Page 1 of 2
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:17 pm
by Kierland
Dude is so far in your head you can’t even watch a rocket launch without thinking of him. Why don’t you get back to coddling Nazis?
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:19 pm
by Screw_Michigan
Jsc810 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:39 pm
So much technology just to keep a massive conspiracy going.
SLS is a huge pork laden waste of money, but rack JSC for telling it how it is.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:28 pm
by Kierland
Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:17 pm
Dude is so far in your head you can’t even watch a rocket launch without thinking of him. Why don’t you get back to coddling Nazis?
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2022 5:03 pm
by Carson
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2022 6:17 pm
by Screw_Michigan
Carson, more empty posts, please.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:53 pm
by smackaholic
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:19 pm
Jsc810 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:39 pm
So much technology just to keep a massive conspiracy going.
SLS is a huge pork laden waste of money, but rack JSC for telling it how it is.
Fukk, just when I thought I was gonna get through another year without agreeing with first runner up board bitch, SM, he gets one in. :x
Rack SM!!!!!
Yer stick a dick.
Just what exactly is the point of going back to a place we confirmed was a dead fukking rock over a half century ago?
Well, other than a yob program.
Shooting shit into space is awesome. Satellites have made the world a much better place.
But attaining escape velocity for anything outside of maybe a few low budget exploratory probes, is a waste of time. The idea that we can colonize Mars and turn it into a habitable planet is BS.
And what is even more laughable is that some of the same clowns that think we have the power to ruin this place, think we have the power to unfukk Mars.
We ain't that powerful folks.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:58 pm
by smackaholic
Going forward, any money thrown down the space travel hole should go to suborbital commercial jet travel. NYC to Tokyo in under an hour is pretty cool. And getting up above 99.9% of the atmosphere is an efficient way to travel.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2022 11:06 pm
by LTS TRN 2
Hey, Cali here, and darn it we want in on...going somewhere real fast...er...
Now, as the nation embarks on a historic, $1 trillion infrastructure building spree, the tortured effort to build the country’s first high-speed rail system is a case study in how ambitious public works projects can become perilously encumbered by political compromise, unrealistic cost estimates, flawed engineering and a determination to persist on projects that have become, like the crippled financial institutions of 2008, too big to fail.
Proposed California High Speed Rail
The California bullet train’s route from Los Angeles to San Francisco, traversing the state’s mountain ranges and its Central Valley, is shown in a dark black line. The route was selected over proposals that would have roughly followed the I-5 and the I-580 highways between Southern and Northern California. The light gray line shows a proposed second phase that would extend the system to San Diego and Sacramento, though it has not received environmental approvals or funding.
“There is nothing but problems on the project,” the speaker of the State Assembly, Anthony Rendon, complained recently.
The Times’s review, though, revealed that political deals created serious obstacles in the project from the beginning. Speaking candidly on the subject for the first time, some of the high-speed rail authority’s past leaders say the project may never work.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:32 pm
by Screw_Michigan
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:53 pm
Fukk, just when I thought I was gonna get through another year without agreeing with first runner up board bitch, SM, he gets one in. :x
Rack SM!!!!!
Yer stick a dick.
Just what exactly is the point of going back to a place we confirmed was a dead fukking rock over a half century ago?
Well, other than a yob program.
Shooting shit into space is awesome. Satellites have made the world a much better place.
But attaining escape velocity for anything outside of maybe a few low budget exploratory probes, is a waste of time. The idea that we can colonize Mars and turn it into a habitable planet is BS.
And what is even more laughable is that some of the same clowns that think we have the power to ruin this place, think we have the power to unfukk Mars.
We ain't that powerful folks.
I'm not against going back to the moon. Quite the contrary, I think it is a worthy effort.
Rather, I am completely against the Senate Launch System, which was created by Bill Nelson and upheld by Richard Shelby and, to a large extent, Barb Mikulski around 2010. Nelson wanted SLS when the Shuttle was retired to preserve those jerbs in Florida. What it did was waste taxpayer money on antiquated technology when NASA could have had "super heavy" launch capability for a much cheaper price through competitive procurement and had workers trained on modern launch technology.
SLS has cost $24 billion (!). It had its first launch the other day. It has been a huge albatross on NASA's budget. And now Nelson is NASA administrator. Such a shameful moment in US history.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:35 pm
by Screw_Michigan
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:58 pm
Going forward, any money thrown down the space travel hole should go to suborbital commercial jet travel. NYC to Tokyo in under an hour is pretty cool. And getting up above 99.9% of the atmosphere is an efficient way to travel.
