Brad Guth's Credentials

Jack Crenshaw wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth and William Mook, two of the Usenet's finest. Both are
knowledgeable, though they throw 'curves' from time to time, and
communicate easily in this fast and loose medium. Brad advocating the
exploration of Venus using radium powered ion engines in 'lighter than
air' waveriders. William hunting down wrongful views of aeronautics
and space technology.

According to William Mook neither radium powered ion engines nor
waveriders are the way to go. Instead, vertical rockets should
continue to put satellites into orbit and little else because little
else can be done with Earth's puny technology. I believe that
William's mindset is explained by his remark:

""Well, in this regard you are wrong. WRONG! Everybody who knows
anything knows your wrong, and they will ALWAYS know that you're
wrong."

William Mook is showing quite a bit of emotion in this post. It is
possible that he was told he was "wrong" repeatedly when he was young.
So, now he hunts down "wrongful" things on the internet. In doing this
he accompiishes some positive effects because he 'stirs things up' and
forces 'skillful defense' on the part of constructive posters, such as
Brad Guth.

He is very blunt at times: "Lying sack of ****." Or, how about: "Yes
you did you freakin liar." Or, "I don't say these things to **** on
you." But, all in all, gets his point across and is sometimes at least
a little helpful with technology, theory, and facts, which sets him
apart from the common Borg of the Internet that simply attack for the
simple joy of totally destroying intelligent thoughts.

Brad Guth, on the other hand, persues his interests in a carefully
devious fashion both stretching his imagination to include far away
places, like Venus, and envisioning far out technology such as huge
waveriders ships made of basalt that could 'float' in the thick
atmosphere of Venus. Currently he is touting the advantages of Radium
Power for interplanetary spaceships.

" If my swag is within the ballpark as to the
applied energy as for artificially generating those heafty little Rn
ions (that should actually already exist as is), and if subsequently
accellerating such mass worthy ions isn't 0.1% percent of having to
accomplish such with Xe, then where's the big insurmountable problem?"

Brad does, however, have a tendency to mix politics and emotion with
his posts. Here he is replying to William Mook in a very typical Brad
Guth manner:

" I guess being a dishonest Skull and Bones sort of pervert
******* and
otherwise corrupt to the bone sort of Third Reich minion is what draws
best upon your brown-nose for getting into such butt-wiping action on a

moment's notice. If the likes of Hitler was encharge, you'd certainly
have been one of his top level brown-nose ..."

This is the natural reaction of a genius with imaginative ideas to a
knowledgeable hardened traditionalist that searches the Usenet looking
for aberrant posters with wrongful (new and fresh) ideas. It is my
belief, however, that William Mook has latched onto the fact that
Radium Ion Thrusters don't produce a lot of thrust, though they should
be perfectly acceptable for travel once a waveriders has gone byond
atmospheric drag and the pull of gravity.

The fact remains, however, that waveriders are better than vertical
tubular rockets (William Mook's hangup) and that ion engines -- as well
as electrogravitic -- will be very useful once the waverider is in
Interplanetary Space. But contrary to Brad Guth's, somewhat wrongful,
theory that Radium Ion Engines could blast off from Earth, though Ion
engines may be quite useful once in Outer Space.

And, yes, 'Electrogravitc Propulsion' needs to be thoroughly examined
as well. It's possible ability to reduce air friction and assist with
propulsion both in the atmosphere and in Outer Space is of great
importance.


tomcat

Hmmmm.

I was going to post a message to advise you guys to give it up, trying
to reason with Guth. I've tried already; he lives in his own universe.

Then, on second thought, I'm not sure the same isn't true for everyone
speaking up here. I think we've accomplished a great scientific
breakthrough he We've observed proof positive of the existence of
multiple, parallel, non-interacting universes.

Nobel Prize is in the mail.

Jack




They should be building waverider spacecraft, not using vertical
tubular rockets. They latched onto vertical rockets years ago as a
result of the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. That Equation, however,
when input with a pure fuel rocket -- no dry weight at all -- will show
that such a rocket cannot even make orbit. But, if you add stages,
which makes the forumula recalculate remaining fuel, then you can go to
the Moon.

A pure fuel rocket would have to be better than any multi-stage rocket
no matter how good. So, the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation has . . .
problems.

