| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hop David
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
 |
|
John Schilling wrote:
| Quote: |
But you have the huge disadvantage that most of your orbit will be
out of LOS of your rectenna. And that probably gets worse if you
go sun-synchronous.
|
And much of the time the sat's within LOS of the rectenna, the area
receiving microwaves is quite large.
If the beam were a tube of diameter d, the ellipse on the ground would
have area (pi d^2) / sin(grazing angle).
A more realistic model would be a cone instead of a tube, in which case
the ellipse has an even greater area as d increases with distance from
the sat.
And a beam with a low grazing angle would pass through a lot more
atmosphere.
It seems to me a rectenna wouldn't get much power from a sat close to
the horizon.
This problem could be partially addressed by having a very long rectenna
along the satellite track. With this scheme an equatorial orbit seems
the most sensible. If inclined, the orbit should be a simple fraction of
the day so the track sinewave would connect with itself rather than
forming a smeared band across the planet's face.
But, in all the cases I can imagine, the sat track would be over mostly
ocean.
A LEO power sat is a bone headed idea, IMHO.
Rand's notion of an sps between LEO and GEO has some possibilities, though.
Hop |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:51:05 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn <bthorn@suddenlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:17:05 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
Well, that's going a bit too far. I think it is unlikely, but it isn't
out of the realm of possibility that some charismatic president in the
next decade or two would decide an Apollo-like project to once and for
all end America's dependence on foreign oil is the way to go, and as
part of it, initiate a major low-cost space infrastructure to build
SSP.
What does "Apollo-like" mean in this regard? That it will be a
no-federal-funds-barred technological achievement that makes no
economic sense?
More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
wind energy production, etc.)
|
If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
subsidization. I just get tired of people wanting to use Apollo for a
model, usually thoughtlessly, as in "if we can send a man to the moon,
why can't we (have world peace, end world hunger, give everyone a
pony, etc)?" Once you do that, you invite the "waste anything but
time" mentality, which is not going to give us affordable energy
independence.
| Quote: |
The only economic sense it *must* make
is that it end the practice of sending all our dollars to the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia and the pockets of Exxon/Mobil (which seems to be
putting very little of its massive profit back into the US economy,
for example).
|
We don't do that. We actually buy relatively little oil from the
Middle East (less than a quarter, I'd guess, and a lot of that is from
Iraq, not Saudi Arabia)). It makes more sense to purchase it closer
to home (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Venezuela) to reduce transportation
costs. The problem with the Saudis isn't that we send dollars to them
but that their other customers (in Europe and Japan) do, and they then
use it to fund Islamic radicalism and terrorism all over the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:466a7951$0$22416$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Quote: |
goanna wrote:
In <JJ6DM1.2uB@spsystems.net> henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
writes:
robert casey <wa2ise@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
It's probably a lot cheaper to just build the solar power plant on the
ground (like in a desert in Arizona), even though it can only work
during the daytime. But power consumption does peak during the
daytime...
Unfortunately, even Arizona gets clouded out at times, and atmospheric
absorption cuts available power early and late in the day (a particular
annoyance for the latter, since that's when the highest demand peak
is).
And there is quite a bit of 24x7 base load to be supplied, and there'll
be much more of that if electricity is used to manufacture or replace
petroleum-derived liquid fuels.
True for photovoltaic, but recent developments in fairly low tech
solar thermal employ effective thermal storage to enable baseline
power without flywheels, pumped hydro or the like. For example,
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719858-7.html
The cost comparison made there is between solar thermal and gas fired
plant. Even then, they're waving their hands a bit to get the price down
to 10 cents per kWh.
They couldn't substitute for gas fired plant, because such plant is used
for peak loads, and the costs for the solar thermal plant would be based
on its use for baseload.
Coal fired stations (one of the usual ways that baseload power is
generated) have much lower costs, at around 4 cents per kWh.
|
Coal puts out twice the greenhouse gasses as fuel oil.
And three time the sulfur dioxide. For twenty or thirty
years from now coal will not the fuel of desperation.
As environmental concerns will make it difficult to sell.
Just last week in my local, Florida Power and Light was
unamimously denied a permit for a state of the art
clean coal power plant. Emissions and cost
shot it down.
