|
Post by bazbear on May 16, 2010 1:38:40 GMT -4
Try being on a rural route lol Not that all aren't nice, but it's a bit sketchier; of course they are basically subcontractors. They get all of legal obligations of delivering mail, without the protections and long term benefits of being a "true" employee of the US Gov't.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on May 6, 2010 0:56:59 GMT -4
What about the idea that illegals tend to have no medical insurance and receive their care through expensive emergency room visits? Well if they are here, it IS the humanitarian thing to do. Of course they seem to add to the economy far more than they detract anyway. It's minutia as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 3:31:52 GMT -4
The fourth landing probe, which was on the ladder leg) was removed from the later LMs for fear that it may damage the Astronuats' suits when they jumped down to the ground. Okay, I now see my theory is wrong. That's why I like this place Mr. Phantomwolf.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 3:28:14 GMT -4
I've wondered for sometime why they got rid of the 4th landing pad contact. Now I know the way they were flown, and I suspect that contact would have used valuable computer resources? And if one of the other 3 didn't touch first, HOUSTON we have a problem? (sorry to go cliche lol)
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 2:59:30 GMT -4
I never realized the whole Apollo 11 crew was born in one year, 1930. Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin on Jan. 20, Neil Armstrong on Aug 5th, and Micheal Collins on Oct 31st.
Mike must have got a lot of Halloween jokes?
(I'm a new years baby, January 1st, I know what I GET lol)
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 2:42:53 GMT -4
I thought he was a widower, so I take that back, my bad; I otherwise stand by it lol
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 2:36:47 GMT -4
Now he is practising to lead his attractive 27-year-old dance partner, Ashly DelGrosso, in America's TV reality show Dancing With the Stars, a website, space.com reported. It's really unfair that the old geezers get to hang out with the hot babes. With most men, I'd agree with you. But men like Buzz get a free pass! lol I say Buzz is allowed as many young nubile women as he can handle until the day he dies! (easy Buzz! you ARE 80!)
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 2:23:24 GMT -4
And thank you all for finally getting around to my post, it took so long for a first reply I thought I might have laid a stinky egg or something. But of course we're all busy doing our earth jobs Some are building satellites, some are cooking Italian food. ;D
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 2:08:25 GMT -4
I agree, it's highly unlikely. The prize certainly won't come close to covering the cost. I was annoyed by all the "go private enterprise, rah rah rah" cheerleading during the Spaceship One demonstration. I have nothing against private individuals and commercial companies going into space, but I thought they were more than a little disingenuous in implying that they were close to providing commercial space services. They really exploited the fact that few laymen understand that the hard part in making low earth orbit isn't the altitude but the velocity. I figured SpaceShip One had only about 3% or 4% of the total energy needed to make even a minimal (exo-atmospheric) earth orbit. And it was hardly the first time that a rocket built by a commercial company had entered space. Practically every US rocket was built by a commercial company. Spaceship One was ground breaking only in that it had a human pilot, it was totally civilian, and reached the arbitrary 100 km height deemed internationally to be a suborbital flight. I've heard elsewhere that it had "around 1/20th" the energy needed to reach LEO, so I guess they more or less had the right numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 1:23:58 GMT -4
Old news. Not that it matters, Obama has effectively killed the return missions. A sad turn of events, killing Constellation is very short sighted, even if going back to the moon isn't it's goal. Now we buy rides from the Russians (not that using Soyuz is a bad thing in and of itself), and HOPE USA civilian space technology can find a safe, efficient, human-rated way to LEO? I know I've bitched about the Shuttle on this forum, in a couple of threads, but retiring that unique workhorse and not even replacing them with "simpler" systems, so that the USA can put people into space is a travesty. The break between Apollo and the Shuttle may have been unavoidable; but this break in the ability of the USA to send humans into space will be due to lack of will and vision at the highest levels.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 14, 2010 0:42:08 GMT -4
Wow, it's amazing what things you learn here, in this case just from a discussion about which mission this footage came from. I knew what "ullage" meant, the "empty" part of a fuel tank (or other tanks with liquids) at the top, so "ullage motor" had me baffled until I did a little research. I'd never considered that in micro-gravity, to keep the liquids where you want them after a staging when there is no thrust (and hence no gees), something would have to push the fluids back (even if only small fractions of a gee).
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 13, 2010 1:57:47 GMT -4
I see your point, Jason, but there are certain times I expect to see 9/11 CTs, like YouTube or the Other Conspiracy Theories section of this site or sometimes on The Passionate Eye. I don't like the CTs, but I expect to see them in these places. I didn't expect to be reminded of them during Olympic coverage and that's why I found this particularly intrusive. Yes, international games of a sporting nature shouldn't be used for this sort of thing. It's IMO usually not the right time for most sorts of political protest. That said, my belief in free speech makes me defend the right to do such things, within reason, and holding up signs IS within reason. Intrusive, yes. Annoying, yes. But not a show stopper.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 19, 2010 1:37:34 GMT -4
The Saturn V worked. I have no evidence I can point at to prove it staged and had the thrust it needed, other than that it worked as advertised, but I don't personally need it. Stanislav Pokrovsky is obviously the one with the burden of proof in any case.
Thanks for the great tracking vid link, Scooter!
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 19, 2010 1:06:33 GMT -4
Jay, What McGowan has told me, is that he doesn't want to debate on BAUT or Apollohoax because he considers the rules unfair, and because he'd rather post his materials on his own website. I don't see anything cowardly about it. I can't post at BAUT forum because I was summarily banned by some sort of automated system, for my very first attempted post -- and an email to their info line received no response. I've had a couple of other experiences of being banned from forums, or seeing others banned for unfair reasons. When I invited you to come over to Chrismartenson.com, one of my motives was the hope that McGowan might eventually join us. I didn't want to promise anything on his behalf. I still don't understand why that was such an unreasonable request on my part, although I agree that LunarOrbit has never prevented me from achieving my goals here. I suppose that McGowan, you and I all have some measure of arrogance or ego. It probably goes with the territory of being masculine in American society. Hopefully we can all get past it. I find it hard to believe some "automated system" at BAUT banned you for no good reason, with no warning. Were you quoting something with offensive language? I agree on the call of cowardice by McGowan. And to your essay question for us all: I'm a layperson who has a bit of a passion for aeronautics and spaceflight. When I first encountered HB community I was dumbfounded. I looked at their "evidence", and then reviewed the facts, and the plus side is I've learned much more about Apollo than I ever dreamed I would. The HB community also opened my eyes to the whole CT landscape, and McGowan seems to proudly exhibit all the tendencies of an evil CT monger. I think evil the right word here, as he has no interest in educating himself about the things he doesn't know, or when it's simply beyond his educational foundation, he refuses to see what reputable EXPERTS in the field have to say. Possibly he believes his rhetoric and arrogant bombast, but why you would defend him in any way is beyond comprehension to me.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 12, 2010 1:53:34 GMT -4
As redundant as I was, I guess no one wants to comment in any case. It wasn't moved, so I guess it fits the reality thread (I guess general discussion would have worked as well). LO, feel free to delete it at your leisure
|
|