Re: GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy

[Brad Guth]

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"

[Jay Windley]

"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

[Brad Guth]

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

[Herb Schaltegger]

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

[Brad Guth]

"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

[Jay Windley]

"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

[sts060]

(Brad Guth) wrote in message >...
<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...

[Ami A. Silberman]

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.

[Fred Garvin]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:18:26 -0400, Jay Windley wrote:


> "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.
>


He needs to put down the crack pipe....

[Ami A. Silberman]

Jay Windley wrote:
>
> The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
> literature.

And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
up with there were landings but they were unmanned.

[Brad Guth]

"Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message >...
> Jay Windley wrote:
> >
> > The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
> > literature.
>
> And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
> there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
> up with there were landings but they were unmanned.


Yes I can, as I never stipulated those weren't crash landings,
somewhat like we have to do today with just about anything we send off
to Mars, even though Mars offers a wee bit of atmosphere that should
give options, though the crash and bounce until everything comes to a
halt seems to be the best we can accomplish.

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

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"DrPostman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> You incredible idiot, do you have a better method than using airbags,
> which has so far been the most successful way of landing on Mars?

Really? One success is more successful than two rocket/parachute landings?

Nice to know.

[DrPostman]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:29:20 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> wrote:

>
>"DrPostman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> You incredible idiot, do you have a better method than using airbags,
>> which has so far been the most successful way of landing on Mars?
>
>Really? One success is more successful than two rocket/parachute landings?
>
>Nice to know.


From what I have heard it seems to be the favorite way of looking at
landing. Perhaps not the most prevalent, but one of the favorites.




--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

[sts060]

(Brad Guth) wrote in message >...
> "Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message >...
> > Jay Windley wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
> > > literature.
> >
> > And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
> > there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
> > up with there were landings but they were unmanned.
>
>
> Yes I can, as I never stipulated those weren't crash landings,

So you're saying we haven't landed on the Moon, just crashed on it?
If so, that is incorrect - see below. If that's not what you meant,
please clarify.

> somewhat like we have to do today with just about anything we send off
> to Mars, even though Mars offers a wee bit of atmosphere that should
> give options, though the crash and bounce until everything comes to a
> halt seems to be the best we can accomplish.

Factually incorrect. We have accomplished one airbag landing of a
space probe. We have landed numerous probes in the conventional way
with rockets (sometimes combined with parachutes). For example:

-> Venus - Venera 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; Vega 2
-> Moon - Luna 9, 13, 16*, 17, 20*, 21, 24*; Surveyor 1, 3, 5, 6, 7;
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17
-> Mars - Viking 1, 2
* - sample return successful

There have been numerous failures, but they have been due to a wide
range of reasons. The fact is that to date we have about two dozen
successful unmanned soft landings and one airbag landing. Airbag
landings are a clever solution, and seem to work quite well in our
limited experience, but the vast bulk of landings on other celestial
bodies have been made by rocket soft landers. Anyway, the single
airbag success to date is irrelevant to your apparent premise that
successful Lunar landings did not take place.

BTW, Vega 1 and 2 both release balloons which successfully floated
around over Venus for a short time. Thought you would like that,
given your talk of airships on Venus...

[OM]

On 13 Aug 2003 10:25:57 -0700, (Jeff Root) wrote:

> -- Jeff, MDF operative in Minneapolis

....Pat Flannery now officially has competition.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Brad Guth]

Herb Schaltegger > wrote in message >...
> 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.

I'll have to ask; Have you no shame, no moral responsibility, no worth
as a human?

Sorry about that, I couldn't resist because, you're all speaking of
Venus as though there has never been nor will there ever be life as
you know it existing on Venus. Otherwise, I do like very much your
inference that, where there's a will there's a way of doing just about
anything.

