If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
"Androcles" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Androcles" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Androcles" wrote in message ... Spamming lied and said I wrote: It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything and using computers that need to be installed with a crane. I wrote this: The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers. I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean and come to understand the word 'spamming' http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg Mike Ash did not write: It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today. No Keith Willshaw wrote that What do mean, "No"? I said Mick Ash did NOT write that, you stupid *******. So : Yes, Mike Ash did not write: It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today. You can't read, can you? Why don't you just **** off, you are clearly an imbecile. *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because you are a troll; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day. Ditto for me, only about _YOU_ . g cheers.....Jeff |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
"Mike Ash" wrote in message ... I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean and come to understand the word 'spamming' Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just leave him be if you ask me. He is a very strange individual to be sure. Keith |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
"Jeffrey Hamilton" wrote in message ... "Androcles" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Androcles" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Androcles" wrote in message ... Spamming lied and said I wrote: It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything and using computers that need to be installed with a crane. I wrote this: The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers. I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean and come to understand the word 'spamming' http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg Mike Ash did not write: It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today. No Keith Willshaw wrote that What do mean, "No"? I said Mick Ash did NOT write that, you stupid *******. So : Yes, Mike Ash did not write: It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today. You can't read, can you? Why don't you just **** off, you are clearly an imbecile. *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because you are a troll; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day. Ditto for me, only about _YOU_ . g cheers.....Jeff Sure, no problem at all. *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because you are a troll; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
On Mar 21, 8:01 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Mike Ash" wrote in message ... I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean and come to understand the word 'spamming' Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just leave him be if you ask me. He is a very strange individual to be sure. Keith No doubt Criminally Insane. Ken |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
On Mar 22, 6:15*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:01 am, "Keith Willshaw" He is a very strange individual to be sure. Keith No doubt Criminally Insane. I prefer the term terminally stupid (being that he/she/it is in front of a computer terminal) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
Mike Ash wrote in
news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT- delegated.ex ample.com: In article , Just go look it up! wrote: On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5 configuration? Why reinvent the wheel? Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to. From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html Could be wrong though. Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive...... The plans still exist, on microfilm. Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time. It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything and using computers that need to be installed with a crane. Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and I believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both possible worlds. I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the number V. Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get stuck up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we relive the depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message . 17.102... Mike Ash wrote in news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT- delegated.ex ample.com: In article , Just go look it up! wrote: On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5 configuration? Why reinvent the wheel? Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to. From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html Could be wrong though. Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive...... The plans still exist, on microfilm. Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time. It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything and using computers that need to be installed with a crane. Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and I believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both possible worlds. I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the number V. Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get stuck up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we relive the depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13. Erm the Apollo 13 crew got back alive. Keith |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message . 17.102... Mike Ash wrote in news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT- delegated.ex ample.com: In article , Just go look it up! wrote: On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5 configuration? Why reinvent the wheel? Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to. From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html Could be wrong though. Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive...... The plans still exist, on microfilm. Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time. It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything and using computers that need to be installed with a crane. Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and I believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both possible worlds. I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the number V. Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get stuck up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we relive the depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13. Erm the Apollo 13 crew got back alive. Keith That's because they never left. The moon landings never occurred. Just ask Brad "the world is flat" Guth or Ben "the joos did it" Cramer. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:49 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: Bluuuue Rajah wrote: This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space programme has made the Moon its main objective. I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around? Yousuf Khan Are you suggesting those Russians are incapable, or just stupid? Just incapable, since they never made it up there in the 1960's. This would be pioneering work for them, as they've never had any *nauts touch down on another heavenly body yet. They've just gone up and down from near-Earth orbit, or they've launched unmanned explorers and satellites. Yousuf Khan |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
In article , Yousuf Khan
wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Mar 17, 12:49 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: Bluuuue Rajah wrote: This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space programme has made the Moon its main objective. I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around? Yousuf Khan Are you suggesting those Russians are incapable, or just stupid? Just incapable, since they never made it up there in the 1960's. This would be pioneering work for them, as they've never had any *nauts touch down on another heavenly body yet. They've just gone up and down from near-Earth orbit, or they've launched unmanned explorers and satellites. Yousuf Khan It took a lot of effort to design, build and test the SaturnV/Apollo system. The Russians apparently attempted to get by on the cheap in their unsuccessful very heavy lift rocket in the 1960s. From published reports, it appears that they suffered from base heating and, possibly, engine detonation. They never developed an engine inthe F-1 class (1.5 million lbf thrust) -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lycoming to approve 93 octane auto gas for O-360 & IO-360 | [email protected] | Owning | 31 | July 11th 08 06:09 AM |
Navigator Moon - moon.JPG | [email protected] | Aviation Photos | 2 | June 3rd 07 08:55 AM |
JINSA/PNAC (Israel first) Neocon Perle: Bush would approve Iran attack: | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 23rd 07 12:40 AM |
TWO EXTREMELY RARE ROCKET BOOKS ON EBAY - INCREDIBLE ROCKET HISTORY! | TruthReigns | Military Aviation | 0 | July 10th 04 11:54 AM |
Russia & India to send joint manned mission to Moon | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 84 | November 20th 03 11:04 PM |