"Not in my back yard"
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/epaper/2007/06/06/m1a_COAL_PLANT_0606.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Paul F. Dietz
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:27 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
Jonathan wrote:
| Quote: |
For twenty or thirty
years from now coal will not the fuel of desperation.
|
This sentence no verb?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:18 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Henry Spencer" <henry@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JJCr7H.FqC@spsystems.net...
| Quote: |
In article <B139i.18499$px2.9689@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
Jonathan <write@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Lost your religion? This pessimism must be based on the past
performance of our political system. We live in an entirely different
political world these days.
"The four most expensive words ever spoken are 'this time is different'."
|
Ouch! Probably the toughest hurdle to overcome I've heard yet.
Why now when it failed before?
SSP certainly was a pipe-dream when it was first proposed.
And it has failed several attempts since then. I just read an
extensive study and poll by the Dept of Energy they conducted
back in 1980. They involved over 9000 people from three distinct
public interest groups. And it failed miserably.
General response to the SPS Concept
"The overall general response to SPS was negative. Of 382 responses,
87 percent (331) indicated opposition to the SPS concept, ranging
from a sense that there were better energy options to unequivocal hostility,
Eight percent (31) were neutral or undecided, saying that more study was
required and five percent (20) supported SPS development."
But what surprised me was the size of this study. And that over a
quarter of a century has passed since then.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/1980DOESPS-PublicOutreachExperiment.pdf
I think this study helps define the biggest problems SSP would
confront if proposed again. Which were.
"...concerns that most frequently emerged were:"
*the perceived problems of microwaves for SPS power transmission
and its impacts upon human health, local ecosystems, and the
atmosphere.
*the concern that SPS is a highly centralized technology that is
considered inconsistent with the "inherently decentralized" nature
of solar technologies.
*the high economic costs associated with SPS development.
*the possible uses of SPS as a military weapon or its vulnerability
as a military target
*the availability of other energy options--notably decentralized
terrestrial applications of solar.
*the miscellaneous environmental impacts of the SPS (e.g. air, water
pollution, resource depletion, and disruption of communications
systems).
Of all those reasons, I see the availability of other energy options, the
cost, and the centralization issues to be the most difficult hurdles
that remain.
But once our all our conventional options are gone, it'll be
too late for a long term program like SSP to come to
the rescue. And if the public perceives global warming
to be a threat to our very existence, the cost will diminish
as a concern. As far as the "Big Brother" concern
of centralized control, making this an international effort
would be crucial. The biggest political divide between
the US and the EU right now is....Kyoto.
This screams...new opportunity.
| Quote: |
Wisdom is a collective property, and
the internet is quickly allowing the weight of the people to assert
itself
over our political system.
"The sum of gossip does not produce either knowledge or insight." --
Ursula Franklin.
|
I was going to reply with that old quote about new ideas having to wait
for the old generation to die off before they have a chance.
But that's not appropriate. SSP is an old idea.
"But how shall finished creatures
A function fresh obtain?—
Old Nicodemus’ phantom
Confronting us again!"
How can an old idea become new again, how can that
which is old be reborn? Whether an idea, or ..us?
"Come, dear, beloved, Nicodemus—walk even now
in the light of the age to come."
http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV7N2A3.asp
Sooner or later solar power and space will define or 'save'
humanity.
| Quote: |
...I'm looking for the 'magic goal' that
will /sell itself/ even if only a few lamers are pushing it.
Right -- now consider the possibility that no such goal exists. Hint:
if it would sell itself, why hasn't it done so already?
|
You don't believe in 'magic'? Or in the infallable goal?
Then you don't believe in Nature, or understand reality.
A man-made goal clearly defines where the system
should end up. For instance, on the surface of the moon.
Or if you like, a certain technological benchmark.
And then allows the process to adapt and emerge
as it will to accomplish the specified creation or
final product.
Nature does ...exactly...the opposite.
Nature establishes a process of creation, a brute
force method of attempting every possible combination
and allowing the best one to win. The result of a natural
process of creation is the system eventually settles
on the ....very best...practical solution to the given
problem.
Nature allows the final product to emerge as it will.
Like magic, naturally evolving systems ...cannot fail.
As the best possible must be defined as success
to any thinking person.
To initiate a natural process of creation...
What is that term you rocket scientists use
for max aerodynamic pressure? Max Q?
A naturally evolving system only has two
primary variables. The static and chaotic
attractor basins or behaviors. Place each
variable in their maximum dynamic state
...the complex realm..and set them against
each other, or interacting, in the same
complex way.
Max Q the static realm....in this case the potential
tangible benefits to society.
Max Q the chaotic realm, in this case the potential
to inspire dreams of a wondrous future.
