You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#101 Re: Human missions » My first post » 2007-07-25 15:55:38
This is all fantastic at last people who are in the stuff i'm in too!
That Mars use to be a Moon of a bigger planet and was tidally locked with that other planet. That it was those tidal forces that pulled Mars into the shape it currently in. According to this theory, that planet got into a tug of war with another planet that was where the asteroid field is now. That those two planets tore each other apart freeing Mars to take it current orbit around the sun.
- Yes I 've heard about this scenario, it would be interesting if upon further study of the asteroid belt it was possible for science to tell if the rocks there used to previously form a planet or not?
Cheers
You would be able to tell if those asteroid were the result of an exploded planet vs asteroid that formed up as a result of left over material when the solar system formed up. If it from an exploded planet, it will have a tendency to be layered with the heavier stuff being below, because of the pull of gravity on it. You also may have had flowing water or an atmosphere that was working on those asteroids. If any of those asteroids are made of granite, then that would be a sure sign that it was on a planet and generally under water when that kind of rocks or asteroids were made.
So yes, they would be able to tell whether those asteroids came from an exploded planet or formed up on there own. The technology does exist today to be able to tell how those asteroids were formed. Or we might even be able to tell by having a geologist looking over those asteroids and be able to tell us.
Larry,
#102 Re: Human missions » My first post » 2007-07-24 17:47:16
1) There is no means of getting a human there with out a craft that can produce a gravitational effect, which has got to be years away before anything like 'tether' or rotating technology can be applied to a space ship.
There are some on this board that think that we can use current chemical rockets to make a trip to Mars. It would take six months or longer to get to Mars using a chemical rocket. One way to deal with the lack of gravity would be to tip the space craft end over end with a counter weight or another space craft on two ends of a poll with the center of gravity somewhere between those two craft. You can see this effect by taking a ball that on a string and spinning it over your head. That pull you feel is centrifugal force and that how you could generate the feel of artificial gravity for those astronauts as they fly to Mars.
Although we could probably do that, my personal favorite way to get to Mars would be to either build fission or possibly a fusion powered craft, because you could cut the time travel to Mars to a few weeks or less.
inzane wrote:2) Mars can never hold down an atmosphere, so even if a new one where some how created it would only seep away like the old one did!
With present technologies, I don't see us Terraforming Mars anytime soon, because of the fact that Mars only has 38% of the gravity that Earth has. That is a problem, but it not a show stopper as they say. We still can colonize Mars and as new technologies come on line and as we build a sufficient amount of infrastructure on Mars we can compensate for that lack of gravity, but it won't be a quick fix and it will need continual human intervention to start that terraformation into being more Earthlike. There are theories about how we could go about the business of de-energizing helium from obtaining escape velocity from the planet Mars. Right now we are unable able to implement something like that and it is beyond our abilities, so we basically just talk about what would be the best way to do that.
inzane wrote:3) There is not enough magnetic field to protect the planet anyway. Since its core was somehow compromised all those millions of years ago (I like the idea that the core partially blew out and produced the giant volcano oplympus mons in the process)
Thanks for listening
Tim
We have also talked about generating a magnetic field around Mars also to solve that lack of a magnetic field that is currently around Mars.
As far as to why Mars is in the current shape that it in. I have heard two different theories and they are:
Mars got smacked by a good size Asteroid and just about blew out it lights.
That Mars use to be a Moon of a bigger planet and was tidally locked with that other planet. That it was those tidal forces that pulled Mars into the shape it currently in. According to this theory, that planet got into a tug of war with another planet that was where the asteroid field is now. That those two planets tore each other apart freeing Mars to take it current orbit around the sun.
There are a lot of interesting theories as to what happened to Mars and such.
Larry,
#103 Re: Terraformation » Changing Mars' Atmosphere » 2007-06-27 15:19:14
This may be the aimless inquiry of a neophyte, but is it possible for something like a bomb to be sent to mars with certain materials (e.g. oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.) in an extremely concentrated form..exploded in Mars' atmosphere and over time change the atmosphere and create opportunity for life? For example could the proportionate ingredients create a greenhouse effect on mars to warm the planet.
