Posted on 03/07/2007 10:24:04 AM PST by Uncle Peter
Are you done spouting your profound ignorance yet?
Your postings have presented such a target rich environment that if I were to post on all of the ill-informed thoughts you have posted, I would be writing a tome of massive volume.
Still waiting for you to post something intelligent, or informed.
Just poke an unstable volcano with a few nukes.
In reference to what posting? I thought that most of my postings were asking for clarification or coherent rebuttal of some of the more emotional ranting. Is this in reference to the fantasy of the SOV silliness? Or is this the Burt Rutan reusable SOV with a payload of less than 200 pounds?
It’s the sun that’s the problem. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just build a giant polarized lens to shield the earth?
All of them.
I put up several references and posts that answered all of your idiotic questions before you even asked them, and you seemed to completely ignore them.
Isn’t this the same guy who wanted to inject methane or kerosene into the atmosphere to restore the ozone layer about 20 years ago?
Anyone that I forgot to mention would at least decide America meant business and sit down and shut up.( Like Mexico and South America)
You answered the Rutan SOV payload question??
I guess I’m just too obtuse to understand your higher plain of knowledge and intuitive understand of math and physics. I can’t compete on your advanced understanding of simple questions.
I did ask why not a form of rail gun and/or Mag-lev Propulsion. I don’t believe that there was a response to that question. Perhaps you can show me where my “idiotic” question was answered. With such a gun, you could fire multiple times an hour if you could re-load the SO2. So, come on “nutty professor” show me where you posted the answer to that question.
I tire of playing with you. Have a nice evening.
Which leaves more gifts, Santa Clause or the tooth fairy? Discuss among yourselves as though global warming was something worth being more than minimally at best, concerned about.
Because no one has ever built one of those, and no one plans to build one of those, and none of those is currently funded. And it's not necessary for the job. On the other hand, fast turnaround suborbital vehicles have been demonstrated, of several designs, there are plans to build them, with high flight rates, the plans are funded, and the vehicles are under construction.
What more do you need to know?
Why not pick one spot and saturate it with Nukes? (In order to and create a nuclear winter.) Let's see... what area should we choose. I know! How about Iran!
Ok. I’ve stopped laughing now and I can type.
You state SOV have been demonstrated and they have fast turn around. Where is the information on the demonstration? I would like to read the specifics. What is fast turn around? What is the pay load? Who is funding them? Where are they being built?What is the altitude and how long is the flight (in time and distance for a round trip.
When you can post the article with all of this (or even most of this) information then I will post an apology for laughing at your unsubstantiated postings. Happy research.
Please don’t post fantasy. Need you to cite your facts. It sounds like a recurring theme, but in order to be considered seriously and not the Nutty professor, you need to back up your claims with verifiable references.
That's nice. The rest of us are still laughing at your hilariously uninformed ignorance.
Look up "Burt Rutan," "Richard Branson," "Virgin Galactic," Pioneer Rocketplane," "XCOR," "Xerus," "Armadillo Aerospace."
We're not going to do your homework for you.
More evidence of mass hysteria sweeping the country and leading people to suggest crazy things.
You still don’t understand the idea of saying something and then allowing some independent verification of your fantasy. Bert Rutan has a reusable SOV with a turn around time of two weeks ad a payload of less than 200 lbs. How will that get 1,000,000 tons of sulfur into the atmosphere? If you say such silly things, you should be able to substantiate them. Since you have such command of the facts at your higher level of understanding, all I ask is that you help us lesser individuals and answer the simple questions.
For example, what is the Payload of the only sub Orbital Vehicle that ever made two trips into sub-orbit in the two week window? I, of course am speaking of Burt Rutan’s prize winning demo of the Ansari X PRIZE competition spaceship with the ability of reuse in the two weeks?
So what is the payload of the Virgin Galactic Spaceship 2 which is under development of space tourism?
Please oh great all knowing Nutty Professor help us ignorant uninformed lesser folks gain such an understanding into the fantasies of a closed mind. You crack me up in refusing to answer the simplest of questions and maintain that you know what you are talking about.
No, it had a payload of at least twice that (more if you include pilot). It had to be capable of carrying two passengers. It carried ballast instead. You demonstrate once again that you have no idea what you're talking about. And the two-week turnaround could have been done much more quickly had it been important to do so. It's also silly to whine about turnaround on a developmental vehicle. The operational one will be designed for fast turnaround, because the economics require it.
So what is the payload of the Virgin Galactic Spaceship 2 which is under development of space tourism?
I see that you can't be bothered to look up the simplest things, and are determined to continue to look the fool. It's designed to carry six passengers and two crew. Average a couple hundred pounds per person. Do the math.
It will turn around in a day or so. Better-designed vehicles, such as from Rocketplane or XCOR, or Armadillo, will be even cheaper and faster to turn around, since they'll use liquid propellants, instead of hybrids. Armadillo demonstrated a one-hour turnaround at the X-Prize Cup last fall.
Hooray Bright light. With 8 folks and their space suits that comes out to about 1,600 pounds of payload. Given the Nutty Professor’s estimate of 1,000,000 tons of Sulfur needed it will only require 1,250,000 flights. Also, this Spaceship2 is targeted to start test flights in late 2008 or early 2009. So, by 2010 we should be able to see the possibility of a non passenger Spaceship2 ready to save the earth.
I see in the propaganda for the tourist version they say they can maybe make 2 flights a day. That would only require a total of 625,000 days or 1,717 years; yeah real practical. That’s ok, the world still needs dreamers. You could probably make a good living thinking up things for Fantasy Land in a Disney Theme Park.
You no longer amuse me. I found you fun to play with, but your enjoyment factor is long since gone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.