There's a bunch of startups taking another crack at supersonic transport. I'm not exactly sure of their chances of success. Sounds like propulsion is really difficult. Anyway, flying around the world in 1/4 the time would be awesome.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:53 pm
by Diego in Seattle
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:35 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:58 pm
Going forward, any money thrown down the space travel hole should go to suborbital commercial jet travel. NYC to Tokyo in under an hour is pretty cool. And getting up above 99.9% of the atmosphere is an efficient way to travel.
There's a bunch of startups taking another crack at supersonic transport. I'm not exactly sure of their chances of success. Sounds like propulsion is really difficult. Anyway, flying around the world in 1/4 the time would be awesome.
It's not so much the propulsion that's the issue so much as it is how to eliminate the sonic booms.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:38 pm
by smackaholic
Screw_Michigan wrote:smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:53 pm
Fukk, just when I thought I was gonna get through another year without agreeing with first runner up board bitch, SM, he gets one in. :x
Rack SM!!!!!
Yer stick a dick.
Just what exactly is the point of going back to a place we confirmed was a dead fukking rock over a half century ago?
Well, other than a yob program.
Shooting shit into space is awesome. Satellites have made the world a much better place.
But attaining escape velocity for anything outside of maybe a few low budget exploratory probes, is a waste of time. The idea that we can colonize Mars and turn it into a habitable planet is BS.
And what is even more laughable is that some of the same clowns that think we have the power to ruin this place, think we have the power to unfukk Mars.
We ain't that powerful folks.
I'm not against going back to the moon. Quite the contrary, I think it is a worthy effort.
Rather, I am completely against the Senate Launch System, which was created by Bill Nelson and upheld by Richard Shelby and, to a large extent, Barb Mikulski around 2010. Nelson wanted SLS when the Shuttle was retired to preserve those jerbs in Florida. What it did was waste taxpayer money on antiquated technology when NASA could have had "super heavy" launch capability for a much cheaper price through competitive procurement and had workers trained on modern launch technology.
SLS has cost $24 billion (!). It had its first launch the other day. It has been a huge albatross on NASA's budget. And now Nelson is NASA administrator. Such a shameful moment in US history.
Well, I happily retract my rack then.
Should have known you’d be for boondoggles. You just want a different one.
So, putting aside the details about how we get there, please tell me why we should?
It has no atmosphere. We can not make it habitable.
I mean, if you want to do it for the challenge, go for it….with your dollars.
Orbital flight has paid off. We should continue improving it and possibly make it a form of travel.
But going to a barren rock, just because we can and to keep property values in Cocoa Beach up?
Not a good reason.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Artemis
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:30 am
by BSmack
Diego in Seattle wrote:Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:35 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:58 pm
Going forward, any money thrown down the space travel hole should go to suborbital commercial jet travel. NYC to Tokyo in under an hour is pretty cool. And getting up above 99.9% of the atmosphere is an efficient way to travel.
There's a bunch of startups taking another crack at supersonic transport. I'm not exactly sure of their chances of success. Sounds like propulsion is really difficult. Anyway, flying around the world in 1/4 the time would be awesome.
It's not so much the propulsion that's the issue so much as it is how to eliminate the sonic booms.
And reducing fuel loads so it pays to offer business class to enough people to make the flight pay.
Sent from my iPhone using a big network of tubes.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:46 am
by Screw_Michigan
Re: Artemis
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:10 am
by Softball Bat
It's official.
It's really up there.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:53 pm
by mvscal
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:53 pmJust what exactly is the point of going back to a place we confirmed was a dead fukking rock over a half century ago?
Ultimately, the goal would be to move heavy industry off planet. You appear to have a very limited imagination.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:27 pm
by Donnie Baker's Ghost
Compounds bond differently in low G. Chemical engineering on the moon will be a fascinating new frontier.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:36 am
by Kierland
mvscal wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:53 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:53 pmJust what exactly is the point of going back to a place we confirmed was a dead fukking rock over a half century ago?
Ultimately, the goal would be to move heavy industry off planet. You appear to have a very limited imagination.
You know, space slaves.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:43 am
by smackaholic
mvscal wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:53 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 10:53 pmJust what exactly is the point of going back to a place we confirmed was a dead fukking rock over a half century ago?
Ultimately, the goal would be to move heavy industry off planet. You appear to have a very limited imagination.
I have a pretty fertile imagination, actually. I just don't see this passing any sort of cost benefit analysis. But then, we are talking federal boondoggles here and when have they ever given the slightest of fukks about such matters.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:45 am
by smackaholic
Donnie Baker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:27 pm
Compounds bond differently in low G. Chemical engineering on the moon will be a fascinating new frontier.
