| |
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
> The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft.
[...]
Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
power of wings is useless.
Wings are necessary for vehicles that travel in an atmosphere. The
air pressure difference in air flowing above and below the wing
generates lift, which keeps the vehicle from crashing into the ground
due to the pull of gravity. However this is not relevant or required
in outer space. For example, the Space Shuttle has wings only becuase
it is needed for re-entry. If you look at the Apollo spacecraft that
went to the moon and back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, they
have no streamlining or wings, and did not disintegrate.
You may find that wings are good from a visual point of view, and I
won't argue with that. Also, they provide useful mounting points for
weapons or for maneuvering jets. However, the purpose of wings on
aircraft is to provide lift - to use the flow of air over and under
the wings in order to fight the pull of gravity. However, in outer
space there is neither air nor gravity to fight, so it is not
necessary to put wings on space-only ships. Of course, like the Space
Shuttle, it may be desirable to allow your ships to land on Earth, in
which case wings would be useful.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> [...]
> > The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> > for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> > one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> > Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> > wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> > space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> > space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft.
> [...]
>
> Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> power of wings is useless.
>
> Wings are necessary for vehicles that travel in an atmosphere. The
> air pressure difference in air flowing above and below the wing
> generates lift, which keeps the vehicle from crashing into the ground
> due to the pull of gravity. However this is not relevant or required
> in outer space. For example, the Space Shuttle has wings only becuase
> it is needed for re-entry. If you look at the Apollo spacecraft that
> went to the moon and back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, they
> have no streamlining or wings, and did not disintegrate.
>
> You may find that wings are good from a visual point of view, and I
> won't argue with that. Also, they provide useful mounting points for
> weapons or for maneuvering jets. However, the purpose of wings on
> aircraft is to provide lift - to use the flow of air over and under
> the wings in order to fight the pull of gravity. However, in outer
> space there is neither air nor gravity to fight, so it is not
> necessary to put wings on space-only ships. Of course, like the Space
> Shuttle, it may be desirable to allow your ships to land on Earth, in
> which case wings would be useful.
>
> --Bill.
The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space. The
fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
die from your trip to the moon. The comment on the antennas is still true
because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
that could damage such equipment on a ship. There are two other points that
you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies. The
second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
asteroids hurtle through space? The only way that I know of in my mind that
gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory. Space has less
gravity than a planet, star, galaxy, asteroid, or comet and space does not
nave a lack of gravity inside that realm of the universe.
|
|
| |
Hi Jesse:
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
> live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
> for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space. The
> fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
> from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
> with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
> earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
> either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
> die from your trip to the moon.
A distinction must be made between controlled and uncontrolled re-entry.
In the case of the Apollo (and various other pre-shuttle craft) entry was
controlled, to an extent, as you indicate. Of course friction was still
intense, but the Apollo craft didn't drop like a stone to the
Earth--parachutes were used to slow the descent, and even the angle of entry
was calculated to maximize the survivability of re-entry.
> There are two other points that
> you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies. The
> second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
> not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
> but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
> asteroids hurtle through space?
Gravity exists, to be sure, though at small (and to the unaided observer,
undetectable) levels, and indeed it does govern the motion of stellar
bodies. However, the wings that we are discussing, in the manner of
aircraft, provide lift against gravity through the motion of air (or some
similar fluid medium). Wings are therefore not needed--and more importantly
are of no use--in an airless environment such as space. As I believe you
mentioned, space is not a true vacuum, but neither does it have any sort of
atmosphere to support or require wings. If wings were required for motion
through space, then how could asteroids and planets move about?
Regarding the streamlined structure of spacecraft, this would mainly be
necessary for purposes of atmospheric insertion, in which case the vessel
might fly much like an aircraft, or for aesthetics. It might also be
posited that some science fiction phenomenon like "hyperspace" requires a
streamlined craft, but that's obviously just speculation. Regardless, in an
environment with no "up" or "down," such as space, then vessels can engage
in combat front to back, side to side, upside-down, or any other
combination. A streamlined craft would only present a small target for a
head-on attack; seen from overhead, even the B-2 Stealth Bomber is a big vessel!