I already stipulated that "there's other life NOT as we know it on
Venus", or at least the biggest ever remains discovered of
pre-greenhouse life: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

I've recently indicated upon the notion of our establishing
interplanetary communications, along with lots of numbers and
alternate ideas that should work:
http://guthvenus.tripod.laser-call-01.htm

I've just introduced the notion of establishing the lunar/moon L1.1
space elevator, thereby a moon-dirt depot and possibly even a new ISS
outpost within the massive CM:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm

There now, I've offered three perfectly good sentences, posting three
perfectly good discoveries and/or village idiot ideas that are moon
dirt cheap and a whole lot safer than anything you've got to offer,
unless flak is valuable, as in that case I'm broke, as in flat out of
warm and fuzzy ammo, though I'll gladly gather up whatever flak comes
my way and subsequently return the favor.

BTW; there's lots of natural (green renewable) energy already esisting
on Venus, as within the pressure differentials of 4+bar/km and of the
likely 10 degrees K/km of the near surface nighttime, especially of
elevated territories.

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

[Brad Guth]

Just like you've stipulated, we've accomplished various landings, all
over the solar system (100 fold more complicated than our re-doing
anything lunar), including a few robotic probes that mostly crashed
into our moon (rather odd there's nothing interactive remaining on the
moon, nor of any subsequent highly worthwhile SAR aperture receiving
module established. Though by far unmanned landings are sufficiently
documented with all the correct numbers that seem to add up to
supporting every step of the way. Too bad that still can't be said of
those Apollo landings.
Http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm


Here is another means to an end (actually several means), including
the salvage of Hubble along with the task of getting ourselves to/from
and of surviving places like Venus L2 and even Mars.

Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS situated within the CM

Lunar Space Elevator Linear Tether Considerations (CM @1^9 kg):
363,300 km, ME-L1 = 58,128 km, L1.1 = 63,941 km (-1738 km = 62,203 km)
405,500 km, ME-L1 = 64,880 km, L1.1 = 71,368 km (-1738 km = 69,630 km)

Not that I'm telling anyone what they shouldn't already know, such as
about dealing with space radiation is where I've learned from others
(including NASA) of what to expect at Earth L2, within the Van Allen
zone and of a couple of altitudes below or in between the Van Allen
zone and the surface of Earth. What's oddly missing is any concise
definition of what Earth L4/L5 have to offer and thereby of what the
lunar surface is like. Even clear information of what's to be expected
at ES-L1 seems to have become a secret because, of what there is to be
found simply doesn't compute for what those Apollo missions endured by
any long shot.

Of course, if you have something measured and/or calculated of Earth
L4/L5, for the solar maximum year and/or for the solar minimum year,
that's exactly what we all need to learn about, so that others or at
least that I can estimate what to expect at Venus L2, where I believe
the space environment of VL2 or VE-L2 is worth knowing, since even a
robotic mission such as a TRACE-II would need to be designed for the
radiation environment, as it's highly unlikely that the sun is going
to represent a purely UV-->IR source of energy, such as during those
extremely lucky Apollo missions and, even though the VL2 position is
roughly 90% shaded by Venus itself, there's still a good deal of solar
influx/weather that'll represent a whole lot more Sv dosage than any
human expedition can tolerate within the existing ISS shield
capabilities, especially if that's having to be based upon a 2 year
mission.

This radiation tit for tat is where the idea of affordably obtaining
tonnes of that nifty clumping moon dirt comes in real handy. Since we
can launch a manned mission, if need be in stages and assembled
somewhat like ISS. The only stumbling block is the issue of our having
to launch sufficient mass that'll surround the likes of yourself with
good enough density that'll effectively shield those onboard from the
worst the sun has to offer, not to mention whatever the galaxy has to
offer. Unfortunately, besides the rather enormous cost per tonne
delivered, the side effect of launching that amount of mass is the
resulting deposit of artificially created CO2 for the rest of us back
here on Earth, where this being from what I've learned that the
overall process of creating such mass and of having to launch along
with sufficient energy for a interplanetary mission could represent a
100 fold creation of CO2, which is a darn good thing if it were for a
planet like Mars that may need to be warmed up and simply didn't care
about further CO2 pollution but, for Earth that another confirmed "no
no".