I understand this. So, do it in orbit where you can dial in whatever level of G you want.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:54 am
by Donnie Baker's Ghost
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:45 am
Donnie Baker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:27 pm
Compounds bond differently in low G. Chemical engineering on the moon will be a fascinating new frontier.
I understand this. So, do it in orbit where you can dial in whatever level of G you want.
For experimentation, you're absolutely correct. Keep the process local, but when it's time to scale the process to full blown production it might be less expensive and faster to move mining and production to the moon rather than spending $100,00 per kg to launch raw materials at a space station.
Or I could be wrong. Just a guy shitting opinions at people he doesn't know...
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:12 am
by mvscal
Donnie Baker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:54 am
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:45 am
Donnie Baker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:27 pm
Compounds bond differently in low G. Chemical engineering on the moon will be a fascinating new frontier.
I understand this. So, do it in orbit where you can dial in whatever level of G you want.
For experimentation, you're absolutely correct. Keep the process local, but when it's time to scale the process to full blown production it might be less expensive and faster to move mining and production to the moon rather than spending $100,00 per kg to launch raw materials at a space station.
Or I could be wrong. Just a guy shitting opinions at people he doesn't know...
The moon would be the factory hub. Once that is established, the energy bill to move shit around drops. Mining would be done in the asteroid belt. We don't "terraform" planets. We bore into them and construct habitats. Any exo-planet that can support life should be avoided like the plague.
Just a guy shitting opinions at people he doesn't know...
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:24 am
by Wolfman
I'm still of the opinion that crude oli is a geothermal product that forms under the earth's crust and that there is enough of it to keep us going till the sun goes super nova.
The moon may have some rare elements that are needed for technology. We may never live long enough to find out.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:05 am
by Kierland
Wolftard did his own research.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2022 5:32 am
by Innocent Bystander
mvscal wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:12 am
Any exo-planet that can support life should be avoided like the plague.
Why?
Re: Artemis
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2022 12:29 pm
by Diego in Seattle
Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 5:32 am
mvscal wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:12 am
Any exo-planet that can support life should be avoided like the plague.
Why?
It might piss off the locals...
Re: Artemis
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:26 pm
by mvscal
Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 5:32 am
mvscal wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:12 am
Any exo-planet that can support life should be avoided like the plague.
Why?
Plague. No shit end of all life as we know it plague as a worst case scenario. More likely it's mostly merely poisonous.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:28 pm
by Kierland
Your Qtard buddies no doubt think their immune systems can handle it.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:23 am
by Innocent Bystander
Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 12:29 pm
Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 5:32 am
mvscal wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:12 am
Any exo-planet that can support life should be avoided like the plague.
Why?
It might piss off the locals...
It might, but that's never stopped anyone before.
Some Martians will die, some Terrans will die. Those who are left will be those able to adapt, no matter how initially painful. It won't even be the most deserving, as currently politically defined. It will be the most hardy.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:29 am
by Innocent Bystander
Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:28 pm
Your Qtard buddies no doubt think their immune systems can handle it.
Like how some people are absolutely sure they'll be taken up in the Rapture? Or will be eaten last by the Great Old Ones if they sacrifice everyone else first?
Maybe their immune system can handle it. Maybe the lies Fauci sold us were intended to save a future few by experimenting on a present many. Someone obviously wants to play with off/on switches, 1s and 0s, among the goyim. Cattle never have a choice, unless they want the choice to be eaten first for being ornery.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:42 am
by Innocent Bystander
mvscal wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:26 pm
Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 5:32 am
mvscal wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:12 am
Any exo-planet that can support life should be avoided like the plague.
Why?
Plague. No shit end of all life as we know it plague as a worst case scenario. More likely it's mostly merely poisonous.
Oxygen is poison. Perspective is everything. We terraform ourselves, we take our chances. We live on Mars, on Iapetus, on Ceres, on Venus, on Neptune. We pull Phobos and Deimos back together again, from when it was turn in two or three or whatever.
We live beneath Antarctica, we live beside the Marianas Trench, we live in the hollow of the moon. We live in a neural network like tardigrades unable to comprehend what's outside of us.
Plague won't do us in. Something outside our planning will. We should keep striving anyway.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:28 pm
by Screw_Michigan
mvscal wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:26 pm
Plague. No shit end of all life as we know it plague as a worst case scenario. More likely it's mostly merely poisonous.
How many times did you have to edit this to get your take straight?
Re: Artemis
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:22 pm
by Innocent Bystander
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:28 pm
mvscal wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:26 pm
Plague. No shit end of all life as we know it plague as a worst case scenario. More likely it's mostly merely poisonous.
How many times did you have to edit this to get your take straight?
