Ares I - Launch Vehicles for Creationists

and global warming deniers.

If anyone else can come up with a better explanation for this thing,
feel free to fill us in on the details.

On Jan 4, 6:24 am, kT wrote:
and global warming deniers.

If anyone else can come up with a better explanation for this thing,
feel free to fill us in on the details.

Humanity = 10~25% of what's making up Earth's thermal imbalance.

The moon which arrived roughly 12,500 years ago = 75~90% of global
warming.

NASA owns several supercomputers (including one really spiffy new one
of 2048 CPUs) that are each fully capable of running off such
interactive 3D simulations, plus our nation has dozens of other
supercomputers (equally public owned) along with their orbital physics
software that can easily do the same.

AGW is simply not 100% human powered.

- Brad Guth

On 5 Jan, 00:45, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 4, 6:24 am, kT wrote:

and global warming deniers.

If anyone else can come up with a better explanation for this thing,
feel free to fill us in on the details.

Humanity = 10~25% of what's making up Earth's thermal imbalance.

The moon which arrived roughly 12,500 years ago = 75~90% of global
warming.

There is one thing you leave out. The story of creation was split up
into days. now a day is the time the Earth takes to spin on its axis
(roughly, the sideral day is 23hr - 56min. The solar day is 24 hr).

When the Moon was formed the day was just 4hr long.


- Ian Parker

On Jan 5, 5:36 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 5 Jan, 00:45, BradGuth wrote: On Jan 4, 6:24 am, kT wrote:

and global warming deniers.

If anyone else can come up with a better explanation for this thing,
feel free to fill us in on the details.

Humanity = 10~25% of what's making up Earth's thermal imbalance.

The moon which arrived roughly 12,500 years ago = 75~90% of global
warming.

There is one thing you leave out. The story of creation was split up
into days. now a day is the time the Earth takes to spin on its axis
(roughly, the sideral day is 23hr - 56min. The solar day is 24 hr).

When the Moon was formed the day was just 4hr long.

The "story of creation" doesn't count, because there's nothing of
Earth's history, physics or science that'll support such faith-based
creation crapolla.

And beside, those nearby gravity/tidal forces would have been
downright impressive, especially along with that moon initially
spinning itself like a massive gyro out of balance.

Just at half the lunar distance of 192,000 km, as is along with the
very best of modern humanity and our applied technology could not
possibly survive upon this planet because, every stinking square meter
of elevated land would have been getting flooded and/or erupted to
death several times per day. Imagine as to what 96,000 km worth of
lunar orbit would have been doing to mother Earth (inside and out).

Sort of makes those most recent of floods as of the very last ice-age
this planet is ever going to see, look much like taking a shower.

In other words, you've got to be absolutely kidding.

When did our arctic ocean basin form?

When did Earth get its seasonal tilt?

- Brad Guth

On 5 Jan, 19:33, BradGuth wrote:

I am indeed kidding. I hope everyone saw this. However the 4hr day is
perfectly correct. The serious point really is how much do we trust
our politicians to get things right. How can a creationalist sit in
judgement on scientific projects.

We have discussed Iraq (or Irak we must get correct transliteration)
ad nauseam. None of the coterie of decisions makers knew one word of
Arabic or knew anything about the Middle East. Likewise decisions
about Ares are being taken by people who are total illiterates.


There is one thing you leave out. The story of creation was split up
into days. now a day is the time the Earth takes to spin on its axis
(roughly, the sideral day is 23hr - 56min. The solar day is 24 hr).

When the Moon was formed the day was just 4hr long.

The "story of creation" doesn't count, because there's nothing of
Earth's history, physics or science that'll support such faith-based
creation crapolla.

And beside, those nearby gravity/tidal forces would have been
downright impressive, especially along with that moon initially
spinning itself like a massive gyro out of balance.

Yes indeed. It is tidal forces that put the Moon in its present
position. The fact that the Moon originated close to Earth is certain.
Computer simulations tend to show that the protoearth collided with an
object the size of Mars. The Moon formed from the debris. There was
BTW no liquid water when the Moon formed. A 4hr day is arrived at by
looking at total angular momentum.

Just at half the lunar distance of 192,000 km, as is along with the
very best of modern humanity and our applied technology could not
possibly survive upon this planet because, every stinking square meter
of elevated land would have been getting flooded and/or erupted to
death several times per day. *Imagine as to what 96,000 km worth of
lunar orbit would have been doing to mother Earth (inside and out).

There was no multicelluar life for another 3.5 billion years.