No. Insufficient mass to be able to get the job done. That why several people on this web site have suggested using comet with the needed ingredients, but even then it would probably take several hundred to get the job done.
A subquestion that comes to mind is that would the martian atmosphere be able to hold all the gases sent?
Unknown, but several people have on this web site have suggested that it would dissipate over anywhere from several thousand years to hundreds of thousands of years. But, we really don't know how long Mars could hold onto that Atmosphere in it present form. There have been several suggestion as how to help Mars hold onto a denser atmosphere too by either or both use of magnetic confinement to generate magnetosphere like what around the Earth.
Larry,
#104 Re: Human missions » Private Space Tourism » 2007-06-21 17:08:59
LIFTOFF! Liftoff of the Soyuz rocket carrying the next joint Russian-American crew to the International Space Station!
:!:
T+plus 30 seconds. The Russian Soyuz is maneuvering to the proper heading. All engines are up and running.
The world's third "space tourist", US millionaire Gregory Olsen, successfully started his flight to the international space station (ISS) on Saturday along with a Russian cosmonaut and an American astronaut.
The Russian-built Soyuz TMA-7 capsule carrying the three blasted off from the Baikonur cosmodrome in the middle of Kazakhstan's barren steppes at 7:54 a.m. Moscow time (0354 GMT).
STAR CITY, Russia - Space passenger Greg Olsen
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9323509/
Greg Olsen may be paying $20 million for a ride to the international space station next month, but that doesn’t mean he’ll get out of doing the chores in orbit.After the liftoff, the space craft will rendezvous in two days with the ISS, about 400 kilometers above Earth.
Russian cosmonaut Valery Tokarev and US astronaut William McArthur who was riding with Olsen, will relieve Russian Sergei Krikalev and American John Phillips who have been working on the station since April.T+plus 7 minutes, 30 seconds. Soyuz is 124 miles in altitude and racing to achieve orbital velocity
Soyuz commander Valery Tokarev says the capsule's separation from the rocket was nominal. The craft is beginning its sequence to deploy power-generating solar arrays, as well as antennas for navigational and communication systems.Looking to the Space Tourist as an Industry to do anything meaningful in space, is complete foolishness. Outside of maybe a few multi billionaire taking a joy flight, that about all that will ever happen. The main problem about the private sector establishing a big Space Tourist Industry of say several billion dollars in tourist dollars is that it going to cost hundred billion dollars or more to get that billion dollars tourist industry and it will cost tens of billions of new investments to maintain that billion dollar tourist industry. The problem is that it always going to cost several times more to have maintain the infrastructure to have that billion dollars tourist industry than you will be getting back on the few billion that your getting in return. If you try and increase the fairs to pay the cost of running a tourist industry, then you will have to charge hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars per tourist who goes into space to recover the development and maintaince of the private space tourist venture. Which would basically seal the fate of any private space tourist effort.
Larry,
#105 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming the Earth’s great Deserts - Turning the Sahara into a rainforest. » 2007-06-18 18:27:26
Any thoughts on what effect turning the Sahara into a mixture of lakes, grassland, forest, and agriculture would have on earth's albedo?
It would probably lower the temperature overall of the Earth. It would definitely lower the temperature of Africa and most of the souther Europe and southwestern Asia. We would have a lot of evaporation that would remove heat from the Earth and ultimately radiate it back into space when the water in the clouds. It also might modulate the temperature from swinging from very high temperature to very low temperatures.
This is only a guess and I doubt that anybody really knows. But, it fun to speculate as to what would happen.
Larry,
#106 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Dirty side of the Federal Reserve! » 2007-06-14 19:14:54
Here is how the Federal Reserve was created and who created the Federal Reserve and what it real purpose it. For any one that interested. They go over the Builderberges, the Rothchilds, JP Morgan, and a few other. They show the real dirty side of the Federal Reserve and that it is only a Private Bank that owned by other private banks primarily in Europe and setup by the backing of the British Crown in Great Britain. For more information go to this web site. It a video of maybe an hour or more and they have video that go into more detail of the Federal Reserve and who behind it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 7341337020
Larry,
#107 Re: Not So Free Chat » What would you do if you got 15 Billion $ per year to spend? » 2007-06-12 15:51:38
What if, you became a CEO of a company, that would get 15 Billion $ subsidy (adjusted for inflation) for the next 50 years. That money could be spent on anything, as long as it is connected with space. You could use any launcher or technologie that is already developed (no matter which country has it), could develop any new launcher, new propulsion technologies,..
You could do anything in space and any profit you made, you could reinvest. After 50 years, you would be on your own and would have to support everything without any new subsidies, only the profits from space operations.
What would you do? What problems do you see in plans made by others?
See if I could setup a government with an industrial base that could continue generating that credit after that fifty year period was over to continue to keep this process going of government credit. That second part of this would be an all out space program across the board working off that government with it industrial base on line and it internal credit system.
Let see what kind of response we get out of this.
Larry,
#108 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Jupiter's Moons » 2007-05-29 15:24:28
With present technologies, I don't see anything past Mars having any serious colonization going on in the near term. But, assuming that we are able to build fusion and go on into anti-matter energy sources, then that would open up a whole new possibility of colonization of the moons of Jupiter and beyond. A colonization of Mars would develop the technologies that we would need to make an attempt at colonizing the moons of Jupiter possible and also put the infrastructure into place to support that colonization project too. It will would probably take a hundred years or more to be in a position to start that colonization of the Moons of Jupiter even then. Even with a Mars colonization program, we would have to develop new technologies and build the infrastructures to do it even in a fifty year time frame or so.
Larry,
#109 Re: Space Policy » What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates? » 2007-05-12 16:53:47
What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?
FOX News wants to know what you would ask the Republican presidential candidates when they debate in Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday, May 15.
Suggestion: Are you willing to fully fund NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration?
Here's a chance to raise the awareness of space - go for it everybody!!
Actually, I would like to ask at least two question and they would be.
What is you stand on Federalizing the Federal Reserve?
After the Federal Reserve been re-organized into a US National Bank, would you support the rebuilding of the United States an expanded NASA space mission to both the moon and Mars?
Larry,
#110 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-30 14:31:53
Marsman, your saying that:
That the government of Egypt didn't play a major roll in building the Suez Canal or play major roll in supporting the building of the Suez Canal.
These same people that built the Suez Canal, but failed to complete the Panama Canal. They failed because of incompetence and not because they didn't have a government backing them up.
Let follow through with your logic and apply it to space, shall we!
That like saying that the United States went to the moon because the private sector built the space ship to take us there, which they did, but that the US Government didn't play a major roll in sending us to the moon.
That the reason that the private sector isn't now going to the moon or building colony on the moon is because of bad policies choices and not because they can't do it.
This appears to be the exact same logic that you are using to explain why private companies can build canal when they have government help, but can't build canals when they don't have government help. So why don't we just apply that logic to explain why the private sector can't build colonize now in space or continue building Apollo Space ships. It not because the government plays a major factor in either building space ship or canal, it the competence of incompetence of the private sector that the cause of the problem here.
Larry,
#111 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-27 21:38:23
Marsman, this was the second time that you used the Suez Canal as your reason for private development of space. So let take a look at the Suez Canal building project.
The Suez Canal was indeed a private effort with stock holder that built the Suez Canal. But, what you didn't say or maybe you don't know, was that it had the backing of the Egyptian Government backing it up in it bid to build the Suez Canal. Don't under rate the importance of the Egyptian Government helping to make that Suez Canal a reality, because those same people then took on the project of building the Panama Canal and they failed miserably. In the Panama Canal project, they did not have a major government backing them up or supporting there efforts like they did in the Suez Canal project. Matter of fact, the Panama Canal project didn't become reality until the US Government got involved in it. The private company that built the Suez Canal and failed to build the Panama Canal didn't fail because of lack of expertise or ability or even because they didn't have a track record even. We can assume that they failed because they didn't have a major government backing them up, since that was the only variable that was different between those two Canal projects.
Most of these Canal project or the rail road network inside the United State along with other such projects, generally require government impute to make them happen. It not necessarily whether a private sector has the technology to build something or even have a track record even to build similar things even, they just can't wheel the resources that a government can to make something happen. A good example of that is the Suez Canal success vs the Panama Canal failure by the same people.
Let tell the whole story and not just part of it.
Larry,
#112 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Earth Type Planet in Goldie Lock Zone » 2007-04-26 18:20:30
The first Earth type planet in the Goldie lock Zone. The planet has about 5 times the mass of the Earth and is suppose to be about 12,000 miles in diameter. It suppose to be only about 20 light years away from us too. Go to this web site to view more information.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a … ge_id=1965
Larry,
#113 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-26 10:42:34
There you go with the what ifs again.
AltSpace had 17 billion dollars a year and 50 years of experience under there belt, then you would see.
The reason that NASA got 17 billion dollars to play with when it comes to space is because it is a government organization and is funded by the government. AltSpace isn't funded so they can't spend money like that and never will be able to spend money like that.
Larry,
#114 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-24 16:53:43
Grypd, you don't know what your talking about.
Let take what you through out there in order.
Alt space doesn't have a man rated space ship and they don't appear to be anywhere close to developing one or putting one on the pad any time soon. Now I am talking about a simple orbiting the earth kind of thing and not some moon mission, let along a moon colonization program. Alt space is just not going to do it and it doesn't matter how much you rant and rave about it. They just don't have the capability to do that by themselves or with the rest of the private space companies backing them up.
As for Bigelow, what there doing is great, but there no one to buy there product and if they did buy there product, they have no way to get to there Bigelow habitat with private space ships. Baring a government contract to buy a few of there Bigelow habitats for either the ISS or for a Lunar base or something, Bigelow will crash and burn and whined up with there face in the mud in about five to ten years from now.
If things continue the way there going. This is what will happen. I wish that were not so, but it is and it not going to change. The only thing that will change, will be that we will have a whole new would be private companies that will do it without government help. So they will say. I been hearing this crap for thirty years now of how private venture will do it without government help.
Larry,
#115 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-23 21:19:46
Josh Cryer,
Although the question wasn't addressed to me, I would like to answer the question.
For private enterprise to have a serious chance in space, there would have to be a change in the NASA Charter to build a major base on the moon and/or Mars or some other major government outer space venture that requires a long term commitment of the government to accomplish like in the twenty to thirty years or longer. Where NASA has to develop new technologies like scam jets that might eventually get off loaded to the private sector along with deep space nuclear space ships and such. So private ventures can plug into government built and owned infrastructures like air lines do to city air ports and such. Where Lunar foundries owned by the private sector can plug into the electric power stations owned by NASA and sell there goods to that same NASA because it cheaper to buy it from them, then to ship it in from the Earth.
Basically what I am saying is. The private sector will follow a major government effort into space and won't lead it. The problem with the Private sector leading the way is that there all sellers and they have nobody buying there products. You go to any private enterprise effort only conference and it everybody is trying to find a buyer for there products and there not looking to buy someone else products. It like two drunks trying to hold each other up. It a sad sight!
A re-chartered NASA like described above which the private enterprise can sell to or revolve around would be the space economy that we all desire to see. Baring something like this happening, then there will be no serious space effort from the private sector to speak of.
Larry,
#116 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Solar sailing » 2007-04-11 22:44:38
Checking for solar sail as high-speed, high-efficiency, leave-any-time-you want technology: checked. And lacking.
So what else is new? The point was made that "it [is] never going to be efficient to go to Mars, because you have to use too much fuel to get there and then back to Earth." I disagreed with "never" and went on to stir the pot by mentioning the (not yet checked-out in situ) principle of light sailing. I never reject anything out of hand except religion, death, and taxes. By the way, did we ever resolve Gold's contention that light sailing using a perfect reflector can't possibly work? Is there still a thread where this could be taken up again?
Unfortunately, GCNRevenger is absolutely correct about all known technologies that we now know that we could develop to power a Mars Space Ship. I said all known power system that we could build with present technologies that is. Baring the development of either fusion or anti-matter or some other exotic or new technology that currently doesn't exist or that we know about, then GCNRevenger is absolutely correct whether you like it or don't like it. It has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion or my opinion or even GCNRevenger, it a matter of physical principles that we are bound by use of present technologies at our disposal.
That why I personally support developing new technologies for going to Mars instead of using any current technology for traveling to Mars. Instead of fiddling around with any current technology for going to Mars, we should just bit the bullet and roll up our sleeve and get at developing new technologies for going to Mars. Yes, it would be a whole lot more expensive to get to Mars, but we would have the technologies for colonizing Mars once that technology has been developed.
We aren't going to be colonizing Mars with present technologies, because we are too technologically deficient to colonize Mars right now and we don't have the infrastructure in place to do the job.
Larry,
#117 Re: Human missions » Is gravity really that necessary for a trip to Mars? » 2007-04-10 15:57:33
You don't understand. Most governments on the Earth aren't prepared to make that kind of commitment to long term astronauts on Mars, so your argument on how to do it won't happen. You have to have people go to Mars in the first place, which will have to be a government financed and directed plan or it won't happen. If it going to be the government project and there not prepared for such a long term commitment, then they won't do it.
To argue contrary to that, is waste of time, because it won't happen that way.
Larry,
#118 Re: Human missions » Is gravity really that necessary for a trip to Mars? » 2007-04-09 16:57:48
That wouldn't work. The real problem for setting up a Mars colony, is lack of commitment to do that by the government and not the lack of volunteers for going to Mars. It the lack of government commitment to the cause of colonization of Mars that the problem.
Larry,
#119 Re: Human missions » Newt Gingrich - Space President? » 2007-04-07 18:11:56
I have a simple question:
How much does it cost to print $120 billion in US currency?
I say, it doesn't cost the US a whole lot, it is only paper until someone can get their hands on it and spend it.
So what if the US government simply states that the first prize is $60 billion, the second prize is $40 billion and the third prize is $20 billion. The money is printed out and put in a vault, and the government announces that its here for anyone who wins one of these prizes.
If what your saying is true Clark, then these piles of money will simply gather dust and the US government doesn't have to account for it, it doesn't have to sell bonds, or raise taxes or cut other programs if no one collects. The money will just sit there out of everyones reach unless they go to Mars.
I find it a win-win situation. Printing the money doesn't cost all that much, it is 1,200,000 One Hundred Dollar Bills sitting in a vault gathering dust, costing the US government only what it costs to print these pieces of paper that say One Hundred Dollars on them. If some one wins, then the US government pays and only then.
As for what to do with the spaceships after the prize is won, perhaps the companies that build them might consider this question and try to make economical vehicles that could be used for other purposes. I really don't think the US Government has a clue on how to make things economical.
And Marsman, if you think it will take 100 to 200 years, what the heck are you doing here. Obviously space travel is a waste of time and resources if that is true.
You got to be kidding me Tom!
Currently the US Government does not create it own money. The Federal Reserve has that power, not the Federal Government. But, if the Federal Government were to borrow that money from the Federal Reserve, then the American Tax payer would have to pay interest on it to the Federal Reserve bank and pay off the entire amount over time. The Federal Reserve is a private bank with a government charter to act as the central bank of the United States or the bank of last resort.
Larry,
#120 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Solar sailing » 2007-04-02 18:43:51
The possibilities of solar sailing the Inner Solar System still haven't been checked out yet....
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of fission powered or fusion powered space craft. Fission power would get the amount of fuel you need down to an acceptable level to make a trip to Mars where it need to be, but we would still be stuck with having to sling shot from Earth orbit to a Mars orbit and have to wait for that window to launch so we can make the trip either way. But, at least we would be heading in the right direction for repeatability and afordability. That would still not quit get us where we want to go.
But, for that we going to launch any time kind of space craft, we would have to develop either fusion or possibly anti-matter or something like that and at this point, it doesn't look like that going to happen. With a fusion powered space ship, if fusion power is possible, you would be able to accelerate you space craft at "G" and decerate it at "G". If that were possible, then you would be able to accelerate your space craft half way to Mars and decerate the other half way to Mars. Such a space ship would take only about three days to make the trip to Mars. It wouldn't make any difference where the Earth was to where Mars would be, because it a powered craft vs the ones that are using the sling shot method to get between Earth and Mars. In theory, that how it would work, but we don't know if it even possible to even do fusion power at all right now.
So fission power, is probably our best bet for right now.
Larry,
#121 Re: Interplanetary transportation » On Orbit fuel depot » 2007-04-01 21:31:37
I would like to add, that as long as we intend to use chemical fuels to go to Mars, it never going to be efficient to go to Mars, because you have to use too much fuel to get there and then back to Earth. Even with Robert Zubins plan of Mars direct will only improve this so much. It a matter of the physical limitation of using chemical fuels in the first place. This is in addition to the other problems already mentioned.
#122 Re: Terraformation » Is Global Warming real? » 2007-03-28 00:10:24
The Illuminati??????????????
Do I dare even ask you to defend this?
Actually, I picked it up on a Google Search. It was mostly a response to RickSmith. RickSmith challenge me to defend my position or he thought I should withdraw my post from thread, because he found it offensive. As far as to what really going on in the world, these people pretty much got it right. But, I had no intention of defending everything in this article and stated that on the post that I put this web site entry on. I mostly posted it to show you that the information that I am giving you is out there if you look for it. I am not just spouting off to be spouting off. However I did go a little deeper into this than I really wanted to go.
As to the Illuminati, I have heard that term, but that about it. So I am going to leave that alone.
Larry,
#123 Re: Terraformation » Is Global Warming real? » 2007-03-27 13:59:16
RickSmith,
I am not questioning the motive of many of the people that are in the environmental movement and that they may have a genuine desire to save the planet and such. There are many people in the environmental who are sincere in what there saying or doing and there may even be some leader in the environmental movement that are sincere too. I am not disputing that. It the people at the top like Prince Phillip and now Prince Charles and Al Gore I am challenging and that there not being honest with the people that are following them. I put two links out there that you find offensive, which is OK. I do a lot of things that offend people. I interested in putting out there what I believe to be true and if it offends people then so be it.
They are:
I was just there and did not see the video there. I don’t know any other place that has this video or where it could be.
This link go over much of the information that was in that video that was on youtube.com. This link is still good, you can’t get it on youtube.com, but you can still get some of the information that was on youtube.com web broadcast.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 … cience.pdf
I didn’t see that either one of them as being objectionable to a free and independent thinker. For someone that claims to have an open mind, you sure did bend sideways real quick. I am not arguing that there isn’t pollution that caused by the human race and that it is destroying the planet. The issue was, is human activities causing Global Warming? No! Do I believe that we should deal with the pollution problem. Absolutely, but I am not going to keep silent when they peddling lie that we causing Global Warming. I do have a question for you though.
I think it is a distinct possibility that Humans may face extinction in the next 500, 2000 or 5000 years or so. If we can keep a high technology (avoid collapse of our global high tech civilization) then this is a non-issue.
Are an environmentalist?
You make an assertion that there are two primary sides to this Environmentalist issue with George Bush along with the oil companies on one side and with Al Gore with supposedly with the people and a view to saving the planet on the other side.
Is that reasonable summation of your assertion of who on the two side that you claim exist?
Prince Charles and Al Gore and there connection to the environmental movement and to each other. The web site show the history of the environmental movement. I didn’t read the whole thing. I skip read it and I suggest you do too, because it lengthy and parts of it don’t apply to what we are talking about. But, it does have some interesting information on the Environmental movement that I didn’t know about too. I was interested in when Environmental movement was created and why it was created or it purpose. It was started in England over two hundred years ago during the British Empire. The reason Environmentalism was started was for population control and that industrializing was evil and why eugenics or elimination of useless eaters was necessary. Although George Bush did not go to the Environmental meeting himself, he did sent Collon Powell in his place to the Environmental meeting. They went a little bit into religion which I skip over. However there was a lot of useful information there on the Environmental Movement and it real purpose and not what just being told to the masses.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1695.cfm
This web site shows Al Gore being employed by Prince Phillip and what the true nature of who Al Gore is and what he is really peddling.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_ … _gore.html
The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush Sr. Although is dealing with his father and family history, it show where George Bush Jr. came from and there family values. The family fortune was made by Prescott Bush in the Union Bank with IG Farbin that put Adolph Hitler into power. Prescott Bush was getting his profits off the Concentration/work camps. His funds were seized in 1942 for trading with the enemy of the United States and they were released after the death of FDR and the end of World War II. Mussolini said that the best way to explain Fascism is to understand that that is where government and Corporation are merged together into one, which is what George Bush supports. There was also a greenie movement in fascist movement that took over Germany under Hitler too. When you see those German Panzer Tiger Tanks, you might have a problem accepting that idea, but it true. Most of this information is in this book, which I have read by the way and I still have a copy of it too.
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
Even I will admit that this is a round about sort of way of showing that the same people who are behind Al Gore are also behind George Bush. On the Conservative Republican side, there pushing globalism through war and terrorism. On the Liberal Democrat side, there pushing globalism through the Environmentalism of trying to save the planet. Both George Bush and Al Gore are working for the same people and the three other sites I put out there should make that connection. There just working different side of the street, but trying to accomplish the same goals for the same master. Now I do believe that there are genuinely other side to this Environmental issue who have a real voice on this issue, but not by these two people or the people they represent.
You seem to have a problem of me calling most of the science out there and what is being portrayed science as junk science. Let take a look at that for a minute. If even part of what I have said is true, then there is a big problem with there being lies reported in the US Media. We also have a problem with them suppressing information also. Of the last three web sites that I put up there, should pretty much dispel the idea that I don’t know what I am talking about. If you or anybody else want to learn American History in a way that nobody else knows American History, then go to the last two web site I put up.
Maybe you agree with the above or maybe you don’t that OK. You remind me that I have not said anything about how you can determine which modal scientific modal was correct by taking the more simple modal and saying it is correct because it was more simple modal. But, for the sake of the argument, let deal with your concept that the simpler answer that address all the fact is probably the right answer. Matter fact non of the answers of what going in the universe have to be right whether simple or complex answers. Matter of fact, there are some process going on in the universe that just by observing them, you would never figure them out and come up with all kinds of wired conclusion and stay within the facts that you were given. I know what I just wrote violets what you consider to be reality, but be patient with me and I will explain why that so.
Let go back to when they were deciding or trying to figure out how our solar system functioned. We have three modal of how our solar system functioned and they all fit the mathematical data that they had at the time. They all three had modal as to how this solar system was put together and they could show that they could work too. Non of the three can disprove the other two. I apologize for not giving you the three examples and three people to who were pushing those models, because without those modal it loses a little bit, because it harder to see what I am getting at. But, bear with me.
According to your idea of how you can determine which one is right: Who would it be?
But, now we have a late comer called Kepler who has no a mathematical modal that fit our facts of how the solar system functions and is just carried under his arm modal of the Platonic Solids and a musical scale of Classical Music and states there a missing orbit between Mars and Jupiter where the asteroid belt is which he could not see. He talk about the busted planet that makes up what we call the asteroid belt now. He lay out the elliptical orbits of all the different planets that we know about, because he knew orbit weren’t round, the other three did not figure that out nor could they have figured that out using there mathematic models.
Using your idea of the simplest modal is usually the right modal of how things work with anyone of the three modals.
You would be wrong!
But, you say you didn’t give me Kepler as a choice and if you would have given me Kepler then I could have made the right choice then. No you wouldn’t have, because it goes outside your simplest modal to figure out how the solar system actually functions and then he throw stuff in that can't be proved for over two years. So you would have picked the same guy that you already would have picked, because Kepler failed your test for deciding who was right. If that so and that is in fact what happened. That where the busted planet theory came from, I have two more question for you. There is no way that you could have come up with what Kepler said the solar system had to look like by looking at facts they know at that time or using mathematical equations.
How did Kepler come up with the right answer?
And how did he know that there was an asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter?
He did know there was one too.
He didn’t have a telescopes to prove what he was saying true and the telescopes weren’t invented until two hundred years or so later. Which shows that you can work stuff out mathematically and be wrong three times with three different models, but be mathematically correct all three times and not get the right answer.
I would like to know what happened here or if you would like to defend your idea of how you determine which modal is correct by use of mathematics and why it would fail when it comes to Kepler and it would have failed too.
Larry,
#124 Re: Terraformation » Is Global Warming real? » 2007-03-26 18:04:14
MR: Re. "As long as the above condition exist, we will never see free and independent exchange of ideas and then take the idea that fit the modal best and run with it. This junk science that being thrown out there has a purpose and it purpose is to swash the real science and discoveries under a pile of GORE! "
I really tried to work out what the "above condition" is, but had to give up. How about breaking down your undoubtedly well reasoned points in list form, so I/we can at least respond and keep the topic going, eh?
Junk science is anything that someone is trying to pass off as science, but is based on a lie.
If they are trying to pass off Junk science, it usually because they have hidden agenda that there trying to keep secrete with there junk science claim.
In very general terms, I was referring to a group of people that are behind this lying that going on or the junk science.
"A pile of GORE".
Was a play on words or had a double meaning:
1. GORE is the guy's name that peddling there lies or this Global Warming Scare.
2. Second use of GORE as in Blood and Gore or big mess, but not being used as a man name.I hope that cleared up what I was saying.
Larry,
#125 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Orion (CEV / SM) - status » 2007-03-25 18:18:26
Orion and modified service module with cargo bay
the LSAM crew module is TOO big, TOO heavy and TOO expensive for this purpose
also, the LSAM crew module needs a second (big and expensive) rocket to launch it, climbing very much the mission's costs
I think that my "BigelowOrion" (with an intermediate hatch) is the BEST solutions since it adds (both) extra space and EVA option at a FRACTION of the price of an LSAM crew module + second rocket
BigelowOrion page: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/01 … Orion.html
.
One of the thing that makes the LSAM heavier is that fact that it carrying more fuel so that the Orion space craft will have more capability than the Apollo program. Even with the BigelowOrion that on the web site that you put out there would not be able to do a pole landing on the moon. Because is doesn't have enough fuel to push the space craft into that orbit so you could land on either the North Pole or South Pole on the Moon. Then it has to have enough fuel to push the space craft back into an orbit around them moon so they can come back to the Earth. It take a lot of fuel to be able to do these two maneuvers to do a pole landing and be able to return to Earth. You can't do that with a one ship configuration like Apollo Space Ship. That why the Apollo mission never got more than about 20% to 30% off what would been the equator of the moon, because they didn't have the capability to go closer to either pole of the moon or even fly over the poles of the moon. Your BigelowOrion would be just an expanded living quarters for an Apollo type space ship, but it would have the same limitation of a the Apollo mission minus the second space ship of the Orion space ship that has the extra fuel to make a pole landing. That why NASA settled on a two ship capability in the first place. So they can land any place on the moon that they choose to land and come back.
Larry,