Since I've found some references to the EL5 environment in need of as
much as 1000 g/cm2 and, I've located information upon the Earth L2
environment and of what certain densities of shielding accomplish, as
such I've interpreted and/or extrapolated upon what the EL5 radiation
environment must be. Again, if there were a concise set of radiation
tables and of sources other than just the cold-war NASA moderated
verity, then I'd not have had to bother the wizardly likes of
http://clavius.org which no matters what can't stray from their
pretentious cold-war outcome of those Apollo missions.

As another means to an end, for the prospect of accommodating a depot
of moon dirt situated in a nearly Zero-G environment seemed too good
to pass up. The idea of constructing a lunar based space elevator even
seems entirely possible, especially if the likes of those claiming any
Earth based (EM-L1) space elevator should be accomplish, as there's no
freaking contest in the fact that a lunar based elevator will become a
whole lot simpler and, that it could be accomplished within the
current level of expertise and by way of existing materials
application technology. The idea of having another ISS configured
within the massive lunar space elevator CM depot is yet another win
win for all sorts of things.

I've proposed a number of my village idiot ideas and benefits
associated with having a moon-dirt depot situated at ME-L1.1 (LL1.1),
and as usual, all I've gotten in return is either their black-hole
voids of nothingness or loads of sanctimonious flak instead of other
ideas or specific numbers, as God forbid, should some of our crack
space wizards actually stipulate upon anything specific that might end
their career that was probably phony to begin with. The following page
is simply an ongoing build, receiving corrections as well as whatever
feedback that can be put to the test (your input is welcome);
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm

If you don't know what works but otherwise seem to know for a fact
what doesn't work, then that's the sort of information we need, as
either way this moon space elevator is a doable thing, especially as
compared to accomplishing any Earth based space elevator and/or of our
going to/from any frozen and irradiated to death planet such as Mars.

BTW; I'm all for saving the butts of those Hubble huggers (I'd even
pay or it out of my own pocket), though if only I could think of
something morally worthy for such a fine instrument and of supposedly
such qualified souls to be focused upon, such as a nighttime side of a
certain planet that just might be capable of artificially illuminating
portions of their otherwise pitch black though sufficiently
transparent nighttime clouds. But gee whiz folks, I guess I can't
think of a single god damn worthy thing for that otherwise
horrifically spendy instrument that'll soon make for another terrific
display as it burns itself up upon reentry (I guess it'll be good
riddance to a source of such terrific images of places humans will
never obtain an ounce nor a gram of worth in a thousand generations).

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

[Brad Guth]

"Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message >...
> Jay Windley wrote:
> >
> > The problem of flight stability is vastly overstated in the conspiracist
> > literature.
>
> And sometimes (like Brad), they blow hot and cold. You can't argue that
> there were no landings because the LM wasn't stable, and then follow it
> up with there were landings but they were unmanned.

Yes you can.

Robotic landings are possible, even with some dumb luck those Apollo
landings could have been robotic, though if anything went horribly
wrong there wouldn't have been any information nor images that weren't
entirely moderated by NASA.

Just like you and others have stipulated, we've accomplished various
landings, all over the solar system (100 fold more complicated than
our re-doing anything lunar), including a few robotic probes that
mostly crashed into our moon (rather odd there's nothing interactive
remaining on the moon, nor of any subsequent highly worthwhile SAR
aperture receiving module established. Though by far unmanned landings
are sufficiently documented with all the correct numbers that seem to
add up to supporting every step of the way. Too bad that still can't
be said of those Apollo landings.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| Not that I'm telling anyone what they shouldn't already know,
| such as about dealing with space radiation is where I've
| learned from others (including NASA) of what to expect at
| Earth L2 ...

No, you haven't learned anything. And you resist the concerted efforts of
people to correct you.

