If such a racist person as you dislikes me, then that means that I'm doing something right. The last thing I would like is for a klansman to proclaim his affections for me. So, thanks.
No, I'm Patrick Draper and I'm not the racist here, you are.
You know, the proper thing to do is to apologise. The fact of the matter is that you posted a racist website, and you called me a troll. Most people would be embarassed enough to apologise. But, I guess klansmen are never embarassed.
Did you notice that the website you posted has charts with the word 'nigger' on it? Are you so racist that you think that the website you posted is not racist?
I'm surprised that a klansman like you actually bothered to move out of Hazzard county Georgia, let alone to Japan.
I bet we could take what we've learned and eliminate the need for a saturn launch entirely. I would consider using three or four titans or Delta heavys to launch the pieces for assembly in orbit a possibility. With the automated docking systems we could have a fairly large vehicle assembled (2 or 3 sections) in orbit waiting for astronauts to dock with it in a capsule.
Point one: I am not primarily making the assertion that the Saturn V's were safe because they never exploded. I am making the assertion that the original statement that the Saturn V is unsafe is completely unsupported.
Judging from the problems encountered during the test and production of the Saturn V, there is no reason at all to believe that the Saturns were unsafe. The Saturn system was, contrary to the original comment, not a terribly complicated mess. The main F1 engines were pretty simple, conservatively designed, and were largely a simple scale-up of typical kerosine-oxygen engines. Other than the size of the rocket, there was no serious pushing of technology there. The only real problem encountered during Saturn development (besides the pogo problem that was progressively reduced during production) was some combustion instability early on with the F1 engines. That problem was licked before the first Saturn V flew.
The original statement that the Saturns were unsafe hasn't been supported by a single shred of actual evidence. NASA performed an adequate amount of safety engineering and flight testing to man-rate the vehicle. The Saturn system had an escape system that was effective for a good part of the boost. So, unless there is some actual evidence that Saturn was unsafe, I'd say that the original statement is a pile of shit.
Point two: I *am* making the point that the SRB's are unsafe. People don't belong on solid rockets, period. Without any method of turning them off, there's no reasonable escape plan that would get astronauts safely out of the way of those boosters, and the extreme turbulence behind them. I doubt even a capsule could survive even a momentary contact with the wake behind an SRB. The only way that a solid rocket might be acceptable for a man-rated launch system in my view would be to use a hybrid. But to my knowledge there's never been a hybrid flown large enough to fly a manned spacecraft.
Why not have the Department of Defense administer the list? That'd be some spectacular enforcement. It'd bring the troops home too. Might even find Saddam making phone calls.
I've read quite a lot about the Saturn V, and have never found anything to suggest there was any particular fatal problem with it.
It was a large rocket, and there's some amount of complexity that goes with that. But, complex systems aren't unsafe in themselves. The Space Shuttle main engines are arguably more complex than the F1 engines, and I think most everyone would say that they are very safe engines.
The only particular problem that I can point to is the well-known pogo problem that showed up through the entire life of the vehicle. The causes of pogo are well-known, and there are solutions that work. By the end of the Saturn V life, pogo was quickly being reduced and if they had a few more launches it would have been eliminated. The Saturn V was not the only rocket to experience pogo, and by itself, pogo is not problem for the engines. After the Apollo 6 launch, pogo had been reduced so much that it wasn't a threat to vehicle safety at all, just a very bumpy ride.
Please explain exactly why you think Saturn V was unsafe. I am quite familiar with the specifics of all the vehicle systems, so don't be afraid to "go technical" with me.
The Saturn 5 never failed, so I'm not sure why you say it wasn't safe. And to compare it to modern rockets isn't fair. They have the benefit of many years of refinement.
Now, the SRB's aren't safe at all. You can't shut them down, and and entire shuttle was lost because of a failure in the SRB. People have no business riding on solid rockets. Especially segmented solid rockets.
That's an urban legend. We know exactly how to build a Saturn V. The plans were not lost, nor was the knowlege needed to build them lost.
The problem is that many parts are not available anymore. 35 years ago, guidance equipment used funny things like vacuum tubes. Events in the launch weren't controlled with computers, but with things called 'sequencers'. Some materials used in parts of the rockets aren't made anymore, because improved materials have been developed.
So, we could fly a Saturn V if we wanted to, but before that would happen we would need to redesign many systems on the rocket to use modern technology. Nobody is going to build a vacuum tube factory to launch a Saturn V; they're just going to redesign that piece to use a modern computer instead.