> The only way that I know of in my mind that
> gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory.
? I think you mean that gravity can't be simulated in the lab, but
certainly it exists, or all the microscopes would float away!
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
(snipped some stuff)
> The comment on the antennas is still true
> because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
> that could damage such equipment on a ship. There are two other points that
> you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies.
(snipped the rest of the scientific discussion)
I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of
antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when encountering those
space monsters that live inside the asteroids and have the huge mouths that
are disguised as caves. All those pieces sticking out of the ship would
poke the monster in the sensitive areas of its gums and the roof of its
mouth. And if that didn't stop it then the bulkiness would make it hard for
the monster to swallow the craft.
What's the good of wings if you're sitting in the belly of the beast being
slowly dissolved by gastric juices?
G.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Dave Schuler writes:
> Hi Jesse:
>
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
> > live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
> > for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space. The
> > fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
> > from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
> > with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
> > earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
> > either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
> > die from your trip to the moon.
>
> A distinction must be made between controlled and uncontrolled re-entry.
> In the case of the Apollo (and various other pre-shuttle craft) entry was
> controlled, to an extent, as you indicate. Of course friction was still
> intense, but the Apollo craft didn't drop like a stone to the
> Earth--parachutes were used to slow the descent, and even the angle of entry
> was calculated to maximize the survivability of re-entry.
>
> > There are two other points that
> > you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> > horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> > space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies. The
> > second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
> > not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
> > but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
> > asteroids hurtle through space?
>
> Gravity exists, to be sure, though at small (and to the unaided observer,
> undetectable) levels, and indeed it does govern the motion of stellar
> bodies. However, the wings that we are discussing, in the manner of
> aircraft, provide lift against gravity through the motion of air (or some
> similar fluid medium). Wings are therefore not needed--and more importantly
> are of no use--in an airless environment such as space. As I believe you
> mentioned, space is not a true vacuum, but neither does it have any sort of
> atmosphere to support or require wings. If wings were required for motion
> through space, then how could asteroids and planets move about?
> Regarding the streamlined structure of spacecraft, this would mainly be
> necessary for purposes of atmospheric insertion, in which case the vessel
> might fly much like an aircraft, or for aesthetics. It might also be
> posited that some science fiction phenomenon like "hyperspace" requires a
> streamlined craft, but that's obviously just speculation. Regardless, in an
> environment with no "up" or "down," such as space, then vessels can engage
> in combat front to back, side to side, upside-down, or any other
> combination. A streamlined craft would only present a small target for a
> head-on attack; seen from overhead, even the B-2 Stealth Bomber is a big vessel!
>
> > The only way that I know of in my mind that
> > gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory.
>
> ? I think you mean that gravity can't be simulated in the lab, but
> certainly it exists, or all the microscopes would float away!
>
> Dave!
Dave, you are correct in observing a small mistake concerning the rockets.
There were parachutes that helped the rockets land in the ocean but even so,
in a unique way, the parachute acted not only with but against the retro
rockets because air is required to help an object to land safely on the
ground or, in this instance, the ocean. The parachute helped the retro
rockets not burn as much fuel and withstand as much gravitational friction
as they would if there was not a parachute on the rocket. The comment about
the total lack of gravity in a laboratory is that a special type of room has
to be built in order to not contain any gravity and, at least from the
perspective of this era, any facility that contains such a quality would
probably be used for some type of space research lab or a test area by a
space organization. The answer to your question, which was a response to a
question, is that if these objects are able to move through space, then they
must be moved by some sort of either controlled or internal gravity inside
their mass.
|
|
| |
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
> live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
> for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space.
It's more complicated than that. The rocket was a several-stage
affair; the first few stages would drop off and burn up as you head up
through the atmosphere; by the time you reach orbit only a small
amount of rocket is left. The Lunar Module (LEM) was very much not
streamlined or rocket-shaped, and was stored inside the rocket. Once
they got into Earth orbit, the LEM was removed from the rocket, which
was then dropped into the atmosphere, leaving only the command module
and LEM. These units then left Earth orbit together for the moon,
propelled by the command module's rocket engine.
