Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #570110 > unrolled thread

Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:50 -0700
    Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 17:43 +0000
      Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 01:44 -0700
        Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:19 +0000
          Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 02:02 -0700
            Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 16:38 +0000
              Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 10:29 -0700
                Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 18:00 +0000
              Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 10:38 -0700
                Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 18:12 +0000

#570110 — Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon

The Pilgrims would not have survived long as is without the help of the native population to provide them food.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#570191

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Pilgrims would not have survived long as is without the help of
> the native population to provide them food.

So were the Europeans too stupid, too lazy, or something else to plant
crops, forage and hunt for game on their own?

If life was so hard in the Americas, where did the natives get the surplus
food that they could share with the Europeans?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570673

Jim,
The pilgrims were neither too stupid nor too lazy. They were too inexperienced. They were attempting to plant crops that were not well suited for the land and environment where they found themselves. Most had little to no experience hunting, since they had been mostly dependent upon farm meat in Europe. They did not know which native plants were edible. For that matter, very little, if any, local exploration had been performed before heir arrival.
Still, despite high mortality rates, they were persistant. More colonists kept on coming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570778

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim,
> The pilgrims were neither too stupid nor too lazy. They were too
> inexperienced. They were attempting to plant crops that were not well
> suited for the land and environment where they found themselves. Most
> had little to no experience hunting, since they had been mostly
> dependent upon farm meat in Europe. They did not know which native
> plants were edible. For that matter, very little, if any, local
> exploration had been performed before heir arrival.
> Still, despite high mortality rates, they were persistant. More
> colonists kept on coming.

OK, they were too ignorant.

BTW, it takes a few minutes to learn how to hunt and butchering a deer
or rabbit is little different than butchering a cow.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570880

It takes quite a lot of time learning to hunt successfully, actually. Have you ever actually tried hunting deer with a musket? Or even a wild rabbit for that matter? Have you ever tried hunting them in winter? It takes very little time to learn how to load a gun and pull a trigger, but if that is all you learnt, you are going to have a lot of difficulty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570942

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> It takes quite a lot of time learning to hunt successfully, actually.
> Have you ever actually tried hunting deer with a musket? Or even a wild
> rabbit for that matter? Have you ever tried hunting them in winter?
> It takes very little time to learn how to load a gun and pull a trigger,
> but if that is all you learnt, you are going to have a lot of difficulty.

As a mater of fact, yes, as I have several black powder rifles.

People used rifles to hunt because of the better accuracy while the
military continued to use muskets because of the fouling problems
with rifles and powder of the era in rapid fire situations.

One usually traps rabbits and small game such as squirrels, opossom, etc.

Most animals are easier to spot in the winter.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570955

Black powder rifles are not muskets. Muskets do not have rifling. Muskets fire lead pellets that are prone to course deflection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570962

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Black powder rifles are not muskets. Muskets do not have rifling.
> Muskets fire lead pellets that are prone to course deflection.

The difference beween a musket and a rifle is that a rfile is rifled.

Muskets and rifles of the era fired the same types of projectiles,
i.e. round balls, not pellets (shotguns fire pellets), and conical 
bullets.

People used rifles for hunting because they were more accurate.

People also used shotguns for hunting small game and birds.

The militaries used muskets because rifles fouled easily during
rapid fire and you can not hit PAUSE in a real battle to clean a
rifle. The militaries only used rifles for snipping. The militaries
generally did not use shotguns.

Most coloninists were civilians and had civilian firearms, i.e. rifles
and shotguns. That is not to say they did not have any muskets, but
rifles were prefered.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570956

Very few of the original colonists had any experience setting traps.

Rifles were too expensive for average colonists, and were reserved for military sharpshooters, not hunters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570968

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very few of the original colonists had any experience setting traps.

I would higly disagree with that as such is still common in 21st century
rural areas, even in Europe, and was especially so before there was
a supermarket on every corner.

Learning how to make and set a trap takes about an hour.

http://www.wikihow.com/Catch-a-Wild-Rabbit

> Rifles were too expensive for average colonists, and were reserved for
> military sharpshooters, not hunters.

They were more expensive, but they were perfered and they were NOT "reserved".

Cannons were about the only thing reserved for the military.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web