As far as Brad and William are concerned. Mook got mad and left the
Usenet. Brad is still fighting all the people he insults, and their
friends. Mostly people that can't think original thoughts themselves
and are used to being spoon fed by textbooks, instead of reading and
evaluating on their own.

Our educational system makes everything seen pat, orderly,
chronological, and flowing flawlessly toward some scientific end. The
reality, however, is that there are 'ideas' and counter 'ideas' and
fighting over 'ideas'. There is no real direction to the flow, except
what survives in the 'test of time'.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:
Our educational system makes everything seen pat, orderly,
chronological, and flowing flawlessly toward some scientific end. The
reality, however, is that there are 'ideas' and counter 'ideas' and
fighting over 'ideas'. There is no real direction to the flow, except
what survives in the 'test of time'.

What educational system and on what planet are you talking about?

Is the likes of your being easily snookered and summarily dumbfounded
part of that educational system that's here to stay?

How can you base the future of humanity on such educated and thus
cultivated lies, and otherwise as having been run amuck entirely by the
born-again liars that'll perpetrate a cold-war and even a hot-war
without a stitch of remorse?

Don't you have to press the 'RESET' button and start all over?

Isn't that exactly what WW-III is going to have to do?
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Our educational system makes everything seen pat, orderly,
chronological, and flowing flawlessly toward some scientific end. The
reality, however, is that there are 'ideas' and counter 'ideas' and
fighting over 'ideas'. There is no real direction to the flow, except
what survives in the 'test of time'.

What educational system and on what planet are you talking about?


A few schools, Harvard for instance, do teach that there are accepted
theories and counter theories, and various historical theories, but
most schools do not teach science in that fashion. Students are
trained in science 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . , n. All very straight forward
with no errors, ever.

This I believe is the cause of Usenet snobbery, borgism, heckling, and
so forth. Those Posters that were trained in BOX science, the perfect
linear error free way, go beserk when counter ideas appear to mainline
theories. "Why, why, it is not . . . proper!" they babble. Then you
hear "k00k" a few times to boot.

Is the likes of your being easily snookered and summarily dumbfounded
part of that educational system that's here to stay?

Don't confuse me with the Borg. I may not agree that the Apollo
missions were faked, but I am very open to new ideas.


How can you base the future of humanity on such educated and thus
cultivated lies, and otherwise as having been run amuck entirely by the
born-again liars that'll perpetrate a cold-war and even a hot-war
without a stitch of remorse?

The cold war was caused as much by the Soviet Union as by the United
States. It was a natural friction between Communism and the
antithetical Capitalism. So, the idea of an artifical Cold War, or
perpetrating a Cold War without remorse, is not entirely accurate.


Don't you have to press the 'RESET' button and start all over?

Isn't that exactly what WW-III is going to have to do?


Let us hope that we don't have to "reset" using a World War. It is my
belief that in the U.S. a lot of work is being done to avoid exactly
that. The Soviet Union is now The Russian Federation which is a
Capitalist Country. Russia has joined NATO as well. Hopefully,
ruinous World War has been avoided.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:
Jack Crenshaw wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Brad Guth and William Mook, two of the Usenet's finest. Both are
knowledgeable, though they throw 'curves' from time to time, and
communicate easily in this fast and loose medium. Brad advocating the
exploration of Venus using radium powered ion engines in 'lighter than
air' waveriders. William hunting down wrongful views of aeronautics
and space technology.

According to William Mook neither radium powered ion engines nor
waveriders are the way to go. Instead, vertical rockets should
continue to put satellites into orbit and little else because little
else can be done with Earth's puny technology. I believe that
William's mindset is explained by his remark:

""Well, in this regard you are wrong. WRONG! Everybody who knows
anything knows your wrong, and they will ALWAYS know that you're
wrong."

William Mook is showing quite a bit of emotion in this post. It is
possible that he was told he was "wrong" repeatedly when he was young.
So, now he hunts down "wrongful" things on the internet. In doing this
he accompiishes some positive effects because he 'stirs things up' and
forces 'skillful defense' on the part of constructive posters, such as
Brad Guth.

