 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / May 2006On the Subject of Ice
Water is the second most abundant substance in the Universe, second only to hydrogen. Water is on the Moon as verified by Clementine and Lunar Prospector. A large quantity -- about 600 billion metric tons -- exists at both of the Moon's poles. Water also exists on the Asteroids in abundance. Here is an analysis of one such asteroid: http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/update-200602.html#lmcfadden Water is believed to be on the Martian poles as well. This could account for pictures that appear to show life there. http://stardot.blogspot.com/ Earth has an enormous amount of water and is often called a 'Water Planet'. But water exists in Outer Space too. All the elements are out there. Our Astronauts simply have to have equipment to collect and purify them to sustain themselves just about anywhere. Even on some distant Asteroid! tomcat There was so much controversy over water existing in space that I thought this would be a popular subject. There is also a good deal of substantial evidence that it does. I have noted questions concerning the qality of the water. H2-PV NOW has announced that we should not eat the "yellow Moon ice." There are, however, a number of methods of purifying water that Astronauts can use. Even damp dirt can be heated and have the steam condense into usable liquid which, by the way, may require a little more processing before I would drink it. Better than reprocessing raw sewage though. The availablity of water in Outer Space was somewhat of a surprise to me. I find it interesting that Outer Space is so habitable. Our science is reaching the point where moving to and living on moons, asteroids, comets, and the like, is becoming more than just sci-fi. tomcat > Water is the second most abundant substance in the Universe, second > only to hydrogen. Exactly where did you discover this? Write them back, and inform them that they are wrong - it's helium. > > Water is the second most abundant substance in the Universe, second > > only to hydrogen. > > Exactly where did you discover this? > Write them back, and inform them that they are wrong - it's helium. Did you ever step into a helium puddle? Ice is on Earth, Mars, the Rings of Saturn, Asteroids, Moons, Comets, Mars, etc. A Comet's tail is mostly ice particles, not to metion the ice on it's surface. Ice is all over up there. tomcat Poor tomcat is having to go Usenet postal, as for your infomercial-science and those conditional laws of physics arnt helping all that much, now are they? Water and/or of water-ice and especially of salty water-ice are of the single most important elements for life as we know it, as well as for accommodating most other essential forms of element/chemical reactions, and there most certainly should be lots of that stuff around but, it's far from being in the majority, and hardly if any coexisting upon our nearly naked lunar surface that's so gosh darn dark, nasty and reactive to boot. If water and thus water-ice is so gosh darn important, as I've totally agreed that it is, then where's the hard-science of ice coexisting in space, unless having been surrounded by a good amount of atmosphere? - Brad Guth > Poor tomcat is having to go Usenet postal, as for your > infomercial-science and those conditional laws of physics arnt helping [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > agreed that it is, then where's the hard-science of ice coexisting in > space, unless having been surrounded by a good amount of atmosphere? "Poor tomcat"! Oh, look at the kitty. Nice kitty. Here's your dish of milk. Oh, you bad cat! No fish for you today! Here, kitty kitty. . . . Look, he's purring. Well, anyway, the things I have to put up with. Thank goodness I can type away on my owner's computer when he's away. . . Brad, you don't need atmosphere to have ice. This is a known fact. Comets have ice with virtually no atmosphere. Ice is carried along in their tails by gravity -- yes, right out there in the Big Vacuum Itself! Read: http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/update-200602.html#lmcfadden And, yes, I did read 'somewhere' that water is the second most abundant substance in the Universe, second only to hydrogen. tomcat >Brad, you don't need atmosphere to have ice. This is a known fact. >Comets have ice with virtually no atmosphere. Ice is carried along in >their tails by gravity -- yes, right out there in the Big Vacuum >Itself! Again with all of your warm and fuzzy infomercial-science. Christ almighty on another stick, wipe off your mainstream dripping brown nose and this time get some hard-science stuffed between your butt-cheeks. What part of "Water Ice Found on a Small Portion of the Comet's Nucleus" is suggesting that a comet doesn't have an atmosphere? What part of "Small Portion of the Comet's Nucleus" is suggesting there's any significant volume or otherwise mass of said water-ice associated with a given comet? Are we talking about a comet that's surviving within 2 AU, or isn't usually a wee bit further away? That's true enough about not needing an atmosphere to collect the likes of ice (I'm fairly certain that Pluto has lots of ice), as you'll only need that pesky atmosphere in order to keep that ice if coming to within 2 AU of such a hot and nasty sun like ours, that is unless you're out and about orbiting the likes of Jupiter or actually much further out there, especially the Kuiper/Oort zone likes of Sedna should be extensively of dirty (iron rich) ice, much like our once upon a time icy proto-moon was a very salty ball of ice. >And, yes, I did read 'somewhere' that water is the second most abundant >substance in the Universe, second only to hydrogen. That's getting somewhat better, but no cigar because, I believe it's way down on the list as a combined element of raw h2o. Though obviously a good amount of what's hard physical substances should contain a very small percentage of sequestered h2o, especially if it's Venusian like as having been under such great pressure. - Brad Guth > What part of "Water Ice Found on a Small Portion of the Comet's > Nucleus" is suggesting that a comet doesn't have an atmosphere? What > part of "Small Portion of the Comet's Nucleus" is suggesting there's > any significant volume or otherwise mass of said water-ice associated > with a given comet? Are we talking about a comet that's surviving > within 2 AU, or isn't usually a wee bit further away? We are talking about Tempel I. We are talking about a Comet's atmosphere which is so sparse that it cannot be reasonably called an atmosphere. We are talking about "Ice" laying about on the surface of Tempel I. Ice that could fuel a spaceplane or be used as 'drinking water', once properly processed. Brad. see the Ice. Just look at the photo: http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/Icerich.html > That's true enough about not needing an atmosphere to collect the likes > of ice (I'm fairly certain that Pluto has lots of ice), as you'll only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > should be extensively of dirty (iron rich) ice, much like our once upon > a time icy proto-moon was a very salty ball of ice. An 'AU' stands for "astronomical unit" which is the distance of the Earth to the Sun. Our Moon has Ice. Therefore, 2 AU are not necessary if the 'Ice" is hidden from direct Sunlight. > >And, yes, I did read 'somewhere' that water is the second most abundant > >substance in the Universe, second only to hydrogen. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contain a very small percentage of sequestered h2o, especially if it's > Venusian like as having been under such great pressure. Venus is probably loaded with water. Remember, water can be used whether or not it is in streams, or dirt, or vapor in the atmosphere. Water is water, and with sufficient science/engineering it can be used for people purposes. tomcat >Our Moon has Ice. Therefore, 2 AU are not necessary >if the 'Ice" is hidden from direct Sunlight. tomcat, In spite of your infomercial educated self, you could be sufficiently infomercial-science correct, especially since our moon actually does have a bit more of atmosphere than even your infomercial-science is willing to share as to the truth about such matters. The Venusian water (a few teratonnes) is most likely sequestered within them thar acidic clouds, although otherwise in various other nearly solid composite formulations upon or within the geothermally active and thus toasty surface is certainly doable, especially if to be honestly going by the regular laws of physics that you can seem to use for our moon. But then you don't actually give a tinkers damn about Venus or of protecting any environment, or of least of all benefiting the life within that's other than of your own remorseless soul, so what's your point? - Brad Guth >Brad. see the Ice. Just look at the photo: http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/Icerich.html I see what looks as though salty, possibly of extremely limited volumes of a saltwater ice with a more than likely an involvement of mostly CO2 as dry-ice or of any number of other ice like elements that may even include a wee bit of h2o. I also see a infomercial motivated fool that's way up there on that brown-nosed hill. Albedo and/or spectrum alone isn't sufficient hard-science to go by, now is it? If I painted a few white spots on a big-a.s nasty chunk of coal that was getting remotely photographed at 82 m/pixel, whereas those spectrum and albedo charts would look damn near the same. Upon something that small, I'd also have to say the micro-gravity compacted nature of 0.000001 g/cm2 is going to be about all that's doable. Thus at a given micro gram/cm3 isn't going to amount to all that much of any fluid volume. - Brad Guth > >Brad. see the Ice. Just look at the photo: > http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/Icerich.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > include a wee bit of h2o. I also see a infomercial motivated fool > that's way up there on that brown-nosed hill. Honest, Brad, I don't paint white spots on those photos. Trust your eyes. And, BTW, if water is ice, and ice sublimates to molecules, and molecules come back together as 'rock hard' ice, then why are there Guthian Salts in those little crystals? > Albedo and/or spectrum alone isn't sufficient hard-science to go by, > now is it? Nothing is perfect. > If I painted a few white spots on a big-a.s nasty chunk of coal that > was getting remotely photographed at 82 m/pixel, whereas those spectrum > and albedo charts would look damn near the same. I don't think that NASA got to Tempel I, painting spots on it, before the camera took the picture. > Upon something that small, I'd also have to say the micro-gravity > compacted nature of 0.000001 g/cm2 is going to be about all that's > doable. Thus at a given micro gram/cm3 isn't going to amount to all > that much of any fluid volume. If you had gone several days in your survival pod without water, you would be out there with a teaspoon scraping that white stuff for all you are worth. tomcat Water is in abundance. Here is the web site with information on water and it's abundance. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ Water, water, everywhere. tomcat A direct quote from the above referenced web site. " Life cannot evolve or continue without liquid water, which is why there is so much fuss about water being found on Mars and other planets and moons. Water is the second most common molecule in the Universe (behind hydrogen, H2) and is fundamental to star formation." I stand absolved from errant reporting. tomcat Your cited website uses the statements from two scientists, but there is no reference backing the statement of total quantity of water molecules in universe being 2nd to H, in either of the two papers presented, reference books, or the website. Citation is easy, and helpful to clarify invalid conclusions. Paper #1 "ENZYME FUNCTION: RANDOM EVENTS or COHERENT ACTION ? by John Grant Watterson 18 Tomanbil Terrace Ashmore, Qld 2412 AUSTRALIA email: wattfam@qldnet.com.au References Block., S.M., Fifty ways to love your lever: myosin motors. Cell, 1996, 87: 151-157. Fersht, A., Structure and mechanism in protein science, Freeman and Co., New York, 1999, p. 179. Finney., J.L., Solvent effects in biomolecular processes. In: Biophysics of water, Franks, F. and Mathias, S., (eds) J Wiley and Sons, New York, 1982, pp. 55-58. Kauzmann, W., Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Adv. Protein Chem. 1959, 14: 1-63. Mentre, P. and Debey, P., An unexpected effect of an ouabain-sensitive ATPase activity on the amount of antigen-antibody complexes formed in situ. Cell. mol. Biol. 1999, 45: 781-791. Rand, R.P. and Parsegian, V.A., Hydration forces between phospholipid bilayers. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1989, 988: 351-376. Sigler, P.B., Xu, Z., Rye, H.S., Burston, S.G., Fenton, W.A. and Horwich, A.L., Structure and function in GroEL mediated protein folding. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 1998, 67: 581-608. Simmons, R.M. and Hill, T.L., Definitions of free energy levels in biochemical reactions. Nature, 1976, 263: 615-618. Tanford, C., Protein denaturation. Adv. Protein Chem. 1968, 23: 121-282. Vale, R.D. and Fletterick, R.J., The design plan of kinesin motors. Ann. Rev. Cell. Develop. Biol. 1997, 13: 745-777. Watterson, J.G., A model linking water and protein structures. BioSystems, 1988, 22: 51-54. Watterson, J.G., The interactions of water and protein in cellular function. Prog. mol. subcell. Biol. 1991, 12: 113-134. Watterson, J.G., What drives osmosis? J. Biol. Phys. 1995, 21: 1-9. Watterson, J.G., Water clusters: pixels of life. In: Toward a science of consciousness. Hameroff, S.R., Kaszniak, A.W. and Scott, A., (eds) MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1996, pp. 397-405. Watterson, J.G., The pressure pixel: unit of life. BioSystems, 1997, 41: 141-152." Paper #2 "Life depends upon two kinds of water by Philippa Wiggins 62 References 1. King, M. The Penguin History of New Zealand. Penguin Books, Auckland, New Zealand pp.38-47 (2003) 2. Metzler, D.E. Biochemistry. Academic Press. New York. Pp.151-181 (1977) 3. Henderson, L.J. The Fitness of the Environment. Macmillan publishing Company, New York (1913) pp.111-117. 4. Ling, G.N. A physical theory of the living state: the association-induction hypothesis. New York. Blaisdell Publishing Company, (1962) 5 Eisenberg. D. & Kauzmann, W. The structure and properties of water. Oxford, the Clarendon press (1969) 6. Vedamuthu, M., Singh, S. & Robinson, G.W. Properties of liquid water: origin of the density anomalies. J.Phys.Chem. 98 (1994) 2222-2230. 7. Cho, H.C., Singh, S. & Robinson, G.W. Understanding all of water's anomalies with a non-local potential. J.Chem.Phys. 107 (1997) 7979-7988. 8. Robinson, G.W. & Cho, C.H. Role of hydration water in protein unfolding. Biophys.J. 77, (1999) 3311-3318. 9. Mishima, O. & Stanley, H.E. Decompression-induced melting of ice iv and the liquid-liquid transition in water. Nature 392 (1998) 164-168. 10. Mishima, O. & Stanley, H.E. (1998): The relationship between liquid supercooled and glassy water. Nature 396 (1998) 329-335. 11 Scala A, Starr FW, La Nave E, Sciortino F, Stanley HE. Configurational entropy and diffusivity of supercooled water. Nature, 406(2000) 166-169 12 Giovambattista,N., Stanley, H.E. and Sciortino, F. Potential Energy landscape study ot the amorphous transition in H2O. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 115504 (2003) 13. Chaplin, M. F. A proposal for structuring of water. Biophys. Chem. 83 (1999) 211-221. 14. Tissandier, M.D., Cowen. K.A., Feng, W.Y., Gundlach, E., Cohen, M.H., Earhart, A.D. and Coe, J.V. The proteon,s absolute aqueous enthalpy and Gibbs free energy of solvation from cluster-ion solvation data. J. Phys. Chem. 102 7787-7794 (1998). 15. Mathews, C.K. and van Holde, K.E. Biochemistry. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, California, U.S. 16. George, P., Witonsky, R. J., Trachtman, M., Dorwart, W., Richman, W. & Shurayh, F. "Squiggle-H2O." An enquiry into the importance of solvation effects in phosphate ester and anhydride reactions. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 223 (1970) 1- 15. 17. Wiggins, P. M. A possible mechanism for the Ca-ATPase of sarcoplasmic reticulum. J. Theor. Biol. 99 (1982) 645-662 18. Wiggins, P.M. A possible mechanism for the Na,K-ATPase. J.theor. Biol. 99 (1982)665-679. 19. Wiggins, P. M. & MacClement, B.A.E. Two states of water found in hydrophobic clefts: their possible contribution to mechanisms of cation pumps and other enzymes. Internat. Rev. Cytol. 108 (1987) 249-303 20. Wiggins, P.M. Role of water in some biological proceses. Microbiol.Rev. 54: 432-449 (1990). 21. Robinson, J.D. & Flashner, M.S. The (Na+ + K+) -activated ATPase enzymic and transport properties. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 549 (1979) 1445-176. 63 22. Asano, S., Io, T., Kimura, T., Sakamoto, S. & Takeguchi, N. Alanine-scanning mutagenesis of the sixth transmembrane segment of gastric H+,K+-ATPase alphasubunit. J Biol Chem 276 (2001) 31265-31273 23 Hasselbach, W.& Waas,W. Energy coupling in the sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca transport: an overview. Ann. N.Y.Acad. Sci.403 (1982) 459-469. 24 Hoffman, M. Motor molecules on the move. Science 256 (1992) 1758-1760 25. Hartl, F.U. & Hayer-Hartl, M. Molecular chaperones in the cytosol: from nascent chain to folded protein. Science 295 (2002) 1852-1858 26. Boyer, P.D.. The ATP synthase--a splendid molecular machine. Ann. Rev Biochem 66 (1997) 717-749 27. Wiggins, P.M. Enzymes and two-state water. J.Biol.Physics and Chemistry 2: 25- 37, 2002) 28. Wiggins, P.M. & van Ryn, R.T. The solvent properties of water in desalination membranes. J.Macromol. Sci.-Chem. A23 (1986) 875-903. 29. Wiggins, P.M. & van Ryn, R.T. Changes in ionic selectivity with changes in density of water in gels and cells. Biophys. J. 58 (1990) 585-596. 30. Wiggins, P.M., van Ryn, R.T. & Ormrod, D.G.C. Donnan membrane equilibrium is not directly applicable to distributions of ions and water in gels or cells. Biophys. J. 60 (1991) 8-14. 31. Wiggins, P. M. Hydration in cells and gels. In: Water Science for Food, Health, Agriculture and Environment. (ed. Z.Berk, R.B.Leslie, P.J.Lilford and S.Mizrahi) Lancaster, Technomic Publishing Co. Inc. ISOPOW 8 (2001) 32. Wiggins, P. M. High and low density water in gels. Prog. Polymer Sci. 20 (1995) 1121-1163 32. Wiggins, P.M. Microosmosis, a chaotic phenomena of water and solutes in gels. Langmuir 11 (1995) 1984-1986. 33. Wiggins, P,.M. High and low density intracellular water. Cell. Mol. Biol. 47: (2001) 735-744. 34. Wiggins, P.M. Water in complex environments such as living cells. Physica A 314:485-491 (2002) 35. Wiggins, P.M. Water structure in polymer membranes. Progr. Polym. Sci.13 (1988) 1-35 36. Wiggins, P. M. Micro-osmosis in gels, cells and enzymes. Cell Biochem. & function 13 (1995) 165-172 37 Wiggins, P.M. Hydrophobic hydration, hydrophobic forces and protein folding. Physica A 238 (1997) 113-128. 38. Wiggins, P.M. (1996): High and low density water and resting, active and transformed cells. Cell Biol. Internat. 20 (1996) 429-435 39. Friedman, H. L. & Krishnan, C. V. Thermodynamics of ion hydration.In: Water a Comprehensive Treatise. Franks, F. ed. Plenum Press, New York 1973. 40. Cacace, M.G, Landau, E.M. & Ramsden, J.J. The Hofmeister series: salt and solvent effects on interfacial phenomena. Q Rev. Biophys. 30 (1997) 241-277. 41. Dobson, C.M. Protein folding and misfolding. Nature, 426: (2003) 884-890. 42. Yancey PH, Clark ME, Hand SC, Bowlus RD, Somero GN. Living with water stress: evolution of osmolyte systems. Science, 1982, 217:1214-1222 43. Yancey PH, Fyfe-Johnson AL, Kelly RH, Walker VP, Aunon MT. Trimethylamine oxide counteracts effects of hydrostatic pressure on proteins of deep-sea teleosts. J. Exp. Zool. 2001 289: 172-176. 44. Wiggins, P.M., Rowlandson, J. & Ferguson, A.B. Preservation of murine embryos in a state of dormancy at 4oC. Am. J. Physiol. 276 (1999) C291-C299. 45. Drost-Hansen, W. Temperature effects on cell functioning.- A critical role for vicinal water. Cell. Mol. Biol. 47 (2001) 865-885." Books cited Book #1 "Aqueous systems at elevated temperatures and pressures: Physical chemistry in water, steam and hydrothermal solutions ed. D. A. Palmer, R. Fernández-Prini and A. H. Harvey (Elsevier/Academic Press, 2004) ISBN 0-12-544461-3 ix + 753 pp, £119.95/$180 a" Book #2 "Handbook of Refractive Index and Dispersion of Water for Scientists and Engineers Gorachand Ghosh (Sujata Ghosh, 19 Abingdon Street, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD-4102, Australia. 2005) ISBN 0-9756949 0 1 viii + 150 pp, US$ 90" > Your cited website uses the statements from two scientists, but there > is no reference backing the statement of total quantity of water > molecules in universe being 2nd to H, in either of the two papers > presented, reference books, or the website. Citation is easy, and > helpful to clarify invalid conclusions. Those are nice journal articles. Nobody here would read them. If you don't believe me, use one of them to start a topic and see if everyone responds with a journal article like yours. You would probably get some comments, some not to kind. This is the Usenet. Ideas fly fast with vicious attacks from time to time when truthfulness is in question. But, no one backs things up the way you describe. Why? Because Journals are one thing, and the Usenet another. tomcat That does not relieve you of your burden for you have made a statement, and without backing or citation, you are stating an opinion, not fact. Arrogant statements of you alleged intelect does not establish your credibility, but instead reduce the validity of your assertions. > That does not relieve you of your burden for you have made a statement, > and without backing or citation, you are stating an opinion, not fact. How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, bad, bad. > Arrogant statements of you alleged intelect does not establish your > credibility, but instead reduce the validity of your assertions. How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, bad, bad. Your problem is called: "The Problem of Self Reference" tomcat Paper #1 "ENZYME FUNCTION: RANDOM EVENTS or COHERENT ACTION ? by John Grant Watterson 18 Tomanbil Terrace Ashmore, Qld 2412 AUSTRALIA email: watt...