From: Roger Coppock on
On Nov 14, 5:46 pm, "Good Gawd!" <conspiracies.101.102....(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> <
> Boy, those NASA "scientists" apparently will do almost anything
> to keep their plushy jobs.
> <
> The latest is their revelation that the moon apparently has lots
> of water.
> <
> Amazingly, they have said so even though NONE OF THEM
> has actually seen the water, let alone tasted it to make sure it's
> water abd not battery acid.
> <
> Yet these space "experts" have informed us they have discovered
> at least 25 gallons within the plumes of the impact of  two of their
> spacecraft that intentionally slammed into a lunar crater last month.
> <
> The 5,592 miles-per-hour impact carved out a hole 65 by 98 feet wide.
> and kicked up the water in the form of ice and vapor identified by
> a follow-up spacecraft, according to NASA "experts".
> <
> The presence of water on the moon reportedly was the result of
> an analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact, showing
> telltale signs of water molecules that had absorbed specific wave
> lengths of light.
> <
Yes, it's called, "spectroscopy." It's discussed and
demonstrated in introductory chemistry and astronomy
classes. Your post here indicates that you would benefit
from a basic science course. Consider enrolling in your
local junior college.
From: James on
Good Gawd! wrote:
> <
> Boy, those NASA "scientists" apparently will do almost anything
> to keep their plushy jobs.
> <
> The latest is their revelation that the moon apparently has lots
> of water.
> <
> Amazingly, they have said so even though NONE OF THEM
> has actually seen the water, let alone tasted it to make sure it's
> water abd not battery acid.
> <
> Yet these space "experts" have informed us they have discovered
> at least 25 gallons within the plumes of the impact of two of their
> spacecraft that intentionally slammed into a lunar crater last month.
> <
> The 5,592 miles-per-hour impact carved out a hole 65 by 98 feet wide.
> and kicked up the water in the form of ice and vapor identified by
> a follow-up spacecraft, according to NASA "experts".
> <
> The presence of water on the moon reportedly was the result of
> an analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact, showing
> telltale signs of water molecules that had absorbed specific wave
> lengths of light.
> <
> “Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn’t find just a little bit.
> We found a significant amount,” said Anthony Colaprete, the principal
> investigator for Nasa’s Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing
> Satellite, holding up a white water bucket for emphasis.
> <
> Colaprete and other NASA "scientists" called the discovery of water
> on the moon a thrilling discovery that has sent a ripple of hope for
> a future astronaut outpost in a place that always seemed barren and
> inhospitable.
> <
> Some space policy experts claim the discovery of H2O makes the
> moon attractive for exploration again because an abundance of water
> would make it easier to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying
> drinking water and a key ingredient for rocket fuel. More
> importantly, such a project would also keep their paychecks coming.
> <
> Scientists also hope that the water, in the form of ice accumulated
> over billions of years, holds a record of the solar system’s history,
> which is another bit of NASA nonsense..
> <
> “It’s very exciting, it is painting a new image of the moon,” said
> Gregory Deloy, from the University of California, hailing it as “an
> extraordinary discovery.”
> <
> “We’re unlocking the mysteries of our nearest neighbor and, by
> extension, the solar system,” said Michael Wargo, chief lunar
> scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington who hopes this
> "discovery" of water silences the critics who say spending more
> billions on anything to do with the moon is an absolute waste
> of money (Editorial comment: I agree.).

The moon trips taken 35+ years ago were primarily a political contest of one-upmanship. It'll be most likley many more years before we go back. At that rate it appears there would not be much reason to continue to pursue it.


From: mrbawana2u on
On Nov 14, 10:40 pm, "James" <kingko...(a)iglou.com> wrote:
> Good Gawd! wrote:
> > <
> > Boy, those NASA "scientists" apparently will do almost anything
> > to keep their plushy jobs.
> > <
> > The latest is their revelation that the moon apparently has lots
> > of water.
> > <
> > Amazingly, they have said so even though NONE OF THEM
> > has actually seen the water, let alone tasted it to make sure it's
> > water abd not battery acid.
> > <
> > Yet these space "experts" have informed us they have discovered
> > at least 25 gallons within the plumes of the impact of  two of their
> > spacecraft that intentionally slammed into a lunar crater last month.
> > <
> > The 5,592 miles-per-hour impact carved out a hole 65 by 98 feet wide.
> > and kicked up the water in the form of ice and vapor identified by
> > a follow-up spacecraft, according to NASA "experts".
> > <
> > The presence of water on the moon reportedly was the result of
> > an analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact, showing
> > telltale signs of water molecules that had absorbed specific wave
> > lengths of light.
> > <
> > “Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn’t find just a little bit.
> > We found a significant amount,” said Anthony Colaprete, the principal
> > investigator for Nasa’s Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing
> > Satellite, holding up a white water bucket for emphasis.
> > <
> > Colaprete and other NASA "scientists" called the discovery of water
> > on the moon a thrilling discovery that has sent a ripple of hope for
> > a future astronaut outpost in a place that always seemed barren and
> > inhospitable.
> > <
> > Some space policy experts claim the discovery of  H2O makes the
> > moon attractive for exploration again because an abundance of water
> > would make it easier to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying
> > drinking water and a key ingredient for rocket fuel. More
> > importantly, such a project would also keep their paychecks coming.
> > <
> > Scientists also hope that the water, in the form of ice accumulated
> > over billions of years, holds a record of the solar system’s history,
> > which is another bit of NASA nonsense..
> > <
> > “It’s very exciting, it is painting a new image of the moon,” said
> > Gregory Deloy, from the University of California, hailing it as “an
> > extraordinary discovery.”
> > <
> > “We’re unlocking the mysteries of our nearest neighbor and, by
> > extension, the solar system,” said Michael Wargo, chief lunar
> > scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington who hopes this
> > "discovery" of water silences the critics who say spending more
> > billions on anything to do with the moon is an absolute waste
> > of money (Editorial comment: I agree.).
>
> The moon trips taken 35+ years ago were primarily a political contest of one-upmanship.