He is very blunt at times: "Lying sack of ****." Or, how about: "Yes
you did you freakin liar." Or, "I don't say these things to **** on
you." But, all in all, gets his point across and is sometimes at least
a little helpful with technology, theory, and facts, which sets him
apart from the common Borg of the Internet that simply attack for the
simple joy of totally destroying intelligent thoughts.

Brad Guth, on the other hand, persues his interests in a carefully
devious fashion both stretching his imagination to include far away
places, like Venus, and envisioning far out technology such as huge
waveriders ships made of basalt that could 'float' in the thick
atmosphere of Venus. Currently he is touting the advantages of Radium
Power for interplanetary spaceships.

" If my swag is within the ballpark as to the
applied energy as for artificially generating those heafty little Rn
ions (that should actually already exist as is), and if subsequently
accellerating such mass worthy ions isn't 0.1% percent of having to
accomplish such with Xe, then where's the big insurmountable problem?"

Brad does, however, have a tendency to mix politics and emotion with
his posts. Here he is replying to William Mook in a very typical Brad
Guth manner:

" I guess being a dishonest Skull and Bones sort of pervert
******* and
otherwise corrupt to the bone sort of Third Reich minion is what draws
best upon your brown-nose for getting into such butt-wiping action on a

moment's notice. If the likes of Hitler was encharge, you'd certainly
have been one of his top level brown-nose ..."

This is the natural reaction of a genius with imaginative ideas to a
knowledgeable hardened traditionalist that searches the Usenet looking
for aberrant posters with wrongful (new and fresh) ideas. It is my
belief, however, that William Mook has latched onto the fact that
Radium Ion Thrusters don't produce a lot of thrust, though they should
be perfectly acceptable for travel once a waveriders has gone byond
atmospheric drag and the pull of gravity.

The fact remains, however, that waveriders are better than vertical
tubular rockets (William Mook's hangup) and that ion engines -- as well
as electrogravitic -- will be very useful once the waverider is in
Interplanetary Space. But contrary to Brad Guth's, somewhat wrongful,
theory that Radium Ion Engines could blast off from Earth, though Ion
engines may be quite useful once in Outer Space.

And, yes, 'Electrogravitc Propulsion' needs to be thoroughly examined
as well. It's possible ability to reduce air friction and assist with
propulsion both in the atmosphere and in Outer Space is of great
importance.


tomcat


Hmmmm.

I was going to post a message to advise you guys to give it up, trying
to reason with Guth. I've tried already; he lives in his own universe.

Then, on second thought, I'm not sure the same isn't true for everyone
speaking up here. I think we've accomplished a great scientific
breakthrough he We've observed proof positive of the existence of
multiple, parallel, non-interacting universes.

Nobel Prize is in the mail.

Jack





They should be building waverider spacecraft, not using vertical
tubular rockets.

Er ... what's a waverider?

They latched onto vertical rockets years ago as a
result of the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. That Equation, however,
when input with a pure fuel rocket -- no dry weight at all -- will show
that such a rocket cannot even make orbit.

Somehow I find that very difficult to believe. In reality, the rocket
equation, when given a zero dry weight, produces infinite velocity.

But, if you add stages,
which makes the forumula recalculate remaining fuel, then you can go to
the Moon.

You can go to the moon with a single stage. In fact, you could go to the
moon and _BACK_ again. You just have to make the payload small enough.


A pure fuel rocket would have to be better than any multi-stage rocket
no matter how good. So, the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation has . . .
problems.

As far as Brad and William are concerned. Mook got mad and left the
Usenet. Brad is still fighting all the people he insults, and their
friends. Mostly people that can't think original thoughts themselves
and are used to being spoon fed by textbooks, instead of reading and
evaluating on their own.

Our educational system makes everything seen pat, orderly,
chronological, and flowing flawlessly toward some scientific end. The
reality, however, is that there are 'ideas' and counter 'ideas' and
fighting over 'ideas'. There is no real direction to the flow, except
what survives in the 'test of time'.

Ideas are one thing. Reality and truth are quite different things. One can
speculate about all kinds of diverse matters, but the laws of physics
still don't change. They are immune to opinions.

