Shuttle ET foam

[Eric F. Richards]

Greetings, all..

I used to be a long time reader and occasional participant in s.s.h...
I'm hoping you guys can give an authoritave answer to a question that
doesn't deserve one. :-)

I have a coworker who is an engineer who lets his politics get in the
way of his engineering. After it was noticed that foam shedded from
the external tank during ascent, he was steaming, "It's those
(deleted) environmentalists, demanding that NASA not use freon."
After a couple days of this, I said, "Okay, I want a reference."

Below are the "references."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_foam_ft_030506.html

http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2003/10/14/National/Shuttle.Tragedy.Debate.Continues-477720.shtml

Quality of references and their choice of phrasing in them
notwithstanding -- yes, I read them and what they really said and what
conclusions some jumped to -- I'm really interested in answers to this
question:

Did foam changes -- where they occurred -- cause adhesion or thermal
gradient or cohesion problems? How were they addressed and when?

Looking at the CAIB report, there appears to be quite a bit of CFC-11
based foam on Columbia's tank. Was that a change from another
formulation and if so, why?

CAIB asserts the collision was from that CFC-11 based foam. Was
*that* foam still in use on the Atlantis tank?

I'm interested in informed, sane, engineering based opinions, even if
they mean I'm totally clueless. (I know that -- I wouldn't be asking
here if I wasn't clueless, but I digress...)

Thanks much in advance!

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

[CJ]

Eric F. Richards > wrote in
:

> Greetings, all..
>
> I used to be a long time reader and occasional participant in
s.s.h...
> I'm hoping you guys can give an authoritave answer to a question
that
> doesn't deserve one. :-)
>
> I have a coworker who is an engineer who lets his politics get in
the
> way of his engineering. After it was noticed that foam shedded
from
> the external tank during ascent, he was steaming, "It's those
> (deleted) environmentalists, demanding that NASA not use freon."
> After a couple days of this, I said, "Okay, I want a reference."
>
> Below are the "references."
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html
>
> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_foam_ft_030506.html
>
> http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2003/10/14/National/S
hutt
> le.Tragedy.Debate.Continues-477720.shtml
>
> Quality of references and their choice of phrasing in them
> notwithstanding -- yes, I read them and what they really said and
what
> conclusions some jumped to -- I'm really interested in answers to
this
> question:
>
> Did foam changes -- where they occurred -- cause adhesion or
thermal
> gradient or cohesion problems? How were they addressed and when?
>
> Looking at the CAIB report, there appears to be quite a bit of CFC-
11
> based foam on Columbia's tank. Was that a change from another
> formulation and if so, why?
>
> CAIB asserts the collision was from that CFC-11 based foam. Was
> *that* foam still in use on the Atlantis tank?
>
> I'm interested in informed, sane, engineering based opinions, even
if
> they mean I'm totally clueless. (I know that -- I wouldn't be
asking
> here if I wasn't clueless, but I digress...)
>
> Thanks much in advance!
>

Here is some info:
The "new" foam containing HCFC 141b was first used on the
liquid hydrogen tank aft dome of ET-82 and flew on STS-79
in 1996. The foam was implemented on the tank's acreage, or
its larger portions, beginning with ET-88, which flew on STS86 in
1997. In December 2001, BX-265, which contains HCFC
141b, first flew as a replacement of BX-250. However, tanks
with BX250 continued to be flown as BX-265 was implemented
through the manufacturing process.

CJ

[Rick Nelson]

Hi CJ,

I guess that explanation is entirely transparent and obvious, but why
use any gas that "pressurizes" the internal dynamics of the foam in any way?

They could have gone to an open-celled foam (decreasing payload capacity
by 240 pounds)..

They could have gone to the tiles that insulate the Orbiter's underbelly
- 3200 pound payload increase.. "But gotsa no money no more".. excePt
that a metric ton of added payload would have paid for the upgrade
hundreds of TiMES over - "theoretically"..

The DoD really wants to take over this BEAST to accomplish their goal of
the militarization of space. The folks who post two sentence
"comebacks" in threads are DoD and Witless Houwz operatives.

I am myself only a well-informed soon to migrate to Canada American
citizen.

I feel like an Eintein in pre-NAZI Germany.

The USA will probably "win" WWIII by nuking the world into humanity's
extinction.

I guess at that point "some" Repubelickin's might be somewhat
"apologetic" and admit their errors.



Thanks,

Rick






CJ wrote:
> Eric F. Richards > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Greetings, all..
>>
>>I used to be a long time reader and occasional participant in
>
> s.s.h...
>
>>I'm hoping you guys can give an authoritave answer to a question
>
> that
>
>>doesn't deserve one. :-)
>>
>>I have a coworker who is an engineer who lets his politics get in
>
> the
>
>>way of his engineering. After it was noticed that foam shedded
>
> from
>
>>the external tank during ascent, he was steaming, "It's those
>>(deleted) environmentalists, demanding that NASA not use freon."
>>After a couple days of this, I said, "Okay, I want a reference."
>>
>>Below are the "references."
>>
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html
>>
>>http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_foam_ft_030506.html
>>
>>http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2003/10/14/National/S
>
> hutt
>
>>le.Tragedy.Debate.Continues-477720.shtml
>>
>>Quality of references and their choice of phrasing in them
>>notwithstanding -- yes, I read them and what they really said and
>
> what
>
>>conclusions some jumped to -- I'm really interested in answers to
>
> this
>
>>question:
>>
>>Did foam changes -- where they occurred -- cause adhesion or
>
> thermal
>
>>gradient or cohesion problems? How were they addressed and when?
>>
>>Looking at the CAIB report, there appears to be quite a bit of CFC-
>
> 11
>
>>based foam on Columbia's tank. Was that a change from another
>>formulation and if so, why?
>>
>>CAIB asserts the collision was from that CFC-11 based foam. Was
>>*that* foam still in use on the Atlantis tank?
>>
>>I'm interested in informed, sane, engineering based opinions, even
>
> if
>
>>they mean I'm totally clueless. (I know that -- I wouldn't be
>
> asking
>
>>here if I wasn't clueless, but I digress...)
>>
>>Thanks much in advance!
>>
>
>
> Here is some info:
> The "new" foam containing HCFC 141b was first used on the
> liquid hydrogen tank aft dome of ET-82 and flew on STS-79
> in 1996. The foam was implemented on the tank's acreage, or
> its larger portions, beginning with ET-88, which flew on STS86 in
> 1997. In December 2001, BX-265, which contains HCFC
> 141b, first flew as a replacement of BX-250. However, tanks
> with BX250 continued to be flown as BX-265 was implemented
> through the manufacturing process.
>
> CJ

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Eric F. Richards" > wrote in message
...
>>
> CAIB asserts the collision was from that CFC-11 based foam. Was
> *that* foam still in use on the Atlantis tank?

Yes, in all areas where the foam is hand applied, like at the PAL where it
came loose.

>
> I'm interested in informed, sane, engineering based opinions, even if
> they mean I'm totally clueless. (I know that -- I wouldn't be asking
> here if I wasn't clueless, but I digress...)
>

No, you're not totally clueless. You have enough clue to ask before jumping
to conclusions.


> Thanks much in advance!
>
> --
> Eric F. Richards
>
> "Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
> often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

[Scott Hedrick]

"Rick Nelson" > wrote in message
...
> I am myself only a well-informed soon to migrate to Canada American
> citizen.

If you really want to improve America, proceed with your plan, but complete
it by renouncing your American citizenship.

> I feel like an Eintein in pre-NAZI Germany.

You look like an "Eintein" as well.

[Brad Guth]

Rick Nelson,
Typically anything pro-science and thus pro-physics, such as about
"Shuttle ET foam" alternatives, is stalked and summarily bashed and/or
simply banished via evidence exclusions until a few of them NASA/Apollo
cows come home. For an example; try having an honest discussion about
747 fuel tanks that supposedly spontaneously explode, going against all
laws of physics and without a shred of hard-science in support of what
the mainstream status quo wants us to believe.

They'd obviously just as soon risk more lives and even as for keeping
their cloak and dagger Boeing/TRW and Raytheon "Phantom Works" team in
the air and testing of their ABL upon whatever's incoming, than not.

Thus the ruse/sting of a perpetrated cold-war continues if need be at
their own demise.

For the likes of you or myself to connect the available dots is a
serious mainstream no-no, a taboo of cloak and dagger nondisclosure
along with as much blood sucking collateral damage as it'll take. Thus
it isn't the least bit surprising when you're getting bashed and/or
ignored to death, as that's the standard policy of their "high
standards and accountability" that's about as "so what's the
difference" as anything these days tends to get. Just thank you lucky
stars that they don't perceive that you're hiding WMD, although hiding
their good buddy Osama bin Laden is just fine and dandy.

BTW; when I search for topics and/or contributions under your usenet
name of "Rick Nelson", there seems to be a lot of music related topics
that are an unfortunate association with another Rick Nelson.

As with myself posting almost anything, you and I seem to have become
topic terminators. Thus you and I must know a little something that the
status quo God(s) doesn't want others attracted to finding out about.

Author banishment is an interesting although rather pathetic method of
book-burning and, the likes of what Hitler and a Pope going postal
managed from time to time.

Perhaps suggesting viable alternatives for a foam covered ET isn't such
a good idea if it's going to save lives and/or improve the overall
capability of any given shuttle or other form of space delivery
methods. Utilizing basalt composite isn't the one and only alternative,
it just one that's been around for decades and is relatively dirt
cheap.
~

Life on Venus, a Township, Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Brad Guth]

Eric F. Richards,
Typically of anything pro-science and thus pro-physics, such as about
"Shuttle ET foam" alternatives, is being summarilly dog-wagged via such
topics getting stalked and then summarily bashed and/or simply becoming
banished via evidence exclusions until a few of them NASA/Apollo cows
come home. For an example; try having an honest discussion about 747
fuel tanks that supposedly spontaneously explode, thereby going against
all laws of physics and without a shred of hard-science in support of
what the mainstream status quo wants us to believe.