@qldnet.com.au References Block., S.M., Fifty ways to love your lever: myosin motors. Cell, 1996, 87: 151-157. Fersht, A., Structure and mechanism in protein science, Freeman and Co., New York, 1999, p. 179. Finney., J.L., Solvent effects in biomolecular processes. In: Biophysics of water, Franks, F. and Mathias, S., (eds) J Wiley and Sons, New York, 1982, pp. 55-58. Kauzmann, W., Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Adv. Protein Chem. 1959, 14: 1-63. Mentre, P. and Debey, P., An unexpected effect of an ouabain-sensitive ATPase activity on the amount of antigen-antibody complexes formed in situ. Cell. mol. Biol. 1999, 45: 781-791. Rand, R.P. and Parsegian, V.A., Hydration forces between phospholipid bilayers. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1989, 988: 351-376. Sigler, P.B., Xu, Z., Rye, H.S., Burston, S.G., Fenton, W.A. and Horwich, A.L., Structure and function in GroEL mediated protein folding. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 1998, 67: 581-608. Simmons, R.M. and Hill, T.L., Definitions of free energy levels in biochemical reactions. Nature, 1976, 263: 615-618. Tanford, C., Protein denaturation. Adv. Protein Chem. 1968, 23: 121-282. Vale, R.D. and Fletterick, R.J., The design plan of kinesin motors. Ann. Rev. Cell. Develop. Biol. 1997, 13: 745-777. Watterson, J.G., A model linking water and protein structures. BioSystems, 1988, 22: 51-54. Watterson, J.G., The interactions of water and protein in cellular function. Prog. mol. subcell. Biol. 1991, 12: 113-134. Watterson, J.G., What drives osmosis? J. Biol. Phys. 1995, 21: 1-9. Watterson, J.G., Water clusters: pixels of life. In: Toward a science of consciousness. Hameroff, S.R., Kaszniak, A.W. and Scott, A., (eds) MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1996, pp. 397-405. Watterson, J.G., The pressure pixel: unit of life. BioSystems, 1997, 41: 141-152." Paper #2 "Life depends upon two kinds of water by Philippa Wiggins 62 References 1. King, M. The Penguin History of New Zealand. Penguin Books, Auckland, New Zealand pp.38-47 (2003) 2. Metzler, D.E. Biochemistry. Academic Press. New York. Pp.151-181 (1977) 3. Henderson, L.J. The Fitness of the Environment. Macmillan publishing Company, New York (1913) pp.111-117. 4. Ling, G.N. A physical theory of the living state: the association-induction hypothesis. New York. Blaisdell Publishing Company, (1962) 5 Eisenberg. D. & Kauzmann, W. The structure and properties of water. Oxford, the Clarendon press (1969) 6. Vedamuthu, M., Singh, S. & Robinson, G.W. Properties of liquid water: origin of the density anomalies. J.Phys.Chem. 98 (1994) 2222-2230. 7. Cho, H.C., Singh, S. & Robinson, G.W. Understanding all of water's anomalies with a non-local potential. J.Chem.Phys. 107 (1997) 7979-7988. 8. Robinson, G.W. & Cho, C.H. Role of hydration water in protein unfolding. Biophys.J. 77, (1999) 3311-3318. 9. Mishima, O. & Stanley, H.E. Decompression-induced melting of ice iv and the liquid-liquid transition in water. Nature 392 (1998) 164-168. 10. Mishima, O. & Stanley, H.E. (1998): The relationship between liquid supercooled and glassy water. Nature 396 (1998) 329-335. 11 Scala A, Starr FW, La Nave E, Sciortino F, Stanley HE. Configurational entropy and diffusivity of supercooled water. Nature, 406(2000) 166-169 12 Giovambattista,N., Stanley, H.E. and Sciortino, F. Potential Energy landscape study ot the amorphous transition in H2O. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 115504 (2003) 13. Chaplin, M. F. A proposal for structuring of water. Biophys. Chem. 83 (1999) 211-221. 14. Tissandier, M.D., Cowen. K.A., Feng, W.Y., Gundlach, E., Cohen, M.H., Earhart, A.D. and Coe, J.V. The proteon,s absolute aqueous enthalpy and Gibbs free energy of solvation from cluster-ion solvation data. J. Phys. Chem. 102 7787-7794 (1998). 15. Mathews, C.K. and van Holde, K.E. Biochemistry. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, California, U.S. 16. George, P., Witonsky, R. J., Trachtman, M., Dorwart, W., Richman, W. & Shurayh, F. "Squiggle-H2O." An enquiry into the importance of solvation effects in phosphate ester and anhydride reactions. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 223 (1970) 1- 15. 17. Wiggins, P. M. A possible mechanism for the Ca-ATPase of sarcoplasmic reticulum. J. Theor. Biol. 99 (1982) 645-662 18. Wiggins, P.M. A possible mechanism for the Na,K-ATPase. J.theor. Biol. 99 (1982)665-679. 19. Wiggins, P. M. & MacClement, B.A.E. Two states of water found in hydrophobic clefts: their possible contribution to mechanisms of cation pumps and other enzymes. Internat. Rev. Cytol. 108 (1987) 249-303 20. Wiggins, P.M. Role of water in some biological proceses. Microbiol.Rev. 54: 432-449 (1990). 21. Robinson, J.D. & Flashner, M.S. The (Na+ + K+) -activated ATPase enzymic and transport properties. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 549 (1979) 1445-176. 63 22. Asano, S., Io, T., Kimura, T., Sakamoto, S. & Takeguchi, N. Alanine-scanning mutagenesis of the sixth transmembrane segment of gastric H+,K+-ATPase alphasubunit. J Biol Chem 276 (2001) 31265-31273 23 Hasselbach, W.& Waas,W. Energy coupling in the sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca transport: an overview. Ann. N.Y.Acad. Sci.403 (1982) 459-469. 24 Hoffman, M. Motor molecules on the move. Science 256 (1992) 1758-1760 25. Hartl, F.U. & Hayer-Hartl, M. Molecular chaperones in the cytosol: from nascent chain to folded protein. Science 295 (2002) 1852-1858 26. Boyer, P.D.. The ATP synthase--a splendid molecular machine. Ann. Rev Biochem 66 (1997) 717-749 27. Wiggins, P.M. Enzymes and two-state water. J.Biol.Physics and Chemistry 2: 25- 37, 2002) 28. Wiggins, P.M. & van Ryn, R.T. The solvent properties of water in desalination membranes. J.Macromol. Sci.-Chem. A23 (1986) 875-903. 29. Wiggins, P.M. & van Ryn, R.T. Changes in ionic selectivity with changes in density of water in gels and cells. Biophys. J. 58 (1990) 585-596. 30. Wiggins, P.M., van Ryn, R.T. & Ormrod, D.G.C. Donnan membrane equilibrium is not directly applicable to distributions of ions and water in gels or cells. Biophys. J. 60 (1991) 8-14. 31. Wiggins, P. M. Hydration in cells and gels. In: Water Science for Food, Health, Agriculture and Environment. (ed. Z.Berk, R.B.Leslie, P.J.Lilford and S.Mizrahi) Lancaster, Technomic Publishing Co. Inc. ISOPOW 8 (2001) 32. Wiggins, P. M. High and low density water in gels. Prog. Polymer Sci. 20 (1995) 1121-1163 32. Wiggins, P.M. Microosmosis, a chaotic phenomena of water and solutes in gels. Langmuir 11 (1995) 1984-1986. 33. Wiggins, P,.M. High and low density intracellular water. Cell. Mol. Biol. 47: (2001) 735-744. 34. Wiggins, P.M. Water in complex environments such as living cells. Physica A 314:485-491 (2002) 35. Wiggins, P.M. Water structure in polymer membranes. Progr. Polym. Sci.13 (1988) 1-35 36. Wiggins, P. M. Micro-osmosis in gels, cells and enzymes. Cell Biochem. & function 13 (1995) 165-172 37 Wiggins, P.M. Hydrophobic hydration, hydrophobic forces and protein folding. Physica A 238 (1997) 113-128. 38. Wiggins, P.M. (1996): High and low density water and resting, active and transformed cells. Cell Biol. Internat. 20 (1996) 429-435 39. Friedman, H. L. & Krishnan, C. V. Thermodynamics of ion hydration.In: Water a Comprehensive Treatise. Franks, F. ed. Plenum Press, New York 1973. 40. Cacace, M.G, Landau, E.M. & Ramsden, J.J. The Hofmeister series: salt and solvent effects on interfacial phenomena. Q Rev. Biophys. 30 (1997) 241-277. 41. Dobson, C.M. Protein folding and misfolding. Nature, 426: (2003) 884-890. 42. Yancey PH, Clark ME, Hand SC, Bowlus RD, Somero GN. Living with water stress: evolution of osmolyte systems. Science, 1982, 217:1214-1222 43. Yancey PH, Fyfe-Johnson AL, Kelly RH, Walker VP, Aunon MT. Trimethylamine oxide counteracts effects of hydrostatic pressure on proteins of deep-sea teleosts. J. Exp. Zool. 2001 289: 172-176. 44. Wiggins, P.M., Rowlandson, J. & Ferguson, A.B. Preservation of murine embryos in a state of dormancy at 4oC. Am. J. Physiol. 276 (1999) C291-C299. 45. Drost-Hansen, W. Temperature effects on cell functioning.- A critical role for vicinal water. Cell. Mol. Biol. 47 (2001) 865-885." Books cited Book #1 "Aqueous systems at elevated temperatures and pressures: Physical chemistry in water, steam and hydrothermal solutions ed. D. A. Palmer, R. Fernández-Prini and A. H. Harvey (Elsevier/Academic Press, 2004) ISBN 0-12-544461-3 ix + 753 pp, £119.95/$180 a" Book #2 "Handbook of Refractive Index and Dispersion of Water for Scientists and Engineers Gorachand Ghosh (Sujata Ghosh, 19 Abingdon Street, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD-4102, Australia. 2005) ISBN 0-9756949 0 1 viii + 150 pp, US$ 90" Please read the following "Responsible conduct of Authors, Reviewers, and of research supervisors and trainees" by Caroline Whitbeck and Stephanie j. conducting a Case Western Reserve University study in April, 2001. And there you will find the necessary information to assist you in establishing credibility in your work at this site http://onlineethics.org/reseth/mod/rcr.pdf columbiaaccidentinvestigation, Your contribution of the following link is exactly what this Usenet from hell needs a whole lot more of. http://onlineethics.org/reseth/mod/rcr.pdf Unfortunately that's nullified by way the wisdom of Usenet lord/wizard "tomcat"; >This is the Usenet. Ideas fly fast with vicious attacks from time to >time when truthfulness is in question. But, no one backs things up the >way you describe. Why? Because Journals are one thing, and the Usenet >another. Tomcat's Usenet is seriously chuck full of itself and of so many other butt-loads of infomercial-science, along with their wag-thy-dog ulterior motives and hidden agendas, that are much like an overflowing cesspool of their nearly continual disinformation, and/or skew upon the known facts in order to suit their obviously bigoted interpretation. In other words, it's all a serious bunch of LLPOF individuals up against so many other LLPOF folks that have absolutely no honest intentions of their ever playing by the rules of sharing an honest squat worth of info, much less helping out another soul, that is unless it's for the ongoing orchestrated benefit of sustaining whatever's their mainstream status quo of their brown-nosed and/or born-again pagan day. Evidence exclusions are the norm, and of just plain old topic/author bullyism is their Skull and Bones status quo. It's exactly what causes so much collateral damage and gets innocent folks quite dead, and that of our Earth becoming further polluted, but then "so what's the difference" seems to be their working policy that only sucks and blows for the rest of us. Unlike "tomcat", I've made way more than my fair share of mistakes. Unfortunately, making just one such mistake is worthy of receiving their topic/author termination, whereas their flak arrives from all Usenet sectors that would just as soon and much rather continue lying their incest cloned pagan butts off than not. - Brad Guth > Tomcat's Usenet is seriously chuck full of itself and of so many other > butt-loads of infomercial-science, along with their wag-thy-dog [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > their mainstream status quo of their brown-nosed and/or born-again > pagan day. How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, bad, bad. > Evidence exclusions are the norm, and of just plain old topic/author > bullyism is their Skull and Bones status quo. It's exactly what causes > so much collateral damage and gets innocent folks quite dead, and that > of our Earth becoming further polluted, but then "so what's the > difference" seems to be their working policy that only sucks and blows > for the rest of us. How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, bad, bad. > Unlike "tomcat", I've made way more than my fair share of mistakes. > Unfortunately, making just one such mistake is worthy of receiving > their topic/author termination, whereas their flak arrives from all > Usenet sectors that would just as soon and much rather continue lying > their incest cloned pagan butts off than not. I am actually much more erudite than I appear. And, for whatever it is worth, I still think well of your 'basalt fabric'. But you have to bind it with Graphite Epoxy, not that 'other stuff'. Boron Epoxy is pretty good too. Both can take extremes of heat. I can build a spaceplane right now. How do I know this? Well, properly done, it is simple. Any time something becomes complex it is usually a sign of 'confusion' and confusion does not build spaceplanes. Put enough engine, enough fuel, into an object and it has to do what nature intended: Go. Nice and simple. Get involved in 'plasma studies' and 10 years later there will just be 10 times as much to study. tomcat The quoted passage below, from a NASA website, explains how ice exists on the Moon. "The Moon has no atmosphere, any substance on the lunar surface is exposed directly to vacuum. For water ice, this means it will rapidly sublime directly into water vapor and escape into space, as the Moon's low gravity cannot hold gas for any appreciable time. Over the course of a lunar day (~29 Earth days), all regions of the Moon are exposed to sunlight, and the temperature on the Moon in direct sunlight reaches about 395 K (395 Kelvin, which is equal to about 250 degrees above zero F). So any ice exposed to sunlight for even a short time would be lost. The only possible way for ice to exist on the Moon would be in a permanently shadowed area." "The Clementine imaging experiment showed that such permanently shadowed areas do exist in the bottom of deep craters near the Moon's south pole. In fact, it appears that approximately 6000 to 15,000 square kilometers (2300 to 5800 square miles) of area around the south pole is permanently shadowed. The permanently shadowed area near the north pole appears on Clementine images to be considerably less, but the Lunar Prospector results show a much larger water-bearing area at the north pole. Much of the area around the south pole is within the South Pole-Aitken Basin (shown at left in blue on a lunar topography image), a giant impact crater 2500 km (1550 miles) in diameter and 12 km deep at its lowest point. Many smaller craters exist on the floor of this basin. Since they are down in this basin, the floors of many of these craters are never exposed to sunlight. Within these craters the temperatures would never rise above about 100 K (280 degrees below zero F) (2). Any water ice at the bottom of the crater could probably exist for billions of years at these temperatures." Thought it might help. tomcat >How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at >least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, >bad, bad. Unlike yourself. I know damn good and well when I'm being snookered, and when I'm not (footnotes and bibliography to follow). I can tell the difference between infomercial-science and hard-science (footnotes and bibliography to follow), though obviously you can not tell the difference between whatever's real and what's wishfull thinking (skewed infomercial-science and conditional laws of physics to follow). Hard-science has those pesky hard-numbers and direct smaples to boot, and thereby the sorts of objective results that can be replicated. Your infomercial-science has a nasty butt-load of fuzzy logic and even fuzzier numbers that can become skewed in order to represent just about anything you'd care to make them into. Unfortunately, there still is NO HARD-SCIENCE AS TO RAW ICE IN SPACE OR ON OUR MOON, as there's only SWAGs of conjectures as based upon what could be the case it there were a sufficient thickness of ice to begin with, such as the 262 km depth of solid ice that I'd previously stipulated as to what our once upon a time salty ice covered proto-moon had to work with. Unfortunately, you're the one that's into excluding evidence and/or substituting whatever infomercial-science as being better than sufficient in reguard to whatever it is that you're trying to create as an illusion, such as there being vast tonnage of spare ice that's so easily accessible because it's situated as damn near naked upon the surface or just slightly under the slight coverings of collected debris, that's otherwise coexisting within the near vacuum of an environment that's extremely extra hot by day and even traumatised by night, as well as offered little gravity for hardly compacting of a damn thing, nor otherwise hosting a sufficient atmosphere for the somewhat daunting task of a lunar environment holding onto that ice or snow or of whatever else contains the element of h2o (footnotes and bibliography to follow). In spite of folks like yourself, and as I've often said before, there's great value in accomplishing our moon, including the task of possibly extracting h2o from within that nasty sucker, and for accomplishing that sort of task there's none better than what the LSE-CM/ISS has to offer within existing technology and entirely residing within the regular laws of physics, whereas most any Usenet moron of a village idiot (even a naysay bigoted mindset like your's) can just as easily search for those having existed before my time, that which I've since discovered had been essentially saying the very same damn sorts of things, as to exactly what I've been insisting are still the greater values and opportunities that'll come to past once the Lunar Space Elevator is up and running (footnotes and bibliography to follow). Obviously you're impressed with the sorts of NASA/NOVA fancy-dancy infomercial packaging, with lots of fancier (aka artificial color hyped) pictures and of their animated graphics with custom surround-sound tracks that'll knock your socks off, whereas otherwise you can't manage to get yourself down to the reality of appreciating one damn ordinary thing of truth without blowing yet another one of your brown-nose gaskets of denial. Even the likes of your "Tomcat Spaceplane" is someday going to fly on behalf of papering those upper most 0.1% of humanity, except without yourself onboard (because you'll be long dead by then or simply to damn poor to afford a ticket to ride), or so much as even having a single credit given to your name. For God's sake and hope to go to heaven without first getting crucified on a stick, with a little positive and thus constructive help from the better half of humanity, I do believe that we can easily and affordably accomplish this all or nothing LL-1 thing, and thus achieve the LSE-CM/ISS, at least having established the VL2-TRACE platform, as well as robotically explore Venus via the rigid airship method, whereas this robotic craft efficiently navigates itself above the Venus terrain that's geothermally hot and nasty, as perhaps configured for cruising itself as low as 25 km off the deck by season of day and as low as 15 km by season of night. Are those terrifically good sorts of mostly robotic things to be doing, or what? Obviously you have expressed absolutely no interest in assisting or otherwise pursuing whatever might benefit the common good of science or much less that of the lower 99.9% of humanity, nor has there been a kind "tomcat" word of support on behalf of salvaging our environment that you deny as having any problems whatsoever (other than your own words stipulating that Earth has far too many of those Islamic/Muslim types to deal with). With that much pagan brown-nosed naysayism speaking for yourself and of so many other that you obviously suck up to, only a certified minion to the Third Reich could sleep at night, and yet you've not mentioned once having any difficulty in sleeping. Your all american apple pie in the sky that'll demand a 10,000 lb investment per SSME X 7 = 70,000 lbs of main engines and their associated inert mass of related multi-engine infrastructure that's further associated with at the very least another 330,000 lbs worth of mostly composites involved with the aerodynamic hull and vast internals of your all-in-one LH2/LO2 flying fuel tanker, along with it's 100,000 lb payload and then at the very least packing 2,500,000 lbs of LH2/LO2 that's going to take all of the electrical energy of this mostly coal-fired nation for a month in order to produce, is in fact going to SSTO+LRBs mange to LEO fly whatever's payload and wealthy passengers like a dream machine to/from the likes of ISS. That's only a naked tarmac SSTO spaceplane GLOW of 2,500,000 lbs + whatever LRBs at perhaps 2,000,000 lbs = 4,500,000 lbs of initial GLOW tarmac mass. Whereas at 100,000 lbs/landing gear wheel is only demanding of 45 such wheels. However, since I'm no good at math, I'm not even exactly sure that an extra meter thick and alloy steal reinforced runway is going to handle that sucker, especially if anything goes wrong. Of course, you'll only believe in anything that's in print or otherwise orchestrated by way of your born-again pagan gods, of those oil and blood suckers which only know how to be the best ever pagan liars and rusemasters as having "the right stuff", just exactly the dripping brown-nosed way you've always liked it. Even "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" can't help those so intent upon taking such global energy depleations to the max, and otherwise inflicting as much collateral damage of human and other life exterminations as yourself have thus far accomplished and clearly having in mind for the future. - Brad Guth > >How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at > >least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > - > Brad Guth I think NASA tells the truth most of the time, except where exobiology is concerned. tomcat >I think NASA tells the truth most of the time, except where exobiology >is concerned. tomcat, I think you're definitely a snookered soul and as such summarily dumbfounded way past the point of no return. So what's the difference between being snookered and/or of being dumbfounded? Clearly you'll believe in anything that's MI6~NSA/CIA/DoD-->NASA packaged, or that of whatever's infomercial published or especially if having been NOVA hyped, as well accepting upon whatever our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has to say. So, what's that in of itself saying about the likes of his born-again pagan brown-nosed minions that are performing as dumbfounded village idiots, exactly like yourself? - Brad Guth > >I think NASA tells the truth most of the time, except where exobiology > >is concerned. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > about the likes of his born-again pagan brown-nosed minions that are > performing as dumbfounded village idiots, exactly like yourself? "Everything is a lie." Is this statement true? tomcat >"Everything is a lie." Is this statement true? tomcat, Since I've never once said anything like that, why don't you tell us village idiots (AKA apparent scum of the Earth in your book) as to what's what. I've said that a lie begets a lie; does that count for anything? Personally, I think you need to flush that spendy space-toilet because, it's been seriously overflowing with all of that infomercial-science worth of a perpetrated cold-war crapolla that you and so many others can't seem to get enough of. Instead of doing your usual brown-nosed minion duties of wagging thy dogs to death and of cover thy butts, why not simply focus our supposed talents and limited resources upon whatever's so nearby and so entirely doable that'll directly benefit the lower 99.9% of humanity? Do you need that list of considerations again? - Brad Guth >I think NASA tells the truth most of the time, except where exobiology >is concerned. tomcat, You can't have it both ways. Either they're born-again liars or they're not. Which is it? Obviously our NASA is going to go right along with whatever truth that'll benefit and/or sustain their status quo. I certainly would; wouldn't you? I've said that a lie begets a lie; Do you suppose that counts for anything? >"Everything is a lie." Is this statement true? Since I've never once said anything like that, why don't you tell us village idiots (AKA apparent scum of the Earth in your book) as to what's what. Personally, I still think you'll need to flush that spendy space-toilet because, it's been seriously overflowing with all of that infomercial-science worth of sustaining our perpetrated cold-war worth of crapolla that you and so many others can't seem to get enough of. Instead of continually doing your usual brown-nosed minion duties of wagging thy dogs to death and of covering thy butts, why not simply focus your's and that of our supposed talents and limited resources upon whatever's so nearby and so entirely doable that'll directly benefit the lower 99.9% of humanity? Do you need that list of considerations again? - Brad Guth > You can't have it both ways. Either they're born-again liars or > they're not. Which is it? NASA is the most truthful organization I have ever known. Of course, that doesn't mean that they are perfectly truthful, just that they have a conscience about it. Politicians don't. > Obviously our NASA is going to go right along with whatever truth > that'll benefit and/or sustain their status quo. I certainly would; > wouldn't you? Look Brad, NASA wouldn't build the Saturn V just to do a TV fake. If you have a Saturn V then you are going to really use it. > I've said that a lie begets a lie; Do you suppose that counts for > anything? Everything is a 'Quantum Hologram'. Push it, shove it, squeeze it tight and eventually you'll get the truth out of it. > >"Everything is a lie." Is this statement true? > Since I've never once said anything like that, why don't you tell us > village idiots (AKA apparent scum of the Earth in your book) as to > what's what. I believe that every living thing has a wee bit of the Almighty in them. No living thing is scum. Though, some creatures have to be devoured to sustain others. And, some creatures have to be killed to protect ourselves. In short, if the Aliens have us on the Menu, then have I got a surprise for them! Because their status would change, wee bit of the Almighty or not. tomcat tomcat, You still can't have it both ways. Either they're members in good standing with our Skull and Bones born-again pagan liars or they're not. Which is it? >NASA is the most truthful organization I have ever known. Of course, >that doesn't mean that they are perfectly truthful, just that they have >a conscience about it. Politicians don't. Our warm and fuzzy NASA was being entirely run amuck by the likes of MI6~NSA/CIA and DoD. How well do you trust those folks? You do agree that our cold-war fiasco (all decades worth of it) was 100% mutually perpetrated for eventual blood-sport and for and all the job security loot, don't you? Look tomcat, NASA would have and did in fact do everything within their dirty little perpetrated cold-war black book to get our folks safely to/from our moon. We most likely did orbit that nasty sucker in person a few times, and we did make every best known fly-by-rocket effort at getting our robotics safely deployed upon that dark, extremely nasty and somewhat reactive surface, even though at best we in fact impacted a good many if not all such items into it's extremely dusty and somewhat salty surface. Considering how downright pagan and/or heathens of intellectual bigots most of us are, I think that's pretty damn good. What more do you what? >Everything is a 'Quantum Hologram'. Push it, shove it, squeeze it >tight and eventually you'll get the truth out of it. I've been into using my battery of lose cannons and otherwise having been pushing all of those 'do-not-push' buttons. How about yourself? >I believe that every living thing has a wee bit of the Almighty in >them. No living thing is scum. Though, some creatures have to be >devoured to sustain others. And, some creatures have to be killed to >protect ourselves. I tend to agree, that some of us are simply more or less blessed with having better evolved DNA as superior LLPOF types than others. Somehow my fair share of the LLPOF DNA went into making the likes of GW Bush. >In short, if the Aliens have us on the Menu, then have I got a surprise >for them! Because their status would change, wee bit of the Almighty >or not. Good idea, that we should kick ETs exoskeletal butt first before they do our's. - Brad Guth > You still can't have it both ways. Either they're members in good > standing with our Skull and Bones born-again pagan liars or they're > not. Which is it? NASA consists almost entirely of scientists and engineers. They are doing their profession and are not attempting deception. > Our warm and fuzzy NASA was being entirely run amuck by the likes of > MI6~NSA/CIA and DoD. How well do you trust those folks? The MI6 are British and need to return to Great Britain. > You do agree that our cold-war fiasco (all decades worth of it) was > 100% mutually perpetrated for eventual blood-sport and for and all the > job security loot, don't you? There were several times that the U.S. and the old Soviet Union nearly went to war. This is well documented. > Look tomcat, NASA would have and did in fact do everything within their > dirty little perpetrated cold-war black book to get our folks safely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > heathens of intellectual bigots most of us are, I think that's pretty > damn good. What more do you what? I think the U.S. really landed on the Moon July 20, 1969. The Saturn V was fully capable of it. It did a fine job of putting us there. Too bad we didn't build more of them. > I've been into using my battery of lose cannons and otherwise having > been pushing all of those 'do-not-push' buttons. How about yourself? The world is a rougher place then ever since WWII. I believe that 'Alien Intervention' is the root cause, though many sub-causes appear to be the real causes. > I tend to agree, that some of us are simply more or less blessed with > having better evolved DNA as superior LLPOF types than others. Somehow > my fair share of the LLPOF DNA went into making the likes of GW Bush. You're in the family? A 'black sheep' I suspect. They probably don't mention your name much. > >In short, if the Aliens have us on the Menu, then have I got a surprise > >for them! Because their status would change, wee bit of the Almighty > >or not. > Good idea, that we should kick ETs exoskeletal butt first before they > do our's. Today, all nations on Earth, have got to prepare of Alien Contact. And, first of all, that means preparing weapon systems capable of bringing them down. Then, and only then, can we use diplomacy. tomcat >NASA consists almost entirely of scientists and engineers. They are >doing their profession and are not attempting deception. I totally agree, as in spite of whatever it is that you want to believe, I've never suggested otherwise. Of course, how many of those good "scientists and engineers" were actually of the ones encharge of accomplishing whatever it takes for pulling off such a grand ruse/sting of the century? >There were several times that the U.S. and the old Soviet Union nearly >went to war. This is well documented. That is not at all of what I'd asked. >I think the U.S. really landed on the Moon July 20, 1969. The Saturn V >was fully capable of it. It did a fine job of putting us there. Too >bad we didn't build more of them. Good for you. Please do let me know whenever yourself or whomever else can actually prove via hard-science and of the regular laws of physics that's what happened. Too bad our NASA can not utilize much of any of their previous fly-by-rocket expertise, nor even of that supposed Saturn-V science in order to get their next mission onto the moon. Obviously your Kodak laws of photon physics are what also works entirely differently upon the naked moon than upon our Earth that's shielded by 10+t/m2 plus having the DNA butt-saving Van Allen expanse to our benefit. >Today, all nations on Earth, have got to prepare of Alien Contact. >And, first of all, that means preparing weapon systems capable of >bringing them down. Then, and only then, can we use diplomacy. We can't even defend ourselves from our very own self-inflicted trauma of global warming, much less from a few Muslims going postal. We don't have enough spare energy to create the necessary aluminum and titanium alloys or much less of the basalt composite fibers for the likes of your massive spaceplane. Mass productions of LH2, LO2 and/or the better of H2O2 as well as c3h4o are just asking too much from our failing power grids and of otherwise expecting too much from our mostly outdated and inefficient coal fired methods of supplying those electrons. Therefore, we don't stand a chance against smart ETs, whereas even the likes of their dumb and dumber ETs will seriously kick our butts. Let's hope that such Aliens are thinking that we're too pathetic, too polluted into being too damn toxic for ETs, and otherwise simply too much of a mutated genetic lost cause to bother with. Besides, Earth still has way too much surface water for our own damn good (more than 8,000' that would cover the entire globe if Earth were sufficiently smooth, plus another 50+ teratonnes worth that's currently within the atmosphere). - Brad Guth > >NASA consists almost entirely of scientists and engineers. They are > >doing their profession and are not attempting deception. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accomplishing whatever it takes for pulling off such a grand ruse/sting > of the century? Once again, Brad, if you have a Saturn V then why attempt a "grand ruse/sting"? There was no "grand ruse/sting". America built 10 Saturn V rockets. > >There were several times that the U.S. and the old Soviet Union nearly > >went to war. This is well documented. > That is not at all of what I'd asked. I was in the military service during many of the 'cold war' years. Our military took the 'cold war' very seriously. > >I think the U.S. really landed on the Moon July 20, 1969. The Saturn V > >was fully capable of it. It did a fine job of putting us there. Too [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > shielded by 10+t/m2 plus having the DNA butt-saving Van Allen expanse > to our benefit. It is 'my belief' that NASA is going to take so long to get back to the Moon because Top Levels of the U.S. Government don't want to irritate the Aliens that are mining OUR Moon. This is why I mentioned the ISS photograph showing rectangles on the Moon. Something is going on up there. I 'suspect' it is either Martians, Venusians, or Interstellar Visitors. The United States Air Force needs to be charged with the responsibility of keeping the Moon available for U.S. use. Congress should not let them get off the hook by sweeping this AeroSpace responsibility to the CIA, or NSA. The USAF should be informed by Congress and the President that they have 2 years to develop interplanetary warships, no if's, and's, or but's. > >Today, all nations on Earth, have got to prepare of Alien Contact. > >And, first of all, that means preparing weapon systems capable of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > whereas even the likes of their dumb and dumber ETs will seriously kick > our butts. The United States has 'black programs' for exactly such a contingency. These programs have cost the American taxpayers countless billions of dollars. It is time to fully deploy some of those 'beyond top secret' Area 51 kinds of things. > Let's hope that such Aliens are thinking that we're too pathetic, too > polluted into being too damn toxic for ETs, and otherwise simply too [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > smooth, plus another 50+ teratonnes worth that's currently within the > atmosphere). The U.S. has been pretending to be an 'old granny' long enough. It is time for 'old granny' to teach those 'little red riding hoods' a lesson. tomcat >Once again, Brad, if you have a Saturn V then why attempt a "grand >ruse/sting"? There was no "grand ruse/sting". America built 10 Saturn >V rockets. Once again, tomcat, having the capability of getting a few of mostly robotic tonnage so quickly into orbiting our moon is not of what such horrific tonnage as to what their absolutely inert massive Apollo missions were all about. Besides, orbiting the moon is NOT quite the same as having safely landed upon and returning from the lunar surface without a scratch nor hardly picking up a spare rad of dosage, now is it? Getting that three man package to/from LL-1 was however entirely doable, with energy as to spare of what their Saturn-V had within it's inert massive rocket-butt to deliver. Where if ever have I even once suggested that we didn't honestly try every last good and bad trick within our Third Reich engineered books of such fly-by-rocket science, as to making those Apollo missions happen? I'm absolutely certain them dirty rotten Russians with their very own Third Reich rocket-scientists were making the same best efforts, though without their risking astronaut certain death. >It is 'my belief' that NASA is going to take so long to get back to the >Moon because Top Levels of the U.S. Government don't want to irritate >the Aliens that are mining OUR Moon. We'll need to obtain a whole lot better pictures than what you've uncovered, such as what KECK can easily accomplish, as offering better than 1.0 m/pixel if they'll simply mask off 90% of each of their 36 primary mirrors and utilized their f40 secondary mirror as is. BTW; I'm fairly certain that's also of what has been going on with regard to Venus, whereas ET's having been mining our nextdoor planet right under our brown-noses and otherwise as being every bit as plain as day to our incest cloned and mostly pagan eyes that are so bigoted that we can only see the likes of WMD as hidden under every oily Muslim rock. >The United States Air Force needs to be charged with the responsibility >of keeping the Moon available for U.S. use. I believe that task is well underway of being accommodated by China; free of charge. >The United States has 'black programs' for exactly such a contingency. >These programs have cost the American taxpayers countless billions of >dollars. Don't be so gosh darn modest. Try thinking in terms of trillions upon trillions of hard earned loot, and of countless hundreds of thousands (millions+) of innocent souls that got ignored in their times of need or merely got in our mutually perpetrated cold-war way, not to mention our artificially produced global warming fiasco and our having more than doubled the cost of fossil energy within just half a decade. Isn't that the best ever global collateral damage and carnage, or what? >The U.S. has been pretending to be an 'old granny' long enough. It is >time for 'old granny' to teach those 'little red riding hoods' a >lesson. I'm game for that. Which general direction should I point my battery of lose cannons? - Brad Guth >tomcat; Once again, Brad, if you have a Saturn V then why attempt a >"grand ruse/sting"? There was no "grand ruse/sting". America built >10 Saturn V rockets. Other than the usual infomercial-science hype worth, what the freaking hell has "America built 10 Saturn V rockets" got to do with our supposedly having safely landed upon and having returned without a scratch from the moon? Once again, tomcat, having the Saturn fly-by-rocket capability of getting a few tonnes of what was mostly if not an entirely of their robotic capable payload(s) so quickly into orbiting our moon is not quite the same cigar as to what the supposed Apollo tonnage amounted to, or of what their absolutely inert massive Apollo missions were supposedly all about. Besides, as I've said so many times before, orbiting the moon along with a live crew is still as of today going to remain as risky business though NOT nearly as risky as for having to safely land upon and returning from that nasty lunar surface as of nearly 4 decades ago, and to think without so much as a scratch nor hardly picking up a spare rad of radiation dosage, or of otherwise obtaining an unfiltered Kodak moment without such naked photopraphic efforts having so much as recorded any spectrum skew or hint whatsoever of there being any extra near-UV and/or horrific UV-a illumination impact that just doesn't add up, now does it? Obviously you're so pathetic that you know not of a damn thing about Kodak film, thus your're worse than just dumb and dumber, and thereby so much worse off than being dumbfounded simply because you're so easily snookered at the drop of a hat. For Christ on another stick, tomcat, we still don't have a viable fly-by-rocket lander. Good grief, what absolute born-again pagan denial you have, and of having only infomercial-science to show for it all. Getting that hefty three man package to/from LL-1 was however entirely Saturn 5 doable with energy to spare of what their inert massive Saturn-V had within it's absolutely massive (meaning inert heavy) rocket-butt. Meaning that it was entirely possible to make LL-1 with enough reserves for sending ahead the critical portion of what their missions intended (with or w/o crew) for orbiting and for their otherwise honest attempts at robotic soft-landings upon our moon. Robotic landing efforts are unfortunately NOT the same as a manned landing. Within the all-knowing good book of "tomcat'; how many lies is our NASA (aka MI6~NSA/CIA/DoD) permitted to tell us before they're reclassified by yourself as being liars? Aparently that number of lies may exceed 100 (much like your LLPOF GW Bush) before reaching any red-line of when they've officially become certified liars according to the "tomcat" high standards and accountability score card of your "so what's the difference" policy. Where if ever have I even once suggested that we didn't honestly try every last good and bad trick within our Third Reich engineered books of such fly-by-rocket science, as to making those Apollo missions happen? I'm absolutely certain them dirty rotten Russians with their very own Third Reich rocket-scientists were making the same best efforts, though without their risking astronaut certain death is why they focused upon their AI/robotic landers wich also failed each and every time (at least there's still not proof otherwise). >It is 'my belief' that NASA is going to take so long to get back to the >Moon because Top Levels of the U.S. Government don't want to irritate >the Aliens that are mining OUR Moon. We'll need to obtain a whole lot better pictures than what you've uncovered, such as what KECK can easily accomplish, as offering better than 1.0 m/pixel if they'll simply mask off 90% of each of their 36 primary mirrors and utilized their f40 secondary mirror as is upon their newest CCD. BTW; I'm fairly certain that's also of what has been going on with regard to Venus, whereas ET's having been mining our nextdoor planet right under our brown-noses and otherwise as being every bit as plain as day to our incest cloned and mostly pagan eyes that are so bigoted that we can only see the likes of WMD as hidden under every oily Muslim rock. >The United States Air Force needs to be charged with the responsibility >of keeping the Moon available for U.S. use. I believe that daunting task of defending Earth from ourselves, from whatever ETs as well as from NEOs is well underway of being accommodated by China; thus far free of charge. >The United States has 'black programs' for exactly such a contingency. >These programs have cost the American taxpayers countless billions of >dollars. Don't be so gosh darn modest. Try thinking in terms of our mostly Pro-White Programs having cost us trillions upon trillions of hard earned loot, and of countless hundreds of thousands (over the decades worthy of millions+) of innocent souls that got ignored in their times of need or merely got in our mutually perpetrated cold-war way, not to mention our artificially produced global warming fiasco and our having recently and actually for the second time in recent history having more than doubled the cost of fossil energy within just half a decade. Isn't that the best ever global collateral damage and carnage, or what? >The U.S. has been pretending to be an 'old granny' long enough. It is >time for 'old granny' to teach those 'little red riding hoods' a >lesson. I'm game for that. Which general direction of Washington DC should I be pointing my battery of lose cannons? - Brad Guth > Other than the usual infomercial-science hype worth, what the freaking > hell has "America built 10 Saturn V rockets" got to do with our > supposedly having safely landed upon and having returned without a > scratch from the moon? Let me correct myself. America built 15 -- according to the Wikipedia Encylopedia -- Saturn V's, 3 of which never flew. It could put a 260,000 pound payload into LEO. With that much horsepower there would be no reason to fake the moon landings. The Saturn V could do it. And, back in 1969 and early 70's neither DOD nor NASA worried to much about a few rads of radiation. we were 'lean and mean' back then. What were a couple of casualities when we had just lost hundreds of thousands of men in WWII. > Once again, tomcat, having the Saturn fly-by-rocket capability of > getting a few tonnes of what was mostly if not an entirely of their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of there being any extra near-UV and/or horrific UV-a illumination > impact that just doesn't add up, now does it? Yes it does add up. America was tough. General Twining used to host the "BiG PICTURE" on TV and talk about cutting our way into the iron curtain using nuke after nuke. We might lose a couple of thousand tanks, but they would be replaced with thousands more. Americans could go into their underground bunkers to wait out the war. Everybody knew that our 'logic machine' Generals, like Twining and LeMay, would win. They had no equals anywhere. America's potential enemies knew that too. So they behaved themselves; they did not fly airplanes into our skyscrapers. They wouldn't dare! Even the Aliens kept their distance. America was safe because of the bravest, strongest Generals that have ever existed. > Obviously you're so pathetic that you know not of a damn thing about > Kodak film, thus your're worse than just dumb and dumber, and thereby [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what absolute born-again pagan denial you have, and of having only > infomercial-science to show for it all. Where did all the Moon rocks come from? Scientists all over the world have studied them. They sure must be pretty good fakes. Actually I think they are real, don't you? > Getting that hefty three man package to/from LL-1 was however entirely > Saturn 5 doable with energy to spare of what their inert massive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Robotic landing efforts are unfortunately NOT the same as a manned > landing. The Russians were into robotics back then. The U.S. was into using men. Back then, men were expendable. Just G.I.'s (General Issue). > Within the all-knowing good book of "tomcat'; how many lies is our > NASA (aka MI6~NSA/CIA/DoD) permitted to tell us before they're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the "tomcat" high standards and accountability score card of your "so > what's the difference" policy. Have you ever 'fibbed', Brad? > Where if ever have I even once suggested that we didn't honestly try > every last good and bad trick within our Third Reich engineered books [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they focused upon their AI/robotic landers wich also failed each and > every time (at least there's still not proof otherwise). You can knock Nazi ethics and morality, but don't knock their engineering. > We'll need to obtain a whole lot better pictures than what you've > uncovered, such as what KECK can easily accomplish, as offering better [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that are so bigoted that we can only see the likes of WMD as hidden > under every oily Muslim rock. Which rocks? Where? > I believe that daunting task of defending Earth from ourselves, from > whatever ETs as well as from NEOs is well underway of being > accommodated by China; thus far free of charge. China is a formidiable power. They have technology and guts. America has competition. America needs to wake up. > Don't be so gosh darn modest. Try thinking in terms of our mostly > Pro-White Programs having cost us trillions upon trillions of hard [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > than doubled the cost of fossil energy within just half a decade. > Isn't that the best ever global collateral damage and carnage, or what? It is time for America to develop alternative fuel sources. It is time to unleash some of that "black project" science and technology. > >The U.S. has been pretending to be an 'old granny' long enough. It is > >time for 'old granny' to teach those 'little red riding hoods' a > >lesson. > I'm game for that. Which general direction of Washington DC should I > be pointing my battery of lose cannons? How about aiming them at the Aliens. Earth needs to be united. If we don't work together it may well be the end of mankind. tomcat >Let me correct myself. America built 15 -- according to the Wikipedia >Encylopedia -- Saturn V's, 3 of which never flew. It could put a >260,000 pound payload into LEO. But lo and behold, even though there was back then and remains as of today more than a damn good need for such, 260,000 lbs into LEO never transpired. I wonder why? >With that much horsepower there would be no reason to fake the moon >landings. The Saturn V could do it. And, back in 1969 and early 70's >neither DOD nor NASA worried to much about a few rads of radiation. we >were 'lean and mean' back then. What were a couple of casualities when >we had just lost hundreds of thousands of men in WWII. What has "that much horsepower" got anuthing to do with landings upon our moon? A million fold greater rocket "horsepower" wouldn't have changed a damn thing, now would it? Like I'd said, I can't but wonder why it's taking our newest and most improved as well as spendy alternative of what's demanding of 6 stages worth in order to get just half the payload tonnage merely into LEO. What the hell gives? How far back-in-time has our pathetic rocket-science gone? >Where did all the Moon rocks come from? Scientists all over the world >have studied them. They sure must be pretty good fakes. Actually I >think they are real, don't you? They're real moon rocks and they came from EARTH! How many mega tonnes would you like? >Have you ever 'fibbed', Brad? Certainly I've fibbed and I've clearly stipulated that I've also made more than my fair share of mistakes. However, none of my fibs or mistakes have cost humanity trillions nor gotten innocent folks exterminated, much less of getting the quail looking face of a supposed friend blasted by my shotgun. So, unlike yourself and of those you clearly admire at any cost to humanity and of our badly polluted global warming environment, what's your morally sick-puppy point as to justifying the exterminations of countless millions upon millions of innocent souls, and of our past and the ongoing pillaging and raping of mother Earth, just so that your mindset of denials upon denials can sleep at night? >You can knock Nazi ethics and morality, but don't knock their >engineering. I have never once knocked their engineering expertise or of their advance (ET like) rocket-science along with their Jewish petrol-chemical expertise that's still collaborating as we speak. I'm nothing but impressed as all get out. >It is time for America to develop alternative fuel sources. It is time >to unleash some of that "black project" science and technology. So, where's your support on behalf of the green/renewable 25 kw/m2 of footprint of obtaining clean energy that's doable as is? Isn't it simply amazing when such good folks have formulated their born-again pagan mindsets into such a dedicated focus at creating and of having sustained a perpetrated cold-war (at least there has been no stinking rules about any of that), just so that thousands of WW-II folks and of their close friends (AKA partners in crimes against humanity) could maintain their government and subcontractor jobs along with such vast benefits forever, not to mention all of the secret fundings of science, technology and of special interest activities that only directly benefitted the upper most 0.1% of humanity, and indirectly at best the upper most 10% perceived some degree of benefit at the risk and ultimate demise of their own kind (apparently Hitler didn't have such a bad idea after all). I'm certainly well enough convinced that our NASA(aka MI6~NSA/CIA/DoD) had obtained all of "the right stuff", such as from the spoils of WW-II having obtained all those smart German Third Reich rocket-scientists and of their Jewish collaborators in their petrol-chemical industries that so nicely managed to perform the greatest show on Earth. That accomplishment rightfully goes for the USSR contingency and of whomever else was willing to play along with the game plan of snookering humanity and of raping mother Earth for all it was worth. I'll tell you what, the very next time I'm having another one of my personal one on one talks with Usama bin Laden, I'll ask of his honest opinion about our supposed "play by the rules" of such high standards and accountability. I wonder what I'm going to be told? >It is time for America to develop alternative fuel sources. It is time >to unleash some of that "black project" science and technology. But you're the one that's not doing a constructive damn thing but having been ignoring the hard-facts (AKA evidence excluding until them NASA/Apollo cows come home) as well as having avoided the better of technological solutions and/or as having consistently and actively obstructed upon every possible alternative. Why is that? >lose cannons; How about aiming them at the Aliens. I think the White House and of the born-again pagonology within is off-limits. >Earth needs to be united. If we don't work together it may well be the end >of mankind. We've had countless thousands if not 10's of thousands of supposedly intelligent years to work out a few bugs, and obviously we'll need another few thousand years to accomplish the task of our working together, especially since there are so many greedy naysay and bigoted mindsets like your self that would just as soon take us into WW-III over the dregs of fossil fuels rather than contribute to the solutions at hand. - Brad Guth > But lo and behold, even though there was back then and remains as of > today more than a damn good need for such, 260,000 lbs into LEO never > transpired. I wonder why? The Saturn V was for real. It put Skylab into Outer Space as it's last mission. > What has "that much horsepower" got anuthing to do with landings upon > our moon? It shows that America had the capability. There was no reason to do any kind of a fake. > A million fold greater rocket "horsepower" wouldn't have changed a damn > thing, now would it? Yes, it would. The more "horsepower" the better. Enough "horsepower" and we would already be visiting Venus and Mars. > Like I'd said, I can't but wonder why it's taking our newest and most > improved as well as spendy alternative of what's demanding of 6 stages > worth in order to get just half the payload tonnage merely into LEO. > What the hell gives? How far back-in-time has our pathetic > rocket-science gone? Well, the rocket scientists have some weird ideas. Once is that wings don't work. Another is that bigger is bad. I guess that the technicians complain about skyscraper sized rockets and waveriders. NASA is currently moving toward a 'heavy lifter' for the Moon and beyond. I hope that means a million pounds to orbit and a quarter of a million pound to escape velocity. > They're real moon rocks and they came from EARTH! How many mega tonnes > would you like? You mean the Earth gave birth to the Moon and then we collected the Earth/Moon rocks? > Certainly I've fibbed and I've clearly stipulated that I've also made > more than my fair share of mistakes. However, none of my fibs or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mother Earth, just so that your mindset of denials upon denials can > sleep at night? You tell 'good' fibs, and everyone else tell 'bad' fibs? > I have never once knocked their engineering expertise or of their > advance (ET like) rocket-science along with their Jewish > petrol-chemical expertise that's still collaborating as we speak. I'm > nothing but impressed as all get out. I hope you aren't talking about their 'soap' factories. Well, in any event, at least the WWII Germans weren't afraid of new designs. We are still trying to figure out the "Foo Fighters" that appeared over germany toward the end of the War. > So, where's your support on behalf of the green/renewable 25 kw/m2 of > footprint of obtaining clean energy that's doable as is? We need to kick the Aliens off the Moon and get the He3 as soon as possible. > Isn't it simply amazing when such good folks have formulated their > born-again pagan mindsets into such a dedicated focus at creating and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > at the risk and ultimate demise of their own kind (apparently Hitler > didn't have such a bad idea after all). Actually, a properly functioning economy can make everybody rich. Yes, that is possible. If unlimited goods accompany unlimited money with a reasonably fair distribution of wealth, then there will be no inflation and everyone will have a piece of the pie. All that needs to be done is to automate resource gathering, manufacturing, distribution, and marketing, then crank this machine to full power and watch the results. Imagine thousands of orders for 'tomcat's spaceplane' with the 8 billion dollars wired to me up front. > I'm certainly well enough convinced that our NASA(aka MI6~NSA/CIA/DoD) > had obtained all of "the right stuff", such as from the spoils of WW-II [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > else was willing to play along with the game plan of snookering > humanity and of raping mother Earth for all it was worth. Mankind has growing pains. Best just to 'crank the economy up' and see what happens. As long as people realize that pollution is wasted material, and excess heat is wasted electricity, then industry will stop polluting, regardless of greatly increased production. > I'll tell you what, the very next time I'm having another one of my > personal one on one talks with Usama bin Laden, I'll ask of his honest > opinion about our supposed "play by the rules" of such high standards > and accountability. I wonder what I'm going to be told? He'll smile and pat you on the head. He'll know you believe in his propaganda, and probably wonder why. > But you're the one that's not doing a constructive damn thing but > having been ignoring the hard-facts (AKA evidence excluding until them > NASA/Apollo cows come home) as well as having avoided the better of > technological solutions and/or as having consistently and actively > obstructed upon every possible alternative. Why is that? I believe that I am being very constructive. NASA is doing the job of conquering Outer Space and that is of some considerable merit. If they bought one of my spaceplanes they would conquer it even faster. > We've had countless thousands if not 10's of thousands of supposedly > intelligent years to work out a few bugs, and obviously we'll need [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > over the dregs of fossil fuels rather than contribute to the solutions > at hand. I don't know why doing Outer Space is taking so long either. Instead of just building a really big powerful spaceplane, engineers seem to prefer building small ones and then spending decades 'tweaking' them to put 'small +1" into orbit. Instead they should just build a big spaceplane capable of blasting a quarter of million pounds of payload to escape velocity. That would get things going. I have high hopes for the 'heavy lifter' they are working on, however. If it can put a million pounds in LEO then maybe, at last, they will have built one big enough to do what needs to be done. tomcat We've badly needed spare rocket fuel by the hundreds of tonnes in LEO. So, where the freaking hell is your Saturn V when it couldn't have been in more need of getting that job accomplished? >I believe that I am being very constructive. Naysayism and mainstream status quo buttology is not being constructive. Being an intellectual born-again pagan bigot without a stitch of remorse is also not hardly being constructive. Infomercial-science is NOT hard-science, and the regular laws of physice do apply to our moon as well as they do on behalf of other life existing/coexisting on Venus. You're so absolutely chuck full of it and otherwise so far into denial that your denial is in denial, and as it goes so forth until those incest cloned pagan NASA/Apollo cows come home (of which that'll never happen). > > So, where's your support on behalf of the green/renewable 25 kw/m2 of > > footprint of obtaining clean energy that's doable as is? >We need to kick the Aliens off the Moon and get the He3 as soon as >possible. He3/fusion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining the 25 kw/m2 of green/renewable energy. Thus you've just proven once again that you're a certified pagan LLOPF member of the brown-nosed minions to your incest cloned Third Reich, if not worse. BTW; Your pagan economy as based upon dead Muslims isn't going to fly. - Brad Guth > We've badly needed spare rocket fuel by the hundreds of tonnes in LEO. > > So, where the freaking hell is your Saturn V when it couldn't have been > in more need of getting that job accomplished? NASA only built 15. The Saturn V was so incredible that it should have been an ongoing program along with the Space Shuttle. > He3/fusion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining the > 25 kw/m2 of green/renewable energy. Thus you've just proven once again > that you're a certified pagan LLOPF member of the brown-nosed minions > to your incest cloned Third Reich, if not worse. He-3 is better than "green/renewable" energy. There is no significant radioactive waste nor any significant nuclear disaster threat from an He-3 reactor. And, it is 70% clean power out. > BTW; Your pagan economy as based upon dead Muslims isn't going to fly. Muslims, dead or alive, have nothing whatsoever to do with my remarks on economic improvement. tomcat >He-3 is better than "green/renewable" energy. There is no significant >radioactive waste nor any significant nuclear disaster threat from an >He-3 reactor. And, it is 70% clean power out. tomcat, So, you clearly have absolutely no moral or other intentions whatsoever of giving humanity the easily available and 100+% green/renewable energy alternative that's doable as is at 25 kw/m2. What a total incest bigot of a brown-nosed jerk, as in proof-positive that you're a Third Reich member and/or collaborator that's working on behalf or our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush). - Brad Guth > >He-3 is better than "green/renewable" energy. There is no significant > >radioactive waste nor any significant nuclear disaster threat from an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Third Reich member and/or collaborator that's working on behalf or our > resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush). Brad, you are assuming everyone knows about your "green/renewable energy alternative" and I can only 'suspect' that it is corn, or sugar cane, turned into ethanol or menthane. Please explain with some detail. tomcat >tomcat; if you have a Saturn V then why attempt a "grand ruse/sting"? If the Saturn V stack of merely three stages (4 stage is only if you include a 2nd burn of their 3rd stage) was so gosh darn 100+% translunar payload capable, and thereby so energy efficient and obviously 100+% reliable, not to mention that all of the spendy R&D was 100+% bought and paid for, then why bother with the spendier task of having to R&D from scratch as to creating a mostly solid stack of what's essentially a less reliable 6-stage alternative that's only good for LEO, especially weird because it's also so much less payload efficient even though the inert mass (dead weight) of their GLOW is so much less than what the Saturn stack had to deal with, that which the Saturn V supposedly man |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message