Jack

Don't confuse me with the Borg. I may not agree that the Apollo
missions were faked, but I am very open to new ideas.
tomcat,
What's to "confuse" since all of your fly-by-rocket spaceplane is based
entirely upon the same phony rocket-science that stipulated a mere 60:1
ratio of such rocket/payload made each of those NASA/Apollo missions
happen and having transpired so quickly, and of their somehow utilizing
an unproven fly-by-rocket lander plus having survived such a gamma and
hard-X-ray hot and physically dark moon that's covered in tens of
meters of the worse possible carbon/soot infused dust that can't
possibly support 0.5 grams/cm2, and so forth, is further proof-positive
that you're 100% snookered and thus remaining every bit as borg like
dumbfounded.

Even if including the million pounds worth of your payload and of the 4
million pound spaceplane itself is a wussy 40:1 of LEO capability
that's not as good as conventional rockets that are these days
considerably less inert massive than what the Saturn V had to contend
with, and yet somehow you're still dumbfounded as hell.

Stop trying to get these naysay rusemasters of yours (aka your kind of
brown-nosed folks that supposedly can't possibly do wrong) to look at
any such pictures because, they're acting like Muslims that don't
believe in photographs nor even in using mirrors, that is unless it's
another seriously hyped up infomercial image that's intended for
maximum eye-candy, so that they can get their dirty little Third Reich
hands on the very next available public buck.

Try giving it a break as to those once upon a time miniature forms of
life on Mars of yours. For one thing, they've been a little more than
summarily sub-frozen each and every night, sucked dry and otherwise
having been cosmic and even solar TBI to death for at least centuries
if not a million plus years, and ever since having been easily
pulverised because there's hardly an atmosphere that's worthy of
moderating or diverting much of anything that's potentially lethal, as
in down to even a dull roar. Christ almighty on a stick, there's even
live/rover pictures of such incoming flak.

Thus far the Mars satellites and via those spendy rovers have
essentially reported upon a badly sub-frozen world that's essentially
of a plundered, pillaged and raped to death planet that offers damn few
minerals or elements of any worth, and hardly a spare joule worth of
local energy to spare. Mars has been so dead (as in much older than
Earth) that it could even have an icy core by now.

If you can manage to get your spaceplane and of it's payload down to a
combined 30:1 ratio of managing the ISS orbit, whereas now you're
talking about some viable improvement that'll get the likes of "tomcat"
into the record book. Along with a couple of efficient slow burning
and fully reusable LRBs of h2o2/c3h4o should actually accomplish that
highly composite task w/o half as many SSMEs required.

The cold war was caused as much by the Soviet Union as by the United
States. It was a natural friction between Communism and the
antithetical Capitalism. So, the idea of an artifical Cold War, or
perpetrating a Cold War without remorse, is not entirely accurate.
It's more than close enough to the truth that counts. The only
"natural friction" was that of our mutual bigotry, arrogance and greed
that was running amuck as being lead by way of our having taken the
best of the Third Reich and having subsequently protected it and having
put it to work on each of our mutual behalf of having snookered the
world literally to death. The space race was every bit a primar part
of that perpetrated cold-war that has cost humanity trillions upon
trillions, decade after decade, and subsequently millions of innocent
folks died directly as a result of that wasteful spending and the
courtship of two absolute evils, to the point where the other 75% of
the world isn't quite sure what they're going to do with these two
corrupt nations that are not operating under any God as known by the
likes of Jesus Christ or that of Muhammad.

Let us hope that we don't have to "reset" using a World War. It is my
belief that in the U.S. a lot of work is being done to avoid exactly
that. The Soviet Union is now The Russian Federation which is a
Capitalist Country. Russia has joined NATO as well. Hopefully,
ruinous World War has been avoided.
The Soviet Union is now every bit as Capitalistic corrupt and having
become every bit as dishonest and dastardly lethal and polluting for
the common individual as America. If that's what turns on the likes of
yourself and of the upper most 0.1% of humanity that you continually
suck up to, at the obvious demise of the lower 99.9% and that of our
environment, then so be it. Just don't expect any remorse as coming
from my side of reason and truth. In other words, you're on your own,
and being a damn fool at that.

BTW; this topic was supposedly closed off because that's what the
original author wanted. In stead, why don't you start a new and
improved Usenet topic on our mutual behalf, and while you're at it,
post a nice little message link within GOOGLE's "uplink.space.com"
forum (NASA's wag-thy-dog worth of their infomercial-science and media
hype damage-control) on each of our behalf's (I bet that even your
pro-government and pro-NASA mindset can't get the likes of yourself
into that cesspool; but wouldn't you like to try?).
-
Brad Guth

snip mindless gibberish

Nobody cares, Brad.

