You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Wooooow, there is no possible way that any sapient human being could fake this, no way in heck.
The Sons of Liberty
In Boston in early summer of 1765 a group of shopkeepers and artisans who called themselves The Loyal Nine, began preparing for agitation against the Stamp Act. As that group grew, it came to be known as the Sons of Liberty. And grow it did! These were not the leading men of Boston, but rather workers and tradesmen. It was unseemly that they would be so agitated by a parliamentary act. Though their ranks did not include Samuel and John Adams, the fact may have been a result of a mutually beneficial agreement. The Adams' and other radical members of the legislature were daily in the public eye; they could not afford to be too closely associated with violence, neither could the secretive Sons of Liberty afford much public exposure. However, amongst the members were two men who could generate much public sentiment about the Act. Benjamin Edes, a printer, and John Gill of the Boston Gazette produced a steady stream of news and opinion. Within a very short time a group of some two thousand men had been organized under Ebenezer McIntosh, a South Boston shoemaker.
The first widely known acts of the Sons took place on August 14, 1765, when an effigy of Andrew Oliver (who was to be commissioned Distributor of Stamps for Massachusetts) was found hanging in a tree on Newbury street, along with a large boot with a devil climbing out of it. The boot was a play on the name of the Earl of Bute and the whole display was intended to establish an evil connection between Oliver and the Stamp Act. The sheriffs were told to remove the display but protested in fear of their lives, for a large crowd had formed at the scene. Before the evening a mob burned Oliver's property on Kilby street, then moved on to his house. There they beheaded the effigy and stoned the house as its occupants looked out in horror. They then moved to nearby Fort Hill were they built a large fire and burned what was left of the effigy. Most of the crowd dissipated at that point, however McIntosh and crew, then under cover of darkness, ransacked Oliver's abandoned home until midnight. On that evening it became very clear who ruled Boston. The British Militia, the Sheriffs and Justices, kept a low profile. No one dared respond to such violent force.
By the end of that year the Sons of Liberty existed in every colony. Their most popular objective was to force Stamp Distributors throughout the colonies to resign. The groups also applied pressure to any Merchants who did not comply with the non-importation associations. Wherever these groups existed they were either directed in secret by leading men in the community or actually lead by them. However, there were opportunists everywhere, too, who would use the name Sons of Liberty to carry out acts of revenge and other violence not related to the cause. For example, in South Carolina a group of sailors, calling themselves The Sons of Liberty, formed a mob to coerce money from people on the streets*. Such behavior could certainly undermine the cause, so the Sons spent a great deal of time policing themselves and pretenders. This was the origin on names such as "True Sons," and "True-born Sons" of Liberty.
The success of these movements in undermining the Stamp Act cannot be attributed to violence alone. Their most effective work was performed in newsprint. A great many of the Sons were printers and publishers themselves and even those who were not, were sympathetic to the cause. It was they who would pay the most in duties, after all. Nearly every newspaper in the colonies carried daily reports of the activities of the Sons. Accounts of the most dramatic escapades spread throughout the colonies. In one most remarkable incident, an account of the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions was printed far and wide. It is not certain how many of the editors who reprinted it were aware of the status of the resolutions, but seven were printed, while only five actually passed (the fifth was in fact rescinded the day after adoption.) The ultimate effect of such propaganda was to embolden both citizens and Legislatures in every colony. When the Stamp Act became effective on the 1st of November, 1765, nearly all of these papers went right on publishing without the required Stamp.
In the early months of 1766 there was such chaos that many of the royal governors had gone into hiding. The Sheriffs and Militia that they might have counted on to keep the peace were mostly members of the Sons of Liberty. Governors were afraid to unlock the weapons stores. Few royal troops were available and they were vastly outnumbered in any case. The Sons of Liberty had displaced the royal government in nearly every colony. The Stamp Act Congress had concluded its business, but there was little hope that its petition to Gr. Britain would be heard. Correspondence between the various groups began, toward the mutual support and defense of the cause. It was expected that eventually British troops would land and attempt to reassert control. So it was that the first efforts to unite the colonies were not undertaken by their respective legislatures, but by these independent radical groups. The various Sons throughout the colonies began to correspond and develop a larger organization.
And to show some good humor:
1) Are you an active dues paying member/supporter of the Mars Society?
yes - if wrong maggie will write me and ask for a check.
2) Are you a non-dues paying member/supporter of the Mars Society?
see 1
3) Do you support the Mars Society?
yes
4) Are you:
A) Under 14 years of age?
B) 14 to 17 years of age?
C) 18 to 21 years of age?
D) 22 to 30 years of age?
E) 31 to 40 years of age?
F) 41 to 50 years of age?
G) 51 or older?Uh oh. F
5) Are you:
Male or Female?Male
6) What Country are you from?
USA
7) What is your educational background?
J.D. & B.A. - American History
8 ) What is your job or career field?
Atty
9) What Political Party or Belief do you support?
Lefty Libertarian
10) What is your Religion or Belief in a God or Creator?
Free thinking Roman Catholic
BWhite, And to show some good humor? Indeed!
You proved a point, which is that many here are very much to the LEFT!
This does indeed cause problems, as you and the left, will never see eye to eye with the RIGHT, and so no progress is made because debate is lowered to slander and propaganda.
As I said, it is important to KNOW whom you are debating with, as this does very much influence the debate. And indeed the Human Space Effort and Agendas!
I would like to see the makeup of the moderators, as indeed I am sure the vast majority are, as you say, lefty! This makes any unbiased judging impossible, as you will always support the left, and left views.
The Mars Society should put more effort into running a professional and fair message board, with a balanced, and professional Message Board Oversight Committee. We, the users of this message board, and indeed Mars Society Members have a right to know who the Admins & Moderators are, and a bio of each. Admins & Moderators are JOBS and in such should be taken serous, and the Mars Society should ensure they are professional and unbiased. The Admins & Moderators should not be allowed to hide who they are in their actions as Admins & Moderators. If they want to post as unknowns, they should do so, with regular user names and accounts like everyone else. The Admin & Moderator accounts should only be used for official purposes. Private actions should be done on a seperate user account! If a Admin or Moderator does not want people to know who they are, then they should not be in a Leadership Position with Power Over Others!
This topic is now in Meta New Mars. All are encouraged to visit this poll / thread and participate (or not) as you deem appropriate.
This post should not have been moved, and was done so to hide this post from sight!
Errrrr! Evil!
GCNRevenger & BWhite
You both are fakes, and cannot reply or answer, as this would expose your troll status, would it not!
Fakes! Trolls! Agitators!
No More! No Less!
Let the real people speak, if such are really here?
In any event, this is the wrong place for your poll/thread.
Agreed. I am inclined to relocate the poll. Where? Not sure yet, but Human Missions is supposed to be about technical stuff, with politics and the like only as directly relates to technical stuff.
Wrong Again!
HUMAN MISSIONS is nothing but politics!
Of course, Move the thread so you can hide it out of sight!
This would of course serve your interests, would it not!
Why Rick, are you questioning the membership figures? Maybe because you suspect that by a lack of responses to your poll/thread, that many of the users on this board are just CIA-controlled clone accounts, trying to drown your Glorious Vision for Manned Spaceflight?
Interesting how you don't differentiate religion and political affiliation, and you consider the particular beliefe of other memebers pertinant to your survey.
In any event, this is the wrong place for your poll/thread.
GCNRevenger, wrong, wrong, wrong!
This is about HUMAN MISSIONS!
Everything in my post is about HUMANS!
You know, those who talk about and support HUMAN MISSIONS!
This also lets people know who is who and what is what!
I am sure you will not participate, because you are a fake troll!
This is indeed, the proper place for this thread!
You are all mouth, and very little of merit!
1) Are you an active dues paying member/supporter of the Mars Society?
NO!
2) Are you a non-dues paying member/supporter of the Mars Society?
NO!
3) Do you support the Mars Society?
In Concept Yes! Presently NO!
4) Are you:
41 to 50 years of age
5) Are you:
Male
6) What Country are you from?
United States of America
7) What is your educational background?
BS - Aeronautics & Applied Mathmatics
Military Aviation Tech. Schools - 6+ Years (Fixed Wing & Rotary Aircraft)
4 Private Seminars - Space Leadership & Administration
8 What is your job or career field?
Former Naval Aviation (14 Years)
Private Business Owner
Scientist, Designer, Inventor, Visionary, Philosopher
9) What Political Party or Belief do you support?
Life Long Republican & Bush Supporter
Election Staff for two Republicans
Very Active in Republican Politics & Christian Efforts
10) What is your Religion or Belief in a God or Creator?
Christian - Former Catholic, Presently Southern Baptist
Personally, I will only continue to support the MS if it supports a ruthless colonization and terraformation of Mars.
*Hi. Are you a registered, dues-paying member of the Mars Society? I am, for 2-1/4 years now. If your answer is "no," then how do you perceive yourself as "supporting" the Mars Society? I mean -other than- via words (i.e., registering at this forum and sharing your views -- which you are certainly entitled to do, of course)?
It seems that (pardon me if I'm in error) you are framing your statements within the context of membership. I'd prefer only actual members do that, especially when it comes to the sometimes "touchy" topic of terraforming.
And in my opinion, "ruthless" measures by humans (throughout history, irregardless of geographical location or race) usually if not always leads to misery and failure.
--Cindy
Cindy,
"*Hi. Are you a registered, dues-paying member of the Mars Society? I am, for 2-1/4 years now."
The International Space Agency, and a number of its Board Members were at one time DUE PAYING MEMBERS of the MARS SOCIETY.
However, after Zubrin, and his Government Secrete Society Colleagues, attacked and slandered the Founder of the International Space Agency, and its ( DUE PAYING MEMBERS of the MARS SOCIETY ), we are no longer ( DUE PAYING MEMBERS of the MARS SOCIETY )!!
Cindy, why don't you ask your good freinds the Zubrins, if the International Space Agency was a due paying member or not??
If you like we can post a scanned copy of the donation reciepts to the MARS SOCIETY from the Corporate Visa Accounts for the International Space Agency if you would like!? In all we gave $1214 in Donations over a 5 year period!
For that support, we get attacked, slandered, and censored by the MARS SOCIETY!
Zubrin has generated hate, because he has not kept his people in line, or better yet turned his attack dogs onto those who stand in his way!
The International Space Agency was in negotiations to have an Officer of the Mars Society join the Board of Directors of the International Space Agency, and this was destroyed by Government Dirty Tricks! They intercepted communications between the Mars Society and the International Space Agency, and altered and fabercated false messages, which triggered a major incident! Before both sides were aware of what was done, it was too late, and a war between the Mars Society and the International Space Agency was started! And seems it continues to the present day!
This is a direct reflection on the Zubrins, firstly because they never attempted to correct this incident or even investigate it, secondly because they turned against due paying supporters of the Mars Society, both of which shows the Zubrins have an agenda, and are in bed with the Government, ie: NASA and DOD!
They use the Mars Society supporters like cash cows! They do not care about the Mars Society supporters! Ever tried to get a reply from the Zubrins? You never will, as they will take your money lickty split, and then see you later dummy.
Cindy, like I said before, praise be to the Doves!
But my dear, learn whom and what you are supporting before you become a hollow sacrifice for someone elses agenda and gain!
The International Space Agency is a Noble & Historic effort, and the fact the Mars Society has not supported this, shows that it is not as good meaning an organization as it advertises to be!
Humanity will never get into space in any Scale or Scope without a focused Global Effort! This is just a real fact. The United Nations is not the proper organization to do this. Also, the Nations will never cooperate willingly do to the lust for power and control, and so a neutral International Space Agency is needed to funnel Government & Private resources and efforts in a focused, organized, and peaceful manner, or nothing of scale and scope will ever happen, never.
That is a very real fact!
That is why the Founder of the International Space Agency, and the ISA vision and efforts have been so ruthlessly attacked and slandered by the powers at be, which is clear Zubrin has laid in bed with!
It is clear Zubrin has sold his sole to the Devil for Fame & Money!
Sooner or later, he will have to pay the Devil his dues, or more likely when the Devil is done with him or no longer needs him, Mr. Zubrin will find himself, like Mr. Dobson, under attack and slander. That is Mr. Zubrins fate oneday, its not a matter of IF?, its only a matter of WHEN!
Cindy! Best Regards!
Ad-Astra! To The Stars!
In Peace For All Humanity!
So Say We All!
Wooow
Indeed!
WooHoo, now I've been promoted to a steriotypical label and a "them!".
Who said anything about a promotion??
Now Rick, you've been here before trying to pedal you toy rocket plane, and why its not going to perform like you think it can.
Rick? Toy Rocket Plane? Not!!
Please, do not pat your self on the back to hard, as you may hurt yourself or something!
First up, you can't push your vehicle up to Mach-2 with such a short track. Given the very steep angle of acent and the mass of the vehicle, there is just no way you can get it going that fast without too high a G-force or power (not energy) demand. A much, much longer track would be needed. Do I have to dig up physics equations to show you?.
You GCNRevenger are a skilled disinformation professional!
Want to throw around big mathmatical formulas that most people cannot understand in the first place, and make them afraid to respond!
BRAVO!
Here is an example that most can understand, and unlike your egg head rants, is something even the simple at heart can understand.
Example: Dragster on a 1/4 mile track at 2G Acceleration with end speed around ~300 mph. Done all the time in the real world, without egg head fancy mathmatics. Simple to see and understand.
Ref: http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/thrustssc.html
Ref: http://www.pall.com/Aerospace_2858.asp
Ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … ouspe.html
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound
Ref: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mach.html
ISA proposes a 3 to 5 mile acceleration ramp, lets just take 3 miles for fun.
ISA proposes Mach 2 or better or 1520 mph or better
1) 3 miles broken into 1/4 mile chunks, is 3 x 4 or 12 chunks.
2) Each 1/4 mile chunk equals ~300 mph.
3) So 12 chunks of ~300 mph acceleration is a total of ~3600 mph end acceleration.
4) This acceleration is at a constant 2G's of force, which is very doable for a Space Plane stress requirements.
GCNRevenger, just using just laymen math and concepts, and one hand tied behind my back, I can counter your best disinformation efforts anyday.
Second, such a steep angle of acent is not happening. With a very long track running up the side of a small mountain, a sudden change in angle would cause too much down-pressure on the track and cause catastrophic damage. However, without a steep angle of acent, you can't reach a very high altitude at all with rail launch.
There is no sudden change in angle, it is a constant 45 degree angle?
I know you cannot under stand big words like, constant, but the big word means that there is no change in angle. Or perfectly straight for your mind to try yo get around that concept. There is no down pressure, and there is no catastrophic damage! Again, nice try at disinformation! ;-)
Third, you can't use a rail with physical contacts. The friction and vibration inherint with supersonic speeds combined with the high weight of your vehicle (compared to other sled tests you've seen NASA do) would be unmanageable. Magnetic levitation is a nessesity with its "smooth" ride.
Again, not true! Please list links of reference with your disinformation.
But we know you will not do that, as Trolls do not waste time on such things, as it distracts them from slander and disinformation.
Fourth, the thing will cost so much to build that it couldn't possibly be worth it, it would be much easier to make a conventional runway takeoff vehicle bigger.
Humans cannot and never will ever hope they can fly!
Ref: http://www.mos.org/sln/Leonardo/three/three.html
Humans cannot and will never fly!
Ref: http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers
Humans cannot and will never go faster than sound!
Ref: http://www.wilk4.com/misc/soundbreak.htm
Humans cannot and will never go into space!
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Sta … garin.html
Humans cannot and will never walk on the moon!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
Humans cannot and will never walk or live on Mars!
Ref: http://www.international-space-agency.org
Fifth, again, if there is a derailing - and there will be - the whole rail is going to be destroyed. There is a good chance of this happening, and if it happens even once, then the whole thing is totaled.
Fifth, again, if there is a Space Shuttle that blows up and is destroyed on Launch!
Fifth, again, if there is a Space Shuttle that blows up and is destroyed on Reentry!
and if it happens even once, then the whole Space Shuttle program is totaled!
GCNRevenger, please get a life! Your disinformation is getting old!
Sixth, now that I thought about it, I don't see how you can generate that much power (not energy) without some pretty exotic surge storage system given the tracks' small size.
Ref: http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm
GCNRevenger, our trolly troll, please! Give us real thinkers a break, and save the games for the children who fall for your disinformation!
Seventh, that whenever you have bad weather, you are out of business. With a conventional runway takeoff system, the spaceplane can acend above bad weather before beginning its sprint to orbit.
Oh, I see, Really Now!??
Ref: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/st … 11204.html
Ref: http://www.greengrants.org/grantstories.php?news_id=46
Eighth, without a very steep angle of acent, your seperation/launch altitude will be too low, and all your velocity imparted from the rail will rapidly dissapate as drag. You need altitudes of 100,000ft, not 10,000ft, before you can efficently light your rocket engines and head to orbit. However, if its too steep, you will only gain altitude and not much ground speed... have to make that track even longer.
45 degress is equal alititude (Vertical Speed) and orbital velosity (Ground Speed) and the onboard propulsion will ajust this, as required. First seeking to gain Altitude, then to gain Orbital Velosity.
Ninth, the biggie is though, Mach-2 isn't anywhere near enough. Thats only 10% of the energy needed to reach orbit, and only a few percent of the energy needed. Comparisons with the Space Shuttle make little sense, because that big tank you want to omit provides ~80% of the delta-V. The little tanks on your pretty drawing wouldn't even get you across the Atlantic.
The drawings on the ISP Program website, are not the real vehicle, think we are that dumb troll?! Keep fishing though if it makes the troll happy.
They are just concept renderings, a ISP Program mascott, no more, no less!
And whats this babbling about "just enough fuel to reach orbit?" All spaceplanes already do this, only carrying a tonne or two of fuel for orbital maneuvers and deorbiting.
Exactly, carrying a tonne or two of fuel for orbital maneuvers and deorbiting!
This would not be the case with the International Space Plane Program carrying a tonne or two of fuel for orbital maneuvers and deorbiting, as that fuel would be loaded only on orbit, not at launch! Also, the shuttle carries much more fuel, as its fuel must get it all the way to final orbit, and this is about 28% there abouts of its launched fuel mass to achieve this. The International Space Plane Program would only launch the vehicle with onboard fuel to reach a semi-stable lower orbit, and would then be refueled or towed by a space tug to a higher orbit. With this approach, the International Space Plane Program would need nearly 40% to 50% less launched fuel mass to fully achieve operational orbit objectives. This is a dramatic break with present launch thinking, approach, and technology.
Really, the rail launch doesn't help you much. Thanks to the low seperation altitude and airspeed, you can't reach orbit with a reasonably small spacecraft. Its fuel tanks would be even bigger then the large red Shuttle external tank! You have to get higher and faster then that to really cut into the fuel bill needed to reach orbit.
Dear Mr. Troll, GCNRevenger, WRONG AGAIN! ;-)
Keep trying, as I find your attempts to disinform, funny.
I just wish others would not fall for your disinformation, as that is sad!
There are two ways of accomplishing this...
-1: Abandon SSTO and go to two-stage launch, which I think NASA should do as soon as they set up camp on Mars. Here, a large hypersonic transport plane powerd by conventional turbine engines, perhaps supplimented with rockets, carries a spaceplane on its back to ~Mach-6 and 80-100,000ft. Since the rail launch doesn't get anywhere close to this, it would have to either burn vast amounts of rocket fuel or use turbine engines if you are trying to salvage the concept. And if you are using turbine engines, you might as well launch from a runway and not a railgun.
With out SSTO or Fully Reusable Launch Capibility, we are not going to Mars, at least to stay!
A runway imparts no energy to the Launch Vehicle, and Assisted Ramp Launch does!
-2: Use a Scramjet engine. While exotic, such an engine could operate up to Mach-20 and reach suborbital altitudes where a small onboard rocket fuel supply would go the rest of the way. This is down the road, but ultimatly possible and desireable barring the invention of a space elevator. Since the rail would have a hard time even reaching Mach-2, it can't reach a high enough speed to ignite a Scramjet engine, which means you will again need turbine engines for the initial phase of the sprint. If you have turbine engines, you don't need to bother with rail launch here either.
Thanks for the comments, but that is already in our plans, and has been since 1990's. As are a number of other potential propulsion options.
There is also the wild card, if someone came up with a new rocket fuel (a catalyst that cyclizes ozone would do the trick) then a DC-X style rocket would be practical.
Ref: http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1957/ … humbnail11
This has been research done in this area, but is not practicle to use, for many reasons which are beyond the limits of which I am willing to spend on a troll!
Good head hunting Mr. Troll, GCNRevenger!
Sadly, So!
Sorry sdc4 but you were equally unclear as to what the space plane would not use.
No need to be sorry! Just wanted to set the record straight, thats all.
The Burran falls under the powered return process but it to uses a fully expendable while the shuttle is only throwing away the External tank.
Partly correct, but the SRB's are very limited in reuse. Totally reusable system is what we need, even if getting it done takes a little extra effort. Because once you are there, things change real fast towards routine space flight, and not before. Furthermore, talking about Big Orbitial Space Stations, Luna Bases, Mars Bases & Missions is a waste of time until humanity achieves true totally reusable space launch capibility. We must put the work horse before the cart, or we will never move forward.
We, humanity, are now stuck in the thinking mode of building small wooden bridges and after we send one car across we burn it and blow it up! :shock:
We, humanity, need to focus our efforts on establishing a secure beach head into space, we need to focus our collective efforts and build a golden gate bridge which will send thousands of flights into space.
As for only mach 2 that is a fare cry from the mach 20 plus need to obtain a stable orbit.
True, but the Assisted Launch System is "NOT" to heave the Space Plane into orbit!
It is only designed to act as a stage one boost, and to replace expendable fuel tanks, and allow the design of Space Planes that have smaller onboard fuel requirements and less required structure, which means less mass to push from a stand still then into orbit.
The mach 5 sled was also only pushing a very small weight nothing close to the 50 Mtons that a ship weighs.
True, but Mach 2 Assisted Launch off a mountian is more than doable, now!
With what we have already developed, with no need for new stuff.
Please read this, which is posted here on New Mars:
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4085
ISP Diplomatic Letter From 2004:
http://www.international-space-agency.net/igbsls.html
If you are willing to take the time to read this Copy of an Official Proposal by the International Space Agency to NASA, Russian Space Agency, ESA, ISRO, and CNSA which was delivered in Washington, D.C. in May of this year, 2005.
Most of your questions and concerns will be addressed there, and more.
The International Space Plane (ISP) Program website is:
http://www.international-spaceplane-program.org
Thanks, and Good Reading!
GCNRevenger,
You need your head examined , becuase you have nothing between it , when you are talking about building large scale vehicles for example to build a vehicle just bigger then the ISS for short voyages like to moon and mars it could nearly 100 launches to bring all the components and resources for that vessel including changes to the existing space station. That's just one vessel when you talk about colonization you need a fleet of cargo and human centric vessels ( 10+ ) That is why you need a large automated space construction drydock to build from scratch then you can resupply from a space station after construction.
Our current technology can design smaller vehicles that we could use to deploy a moonbase with telerobotic systems to control robotic work teams that could construct the drydock, automated fabrication, and ship assembly, limiting the use of human workers in space suits. We could supply the lunar surface with all its requires from earth until the base is self-sustainable for basic needs of the human and robotic personnel. It doesn't mean we can't construct the vessels from components created on earth but that will limit the design, size and mission perimeters for the space vessel.
We all want to get to Mars and explore the surface but they are just tourist missions that do limited research and exploration we need a larger presence with 20 up to 100 from the initial exploration for detailed research, outpost settlements and build a presence on another planet within our solar system.
I think you have your mind closed to the uses of the Moon for infrastructure construction , space vessel construction and a platform for large scale telescope ( radio and optical ) on the darker side away from earth and sun light / radiation.
Martin_Tristar We agree with you on all these points!
Even your keen observations of GCNRevenger.
We like to see people who can stand up to those like GCNRevenger, as GCNRevenger and his type, will undermine and attack to present their agenda. Debate and compromise is not something the GCNRevengers of the world will ever understand or even respect.
These message boards are full of the GCNRevengers of the world, and sadly this chases away most who would stumble into these slander mills, not having any experience or resolve to stand up to the GCNRevengers of the world. Most of my professional freinds say they see message boards as a waste of time and below their character to participate in. I tell them they should not do this, as message boards are a very powerful tool and resource to reach the masses. I tell them if they get turned off by the GCNRevengers of the world, and go away, they leave them with total control of these powerful resources and tools in modern society to shape and manipulate group think and public opinon totally unchallenged and left to pervert free speech and free enterprise.
GCNRevengers of the world enjoy and employ slander, lies, and propaganda with no remorse or reservation, and sadly totally unchecked and unchallenged. Sadly, they control mass media mostly, so they can subvert and censor to their little hearts content. They can attack and slander you, but stand up to them, or expose them, and you and all your ideas just vanish from public view. This is how they work, and how their type have always controled the masses and media.
Martin_Tristar Keep up the good work! Hard as it may be!
Everyone benefits from people like you, who think, question, act, wonder, dream, and hope for a better future for humanity.
If they try to silence you, or demoralize you, do not ever give up!
It is what they want you to do!
What these people fear most, is informed citizens with resolve and dedication!
Ad-Astra! To The Stars!
In Peace For All Humanity!
So Say We All!
The International Ground Based Assisted Launch System. This would use Magnetic Repulsor Forces & Technology "ONLY" to Propel a Launch Sled and Space Vehicle up a Metal Rail Track on the side of a Mountain near the Earths Equator at a constant 45 degree angle, and using an Over/Under Metal Wheel Configuration to hard lock the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle to the Launch Ramp and Rails.
The trouble with this system is one of load factors on the structure and friction by weight on the load barring wheels.
You would be better of Levitating the vehicle and using the upper wheel as a guide to keep it from rolling while launching.
* Levitating the vehicle is very complex, takes greater power, and is very hard to control (vibrations are caused by flutuations in the lifting magnetic feild at high speeds). Rail launch hardware and systems have been tested up to Mach 5 successfully. The International Space Plane Program only needs Mach 2, and is doable with present technology.
Solid Rocket Motor or Chemical rocket motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle!
If you are going to go this route you might as well forget the ramp and just strap them onto the vehicle for a verticle launch.
spacenut, you need to read better before shooting at the hip! If you read fully this section, you will se that we DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF "Solid Rocket Motor or Chemical rocket motor Assisted Propulsion" AS IT WOULD "require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle!"
Aerorobic Or Jet Motor Assisted Propulsion
Is unable to generate enough speed to make worth while.
spacenut, again, you need to read better before shooting at the hip! If you read fully this section, you will se that we DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF "Aerorobic Or Jet Motor Assisted Propulsion" AS IT WOULD "require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle!"
Electromagnetic Repulsor Motor Assisted Propulsion
Field distance and strength would only work if field locations moved with respect to the launch vehicle.
spacenut, that made no sense at all??!! What in the world did that mean??
(RLV/SSTO) - The Fully Reusable Space "Vehicles" and "Space Planes
But see this is where we get into the problems of the shuttle in regards to a standing army of people needed to rebuild the plane after every use.
spacenut,
Firstly, the Space Shuttle is not a fully reusable space plane!
It is a space plane strapped to the side of an expendable launch vehicle.
Furthermore, the shuttle has no SSTO, independant launch, or free powered flight in landing mode once it seperates from the expendable launch vehicle it is basically a dead stick glider, not a true Space Plane with independant flight capibilities, which would doom the Space Shuttle in the case of a major course deviation or missed landing event.
The International Space Plane Program is designed to feild a true fully reusable space plane that is a totally independant and self contained vehicle and launch & landing system, that is able to operate under powered flight in all phases of operation, from launch, in orbit, and in landing & return which would include powered flight if needed for course corrections or missed landing events.
Secondly, the Space Shuttle is one specific vehicle, with set flight capibilities and limitations.
The International Space Plane Program would not be just one Space Plane, but a wide range of Space Planes of different sizes, capibilities, and mission uses ( Cargo, Passenger, Special Purpose Use). All of these Space Planes would be designed to use the International Assisted Launch Facility.
This International Space Plane Program and International Assisted Launch Facility would operate in the same way that an Aircraftcarrier System would work, just on a larger scale and scope. The system would provided a robust launch and recovery platform and a number of specialized vehicles which would be designed to use this and recovery platform. Also, an on orbit refueling and support infrastructure would be a very important part of the International Space Plane Program as this would allow the Space Planes to be launched with just enough fuel to get to a refueling or tug stagging point. This would reduce Space Plane launch mass due to less onboard fuel and needed vehicle structure, and would create more launch payload ability and smaller vehicle to cargo scale. ie: smaller space plane size "mass" in relation to a larger payload "mass" capibility.
About your babbling about rail-assist spaceplane launch, "sdc4,"
I was comparing a rail-launch spaceplane to a conventional runway-launch spaceplane or vertical-launch RLV (ala DC-X), not to expendable rockets. You did not refute any of my concerns about rail launch either, that the rail assist does not provide much bennefit versus conventional takeoff, the economics are poor with high startup costs and low flight rates compared to multiple airport/spaceports, and that only a single takeoff failure would instantly wipe out millions (billions?) of dollars of investment... Not to mention take humanity largely out of the spaceflight business and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost opportunities in the mean time while its rebuilt.
http://www.international-spaceplane-program.org
The International Space Agency (ISA) proposes that an Advanced International Ground Based Assisted Space Launch (ASL) System and Fully Reusable International Space Plane (ISP) Vehicle, be Designed, Developed, Constructed, and Operated in an "Airbus Industries Like Management Model and Approach".
This Proposal would consist of two Key Elements.
1) (ASL) - The International Ground Based Assisted Launch System. This would use Magnetic Repulsor Forces & Technology "ONLY" to Propel a Launch Sled and Space Vehicle up a Metal Rail Track on the side of a Mountain near the Earths Equator at a constant 45 degree angle, and using an Over/Under Metal Wheel Configuration to hard lock the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle to the Launch Ramp and Rails. This system is "NOT" to be confused with a MAGLEV system, which also uses Magnetic Forces, but "Levitates" the Sled & Vehicle in the Magnetic Field as well as Propelling it with Magnetic Repulsive Forces. We have specifically picked Magnetic Repulsor Forces as the Main Propulsive Force to move the Launch Sled & Space Vehicle up the Launch Ramp and to Maximum Launch/Release Speeds, for these reasons:
A) Solid Rocket Motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle! The Fuel & Added Structure would have to be carried on and with the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle as it is Accelerated/Launched up and off the Launch Ramp Facility.
B) Chemical Rocket Motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle! The Fuel & Added Structure would have to be carried on and with the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle as it is Accelerated/Launched up and off the Launch Ramp Facility.
C) Aerorobic Or Jet Motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle! The Fuel & Added Structure would have to be carried on and with the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle as it is Accelerated/Launched up and off the Launch Ramp Facility.
D) Electromagnetic Repulsor Motor Assisted Propulsion would "">NOT<"" require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle! "">NO<"" Fuel or Added Structure would have to be carried on or with the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle as it is Accelerated/Launched up and off the Launch Ramp Facility. Acceleration Forces and Total Launch Energy is only restricted by Available Power Source and Total Repulsor Area on the Launch Sled. (ie: More Repulsor Surface Area, the More Thrust Is Able To Be Generated!)(Example: A dragster has wide rubber tires, as the more rubber surface that connects with the pavement surface, allows more horsepower from the engine and drive train to propel the dragster forward!) The More Surface Area, and the More Thrust or Acceleration Forces can be Generated in a given Distance or Time form a given Energy Source! ie: Electric Power Translated into Electromagnetic Repulsor Forces/Thrust!
2) (RLV/SSTO) - The Fully Reusable Space "Vehicles" and "Space Planes" which will be designed to take advantage of the #1 above. We hope already existing Space Plane (RLV & SSTO) Programs in the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, India, and Elsewhere Globally can be drawn upon to seek out a few good candidates for this effort. This, as it is the goal of the ISA organization, ISP & ALS Programs, to take full advantage of already proposed or developed (RLV & SSTO) systems, to cut cost, and speed up the ability for an Operational System to be Developed, Constructed, and in Operation with in 5 to 7 years! We do not want to duplicate or reinvent the wheel, but to build on and take advantage of many good ideas and efforts Globally.
These two elements would be undertaken and pursued in an International Consortium of Government and Private Interests and Parties. This would be done in an "Airbus Industries Like Management Model and Approach". These Programs and Systems once in operation, would be "Pay As You Go" and "Launch For Hire".
About The simple fact of the matter is, that a conventional spaceplane can afford to fail, but a rail-launch can't. What investor would want to touch that?
Nothing can ever afford to fail! Failure is not an option! :-)
Other stuff:
"The Earth & Mars have atmosphere, which creates drag and lateral forces on the Space Elevator...
* Ref: http://hurricanes.noaa.gov
* Ref: http://www.noaa.gov/tornadoes.html
* Ref: http://www.chaseday.com/wind.htm
* This is caused by wind forces from storms and air currents, not from the movement of the Space Elevator Cable!
"Or dig a deep hole, place the moon end of the elevator cable down in it and fill it up with some kind of lunar cement?"
Ref: http://www.affordablespaceflight.com/spaceelevator.html
* Only one of many ways to construct a base support structure
The solution to making a space elevator anchor is to start with a light-weight elevator and lift counterweights up the cable from the ground. Obviously.
* Wrong!
Your reply in this regards is very simplistic, and lacks any detail."
* Yep!
Oui, you don't have a clue about space elevator physics. The thing to get through your heads is that the counterweight on the end is in a stable geostationary orbit. There is no drag or lateral forces from normal rotation because there isn't any lateral motion! It just hangs there, and spins around its parent body at exactly the same rate that it rotates.
* Ref: http://www.elevator2010.org/site/index.html
* When the above picture was taken, I was there, and participated in the demo!
* Ref: http://www.spaceelevator.com
* Ref: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
* Ref: http://www.affordablespaceflight.com/spaceelevator.html
* Counterweight is Stable! Yes it is, and yes it is in a geostationary orbit!
* No drag or laterial forces! Wrong! On Earth & Mars there would indeed be such forces! Not from the action of the cable moving as it is indeed stationary as you say, but these forces would act on the cable from wind, storms, and rain.
There is also no reason that you can't lift weights up the cable to increase the mass of the counterweight. It doesn't disturb the orbital velocity as long as the center of gravity remains at geostationary altitude, which is not very hard to do simply by adjusting the cable length. Thats the whole beauty of a space elevator, that it gives you a fairly stable "anchor" at a particular altitude over a particular spot that doesn't move around, where you can use the parent bodies' centrifugal force to keep your anchor steady.
* You would need thrusters on the geostationary counterweight to counter lifting and deceleration forces of the elevators decent and ascent, as well to dampen vibrations in the cable.
___________________________________________
Shoot Lunar materials into Lunar orbit? Problem: low Lunar orbit and most of the Lagrange points are only metastable. Since the Moon's gravity is weak compared to Earth's, and since the Moon is kinda close to the Earth, Earth's gravity preturbs the orbit of things around the Moon. While such effects might not make ingots or plates or I-beams immediatly fall from the sky, it will cause them to be scatterd into different trajectories and different velocities... and be lost if not captured rapidly. If you have to burn any rocket fuel to chase them down, then that is a horrible strike against the efficiency of the whole idea, because the fuel (if not the oxidizer) has to be imported from Earth so that you can chase down Lunar parts sooooo that you can... avoid launching them from Earth?
* The space craft in orbit would not chase the payload, the payload would overtake and merge with the orbitial space craft. Just like you merge into traffic on a highway.
And you do know that it takes quite a bit of rocket fuel to get from low Lunar orbit to a Lagrange point, right? Whoops, there goes some more efficiency.
* Ion thrusters can be powered by beamed power from lunar surface or space based power stations. Also, non-orbitial manuvers and course changes use very little thrust to achieve.
You can't smelt very large amounts of metal with a nuclear reactor, they just don't make enough power without becoming unreasonably large to ship/build on the Moon. You can't use solar energy very well either, since solar thermal won't get hot enough to melt iron without excessive focusing (while increasing temperature, decreases how MUCH ore you can melt), photovoltaics would have to be immense, annnd they only work two weeks out of the month. Being that a railgun has to be on the equator, you thusly can't put your solar power plant on the poles to get month-round power unless you want to ship your metal literally half way across the Moon. Whoops, theres another HUGE cost right there.
Wrong!
* Ref: http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/FactSheets/solar.htm
* Ref: http://www.tourinfos.com/gb/r0011/d0066 … 001796.htm
* Ref: http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_time_1900.html
* Ref: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/ener … 114_en.htm
"However, factor in the launch costs and problems of putting the Earth Based materials in Orbit"
* True!
Which will be solved with a true "no really!" RLV or a space elevator. Speaking of which...
* One way that could work!
___________________________________________
There is no way, no way at all, that anyone could ever build a large, industrially signifigant factory anywhere in space until we have a radical decrease in launch costs from Earth.
* Maybe, but it must be done!
Now, if we have easy, cheap, reliable launch from Earth... what do we need space/asteroid/Lunar factories for? We have plenty of materials here on Earth, and we can build stuff here where its easy, and then send it up on our spaceplane or elevator or whatever.
* Not True! Space Based resources will very important!
This isn't exactly rocket science
* :-) Yes it is!
Now, that isn't to say that space reasources are completly worthless to the mother world, but their bennefit is going to be limited to stuff that isn't readily available here. For example PGMs: we don't need a large mass of PGMs, but we do need a little, and our supply has around 50-100yrs left depending on estimates of deposits and consumption. This would be ideal, since the small amounts needed makes a small mining operation commercially viable on the Moon. While we are there, we ought to grab anything else thats easy to carry, like Helium-3 for scientific research or "high-test" fusion fuel, maybe some tourists... But ultimatly, NOTHING on the Moon in bulk, which would nessesitate a large presence there, except LOX to ferry payloads for the small-scale operations. Nothing.
* More options, more capability!
___________________________________________________________________
More on Moon mining:
* Ref: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/02
* Ref: http://members.nova.org/~sol/station/moonmine.htm
* Ref: http://www.permanent.com/l-mining.htm
* Ref: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/he3.html
Capturing materials launched from the Moon by railgun with a big net? Umm... you do know that would knock your processing station out of orbit, right? Conservation of momentum and all that... not most of the Lagrange points (which are the Lunar geostationary orbits) are stable anyway... And then you have to convert ingots into useful shapes without the bennefit of gravity. Gee I wonder how expensive that would be compared to launching from Earth?
Merge! :-)
* Ref: http://www.mpi.mb.ca/english/dr_tips/WF … rging.html
And if you do have a station at Lagrange that doesn't get knocked out easily by importing lots of rocket fuel, then aiming becomes vitally important and very, very hard. Hitting a basket/net/thing only a kilometer or two across from several thousand kilometers away with no more than centimeters per second of velocity from an angle and in the presence of not one, but two signifigant gravity sources (Moon and Earth). This will without any question limit you to a very tight firing window, which will radically limit the throughput and reliability of the system any which way. You don't have to get your position and vector right with three degrees of freedom, but four, since the timing is vital to be absolutely perfect. With each additional degree of freedom, the difficulty increases
exponentially.
* :-) babble babble babble!
Oh, and it might not be too good for your factory workers' health if their space station got hit by an errant aluminum ingot traveling any speed. Don't forget the difference between accuracy and precision.
Merge! :-)
* Ref: http://www.mpi.mb.ca/english/dr_tips/WF … rging.html
More to come
Hmm!?
I'm oh so baaaahd. baaaaaahd.
An International Space Group taking time to say bad things about people on the internet? Priorities man.
If people are bad, and doing bad things, then saying so is indeed an important priority!
How do you know I am a man? There are four of us here, and we are not all men, just so you know. ;-) Ricky Ticky Tavy says hello clark, but I will not repeat the rest of what he said, as you would likely start crying and yell for your mommy to come protect you.
And yes clark, you are "so baaaahd. baaaaaahd"
You need a really good spanking.
But clark is more like, Baaaaaa, Baaa, Baaaaaaaa, Baa, Baaaa
That is sheep talk for ?, well since you are a sheep, you know what that means!
Oh, clark, hope you have a Merry CHRISTmas!
That is sure to make you happy clark, NOT! :-)
A railgun to shoot Lunar ore or Aluminum ingots out to a Lagrange point makes no sense... how are you going to aim the thing if its many miles long? How are you going to stop and collect the material when it gets there? How are you going to power the thing? How are you going to smelt and mill the metal into useful parts on a space station of reasonable size? How are you going to move enough metal during the short "firing window" without becoming too big? ...And most of all, how could you possibly compete with a factory on Earth paired with a low-cost launch method? (that last one is a rhetorical question, you can't).
1) A rail gun would launch finished parts and ore ingots ready for manufacturing into parts and structures.
2) The rail gun would not need to "AIM" it would only place the payloads into a stable orbit around Luna. On orbit, a network of orbital tugs and transfer space craft would move the payloads to either larger ships for transport or to an orbital manufacturing facility around Luna. However, I suppose the vast bulk of ore and ingots materials will be processed on surface (actually sub-surface) of Luna, and only the finished parts, and manufacturing ready ingots, will be launched by such a system.
3) Power will be likely Nuclear, but direct focused solar energy can be used as well in the smelting process (Not Solar Cell Power, Not Efficient Enough).
4) If you were to directly compare a Luna Smelting & Manufacturing Facility with an Earth Based Smelting & Manufacturing Facility, you would be right, the Earth Based facility would be much cheaper to operate. However, factor in the launch costs and problems of putting the Earth Based materials in Orbit, you would be wrong, the Luna Facility would now provide cheaper parts in space.
5) In space, there is no firing window, as such. A firing window mostly is due to the fact, that launches presently have to join up with other objects in Earth Orbit, ie: like the ISS, or in the case of an interplanetary launch the vehicle must be directed at a passing or moving object, ie: another planet. When a robust orbital fueling and support infrastructure is in place, launch vehicles will have unlimited orbital transit abilities, and can be launched with much smaller on board fuel & structure mass just sufficient to make semi-stable orbit, be refueled and continue to orbital or extra-orbital destination, or be latched onto by an orbital tug and towed to destination.
There is just no way to compete with a factory on Earth that can make prefabricated "kit" sections right here on the ground where its easy. The cost of launching parts from Earth will never, ever come close to the cost of an orbital or Lunar rocket factory with a low-cost launch method (true RLV, space elevator) regardless how you get stuff off the Moon. Its just so much easier to build the parts here on Earth with our preexsisting industrial base, ready supply of materials, and "everywhere shirtsleeve" environment. Period, end quote, full stop.
Not True!
The solution to making a space elevator anchor is to start with a light-weight elevator and lift counterweights up the cable from the ground. Obviously.
Your reply in this regards is very simplistic, and lacks any detail.
A rail-assisted spaceplane doesn't make a whole lot of sense for several reasons: the biggest though is that it cannot contribute but a small (under 5%) of the velocity needed to reach LEO. Second, unless the rail can achieve a very high flight rate, it will be unable to compete in serial versus in parallel with traditional airstrip or pad launch from rest. The long lengths required to minimize acceleration requires a confluence of very high startup costs and offers many places for catastrophic failure. If a spaceplane crashes, thats just the plane and one airstrip, but if one of the magnets buckles the resulting derailing would destroy most of the rail completly as it bulldozes the track faster than any racecar and explodes... and there are a whole lot of magnets.
All you say is true, but all launch systems face these same what ifs and dangers!
The difference between an Expendable Launch System and a Rail Launch System on the side of a mountain near the Earths Equator. Is like comparing a small wooden bridge over a stream and the golden gate bridge. The small wooden bridge faces the very same problems as the larger bridge but at a much smaller scale, and the larger bridge is much more robust and moves thousands of cars an hour in stead of only a few cars a day. Could the golden gate bridge come crashing down from some unseen disaster or mishap. Yes it certainly could, but the facts are the golden gate bridge would fare better in any situation compared to the small wooden bridge. Also the risk of such what ifs, is off set by the transit of thousands of cars a hour as compared to a few cars a day. Furthermore the expendable systems waste massive precious resources, materials, and manpower each and ever time (ie: burned up on reentry), where as the rail launch system would be 100% reusable, and delivery 100 fold more capability and launches than any expendable launch system could ever deliver! The golden gate bridge is a better investment by far, than a bunch of wooden bridges that are burned and destroyed after just one vehicle uses it.
Asteroid mining is the next best thing to impossible, you can't effectively drill or saw without large downforce, which you can't get easily. And when you do cut up the asteroid, how do you refine the resulting ore without gravity? A spinning space station attached to an already spinning asteroid (they do spin you know) is a recipe for trouble. You can't use solar power either, which means you will need a VERY big nuclear plant to smelt the ore, and it won't come cheap. The combination of natural multi-axis spin (the bane of space farers) and low-but-not-zero gravity of the asteroid would make landing/launching from it very difficult too, just as the Japanese with their probe.
Not True! :-) Mining companies have already solved these problems!
I will not waste my time outlining these many technologies and techniques, as it is clear you troll all the time anyways! As others have said, you nearly never start a thread, and never bring anything new to the table, but mostly focus on cutting others down. So you are either a Troll, or on a Fishing Trip to steal others ideas! Cut and past easy pickings into a thesis or scientific paper using others ideas is what I suspect a person like you is doing here, based on the fact most of your input is one liners and put downs of others ideas and efforts. I have seen this many times by lazy academics looking to sell a book or publish a paper.
I wouldn't attempt to launch all of the mass from the earth for a lunar space elevator anchor. There must be someway to manufacture a stable anchor point on the moon with lunar resources?
If a space elevator were to be built on Luna, it would be the best place. The Earth & Mars have atmosphere, which creates drag and lateral forces on the Space Elevator, and both also have much higher Gravity. Luna has no atmosphere (to speak of) and very low gravity. Perfect conditions for a space elevator.
Or dig a deep hole, place the moon end of the elevator cable down in it and fill it up with some kind of lunar cement?
This would work, and in fact has been proposed.
SDC: What kind of base or manufacturing would we ever need on an asteroid?
An asteroid can be used as a shell for a space facility or factory. The core would be mined and used for the ore (if any) and the hollowed out shell would be used as a very protected space facility. It would be both the structure and the shielding from radiation and impact protection.
Many Asteroids are mainly large chunks of raw ore. Unlike on the Earth where millions of tons of soil and rock need to be mined, processed, and refined to obtain thousands of pounds of raw ore to be smelted and used for metal production. On an Asteroid, the Asteroid is the raw ore, you simple pull up a large mining facility or ship along side, and start smelting ore (not all Asteroids, as some are non-ore in nature). Ore in space will be held in a magnetic field and heated with ion or laser beams to a melting point, spun to move the heavier elements to the outer parts of the ore globule, cooled, and then the heavy ore on the outside of the now cooled ore globule will be harvested and machined into parts. The core left overs of the ore globule will be used for non-structural materials, like shielding, mass for propulsion, and low grade building materials.
Asteroids will play a very important part to the future of human space efforts.
great stuff.
The people of Earth will pay for their crimes! Hellfire and damnation upon the nonbelievers and space heathens! :twisted:
We now return you to your regularly scheduled meltdown.
Cobra Commander: "Ave atque vale"
It is always funny how the Skull & Bones CIA bunch love the Pagan quotes in their posts! Most people, it just goes right over their heads. They also love names of poisonous snakes and predators, tongue & cheek military terms, Greek gods, and anti-Christian banter.
Here is what "Ave atque vale" in Cobra Commanders post means, and its source from Pagan history, which like Cobra Commander, most Skull & Bones types use as a slight to the uneducated and dumb sheep. It is a form of ridicule, in the open for all to see. They are the HEAD and we are the TAIL? And so they think!
An ego who enjoys Darth Vader as an icon, and a bad guy image to boot!
Knowledge is power! Ignorance is a one-way ticket to enslavement!
Ref: http://www.barrsenglishclass.com/aveatquevale.html
Ref: http://homepage.mac.com/lexl/iblog/C202 … 0706093034
Ref: http://www.answers.com/topic/frater-ave-atque-vale
Ref: http://www.bartleby.com/101/810.html
frater, ave atque vale
Latin phrase meaning "hail, brother, farewell." It appears at the end of a poem by Catullus:
Through many countries and over many seas
I have come, Brother, to these melancholy rites,
to show this final honour to the dead,
and speak (to what purpose?) to your silent ashes,
since now fate takes you, even you, from me.
Oh, Brother, ripped away from me so cruelly,
now at least take these last offerings, blessed
by the tradition of our parents, gifts to the dead.
Accept, by custom, what a brother's tears drown,
and, for eternity, Brother, 'Hail and Farewell'.
The poem and phrase were further immortalized 1,900 years later by Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem Frater, Ave Atque Vale:
Row us out from Desenzano, to your Sirmione row!
So they row'd, and there we landed, 'O venusta Sirmio!'
There to me thro' all the groves of olive in the summer glow,
There beneath the Roman ruin where the purple flowers grow,
Came that 'Ave atque Vale' of the Poet's hopeless woe,
Tenderest of Roman poets nineteen-hundred years ago,
'Frater Ave atque Vale' as we wander'd to and fro
Gazing at the Lydian laughter of the Garda Lake below
Sweet Catullus's all-but-island, olive-silvery Sirmio!
National Space Society - NSS - Impact On Human Space Exploration?
Is the National Space Society really a open and free organization, or is it just a front organization for exclusive interests of a small few?
Article from the Houston Space Society:
Article Link: http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/naziss.html
Ad-Astra! To The Stars!
In Peace For All Mankind!
So Say We All!
Yes, Indeed! Very Sad!
You guys really know how to trick people!
Your jokes and skilled slip diversions are really funny!
Keep up the good work!
If even one person here learns the truth, that would be a victory!
The rest, the sheep, will always be clueless!
Thank goodness for the Eagles & Doves!
Pages: 1