Sort of makes those most recent of floods as of the very last ice-age
this planet is ever going to see, look much like taking a shower.

In other words, you've got to be absolutely kidding.

I'm kidding about creationalism, but not about that.

When did our arctic ocean basin form?

Quite recently. The current configuration of continents is the result
of Plate Tectonics or Continental drift.

When did Earth get its seasonal tilt?

Other rotations are not in the plane of orbit. The collision gave it
an axial offset of some description. The present tilt is the result of
chaos. The Moon does in fact stabalize tilt.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

On 5 Jan, 19:33, BradGuth wrote:

I am indeed kidding. I hope everyone saw this. However the 4hr day is
perfectly correct. The serious point really is how much do we trust
our politicians to get things right. How can a creationalist sit in
judgement on scientific projects.

We have discussed Iraq (or Irak we must get correct transliteration)
ad nauseam. None of the coterie of decisions makers knew one word of
Arabic or knew anything about the Middle East. Likewise decisions
about Ares are being taken by people who are total illiterates.

Are you calling Michael Griffin an illiterate?

It was his decision and his alone.

On Jan 6, 3:39 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 5 Jan, wrote:

I am indeed kidding. I hope everyone saw this. However the 4hr day is
perfectly correct. The serious point really is how much do we trust
our politicians to get things right. How can a creationalist sit in
judgement on scientific projects.

We have discussed Iraq (or Irak we must get correct transliteration)
ad nauseam. None of the coterie of decisions makers knew one word of
Arabic or knew anything about the Middle East. Likewise decisions
about Ares are being taken by people who are total illiterates.



There is one thing you leave out. The story of creation was split up
into days. now a day is the time the Earth takes to spin on its axis
(roughly, the sideral day is 23hr - 56min. The solar day is 24 hr).

When the Moon was formed the day was just 4hr long.

The "story of creation" doesn't count, because there's nothing of
Earth's history, physics or science that'll support such faith-based
creation crapolla.

And beside, those nearby gravity/tidal forces would have been
downright impressive, especially along with that moon initially
spinning itself like a massive gyro out of balance.

Yes indeed. It is tidal forces that put the Moon in its present
position. The fact that the Moon originated close to Earth is certain.
Computer simulations tend to show that the protoearth collided with an
object the size of Mars. The Moon formed from the debris. There was
BTW no liquid water when the Moon formed. A 4hr day is arrived at by
looking at total angular momentum.

Just at half the lunar distance of 192,000 km, as is along with the
very best of modern humanity and our applied technology could not
possibly survive upon this planet because, every stinking square meter
of elevated land would have been getting flooded and/or erupted to
death several times per day. Imagine as to what 96,000 km worth of
lunar orbit would have been doing to mother Earth (inside and out).

There was no multicelluar life for another 3.5 billion years.

Sort of makes those most recent of floods as of the very last ice-age
this planet is ever going to see, look much like taking a shower.

In other words, you've got to be absolutely kidding.

I'm kidding about creationalism, but not about that.

When did our arctic ocean basin form?

Quite recently. The current configuration of continents is the result
of Plate Tectonics or Continental drift.

When did Earth get its seasonal tilt?

Other rotations are not in the plane of orbit. The collision gave it
an axial offset of some description. The present tilt is the result of
chaos. The Moon does in fact stabalize tilt.

- Ian Parker

In other words, you don't actually know of when we got that arctic
ocean basin or Earth's seasonal tilt.

BTW, I agree with ETs creating much of what Earth has for us humans
(possibly including our moon) that which sort of came out of nowhere,
whereas suddenly we became so intelligent because we'd somehow lost
all of the really nifty DNA stuff of our having supposedly evolved
here on Earth.
- Brad Guth

On Jan 6, 3:39 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 5 Jan, 19:33, BradGuth wrote:

I am indeed kidding. I hope everyone saw this. However the 4hr day is
perfectly correct. The serious point really is how much do we trust
our politicians to get things right. How can a creationalist sit in
judgement on scientific projects.

We have discussed Iraq (or Irak we must get correct transliteration)
ad nauseam. None of the coterie of decisions makers knew one word of
Arabic or knew anything about the Middle East. Likewise decisions
about Ares are being taken by people who are total illiterates.


There is one thing you leave out. The story of creation was split up
into days. now a day is the time the Earth takes to spin on its axis
(roughly, the sideral day is 23hr - 56min. The solar day is 24 hr).

When the Moon was formed the day was just 4hr long.

