To utilise without causing irreversible damage is
welcome. However could one give such a guaranty
for what you are proposing?
"BradGuth" <bradguth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1189865462.610818.248080@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 14, 7:41 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > The problem is that all the talk about the core of the
> > moon not being im****tant is only based on extrapolations
> > and not on irrefutable facts.
> >
> > Beside if I could not confirm or deny then I would not
> > make any point towards negation or affirmation. Now
> > if that is naysayism by some standards then so be it
> > but I will not defy rational logic.
>
> What's not perfectly rational about our fully utilizing or moon and of
> its L1 for all it's worth? or for that matter of relocating that
> entire moon out to Earth's L1?
>
> Here's a irrefutable fact: our moon is simply not as robust nor as
> solid to its salty core as you and your NASA/Apollo suck-ups would
> like to think. Somewhat unrelated (meaning off-topic), this is what
> I've recently contributed to another lost soul of Usenet that I'm sure
> you'd topic/author stock, bash and apply as much banishment as you
> could muster.
>
> Willie Moo's space based IR laser cannons and terrestrial IR PV
> receiving stations by the dozens: "Solar powered lasers in space" and
> hundreds of spendy terrestrial receiving stations that are each +/-
> 100 meters off-limits to all forms of life as we know it, but at least
> we'd have yet another clean resource of energy for producing h2o2 and
> processing raw earth into aluminum or whatever else make you a happy
> camper.
>
> Here's a fifth gold star for his topic (*****)
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/06432e5952c1fc17/8ca2613fd22d46f1?
hl=en#8ca2613fd22d46f1
> As per usual it looks perfectly great, except having excluded the
> usual ENRON/Exxon 10X factor, making that potential of "0.03 cents per
> kWh" into at least a wholesale worth of $0.30 per kWh (end user at
> perhaps $0.50/kwhr), but lo and behold at least it's clean and
> renewable, as well as usable for many other life and Earth saving
> things, like burning a nice hole through our resident warlord's butt.
>
> Have you figured out which significant group of topic/author stocking
> naysayers is in charge of your private parts, and subsequently as to
> why your research and best of intentions are not getting Usenet or any
> other group net sup****ted?
>
> Too bad that I'm not in charge, as your space based laser cannon
> energy as well as those nifty terrestrial applications of solar
> extracted energy would have been 50/50 public funded as of a dacade
> ago, including those subsequent terrestrial applications of converting
> solar energy directly into wussy hydrogen or good old robust h2o2.
>
> BTW, even if ISS were donated and 100% converted into a viable
> platform of hosting those IR laser cannons, and outfitted along with
> those multiple km2 solar collectors, it wouldn't become nearly as
> affordable as you've suggested, as for the cost and extremely negative
> environmental impact of keeping such technology up and running isn't
> cheap, nor without human risk, not to mention each of those off-limit
> terrestrial receiving stations and of the laser knife of air space in
> between.
>
> As my having offered before, I have a perfectly viable fix or two for
> that, which includes utilizing our moon's L1 and a tether dipole
> element that'll give your laser cannons access to 97.6% of direct
> solar and loads of other than solar renewable energy to boot (I'm
> talking multiple teraWatts of continuous clean energy).
>
> However, if a certain little faith-based group were trying to dominate
> Earth for all it's worth, why would they allow or much less fund
> public access to your clean and affordable energy, and especially if
> it were renewable?
>
> You do realize that our corrupt government that's faith-based
> puppeteered and in total denial of their being in denial, will soon
> enough require us to pay $1/kwhr, don't you?
>
> Clue No.1) those that are currently rich and powerful don't actually
> give a tinkers damn as to how spendy, polluting or lethal our energy
> can be made, because where do you think they obtain their loot that's
> stuffed into those nifty offshore/(tax avoidance) bank accounts, as
> is.
>
> Until you folks realize whom is in charge of your private parts, and
> subsequently of how badly snookered you've been, there's no way in any
> hell on Earth that anything 'Willie Moo' is ever going to fly.
>
> BTW, do you even realize what number of our homes are 50% or more
> heated with the likes of wood, corn and even coal, because they simply
> can't afford their local energy grid or other alternatives as is?
>
> Of course, thanks to our corrupt government, many have lost or are in
> the process of losing their homes and are soon enough if not already
> living on the streets, or if lucky they live in some god forsaken dump
> of a place with minimal or w/o energy. The American system has badly
> failed to take care of its own kind from the bottom up (meaning honest
> education), and there's simply not the resources available as long as
> those Cheney/ENRON/Exxon types and of their faith-based puppeteers are
> in charge. But then you and others of your pathetic kind don't think
> there's any such problems to begin with, and therefore history needn't
> be revised.
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> - Brad Guth -
>
|