Jack Crenshaw wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Jack Crenshaw wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Brad Guth and William Mook, two of the Usenet's finest. Both are
knowledgeable, though they throw 'curves' from time to time, and
communicate easily in this fast and loose medium. Brad advocating the
exploration of Venus using radium powered ion engines in 'lighter than
air' waveriders. William hunting down wrongful views of aeronautics
and space technology.

According to William Mook neither radium powered ion engines nor
waveriders are the way to go. Instead, vertical rockets should
continue to put satellites into orbit and little else because little
else can be done with Earth's puny technology. I believe that
William's mindset is explained by his remark:

""Well, in this regard you are wrong. WRONG! Everybody who knows
anything knows your wrong, and they will ALWAYS know that you're
wrong."

William Mook is showing quite a bit of emotion in this post. It is
possible that he was told he was "wrong" repeatedly when he was young.
So, now he hunts down "wrongful" things on the internet. In doing this
he accompiishes some positive effects because he 'stirs things up' and
forces 'skillful defense' on the part of constructive posters, such as
Brad Guth.

He is very blunt at times: "Lying sack of ****." Or, how about: "Yes
you did you freakin liar." Or, "I don't say these things to **** on
you." But, all in all, gets his point across and is sometimes at least
a little helpful with technology, theory, and facts, which sets him
apart from the common Borg of the Internet that simply attack for the
simple joy of totally destroying intelligent thoughts.

Brad Guth, on the other hand, persues his interests in a carefully
devious fashion both stretching his imagination to include far away
places, like Venus, and envisioning far out technology such as huge
waveriders ships made of basalt that could 'float' in the thick
atmosphere of Venus. Currently he is touting the advantages of Radium
Power for interplanetary spaceships.

" If my swag is within the ballpark as to the
applied energy as for artificially generating those heafty little Rn
ions (that should actually already exist as is), and if subsequently
accellerating such mass worthy ions isn't 0.1% percent of having to
accomplish such with Xe, then where's the big insurmountable problem?"

Brad does, however, have a tendency to mix politics and emotion with
his posts. Here he is replying to William Mook in a very typical Brad
Guth manner:

" I guess being a dishonest Skull and Bones sort of pervert
******* and
otherwise corrupt to the bone sort of Third Reich minion is what draws
best upon your brown-nose for getting into such butt-wiping action on a

moment's notice. If the likes of Hitler was encharge, you'd certainly
have been one of his top level brown-nose ..."

This is the natural reaction of a genius with imaginative ideas to a
knowledgeable hardened traditionalist that searches the Usenet looking
for aberrant posters with wrongful (new and fresh) ideas. It is my
belief, however, that William Mook has latched onto the fact that
Radium Ion Thrusters don't produce a lot of thrust, though they should
be perfectly acceptable for travel once a waveriders has gone byond
atmospheric drag and the pull of gravity.

The fact remains, however, that waveriders are better than vertical
tubular rockets (William Mook's hangup) and that ion engines -- as well
as electrogravitic -- will be very useful once the waverider is in
Interplanetary Space. But contrary to Brad Guth's, somewhat wrongful,
theory that Radium Ion Engines could blast off from Earth, though Ion
engines may be quite useful once in Outer Space.

And, yes, 'Electrogravitc Propulsion' needs to be thoroughly examined
as well. It's possible ability to reduce air friction and assist with
propulsion both in the atmosphere and in Outer Space is of great
importance.


tomcat


Hmmmm.

I was going to post a message to advise you guys to give it up, trying
to reason with Guth. I've tried already; he lives in his own universe.

Then, on second thought, I'm not sure the same isn't true for everyone
speaking up here. I think we've accomplished a great scientific
breakthrough he We've observed proof positive of the existence of
multiple, parallel, non-interacting universes.

Nobel Prize is in the mail.

Jack





They should be building waverider spacecraft, not using vertical
tubular rockets.

Er ... what's a waverider?

They latched onto vertical rockets years ago as a
result of the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. That Equation, however,
when input with a pure fuel rocket -- no dry weight at all -- will show
that such a rocket cannot even make orbit.

Somehow I find that very difficult to believe. In reality, the rocket
equation, when given a zero dry weight, produces infinite velocity.

But, if you add stages,
which makes the forumula recalculate remaining fuel, then you can go to
the Moon.

You can go to the moon with a single stage. In fact, you could go to the
moon and _BACK_ again. You just have to make the payload small enough.


A pure fuel rocket would have to be better than any multi-stage rocket
no matter how good. So, the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation has . . .
problems.

As far as Brad and William are concerned. Mook got mad and left the
Usenet. Brad is still fighting all the people he insults, and their
friends. Mostly people that can't think original thoughts themselves
and are used to being spoon fed by textbooks, instead of reading and
evaluating on their own.

Our educational system makes everything seen pat, orderly,
chronological, and flowing flawlessly toward some scientific end. The
reality, however, is that there are 'ideas' and counter 'ideas' and
fighting over 'ideas'. There is no real direction to the flow, except
what survives in the 'test of time'.

Ideas are one thing. Reality and truth are quite different things. One can
speculate about all kinds of diverse matters, but the laws of physics
still don't change. They are immune to opinions.

Jack



In one sense the 'Law of Physics' don't change, in an other they do.
Our understanding of physics is constantly changing and with it the
'Laws' change too. The 'speed of light in a vacuum' has just been
broken by the speed of light in erbium doped optic fiber. Einstein
probably did not foresee this since the technique was unknown in his
time.

You say that these "Laws" are immune to opinions, yet they ARE
opinions. Opinions that are based on observation and mathematics,
carefully checked, and collectively approved of at some given time in
our history. But they are 'opinions' nonetheless.

With regard to the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation go ahead and plug a
"pure fuel" rocket into the equation.

See: http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/intro.html

Also, I suspect that Tsiolkovsky's Formula used ISP because rockets at
the beginning of the 20th Century flew in the atmosphere. A rocket, or
plane for that matter, cannot go faster in level flight than the speed
of it's exhaust. This, however, is not the case with rockets in the
vacuum of Outer Space.

It is my, opinion, that thrust to weight is much more important with
today's high performance and high flying rockets and planes.


tomcat

It is my, opinion, that thrust to weight is much more important
with today's high performance and high flying rockets and planes.
tomcat,
Obviously your "opinion" isn't worth jack to these Third Reich minion
rusemasters. Go ahead and try it out on the GOOGLE/NASA
"uplink.space.com", and then let us know how toasty the flak is over
there.
http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php

According to the official NASA/Apollo Saturn V scriptures, the horrific
inert mass of the rocket itself means almost nothing if you're going
for the moon. Perhaps the North Korean 3-stage rocket is actually
intended for a robotic moon shot, as it should be entirely doable since
it'll have way more than a wussy 60:1 ratio to work with.
-
Brad Guth

Jack Crenshaw wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Jack Crenshaw wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Brad Guth and William Mook, two of the Usenet's finest. Both are
knowledgeable, though they throw 'curves' from time to time, and
communicate easily in this fast and loose medium. Brad advocating the
exploration of Venus using radium powered ion engines in 'lighter than
air' waveriders. William hunting down wrongful views of aeronautics
and space technology.

According to William Mook neither radium powered ion engines nor
waveriders are the way to go. Instead, vertical rockets should
continue to put satellites into orbit and little else because little
else can be done with Earth's puny technology. I believe that
William's mindset is explained by his remark:

""Well, in this regard you are wrong. WRONG! Everybody who knows
anything knows your wrong, and they will ALWAYS know that you're
wrong."

William Mook is showing quite a bit of emotion in this post. It is
possible that he was told he was "wrong" repeatedly when he was young.
So, now he hunts down "wrongful" things on the internet. In doing this
he accompiishes some positive effects because he 'stirs things up' and
forces 'skillful defense' on the part of constructive posters, such as
Brad Guth.

He is very blunt at times: "Lying sack of ****." Or, how about: "Yes
you did you freakin liar." Or, "I don't say these things to **** on
you." But, all in all, gets his point across and is sometimes at least
a little helpful with technology, theory, and facts, which sets him
apart from the common Borg of the Internet that simply attack for the
simple joy of totally destroying intelligent thoughts.