Since solutions have been at hand for decades, they'd obviously just as
soon risk more lives and even as for keeping their cloak and dagger
Boeing/TRW and Raytheon "Phantom Works" team in the air and of further
testing of their ABL upon whatever's incoming, than not.

Thus the ruse/sting of a perpetrated cold-war and now of their
artificial inflation of energy continues, if need be at their own
demise because, they plan upon taking us with them if things don't work
out.

For the likes of you or myself to contribute via connecting whatever
available dots is a serious mainstream no-no, another typical
wag-the-dog worth of taboo and of cloak and dagger nondisclosure along
with as much blood sucking collateral damage as it'll take. Thus it
isn't the least bit surprising when your honest notions and the sharing
of those as contributions on behalf of such honest ideas are getting as
little information as possible, as otherwise bashed and/or ignored to
death, as that's been the standard policy of their "high standards and
accountability" that's about as "so what's the difference" sucking as
anything these days tends to get. Just keep thanking your lucky stars
that they don't perceive that you're hiding WMD, although hiding of
their good buddy and partner in crimes against humanity (Osama bin
Laden) is just as fine and dandy as keeping their resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) in command.

As with myself posting almost anything, we do-gooders seem to have
become topic terminators. Thus folks like yourself and I must know a
little something that the status quo God(s) doesn't want others
attracted as to finding out about.

Author banishment has often been another interesting although rather
pathetic method of mainstream book-burning as to whatever rocks their
boat, the likes of what Hitler and a Pope going postal managed from
time to time offers good examples of how that system/method works.

Perhaps suggesting viable alternatives for a foam covered ET isn't such
a good idea if it's going to save lives and/or improve the overall
capability of any given shuttle or other form of space delivery
methods. Utilizing basalt composite isn't the one and only alternative,
it just one that's been around for decades and is relatively dirt
cheap.

The notion of an insulative as well as structural external tank that'll
take a licking and keep on ticking, combined with perhaps an outer Fuel
tank paint as suggested by Rick Nelson as being of a teflon base might
be all that's necessary. Thus the internal volume is going to hoast
greater usable amounts of the all essential LO2 and LH2, and/or the
entire external tank is going to become a bit smaller (thus more
aerodymanically efficient) and of lesser overall mass to boot. Either
way it's an absolute win-win situation.

Clearly the reason(s) why your contributions are getting little if any
respect (bashings and/or banishment) is because of your honest and well
minded views that are clearly not sufficiently within their high
standards and accountability aspects of their all-knowing cloak and
dagger mainstream status quo borgism box of incest or bust.

Commercial composite pressure storage tanks are not of something ETI
(extra terrestrial intelligence), as in MOS taboo/nondisclosure
crapolla. Such applied basalt fibers and of their highly insulative
micro-balloon composites have been a done deal as of decades ago. The
problem is that there's no apparent incest cloned MI5/NSA~NASA family
member encharge of that level of applied physics, nor of it's
commercial products. Thus lo and behold it's not going to get utilized
no matters what. They'd rather we'd all have to needlessly die and/or
become as bankrupt as possible before giving into the truth and nothing
but the truth.
~

Life on Venus, a Township, Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[OM]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:35:31 -0400, Rick Nelson >
wrote:

>I feel like an Eintein in pre-NAZI Germany.

....Didn't Ricky Nelson die after setting his plane on fire freebasing
coke?

<PLONK>

....Either way, he's as good as dead now. Dolt.

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

[Burnham Treezdown]

On 3 Aug 2005 11:58:27 -0700, "Brad Guth" >
wrote:


>> keeping their cloak and dagger
>Boeing/TRW and Raytheon "Phantom Works" team in the air

Explain.

[Burnham Treezdown]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:28:27 -0400, Bruce Palmer
> wrote:

>Burnham Treezdown wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2005 11:58:27 -0700, "Brad Guth" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>keeping their cloak and dagger
>>>
>>>Boeing/TRW and Raytheon "Phantom Works" team in the air
>>
>> Explain.
>
>Search 'guth' on this page http://www.crank.net/et.html and reconsider
>whether or not you really want him to "explain" anything.


I have a personal involvement with one of the companies listed & I
just wanna know if my conscience should be blackened.

[Dale]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:36:00 -0600, Eric F. Richards > wrote:

>Oh, I don't know... I've been calling Discovery "Atlantis" for days
>now... :-)

Yeah, I called her "Destiny" a few days ago :)

>But the question remains: Have any changes to the foam in the name of
>"environmental correctness" caused adverse problems that have been
>ignored?

That's two questions! "Have any changes to the foam in the name of
"environmental correctness" caused adverse problems?" and "Have they
been ignored?" Stop trying to cheat :)

>As an aside, *why* would anyone get all worked up over the foam given
>the SRB exhaust??

Well, foam can hit and damage the orbiter. Under ideal circumstances,
the SRB exhaust is well aft of it.

Dale

[Eric F. Richards]

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > wrote:

>
> "Eric F. Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> > CAIB asserts the collision was from that CFC-11 based foam. Was
> > *that* foam still in use on the Atlantis tank?
>
> Yes, in all areas where the foam is hand applied, like at the PAL where it
> came loose.
>
> >
> > I'm interested in informed, sane, engineering based opinions, even if
> > they mean I'm totally clueless. (I know that -- I wouldn't be asking
> > here if I wasn't clueless, but I digress...)
> >
>
> No, you're not totally clueless. You have enough clue to ask before jumping
> to conclusions.

Oh, I don't know... I've been calling Discovery "Atlantis" for days
now... :-)

But the question remains: Have any changes to the foam in the name of
"environmental correctness" caused adverse problems that have been
ignored?

(Okay, I'm broadening the question a bit -- sue me!)

As an aside, *why* would anyone get all worked up over the foam given
the SRB exhaust??

Thanks again!


>
>
> > Thanks much in advance!
> >
> > --
> > Eric F. Richards
> >
> > "Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
> > often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940
>

--
Eric F. Richards

"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most
experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in;
we're computer professionals. We cause accidents."
- Nathaniel S. Borenstein

[Dale]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:25:31 -0600, Eric F. Richards > wrote:

>Nonono, the point of the whole post was about some guy claiming that
>"the environmentalists are at fault." Now, if I wanted to go after
>the shuttle on environmental grounds, my FIRST complaint would have
>been about the SRB exhaust, THEN I might start worrying about the
>various hazardous materials used in building and servicing the
>shuttle.
>
>So, the point of my aside was, did anyone really go after the shuttle
>foam and its use of CFCs in any serious way on environmental grounds?

Oh, I understand now!! Sorry!! :) Well, I think the CFCs used in the general
foam application had been banned by law. I don't think SRB exhaust has ever
been specifically banned on environmental grounds. Not that it probably
shouldn't be...

>BUT FIRST, I still want to know: Have any changes to the foam in the
>name of "environmental correctness" caused adverse problems that have
>been ignored?
>
>Yeah, Dale, two questions in one -- what's the answer, huh, huh, huh?
>:-)

Don't ask me!! I just was trying to separate the two questions so that
you wouldn't just get a mysterious "no" for an answer :)

Dale

[Eric F. Richards]

Dale > wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:36:00 -0600, Eric F. Richards > wrote:
>
> >Oh, I don't know... I've been calling Discovery "Atlantis" for days
> >now... :-)
>
> Yeah, I called her "Destiny" a few days ago :)
>
> >But the question remains: Have any changes to the foam in the name of
> >"environmental correctness" caused adverse problems that have been
> >ignored?
>
> That's two questions! "Have any changes to the foam in the name of
> "environmental correctness" caused adverse problems?" and "Have they
> been ignored?" Stop trying to cheat :)
>
> >As an aside, *why* would anyone get all worked up over the foam given
> >the SRB exhaust??
>
> Well, foam can hit and damage the orbiter. Under ideal circumstances,
> the SRB exhaust is well aft of it.
>

Nonono, the point of the whole post was about some guy claiming that
"the environmentalists are at fault." Now, if I wanted to go after
the shuttle on environmental grounds, my FIRST complaint would have
been about the SRB exhaust, THEN I might start worrying about the
various hazardous materials used in building and servicing the
shuttle.

So, the point of my aside was, did anyone really go after the shuttle
foam and its use of CFCs in any serious way on environmental grounds?

BUT FIRST, I still want to know: Have any changes to the foam in the
name of "environmental correctness" caused adverse problems that have
been ignored?

