Re: GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy
From: Brad Guth (bradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded"
- Maybe in reply to: Brad Guth: "Re: GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 03:00:11 +0000 (UTC)
Right; the V22 flies like a coffin, except that it'll also exterminate
anyone within a km as it's in the process of killing off the entire crew
and all passengers. Of course since it'll be costing (all inclusive)
billions per V22, what the heck, lets go for it. I know of some ENRON
executives that'll gladly fly the damn things instead of their going to
prison for the rest of their lives.
With some fair and ballanced reguard to those Russians and of their best
efforts at moon landings; Their government was certainly just as
corrupt, if not more so at wagging their USSR dogs to death in order for
their military to extract whatever talents and resources and for
otherwise sustaining whatever job security they could muster. So, there
simply wasn't actually ever a need nor any motivation as to their
proving we didn't do what we said we did (as that would have meant the
end of their bogus programs as well). It seems their radar tracking and
astronomy expertise wasn't half that of ours, thereby no way of proving
a damn thing, as it's their word against ours and vise versa. It seem
clear that they were just as equally busy at snookering folks within
their country, thus I'm not even certain those supposed robotic landers
of theirs ever accomplished what they said, as again we only have their
word on it (certainly no apparent technology as to prove otherwise), and
as according to how we've been cold-war brain-washed by the likes of our
very own GW Bush "high standards and accountability", as such everybody
still knows or at least perceives that you can't possibly trust a
Russian.
A little something further that's interesting about those marvelous
fly-by-rocket lunar landers that remain as uncertified. I read from
recorded history about the most advance AI/robotic landers that were
created nearly two decades after those infamous moon landings of the
early 70s that were supposedly accomplished by those nifty Russian
AI/robotic landers, whereas nearly a couple of decades later and within
the absolute prime of the Russian space-race technology and expertise of
1988, they tried twice to get something onto Phobos representing an
absolute micro moon by our standards (hardly more than 1000 fold the
gravity influence of docking robotically at ISS), yet lo and behold they
still couldn't manage their AI/robotic fly-by-rocket task.
There's lots other that can run things amuck besides the fly-by-rocket
landers imploding.
Later (1996) a third and even more technologically advanced effort
intended for Phobos never got away from Earth (not actually the robotic
lander fault so much as a fundamental package delivery complication or
perhaps more than likely via friendly cold-war sabotage from NSA/DoD),
yet today Russians offer the only surefire fully robotic missions
to/from ISS, and thus far remaining as more robotically capable than
anything our NASA has to offer. Phobos isn't hardly 0.4% the gravity
task of managing our moon, yet the effort of getting safely onto Phobos
is going to take everything them Russians have as of today, of which
they obviously didn't have to work with as of 1988, much less of when
they supposedly managed such landings upon our moon.
BTW; Where's your stash of film footage of all the required prototype
R&D upon those Russian AI/robotic landers, and then equally upon our
manned landers that seemingly still can't perform squat as of today on
behalf of getting anything onto Mars, nor even as offering a stripped
down demonstration craft of safely surviving an aerial deployment here
upon Earth remains entirely top-secret. Why is that?
At least upon Venus a rigid airship/shuttle is doable, obtaining up to
65+kg/m3 and considering the 90.5% gravity isn't all that bad either.
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
-- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
- Next message: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded"
- Maybe in reply to: Brad Guth: "Re: GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