Brad Guth, on the other hand, persues his interests in a carefully
devious fashion both stretching his imagination to include far away
places, like Venus, and envisioning far out technology such as huge
waveriders ships made of basalt that could 'float' in the thick
atmosphere of Venus. Currently he is touting the advantages of Radium
Power for interplanetary spaceships.

" If my swag is within the ballpark as to the
applied energy as for artificially generating those heafty little Rn
ions (that should actually already exist as is), and if subsequently
accellerating such mass worthy ions isn't 0.1% percent of having to
accomplish such with Xe, then where's the big insurmountable problem?"

Brad does, however, have a tendency to mix politics and emotion with
his posts. Here he is replying to William Mook in a very typical Brad
Guth manner:

" I guess being a dishonest Skull and Bones sort of pervert
******* and
otherwise corrupt to the bone sort of Third Reich minion is what draws
best upon your brown-nose for getting into such butt-wiping action on a

moment's notice. If the likes of Hitler was encharge, you'd certainly
have been one of his top level brown-nose ..."

This is the natural reaction of a genius with imaginative ideas to a
knowledgeable hardened traditionalist that searches the Usenet looking
for aberrant posters with wrongful (new and fresh) ideas. It is my
belief, however, that William Mook has latched onto the fact that
Radium Ion Thrusters don't produce a lot of thrust, though they should
be perfectly acceptable for travel once a waveriders has gone byond
atmospheric drag and the pull of gravity.

The fact remains, however, that waveriders are better than vertical
tubular rockets (William Mook's hangup) and that ion engines -- as well
as electrogravitic -- will be very useful once the waverider is in
Interplanetary Space. But contrary to Brad Guth's, somewhat wrongful,
theory that Radium Ion Engines could blast off from Earth, though Ion
engines may be quite useful once in Outer Space.

And, yes, 'Electrogravitc Propulsion' needs to be thoroughly examined
as well. It's possible ability to reduce air friction and assist with
propulsion both in the atmosphere and in Outer Space is of great
importance.


tomcat


Hmmmm.

I was going to post a message to advise you guys to give it up, trying
to reason with Guth. I've tried already; he lives in his own universe.

Then, on second thought, I'm not sure the same isn't true for everyone
speaking up here. I think we've accomplished a great scientific
breakthrough he We've observed proof positive of the existence of
multiple, parallel, non-interacting universes.

Nobel Prize is in the mail.

Jack





They should be building waverider spacecraft, not using vertical
tubular rockets.


Er ... what's a waverider?

A waverider is a sort of supersonic aircraft that uses its shock wave
to reduce drag. It was proposed for a supersonic transport plane. As
a space launch vehicle it is totally useless because a good waverider
is designed to operate at a specific speed - its cruise speed. A good
space launch vehicle is designed to accelerate! From zero at launch,
to orbital velocity, Mach 23! Which sort of puts things into
perspective. A Mach 1 or 2 or 3 or 5... waverider aircraft travels at
1/5th or less the speed of a launch vehicle, and imparts 1/25th or less
the energy needed. So, waveriders as I've said are pretty damn
useless.

They latched onto vertical rockets years ago as a
result of the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. That Equation, however,
when input with a pure fuel rocket -- no dry weight at all -- will show
that such a rocket cannot even make orbit.

Somehow I find that very difficult to believe. In reality, the rocket
equation, when given a zero dry weight, produces infinite velocity.

That's true. But then there's structural weight.

But, if you add stages,
which makes the forumula recalculate remaining fuel, then you can go to
the Moon.

You can go to the moon with a single stage. In fact, you could go to the
moon and _BACK_ again. You just have to make the payload small enough.

And a structure small enough. Which is why you have stages. You throw
away the structure when you no longer need it. Of course, if you can
reuse those stages you have a shot at reducing costs if your refurb
costs are substantially less than the build costs. Which might not be
the case. I mean, we don't reuse soda cans and styrofoam cups because
they're so damned easy to make. Well, a cryogen container is basically
a soda can AND a styrofoam cup.


A pure fuel rocket would have to be better than any multi-stage rocket
no matter how good. So, the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation has . . .
problems.

As far as Brad and William are concerned. Mook got mad and left the
Usenet. Brad is still fighting all the people he insults, and their
friends. Mostly people that can't think original thoughts themselves
and are used to being spoon fed by textbooks, instead of reading and
evaluating on their own.

Our educational system makes everything seen pat, orderly,
chronological, and flowing flawlessly toward some scientific end. The
reality, however, is that there are 'ideas' and counter 'ideas' and
fighting over 'ideas'. There is no real direction to the flow, except
what survives in the 'test of time'.

Ideas are one thing. Reality and truth are quite different things. One can
speculate about all kinds of diverse matters, but the laws of physics
still don't change. They are immune to opinions.

Jack

Precisely right. Reality doesn't need our support to be true! lol.

wrote:
Er ... what's a waverider?

A waverider is a sort of supersonic aircraft that uses its shock wave
to reduce drag. It was proposed for a supersonic transport plane. As
a space launch vehicle it is totally useless because a good waverider
is designed to operate at a specific speed - its cruise speed. A good
space launch vehicle is designed to accelerate! From zero at launch,
to orbital velocity, Mach 23! Which sort of puts things into
perspective. A Mach 1 or 2 or 3 or 5... waverider aircraft travels at
1/5th or less the speed of a launch vehicle, and imparts 1/25th or less
the energy needed. So, waveriders as I've said are pretty damn
useless.

They latched onto vertical rockets years ago as a
result of the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. That Equation, however,
when input with a pure fuel rocket -- no dry weight at all -- will show
that such a rocket cannot even make orbit.

Somehow I find that very difficult to believe. In reality, the rocket
equation, when given a zero dry weight, produces infinite velocity.

That's true. But then there's structural weight.

But, if you add stages,
which makes the forumula recalculate remaining fuel, then you can go to
the Moon.

You can go to the moon with a single stage. In fact, you could go to the
moon and _BACK_ again. You just have to make the payload small enough.

And a structure small enough. Which is why you have stages. You throw
away the structure when you no longer need it. Of course, if you can
reuse those stages you have a shot at reducing costs if your refurb
costs are substantially less than the build costs. Which might not be
the case. I mean, we don't reuse soda cans and styrofoam cups because
they're so damned easy to make. Well, a cryogen container is basically
a soda can AND a styrofoam cup.


A pure fuel rocket would have to be better than any multi-stage rocket
no matter how good. So, the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation has . . .
problems.

As far as Brad and William are concerned. Mook got mad and left the
Usenet. Brad is still fighting all the people he insults, and their
friends. Mostly people that can't think original thoughts themselves
and are used to being spoon fed by textbooks, instead of reading and
evaluating on their own.

Our educational system makes everything seen pat, orderly,
chronological, and flowing flawlessly toward some scientific end. The
reality, however, is that there are 'ideas' and counter 'ideas' and
fighting over 'ideas'. There is no real direction to the flow, except
what survives in the 'test of time'.

Ideas are one thing. Reality and truth are quite different things. One can
speculate about all kinds of diverse matters, but the laws of physics
still don't change. They are immune to opinions.

Jack

Precisely right. Reality doesn't need our support to be true! lol.

Our "tomcat" and "William Mook" are somewhat too significant wizards of
a kind, yet totally opposed to one another, to each of their deaths if
need be.

However, each of these brown-nosed fools wants the rest of us village
idiots to believe that a given Saturn V that's so inert massive as to
being nearly made of iron is just as capable of getting stuff quickly
to the moon with energy and payloads to spare, at the terrific ratio of
accomplishing that task within better than a 60:1 worth of a GLOW
rocket/payload regardless of the horrific inert/dry plus operational
inert or unusable mass and of the rather ****-poor primary stage of
such methods utilized.

The same can be said of the "tomcat" SSTO spaceplane, w/o ever using
the essential benefits of reusable LRBs of h2o2/c3h4o at perhaps 600t
each which could each yield better than 3e6 pounds worth of extended
thrust, is totally absurd if not representing that of yet another
intentional ruse.

You folks simply can't afford to pass up such a 2.5:1 LRB that only
gets better off as the velocity and altitude adds performance to the
formula. Yet with lord/wizard "Mook" offers us his one and only
alternative as going fully nuclear, as though Earth has any surplus of
U235 to go around without raping and polluting whatever's left of our
environment.
-
Brad Guth