, 9:11 am, BradGuth wrote: We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon. I guess I've been too involved with getting out the truth about Mission 51-L to have heard about any of the above. At least that's my excuse anyway. A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run anything you could imagine. I believe there's nearly 98% solar illumination available for this moon L1 location. That concept makes sense to me, because during this decade my interest in eventual manned missions to the moon has shifted almost entirely.to our moon's value as a great resource for solar energy. I don't know how close it is to "98%" though. I think you're on the right track with first getting to our moon's L1 safely. JTM For brain-food and eye-candy, here's a couple of old links worth looking at. Boeing OASIS: Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001 http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf Clarke Station: An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf Getting the most tonnage per given fly-by-rocket method is doable if it's intended for deployment into the moon's L1. This ML1 location is an interactive gravity-null zone of otherwise efficiently station- keeping as much tonnage as you'd like. However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon, as being the least bit cool or much less cold as reported by those NASA/ Apollo missions, especially if there's multiple bodies and loads of systems and instrumentation heat to continually get rid of, as such is not as technically easy as you'd think, especially since there's not much greater than 2% dark time per any given month. My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its counter mass of a substantial space habitat and tether dipole element reaching to within 2r of Earth, is far better than either of the above or that of NASA's NExT space station/gateway alternatives. .. - Brad Guth |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 8:25 am, "
wrote: 1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure (like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? JTM For all the right sorts of technical, safety and payload reasons, as well as per reductions in global pollution per tonne placed so quickly into orbit, as such we'll need that new and greatly improved shuttle, of which this need not be of more than 50% public invested. Unfortunately, our MI5/CIA cloak and dagger aspects of the past, present and future has our village idiot butts and private parts pretty much nailed to their next available cross. Here's another somewhat polished reply, as for topic brain-food and eye-candy, whereas here's a couple of old links worth looking at, plus something of NASA's NExT that'll most likely never happen unless pigs fly and hell freezes over, not to mention those NASA/Apollo cows ever coming home. Boeing OASIS: Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001 http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf Clarke Station: An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf Building an L1 Depot in Phases: Growing in step with operations on the Moon's surface http://chapters.nss.org/hub/pdf%20pr...s/LIphases.pdf Getting the most tonnage per any given fly-by-rocket method is by far most obtainable if such payload tonnage were intended for deployment into the moon's L1 pocket. This ML-1 location is an interactive gravity-null or quiet zone of otherwise being nearly ideal for efficiently station-keeping as much volumetric size and tonnage as you'd like. However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon, as for being the least bit cool or much less cold as reported by those NASA/ Apollo missions it is not, especially if there's multiple human bodies and loads of systems and instrumentation heat to continually get rid of, as such is not as technically easy to get rid of such heat as you'd think, especially since unlike the 50% dark time of ISS, there's not much greater than 2% dark time per any given year while situated within the moon's L1, meaning that for days on end there's none of that shade whatsoever, as well as at times getting that IR energy as derived from three directions at once. My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its counter mass of a truly substantial space habitat that's extremely well shielded, and of its tether dipole element reaching that other habitat capable pod or module to within 2r of Earth, is far better than either of the above or that of anything NASA's NExT space station/ gateway has to offer. .. - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 81 | March 26th 08 05:15 PM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | Policy | 7 | December 7th 06 04:15 AM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | History | 7 | December 7th 06 04:15 AM |
First Civilian Astronaut | Jo | UK Astronomy | 1 | June 21st 04 07:11 PM |