When they got to lunar orbit, the LEM was detatched and two of the men
went to the surface while the third orbited in the command module.
The LEM's rocket was used to soften the lunar landing. Since the
moon's gravity is only 1/6 that of Earth's, and there is no atmosphere
on the moon to cause friction, the LEM did not need to be streamlined,
or have wings, or a heat shield. After the mission was complete, the
LEM then divided in half - the part with landing gear and the main
engine was left on the moon, and the part with the astronauts took off
using yet another rocket engine up to meet with the command module.
When the crew returned to earth, the only part of the whole spacecraft
which survived was the crew compartment of the command module.
Instead of using wings to provide lift, the module was equipped with a
heat shield which took the friction from the Earth's atmosphere and
kept the resulting heat away from the astronauts. The friction on the
heat shield slowed the module to a reasonable speed, and finally
parachutes were used to slow it further, until it landed in the ocean.
> The
> fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
> from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
> with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
> earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
> either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
> die from your trip to the moon.
This is not true - retro rockets were used for landing on the moon,
since there is no atmosphere to provide the friction which would slow
the craft down. But when returning to Earth, the atmosphere was used
as a brake, using a heat shield. No rockets were used at all on Earth
re-entry. The friction slowed down the craft enough that they could
then deploy parachutes for a soft landing in the ocean.
Also, the term "accelerate" means to speed up. When re-entering the
atmosphere, you are slowing down, not speeding up. Physicists would
call that reverse acceleration, but in common use you wouldn't use the
term "accelerate".
You are speeding so fast towards the Earth that you have a lot of
friction when you hit the atmosphere, and need to find a way of
dealing with the friction. The Apollo craft (and Mercury and Gemini
before them) used a round, mostly flat heat shield. The Space Shuttle
is covered with special tiles which dissipate the heat - the bottom of
its wings and fuselage act as a heat shield. Once you have slowed
down enough that you don't have so much friction, you can then use
wings, parachutes, retro rockets, or other methods to slow down even
more so that you can make a soft landing. But in the initial phase of
re-entry, the atmospheric friction would burn up the wings (unless
specially built, like the Shuttle's), rockets, or parachutes.
Also, landing in the ocean really isn't that important: the Russians
built similarly designed craft, although they never went to the moon,
but they land on the ground! The Soyuz craft that they used for their
space missions (and still do, to resupply the International Space
Station, and Mir before that) operate on the same principle - a rocket
launches it into orbit, and a heat shield and parachute are used to
slow it down on re-entry - the difference is, they land on the ground
instead of in the water. Landing in the ocean is easier for the USA
as we have a more advanced Navy, and more sea ports. Russia doesn't
really have any good ports, and most of their Navy is in the form of
submarines. So they chose to land on the ground instead.
If you've ever done a bellyflop into a swimming pool, you know that
water doesn't necessarily make a soft landing. If you've ever jumped
off a rock high above the water and landed wrong, it can hurt almost
as much as landing on the ground. People commit suicide by jumping
off bridges, because the impact on the water from 200 feet up will
kill most people. Landing on water doesn't really help very much -
it's the parachutes that kept the astronauts alive, not the ocean.
> The comment on the antennas is still true
> because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
> that could damage such equipment on a ship.
Antennae and other items can be damaged in re-entry. But in orbit,
interplanetary travel, etc., the debris is very uncommon. You are
correct that there are millions of tons of debris. However, space is
just so huge that the odds of finding a piece of debris and being
unable to steer around it is very unlikely. Satellites, space
stations, Apollo ships, NASA's robotic probes to the outer planets,
etc. all have antennas and solar panels and similar things sticking
out in all directions. They are almost never hit by debris.
> There are two other points that
> you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies.
If you are talking about a scenario where there are enemies, then this
may be a valid concern. Streamlining is not really what would make
you a more difficult target, however - moving very fast and being very
small is more effective. The shape is not so important as the size -
you want to make a small target.