Yeah, Dale, two questions in one -- what's the answer, huh, huh, huh?
:-)



--
Eric F. Richards

"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most
experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in;
we're computer professionals. We cause accidents."
- Nathaniel S. Borenstein

[CJ]

Rick Nelson > wrote in
:

> Hi CJ,
>
> I guess that explanation is entirely transparent and obvious, but
why
> use any gas that "pressurizes" the internal dynamics of the foam in
> any way?
>
> They could have gone to an open-celled foam (decreasing payload
> capacity by 240 pounds)..
>
> They could have gone to the tiles that insulate the Orbiter's
> underbelly - 3200 pound payload increase.. "But gotsa no money no
> more".. excePt that a metric ton of added payload would have paid
for
> the upgrade hundreds of TiMES over - "theoretically"..
>
> The DoD really wants to take over this BEAST to accomplish their
goal
> of the militarization of space. The folks who post two sentence
> "comebacks" in threads are DoD and Witless Houwz operatives.
>
> I am myself only a well-informed soon to migrate to Canada American
> citizen.
>
> I feel like an Eintein in pre-NAZI Germany.
>
> The USA will probably "win" WWIII by nuking the world into
humanity's
> extinction.
>
> I guess at that point "some" Repubelickin's might be somewhat
> "apologetic" and admit their errors.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CJ wrote:
>> Eric F. Richards > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Greetings, all..
>>>
>>>I used to be a long time reader and occasional participant in
>>
>> s.s.h...
>>
>>>I'm hoping you guys can give an authoritave answer to a question
>>
>> that
>>
>>>doesn't deserve one. :-)
>>>
>>>I have a coworker who is an engineer who lets his politics get in
>>
>> the
>>
>>>way of his engineering. After it was noticed that foam shedded
>>
>> from
>>
>>>the external tank during ascent, he was steaming, "It's those
>>>(deleted) environmentalists, demanding that NASA not use freon."
>>>After a couple days of this, I said, "Okay, I want a reference."
>>>
>>>Below are the "references."
>>>
>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html
>>>
>>>http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_foam_ft_030506.html
>>>
>>>
http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2003/10/14/National/S
>>
>> hutt
>>
>>>le.Tragedy.Debate.Continues-477720.shtml
>>>
>>>Quality of references and their choice of phrasing in them
>>>notwithstanding -- yes, I read them and what they really said and
>>
>> what
>>
>>>conclusions some jumped to -- I'm really interested in answers to
>>
>> this
>>
>>>question:
>>>
>>>Did foam changes -- where they occurred -- cause adhesion or
>>
>> thermal
>>
>>>gradient or cohesion problems? How were they addressed and when?
>>>
>>>Looking at the CAIB report, there appears to be quite a bit of
CFC-
>>
>> 11
>>
>>>based foam on Columbia's tank. Was that a change from another
>>>formulation and if so, why?
>>>
>>>CAIB asserts the collision was from that CFC-11 based foam. Was
>>>*that* foam still in use on the Atlantis tank?
>>>
>>>I'm interested in informed, sane, engineering based opinions, even
>>
>> if
>>
>>>they mean I'm totally clueless. (I know that -- I wouldn't be
>>
>> asking
>>
>>>here if I wasn't clueless, but I digress...)
>>>
>>>Thanks much in advance!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Here is some info:
>> The "new" foam containing HCFC 141b was first used on the
>> liquid hydrogen tank aft dome of ET-82 and flew on STS-79
>> in 1996. The foam was implemented on the tank's acreage, or
>> its larger portions, beginning with ET-88, which flew on STS86 in
>> 1997. In December 2001, BX-265, which contains HCFC
>> 141b, first flew as a replacement of BX-250. However, tanks
>> with BX250 continued to be flown as BX-265 was implemented
>> through the manufacturing process.
>>
>> CJ

Closed cell was to keep moisture out and ice in. Remember that the
tank has to be able to withstand Florida rain storms. When the tank
is filled, open cell foam would be filled with ice. Maybe...it always
a trade off during design, and I don't know all of the decisions that
were made some 30 years ago. I'm sure that the fix it team will look
at all options, although in the short term, a new foam is probably
not realistic. I'm sure they will look for a fix and not try to
redesign the tank. We will have to wait and see.

CJ

[Pat Flannery]

Dale wrote:

>
>
>>Oh, I don't know... I've been calling Discovery "Atlantis" for days
>>now... :-)
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, I called her "Destiny" a few days ago :)
>
>

Then the new HLSDV would be "Destiny's Child", wouldn't it? :-)

Pat

[Neil Gerace]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...

> Then the new HLSDV would be "Destiny's Child", wouldn't it? :-)

If it can be flown unmanned, would it be an Independent Woman?

[Anthony Frost]

In message >
"Neil Gerace" > wrote:

> "Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Then the new HLSDV would be "Destiny's Child", wouldn't it? :-)
>
> If it can be flown unmanned, would it be an Independent Woman?

With kittens? http://www.rathergood.com/independent_woman/

Anthony

[Brad Guth]

Burnham Treezdown;
>> keeping their cloak and dagger Boeing/TRW and Raytheon "Phantom Works" team in the air
> Explain.

What's to explain: Boeing has a perfectly complex multitasking
capability and, certainly loads of DOD motivation (contract incentives
as based upon proof of performance), the means and opportunity as to
testing out their ABL laser tracking beam upon whatever they damn well
feel like. Even giving a 1% primary cannon dosage of energy for a
reasonably safe shot at such an incoming intruder that already has
loads of thermal sensors involved and, of their Boeing/Shuttle division
having the necessary down-links as to live-monitoring of such thermal
information is star-wars drone heaven.

Of course, we all know that no part of NASA at the time was sharing
squat about their COLUMBIA, thus no way of any ABL team knowing of what
had already been going badly before it was too late. Besides, since
when has our DoD and of it's contractors never made a mistake, never
chopped a large ship in half with a top of the line nuclear sub, or
having run itself into a massive under-sea mountain, or similarly flown
robust jets through gondola cables and otherwise smart-bombed the
good-guys, or having tracked a cruise missile upon some unfortunate
Chinese embassy, and so forth. I'm still not entirely convinced that a
certain stinger didn't manage to take out the wrong 747.

Certainly you're not another one of those all-American fools suggesting
that our DoD or of it's MI5/NSA spooks do not make their fair share of
mistakes, suggesting that we don't cause nor inflict collateral damage,
whereas that sort of mindset would be absolutely insane. I'd be
seriously worried if companies like Boeing/TRW/Raytheon and their
Phantom Works reported zero errors, as I think that's what got the
likes of Hitler in the most trouble, not knowing where mistakes were
being made and therefore of where talents, resources and hopefully
improvements could be focused.

If something "should be blackened" it's upon our way of evidence
exclusions and/or nondisclosure that created and sustained a mutually
perpetrated cold-war, now having it's impact upon our global
environment and of artificially inflating the likes of fossil fuels is
about as worthy of being blackened as anything on Earth.
~

Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Brad Guth]

Eric F. Richards,
Not that foam should be entirely excluded but, I'm one of the village
idiots believing that a composite ET is doable without requiring an
outer foam covering.

Within the realm of a basalt micro-balloon and fiber composite matrix
there's loads of structural integrity attributes as well as absolutely
terrific thermal insulation and/or isolation considerations covering
some of the widest ranges of thermal differentials, geometrically
stable while under tremendous load.

Even though I've suggested for years upon structural composites of
mostly basalt being within the capability of R-1024/m (R-26/inch) as
doable on behalf of Venus and of a few lunar applications, I believe
this is just the potential tip of the basalt iceberg because, layers of
mostly basalt micro-balloons is just the ticket for achieving the likes
of better than R-52/inch (R-2048/m), and of those micro-balloons or
hallow spheres might have the likes of helium or even just that of a
good vacuum within, thus making those tough little items even lighter
per volume (possibly even individually nutural at 1 bar and 1.26
kg/m3).

I'm thinking the volumetric density of an assembled composite layer of
such basalt micro-balloons and fibers is capable of not exceeding a
couple of pounds/cu.ft., thus as little as 71 lb or 32 kg/m3 seems
perfectly doable. I believe that's 0.032 g/cm3 (roughly 1% of raw solid
basalt), which obviously gives some engineering room for more or less
material usage and/or variations in applied structural density because,
I also believe that's offering a good deal less mass than of the
existing empty structure of 69,000 lbs (31.3 metric tonnes). Even at a
composite density of 64 kg/m3 is relatively lightweight for something
that's structural as well as reasonably insulative to boot.

A 47 m by 8.4 m ET is just a downright massive and aerobreaking slug of
an item that's having to get anywhere near LEO, and I believe the thick
layer of cork and foam insulation is applied on top of that tankage
dimension, as well as for having other amounts as becoming unusable
volumes of space within that shell. This overall insulated package
represents itself as an outer insulated shell volume of roughly 2500
m3. If the composite version took 8% of that volume (200 m3) for being
utilized as various structural and insulative considerations, this
provides the remainde of 2300 m3 for accommodating the LH2 and LO2 as
fuel and oxidiser elements.

There is no freaking way 200 m3 worth of basalt composite as made into
whatever's fully compatible with the existing configuration is going to
weigh any 31.3 metric tonnes. In fact, the structural and insulative
weight savings should partially offset the added 5% worth of the
combined fuel and oxidiser volumes and thereby being only slightly
heavier overall upon the launch pad than what we've got to work with.

Shuttle ET application; A mostly basalt composite external tank can
even be internally metallic clad (aluminum coated) on the inside in
order to further seal against possible leakage. However, other
synthetic coatings and/or of the ceramic like binding matrix of
whatever's essentially gluing the basalt micro-balloons and fibers
together is likely going to suffice, along with offering somewhat
greater end-result worth of inherent insulation as well as structural
attributes and obviously a reasonably good fire rating that should
become at least as good as if not a whole lot better off than the
69,000 pound ET that's having to be externally insulated and thus
becoming extremely frail if not somewhat self-destructive, in that it's
insulative coating is hardly staying put nor reusable if shuttle safety
is an issue.

Instead, we've had to make do with the existing and obviously
potentially lethal situation, whereas "The entire outer surface of the
external tank is insulated with a half inch thick cork/epoxy layer
covered with 1 to 2 inches of spray-on foam", which is obviously not
affording all that much R-factor for the 4820 lbs (2.186 tonnes) worth
of added mass that's obviously not hardly rocket flame resistant nor
guaranteed as for staying put.

Existing shuttle external tank volumes (combined total volume of 2069.5
m3)
LO2 of 554 m3 (631.6 tonnes)
LH2 of 1,515.5 m3 (107.6 tonnes)

I'm proposing 5% more fuel/oxidiser mix for a total combined volume of
2174 m3
LO2 of 582 m3 (663.5 tonnes)
LH2 of 1592 m3 (113 tonnes)

With nearly 99% of the 2300 m3 shell interior usable (1% taken as extra
isolation situated between these LO2/LH2 elements) as 2175 m3 worth of
fuel and oxidiser storage leaves roughly 100 m3 for internal tankage
items and assorted other volumetric descrempencies, whereas if need be
at the existing volumes of 2070 m3 there'd be available space for a
core conduit of service access from tip to butt as an insulative
internal structural member.

Besides enhanced crew safety and perhaps that bit of extra fuel
capacity, reentry and reusable aspects of this basalt composite ET
should also be worth considering. BTW; Russia or perhaps China can
supply all of the basalt composites, and probably the entire ET from
top to bottom for about 10 cents on the dollar if it weren't for our
being such know-it-all total jerks about nearly everything under the
sun.

Perhaps if China accomplished the replacement ET, Russia delivered
their more powerful and more reliable SBRs and, we applied more ductape
to our shuttle (especially where all of those tile filler pieces are
just falling out for no apparent good reason whatsoever) is where we
might actually have the capacity of affordably sending ISS off to the
wizard of Oz, of interactively station-keeping that nifty machine at
EM-L2/ME-L1, whereas at least within lunar nighttime and/or via
earthshine and otherwise by the shade of mother Earth is where the ISS
crew could survive well enough as to accomplish some real space science
(such as establishing our first tether and anchor/probe into the moon)
without their having to rely upon banked bone marrow.
~

Don't look now: in spite of an orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Richard Kaszeta]

"Brad Guth" > writes:
> Not that foam should be entirely excluded but, I'm one of the village
> idiots...

Up until here you make sense.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Burnham Treezdown]

On 4 Aug 2005 13:29:46 -0700, "Brad Guth" >
wrote:

>Burnham Treezdown;
>>> keeping their cloak and dagger Boeing/TRW and Raytheon "Phantom Works" team in the air
>> Explain.
>
>What's to explain

(snip)

>
>If something "should be blackened" it's upon our way of evidence
>exclusions and/or nondisclosure that created and sustained a mutually
>perpetrated cold-war, now having it's impact upon our global
>environment and of artificially inflating the likes of fossil fuels is
>about as worthy of being blackened as anything on Earth.
>~


"My cat's name is Mittens!" ... Ralph Wiggam


Seriously....everybody makes mistakes. NASA, DoD, you, me, submarine
commanders, reporters....my solution, that has developed over the
years, is to believe no one to the extent that I'll be seriously let
down when their error/lie is exposed.

"...and an island never cries."

[Neil Gerace]

"Anthony Frost" > wrote in message
...
> In message >
> "Neil Gerace" > wrote:
>
> > "Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Then the new HLSDV would be "Destiny's Child", wouldn't it? :-)
> >
> > If it can be flown unmanned, would it be an Independent Woman?
>
> With kittens? http://www.rathergood.com/independent_woman/

Still my favourite of all on that site.

"Girl ah didn't know you could get down la' tha'!"

[Brad Guth]

In other words; ar you saying that we should hear no eval, see no eval
and supposedly smell nor taste any eval until it's too late to matter.

The likes of Hitler, your good buddy and resident LLPOF warlord GW
Bush, and perhaps that of a certain Pope going postal over a few nice
Cathars would get along just fine and dandy with your mindset being
that of "to believe no one to the extent that I'll be seriously let
down when their error/lie is exposed".

In order to prove your method works; have you trided walking in front
of a fast moving buss? or pushing someone other in front of that buss?

Obviously uncovering and thus knowing of the truth and nothing but the
truth is in of itself asking too much by way of your high standards and
accountability, or is it just your - so what's the differency - policy
that sucks.
~

Don't look now: in spite of an orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Brad Guth]

Richard Kaszeta,
> Up until here you make sense.
Sorry about that. I was thinking of a ceramic foam, or perhaps that of
a micro-balloon formula of basalt sort of foam that can't materialize
itself into more than a gram worth of a chunk at a time (somewhat like
hitting a powder-puff), although since most folks have been thinking
that I'm just another village idiot, whereas such it's just another one
of my lose cannon shots running amuck.

What I'm saying badly is that I'm not another one of those all or
nothing mainstream idiots that can't possibly accept some compromise
here and there nor learn a thing or two. I still favor the 100% basalt
composite with perhaps a touch of silica tossed in for good measure,
with possibly a thin aluminum clad internal coating. As far as
necessary binders, that's another issue that I'm not as capable of
defending, although seems there should be suitable binders for this
sort of composite application.
~

Don't look now: in spite of an orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Burnham Treezdown]

On 4 Aug 2005 18:03:45 -0700, "Brad Guth" >
wrote:

>In other words; ar you saying that we should hear no eval, see no eval
>and supposedly smell nor taste any eval until it's too late to matter.
>
>The likes of Hitler, your good buddy and resident LLPOF warlord GW
>Bush, and perhaps that of a certain Pope going postal over a few nice
>Cathars would get along just fine and dandy with your mindset being
>that of "to believe no one to the extent that I'll be seriously let
>down when their error/lie is exposed".
>
>In order to prove your method works; have you trided walking in front
>of a fast moving buss? or pushing someone other in front of that buss?
>
>Obviously uncovering and thus knowing of the truth and nothing but the
>truth is in of itself asking too much by way of your high standards and
>accountability, or is it just your - so what's the differency - policy
>that sucks.


For someone who pours out the words with such fury, you certainly have
no command of the language. As in spelling....grammar...making your
point comprehensible. Sad...I've known other schizophrenics who at
least were able to make it through college and were thus able to
describe their delusions and trans-dimensional voyages with vivid,
clear imagery. You're just a mess....

[Burnham Treezdown]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:28:27 -0400, Bruce Palmer
> wrote:

>Burnham Treezdown wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2005 11:58:27 -0700, "Brad Guth" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>keeping their cloak and dagger
>>>
>>>Boeing/TRW and Raytheon "Phantom Works" team in the air
>>
>> Explain.
>
>Search 'guth' on this page http://www.crank.net/et.html and reconsider
>whether or not you really want him to "explain" anything.


You/re right, I should have checked first (sigh).

[OM]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:52:44 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
> wrote:

>
>"Anthony Frost" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >
>> "Neil Gerace" > wrote:
>>
>> > "Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > Then the new HLSDV would be "Destiny's Child", wouldn't it? :-)
>> >
>> > If it can be flown unmanned, would it be an Independent Woman?
>>
>> With kittens? http://www.rathergood.com/independent_woman/
>
>Still my favourite of all on that site.
>
>"Girl ah didn't know you could get down la' tha'!"

....I don't think *anyone* is ready for this jelly.

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

[Richard Kaszeta]

"Brad Guth" > writes:
> Sorry about that. I was thinking of a ceramic foam, or perhaps that of
> a micro-balloon formula of basalt sort of foam that can't materialize
> itself into more than a gram worth of a chunk at a time (somewhat like
> hitting a powder-puff)

Have you looked at the properties for existing ceramic foams and such?
While very strong *for their weight*, they are actually pretty
fragile.

Indeed, I use various aerogel products on a daily basis, and the one
thing this stuff isn't is strong; it's as fragile as can be, which is
one of the main reasons we don't see aerogel products everywhere.

That, and it isn't exactly cheap.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Eric F. Richards > wrote:
>So, the point of my aside was, did anyone really go after the shuttle
>foam and its use of CFCs in any serious way on environmental grounds?

Specifically the shuttle foam? No. But the general rules calling for
phasing out CFC use pushed NASA and its contractors toward alternatives,
partly directly and partly by reducing availability of CFCs and driving up
their cost.

(NASA Ames had a CFC-filled wind tunnel, used for reaching aerodynamic
conditions that are difficult to duplicate on a small scale with air.
When they finally decided that it was time to switch it to something more
ozone-friendly, they found there was no problem at all in getting rid of
their CFC supply: several companies were willing and eager to *pay them*
for the privilege of carefully cleaning it all out and taking it away.
Because production had ended some years earlier, prices had skyrocketed
and the wind tunnel's supply of it was worth a small fortune.)

>BUT FIRST, I still want to know: Have any changes to the foam in the
>name of "environmental correctness" caused adverse problems that have
>been ignored?

No. The introduction of non-CFC foam did cause some minor problems --
notably an increase in "popcorning", separation of small bits of foam --
but small changes brought that under control.
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. |

[Brad Guth]

Richard Kaszeta;
> Have you looked at the properties for existing ceramic foams and such?
> While very strong *for their weight*, they are actually pretty
> fragile.

I can't honestly say that I've looked into such commercial products
but, if binders can be modified as for accommodating the likes of
basalt and/or perhaps silica as fibers and micro-balloons, it seems the
degree of their being fragile can be engineered to suit the
application. If such micro-balloons were merely a portion of the
composite layers of a basalt composite shuttle/ET, then where's the
problem?

Basically, a layer of such nearly buoyant micro-balloons as having a
few interlocking fibers between the inner and outer primary structural
layers is going to be quite nicely sequestered within those robust
composite layers of such shells of basalt and perhaps a portion of
silica fibers, which seems nearly ideal for structural integrity as
well as thermal resistance/mm, leaving an inner/outer shell as
essentially a viable structural coating of whatever density and/or
suitable quality that's required for the task at hand.

I certainly agree that aerogels are offering somewhat pathetic if not
zilch worth structural attributes, thus I've never considered such.
Instead, micro-balloons of basalt seems quite doable and, if those were
individually of a thin enough wall or spherical shell thickness we'd be
down to perhaps less than 0.1% of the raw product density per volume.

If push came down to shove, I'm not exactly certain what such helium
and/or vacuum displaced hollow spheres are worth these days but, I'd
have to suggest perhaps a limit of 0.01% of the raw product density per
volume is a possibility, thus representing perhaps as little as 0.32
kg/m3, thereby atmospherically buoyant which isn't exactly half bad for
something that can be given an amount of binder into becoming
sufficiently structural, especially nifty if there was a small
percentage of a fiber matrix connecting the primary inner/outer shells.

> That, and it isn't exactly cheap.

What has "cheap" have to do with getting the job safely and thus
efficiently accomplished without our having to lose valuable lives in
the process?

Here I'd thought that such lives had great value, not to mention the
years worth of lost time and of all the ongoing employment of tens of
thousands that'll keep sucking up those hard earned dollars and loads
of energy no matters what.