And besides, you only learn the bare minimum -- or what you take to be the
bare minimum. What assurance do you have that your bare minimum standard is
sufficient to achieve correct understanding?

| ... what there is to be found simply doesn't compute for what
| those Apollo missions endured by any long shot.

But even though you admit to being the "village idiot," you don't for a
second examine any of your prior work to see whether an error in that -- and
not some insubstantial conspiracy -- might be the cause of the discrepancy
you believe exists.

| I'd not have had to bother the wizardly likes of
| http://clavius.org which no matters what can't stray from their
| pretentious cold-war outcome of those Apollo missions.

You seem to be the only person who has a hard time learning anything at our
web site.

Instead of sticking to the questions I ask you, you instead keep rambling on
about your various wacky theories and thereby persist in dodging those
questions. Your replies consist mostly of evasion, name-calling,
misrepresentation, and pleas to "agree to disagree."

If you really plan to give up, as you said you had, then it shouldn't be too
hard for you to say, in so many words: "I admit I have no substantiation
for my claim that the Apollo missions did not succeed as advertised."

How about it?

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

[Jay Windley]

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
om...
|
| Though by far unmanned landings are sufficiently documented
| with all the correct numbers that seem to add up to supporting
| every step of the way. Too bad that still can't be said of those
| Apollo landings.

Of course it can. You have been provided with the name, address, and
telephone number of the official responsible for those records, whose duty
is to provide it to those who need it. You have been provided with
commercial sources of the information to satisfy your criteria.

Unfortunately instead of evaluating that evidence and accommodating it into
your theories, you perform an ad hoc refinement of your standards. What you
claim didn't exist is shown to exist (or rather, you are shown how to prove
its existence for yourself), so you now say that something *else* is
required in order to refute yuour claim, and now *that* new thing isn't
available or doesn't exist. All this without lifting a figure to examine
the evidence itself.

That's consummate crackpottery. You obviously aren't intersted in knowing
the truth. You are only interested in creating the illusion that there is
something fishy. Your changing standards, your unwillingness to follow up
sources that may contradict you, and your general ignorance of the equipment
involved is ample evidence of that. So having made these observations, why
should anyone take you seriously? And if you have no justification for
being taken seriously, why do you continue to hose Usenet with URLs
outlining your ignorance in detail?

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

[sts060]

(Brad Guth) wrote in message >...
> "Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message >...
>
> Robotic landings are possible, even with some dumb luck those Apollo
> landings could have been robotic,

Yes, we already know robotic landings are possible. A list of them
was already presented. An Apollo LM could have been made robotic,
with appropriate engineering - not "dumb luck" - but the point was to
land men on (and retrieve them from) the Moon, so they were piloted.

>though if anything went horribly
> wrong there wouldn't have been any information nor images that weren't
> entirely moderated by NASA.

Let's see. NASA was the agency responsible for implementing the
Apollo missions. Who else was supposed to be responsible for
"moderating" the information and images?

The information and images have been made quite thoroughly available
to the public - and that includes you. A great deal of it has been
placed on the Internet. More, including images/text/manuals/designs
which haven't been digitized, are available for perusal at NASA
centers. I have done it, as a regular member of the public. Other
items exist in private or corporate collections. More valuable
things, like actual lunar samples, are available to qualified
researchers.

You have insinuated that there is something odd about NASA being
responsible for collecting, storing, and disseminating information
from NASA programs. Or perhaps you are saying they are doing
something systematically sinister with this material. If you have any
real evidence of such (that has not been claimed and debunked
elsewhere), let's see it. As a taxpayer, I would be highly annoyed at
a minimum.

> Just like you and others have stipulated, we've accomplished various
> landings, all over the solar system (100 fold more complicated than
> our re-doing anything lunar),

Why is landing on Mars "100 fold more complicated" than landing on the
Moon? It is further away, but the same atmosphere that requires heat
shielding also allows for aerobraking and parachutes to slow the thing
down - not available on the Moon. Landing on Venus adds the hostile
environment. But "100 fold"? How did you come up with that, even
order of magnitude?