However, there are not necessarily any enemies in space. I design
spaceships in a peaceful universe where Earth has colonized the near
planets and moons, and has some orbiting space stations. Commercial
cargo ships, mining ships, pleasure craft, etc. are the types of ships
I prefer to build. None of my ships are armed for combat. But not
everyone builds for my universe :-)
> The
> second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
> not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
> but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
> asteroids hurtle through space? The only way that I know of in my mind that
> gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory. Space has less
> gravity than a planet, star, galaxy, asteroid, or comet and space does not
> nave a lack of gravity inside that realm of the universe.
OK, to be more precise: gravity does exist, but you don't feel the
same kind of pull that you feel on Earth. If you are in orbit, you
are actually falling all the way around the body you are orbiting.
An airplane needs to have wings to keep from crashing into Earth. A
helicopter's rotors blow air downwards to push it upwards. But in
space, the gravitational pull does not have the same kind of effect.
If you are orbiting, you do not need to do anything to stay in orbit:
you can turn the engines off, and wings are not required. If you are
flying to the moon, for example, you basically set a course, burn the
rocket to accelerate enough to pull free of Earth's gravity, and then
shut off the engine and drift in the right direction. When you get
closer to the moon its gravity will start to pull you away from a
straight line, and if you've set your course correctly, a slight burst
from the retro-rocket will put you in lunar orbit.
So you are right - there is gravity in space. But it doesn't have the
same sort of effect as on a planet: so wings are not necessary (and
there's no air for them to operate against anyway), and you don't need
to constantly run the engines as you would in an airplane.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
| |
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dave, you are correct in observing a small mistake concerning the rockets.
> There were parachutes that helped the rockets land in the ocean but even so,
> in a unique way, the parachute acted not only with but against the retro
> rockets because air is required to help an object to land safely on the
> ground or, in this instance, the ocean. The parachute helped the retro
> rockets not burn as much fuel and withstand as much gravitational friction
> as they would if there was not a parachute on the rocket.
There are no retro rockets used in an Apollo re-entry to Earth. Only
the heat of friction and the parachutes slow the ship down from
orbital speeds to the slow speed required for a safe splashdown.
> The comment about
> the total lack of gravity in a laboratory is that a special type of room has
> to be built in order to not contain any gravity and, at least from the
> perspective of this era, any facility that contains such a quality would
> probably be used for some type of space research lab or a test area by a
> space organization. The answer to your question, which was a response to a
> question, is that if these objects are able to move through space, then they
> must be moved by some sort of either controlled or internal gravity inside
> their mass.
If there was such a laboratory it would be quite a boon to NASA.
Unfortunately the current theories of physics state that it would be
impossible to create such a room.
To simulate lack of gravity, there are two techniques used. Both of
these are used by NASA as part of their astronaut training program:
1. Put astronauts in a big swimming pool, wearing their spacesuits.
The buoyancy in the water acts against gravity so that the effect is
somewhat similar to zero-G.
2. Fly in the "vomit comet" - an airplane that goes very high up
into the atmosphere, and then dives straight down, so that the
occupants experience free-fall. This can only continue for about 30
seconds, because otherwise the plane would crash. They then climb
back up and repeat the cycle several times.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
| |
lol....
> I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of
> antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when encountering • those
> space monsters that live inside the asteroids and have the huge mouths • that
> are disguised as caves. All those pieces sticking out of the ship would
> poke the monster in the sensitive areas of its gums and the roof of its
> mouth. And if that didn't stop it then the bulkiness would make it hard • for
> the monster to swallow the craft.
>
> What's the good of wings if you're sitting in the belly of the beast being
> slowly dissolved by gastric juices?
>
> G.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
>
> To simulate lack of gravity, there are two techniques used. Both of
> these are used by NASA as part of their astronaut training program: • [snip]
> 2. Fly in the "vomit comet" - an airplane that goes very high up
> into the atmosphere, and then dives straight down, so that the
> occupants experience free-fall. This can only continue for about 30
> seconds, because otherwise the plane would crash. They then climb
> back up and repeat the cycle several times.
