Re: The Cold Equations

tomcat,
First of all, as pertaining to some of your previous contributions; If
there are ET's as having taken up living within our moon, chances are
more than likely they'd rather not chance getting their superior
DNA/RNA infected by the insurmountable arrogance, greed and pure
stupidity of such a bigoted to death Earth. I mean to suggest, if you
had such nifty interplanetary travel capability, why would you bother
and much less care about what little Earth has to offer, as opposed to
the nearly certain death-wish upon whatever ET set a foolish foot upon
our badly polluted and otherwise chance getting a nasty *** load of
our biologically incest mutated as well as artificially engineered
forms of Earthly microbes? I'd thought you had agreed that ET were
smart, or at least smarter than that?

>I have seen closeup photos of Venus taken by the Russian Lander. It
>looks normal: rocks and dirt. Yet we hear of 100 atmospheres of
>pressure, immense heat, rivers of sulphur.
I tend to agree that the surface of Venus looks somewhat normal, though
still rather toasty hot, but only because it's such a dry heat means
that it really isn't so nasty. Within that pressure, as little as 0.1%
O2 could become sufficient for accommodating the local forms of life,
whereas we might require at most 0.5% O2. Such bone-dry CO2 isn't
nearly the threat as per here upon this extremely wet Earth, and even
the likes of dry sulpher powder is entirely passive. I believe the
ongoing Venus EXPRESS mission should soon put a few more nails in the
naysay coffins.

Remember that such pressure alone is not technically nor even the least
bit biologically insurmountable, and even such a dry heat is rather
easily isolated without taking all that much of an effort. Just don't
try taking a whizzz or much less dumping a load upon mother nature if
you're outside.

>The Venus Orbiter radar picture seems to show buildings and forests on
>the sides of mountains. All this in 100 atmospheres of pressure and
>immense heat?
>What gives?
What gives is that the local environment had become obviously somewhat
recently a geologically hot and nasty situation, although as of lately
Venus has been cooling itself off quite nicely. As long as nothing
horrific runs itself into Venus, all is perfectly well and good,
especially good for those having evolved into having an exoskeletal
body plus having an actual brain that's not nearly as dumbfounded as
most of us bigoted humans have to work with. With such an abundance of
green/renewable energy at their disposal, such energy makes all sorts
of nifty things possible, including hybrid vegetation that is
sufficiently radar signal energy absorbing, just as you've pointed out.
However, you simply can NOT survive upon Venus if you're dumb and much
less humanly naked, whereas Earth offers nearly unlimited opportunities
for the incurably dumb and dumber souls that haven't a clue, much less
a stitch of remorse to spare. Would you like a substantial listing of
those I'd consider most worthy of their remaining sequestered upon
Earth, as not otherwise entitled to Venus?

>Brad, you don't have an exoskeleton, do you? Some beings are built
>that way. It's just mother nature.
Tomcat, at times it seems as though you don't have half a brain, do
you? I guess some beings are built wossy and without even so much as
half a brain, and with whatever they have to work with being summarily
dumbfounded and intellectually mindset into the nearest space-toilet,
as well as having ulterior motives and hidden agendas up the kazoo.
Unlike yourself, I do not limit my intellectual nor biological
horizons, I also do not care to be living upon such an intellectually
flat Earth which employs book burnings and mind-control as our national
pastime, and otherwise God forbid, I'm not even opposed to what most
honest religions have to contribute by way of their actions. How about
yourself?

>ET's tend to be the 'smart types'. Maybe Earth should promote the
>'smart types' too. The 'other types' are something else.
Be specific, as to what "smart types" do we have to work with that are
not totally dumbfounded or other wise mainstream status quo skewed from
the very get go. Certainly you've been offering us yourself as any
viable example. So, please do share and share alike, as I'd truly take
to introducing myself, and I'd even put in a few good words on your
behalf, as to my communicating the best I can with those supposed
"smart types". Got a clue?

>A few years ago, it was thought that landing on a 'fast moving'
>asteroid would be impossible. A bullet hitting another bullet and all
>that.
>Since then, it has 'proven' to be quite easy. A little math digested
>by a computer and you're hovering right over the asteroid. A little
>more math, or pilot manipulation, and it's a nice clean landing. Piece
>of cake!
What "asteroid" are you talking about, and by whom?
I believe that Japan has recently come the closest to their efforts
accomplishing a soft landing upon an asteroid, but close doesn't cut
it.

Please let me know as soon as anyone or rather of whatever their
AI/robotics actually accomplishes that supposed "'proven' to be quite
easy" soft landing upon such a "Piece of cake!" asteroid. Docking at
ISS is still not quite such a "Piece of cake!", although perhaps it's
getting cupcake wise as representing that it's nearly a robotic
fly-by-rocket done deal, though that's only because of such having to
manage with essentially zilch worth of gravity factors.

>I suspect the same is true of the planets. A Mars landing seems so
>difficult, but is probably no more difficult than an Earth landing.
>Ditto for Venus, and other celestial bodies.
You really can't do basic math or kite worthy aerodynamics, so why are
you pretending at being so spaceplane worthy and all-knowing?