I miss Beantown Basher, too, friend. I hope he's still alive, and prospering.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:34 pm
by smackaholic
Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:28 pm
Your Qtard buddies no doubt think their immune systems can handle it.
Even snowflake pussy immune systems can handle CV, especially the '22 vintage. But even the OG CV was easily handled by anyone under 60 who was in anything remotely close to good health. And you can go ahead and post the pic of the fit 34 year old who croaked all you want, because in a population of 300+ mil, you will get a few.
The OL, with her battered immune system is handling the case she got at the hospital last week, just fine because she had a taste of it last june, which is still, by far the best "booster" and she was immediately given Paxlovid which is some good shit.
She tested positive Sunday morning. Tested again this morning, barely registered on the tester. 5 minutes in, it still hadn't indicated. I've been in close contact with her all along and I am still negative.
CV is now just one of the countless other coronaviri out there that have been floating around for ever. Pretty close to the point where even elderly immune systems will bitch slap it and takes its lunch money.
But, of course, the next one down the pike will get trumped up by the public healthscare officials because they like being in the news.
BTW, if you want a good booster for this winter season, I recommend hanging in your local ER for an hour or two on a busy afternoon. It is likely where Mrs Smackaholic got it last wednesday when she slipped on one of those stupid little rugs chicks like to collect and busted her hip.
And last week's medical shitshow came right after they collected her T cells at Dana Farber on monday. She'll get them back in a few weeks and hopefully put this Lymphoma nightmare behind us.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:37 pm
by Screw_Michigan
Jsc810 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:01 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:34 pm
But even the OG CV was easily handled by anyone under 60 who was in anything remotely close to good health
This is simply not true.
I personally know several people of that description who died of covid, and a few more that almost died.
Don't worry. Suckaholic believes that the CV vaccine killed more young healthy people than the virus itself.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:29 am
by smackaholic
Jsc810 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:01 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:34 pm
But even the OG CV was easily handled by anyone under 60 who was in anything remotely close to good health
This is simply not true.
I personally know several people of that description who died of covid, and a few more that almost died.
Care to give us ages and general health?
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:36 am
by smackaholic
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:37 pm
Don't worry. Suckaholic believes that the CV vaccine killed more young healthy people than the virus itself.
Not sure if it killed more.
I do believe it caused serious lasting damage to more. For some reason, the vax has a nasty habit of causing damage to mostly very fit young males. It actually seems to go after them more than middle aged fatties like myself, who actually are at some elevated risk from CV itself.
BTW, I did get the vax and first booster. Haven't got any of the more recent ones. I decided to go with the actual infection booster last June. Had one night of terrible congestion, then nothing. The booster gave me a cough for about 2 months.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:14 am
by Diego in Seattle
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:29 am
Jsc810 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:01 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:34 pm
But even the OG CV was easily handled by anyone under 60 who was in anything remotely close to good health
This is simply not true.
I personally know several people of that description who died of covid, and a few more that almost died.
Care to give us ages and general health?
Reading comprehension just isn't your thing, is it?
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:25 am
by Screw_Michigan
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:36 am
Not sure if it killed more.
I do believe it caused serious lasting damage to more. For some reason, the vax has a nasty habit of causing damage to mostly very fit young males. It actually seems to go after them more than middle aged fatties like myself, who actually are at some elevated risk from CV itself.
BTW, I did get the vax and first booster. Haven't got any of the more recent ones. I decided to go with the actual infection booster last June. Had one night of terrible congestion, then nothing. The booster gave me a cough for about 2 months.
You are a liar. You have zero credibility.
Re: Artemis
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:31 pm
by smackaholic
What am I lying about, exactly?
Serious cardiac issues with young extremely fit people after the vax?
Do a little research. It is a thing. Also, the Pharma companies and the gov had this info early and did their best to ignore it, as they were devout followers of the church of the jab.
There is also evidence now that while they bent over backwards to ignore potential problems with the vax, they did the same to try to prove the ineffectiveness of dirt cheap, off patent anti-virals like horse paste, uhhhh, I mean Ivermectin.
We still haven't had a plausible explanation for the government's active campaign to not only proclaim these other treatments are ineffective, but to actually forbid their use.
Ivermectin has a very long history of safe effective use. There was no reason to deny it to anyone other than financial/political gain.
But you fukkers can continue to pretend the CDC and BigPharm acted honorably. Funny how the libs were always all in on Corporate witch hunts before CV hit.
But then they saw a political tool and they jumped on board. The day Trump said there's this common drug which is showing promise, that drug and others became the enemy.
Whats really odd is that Trump continues to be a vax fanboy because it was his baby and he's to proud/stupid to say it might not be all it was advertised to be. Just one more reason I think he won't be the nominee in '24.