Yep, they were going to bury her up to her neck and have people throw rocks at her head until she was dead, because she had a baby out of wedlock.
And, get this one: the religous court decided that since children can take up to 5 years to develop in the womb (!!!) it was possible that she conceived the child with her husband, so on that ground they let her live.
So, nice with the satellite, but I just am not impressed. Not even one little bit.
Actually, no. My contract contains clauses for cancellation due to non-payment, but nothing about what I put on my website, or send out over mail, with a single exception: If I overstep my bounds by causing havoc (spam complaints) for my provider, then they can cut service. There's absolutely no content restriction on my connection. (Take that, you slaves of cable companies).
But, you're right, that's not really first ammendment rights because that applies to government control of what I say. And, there's not a single government institution that could legally shut me down for my website or my mails, unless I overstepped my first ammendment bounds.
The SCOTUS decided long ago that a physical mailbox was part of someone's house, and the person could restrict someone else from placing something inside of it. I think that it's no contradiction to say that my e-mail box is a part of my house, and I can restrict someone from putting something in it.
The only person that the 1st ammendment applies to at pdrap.org is me, because I own and operate that mail server. Everyone else connects there at my sufferance.
Slashdot Mirror
If such a racist person as you dislikes me, then that means that I'm doing something right. The last thing I would like is for a klansman to proclaim his affections for me. So, thanks.
No, I'm Patrick Draper and I'm not the racist here, you are.
You know, the proper thing to do is to apologise. The fact of the matter is that you posted a racist website, and you called me a troll. Most people would be embarassed enough to apologise. But, I guess klansmen are never embarassed.
(And, my UID is lower than yours.)
OK, if you say I'm a troll, then I must remind everyone that it's a fucking racist calling me a troll.
You fucking racist.
I'm not a troll, but you're a fucking racist. If you needed the sources but weren't a racist, you wouldn't have used that website.
Did you notice that the website you posted has charts with the word 'nigger' on it? Are you so racist that you think that the website you posted is not racist?
I'm surprised that a klansman like you actually bothered to move out of Hazzard county Georgia, let alone to Japan.
That's an amazingly racist website you posted there. Actually, it's idiotic in many more ways than that.
The sin of not eating your own dog food.
I believe it. One little hagfish can turn a big bucket of water into slime. I wonder if you can eat it.
If I found a can with a GPS in it, I'd take it to Hippie Hollow (a local nude beach in Austin), open it, and wait for them naked.
No problem signing the piece of paper typical in such contests giving them authorization to use my image in their promotional materials.
Caffeine == soma
Or... which one of these rich old white millionaires best represents my interests?
Let's simplify things: What killed both shuttles was the bad design decision to locate the fuel, SRB's, and orbiter side-by-side instead of stacked.
I bet we could take what we've learned and eliminate the need for a saturn launch entirely. I would consider using three or four titans or Delta heavys to launch the pieces for assembly in orbit a possibility. With the automated docking systems we could have a fairly large vehicle assembled (2 or 3 sections) in orbit waiting for astronauts to dock with it in a capsule.
Point one: I am not primarily making the assertion that the Saturn V's were safe because they never exploded. I am making the assertion that the original statement that the Saturn V is unsafe is completely unsupported.
Judging from the problems encountered during the test and production of the Saturn V, there is no reason at all to believe that the Saturns were unsafe. The Saturn system was, contrary to the original comment, not a terribly complicated mess. The main F1 engines were pretty simple, conservatively designed, and were largely a simple scale-up of typical kerosine-oxygen engines. Other than the size of the rocket, there was no serious pushing of technology there. The only real problem encountered during Saturn development (besides the pogo problem that was progressively reduced during production) was some combustion instability early on with the F1 engines. That problem was licked before the first Saturn V flew.
The original statement that the Saturns were unsafe hasn't been supported by a single shred of actual evidence. NASA performed an adequate amount of safety engineering and flight testing to man-rate the vehicle. The Saturn system had an escape system that was effective for a good part of the boost. So, unless there is some actual evidence that Saturn was unsafe, I'd say that the original statement is a pile of shit.