<Chuckle> Well, this is close, but not entirely correct :] The
airplane goes into a climb, and then in one fluid motion levels
and enters a dive. It's during the arced portion of the flight
that the occupants experience zero-G. It's the same idea as when
you drive over a hump in the road at a decent speed. You get
a little light and your stomach may feel funny. This is because
the arc makes you want to fly up, which counter-acts gravity
pulling you down. That's not a very good explanation, but without
pictures is about the best I can do. Another similar experience
is riding a roller coaster over the top of one of the hills.
The altitude doesn't matter. It's your speed and the radius of the
arc. Also, the arc has to be pretty "flat" to experience zero-G
for a decent amount of time. I believe they generally start with
about 15 degrees nose-up and progress to 15 degrees nose-down.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
On 20/6/01 5:54 AM, "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote:
> Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> power of wings is useless.
Actually, if you're travelling at near-light velocities, the density of the
interstellar medium becomes high enough (especially within solar systems, so
I guess that would be intrastellar medium) that a streamlined shaped would
become essential. Even then, there would be both heavy erosion of whatever
impact-shielding you have, and heavy drag on the ship.
Unless of course you have a star-trek type deflector shield that pushes all
the gunk away from your ship. :)
Later,
David Drew
Famous quote from a convention...
Q: How do the inertial dampeners work on Star Trek?
A: Very nicely, thank you.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> [...]
> > The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> > for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> > one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> > Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> > wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> > space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> > space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft.
> [...]
>
> Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> power of wings is useless.
My spacecraft have wings if they're intended to enter the atmosphere, such
as my Sparrow, http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/sparrow.htm .
If they are strictly space (no atmospheric travel), they won't have wings,
but they will have things that look like wings, but are field vanes. I got
the idea from a recent WiReD article, the field vanes interact with field
properties in space. Depending on the applied charge, one side of the vane
will repel, the other will attract, giving a craft manueverability similar
to a winged craft flying through an atmosphere.
The alternative is to use thrusters and flywheels to change attitude,
orientation and velocity, which is harder to do, and doesn't look as spiffy.
I reserve this for lower tech spacecraft, such as my OTV
http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/otv.htm .
George
|
|
| |
I thought the quote was asking how the Heisenberg Compensators work? Oh
well... same sentiment. ;^)
~Mark "Web Interface, now with 50% more fat!" Sandlin
In lugnet.space, David Drew writes:
> Famous quote from a convention...
> Q: How do the inertial dampeners work on Star Trek?
> A: Very nicely, thank you.
|
|
| |
David Drew writes:
> On 20/6/01 5:54 AM, "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> > few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> > friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> > craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> > power of wings is useless.
>
> Actually, if you're travelling at near-light velocities, the density of the
> interstellar medium becomes high enough (especially within solar systems, so
> I guess that would be intrastellar medium) that a streamlined shaped would
> become essential. Even then, there would be both heavy erosion of whatever
> impact-shielding you have, and heavy drag on the ship.
That may be true, but I don't think anyone knows for sure, because we
haven't tried going that fast yet. My spacecraft follow a very "hard
SF" policy - no FTL travel, no artificial gravity, etc. But that's
not to say that it's the only way...
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > Famous quote from a convention...
> > Q: How do the inertial dampeners work on Star Trek?
> > A: Very nicely, thank you.
> I thought the quote was asking how the Heisenberg Compensators work? Oh
> well... same sentiment. ;^)
I just figured the Heisenberg Compensators worked by dampening inertia.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin writes:
>
> > > Famous quote from a convention...
> > > Q: How do the inertial dampeners work on Star Trek?
> > > A: Very nicely, thank you.
>
> > I thought the quote was asking how the Heisenberg Compensators work? Oh
> > well... same sentiment. ;^)
>
> I just figured the Heisenberg Compensators worked by dampening inertia.
I think there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding their function. ;)
XFUT -> o-t.pun (uhhh, o-t.geek.pun? :) )
LFB
|
|
| |
> I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of
> antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when encountering • those
> space monsters that live inside the asteroids and have the huge mouths • that
> are disguised as caves. All those pieces sticking out of the ship would
> poke the monster in the sensitive areas of its gums and the roof of its
> mouth. And if that didn't stop it then the bulkiness would make it hard • for
> the monster to swallow the craft.
And what happens if you need to detect that undetectable tachyon pulse
signature and you've left off the tachyon pulse antenna?! It makes me sick
the way that spaceships have got so fashionable now that everybody buys one
but never actually takes them out of earth's atmosphere.
A spacecraft should be like a Swiss army knife, a gadget ready for every
unforeseeable occasion!
Kerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kerry Raymond writes:
> It makes me sick
> the way that spaceships have got so fashionable now that everybody buys one
> but never actually takes them out of earth's atmosphere.
:)
Yes. People should buy much more economical atmospheric craft if they're not
going into outer space. Just think of the extra fuel used by dragging those
hyperspace drives around with your atmospheric thrusters.
Sure, you can see over the atmospheric vehicles, but these large space ships
have been produced under completely different design rules and they're not
nearly as safe in a collision as people think. And you can't see out of the
back properly.
And have you seen the damage that a star-trek type deflector shield can do
to a parachutist?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
Patrician of Brick-Morpork
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> David Drew writes:
> > On 20/6/01 5:54 AM, "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> > > few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> > > friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> > > craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> > > power of wings is useless.
> >
> > Actually, if you're travelling at near-light velocities, the density of the
> > interstellar medium becomes high enough (especially within solar systems, so
> > I guess that would be intrastellar medium) that a streamlined shaped would
> > become essential. Even then, there would be both heavy erosion of whatever
> > impact-shielding you have, and heavy drag on the ship.
>
> That may be true, but I don't think anyone knows for sure, because we
> haven't tried going that fast yet. My spacecraft follow a very "hard
> SF" policy - no FTL travel, no artificial gravity, etc. But that's
> not to say that it's the only way...
>
> --Bill.
There has existed artificial gravity for years in the space programs, most
notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
as early as the year 2003. I believe that all of these responses were from
a letter that I wrote Tuesday and I built my wings for five reasons on my
space craft. The first reason for building those wings was so that I could
have a stable weapons platform for the rear section of my space craft. The
second reason for building those wings is that, as in the case of the
Galactic Mediator, I needed some place on the space craft to transport
prisoners so the wings were the only logical place to transport the
prisoners. The third reason for building those wings is that four of the
guns, two on each side, are part of my exclusive DualFire (IGTM) technology.
These guns, which are located near the tips of the wings, are auxillary
boosters and additional weaponry on my space craft. The fourth reason for
those wings is that, as the case with the giant panels that are currently
located on the International Space Station, they are sources for power, or
in this case, auxillary power, for the space craft. The space craft is
powered by three main fusion core reactors and two auxillary fusion core
reactors. My vessel also has a supply of plasma as an alternate energy
source and reserve ammunition for the space craft. The fifth reason for
building those wings is that there does exist many particles of cosmic dust
but asteroids, meteors, comets, rogue moons, and the occasional small planet
float around in space as garbage and therefore I built my ship in a
streamlined shape with wings for the above mentioned reasons so that it will
not suffer heavy damage to the space craft. I hope this message will help
you understand why I prefer to build wings with my space craft and Lego has
been building wings on their space craft ever since the Legoland space sets.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Greg Perry writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> (snipped some stuff)
>
> > The comment on the antennas is still true
> > because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
> > that could damage such equipment on a ship. There are two other points that
> > you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> > horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> > space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies.
>
> (snipped the rest of the scientific discussion)
>
> I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of
> antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when encountering those
> space monsters that live inside the asteroids and have the huge mouths that
> are disguised as caves. All those pieces sticking out of the ship would
> poke the monster in the sensitive areas of its gums and the roof of its
> mouth. And if that didn't stop it then the bulkiness would make it hard for
> the monster to swallow the craft.
>
> What's the good of wings if you're sitting in the belly of the beast being
> slowly dissolved by gastric juices?
>
> G.
Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
Empire and they flew inside a space monster? I thought that the Sarlacc Pit
Monster (which was in Return of the Jedi, not Star Wars, to those people at
JVC for making the Star Wars video game trilogy) was large but that monster
made the Sarlacc Pit Monster seem as though it was an earthworm being
compared to an anaconda. My space craft is very handy because it has two
support craft that are by themselves very well armed and the engines can
also double as guns and I believe I have around forty weapons total on my
space craft or possibly more than forty weapons and it is only seventy three
Lego studs long, or in the case of human measurements, about the size of the
Galactic Mediator, which is about two feet in length so I think that I do
not need to poke the monster, I think I need to make some nice space monster
burgers and space monster steaks. My space craft is known as a Gaea
Federation Galaxy Destroyer not because it is a good name but the fact that
a destroyer is equipped with many guns but not as many as a battleship, or
in the context of space, a battle cruiser. The primary function of a
destroyer is not only to provide support for reconnaissance teams but to
also patrol the enemy territory for signs of terrorism, violence, and other
threats and to destroy smaller vessels as well as defending the larger
vessels of the representative space fleet, or protecting the bigger space
craft in the space fleet. Some of the features on my wings also are part of
my DualFire (IGTM) technology and this technology allows the nine engines,
three main engines, two auxillary engines/intergalactic ballistic missiles,
and four guns/teritary auxillary engines, to act as either thrust or as a
weapon andevery engine is controlled individually so that they change their
functions at the press of a button on the control panel inside of the ship.
Have I answered your question correctly, G?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Dave, you are correct in observing a small mistake concerning the rockets.
> > There were parachutes that helped the rockets land in the ocean but even so,
> > in a unique way, the parachute acted not only with but against the retro
> > rockets because air is required to help an object to land safely on the
> > ground or, in this instance, the ocean. The parachute helped the retro
> > rockets not burn as much fuel and withstand as much gravitational friction
> > as they would if there was not a parachute on the rocket.
>
> There are no retro rockets used in an Apollo re-entry to Earth. Only
> the heat of friction and the parachutes slow the ship down from
> orbital speeds to the slow speed required for a safe splashdown.
>
> > The comment about
> > the total lack of gravity in a laboratory is that a special type of room has
> > to be built in order to not contain any gravity and, at least from the
> > perspective of this era, any facility that contains such a quality would
> > probably be used for some type of space research lab or a test area by a
> > space organization. The answer to your question, which was a response to a
> > question, is that if these objects are able to move through space, then they
> > must be moved by some sort of either controlled or internal gravity inside
> > their mass.
>
> If there was such a laboratory it would be quite a boon to NASA.
> Unfortunately the current theories of physics state that it would be
> impossible to create such a room.
>
> To simulate lack of gravity, there are two techniques used. Both of
> these are used by NASA as part of their astronaut training program:
> 1. Put astronauts in a big swimming pool, wearing their spacesuits.
> The buoyancy in the water acts against gravity so that the effect is
> somewhat similar to zero-G.
> 2. Fly in the "vomit comet" - an airplane that goes very high up
> into the atmosphere, and then dives straight down, so that the
> occupants experience free-fall. This can only continue for about 30
> seconds, because otherwise the plane would crash. They then climb
> back up and repeat the cycle several times.
>
> --Bill.
I think I was possibly referring to the "vomit comet" when I was talking
about the laboratory, Bill. I do appreciate the fact that you made me
consider an attempt on weightlessness I never thought of in my mind when you
mentioned the swimming pool. I always thought that the action of friction
would cause an object to conduct more heat and energy as it would enter the
atmosphere and I am only twenty one years old so I do not know very much
about the Apollo space rockets so thank you for correcting that mistake I
made in my reply, Bill. I have wrote on a different reply to a different
person why I built the wings on my space craft.
