Re: Moon Hoax people
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Dec 2005 21:50:55 -0800
>Secret...@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>OBVIOUSLY you guys are right, Greg D. Moore (Strider) and OM, I should
>have never brought up this topic.
My dear snookered and otherwise dumbfounded friend. At least you're not
alone. Your having to exclude your very own NASA/Apollo science, plus
having to disregard Kodak flim and photon physics is rather
unfortunate, but since you hace absolutely no remorse, so what's the
difference?
Sir wizard and all-knowing "Dave Grayvis" was asking a really big
question;
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/browse_frm/thread/461a9f59c62a74f1/422b17bfe42b8b84?lnk=st&q=%22What+does+Tinker+bell+and+the+rest%22&rnum=1&hl=en#422b17bfe42b8b84
>What does Tinker bell and the rest of the fairies have to say about it?
I haven't directly spoken with Cheney or Bush, so I can't say what your
born again fairies have to say.
I don't suppose that anyone of this warm and fuzzy Usenet sappository
of infomercials and disinformation can tell us the inert/dry mass of
the Apollo-17 launch vehicle, and then accomplish a really big favor by
way of comparing that mass to the fully loaded 790 tonne Ariane-5 that
has a capability of getting 9.6 tonnes into GSO.
(obviously a terrestrial GSO isn't nearly what it would take for
accomplishing the moon)
Although Ariane-5 has truly become an impressive and reliable GSO
launch alternative at 82.3:1, perhaps we need to further appreciate
that the worlds best all around launcher might have to remain as our
good and extremely old Apollo cold-war method, of supposedly taking
merely 62:1 as being sufficient for accomplishing their complex lunar
missions, therefore as is become worth way better than 50:1 as for
accomplishing somewhat the most bang for the buck and per liftoff mass
of accomplishing multiple GSO related deployment functions of tactical
thermal nuclear WMD per launch on behalf of toasting Earth.
With modern composites and a few SRBs for good measure being capable of
getting the otherwise fairly bulky original inert mass way down to an
even better modern day dull roar, whereas that Apollo launch ratio
along with such powerful SRBs should thereby become well below 25:1.
Meaning just 25 rocket liftoff tonnes per payload tonne, and that's far
better than three fold of what the very best Ariane-5 has to offer. Is
that good GSO delivery capability and fly-by-rocket efficiency or what?
Since satellites are in no hurry to save their DNA, and of these days
few satellite/payload items exceed 10 tonnes (except for our planned
thermal nuclear preemptive deployments on behalf of establishing our
global domination plot), perhaps we should just go back 40 years worth
and make a few smaller Apollo class of those efficient rocket launchers
that were so gosh darn good that they didn't even require any stinking
SRBs.
Of course, Apollo methods happened to make use of a good amount of
their cloak and dagger plus smoke and mirror technology as provided by
our multi-trillion dollar perpetrated cold-war era, that which have all
since been lost along with all of the original engineers and of those
mad rocket scientist that made it all happen.
-
Brad Guth
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Moon Hoax people
- From: looter92
- Re: Moon Hoax people
- References:
- Moon Hoax people
- From: Secret237
- Re: Moon Hoax people
- From: Gene Seibel
- Re: Moon Hoax people
- From: Brad Guth
- Re: Moon Hoax people
- From: Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
- Re: Moon Hoax people
- From: Brad Guth
- Re: Moon Hoax people
- From: Secret237
- Moon Hoax people
- Prev by Date: Re: FWD: Latest update on Pat "Nine Toes" Flannery
- Next by Date: Re: Son of Little Joe II
- Previous by thread: Re: Moon Hoax people
- Next by thread: Re: Moon Hoax people
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