Where in the bylaws of your physics and/or of the hard-science is there
any requirement as for being "cheap" as a moral or even technical
criteria?

Our mutually perpetrated cold-wars haven't been exactly moral nor
"cheap", and there's still no apparent end in sight as to those taking
us into an early WW-III grave, and quite bankrupt in more dastardly
ways than money to boot.

If you exclude the process energy of producing such basalt composites
of continuous fibers and of these nifty micro-balloons, surely the
aspects of appropriate binders and the overall assembly process isn't
all that spendy nor technically the least bit insurmountable.

Even at 64 kg/m3 of the overall structural and insulative density isn't
exactly outside the ballpark of what's possible to achieve with such
composites and binders. Exactly where the equal as to the existing
structural aspects of alloy steels, aluminum and all of that having to
be externally insulated as an overall product density is, is a bit more
complicated than I can figure out, though perhaps your expertise and
access as to making that comparison is more easily doable. Even if the
total ET mass and internal volumes are to be the same, I believe we've
gained structural and safety factors not otherwise obtainable, as well
as achieving a turn-around ET reusage that should have become more
efficient.

Why stop at doing the shuttle/ET, when we obviously need a replacement
fleet of shuttles that could be structurally taking advantage of the
very same process, that which might not require but a thin layer of
ceramic insulative tiles and/or ceramic foam of micro-balloons as for
accommodating their reentry phase. Either that or an external clad of a
porous titanium shell wherever it counts seems like a doable
compromise.
~

Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Richard Kaszeta]

"Brad Guth" > writes:
> I can't honestly say that I've looked into such commercial products
> but, if binders can be modified as for accommodating the likes of
> basalt and/or perhaps silica as fibers and micro-balloons, it seems the
> degree of their being fragile can be engineered to suit the
> application.

"Binders" have weight to them, you know.

> I certainly agree that aerogels are offering somewhat pathetic if not
> zilch worth structural attributes, thus I've never considered such.
> Instead, micro-balloons of basalt seems quite doable and, if those were
> individually of a thin enough wall or spherical shell thickness we'd be
> down to perhaps less than 0.1% of the raw product density per volume.

If you'd do the basic calculations for the micro-balloons you propose,
you'll find that they aren't the miracle material you make them out to
be.

> If push came down to shove, I'm not exactly certain what such helium
> and/or vacuum displaced hollow spheres are worth these days but, I'd
> have to suggest perhaps a limit of 0.01% of the raw product density per
> volume is a possibility

Not anytime soon, and certainly never in a timeframe worth considering
for a near-term ET replacement.

> > That, and it isn't exactly cheap.
>
> What has "cheap" have to do with getting the job safely and thus
> efficiently accomplished without our having to lose valuable lives in
> the process?

Doing engineering costs money (which eventually has to come from
somewhere), and making the materials takes people's time

> Here I'd thought that such lives had great value,

They do, but there is a definite limit, and it's probably lower than
you think.

> Where in the bylaws of your physics and/or of the hard-science is there
> any requirement as for being "cheap" as a moral or even technical
> criteria?

For any project, there are always constraints of cost, money,
materials, and labor, as well as other constraints. Meeting those
constraints is a fundamental part of engineering (which is what
building a shuttle is, not "hard science" or "physics").

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Pat Flannery]

Richard Kaszeta wrote:

>
>Indeed, I use various aerogel products on a daily basis, and the one
>thing this stuff isn't is strong; it's as fragile as can be, which is
>one of the main reasons we don't see aerogel products everywhere.
>
>

You're the guy to ask- does aerogel consist of a bunch of interlocked
bubbles; or is it porous, like a sponge?

Pat

[Richard Kaszeta]

Pat Flannery > writes:
> You're the guy to ask- does aerogel consist of a bunch of interlocked
> bubbles; or is it porous, like a sponge?

It's a gel, so it's porous, like a sponge. There's a low-res
photomicrograph at http://www.nanopoma.com/nano_eng/products_2.htm
that's pretty representative.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[OM]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:41:58 -0500, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>You're the guy to ask- does aerogel consist of a bunch of interlocked
>bubbles; or is it porous, like a sponge?

....It's a gel - hence the name, aero*gel* - and is porous. What I've
always been more curious about is its overall strength with regards to
compression. Can you take a block of this stuff and easily crush it
between thumb and index finger? Or is it at least as "sturdy" as a
Shuttle tile?

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

[OM]

On 05 Aug 2005 12:32:41 -0500, Richard Kaszeta >
wrote:

>"Binders" have weight to them, you know.

....I've a better idea. Put *blinders* on before you -blunder- again
and respond to Brad Guth. He's a certified nutcase, and you'd do us
all a major favor by putting him in your killfile.

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

[Richard Kaszeta]

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> writes:
> ...I've a better idea. Put *blinders* on before you -blunder- again
> and respond to Brad Guth. He's a certified nutcase, and you'd do us
> all a major favor by putting him in your killfile.

It's a bad habit. Every once in a while he somehow triggers a
keyphrase that lets a post of his through the killfile, and I oddly
find myself replying once or twice before being reminded how dense he is.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Richard Kaszeta]

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> writes:
> ...It's a gel - hence the name, aero*gel* - and is porous. What I've
> always been more curious about is its overall strength with regards to
> compression. Can you take a block of this stuff and easily crush it
> between thumb and index finger?

Its compressive strength is very poor, I have to be very careful when
handling it not to break off corners and such, and I can crush a 1cm
cube of it without even trying (maybe a lb of pressure), which is why
(aside from cost) that I never seem to use it, as opposed to the 1mm
beads which can be somewhat useful.

> Or is it at least as "sturdy" as a
> Shuttle tile?

Considerably less so, and I have one of those to play with too. (Not
an actual tile, but an "engineering sample" of the tile material).
It's easily 10-20x stronger than aerogel, but it's also a lot heavier.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Pat Flannery]

Richard Kaszeta wrote:

>Pat Flannery > writes:
>
>
>>You're the guy to ask- does aerogel consist of a bunch of interlocked
>>bubbles; or is it porous, like a sponge?
>>
>>
>
>It's a gel, so it's porous, like a sponge. There's a low-res
>photomicrograph at http://www.nanopoma.com/nano_eng/products_2.htm
>that's pretty representative.
>
>

This is no microphoto of aerogel!:
http://www.nanopoma.com/nano_eng/img/pro_aerogel_sem.gif
This is a picture of a giant suspension bridge on the mysterious Guth
Region of Venus! I'd know it anywhere!
Seriously, I was hoping it was bubbles, as you could then fill it with
helium and have a solid (okay, _marginally_ solid) lighter-than-air
material.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>Can you take a block of this stuff and easily crush it
>between thumb and index finger?
>

I've seen films of people doing exactly that, crushing it into a tiny
ball from a a fairly good-sized piece.

> Or is it at least as "sturdy" as a
>Shuttle tile?
>
>

Far less than that- the stuff makes a Shuttle tile appear strong by
comparison.
On the other hand, it is very cool looking; sort of like solidified smoke:
http://www.fiu.edu/orgs/cebaf/aerogel/aerogel.html

[Richard Kaszeta]

Pat Flannery > writes:
> I've seen films of people doing exactly that, crushing it into a tiny
> ball from a a fairly good-sized piece.

If it's a good silica aerogel, this is hard to do; it will break
easily into little bits and powder, but the net density won't change
(the 1 mm beads I use can be put into a mortar and pestle and ground
into a fine powder, but the powder has the exact same volumetric
density as the bead particles). And the fine powder is not easily
compactable.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Brad Guth]

Here I'd thought you weren't just another incest cloned borg. My
mistake.

If it wasn't for the MI5/NSA spookism of the OM incest DNA/RNA running
amuck, I'd suppose that you might actually have a slim chance in hell
of actually contributing as a human. Of course, this entire usenet is
nothing but a intellectual cesspool as fed by those few space-toilets
that are so plugged soild with their mainstream crapolla that flushing
simply isn't an option.

Perhaps you could return under an alternative cloak and dagger spook
name, along with a hidden spook computer address to boot.
~

Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Jim Davis]

Brad Guth wrote:

> Of course, this entire usenet is
> nothing but a intellectual cesspool as fed by those few
> space-toilets that are so plugged soild with their mainstream
> crapolla that flushing simply isn't an option.

That being the case, Brad, do you think perhaps your time would be
better spent elsewhere?

Jim Davis

[Pat Flannery]

Richard Kaszeta wrote:

>If it's a good silica aerogel, this is hard to do; it will break
>easily into little bits and powder,
>
I'm not sure what its composition was, but I saw someone crush something
they called "aerogel" from a cube about three inches on a side into a
ball smaller than a BB on television. I think it was during a report on
the NASA Stardust mission.

> but the net density won't change
>(the 1 mm beads I use can be put into a mortar and pestle and ground
>into a fine powder, but the powder has the exact same volumetric
>density as the bead particles). And the fine powder is not easily
>compactable.
>
>

This sounds like something that could get imbedded in your hands as you
crushed it, the way glass fiber wool can.
(Which is why it got used only once in our aquarium's filter system- my
hands felt like I'd grabbed a cactus.)
Are you using it for filtration by any chance? With its extremely fine
porous structure it sounds like it would make an ideal substitute for
Diatomaceous Earth in the filtration role.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Jim Davis wrote:

>That being the case, Brad, do you think perhaps your time would be
>better spent elsewhere?
>
>

I'll say one thing for Brad- he can use more descriptive adjectives and
similes in a sentence than I would have thought humanly possible.
One of these days, I'm going to "Bradify" a chunk of Shakespeare and see
what I come up with. :-)

Pat

[Brad Guth]

Jim Davis,
Are you offering to fund some actual hard-science, say something of
interplanetary communications, or perhaps TRACE-II, or possibly even
the LSE-CM/ISS???

Just in case the public needs to use one of your plugged space-toilets,
I think it's my moral obligation as to applying every available tool
and effort as to unplug at least one of those nasty suckers.
~

Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Tim K.]

"Eric F. Richards" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings, all..
>
> I used to be a long time reader and occasional participant in s.s.h...
> I'm hoping you guys can give an authoritave answer to a question that
> doesn't deserve one. :-)
>
> I have a coworker who is an engineer who lets his politics get in the
> way of his engineering. After it was noticed that foam shedded from
> the external tank during ascent, he was steaming, "It's those
> (deleted) environmentalists, demanding that NASA not use freon."
> After a couple days of this, I said, "Okay, I want a reference."

For sure, all those morons who actually care about the ozone layer...

[David Higgins]

Pat Flannery wrote:

> One of these days, I'm going to "Bradify" a chunk of Shakespeare and see
> what I come up with. :-)

Something like "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing," most likely.

[Neil Gerace]

"Tim K." > wrote in message
...

> For sure, all those morons who actually care about the ozone layer...

"And it won't make a lick of difference, because we got the bomb!"

[OM]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:40:31 -0500, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>One of these days, I'm going to "Bradify" a chunk of Shakespeare and see
>what I come up with. :-)

....Nonono! Give it the Bbo Hallr treatment instead!

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

[Richard Kaszeta]

Pat Flannery > writes:
> This sounds like something that could get imbedded in your hands as
> you crushed it, the way glass fiber wool can.

Yeah, the powder does that, but it's not much of an issue, it cleans
up well with soap and water. More of an issue is that it's a severe
dessicant.

> Are you using it for filtration by any chance?

Nope, I use it as insulation, primarily for cryogenic applications.

The 1mm beads I use are from Cabot, www.cabot-corp.com/nanogel, if
anyone is wondering.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Sander Vesik]

In sci.space.history Eric F. Richards > wrote:
> Greetings, all..
>
> I used to be a long time reader and occasional participant in s.s.h...
> I'm hoping you guys can give an authoritave answer to a question that
> doesn't deserve one. :-)
>
> I have a coworker who is an engineer who lets his politics get in the
> way of his engineering. After it was noticed that foam shedded from
> the external tank during ascent, he was steaming, "It's those
> (deleted) environmentalists, demanding that NASA not use freon."
> After a couple days of this, I said, "Okay, I want a reference."
>

Why does it matter if environmentalists were involved or not? If
the foam is shedding but shouldn't be then at fault are obviously
those who didn't do their work to get a good new reliable foam
there. Being a crybaby doesn't change teh fact they didn't manage
to complete their work to the spec.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Richard Kaszeta > wrote:
>> Or is it at least as "sturdy" as a
>> Shuttle tile?
>
>Considerably less so, and I have one of those to play with too. (Not
>an actual tile, but an "engineering sample" of the tile material).
>It's easily 10-20x stronger than aerogel, but it's also a lot heavier.

If I recall correctly, a while back somebody demonstrated an interesting
hybrid: take the shuttle tile material, and fill its pore spaces with
silica aerogel (easier said than done, but they found a way). Apparently
it's a stunningly good insulator. Alas, it's also stunningly expensive
and very difficult to make.
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. |

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Henry Spencer
> writes
>In article >,
>Richard Kaszeta > wrote:
>>> Or is it at least as "sturdy" as a
>>> Shuttle tile?
>>
>>Considerably less so, and I have one of those to play with too. (Not
>>an actual tile, but an "engineering sample" of the tile material).
>>It's easily 10-20x stronger than aerogel, but it's also a lot heavier.
>
>If I recall correctly, a while back somebody demonstrated an interesting
>hybrid: take the shuttle tile material, and fill its pore spaces with
>silica aerogel (easier said than done, but they found a way). Apparently
>it's a stunningly good insulator. Alas, it's also stunningly expensive
>and very difficult to make.

I'm coming into this very late, but what's the advantage over the
ordinary tile material?
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

[OM]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 12:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
> wrote:

>Why does it matter if environmentalists were involved or not?

....Because nothing would nuke their cause better than to have proof
that the whinings and bitchings of a bunch of dope-smoking, sybaritic,
tree-hugging hippies were ultimately responsible for the loss of
Columbia and her crew.

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

[OM]

On 06 Aug 2005 06:34:17 -0500, Richard Kaszeta >
wrote:

>The 1mm beads I use are from Cabot, www.cabot-corp.com/nanogel, if
>anyone is wondering.

....What's the price per pound?

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

[Jorge R. Frank]

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in :

> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 12:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
> > wrote:
>
>>Why does it matter if environmentalists were involved or not?
>
> ...Because nothing would nuke their cause better than to have proof
> that the whinings and bitchings of a bunch of dope-smoking, sybaritic,
> tree-hugging hippies were ultimately responsible for the loss of
> Columbia and her crew.

Well, let's be careful and separate the facts from the urban legends here.

NASA changed the foam that is applied mechanically to the "acreage" areas
of the tank starting with ET-85 which flew on STS-84. After that, there was
observed to be an increase in "popcorning" which caused larger than normal
numbers of tile dings. NASA continued to tweak the foam application
techniques and by mid-2000 had gotten tile dings back down to the pre-1997
levels.

However, this change only affected the mechanically-applied foam. Foam that
was applied by hand, such as the bipod ramps and the PAL ramp, continued to
use the older foam. It was a chunk of foam from the bipod ramp that fatally
damaged Columbia on STS-107. Therefore the change to "environmentally
friendly" foam played no role in the loss of Columbia.

The tank used for STS-114, ET-121, is the first to fly with
"environmentally friendly" foam on the PAL ramp. It is possible that the
change in formulation may have played a role in the shedding of debris from
the PAL ramp, but that is only one of many factors that Gerstenmaier's
tiger team is examining now.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Tim K.]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gerace wrote:
>> "Tim K." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>For sure, all those morons who actually care about the ozone layer...
>>
>> "And it won't make a lick of difference, because we got the bomb!"
>
> "Two words: nuclear ****ing weapons."

Two more: non-sequitur.

[Tim K.]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 12:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
> > wrote:
>
>>Why does it matter if environmentalists were involved or not?
>
> ...Because nothing would nuke their cause better than to have proof
> that the whinings and bitchings of a bunch of dope-smoking, sybaritic,
> tree-hugging hippies were ultimately responsible for the loss of
> Columbia and her crew.

I happen to think ****ting where we live is a stupid manifesto and I don't
smoke dope, hug trees and never was a hippie. But if it helps you to paint
everyone with one brush stroke, by all means...

[Pat Flannery]

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

>
>The tank used for STS-114, ET-121, is the first to fly with
>"environmentally friendly" foam on the PAL ramp. It is possible that the
>change in formulation may have played a role in the shedding of debris from
>the PAL ramp, but that is only one of many factors that Gerstenmaier's
>tiger team is examining now.
>
>

They're looking into the fact that the PAL ramp was damaged and repaired
during processing:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050805tankteam/

Pat

[Scott Hedrick]

"Henry Spencer" > wrote in message
...
> Alas, it's also stunningly expensive
> and very difficult to make.

Perfect for government work.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Richard Kaszeta" > wrote in message
...
>More of an issue is that it's a severe
> dessicant.

That's why similar forms of silicon gel are used to assist landscaping,
particularly where a steep bank exists. The gel absorbs rainwater so that it
doesn't wash the bank away, and slowly releases it. Although the gel
eventually breaks down, by then grass has developed roots.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> "Two words: nuclear ****ing weapons."

Great cartoon in the Albuquerque Journal several years back: four big brutes
are at the bar in the saloon, with US, England, France and Russia on their
backs. A Ross Perot lookalike with a big-assed bomb in his back pocket and
New Mexico on his back says something like "make room, boys."

If New Mexico were an independent country, it would have the fifth largest
nuclear stockpile.

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Jonathan Silverlight > wrote:
>>If I recall correctly, a while back somebody demonstrated an interesting
>>hybrid: take the shuttle tile material, and fill its pore spaces with
>>silica aerogel (easier said than done, but they found a way). Apparently
>>it's a stunningly good insulator. Alas, it's also stunningly expensive
>>and very difficult to make.
>
>I'm coming into this very late, but what's the advantage over the
>ordinary tile material?

A much better insulator means you could make the tiles thinner and lighter,
plus possibly improve their robustness in ways that are impractical now
because of adverse impact on insulating capability.
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. |

[Brad Guth]

Burnham Treezdown,
What an absolute pathetic joke of an incest cloned borg butt you are.
Even GW Bush lies his incest cloned butt off far better than yourself.

Now it's too many of my words for your remorseless heathen butt of a
mindset to deal with.

On this fine topic of "Shuttle ET foam", what exactly have you
contributed?

Or is that still too many complex words as to expect your sorry
brown-nosed buttology to comprehend?
~

Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Henry Spencer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Alas, it's also stunningly expensive
> > and very difficult to make.
>
> Perfect for government work.

Actually sounds like some French desert recipes I've seen.


>
>

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gerace wrote:
> > "Tim K." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>For sure, all those morons who actually care about the ozone layer...
> >
> > "And it won't make a lick of difference, because we got the bomb!"
>
> "Two words: nuclear ****ing weapons."

That's one hell of a sexual kink.

[Richard Kaszeta]

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> writes:

> On 06 Aug 2005 06:34:17 -0500, Richard Kaszeta >
> wrote:
>
> >The 1mm beads I use are from Cabot, www.cabot-corp.com/nanogel, if
> >anyone is wondering.
>
> ...What's the price per pound?

It's around $700 or so for a 55 gallon drum. If I'm doing the math
right and remember the packing density of the pellets, that's around
$3/lb.

The stuff actually has all sorts of non-insulation uses. For example,
it is used as a thickener in some paints and cosmetics.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Tim K.]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> Tim K. wrote:
>> "Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Neil Gerace wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Tim K." > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>For sure, all those morons who actually care about the ozone layer...
>>>>
>>>>"And it won't make a lick of difference, because we got the bomb!"
>>>
>>>"Two words: nuclear ****ing weapons."
>>
>> Two more: non-sequitur.
>
> Wrong.

You can add "doesn't know any Latin" to your CV.

[Richard Kaszeta]

Richard Kaszeta > writes:
> It's around $700 or so for a 55 gallon drum. If I'm doing the math
> right and remember the packing density of the pellets, that's around
> $3/lb.

I screwed that math up pretty good. It's $3.5/liter, and it's around 6
g/liter (plus the entrapped air).

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Tim K.]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> Actually if you were a devoted watcher of HBO comedy specials you'd
> understand. :)

I'll make no apologies for "not getting" vague references to pop culture
pap.

[Tim K.]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...

But it is nice to know y'all were just kidding.

[Neil Gerace]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...

> If New Mexico were an independent country, it would have the fifth largest
> nuclear stockpile.

It would have to buy those weapons off the USA first :)

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>If New Mexico were an independent country, it would have the fifth largest
>nuclear stockpile.
>
>

I don't know if it's still the case after the SALT treaties, but back in
the 1970's North Dakota would be number three on that list.
Minot AFB was the main storage site for the Air Force's tactical nukes,
and we had piles of Minuteman IIs and IIIs in the state.

Pat

[OM]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:35:46 GMT, "Tim K." > wrote:

>
>"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
>
>But it is nice to know y'all were just kidding.

....Who sez we were, you treehugger-in-denial?

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

[OM]

On 06 Aug 2005 19:14:35 -0500, Richard Kaszeta >
wrote:

>I screwed that math up pretty good. It's $3.5/liter, and it's around 6
>g/liter (plus the entrapped air).

....What, they're charging for the air *too*?? :-)

Still, I'd love to have a cube sample..


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

[Tim K.]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:35:46 GMT, "Tim K." > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>But it is nice to know y'all were just kidding.
>
> ...Who sez we were, you treehugger-in-denial?

<brushes bark from shirt>

[Tim K.]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> Tim K. wrote:
>> "Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Actually if you were a devoted watcher of HBO comedy specials you'd
>>>understand. :)
>>
>> I'll make no apologies for "not getting" vague references to pop culture
>> pap.
>
> No harm, no foul. :) I don't think this particular song sinks to the
> depths of mass pop culture.
>
> http://www.go2lyrics.com/D/Dennis+Leary/185188.html
>
> You've got to hear it performed to get the full effect.

Thanks - you're right. Leary is not pop - he was great in that movie where
he took the family hostage that argued...

[David Higgins]

Tim K. wrote:
> Thanks - you're right. Leary is not pop - he was great in that movie where
> he took the family hostage that argued...

"The Ref" -- http://imdb.com/title/tt0110955/

[Robert Bonomi]

In article t>,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) > wrote:
>
>"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
>> Neil Gerace wrote:
>> > "Tim K." > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>For sure, all those morons who actually care about the ozone layer...
>> >
>> > "And it won't make a lick of difference, because we got the bomb!"
>>
>> "Two words: nuclear ****ing weapons."
>
>That's one hell of a sexual kink.

And the earth really *did* move! *grin*

[Tim K.]

"David Higgins" > wrote in message
...
> Tim K. wrote:
>> Thanks - you're right. Leary is not pop - he was great in that movie
>> where he took the family hostage that argued...
>
> "The Ref" -- http://imdb.com/title/tt0110955/
Ah yes, a felon's worst nightmare.

[Brad Guth]

Bruce Palmer,
Yet another MI5/NSA spook/mole that's pretending that our government
and of all the complex agencies and obviously many for-profit
contractors within never take advantage of a given situation, nor have
they ever made a lethal mistate.

If that's not absolute proof-positive that you're either snookered
and/or part of the incest cloned problem, then I guess I don't know
what is.

I believe there's not sufficient usenet storage capacity as to list all
of the supposed muistakes, the collateral damage and of the millions
upon millions worth of innocent souls representing the vast carnage of
your perfect government and the likes of your DoD and of their
contractors from hell.

Exactly what part of LLPOF do you and of your brown-nosed incest cloned
borg friends not understand?
~

Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Lynndel K. Humphreys]

circle the wagons pardner the engines r'attackin

"Brad Guth" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bruce Palmer,
> Yet another MI5/NSA spook/mole that's pretending that our government
> and of all the complex agencies and obviously many for-profit
> contractors within never take advantage of a given situation, nor have
> they ever made a lethal mistate.
>
> If that's not absolute proof-positive that you're either snookered
> and/or part of the incest cloned problem, then I guess I don't know
> what is.
>
> I believe there's not sufficient usenet storage capacity as to list all
> of the supposed muistakes, the collateral damage and of the millions
> upon millions worth of innocent souls representing the vast carnage of
> your perfect government and the likes of your DoD and of their
> contractors from hell.
>
> Exactly what part of LLPOF do you and of your brown-nosed incest cloned
> borg friends not understand?
> ~
>
> Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
> there's been other life upon Venus
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
> The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
> within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
> Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
> topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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 =----

[OM]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:06:32 GMT, "Tim K." > wrote:

>
>"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
>in message ...
>> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:35:46 GMT, "Tim K." > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>But it is nice to know y'all were just kidding.
>>
>> ...Who sez we were, you treehugger-in-denial?
>
><brushes bark from shirt>

....Well, I guess this means you at least swallow its sap and not spit
it out :-p

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

[David Higgins]

OM wrote:
> ...Well, I guess this means you at least swallow its sap and not spit
> it out :-p

Watch your mouth!

-- The Maple Syrup Anti-Defamation League

[Burnham Treezdown]

On 6 Aug 2005 15:55:23 -0700, "Brad Guth" >
wrote:


>On this fine topic of "Shuttle ET foam", what exactly have you
>contributed?


As much useful information as you have.

[Brad Guth]

Wow! I'm soooo impressed.

I just did a search for "Burnham Treezdown" and, lo and behold there's
not squat worth of even mainstream status quo crapolla with your silly
MI5/NSA spook name associated along with anything of being shuttle/ET
related, other than for whatever topic/author stalking and bashing.
Should we expect anything other from such a brown-nosed incest cloned
bigot of such a pathetic borg?
~

Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:41:48 GMT, "Tim K." > wrote:

>
> "Eric F. Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I have a coworker who is an engineer who lets his politics get in the
> > way of his engineering. After it was noticed that foam shedded from
> > the external tank during ascent, he was steaming, "It's those
> > (deleted) environmentalists, demanding that NASA not use freon."
> > After a couple days of this, I said, "Okay, I want a reference."
>
> For sure, all those morons who actually care about the ozone layer...

Particularly those of northern European descent, who are more likely
to get melanoma without the ozone layer. This has really shown up in
Australia, where many of the people are of English or Irish descent.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or

[Eric F. Richards]

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

> In article >,
> Eric F. Richards > wrote:
> >So, the point of my aside was, did anyone really go after the shuttle
> >foam and its use of CFCs in any serious way on environmental grounds?
>
> Specifically the shuttle foam? No. But the general rules calling for
> phasing out CFC use pushed NASA and its contractors toward alternatives,
> partly directly and partly by reducing availability of CFCs and driving up
> their cost.

Thank you for your usual well thougth out answer. But I can't help
wondering if NASA simply couldn't've gotten a waiver to continue using
CFCs, had they chosen to -- after all, this isn't some automotive A/C
unit, this, *potentially*, was life critical.

>
> >BUT FIRST, I still want to know: Have any changes to the foam in the
> >name of "environmental correctness" caused adverse problems that have
> >been ignored?
>
> No. The introduction of non-CFC foam did cause some minor problems --
> notably an increase in "popcorning", separation of small bits of foam --
> but small changes brought that under control.

"small changes" being defined as the composition of the foam, of the
foaming agent, of the application technique?

Let me continue asking questions on this subject... have the changes
to the foam brought about improvements? It's easy to look at the
shedded material from Discovery's ET and answer, "no," but, what about
the large acreage areas where the newer foams are used -- are they,
for lack of a better phrase, "better behaved" now?

Thanks much.

--
Eric F. Richards

"This book reads like a headache on paper."
www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readingup/08/14/getting.things.done/index.html

[Burnham Treezdown]

On 7 Aug 2005 17:49:40 -0700, "Brad Guth" >
wrote:

>Wow! I'm soooo impressed.
>
>I just did a search for "Burnham Treezdown"


You're a stalker too? You got all, pal.

<PLONK!>

[Ami Silberman]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Kaszeta" > wrote in message
> ...
>>More of an issue is that it's a severe
>> dessicant.
>
> That's why similar forms of silicon gel are used to assist landscaping,
> particularly where a steep bank exists. The gel absorbs rainwater so that
> it doesn't wash the bank away, and slowly releases it. Although the gel
> eventually breaks down, by then grass has developed roots.
They are also used for potted plants so that you don't have to water them as
often.

[Brad Guth]

Don't you just love it whenever you get to return the favor?
~

Don't look or think: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of proto-moons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs & other somewhat testy topics
by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Brad Guth]

Rand Simberg,
Rational thoughts as based upon the truth and nothing but the truth are
quite taboo/nondisclosure to your incest cloned borgism mindset of such
warm and fuzzy space-toilet intellectual and biological bigotry that
sucks and blows at the same time.

Why don't you focus upon killing off Muslims, so that you can further
impress the scum sucking ******* of a resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
that's about to push the for real RED BUTTON of WW-III, because of the
matter of fact that we're steeling their oil is clearly about as
dastardly irrational as it gets.
~

In spite of the ongoing orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been
other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive at the
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of Sirius, proto-moons, Venus & Earthly ETs & somewhat testy topics by;
Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[OM]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:20:17 GMT, (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

>On 11 Aug 2005 14:09:50 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Brad Guth"
> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
>a way as to indicate that:
>
>>Rand Simberg,
>>Rational thoughts as based upon the truth and nothing but the truth are
>>quite taboo/nondisclosure to your incest cloned borgism mindset of such
>>warm and fuzzy space-toilet intellectual and biological bigotry that
>>sucks and blows at the same time.
>
>Boy, this is great .sig material. Could you send me some tips on what
>meds not to take to come up with stuff like this?

....The big question is not whether it sucks and blows, but whether it
swallows, then tries to kiss you afterwards.

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

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>>>Rand Simberg,
>>>Rational thoughts as based upon the truth and nothing but the truth are
>>>quite taboo/nondisclosure to your incest cloned borgism mindset of such
>>>warm and fuzzy space-toilet intellectual and biological bigotry that
>>>sucks and blows at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>Boy, this is great .sig material. Could you send me some tips on what
>>meds not to take to come up with stuff like this?
>>
>>
>
>...The big question is not whether it sucks and blows, but whether it
>swallows, then tries to kiss you afterwards.
>
>

You have to admit though, whatever it is, Brad has it down to an art
form. It's like it's being generated by some sort of a computer that
puts words together in a strange type of thesaurus based sentence
generating program.
And the sentences seem even more run-on than mine...which I find
strangely reassuring in an odd way- I still haven't completely wigged out.

Pat

[OM]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:23:04 -0500, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>I still haven't completely wigged out.

....Of course not. That's Justin's job :-P

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

[Rand Simberg]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:59:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Burnham
Treezdown > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>>>>Boeing/TRW and Raytheon "Phantom Works" team in the air
>>>
>>> Explain.
>>
>>Search 'guth' on this page http://www.crank.net/et.html and reconsider
>>whether or not you really want him to "explain" anything.
>
>
>I have a personal involvement with one of the companies listed & I
>just wanna know if my conscience should be blackened.

There'd be no way to determine that on the basis of anything that Guth
tells you.

[Rand Simberg]

On 05 Aug 2005 21:36:44 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

>Brad Guth wrote:
>
>> Of course, this entire usenet is
>> nothing but a intellectual cesspool as fed by those few
>> space-toilets that are so plugged soild with their mainstream
>> crapolla that flushing simply isn't an option.
>
>That being the case, Brad, do you think perhaps your time would be
>better spent elsewhere?

That would be far too rational a thought for Brad.

[Rand Simberg]

On 11 Aug 2005 14:09:50 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Brad Guth"
> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

>Rand Simberg,
>Rational thoughts as based upon the truth and nothing but the truth are
>quite taboo/nondisclosure to your incest cloned borgism mindset of such
>warm and fuzzy space-toilet intellectual and biological bigotry that
>sucks and blows at the same time.

Boy, this is great .sig material. Could you send me some tips on what
meds not to take to come up with stuff like this?

>Why don't you focus upon killing off Muslims, so that you can further
>impress the scum sucking ******* of a resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
>that's about to push the for real RED BUTTON of WW-III, because of the
>matter of fact that we're steeling their oil is clearly about as
>dastardly irrational as it gets.

Ignoring the rest of your nuttiness, if we're "steeling [sic] their
oil" how does that explain the fact that we're paying well over sixty
dollars a barrel for it? That's a pretty strange sort of "stealing"
in my book.

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>
>...Of course not. That's Justin's job :-P
>
>

Where is ol' Justin BTW? I miss him.

Pat

[Philip Lantz]

Tim K. wrote:
>
> OM wrote
> > Sander Vesik wrote:
> >>Why does it matter if environmentalists were involved or not?
> >
> > ...Because nothing would nuke their cause better than to have proof
> > that the whinings and bitchings of a bunch of dope-smoking, sybaritic,
> > tree-hugging hippies were ultimately responsible for the loss of
> > Columbia and her crew.
>
> I happen to think ****ting where we live is a stupid manifesto and I don't
> smoke dope, hug trees and never was a hippie. But if it helps you to paint
> everyone with one brush stroke, by all means...

So you admit you're a sybarite!

[OM]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:17:59 -0700, Philip Lantz
> wrote:

>Tim K. wrote:
>>
>> OM wrote
>> > Sander Vesik wrote:
>> >>Why does it matter if environmentalists were involved or not?
>> >
>> > ...Because nothing would nuke their cause better than to have proof
>> > that the whinings and bitchings of a bunch of dope-smoking, sybaritic,
>> > tree-hugging hippies were ultimately responsible for the loss of
>> > Columbia and her crew.
>>
>> I happen to think ****ting where we live is a stupid manifesto and I don't
>> smoke dope, hug trees and never was a hippie. But if it helps you to paint
>> everyone with one brush stroke, by all means...
>
>So you admit you're a sybarite!

....For those in our home audience who are clueless as to what this
term means, we now offer the official definition as listed on
dictionary.com:

Syb·a·rite

noun.

1) A person devoted to pleasure and luxury; a voluptuary.

2) A person addicted to luxury and pleasures of the senses

3) A native or inhabitant of Sybaris. Latin Sybarta, native of
Sybaris, from Greek Subarts, from Subaris, Sybaris (from the notorious
luxury of its inhabitants.

Sybarite was dictionary.com's Word of the Day on November 2, 1999.

--------------

....So, with that in mind, what gave you the idea that Tim was from
Greece?

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

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:17:59 -0700, Philip Lantz
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Tim K. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OM wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sander Vesik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why does it matter if environmentalists were involved or not?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>...Because nothing would nuke their cause better than to have proof
>>>>that the whinings and bitchings of a bunch of dope-smoking, sybaritic,
>>>>tree-hugging hippies were ultimately responsible for the loss of
>>>>Columbia and her crew.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I happen to think ****ting where we live is a stupid manifesto and I don't
>>>smoke dope, hug trees and never was a hippie. But if it helps you to paint
>>>everyone with one brush stroke, by all means...
>>>
>>>
>>So you admit you're a sybarite!
>>
>>
>
>...For those in our home audience who are clueless as to what this
>term means, we now offer the official definition as listed on
>dictionary.com:
>
>Syb·a·rite
>
>
>
>

And here I thought it was something that John Steed and Emma Peel got
attacked by in an Avengers episode... now it sounds like something that
they would be sort of fond of. ;-)

Pat

[Brad Guth]

Rand Simberg;
>Ignoring the rest of your nuttiness, if we're "steeling [sic] their
>oil" how does that explain the fact that we're paying well over sixty
>dollars a barrel for it? That's a pretty strange sort of "stealing"
>in my book.
It seems you're quit good at ignoring the truth and nothing but the
truth, though otherwise terrific at grammar, such as for the ongoing
taking of Iraq oil is entirely in the eye of the beholder, whereas that
beholding SOB of an eye is essentially the close friends and
blood-sport business associated of our resident warlord(GW Bush), as
for their stuffing those offshore bank accounts until they overfloweth
with such pillaging loot.

At a profit take of $65+/barrel, it shouldn't take all that long to
pump up those badly sagging Skull and Bones bank accounts with hidden
vaults worth of oil/blood money that'll help play for their surviving
after their WW-III lose cannon takes it's toll. And here I'd have to
bet that you thought the dastardly likes of Arthur Andersen accounting
was a thing of the past, just like all of those invisible/stealth WMD
that never existed in the first place.

BTW; thanks much for that steeling/stealing correction, although the
intent of my poorly elected word should not have been mistaken, that is
unless you're a true moron that's too far brown-nosed to help thy self,
which obviously represents that you're not nearly as dumb and dumber as
I'd thought.
~

In spite of the ongoing orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been
other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive within
the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of things Sirius, proto-moons, Venus, Earthly ETs & somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

[Henry Spencer]

(Catching up...)

In article >,
Eric F. Richards > wrote:
>> ...the general rules calling for
>> phasing out CFC use pushed NASA and its contractors toward alternatives,
>> partly directly and partly by reducing availability of CFCs and driving up
>> their cost.
>
>Thank you for your usual well thougth out answer. But I can't help
>wondering if NASA simply couldn't've gotten a waiver to continue using
>CFCs, had they chosen to -- after all, this isn't some automotive A/C
>unit, this, *potentially*, was life critical.

Very likely NASA could have gotten approval to go on using CFCs... had
they been able to make a clear case that it was important. But by that
time, nobody considered foam shedding a serious threat to the orbiters --
partly out of general overconfidence after many successful flights, partly
because the fragility of the carbon-carbon panels wasn't understood -- and
for that matter, there wasn't any clear link between CFC phaseout and
serious shedding either. The bad shedding problems -- including the one
that killed Columbia -- happened in areas that were still using the CFC
foam. So it would have been very difficult to make a plausible argument
for getting an exemption from an important environmental regulation. (And
the issues with availability and expense would have remained as incentives
to switch.)

>> ...The introduction of non-CFC foam did cause some minor problems --
>> notably an increase in "popcorning", separation of small bits of foam --
>> but small changes brought that under control.
>
>"small changes" being defined as the composition of the foam, of the
>foaming agent, of the application technique?

Some combination of application and post-application processing -- if I
recall correctly, foam thickness in the troublesome areas was reduced, and
it was perforated to provide venting. This didn't get rid of the
popcorning, mind you, but did reduce it to levels similar to that seen
with the original foam.

Note that popcorning, per se, has never been a threat -- by definition,
the bits it sheds are too small to matter much. Whether tolerating it was
a reasonable engineering decision is a debatable question, although the
way the decision was made -- more or less by default, rather than after
explicit evaluation of hazards -- was definitely ominous in hindsight.

>Let me continue asking questions on this subject... have the changes
>to the foam brought about improvements? It's easy to look at the
>shedded material from Discovery's ET and answer, "no," but, what about
>the large acreage areas where the newer foams are used -- are they,
>for lack of a better phrase, "better behaved" now?

The automatically-applied "acreage" foam has never been much of a problem,
popcorning aside. Not better, but not worse either, is my understanding.
The big difficulties have always been with the hand-applied foam, used in
areas that either are too irregular for easy automatic application, or
have to be foamed late because the surface has to be accessible for a
while.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |