Science and Technology news... :: View topic - For Exposing Sabotage, Austin>s Bob Mosley III Leads Vicious

server · Guest

message unavailable

Damien Valentine · Guest

Thanks, sirs. I really should pay more attention to Astronautix than
I do.

OM, how have you been?

OM · Guest

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:04:07 -0500, Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com>
wrote:

[quote]They might well have been necessary on the shuttle-equipped ferry rocket
to keep it going nose-end first with those big wings ahead of the CG.
This Dyna-Soar carrying Titan has big fins on it to compensate for the
wings on the X-20:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Dyna-Soar_on_Titan_booster.jpg
[/quote]
....That was for the Titan I. IIRC, it would have been unnecessary for
the Titan II or the III.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let>s face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

BradGuth · Guest

On Jul 19, 4:57 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 7:39 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:

"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3c8b5981-0747-4674-b44d-d412a27096a4@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com....
This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
and silica combined spheres (ï¿½green glass spherulesï¿½) that researchers
claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
(that>s not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)

Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-rev...

snip Guthball drivel

The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth>s oceans. It is
far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
flexing there, Guthball

Technically speaking, the moon has a "static tide". Although some
might say
that is an oxymoron. However, there is a still a tidal potential that
affects the moon and therefor a tide, static or not.

But indeed, since the tide is static there is no flexing, hence
no heating

Stuart
[/quote]
? "no heating" via tidal flex ?

In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of
physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our
Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can>t
possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about that?

Do you have a supercomputer simulation that somehow excludes the laws
of physics for Earth and our Selene/moon, but otherwise allows the
laws of tidal flex physics to apply on behalf of other plants and of
their tidal flex heated moons?

Isn>t Earth a relatively small and extensively fluid planet for having
such a substantial moon that can measurably tidal flex the crust of
Earth by as much as 55 cm?

Thanks to â€œoldcootâ€ and Wikipedia: Earth tide effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
â€œVolcanologists use the regular, predictable Earth tide movements to
calibrate and test sensitive volcano deformation monitoring
instruments. The tides may also trigger volcanic events. Seismologist
have determined that micro seismic events are correlated to tidal
variations in Central Asia (north of the Himalayas). The semidiurnal
amplitude of terrestrial tides can reach about 55 cm at the equator
which is important in GPS calibration and VLBI measurements. Also to
make precise astronomical angular measurements requires knowledge of
the earth>s rate of rotation and nutation, both of which are
influenced by earth tides.â€

Any way youâ€™d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually moving
and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal flexing is
going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat via friction.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Pat Flannery · Guest

OM wrote:
[quote]...That was for the Titan I. IIRC, it would have been unnecessary for
the Titan II or the III.

[/quote]
They>re on both the Titan I and II variants; Titan III didn>t have them
in the final configuration, but they were on that also in early artwork:
http://www.goingfaster.com/icarus/x20early.jpg
.... seems to have gotten rather high on just the SRB>s in that picture;
apparently it must be flying to Mars or something. :-)
On the link I attached, it _is_ on a Titan II....note the lack of LOX
venting or frost, and that first and second stages are of the same
diameter - on Titan I, the second stage is of smaller diameter.
Here>s one lifting off on a finned Titan I:
http://xplanes.free.fr/x24/images/x20_24.jpg

Pat

Monte Davis · Guest

Damien Valentine <valends3@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]But I
have to ask myself: did the people running the space program share
these expectations? How influential were articles in "Popular
Mechanics" and "Collier>s" on something like the Saturn program? Did
people like Sanger and Von Braun actually expect to be building these
things, or were they just "concept designs"?
[/quote]
As I>ve noted before, von Braun experienced a huge ramp-up in funding
when the German Army selected him from the shoestring VfR and started
a military missile program...

And then another when the A4 went into mass production and
deployment...

And then another when the desultory US missile program went into high
gear towards ICBMs circa 1953-54...

And then another from Sputnik through the Apollo commitment.

However obvious it may be to us that the last represented a unique and
unsustainable moment in the Cold War, it>s hard to blame him and his
circle for extrapolating to still bigger steps ahead.

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com/

Pat Flannery · Guest

Monte Davis wrote:
[quote]However obvious it may be to us that the last represented a unique and
unsustainable moment in the Cold War, it>s hard to blame him and his
circle for extrapolating to still bigger steps ahead.

[/quote]
Wouldn>t it have come as a surprise to WvB if they actually built the
giant Mars gliders, showed up with the fleet in orbit around Mars, and
_then_ discovered that the atmosphere was way too thin to glide land in?
There>d be some explaining to do to Congress after that one.
Notice that by the time the Disney series is made, you land on Mars via
rocket power and parachutes.
When you look at the size of the wings on the Mars glider original
design, you can>t help but think that doing it that way was far heavier
than the later alternative anyway. And the rocket descent gave one a lot
more leeway in regards to unknown conditions in regards the atmosphere
of Mars, as at least its gravity could be determined from observations
of the orbits of its moons via Earth-based telescopes.

Pat

BradGuth · Guest

On Jul 18, 3:25 am, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]"Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message

news:MtudnbKfaNM21R3VnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@posted.northdakotatelephone...

Moon passing in front of Earth, as seen from 31 million miles away:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25996
The Moon doesn>t look all that big when seen in true comparison to Earth>s
size, does it?

Pat

Amazing. It also shows how bright the Earth is compared to the Moon.
[/quote]
Our Selene/moon is nearly as dark as coal.

Odd that we never get to see good old Venus as much brighter, or even
Jupiter or Saturn as slightly brighter than our physically dark moon.
It>s as though the DARPA team of image wizards have to work extra hard
at keeping every given FOV free of all other items as bright or
brighter than our physically dark moon, not to mention Venus at better
than twice as bright as Earth (4X as bright to the unfiltered CCD
eye).

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Fevric J Glandules · Guest

Excuse me coming in late on this...

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:43:31 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote:

[quote]The fact that the Russians thought that they had to stick the removed
explosive bolt into some sort of sort of detonation-resistant housing to
bring it safely aboard the ISS speaks volumes about what they think its
innate safety is.
[/quote]
I do not agree. It>s an explosive device: so you handle it appropriately.

[quote]Does this explosive bolt get activated electrically, or does something
like a firing pin slam down on a primer on it to set it off?
The way they treated it was a lot like a hand grenade with the pin half
pulled. :-D
[/quote]
Wasn>t the problem that they *failed* to go off?

I think that if they thought there was even the slightest chance of
it going "bang" prematurely, they wouldn>t be bringing it back.

--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<87c7c0f3-d2cb-4cc4-9e7c-690f6ba1ffdc@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
81a60bf3-ed7f-47e2-9930-47e793db0...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that>s relatively
uniform?

No.

Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
solid surface of Jupiter,

What the hell does that mean?

Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
compressed gas?
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that I>m suggesting that the surface of Jupiter is
only that of a highly compressed gas?

No, I>m not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions.

[quote]Because if so there shouldn>t be any uneven gravity/
mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
extremely slight elliptical orbit.
[/quote]
Why don>t you just look it up on Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating

[quote]
and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
of its surface of mascons??

I don>t know.

Me neither, that>s why I was asking.
[/quote]
Jupiter is mostly gas; it>s not clear whether it has a solid or liquid
core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any
mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure

[quote]Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
planet has unusually uneven gravity that>s capable of tidal flexing
its near circular orbiting moons to death?

No.

Well then, what>s keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
active?
[/quote]
Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.

I think you overrate the moon>s mascons. They were noticed by the
Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was
expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily.
Certainly the Earth>s distance from the moon, they>re not measurable.

[quote]Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
physics doesn>t apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
tidal flex heated?

No.

That>s good to hear.
[/quote]
It>s good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it>s a deeply
ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
lot of crazy places.

[quote]In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
that can>t possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
certain about that?

They>re talking about the moon not being heated.

So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that>s
not the least bit tidal flex heated?

Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
heating of the earth is insignificant.

The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?

Yes. How much heat does it produce? What>s the rate, in watts, of heat
production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth>s
heat loss to space.

A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
space.
[/quote]
You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty
space".

The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole
lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards.

[quote]At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
crust insulation that>s worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.

Either way that>s suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
radioactive core.
[/quote]
Huh. I don>t believe you. Mostly because y ou didn>t answer my question.

[quote]The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
insignificant.

And vise versa, like I>d specifically asked about how much our moon
tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.

You>re the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
by that process.

I haven>t found research that>s in sufficient agreement with any other
soul on Earth. It>s as though there>s a lot of mainstream
puppeteering and swag going on
[/quote]
Oh, good grief, now we>re off into conspiracy theories again.

[quote]in order to continually avoid or simply
exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
global warming. However, I>ve conservatively done just that, by
having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
Wouldn>t you tend to favor that it>s actually of a greater percentage?
[/quote]
Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power.
Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of
measure; I>m not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way
to calculate what you want.

Where did you get .05%? Where does the rest go?

And what>s the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth?
Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with
anything.

[quote]Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via
tidal flexing is going to create a little unavoidable
geothermal heat via friction.

Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule.
No supercomputer needed.

Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a
healthy dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are
you going to show us how simple that is?

Our uneducated Brad doesn>t know enough about physics to do simple
calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our
genius physicists ever got any work done before the invention of
complex software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.

And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with
your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag
because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind
would kick your butt)

Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn>t pay any attention
when anyone does try to tell him anything about real science. Our kooky
Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric,
adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes.

Then you>d knowingly support anything mainstream Zionist/Nazi and of
their New World Order that>s essentially in charge of most everything
that matters, even if it were based upon yet another lie or total
fabrication or distortion of the actual facts that would be telling us
otherwise. Does this mean evidence exclusion and conditional physics
follows suit in all areas of your supposed expertise?
[/quote]
I don>t know what you>re talking about. Whenever you go off into that
patch of weeds, I just think, what a barking lunatic you are.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Neil Gerace · Guest

On Jul 18, 7:10 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:

[quote]The Moon has the approximate average surface reflectivity of a huge
sphere made out of asphalt.
That>s why the surface is so hot in daylight...because it soaks up most
of the light from the sun and converts it into heat.
[/quote]
How warm would the Moon be if it had Earth>s atmosphere on it? Sounds
like it>d be a LOT warmer.

Dave Michelson · Guest

jonathan wrote:
[quote]
.... I suppose placing the bases on the poles of the moon, where the
earth can be observed almost continually, is just a coincidence?
[/quote]
I won>t mention that Earth can be observed continuously from /any/ point
on the Nearside.

(Hint: What /can/ be observed from the poles almost continuously that
cannot be observed continuously from anywhere else?)

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ece.ubc.ca

BradGuth · Guest

On Jul 20, 8:00 am, Neil Gerace <gera...@webace.com.au> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 7:10 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:

The Moon has the approximate average surface reflectivity of a huge
sphere made out of asphalt.
That>s why the surface is so hot in daylight...because it soaks up most
of the light from the sun and converts it into heat.

How warm would the Moon be if it had Earth>s atmosphere on it? Sounds
like it>d be a LOT warmer.
[/quote]
With an insulating atmosphere, especially of such a crystal dry and
optically clear atmosphere, the moon would have to become hotter than
hell, perhaps even hotter than the geothermally active surface of
Venus.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

jonathan · Guest

"Dave Michelson" <davem@ece.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:ugEgk.120626$gc5.22198@pd7urf2no...
[quote]jonathan wrote:

.... I suppose placing the bases on the poles of the moon, where the
earth can be observed almost continually, is just a coincidence?

I won>t mention that Earth can be observed continuously from /any/ point
on the Nearside.

(Hint: What /can/ be observed from the poles almost continuously that
cannot be observed continuously from anywhere else?)
[/quote]

But the base also needs to be lit by the sun as much as possible
for solar power, and for the warmer day time temps.
The poles could have both properties, almost continual sunlight
and constant ability to observe.

I think some attractive spots would be the red areas near
the dark craters, where water ice might still linger.
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=050413_moon_illumination_02.jpg

[quote]
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ece.ubc.ca[/quote]

Pat Flannery · Guest

Neil Gerace wrote:
[quote]How warm would the Moon be if it had Earth>s atmosphere on it? Sounds
like it>d be a LOT warmer.

Assuming it worked just like Earth, it would be. Once you are beneath[/quote]
1/2 meter of lunar soil you hit its average temperature:
-9 F. or -23 C.
With a Earth-type atmosphere on it, temperatures would average out a bit
more between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres, but the slow
rotation would probably make the atmospheric circulation pattern
resemble that of Venus to some extent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Venus_circulation.jpg
The far thinner atmosphere of the Moon at Earth surface air pressures
would mean that the shadowed side would still be very cold, and the
sunlit side very hot - picture the temperature extremes in a desert
between day and night and extrapolate the whole day out to a month in
length.
At the moment, the lunar surface soil is heated and cooled by absorption
and radiation (plus some minor conduction to the particles just under
the surface); it max>s out at 123 C. With convection thrown in via a
atmosphere that would be bound to change, but whether it goes up or down
is a good question. If there are clouds, they will reflect some of the
sunlight back into space.
This does bring up a interesting thought though.
Assuming Mars really does have those huge water ice deposits on it, and
all that needs by done to bring its seas back is warm it up some, why
don>t we just cover the surface of it in a very thin layer of carbon
black and let the Sun do the rest?

Pat


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Space - History Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 Next
Page 1 of 26