Point two: I *am* making the point that the SRB's are unsafe. People don't belong on solid rockets, period. Without any method of turning them off, there's no reasonable escape plan that would get astronauts safely out of the way of those boosters, and the extreme turbulence behind them. I doubt even a capsule could survive even a momentary contact with the wake behind an SRB. The only way that a solid rocket might be acceptable for a man-rated launch system in my view would be to use a hybrid. But to my knowledge there's never been a hybrid flown large enough to fly a manned spacecraft.
Why not have the Department of Defense administer the list? That'd be some spectacular enforcement. It'd bring the troops home too. Might even find Saddam making phone calls.
I've read quite a lot about the Saturn V, and have never found anything to suggest there was any particular fatal problem with it.
It was a large rocket, and there's some amount of complexity that goes with that. But, complex systems aren't unsafe in themselves. The Space Shuttle main engines are arguably more complex than the F1 engines, and I think most everyone would say that they are very safe engines.
The only particular problem that I can point to is the well-known pogo problem that showed up through the entire life of the vehicle. The causes of pogo are well-known, and there are solutions that work. By the end of the Saturn V life, pogo was quickly being reduced and if they had a few more launches it would have been eliminated. The Saturn V was not the only rocket to experience pogo, and by itself, pogo is not problem for the engines. After the Apollo 6 launch, pogo had been reduced so much that it wasn't a threat to vehicle safety at all, just a very bumpy ride.
Please explain exactly why you think Saturn V was unsafe. I am quite familiar with the specifics of all the vehicle systems, so don't be afraid to "go technical" with me.
The Saturn 5 never failed, so I'm not sure why you say it wasn't safe. And to compare it to modern rockets isn't fair. They have the benefit of many years of refinement.
Now, the SRB's aren't safe at all. You can't shut them down, and and entire shuttle was lost because of a failure in the SRB. People have no business riding on solid rockets. Especially segmented solid rockets.
That's an urban legend. We know exactly how to build a Saturn V. The plans were not lost, nor was the knowlege needed to build them lost.
The problem is that many parts are not available anymore. 35 years ago, guidance equipment used funny things like vacuum tubes. Events in the launch weren't controlled with computers, but with things called 'sequencers'. Some materials used in parts of the rockets aren't made anymore, because improved materials have been developed.
So, we could fly a Saturn V if we wanted to, but before that would happen we would need to redesign many systems on the rocket to use modern technology. Nobody is going to build a vacuum tube factory to launch a Saturn V; they're just going to redesign that piece to use a modern computer instead.
I wrote something similar a few days ago.
Not ignorant at all. I don't know of any argument in favor of stoning that will be persuasive.
I'm an atheist, and all religious law is barbaric. That anyone would democratically vote for religion to control the law is ignorant.
I don't believe in your god, nor his laws. Valid for all values of 'your'.
Nice with the satellite, but Nigeria has a long ways to go.
A woman who committed adultery was spared death by stoning.
Yep, they were going to bury her up to her neck and have people throw rocks at her head until she was dead, because she had a baby out of wedlock.
And, get this one: the religous court decided that since children can take up to 5 years to develop in the womb (!!!) it was possible that she conceived the child with her husband, so on that ground they let her live.
So, nice with the satellite, but I just am not impressed. Not even one little bit.
The way I see it, they put up an ad on my computer for a "South Beach diet", so it's fair.
How the hell did they do that? I've got my popups in mozilla turned off, but still I got a popup with an ad.
Actually, no. My contract contains clauses for cancellation due to non-payment, but nothing about what I put on my website, or send out over mail, with a single exception: If I overstep my bounds by causing havoc (spam complaints) for my provider, then they can cut service. There's absolutely no content restriction on my connection. (Take that, you slaves of cable companies).
But, you're right, that's not really first ammendment rights because that applies to government control of what I say. And, there's not a single government institution that could legally shut me down for my website or my mails, unless I overstepped my first ammendment bounds.
The SCOTUS decided long ago that a physical mailbox was part of someone's house, and the person could restrict someone else from placing something inside of it. I think that it's no contradiction to say that my e-mail box is a part of my house, and I can restrict someone from putting something in it.
Yes, it can be really funny. Just the other day I overheard two lawyers talking, and it was so funny:
...and so I picked up this new client the other day. We see the judge on Tuesday.
Lawyer 1:
Lawyer 2: Did you get all the paperwork done yet?
At this point, both of them fell over laughing. It was hilarious!
I guess you had to be there.
The only person that the 1st ammendment applies to at pdrap.org is me, because I own and operate that mail server. Everyone else connects there at my sufferance.