Still, the US must have had real scientists back then...
From concept to the moon, in like, what, 8 yrs?
In like, what, a Cadillac?
That still blows my mind, dude.

> It'll be most likley many more years before we go back.

We are never going back.
Our current crop of "government scientists"
have already told us they can't do it in 20 years.
They might as well be honest and say "we can't do it".
NASA must be is infested with liberal parasites.
All mouth and models, no proof or product.

With all the advances in "science",
we should be able to go back to the moon in a YEAR.
They ALL need to be fired.

What is wrong with todays "government scientists"?
It must be their "government education".
Lemmings and fucktards.
It's how a delusional liar like James Hansen rises to the top.

> At that rate it appears there would not be much reason to continue to pursue it.

Perfect. They can move on to their nest tax sucking scam.

Let's stop now, rid the taxpayers of the parasites,
THEN maybe, we could hire people who are capable of getting the job
done.

OR

Has there been such a de-evolution in the sciences/scientists,
that they are no longer capable of doing what was done 35 years ago?
Have these fucktards been socially promoted all their pathetic
careers?

The "climate sciences" are a perfect refuge for the
"all mouth and models, no proof or product" type of parasite-psuedo-
scientist,
being pooped out by todays institutes.






From: James on
mrbawana2u wrote:
> On Nov 14, 10:40 pm, "James" <kingko...(a)iglou.com> wrote:
>> Good Gawd! wrote:
>> > <
>> > Boy, those NASA "scientists" apparently will do almost anything
>> > to keep their plushy jobs.
>> > <
>> > The latest is their revelation that the moon apparently has lots
>> > of water.
>> > <
>> > Amazingly, they have said so even though NONE OF THEM
>> > has actually seen the water, let alone tasted it to make sure it's
>> > water abd not battery acid.
>> > <
>> > Yet these space "experts" have informed us they have discovered
>> > at least 25 gallons within the plumes of the impact of two of their
>> > spacecraft that intentionally slammed into a lunar crater last
>> > month. <
>> > The 5,592 miles-per-hour impact carved out a hole 65 by 98 feet
>> > wide. and kicked up the water in the form of ice and vapor
>> > identified by
>> > a follow-up spacecraft, according to NASA "experts".
>> > <
>> > The presence of water on the moon reportedly was the result of
>> > an analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact, showing
>> > telltale signs of water molecules that had absorbed specific wave
>> > lengths of light.
>> > <
>> > “Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn’t find just a little bit.
>> > We found a significant amount,” said Anthony Colaprete, the
>> > principal investigator for Nasa’s Lunar Crater Observation and
>> > Sensing Satellite, holding up a white water bucket for emphasis.
>> > <
>> > Colaprete and other NASA "scientists" called the discovery of water
>> > on the moon a thrilling discovery that has sent a ripple of hope
>> > for a future astronaut outpost in a place that always seemed
>> > barren and inhospitable.
>> > <
>> > Some space policy experts claim the discovery of H2O makes the
>> > moon attractive for exploration again because an abundance of water
>> > would make it easier to set up a base camp for astronauts,
>> > supplying drinking water and a key ingredient for rocket fuel. More
>> > importantly, such a project would also keep their paychecks coming.
>> > <
>> > Scientists also hope that the water, in the form of ice accumulated
>> > over billions of years, holds a record of the solar system’s
>> > history, which is another bit of NASA nonsense..
>> > <
>> > “It’s very exciting, it is painting a new image of the moon,” said
>> > Gregory Deloy, from the University of California, hailing it as “an
>> > extraordinary discovery.”
>> > <
>> > “We’re unlocking the mysteries of our nearest neighbor and, by
>> > extension, the solar system,” said Michael Wargo, chief lunar
>> > scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington who hopes this
>> > "discovery" of water silences the critics who say spending more
>> > billions on anything to do with the moon is an absolute waste
>> > of money (Editorial comment: I agree.).
>>
>> The moon trips taken 35+ years ago were primarily a political
>> contest of one-upmanship.
>
> Still, the US must have had real scientists back then...
> From concept to the moon, in like, what, 8 yrs?
> In like, what, a Cadillac?
> That still blows my mind, dude.
>
>> It'll be most likley many more years before we go back.
>
> We are never going back.
> Our current crop of "government scientists"
> have already told us they can't do it in 20 years.
> They might as well be honest and say "we can't do it".
> NASA must be is infested with liberal parasites.
> All mouth and models, no proof or product.
>
> With all the advances in "science",
> we should be able to go back to the moon in a YEAR.
> They ALL need to be fired.
>
> What is wrong with todays "government scientists"?
> It must be their "government education".
> Lemmings and fucktards.
> It's how a delusional liar like James Hansen rises to the top.
>
>> At that rate it appears there would not be much reason to continue
>> to pursue it.
>
> Perfect. They can move on to their nest tax sucking scam.
>
> Let's stop now, rid the taxpayers of the parasites,
> THEN maybe, we could hire people who are capable of getting the job
> done.
>
> OR
>
> Has there been such a de-evolution in the sciences/scientists,
> that they are no longer capable of doing what was done 35 years ago?
> Have these fucktards been socially promoted all their pathetic
> careers?
>
> The "climate sciences" are a perfect refuge for the
> "all mouth and models, no proof or product" type of parasite-psuedo-
> scientist,
> being pooped out by todays institutes.

Well, scientists can expect a nice steady career when it takes 20 years to go back can't they? But, to be fair, ever since we won that political race to the moon, the pols have lionized the word "scientist" to be the know-all guru of everything that liberals can point to in order to prove their own ideas. Gore is a perfect example. Using government handouts as their proof that the "science" tells us this or that, they can claim anything they want and have a few scientists back them up. Add many more pols singing the same tune and you have a media story for the public. In AGW the useful idiots come out of the woodwork to advocate the lie to be part of something.

Actually, it's a good plan for making money and fooling the public in into accepting more taxes to fight off the latest demon.


From: Bob LeChevalier on
mrbawana2u <mrbawana2u(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> The moon trips taken 35+ years ago were primarily a political contest of one-upmanship.
>
>Still, the US must have had real scientists back then...
>From concept to the moon, in like, what, 8 yrs?

That is engineering, and the concept was proposed considerably more
than 8 years before the first launch.

>> It'll be most likley many more years before we go back.
>
>We are never going back.
>Our current crop of "government scientists"
>have already told us they can't do it in 20 years.
>They might as well be honest and say "we can't do it".

We could do it the way we did it before, but it would be prohibitively
expensive, and would buy us to little benefit. In the mid 60s, NASA
was spending around $5 billion a year, which is somewhat over $30
billion in current dollars. NASA's current budget is around half
that, and efforts to plan a future space program have to presume that
the budget will stay close to where it is now, rather than doubling to
1960s levels.

>NASA must be is infested with liberal parasites.
>All mouth and models, no proof or product.

The primary product of the space program in recent years, other than
the International Space Station, has been science produced by unmanned
spacecraft like the Mars rover, and Voyager and the other planetary
probes, and of course the Hubble Space Telescope.

If you don't like that product, tough.

>With all the advances in "science",
>we should be able to go back to the moon in a YEAR.

Why would you think that? Going back to the moon is an engineering
problem, and we don't have the engineering facilities we had in the
1960s. The would have to be rebuilt from scratch, and that would take
years. The science is easy by current standards, but the lead time on
large hardware projects is enormous.

>They ALL need to be fired.

I'd rather fire you, for being an ignorant fool.

>What is wrong with todays "government scientists"?

Nothing.

Their mission just happens to be something you don't approve of.

>It must be their "government education".

Your evidence is non-existent.

>> At that rate it appears there would not be much reason to continue to pursue it.
>
>Perfect. They can move on to their nest tax sucking scam.
>
>Let's stop now, rid the taxpayers of the parasites,

Are you committing suicide?

>THEN maybe, we could hire people who are capable of getting the job
>done.

What job is that?

>OR
>
>Has there been such a de-evolution in the sciences/scientists,
>that they are no longer capable of doing what was done 35 years ago?

They can do it, but it would make no sense to do what has already been
done, at enormous cost.

>The "climate sciences" are a perfect refuge for the
>"all mouth and models, no proof or product" type of parasite-psuedo-
>scientist,

That you have no clue about climatology is not reason to complain
about the scientists that do have a clue.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab(a)lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org