>including a few robotic probes that mostly crashed into our moon

The Ranger probes were designed to crash into the Moon; and there were
numerous failures. But there were multiple (I would not say "few")
robotic soft landings, some robotic sample returns, and six count 'em
six fully successful manned landings.

>(rather odd there's nothing interactive remaining on the moon,

No, it's not. It's called money. It takes money to design and build
things that will last through years of surface thermal cycling and
other exposures. It takes money to buy and run the systems that would
collect, archive and access the data, and money to pay the people to
do it. New projects come along all the time competing for this money.
Are you going to cough up the dough to do it? In short, what
*exactly* is "odd" about it?

>nor of any subsequent highly worthwhile SAR
>aperture receiving module established.

Your idea of the importance of putting such equipment on the Moon
doesn't align with the priorities of most of the space science
community, especially those who divvy up the money. OK, but that
doesn't make it "odd" either.

>Though by far unmanned landings
> are sufficiently documented with all the correct numbers that seem to
> add up to supporting every step of the way.

Correct, except for the "seem to" part. They do, no qualifiers.

>Too bad that still can't be said of those Apollo landings.

Factually incorrect. There is an enormous amount of information about
the Apollo program that adds up to anyone who is willing to learn
about it. Jay has already made this point quite clearly. Again, if
you have something concrete to back up this claim, let's please hear
it.

[Brad Guth]

I have no problem with images obtained from orbit, not from anything
Apollo wile in orbit, via Hubble or the likes of KECK, as they each
depict a mostly basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as
3%(coal like) reflective, at best 25% reflecting in only an extremely
few maximum lunar white-out zones.

Why did there seem to be so much that was 55+% reflective once upon the
lunar surface?

Why wasn't is much hotter than reported while supposedly walking on the
actual dark lunar surface?

Doesn't IR energy reflect?

Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase in near-UV
and UV/a energy?

Where was the Sirius star system all of this time?

Where was good old Venus all of this time?

Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' of our American flag subdued?

Why was the 3+g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier substance
so none-reactive?

Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?

Why was there never once a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even 3
km/s?

Why is there still nothing of interactive scientific instrumentation
deployed upon the moon?

What's the secondary difference between the illuminated side of the moon
as compared to the nighttime side, or didn't the command modules (on 7+
Apollo occasions) and numerous other robotic missions ever bother to
record squat as to such raw surface emissions of thermal and radiation
levels that should have been easily recorded from 100+km?

In spite of all the orchestrated flak, I have managed to create a few
other related topics, several of which are not specifically about our
moon or Titan, though in more than a few ways offering everything about
future space exploration and just plain old space travel that's at least
indirectly related to folks utilizing our moon as a rather necessary
gravitational booster shot, of such missions passing as close to the
moon as possible hasn't even been such a new idea, it just so happens to
coincide with the even better physics logic and values of what the
LSE-CM/ISS is good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly much easier said than done, but
at least it's something that's been doable. For the benefit of our
environment, extracting and exporting helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just
a little beneficial fusion icing on the cake.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Brad Guth]

Right; the V22 flies like a coffin, except that it'll also exterminate
anyone within a km as it's in the process of killing off the entire crew
and all passengers. Of course since it'll be costing (all inclusive)
billions per V22, what the heck, lets go for it. I know of some ENRON
executives that'll gladly fly the damn things instead of their going to
prison for the rest of their lives.