Clearly you haven't obtained a freaking clue nor appreciation as to the
vast difference between landings upon Mars as opposed to those upon
Venus, neither of which are anything remotely similar to landing upon
Earth. Especially of any fly-by-rocket landing upon our moon would be
rather lethal at cutting the thrust 100' off the deck, whereas at 1.623
m/s/s of what your spaceplane should still have to weigh-in at perhaps
the very least a hundred lunar tonnes, isn't going to represent a soft
landing unless it's moderated by the 10+ meters worth of thick
moon-dust which because of being near vacuum bone-dry and at 1/6th G
might not represent a surface tention that's worthy of 5 g/cm2 (I
believe it's called lithobreaking). perhaps cutting the SSME trust at
most 2~3 meters off the deck is going to be pushing the upper limits of
what's bound to be a horrifically dusty down-range arrival (purely via
3D radar imaging), but otherwise potentially survivable.

>I don't have the ISS photo on the web. Check 'Google Images' for ISS
>and you may spot it. It is just a good standard photo of the Moon shot
>through an ISS window. Enlarge it and then the rectangles appear.
I'm afraid that unless they were into using a 1000 fold telephoto and
having recorded such upon the one micron/grain worth of quality film,
that as such any ISS window shots are going to become somewhat easily
interpreted to mean whatever you'd like. You do realize that ISS is a
moving camera tripod, whereas the NASA/Apollo shots from lunar orbit
are truly impressive for their being 3,840 times closer and, some of
those having utilized a 10X telephoto lens to boot makes those shots
worth 38,400:1 better off any most any ISS look-see. You do realize
that I have little if any problem with such closeup photos that depicts
such a dark and nasty lunar terrain, of which I do believe there's far
more worthy signs of what's potentially ET than of any supposed Apollo
lander sites to being seen. Seems rather odd that not so much as one
out of thousands of such closeup look-sees obtained anything remotely
landing site worthy, especially weird since some of those missions
supposedly involved 72 nearby orbits of the moon, that which had to
have been passing directly over each of their specific sites, if not
having passed over more than one of their previous deployment landing
sites. I believe that's getting at least ten fold if not a whole lot
better resolution than the best of what team KECK has to offer.

>"To Be or Not to Be, that is the Question." No getting around it, the
>situation is dire. Earth has to pull together --- or else.
You already have solutions, as well as I have specific solutions, and
there's more available from where others can accomplish great and
meaningful alternatives to global pollution and of our subsequently
having to exterminate one another over the last spendy drops of oil and
nasty tonne of coal. Even NG is actually an environmentally negative
impact, as well as being directly toxic to life as we know it in far
more ways than just being chemically nasty, or didn't you know that
besides badly consuming our atmosphere that's mostly N2, thus creating
megatonnes of NOx, that we're also venting the likes of poisons plus
having extracted and surface disposed of heavy metals that includes
mercury, and then radium gets dumped directly into our environment by
the tonnes, thus bringing up vast amounts of decay elements which
besides their radiation is what eventually becomes the likes of good
old lead. No wonder we're getting dumb and dumber, or is that simply
too much information?

>We must be hidden and visible at the same time. Be at one place but
>appear to be at another. Communicate, discombobulate, and manipulate.
>Hold out the olive branch, hide the club, and be prepared for whatever
>happens.
But that's the current and ongoing mainstream status quo. Though
obviously we weren't the least bit prepared for the likes of creating
911's or even of our own artificially induced global warming. All that
we've accomplished is to further deplete the global energy reserves,
thereby raised the cost of living by several notches and otherwise
pissed off nearly half the world in the process, while otherwise having
ignored the clean and totally renewable 25 kw/m2 that's offering an
obtainable energy footprint with existing technology. So, what's your
point?

>"To Be or Not to Be." Will Earth learn. Will Earth prepare. Will
>Earth fight. . . . I don't know.
We'll fight, even if there's a need to first invent the ruse/sting of
ETs having WMD.

>Terrawatt lasers in Outer Space is a pretty powerful punch. And it is
>doable, using today's technology. Solar power and/or He-3 can provide
>the energy. Now, if we can just make them 'invisible' besides.
>Quantum Vacuum, and all that, you know!
Try 100 GW laser cannons to start with, whereas the initial 5 mr beam
is quite sufficient for taking out any of those lunar based ETs.
Enhance that down to 0.5 mr and we're talking about seriously pissing
off those Venusians or of their visiting ETs.

The very nature of establishing and sustaining a laser cannon is hardly
going to remain stealth, especially if there's an array of 12 such
laser cannons that are being utilized for transferring clean energy
away from the LSE-CM/ISS tethered dipole element that has got those
suckers cruising to within 25 km of mother Earth (I wouldn't dare allow
much closer unless the interactively tethered platform can actively
manage the lunar range that shifts quite a bit). Actually, the most
ideal range from Earth might become the terrestrial distance of our
GSO, whereas much closer might involve dodging and/or having to
vaporise a few too many satellites, plus otherwise active Ion thrusting
almost continuously.
-
Brad Guth

.

Loading