Re: Water Fuel Rocket Science

tomcat,
You have interesting notions that unfortunately are based upon
infomercial-science, or at best soft-science that entirely remote
obtained and highly subjective by your own standards. You are in fact
the village chump. Your are not willing to accept that you've been
lied to. You can't seem to get priorities nor morals correct. You are
a certified brown-nose minion to what's worse than the Third Reich.
Your are dumb and dumber fool on the hill because you've been snookered
and thus so dumbfounded that life itself has no meaning.

If what you say is even 1% true, you'd be a trillionare and we'd have
had your SSTO spaceplane as of more than a decade ago. But since your
conditional laws of physics are so skewed, and your soft-science or
fuzzy-science of infomercial logic that's so subjective, as a result
it's hard to say what parts of your argument are worth squat.

I hope with the estimates above I have explained why 'water' on the
Moon is so improtant.
It's important because, it's offering us proof-positive that you have
been snookered by those having "the right stuff". There's damn little
if any raw ice remaining on the lunar polar surfaces (zilch worth of
hard-science). There's salt YES, and CO2 as dry-ice POSSIBLY. Within
the moon, almost anything goes. Having 100 feet of solid moon between
yourself and the great outdoors is at least going in the right
direction. A fly-by-rocket lander is still in the works of being
invented, should only cost a billion to prototype, and this time it'll
have those powerful reaction wheels as well as fully computer modulated
reaction thrusters plus roughly twice the rocket fuel capacity per
tonne of what those phony baloney Apollo landers had to work with.

For more than the last two decades, we'd had sufficiently micro probe
capability, yet there's still not one interactive science instrument
situated anywhere upon the moon (just impact craters or having sunk out
of sight wherever our best efforts were deployed). Of course, since
you're intellectually blind and bigoted to boot (same as GW Bush),
what's the point?

Obviously you're afraid of what LL-1 and of the LSE-CM/ISS represents.
Obviously you'd prefer WW-III and a global warmed Earth that's another
10 degrees hotter.
-
Brad Guth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Again Water Fuel Creation Science
    ... even if the subject is 'Moon Ice'. ... of their hyping whatever's NASA/Apollo without even taking a second ... essentially a 6 stage alternative that's worth 907 tones at liftoff is ... absolutely chuck full of disinformation and/or infomercial-science ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Apollos Laser Reflecting Corner Cubes
    ... Got any such modern demo fly-by-rocket lander as a scaled prototype as ... radioactive waist cans on the moon it would make no diferance. ... infomercial-science simply does not equal hard-science. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Guth Venus is way more alive than Usenet
    ... Usenet's conditional-physics. ... The mater of our moon having an impact ... upon global warming is almost as pointless as is that of our failing ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: If the moon landing was faked...
    ... nasty our moon is. ... You do realize that Kodak's photon physics proves that those EVA images ... You do realize that your infomercial-science and conditional laws of ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: A scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon- photogrammetric rectificati
    ... You folks really must really like NASA's infomercial-science, ... Fortunately Mars is not nearly a naked as our moon, ... Would you folks like to review a nifty PDF file, ... How about my offering a link to few shots of Jupiter and that of our ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)