The "story of creation" doesn't count, because there's nothing of
Earth's history, physics or science that'll support such faith-based
creation crapolla.

And beside, those nearby gravity/tidal forces would have been
downright impressive, especially along with that moon initially
spinning itself like a massive gyro out of balance.

Yes indeed. It is tidal forces that put the Moon in its present
position. The fact that the Moon originated close to Earth is certain.
Computer simulations tend to show that the protoearth collided with an
object the size of Mars. The Moon formed from the debris. There was
BTW no liquid water when the Moon formed. A 4hr day is arrived at by
looking at total angular momentum.

But then why are all other simulations excluded and/or banished?

What then is the mainstream status quo so deathly afraid of?


Just at half the lunar distance of 192,000 km, as is along with the
very best of modern humanity and our applied technology could not
possibly survive upon this planet because, every stinking square meter
of elevated land would have been getting flooded and/or erupted to
death several times per day. Imagine as to what 96,000 km worth of
lunar orbit would have been doing to mother Earth (inside and out).

There was no multicelluar life for another 3.5 billion years.

And of that purely subjective conjecture or swag of a forced
simulation that's terrestrial limited proves what exactly?


Sort of makes those most recent of floods as of the very last ice-age
this planet is ever going to see, look much like taking a shower.

In other words, you've got to be absolutely kidding.

I'm kidding about creationalism, but not about that.

When did our arctic ocean basin form?

Quite recently. The current configuration of continents is the result
of Plate Tectonics or Continental drift.

And that supposedly explains those fairly recent antipode generated
mountains?


When did Earth get its seasonal tilt?

Other rotations are not in the plane of orbit. The collision gave it
an axial offset of some description. The present tilt is the result of
chaos. The Moon does in fact stabalize tilt.

- Ian Parker

I agree that moon helps Earth, as well as having been thawing Earth,
but perhaps a certain closed mindset needs to get wasted.

- Brad Guth

Ian Parker wrote:
On 5 Jan, 19:33, BradGuth wrote:

I am indeed kidding. I hope everyone saw this. However the 4hr day is
perfectly correct. The serious point really is how much do we trust
our politicians to get things right. How can a creationalist sit in
judgement on scientific projects.

We have discussed Iraq (or Irak we must get correct transliteration)
ad nauseam. None of the coterie of decisions makers knew one word of
Arabic or knew anything about the Middle East. Likewise decisions
about Ares are being taken by people who are total illiterates.

There is one thing you leave out. The story of creation was split up
into days. now a day is the time the Earth takes to spin on its axis
(roughly, the sideral day is 23hr - 56min. The solar day is 24 hr).
When the Moon was formed the day was just 4hr long.
The "story of creation" doesn't count, because there's nothing of
Earth's history, physics or science that'll support such faith-based
creation crapolla.

And beside, those nearby gravity/tidal forces would have been
downright impressive, especially along with that moon initially
spinning itself like a massive gyro out of balance.

Yes indeed. It is tidal forces that put the Moon in its present
position. The fact that the Moon originated close to Earth is certain.
Computer simulations tend to show that the protoearth collided with an
object the size of Mars. The Moon formed from the debris. There was
BTW no liquid water when the Moon formed. A 4hr day is arrived at by
looking at total angular momentum.

Just at half the lunar distance of 192,000 km, as is along with the
very best of modern humanity and our applied technology could not
possibly survive upon this planet because, every stinking square meter
of elevated land would have been getting flooded and/or erupted to
death several times per day. Imagine as to what 96,000 km worth of
lunar orbit would have been doing to mother Earth (inside and out).

There was no multicelluar life for another 3.5 billion years.

Sort of makes those most recent of floods as of the very last ice-age
this planet is ever going to see, look much like taking a shower.

In other words, you've got to be absolutely kidding.

I'm kidding about creationalism, but not about that.

When did our arctic ocean basin form?

Quite recently. The current configuration of continents is the result
of Plate Tectonics or Continental drift.

When did Earth get its seasonal tilt?

Other rotations are not in the plane of orbit. The collision gave it
an axial offset of some description. The present tilt is the result of
chaos. The Moon does in fact stabalize tilt.


- Ian Parker

Who is this creationist that is in charge of judging scientific projects?

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:24:13 -0600, kT wrote:

and global warming deniers.


Huh?

If anyone else can come up with a better explanation for this thing,
feel free to fill us in on the details.

Um, using established technologies and manufacturing techniques that
will also be used on Ares V, ie five segment solids, J2-X engines, and
making the tanks in LA?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----