With some fair and ballanced reguard to those Russians and of their best
efforts at moon landings; Their government was certainly just as
corrupt, if not more so at wagging their USSR dogs to death in order for
their military to extract whatever talents and resources and for
otherwise sustaining whatever job security they could muster. So, there
simply wasn't actually ever a need nor any motivation as to their
proving we didn't do what we said we did (as that would have meant the
end of their bogus programs as well). It seems their radar tracking and
astronomy expertise wasn't half that of ours, thereby no way of proving
a damn thing, as it's their word against ours and vise versa. It seem
clear that they were just as equally busy at snookering folks within
their country, thus I'm not even certain those supposed robotic landers
of theirs ever accomplished what they said, as again we only have their
word on it (certainly no apparent technology as to prove otherwise), and
as according to how we've been cold-war brain-washed by the likes of our
very own GW Bush "high standards and accountability", as such everybody
still knows or at least perceives that you can't possibly trust a
Russian.

A little something further that's interesting about those marvelous
fly-by-rocket lunar landers that remain as uncertified. I read from
recorded history about the most advance AI/robotic landers that were
created nearly two decades after those infamous moon landings of the
early 70s that were supposedly accomplished by those nifty Russian
AI/robotic landers, whereas nearly a couple of decades later and within
the absolute prime of the Russian space-race technology and expertise of
1988, they tried twice to get something onto Phobos representing an
absolute micro moon by our standards (hardly more than 1000 fold the
gravity influence of docking robotically at ISS), yet lo and behold they
still couldn't manage their AI/robotic fly-by-rocket task.

There's lots other that can run things amuck besides the fly-by-rocket
landers imploding.

Later (1996) a third and even more technologically advanced effort
intended for Phobos never got away from Earth (not actually the robotic
lander fault so much as a fundamental package delivery complication or
perhaps more than likely via friendly cold-war sabotage from NSA/DoD),
yet today Russians offer the only surefire fully robotic missions
to/from ISS, and thus far remaining as more robotically capable than
anything our NASA has to offer. Phobos isn't hardly 0.4% the gravity
task of managing our moon, yet the effort of getting safely onto Phobos
is going to take everything them Russians have as of today, of which
they obviously didn't have to work with as of 1988, much less of when
they supposedly managed such landings upon our moon.

BTW; Where's your stash of film footage of all the required prototype
R&D upon those Russian AI/robotic landers, and then equally upon our
manned landers that seemingly still can't perform squat as of today on
behalf of getting anything onto Mars, nor even as offering a stripped
down demonstration craft of safely surviving an aerial deployment here
upon Earth remains entirely top-secret. Why is that?

At least upon Venus a rigid airship/shuttle is doable, obtaining up to
65+kg/m3 and considering the 90.5% gravity isn't all that bad either.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Brad Guth]

I've checked into these sources and many others, and still came up
empty. Except for what's already officially published and usually posted
somewhere for the public to locate from within those NASA smoke and
mirror servers.

Of course, since you're the moon expert, and thereby the all-knowing
AI/robotic and manned lander expert; why don't you share a fully
documented R&D test flight example of those nifty fly-by-rocket landers
that can't otherwise be in any fashion or scaled demonstrated for the
public record.

Crapolla usually isn't solid evidence, especially if it's having
anything to do with a perpetrated cold-war, or the likes of all those
dead bodies as a direct result of those phony baloney WMD that you and
all of your good buddies obviously bought into hook, line and sinker.
Unfortunately, I could go on and on about what your stinking mainstream
status quo considers as solid without a freaking shred of "hard
evidence".

Unlike yourself, I have an entirely above-board ulterior motive, a
hidden agenda of sharing the truth and nothing but the truth. So,
exactly what's your problem with that?

Too bad that I actually make mistakes (being human really sucks), like
the one I'm making right about now, by way of attempting to communicate
with yet another intellectual incest cloned borg of the mainstream
status quo that has been using the resources and talents of others under
entirely false pretext, and might I offer that it's been transpiring for
nearly four decades throughout a perpetrated cold-war that still sucks,
and without a gram worth of "hard evidence" nor remorse as to justify
any of it.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Brad Guth[_2_]]

"Fred Garvin" > wrote in message


> He needs to put down the crack pipe....

Silly boys, arnt we.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG