Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #54823 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-24 18:10 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-04-12 21:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 89 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-24 18:10 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-24 19:38 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-24 20:15 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2015-11-24 21:01 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin David Spain <nospam@127.0.0.1> - 2015-11-27 08:07 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-24 19:59 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-25 09:50 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-11-26 22:28 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-27 14:14 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-28 00:31 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin David Spain <david.l.spain@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 11:17 -0800
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-30 17:24 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-12-01 05:53 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-27 14:10 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-12-05 08:41 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-12-05 10:14 -0500
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-04-05 21:49 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-06 21:30 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-07 06:07 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 12:45 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-04-08 16:41 +0100
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-08 18:27 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-04-07 17:43 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:56 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-08 18:26 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-04-10 08:40 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-11 06:11 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-04-11 06:37 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 23:13 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 22:01 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 06:27 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 08:08 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 19:03 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:20 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 21:17 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 20:22 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 06:11 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 06:43 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:09 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:39 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:13 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:59 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 06:10 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:12 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:25 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:36 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 23:19 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 22:23 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 18:18 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 13:06 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 20:44 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 19:24 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-04-14 01:06 -0600
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 18:22 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 00:56 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 18:28 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 14:42 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:35 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 17:22 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 00:47 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 19:30 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:45 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 16:09 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 00:02 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 02:59 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 17:03 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 11:28 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 19:17 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 12:52 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 20:50 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 19:40 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:24 +0000
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 23:59 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-09 16:31 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 18:33 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-10 11:22 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:16 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-12 21:47 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 19:18 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-13 06:27 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:35 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin nj_kruse@me.com (Niels Jørgen Kruse) - 2016-04-13 09:48 +0200
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-13 06:28 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:36 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-14 22:50 -0400
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 22:09 -0700
Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 21:39 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 00:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k9q5uc-j56.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56174 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of >>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually >>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population >>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count >>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American >>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent >>>>>>carrying any to Mars. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the >>>>> odds, then, Jim? >>>> >>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1. >>>> >>> >>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of >>> information? >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars > > "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability > potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life." > > Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do. Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't be called wrong. >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability > > Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to > fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life. > >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars > > Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars > and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do. > >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars > > Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the > odds are a lot higher than your opinion. > >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars > > And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion. > I think we've discovered the problem... Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully. Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars as you demanded of me, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which >>>>>>>>>>includes diseases. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unproven. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live >>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you, >>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able >>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other >>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts, >>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity >>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge' >>>>>>>>> technology in support. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they >>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather >>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did? >>>>>> >>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same >>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not >>>>> Europe. >>>> >>>>Don't be an ignorant fool. >>>> >>> >>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings. >>> >> >>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully. >> > > Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite. Talking to yourself? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 19:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8k0hb9sh1sglnn8o31pj8snbabil42f27@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56183 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
>>>>>> odds, then, Jim?
>>>>>
>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
>>>> information?
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
>>
>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."
>>
>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.
>
>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
>be called wrong.
>
Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
intrudes into a Chimp Position.
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>
>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>
>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>
>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>
>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>
>
>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>
How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>
>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>
"Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
"I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unproven.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
>>>>>>>>>> technology in support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
>>>>>> Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.
>>>
>>
>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.
>
>Talking to yourself?
>
Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
involved.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h148uc-jfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56191 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population >>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count >>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American >>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent >>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the >>>>>>> odds, then, Jim? >>>>>> >>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of >>>>> information? >>>> >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars >>> >>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability >>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life." >>> >>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do. >> >>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't >>be called wrong. >> > > Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never > intrudes into a Chimp Position. Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability number YOU demanded from me. >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability >>> >>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to >>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life. >>> >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars >>> >>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars >>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do. >>> >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars >>> >>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the >>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion. >>> >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars >>> >>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion. >>> I think we've discovered the problem... >>> >> >>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully. >> > > How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is > based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them? How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars is highly unlikely, space cadet? > Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp. Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet. > >> >>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars >>as you demanded of me, space cadet. >> > > "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it > was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your > number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said > "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did. The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available evidence. That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very small is not my problem, space cadet. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which >>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Unproven. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you, >>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts, >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge' >>>>>>>>>>> technology in support. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they >>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather >>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same >>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not >>>>>>> Europe. >>>>>> >>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully. >>>> >>> >>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite. >> >>Talking to yourself? >> > > Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect > involved. Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ols2hb5d6febofvj5iuo2tg97uelvfim0j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56222 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
>>>>>> information?
>>>>>
>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
>>>>
>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.
>>>
>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
>>>be called wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
>> intrudes into a Chimp Position.
>
>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
>number YOU demanded from me.
>
I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
and now you're caught.
>
>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>>
>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>>
>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>>
>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>>
>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>>
>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>>
>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>>
>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>>
>>
>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
>
>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
>is highly unlikely, space cadet?
>
Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
position" that magic makes everything work.
>
>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>
>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>
The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?
>>
>>>
>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>
>>
>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>
>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>evidence.
>
The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
nothing but your own biases.
>
>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
>small is not my problem, space cadet.
>
Except it doesn't, chimpshit.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
>>>>>>>> Europe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.
>>>
>>>Talking to yourself?
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
>> involved.
>>
>
>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.
>
Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s1c8uc-5ge.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56229 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population >>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count >>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American >>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent >>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the >>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of >>>>>>> information? >>>>>> >>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars >>>>> >>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability >>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life." >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do. >>>> >>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't >>>>be called wrong. >>>> >>> >>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never >>> intrudes into a Chimp Position. >> >>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability >>number YOU demanded from me. >> > > I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you > thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly > pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source > and now you're caught. When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet? >> >>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability >>>>> >>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to >>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life. >>>>> >>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars >>>>> >>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars >>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do. >>>>> >>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars >>>>> >>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the >>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion. >>>>> >>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars >>>>> >>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion. >>>>> I think we've discovered the problem... >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully. >>>> >>> >>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is >>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them? >> >>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars >>is highly unlikely, space cadet? >> > > Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the > position" that magic makes everything work. Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST exist in some shelted, special place. And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of years ago when Mars may have had oceans. > >> >>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp. >> >>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet. >> > > The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really? > >>> >>>> >>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars >>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet. >>>> >>> >>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it >>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your >>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said >>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did. >> >>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available >>evidence. >> > > The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on > nothing but your own biases. What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion. If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars, too bad. >> >>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very >>small is not my problem, space cadet. >> > > Except it doesn't, chimpshit. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge' >>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they >>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather >>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same >>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not >>>>>>>>> Europe. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite. >>>> >>>>Talking to yourself? >>>> >>> >>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect >>> involved. >>> >> >>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step. >> > > Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid. My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 02:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7m24hbhvodu1ote7npf8mkevhlmm3tnos3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56234 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
>>>>>>>> information?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
>>>>>be called wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position.
>>>
>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
>>>number YOU demanded from me.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
>> and now you're caught.
>>
>
>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>
When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.
>
>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?
>
It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions.
Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.
Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit?
>>>
>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
>>>
>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet?
>>>
>>
>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
>> position" that magic makes everything work.
>>
>
>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
>exist in some shelted, special place.
>
Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
(which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
Mars is outside of.
>
>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
>years ago when Mars may have had oceans.
>
Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
(again).
>>
>>>
>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>>>
>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>>>
>>
>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>>>
>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>>>evidence.
>>>
>>
>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
>> nothing but your own biases.
>>
>
>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.
>
Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
your pathologically opinionated view.
>
>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
>too bad.
>
Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.
>>>
>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
>>>small is not my problem, space cadet.
>>>
>>
>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
>>>>>>>>>> Europe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.
>>>>>
>>>>>Talking to yourself?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
>>>> involved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.
>>>
>>
>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.
>>
>
>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.
>
Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
quoque).
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 17:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nr7auc-2mk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56239 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American >>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the >>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of >>>>>>>>> information? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability >>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't >>>>>>be called wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never >>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position. >>>> >>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability >>>>number YOU demanded from me. >>>> >>> >>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you >>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly >>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source >>> and now you're caught. >>> >> >>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >> > > When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your > number, chimp. When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >> >>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet? >> > > It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU > put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's > job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions. When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? > Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts. > > Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit? Of course. >>>> >>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to >>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars >>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the >>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion. >>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is >>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them? >>>> >>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars >>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet? >>>> >>> >>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the >>> position" that magic makes everything work. >>> >> >>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters >>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST >>exist in some shelted, special place. >> > > Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside > the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said > what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting > the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water > (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim > Mars is outside of. So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >> >>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of >>years ago when Mars may have had oceans. >> > > Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements > (again). So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? > >>> >>>> >>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp. >>>> >>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet. >>>> >>> >>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really? >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars >>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it >>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your >>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said >>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did. >>>> >>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available >>>>evidence. >>>> >>> >>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on >>> nothing but your own biases. >>> >> >>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion. >> > > Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support > your pathologically opinionated view. So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? > >> >>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars, >>too bad. >> > > Gods, but you are remarkably stupid. So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? > >>>> >>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very >>>>small is not my problem, space cadet. >>>> >>> >>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit. >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same >>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not >>>>>>>>>>> Europe. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite. >>>>>> >>>>>>Talking to yourself? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect >>>>> involved. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step. >>>> >>> >>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid. >>> >> >>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not. >> > > Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu > quoque). Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ju05hb5k5a0j4uk833d3r0l1v3v987c6ti@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56247 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
>>>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
>>>>>>>>>> information?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
>>>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
>>>>>>>be called wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
>>>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
>>>>>number YOU demanded from me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
>>>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
>>>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
>>>> and now you're caught.
>>>>
>>>
>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>>>
>>
>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
>> number, chimp.
>
>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>
When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.
>>>
>>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?
>>>
>>
>> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
>> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
>> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions.
>
>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>
When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
number, chimp.
>> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.
>>
>> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit?
>
>Of course.
>
Do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
>>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
>>>>>
>>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
>>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
>>>> position" that magic makes everything work.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
>>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
>>>exist in some shelted, special place.
>>>
>>
>> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
>> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
>> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
>> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
>> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
>> Mars is outside of.
>
>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>
>>>
>>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
>>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
>> (again).
>
>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>
You tell me.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>>>>>
>>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>>>>>evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
>>>> nothing but your own biases.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.
>>>
>>
>> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
>> your pathologically opinionated view.
>
>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>
You tell me.
>>
>>>
>>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
>>>too bad.
>>>
>>
>> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.
>
>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>
You tell me.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
>>>>>small is not my problem, space cadet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Talking to yourself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.
>>>>
>>>
>>>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.
>>>
>>
>> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
>> quoque).
>
>Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.
>
You're a lying sack of shit, Jim.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rnfauc-4gl.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56254 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the >>>>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of >>>>>>>>>>> information? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability >>>>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't >>>>>>>>be called wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never >>>>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position. >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability >>>>>>number YOU demanded from me. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you >>>>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly >>>>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source >>>>> and now you're caught. >>>>> >>>> >>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>>> >>> >>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >>> number, chimp. >> >>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >> > > When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your > number, chimp. > >>>> >>>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet? >>>> >>> >>> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU >>> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's >>> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions. >> >>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >> > > When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your > number, chimp. > >>> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts. >>> >>> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit? >> >>Of course. >> > > Do so. > >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to >>>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars >>>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the >>>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion. >>>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is >>>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them? >>>>>> >>>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars >>>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the >>>>> position" that magic makes everything work. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters >>>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST >>>>exist in some shelted, special place. >>>> >>> >>> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside >>> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said >>> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting >>> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water >>> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim >>> Mars is outside of. >> >>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >> >>>> >>>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of >>>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements >>> (again). >> >>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >> > > You tell me. > >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp. >>>>>> >>>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars >>>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it >>>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your >>>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said >>>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did. >>>>>> >>>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available >>>>>>evidence. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on >>>>> nothing but your own biases. >>>>> >>>> >>>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion. >>>> >>> >>> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support >>> your pathologically opinionated view. >> >>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >> > > You tell me. > >>> >>>> >>>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars, >>>>too bad. >>>> >>> >>> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid. >> >>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >> > > You tell me. > >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very >>>>>>small is not my problem, space cadet. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit. >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not >>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Talking to yourself? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect >>>>>>> involved. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid. >>>>> >>>> >>>>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not. >>>> >>> >>> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu >>> quoque). >> >>Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers. >> > > You're a lying sack of shit, Jim. Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lu55hbdjpn2l5rahvojpbl9sl04imeev60@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56255 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of >>>>>>>>>>>> information? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability >>>>>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't >>>>>>>>>be called wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never >>>>>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability >>>>>>>number YOU demanded from me. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you >>>>>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly >>>>>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source >>>>>> and now you're caught. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>>>> >>>> >>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >>>> number, chimp. >>> >>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>> >> >> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >> number, chimp. >> >>>>> >>>>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU >>>> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's >>>> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions. >>> >>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>> >> >> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >> number, chimp. >> >>>> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts. >>>> >>>> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit? >>> >>>Of course. >>> >> >> Do so. >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to >>>>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars >>>>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the >>>>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion. >>>>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is >>>>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars >>>>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the >>>>>> position" that magic makes everything work. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters >>>>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST >>>>>exist in some shelted, special place. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside >>>> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said >>>> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting >>>> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water >>>> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim >>>> Mars is outside of. >>> >>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>> >>>>> >>>>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of >>>>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements >>>> (again). >>> >>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>> >> >> You tell me. >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars >>>>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it >>>>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your >>>>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said >>>>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available >>>>>>>evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on >>>>>> nothing but your own biases. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support >>>> your pathologically opinionated view. >>> >>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>> >> >> You tell me. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars, >>>>>too bad. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid. >>> >>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>> >> >> You tell me. >> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very >>>>>>>small is not my problem, space cadet. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Talking to yourself? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect >>>>>>>> involved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu >>>> quoque). >>> >>>Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers. >>> >> >> You're a lying sack of shit, Jim. >> > >Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to. > Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <45lauc-10m.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56259 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of >>>>>>>>>>>>> information? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability >>>>>>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't >>>>>>>>>>be called wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never >>>>>>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability >>>>>>>>number YOU demanded from me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you >>>>>>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly >>>>>>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source >>>>>>> and now you're caught. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >>>>> number, chimp. >>>> >>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>>> >>> >>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >>> number, chimp. >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU >>>>> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's >>>>> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions. >>>> >>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>>> >>> >>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >>> number, chimp. >>> >>>>> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts. >>>>> >>>>> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit? >>>> >>>>Of course. >>>> >>> >>> Do so. >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to >>>>>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars >>>>>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the >>>>>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is >>>>>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars >>>>>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the >>>>>>> position" that magic makes everything work. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters >>>>>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST >>>>>>exist in some shelted, special place. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside >>>>> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said >>>>> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting >>>>> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water >>>>> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim >>>>> Mars is outside of. >>>> >>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of >>>>>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements >>>>> (again). >>>> >>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>>> >>> >>> You tell me. >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars >>>>>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it >>>>>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your >>>>>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said >>>>>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available >>>>>>>>evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on >>>>>>> nothing but your own biases. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support >>>>> your pathologically opinionated view. >>>> >>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>>> >>> >>> You tell me. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars, >>>>>>too bad. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid. >>>> >>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>>> >>> >>> You tell me. >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very >>>>>>>>small is not my problem, space cadet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Talking to yourself? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect >>>>>>>>> involved. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu >>>>> quoque). >>>> >>>>Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers. >>>> >>> >>> You're a lying sack of shit, Jim. >>> >> >>Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to. >> > > Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are. Is is obvious you concider the indiginous peoples of the Americas to be wogs and you are in denial of what happened to them. Racist deniers aren't worth talking to. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 19:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rqt5hb92o4k39g7t7ep0fkru3507fjoj18@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56265 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
>>>>>>>>>>>be called wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
>>>>>>>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
>>>>>>>>>number YOU demanded from me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
>>>>>>>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
>>>>>>>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
>>>>>>>> and now you're caught.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
>>>>>> number, chimp.
>>>>>
>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
>>>> number, chimp.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
>>>>>> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
>>>>>> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
>>>> number, chimp.
>>>>
>>>>>> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit?
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do so.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>>>>>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
>>>>>>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
>>>>>>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
>>>>>>>> position" that magic makes everything work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
>>>>>>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
>>>>>>>exist in some shelted, special place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
>>>>>> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
>>>>>> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
>>>>>> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
>>>>>> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
>>>>>> Mars is outside of.
>>>>>
>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
>>>>>>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
>>>>>> (again).
>>>>>
>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You tell me.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>>>>>>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>>>>>>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>>>>>>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>>>>>>>>>evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
>>>>>>>> nothing but your own biases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
>>>>>> your pathologically opinionated view.
>>>>>
>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You tell me.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
>>>>>>>too bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You tell me.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
>>>>>>>>>small is not my problem, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Talking to yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
>>>>>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
>>>>>> quoque).
>>>>>
>>>>>Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're a lying sack of shit, Jim.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to.
>>>
>>
>> Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.
>
>
>Is is obvious you concider the indiginous peoples of the Americas to
>be wogs and you are in denial of what happened to them.
>
It seems like many things are 'obvious' to you that aren't in precise
1:1 accord with our present reality. It's a product of you being so
pathologically opinionated.
>
>Racist deniers aren't worth talking to.
>
Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 05:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9jbuc-lvo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56275 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability >>>>>>>>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't >>>>>>>>>>>>be called wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never >>>>>>>>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability >>>>>>>>>>number YOU demanded from me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you >>>>>>>>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly >>>>>>>>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source >>>>>>>>> and now you're caught. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >>>>>>> number, chimp. >>>>>> >>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >>>>> number, chimp. >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU >>>>>>> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's >>>>>>> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions. >>>>>> >>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your >>>>> number, chimp. >>>>> >>>>>>> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit? >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do so. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars >>>>>>>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the >>>>>>>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is >>>>>>>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars >>>>>>>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the >>>>>>>>> position" that magic makes everything work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters >>>>>>>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST >>>>>>>>exist in some shelted, special place. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside >>>>>>> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said >>>>>>> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting >>>>>>> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water >>>>>>> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim >>>>>>> Mars is outside of. >>>>>> >>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of >>>>>>>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements >>>>>>> (again). >>>>>> >>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You tell me. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars >>>>>>>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it >>>>>>>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your >>>>>>>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said >>>>>>>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available >>>>>>>>>>evidence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on >>>>>>>>> nothing but your own biases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support >>>>>>> your pathologically opinionated view. >>>>>> >>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You tell me. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars, >>>>>>>>too bad. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You tell me. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very >>>>>>>>>>small is not my problem, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Talking to yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect >>>>>>>>>>> involved. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu >>>>>>> quoque). >>>>>> >>>>>>Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You're a lying sack of shit, Jim. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to. >>>> >>> >>> Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are. >> >> >>Is is obvious you concider the indiginous peoples of the Americas to >>be wogs and you are in denial of what happened to them. >> > > It seems like many things are 'obvious' to you that aren't in precise > 1:1 accord with our present reality. It's a product of you being so > pathologically opinionated. > >> >>Racist deniers aren't worth talking to. >> > > Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are. Bully, liar, racist; not worth talking to. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 23:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i1d6hb90o7sj1scrdujbha702sk3garg1u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56279 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. The stage could hover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage. But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage carries. This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc. for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing. So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted". In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you? Either that or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>environment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg. You're not my type. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer them female, smart, cute, and human. You miss on all four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you seem to know nothing about them such as they have been putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>diapers on their babies since antiquity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's called 'cloth', not 'diapers', you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cloth is raw stock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diapers, shirts, pants, sheets, etc. are finished goods, you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And BOTH cloth and finished goods were IMPORTED to the Colonies, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb cunt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your claims in this regard, like so many of your claims, are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimpshit, chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Both cloth and finished goods are imported to the US from Sri Lanka.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they are, so we still don't qualify as a successful colony by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions because we can't cloth ourselves without imports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does that mean you can not survive in the US without imports from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sri Lanka, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more of that chimpshit wriggling between "survive" and "live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a rich suburb"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, I've never deviated from the facts that it is trivial to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the Earth just about anywhere and impossible to survive on Mars without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21st century technology, and a lot of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've never explained all those failed colonies and dead people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure I have but they have nothing to do with surviving on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they do have everything to do with your proclaimed ease of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival in the Americas naked and unafraid, you intellectually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Americas had somewhere between 50 million and 100 million, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>growing, people before the Europeans arrived, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then it didn't. Apparently survival isn't as easy as you claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is if you don't have invaders killing off roughly 80% of the population
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with imported diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases are a part of that 'nature' thing. Apparently you only count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when it HELPS survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No life and no disease on Mars, so what happened the the American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indiginous population is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown, even if you assume we don't bring something with us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Odds are there are no diseases on Mars and it is trivial to prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>carrying any to Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you go from an absolute statement to "odds are". What are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odds, then, Jim?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I's say somewhere around .9 with a shitload of 9s after it to 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And just what do you base that on, other than an almost total lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There are ongoing investigations assessing the past habitability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential of Mars, as well as the possibility of extant life."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like they think the odds are much higher than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like ass covering to me so no matter the outcome they can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>be called wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it does, because, as you've made obvious, reality never
>>>>>>>>>>>> intrudes into a Chimp Position.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Of course ignoring the fact that none of your links contain the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>number YOU demanded from me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't state a positive opinion. You did. I *ASKED* what you
>>>>>>>>>> thought the odds of your opinion being correct were. You stupidly
>>>>>>>>>> pulled one out of your ass and then denied that that was the source
>>>>>>>>>> and now you're caught.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
>>>>>>>> number, chimp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
>>>>>> number, chimp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
>>>>>>>> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
>>>>>>>> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
>>>>>> number, chimp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
>>>>>>>>>> position" that magic makes everything work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
>>>>>>>>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
>>>>>>>>>exist in some shelted, special place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
>>>>>>>> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
>>>>>>>> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
>>>>>>>> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
>>>>>>>> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
>>>>>>>> Mars is outside of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
>>>>>>>>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
>>>>>>>> (again).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tell me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>>>>>>>>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>>>>>>>>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>>>>>>>>>>>evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
>>>>>>>>>> nothing but your own biases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
>>>>>>>> your pathologically opinionated view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tell me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
>>>>>>>>>too bad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tell me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That the available evidence makes the likelyhood of life on Mars very
>>>>>>>>>>>small is not my problem, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except it doesn't, chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is relevant to Mars as there is zero life on Mars, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>includes diseases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unproven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people that go to Mars better hope there are no diseases on Mars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... and you can not live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer than about 5 seconds on Mars without 21st century technology, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you keep claiming. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you are saying it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to live and work in what is for all practical purposes a vacuum?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference in ease of survival should be obvious to everyone other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than starry eyed space cadets who read too many comic books.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so now it's EASE of survival. You do keep moving the goalposts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you, chimp? See Biosphere. Right down the road from here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ease as in the amount of required support equipment and the complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the support equipment, space cadet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For colonies to survive they historically needed 'leading edge'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology in support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope, just about everything needed in the New World was centuries old.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About the only thing that was 'leading edge' was firearms, which they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't NEED if they didn't piss of the natives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. Why wouldn't they import the latest available rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than breaking tools out of museums, as you seem to think they did?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be silly. The latest available, except for firearms, was the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as it had been for a thousand years or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be silly. It was your American indigenes that were static, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be an ignorant fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be stupid chimp droppings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be a bile spewing, school yard bully lying hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Talking to yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes it feels that way, what with me being the only intellect
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yep, you are the only one in the parade that is in step.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gods, ANOTHER tu quoque argument? You really are remarkably stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>My statement would have to be a logical fallacy, which it is not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
>>>>>>>> quoque).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a lying sack of shit, Jim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Racist deniers such as yourself are not worth talking to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is is obvious you concider the indiginous peoples of the Americas to
>>>be wogs and you are in denial of what happened to them.
>>>
>>
>> It seems like many things are 'obvious' to you that aren't in precise
>> 1:1 accord with our present reality. It's a product of you being so
>> pathologically opinionated.
>>
>>>
>>>Racist deniers aren't worth talking to.
>>>
>>
>> Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.
>
>Bully, liar, racist; not worth talking to.
>
Yet here you are, lying like the asshole you are.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d16f47ee-6c0b-4f96-b064-09651ae3fe4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55732 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:07:22 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <ne3v51$216$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>, > tkoenig@netcologne.de says... > > > > Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb: > > > > > SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of > > > giving the F9 hovering capability. > > > > One second of hovering costs 9.81 m/s of delta v. > > Yes, but hovering an almost empty first stage with no payload on top > requires far less fuel and oxidizer than launch. Note that only one > (the center engine) out of nine of the first stage engines are used for > landing. On top of that, the engine is throttled down as much as it can > be. So, fuel consumption upon landing is far, far less than during > launch. The empty stage weight is around 4.6% of its take off weight. Its terminal velocity is about 0.1 km/sec. The exhaust velocity of the Draco engines is about 3.1 km/sec at sea level. So, to impart 0.15 km/sec to the vehicle, to be assured of bringing it to rest at zero speed and zero altitude, requires u = 1 - 1/exp(0.15/3.10) = 0.04724 Which means 4.8% of the dead weight starting out must be propellant. This means that 95.2% of the weight is inert in the landing stage. Now, if 4.6% of the take off weight is inert, then 0.046/0.952 = 0.0483 is the total weight allocated at launch for both inert weight AND propellant required to land it effectively. Or 0.23% of the take off weight. So a Falcon masses 541,300 kg at lift off. 4.6% of this or 24,900 kg is inert first stage mass. After re-entry, it is travelling about 0.1 km/sec (224 mph) terminal velocity. We must impart a delta vee of 0.15 km/sec (336 mph) to be assured of bringing it to rest at the platform. This requires 1,245 kg of propellant be held in reserve for this purpose. 53,000 kg of thrust are required to exert 2 gees on the empty stage. This is provided by four super draco units of the type shown here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDraco#/media/File:SuperDraco_rocket_engines_at_SpaceX_Hawthorne_facility_(16789102495).jpg 1,245 kg of propellant is similar to the propellant loading on the Dragon V2 capsule. Divided among four modules its 311.25 kg each. A tank smaller than the engines. Basically, this is a variant of the same damned system that brings back the capsule and lands it softly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WotVw5FDVHY The only difference is that the first stage recovery is an inverted pendulum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15DIidigArA > > If your aim is to achieve orbit with a reusable rocket and a reasonable > > payload, you need to save as much delta v as possible. > > Or make everything, but the payload, bigger. The hardware, software, and propellant weights, are negligible. The savings in cost are not. Gathering propellant from a shaking nearly empty tank, and throttling it back and maintaining positive control during descent, is a challenge, and reduces booster performance in other ways. > > If you aim is to ferry up tourists for a few minutes of zero g, you > > don't need to economize as much. > > This is because a sub-orbital hop requires far less delta-V than > attaining orbital velocity. > > > Both choices are reasonable for what the respective companies want to > > do. > > They're reasonable if they work. SpaceX is trying to avoid adding other > engines to the Falcon 9 first stage. True, and the exhaust velocity of the hypergolic fuels are less. Even so, the amounts, for an efficient system, with few redundancies, it might make sense to add the same hardware to the Falcon as was added to the Dragon V2. > The stage could hover and land, > for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first stage. Correct. > But, > they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first stage carries. Which isn't really a problem for a self contained system that is compact enough to fit inside the strut housing. > This would mean adding completely different tanks, plumbing, and etc. Four self contained plug in modules attached to the landing struts would be rather simple and require no plumbing changes of the core system. It would be far less intrusive than what they're doing right now. > for those engines. Also, if Super Dracos were used, it would be > advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent any remaining LOX in > the tanks before landing. Use of the ullage at higher specific impulse with no added hardware was the sweet solution that caused them to take the route they did. However, the use of Super draco engines should also be looked at. > So, any "leftover" fuel and oxidizer would be > "wasted". Its best to use it, especially if you're dragging along hypergolic system. Yet that system is far less weighty than wings, wheels or parachutes. Which is what I've maintained all along. > In my book, this would not be a good trade to make. A standardised module that is adaptable to anyone elses space booster, would actually make a lot of sense and give them a product to sell to other space launch providers and adapt for recovery of upper stages as well. > All of that added complexity and added mass would cost money compared to > using "leftover" fuel and oxidizer and an engine that is already there > for launch. The complexity from an operational point of view is nil. They're already building super dracos and flying them to land capsules. A self contained module plugged into the landing struts and tied to the avionics of a booster would be child's play and easily adapted to any stage. This would let the booster engines be optimised for their mission and let ALL the propellant be used as well. > Jeff > -- > All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. > These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, > employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 16:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.317330a540afbcab9899b4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #55860 |
In article <d16f47ee-6c0b-4f96-b064-09651ae3fe4d@googlegroups.com>, mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > All of that added complexity and added mass would cost money compared to > > using "leftover" fuel and oxidizer and an engine that is already there > > for launch. > > The complexity from an operational point of view is nil. That is absolute bullshit. Added engines, tanks, plumbing, and etc. *is* adding complexity to the design. Costs scale with complexity. Especially since we're talking about *toxic* hypergolic propellants to a stage which has been proven to not need them. And toxicity is just one of the reasons that processing costs go *up* for a vehicle which uses hypergolics. LOX and kerosene are both super cheap and are relatively non-toxic compared to hypergolics. > They're already building super dracos and flying them to land > capsules. A self contained module plugged into the landing > struts and tied to the avionics of a booster would be child's > play and easily adapted to any stage. This would let the > booster engines be optimised for their mission and let ALL > the propellant be used as well. And would drive up the costs of the first stage versus carrying along extra LOX and kerosene. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 18:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5789fe7d-2d7f-48b1-b2d0-605896b4af66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55889 |
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 8:31:25 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <d16f47ee-6c0b-4f96-b064-09651ae3fe4d@googlegroups.com>, > mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > > All of that added complexity and added mass would cost money compared to > > > using "leftover" fuel and oxidizer and an engine that is already there > > > for launch. > > > > The complexity from an operational point of view is nil. > > That is absolute bullshit. No its not. > Added engines, tanks, plumbing, and etc. *is* adding complexity to the > design. Costs scale with complexity. You are favouring ill conceived generic statements about products which have provable flight statistics. > Especially since we're talking > about *toxic* hypergolic propellants SuperDraco engines utilize a storable propellant mixture of monomethylhydrazine fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer. They are capable of being restarted many times, and have the capability to deeply reduce their thrust providing precise control during propulsive landing. > to a stage which has been proven to > not need them. Four self contained modular systems based on those developed for the Dragon V2 capsule, each massing 1500 kg and carrying 1388 kg of propellant - built into a module and each attached to the landing strut, reduces complexity and weight of the booster to which it is attached, and given the statistics of NTO/MMH hypergolic engines to date, improves reliability. > And toxicity is just one of the reasons that processing > costs go *up* for a vehicle which uses hypergolics. Hypergolic fuels have well defined material safety and data regarding their routine use. The > LOX and kerosene are both super cheap and are relatively non-toxic > compared to hypergolics. While exposure risk to MMH and NTO vapours is greater than that of LOX and kerosene, you seem to ignore that in combination LOX Kerosene can be quite deadly in certain circumstances, forming explosive solids that are easily detonated. Spilled kerosene have caused significant fires in actual use, and have consequently been responsible for more deaths in rocket operations throughout history. So, in light of this actual experience, your attempts to denigrate MMH and NTO, which already being used by SpaceX on their MANNED CAPSULE, it rather foolish. > > They're already building super dracos and flying them to land > > capsules. A self contained module plugged into the landing > > struts and tied to the avionics of a booster would be child's > > play and easily adapted to any stage. This would let the > > booster engines be optimised for their mission and let ALL > > the propellant be used as well. > > And would drive up the costs of the first stage versus carrying along > extra LOX and kerosene. No it wouldn't. Because a more precise and controlled application of thrust reduces total delta vee requirements to a minimum during recovery. Furthermore, deeply throttable main booster engines have greater fire and explosion risks, and are not so precisely controlled. Further, operating at reduced thrust at sea level, causes design choices to be made that alter the efficiency of the engine reducing its efficiency relative to a pure boost engine. Finally, containing a small quantity of landing propellant in a separate container improves fuel utilisation efficiency when compared to taking the remnants from a larger tank that is undergoing maneuvers and is shaking. > > Jeff > -- > All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. > These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, > employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 11:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.317439ab50a2a8c99899b8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #55906 |
In article <5789fe7d-2d7f-48b1-b2d0-605896b4af66@googlegroups.com>, mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 8:31:25 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote: > > In article <d16f47ee-6c0b-4f96-b064-09651ae3fe4d@googlegroups.com>, > > mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > > > All of that added complexity and added mass would cost money compared to > > > > using "leftover" fuel and oxidizer and an engine that is already there > > > > for launch. > > > > > > The complexity from an operational point of view is nil. > > > > That is absolute bullshit. > > No its not. It is clear you do not understand complexity as it applies to systems engineering. > > Added engines, tanks, plumbing, and etc. *is* adding complexity to the > > design. Costs scale with complexity. > > You are favouring ill conceived generic statements about products which have provable flight statistics. You are engaging in hand-waving. You need the Merlin engine(s) and fuel to perform first the burn to bleed off horizontal velocity and then to reduce the speed during reentry. Adding a landing burn to this adds zero additional hardware to the system and has been proven to work (once on land and once on a barge). > > Especially since we're talking > > about *toxic* hypergolic propellants > > SuperDraco engines utilize a storable propellant mixture of > monomethylhydrazine fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer. They > are capable of being restarted many times, and have the capability > to deeply reduce their thrust providing precise control during > propulsive landing. True, but they're also toxic as hell. This introduces all sorts of added processing costs (and time) both before launch and after landing. You're ignoring that completely. > > to a stage which has been proven to > > not need them. > > Four self contained modular systems based on those developed for > the Dragon V2 capsule, each massing 1500 kg and carrying 1388 kg > of propellant - built into a module and each attached to the > landing strut, reduces complexity and weight of the booster to > which it is attached, and given the statistics of NTO/MMH > hypergolic engines to date, improves reliability. Possibly, but with increased complexity and added processing costs that you completely ignore. > > And toxicity is just one of the reasons that processing > > costs go *up* for a vehicle which uses hypergolics. > > Hypergolic fuels have well defined material safety and data > regarding their routine use. Of course they're well defined. They're so well defined that NASA studied replacing toxic hypergolics on the shuttle due to the added cost, schedule, and safety hazards they introduce. That's a fact you ignore. > > LOX and kerosene are both super cheap and are relatively non-toxic > > compared to hypergolics. > > While exposure risk to MMH and NTO vapours is greater than that of > LOX and kerosene, you seem to ignore that in combination LOX > Kerosene can be quite deadly in certain circumstances, forming > explosive solids that are easily detonated. Spilled kerosene have > caused significant fires in actual use, and have consequently been > responsible for more deaths in rocket operations throughout history. > So, in light of this actual experience, your attempts to denigrate > MMH and NTO, which already being used by SpaceX on their MANNED > CAPSULE, it rather foolish. You *need* the LOX and kerosene during launch *anyway*, so using the excess for landing does *not* add any complexity to launch operations. As for landing operations, if you don't use the remaining LOX and kerosene for landing, you're still going to have to deal with it post- landing. Adding toxic hypergolics *does* add additional "safing" and handling complexities post landing. > > > They're already building super dracos and flying them to land > > > capsules. A self contained module plugged into the landing > > > struts and tied to the avionics of a booster would be child's > > > play and easily adapted to any stage. This would let the > > > booster engines be optimised for their mission and let ALL > > > the propellant be used as well. > > > > And would drive up the costs of the first stage versus carrying along > > extra LOX and kerosene. > > No it wouldn't. Because a more precise and controlled application > of thrust reduces total delta vee requirements to a minimum during > recovery. Furthermore, deeply throttable main booster engines have > greater fire and explosion risks, and are not so precisely > controlled. Further, operating at reduced thrust at sea level, > causes design choices to be made that alter the efficiency of the > engine reducing its efficiency relative to a pure boost engine. > Finally, containing a small quantity of landing propellant in a > separate container improves fuel utilisation efficiency when > compared to taking the remnants from a larger tank that is > undergoing maneuvers and is shaking. You're quite wrong. Adding complexity (especially toxic hypergolics) adds costs. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3df4f3cc-95bf-48bd-9ae5-c658c63b311e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55936 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:22:06 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <5789fe7d-2d7f-48b1-b2d0-605896b4af66@googlegroups.com>, > mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > > > On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 8:31:25 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote: > > > In article <d16f47ee-6c0b-4f96-b064-09651ae3fe4d@googlegroups.com>, > > > mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > > > > All of that added complexity and added mass would cost money compared to > > > > > using "leftover" fuel and oxidizer and an engine that is already there > > > > > for launch. > > > > > > > > The complexity from an operational point of view is nil. > > > > > > That is absolute bullshit. > > > > No its not. > > It is clear you do not understand complexity as it applies to systems > engineering. Its clear you favour personal attacks rather than keeping to the issue because you have no real understanding of the issues. Look at what you've said previously and think about it for a minute. There's a reason the fuel is 'left over' - in a nearly empty tank. Start trying to understand the foolish things you say, and then we might have a conversation that is more than just pointless name calling. > > > > Added engines, tanks, plumbing, and etc. *is* adding complexity to the > > > design. Costs scale with complexity. > > > > You are favouring ill conceived generic statements about products which have provable flight statistics. > > You are engaging in hand-waving. No, I'm pointing out that general rules of thumb are not favoured when you have provable flight statistics and engineering data to go with. Interesting that you call such thing hand-waving especially after you wrongly asserted I know nothing about how to use those statistics in analysing complex systems while you are the one ignoring them, favouring name calling instead. > You need the Merlin engine(s) and fuel > to perform first the burn to bleed off horizontal velocity and then to > reduce the speed during reentry. I think you're confabulating what was done as part of the development program and what must be done for rapid turn around ultimately. In September 2013, SpaceX successfully relit three engines of a spent booster on an orbital launch, and the booster re-entered the atmosphere at hypersonic speed without burning up. With the data collected from the first flight test of a booster-controlled descent from high altitude, coupled with the technological advancements made on the Grasshopper low-altitude landing demonstrator, SpaceX announced it believed it was ready to test a full land-recovery of a booster stage at that time. Based on the positive results from the first high-altitude flight test, SpaceX advanced the expected date of a test from mid-2014 to early 2015, with the intention of doing so on the next Space Station cargo resupply flight. That flight took place on April 18, 2014. The SpaceX reusable launch system development program is entirely privately funded organised to develop a set of new technologies for an orbital launch system that is reused many times in a manner similar to aircraft. SpaceX is developing the technologies over a number of years to provide full and rapid reusability of space launch vehicles. The project's long-term objectives include 1) returning a launch vehicle first stage to the launch site in minutes and 2) to return a second stage to the launch pad following orbital realignment with the launch site and atmospheric reentry in less than 24 hours. SpaceX's long term goal is that both stages of their orbital launch vehicle will be designed to allow reuse a few hours after return. > Adding a landing burn to this adds > zero additional hardware to the system and has been proven to work (once > on land and once on a barge). If you look at the technical reports related to integrating the Grasshopper experience with the booster experience you will see that you are dead wrong in your assertion that zero hardware was added. There are several major problems; (1) sucking propellant efficiently from a nearly empty tank that's being shaken violent is hard, (2) throttling a booster engine down so that it can fly empty is hard, (3) controlling an engine thrust efficiently at 2% levels is hard, They all have solutions, however, their solutions may be compared to other more direct approaches such as taking a flight ready article already in SpaceX inventory, and adapting it as a supremely reliable 'recovery pod'. Development may even be paid for by offering services to adapt other boosters for full recovery. This is also good PR for SpaceX. > > > > Especially since we're talking > > > about *toxic* hypergolic propellants > > > > SuperDraco engines utilize a storable propellant mixture of > > monomethylhydrazine fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer. They > > are capable of being restarted many times, and have the capability > > to deeply reduce their thrust providing precise control during > > propulsive landing. > > True, but they're also toxic as hell. So's LOX and RP-1 and methane. Read the MSDS on them. Its a truism. Rocket fuels are dangerous. Who knew? The key is understanding the danger and designing systems that work regardless of the dangers. > This introduces all sorts of > added processing costs (and time) both before launch and after landing. The difference is nil. > You're ignoring that completely. No I'm not. In its F9R configuration, the launcher has all characteristics of the Falcon 9 v1.1 with the addition of 1) four landing legs, 2) an attitude control system and 3) four grid fins to the first stage 4) massive changes to the tank internals to make use of the last dregs of propellant, 5) massive changes to the Merlin internals to efficiently produce low levels of throttable thrust, Plugging in four flight ready modules adapted from hardware already flying on the Dragon V2, and plugging those modules into the landing legs, and ditching 4 & 5 above, actually improves performance, and reduces risks, if you trouble yourself to look at real data. > > > to a stage which has been proven to > > > not need them. > > > > Four self contained modular systems based on those developed for > > the Dragon V2 capsule, each massing 1500 kg and carrying 1388 kg > > of propellant - built into a module and each attached to the > > landing strut, reduces complexity and weight of the booster to > > which it is attached, and given the statistics of NTO/MMH > > hypergolic engines to date, improves reliability. > > Possibly, No, certainly! Again, if you trouble yourself to actually look at the relevant data, you will see the path I have described has much to recommend it. > but with increased complexity and added processing costs that > you completely ignore. The maintenance on the modified tanks and Merlin engine, the logistics of the reaction control system, already add the compleixities you speak of and more. Using more efficient Merlin engine and lighter tanks during ascent, and burning ALL the propellant during ascent, more than makes up for the changes I'm speaking of. The ability to make a modular system of engines and avionics that can be adapted to any number of boosters, and flight systems, is a further plus. Adapting the engines to use other propellant combinations, and reserving MMH/NTO as a 'spark plug' to restart engines, is another plus. The major reason Musk purchased TRWs assets was the pintle fed engine patents. These may be efficiently adapted to any propellant combination. SpaceX has already announced that it will create a LOX/LNG version of their Merlin. So, starting with an off-the-shelf flight proven propellant combination doesn't mean they're permanently wed to that combination. > > > And toxicity is just one of the reasons that processing > > > costs go *up* for a vehicle which uses hypergolics. > > > > Hypergolic fuels have well defined material safety and data > > regarding their routine use. > > Of course they're well defined. So, they're not an unknown or unreasonable risk. The risks are known and can be assessed. When you do that you find you are over-stating the risks for theatrical effect. > They're so well defined that NASA > studied replacing toxic hypergolics on the shuttle due to the added > cost, schedule, and safety hazards they introduce. That's a fact you > ignore. You are familiar with the old Soviet era joke. USSR has invaded the Sahara, they've discovered a shortage of sand. Same here. Fact is, hypergolic fuels are ALREADY being flown in SpaceX boosters and payloads. The risks and safety issues are not the problem you claim, and given the existing reaction control system on the SpaceX F9R, the addition of eight super draco engines in four module, attached to the landing gear struts, are not a real challenge. You overstate the dangers because you are not familiar with them. Furthermore, you also ignore the ongoing program at SpaceX to redue the toxicity of hypergolics by using new chemistries like DMAZ, and SpaceX's ability to transition to other fuels entirely once the core system is worked out at low risk, and this migration path can be done at low risk as well. DMAZ - low risk hypergolics (2004) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004ESASP.557E..22M > > > > LOX and kerosene are both super cheap and are relatively non-toxic > > > compared to hypergolics. > > > > While exposure risk to MMH and NTO vapours is greater than that of > > LOX and kerosene, you seem to ignore that in combination LOX > > Kerosene can be quite deadly in certain circumstances, forming > > explosive solids that are easily detonated. Spilled kerosene have > > caused significant fires in actual use, and have consequently been > > responsible for more deaths in rocket operations throughout history. > > So, in light of this actual experience, your attempts to denigrate > > MMH and NTO, which already being used by SpaceX on their MANNED > > CAPSULE, it rather foolish. > > You *need* the LOX and kerosene during launch *anyway*, so using the > excess for landing does *not* add any complexity to launch operations. Buy a litre of your favourite beverage. Now drink the bottle dry. Look inside, there's a few percent left. Now, drink that. See how easy it is. It isn't. Now before you try to drink the last drops of your beverage from the bottle, make sure you keep shaking it violently as you do so. You will then get some small measure of the difficulty of making use of the propellant the way you describe. Now, there are work arounds. You can have a pipeline with a large cavity in it that the propellant drains thropugh to keep your engine going when the main tank is empty. You can load your tank up with lots more propellant than you need, to be sure to get the little you need when its near empty. These work arounds are costly and complex and wasteful. Now, start your car engine and open the hood. Set the idle mixture adjustment screws so that your engine produces about 2% of the speed recommended for idle. Keep adjusting the air and fuel ratios so that you get the idle rate well below the recommended idle speed. Now try to drive your car. You can't. There is a risk it will stop working. It will also be very wasteful of fuel. This is similar to what we're asking the Merlin to do when it is coming in for a landing. And if its hard to start, or cuts out at the wrong time, during vertical descent, we're in trouble. So, there are changes made to the engine to allow it to operate reliably and efficiently in this mode. These engine and tank changes have their own risks costs weights and maintenance issues. Elimination of this requirement is a plus in overall design. Against this we look at the costs and weights of the solution I've proposed. When you use actual data, you can see that this is a perfectly legitimate path to take. > As for landing operations, if you don't use the remaining LOX and > kerosene for landing, you're still going to have to deal with it post- > landing. You fail to ask why do you have suprlus LOX and Kerosene? The answer is because you need it to fly the system the way you describe at some measure of assured performance. If you don't try to over load the tanks to assure yourself a relatively risk free relight under very trying conditions, then you can burn that LOX Kerosene before MECO where it does the most good to deliver payload to orbit, and then use your separate highly reliable system to land the booster. > > Adding toxic hypergolics *does* add additional "safing" and handling > complexities post landing. It adds known complexities performance costs and dangers. When weighed against the known complexities performance costs and dangers of making use of ullage propellant for landing, the approach I've described is a workable alternative that gives SpaceX a product to sell into the market besides. > > > > They're already building super dracos and flying them to land > > > > capsules. A self contained module plugged into the landing > > > > struts and tied to the avionics of a booster would be child's > > > > play and easily adapted to any stage. This would let the > > > > booster engines be optimised for their mission and let ALL > > > > the propellant be used as well. > > > > > > And would drive up the costs of the first stage versus carrying along > > > extra LOX and kerosene. > > > > No it wouldn't. Because a more precise and controlled application > > of thrust reduces total delta vee requirements to a minimum during > > recovery. Furthermore, deeply throttable main booster engines have > > greater fire and explosion risks, and are not so precisely > > controlled. Further, operating at reduced thrust at sea level, > > causes design choices to be made that alter the efficiency of the > > engine reducing its efficiency relative to a pure boost engine. > > Finally, containing a small quantity of landing propellant in a > > separate container improves fuel utilisation efficiency when > > compared to taking the remnants from a larger tank that is > > undergoing maneuvers and is shaking. > > You're quite wrong. Nonsense. You've already admitted there's lots of LOX and Kerosene to be dealt with post landing. I've explained why such massive quantities of propellant are needed when draining propellant from a nearly empty tank. Its best to optimise the Merlin engine for boost, and make use of ALL propellant during boost phase, and have specialty recovery modules for recovery phase. I've even pointed out that ditching the landing gear and recovery propulsion altogether and creating a flying recovery platform, is the most efficient approach, but should be approached in slow stages. > Adding complexity (especially toxic hypergolics) > adds costs. The costs are under $100,000 and the cost of a Falcon is $61 million. The modified Merlin and F9R tanking costs about $2.2 million according to the reports I've seen. Eight super Draco engines with propellant tanks is $1.6 million. The cost of MMH/NTO products for industrial use is $2 per kg. The cost when used in rocket applications is $17 per kg following all the safety rules imposed by regulators. Now, NASA has reported $170 per kg cost, but SpaceX experience is nowhere near that. Even allowing $20 per kg 1800 kg is $36,000 per launch on a $61 million value created per launch. Now, the chance of a losing a $61 million booster is 1 in 100 using the throttled back engine - so the cost per use could reasonably be put at $610,000 per event. The chance of losing the same booster is 1 in 150 using the modular approach so the cost is $460,000 per event. This more than pays for the fuel costs. Also, if we gain 3% in payload from burning LOX/RP1 before MECO we produce more 3% more value per launch. 3% of $61 million is $1.83 million. Finally, if we have less maintenance cost on a simpler engine and tank design using a modular system as I've described, then we have even further savings per launch. > Jeff > -- > All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. > These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, > employer, or any organization that I am a member of. Real analysis using real data based on real experience indicates that the alternative path I've outlined is a realistic one. If SpaceX doesn't have the people or capital to pursue it yet, then its an opportunity others may pursue, or pursue in partnership with SpaceX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 21:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31776ed5f7751b0f9899bd@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #56043 |
In article <3df4f3cc-95bf-48bd-9ae5-c658c63b311e@googlegroups.com>, mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > Adding complexity (especially toxic hypergolics) > > adds costs. > > The costs are under $100,000 and the cost of a Falcon is $61 million. > > The modified Merlin and F9R tanking costs about $2.2 million according to the reports I've seen. Eight super Draco engines with propellant tanks is $1.6 million. The cost of MMH/NTO products for industrial use is $2 per kg. The cost when used in rocket applications is $17 per kg following all the safety rules imposed by regulators. Now, NASA has reported $170 per kg cost, but SpaceX experience is nowhere near that. Even allowing $20 per kg 1800 kg is $36,000 per launch on a $61 million value created per launch. > > Now, the chance of a losing a $61 million booster is 1 in 100 using the throttled back engine - so the cost per use could reasonably be put at $610,000 per event. > > The chance of losing the same booster is 1 in 150 using the modular approach so the cost is $460,000 per event. This more than pays for the fuel costs. > > Also, if we gain 3% in payload from burning LOX/RP1 before MECO we produce more 3% more value per launch. 3% of $61 million is $1.83 million. > > Finally, if we have less maintenance cost on a simpler engine and tank design using a modular system as I've described, then we have even further savings per launch. > You're ignoring the issues of landing and safing the vehicle on the barge so that the crew on the barge can weld hold down points to the deck, put jacks under the hard-points on the octoweb, then tighten chains from the hold downs on the deck to the hard points on the octoweb. The live feed from the port webcam today was very telling. How you going to do all that with toxic hypergolics right there? Toxic hypergolics introduce *real* handling problems at sea you quite simply don't have with LOX (vent it and it will boil off) and kerosene (which is quite similar to the diesel fuel used on many ships). SpaceX chooses to avoid all of the issues with hypergolics. I don't blame them. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web