If that can be done in a single system, or idea, it
should self organize or take on a life of its own.
SSP qualifies on all three crucial counts
| Quote: |
Well, I intend to spend a couple more years pumping this. Any advice
that can make the message more effective would be appreciated.
You're already boring and annoying people here with your stubborn
repetition
|
That's a compliment imo, others might call it determination.
| Quote: |
of poorly-justified fantasies
|
If you won't and can't understand the mathematics of
complexity science, that's not my fault. Except of course
in my inability to explain the concepts to layman.
| Quote: |
and your total ignorance of
politics.
|
We'll see. My political judgement has stood up here.
Many ridiculed me when I predicted that Katrina would
be the last straw in the debate over global warming, and
while she was ...still at sea.
Many here said the same thing when I screamed those
blueberries weren't simple mineral concretions ...three weeks
after Opportunity landed. Weeks later NASA came out
and officially said...'oh yes they are'. And I continued pounding
them for months until they /retracted/ that identification and, with
great embarrassment, immediately thereafter stopped publicly
interpreting the rover data. And they stopped due to their mistaken
id of the blueberries.
As for SSP, the first tangible sign of its recent come back as
an idea was the well-received proposal to the Pentagon to
create their own SSP program. A proposal that used almost
the very same justifications I've been using for some time.
We'll see how my prediction that SSP should find its way
to the political surface in the next two years or so works out.
All the trends are on the side of SSP.
I'm bullish~
| Quote: |
Stop posting to Usenet and start talking to Congressmen --
actually *talking to Congressmen* and trying to get your message across,
not just telling people how easy it will be to convince Congressmen.
|
Now who is it that is showing their political shortcomings?
Politicians are convinced by votes, and large numbers of votes.
| Quote: |
Convert half a dozen of them to enthusiastic and vocal supporters, and
your claims will have much more credibility.
|
Two things before that should be done. The message should
be well refined. And the timing needs to be optimized.
And since I believe the political landscape is on hold
until the next election, I have time to practice and learn
and listen to the other side. I'm not there yet.
One of those 'open letters' with all sorts of titles attached
to signatures....on or about some related event...just
might do the trick.
| Quote: |
Fail to So so, and you will
be wiser.
|
Nature and complexity science are clear on this, that
Utopia resides in the chase, in the process.
Not in the final result.
"WE play at paste,
Till qualified for pearl,
Then drop the paste,
And deem ourself a fool.
The shapes, though, were similar,
And our new hands
Learned gem-tactics
Practising sands."
| Quote: |
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
henry@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
"Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> wrote in message
news:_ImdnTNOL8qmhvbbnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@dls.net...
| Quote: |
Jonathan wrote:
For twenty or thirty
years from now coal will not the fuel of desperation.
This sentence no verb?
|
I didn't proof read. Coal puts out so much greenhouse
gasses it doesn't seem like the energy source for
the future to me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Fred J. McCall
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
:We don't do that. We actually buy relatively little oil from the
:Middle East (less than a quarter, I'd guess, and a lot of that is from
:Iraq, not Saudi Arabia)). It makes more sense to purchase it closer
:to home (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Venezuela) to reduce transportation
:costs. The problem with the Saudis isn't that we send dollars to them
:but that their other customers (in Europe and Japan) do, and they then
:use it to fund Islamic radicalism and terrorism all over the world.
:
Hint for Rand: We get a lot more oil from Saudi Arabia than we do
from Iraq. Around 10% of total imports are from Saudi Arabia. We get
half as much oil from Iraq as we do from Saudi Arabia.
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Mar-07 Feb-07 YTD 2007 Mar-06 Jan - Mar 2006
CANADA 2,305 2,448 2,407 2,254 2,276
MEXICO 1,749 1,507 1,611 1,801 1,823
NIGERIA 1,346 1,102 1,198 1,195 1,249
VENEZUELA 1,285 1,359 1,277 1,530 1,516
SAUDI ARABIA 1,244 1,207 1,342 1,364 1,393
ALGERIA 727 555 691 404 523
ANGOLA 708 464 586 522 477
IRAQ 523 325 464 476 487
RUSSIA 455 241 351 221 246
VIRGIN ISLANDS 349 312 363 299 297
KUWAIT 305 168 217 118 115
UNITED KINGDOM 292 268 251 299 231
BRAZIL 234 151 214 193 166
ECUADOR 191 185 217 242 287
KOREA, SOUTH 164 80 120 27 51
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Brian Thorn
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:18:37 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
| Quote: |
More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
wind energy production, etc.)
If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
subsidization.
|
I'm not convinced of that. It makes more economic sense to use EELV to
launch Orion. We're not doing that. It makes more economic sense to
drill the ANWR, we're not doing that. It makes more economic sense to
create reform programs instead of building more prisons, but we're not
doing that. It makes economic sense to build many more fission
reactors (yes, its debatable in times of cheap oil, but no longer) but
we're not doing that. It makes more economic sense to institute
National Health Care than to keep forcing millions to go bankrupt
paying outrageous HMO fees or doing without and then entering the
welfare death spiral because they can no longer work. It makes more
economic sense to drop the dollar bill and go entirely to dollar
coins, we're not doing that...
Politics is a funny thing.
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:51 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
"Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> wrote in message
news:_ImdnTNOL8qmhvbbnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@dls.net...
| Quote: |
Jonathan wrote:
For twenty or thirty
years from now coal will not the fuel of desperation.
This sentence no verb?
|
Nor any more sense than the rest of what he says, which is why I killfiled
him.
Please, read him for the recreational value if you must, but please don't
quote him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:35:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn <bthorn@suddenlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:18:37 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
wind energy production, etc.)
If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
subsidization.
I'm not convinced of that. It makes more economic sense to use EELV to
launch Orion. We're not doing that.
|
I'm not referring to what NASA does.
| Quote: |
It makes more economic sense to
drill the ANWR, we're not doing that.
|
That, again, is because the government is in charge of whether or not
that can occur...
<snip other things that may or may not make economic sense--national
health care certainly doesn't>
| Quote: |
Politics is a funny thing.
|
Yes, but largely, the largest industry in the world can't ultimately
afford to be driven by politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
I agree, that via magnetic "launch ring" or seriously big gun methods
of getting the likes of rocket fuel or other sorts of inert items
assisted into LEO is actually a darn good couple of methods that
should have been the norm as of decades ago.
All that might be needed is the final upper stage or kicker that'll
finish off the necessary launch of such supplies. Deployments of beer
and pizza should qualify for either of these methods, that which
should entirely eliminate the first stage, including those so often
necessary SRBs.
BTW; SETI/OSETI are by no mistake each looking in all the wrong
places. Of course, a few controlling faith-based cults want
absolutely nothing to do with anything off-world, especially of that
which might have once upon a time or forbid currently sustain other
life of any kind.
Too bad this mostly anti-think-tank of a silly Usenet from Zion hell,
as such hasn't been all that much help. Apparently they've been a
little too busy covering NASA's butt and otherwise promoting all
that's born-again via GW Bush.
-
Accomplishing a substantial solar power satellite (powersat)
deployment is offering a perfectly good sort of R&D goal for our NASA,
although without utilizing the moon's L1 that's almost always within
the sun, plus half the time receiving the moon's planetshine of mostly
IR, as for otherwise accommodating this powersat task is going to
demand that more and more of such spendy satellites utilize Earth's
L1, whereas otherwise LEO powersats are going dark half of the time.
However, it seems that pesky moon of ours is simply not all that human
DNA friendly (especially by day). Besides all of that nasty radiation
environment that's at least ten fold worse off than any Van Allen
belt, and otherwise according to all that's NASA/Apollo, it's
absolutely impossible to see and much less photograph the likes of
Venus or any other planet except Earth, as seen from the moon (even
though the Kodak film DR should have been more than sufficient).
Oddly, there's also no stellar or solar UV energy to speak of, whereas
instead the raw and unfiltered solar spectrum is rather oddly exactly
the same as a terrestrial xenon lamp spectrum (must be because of all
that argon and sodium atmosphere that's blocking those otherwise pesky
sorts of photons). Apparently the moon's stealth magnetosphere is
what's defending that otherwise highly reactive/anticathode surface
from all that's cosmic or solar energy.
Too bad we still haven't a robotic fly-by-rocket lander that's good
enough for directly accomplishing our physically dark, electrostatic
dusty and somewhat salty old moon, much less for accommodating a brave
crew of us humans, as per each having established a cache of banked
bone marrow that'll be available upon having returned to Earth.
Unfortunately, drugs and of incest mutations are just a small part of
the internal mindset problems within our badly failing NASA.
You folks obviously don't know what a Zionist mindset is.
Do you folks have some other idea as to why there's so much topic/
author stalking, bashings and as much applied banishment as possible?
Here's an honest clue; it's not coming from Muslims or most other
honest faith-based groups.
Even the hard core Catholics are not nearly as anti-ETI or otherwise
opposed to the investments on behalf of discovering other than
terrestrial life, as are the Zionist which oppose damn near everything
under the sun which orbits their flat Earth.
Certain folks just like to get their way, even if they have to
continually lie, join forces as partners in crimes against humanity,
or having to put their own kind on a stick without a stitch of
remorse.
The fence jumping Atheist (aka Zion minions) are actually the official
rusemasters of Usenet, as well as being as much media, textbook
publication and of mainstream news and entertainment media domination
as possible.
There are few that can afford to opposed this faith-based infomercial
spewing gauntlet, and fewer yet of those willing to speak of the truth
as based upon the regular laws of physics and of the best available
science. Deductive interpretations of anything is forbidden by those
imposing their Zion mindset, whereas instead fear of personal trauma
and of receiving the most aggressive forms of Zion spermware/fuckware
gets sent to your email and otherwise directly to your computer.
BTW how many (all inclusive) photons are within this universe?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
On Jun 6, 7:05 pm, "Jonathan" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Henry Spencer" <h...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JJ6DM1.2uB@spsystems.net...
You can't realistically hope to build and
operate powersats with the sort of space transportation we've got now --
it's a whole new order of magnitude -- so the current situation, in which
access to space is difficult and infrequent, simply isn't relevant.
You guys just don't get it. We need a /reason/ to make space
transportation cheap. SSP is the /reason/ to fund low cost
to orbit. We need a goal that has as a prerequisite building
the space infrastructure needed to truly exploit and colonize
space.
Once we can do SSP {even if it never happens"} then we
....can do anything in space.
Our goal cannot be to build space infrastructure, or low
cost to orbit. Because people will ask 'WHY', and no one
will have an answer.
Have any of you ever watched a greyhound race?
Think of SSP as that little rabbit that makes the race go.
Jonathan
s
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
h...@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Son of Serpent Esq
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181490118.032497.86840@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
You folks obviously don't know what a Zionist mindset is.
Do you folks have some other idea as to why there's so much topic/
author stalking, bashings and as much applied banishment as possible?
Here's an honest clue; it's not coming from Muslims or most other
honest faith-based groups.
Even the hard core Catholics are not nearly as anti-ETI or otherwise
opposed to the investments on behalf of discovering other than
terrestrial life, as are the Zionist which oppose damn near everything
under the sun which orbits their flat Earth.
|
Post proof.
Don't you know that NASA is just another Zionist plot for complete and
outright illegal Zionist occupation of space?
Pop quiz; who was Colonel Ilan Ramon and what shuttle mission was he on?
--
Bio: Colonel Ilan Ramon IAF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Ramon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
On Jun 10, 10:18 am, "Son of Serpent Esq" <jun...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Don't you know that NASA is just another Zionist plot for complete and
outright illegal Zionist occupation of space?
|
NASA is merely a Zion puppet agency, much like our DoD.
Zions don't want anything to do with ETs, or even of any ET spores or
microbes outside of our terrestrial realm.
All the Usenet arguments imposed against what's actually out there are
the proof positive that others and I'm right.
| Quote: |
Pop quiz; who was Colonel Ilan Ramon and what shuttle mission was he on?
Have no idea. Should I? |
BTW not all Jews are from the Zionist dark side, just like the vast
majority of us are not anything like our resident born-again LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush).
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Son of Serpent Esq
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:28 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181498456.097501.45310@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 10, 10:18 am, "Son of Serpent Esq" <jun...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Don't you know that NASA is just another Zionist plot for complete and
outright illegal Zionist occupation of space?
NASA is merely a Zion puppet agency, much like our DoD.
|
Brad, if you couldn't tell I was trying to inject a little humor here with
that rediculous line about the occupation of "infinite" space then maybe you
should consider a little break from this Zionist conspiracy crap... before
you like snap completely.
--
Maybe a little light reading would help...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:38 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:28:48 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Son of
Serpent Esq" <junior@dodgeit.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181498456.097501.45310@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 10:18 am, "Son of Serpent Esq" <jun...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Don't you know that NASA is just another Zionist plot for complete and
outright illegal Zionist occupation of space?
NASA is merely a Zion puppet agency, much like our DoD.
Brad, if you couldn't tell I was trying to inject a little humor here
|
Brad has no sense of humor. He's nuts. Please killfile him, as most
of the rest of us have, long ago, and stop feeding his illness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
122 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