Jesse Long
P.S. I appreciate the wonderful system known as the public school system
for filling my mind with such wonderful knowledge, if I have any knowledge
in my mind that these people have not tried to destroy in my life.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kerry Raymond wrote:
> A spacecraft should be like a Swiss army knife, a gadget ready for every
> unforeseeable occasion!
I'm getting this image of a gargatuan space ship, rapidly approaching
and decelerating. As it draws near, the large tachyon pulse antenna
switchblades out from the port side...
Steve
|
|
| |
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> > That may be true, but I don't think anyone knows for sure, because we
> > haven't tried going that fast yet. My spacecraft follow a very "hard
> > SF" policy - no FTL travel, no artificial gravity, etc. But that's
> > not to say that it's the only way...
>
> There has existed artificial gravity for years in the space programs, most
> notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> as early as the year 2003.
The only form of "artificial gravity" that is currently possible is to
use a centrifuge structure to simulate gravity. If you've seen the
film "2001: A Space Odyssey" you will remember the doughnut-shaped
room where the men worked and excercised - the rotation of that room
caused a simulated gravitational pull outwards from the center of the
ship using centripetal force. Another design involves pods which
rotate around a central axis.
In Star Trek, Star Wars, and other TV and movie depictions of
spacecraft, the people are always walking around on flat surfaces,
just as if they were on Earth. This is of course because zero-gravity
is very difficult to simulate for the purposes of filming the show.
So they make up a technology of "artifical gravity" which is part of
the story, that the Enterprise or Millennium Falcon, or whatever, has
"gravity generators" that pull people towards the "floor". However,
this is a gross violation of the laws of physics. In a real space
ship like the Shuttle, there is no perceptible gravity and people just
float around. It makes things like eating, sleeping, and going to the
bathroom somewhat complicated as you might imagine...
The problem with zero-gravity is that human bodies don't handle it
well. Our bodies evolved with the need to constantly pump blood up to
your head, and your bones and muscles are built to constantly fight
the pull of gravity. In a zero-G environment, these body systems
weaken, and when you return to Earth after an extended stay, it
requires several weeks or even months of rehabilitation before you can
be accustomed to Earth gravity again. So on Mir and the ISS,
astronauts and cosmonauts need to exercise frequently to minimize this
effect. However, it doesn't seem to be possible to eliminate it with
current technology.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> > In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> > > That may be true, but I don't think anyone knows for sure, because we
> > > haven't tried going that fast yet. My spacecraft follow a very "hard
> > > SF" policy - no FTL travel, no artificial gravity, etc. But that's
> > > not to say that it's the only way...
> >
> > There has existed artificial gravity for years in the space programs, most
> > notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> > working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> > propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> > some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> > as early as the year 2003.
>
> The only form of "artificial gravity" that is currently possible is to
> use a centrifuge structure to simulate gravity. If you've seen the
> film "2001: A Space Odyssey" you will remember the doughnut-shaped
> room where the men worked and excercised - the rotation of that room
> caused a simulated gravitational pull outwards from the center of the
> ship using centripetal force. Another design involves pods which
> rotate around a central axis.
>
> In Star Trek, Star Wars, and other TV and movie depictions of
> spacecraft, the people are always walking around on flat surfaces,
> just as if they were on Earth. This is of course because zero-gravity
> is very difficult to simulate for the purposes of filming the show.
> So they make up a technology of "artifical gravity" which is part of
> the story, that the Enterprise or Millennium Falcon, or whatever, has
> "gravity generators" that pull people towards the "floor". However,
> this is a gross violation of the laws of physics. In a real space
> ship like the Shuttle, there is no perceptible gravity and people just
> float around. It makes things like eating, sleeping, and going to the
> bathroom somewhat complicated as you might imagine...
>
> The problem with zero-gravity is that human bodies don't handle it
> well. Our bodies evolved with the need to constantly pump blood up to
> your head, and your bones and muscles are built to constantly fight
> the pull of gravity. In a zero-G environment, these body systems
> weaken, and when you return to Earth after an extended stay, it
> requires several weeks or even months of rehabilitation before you can
> be accustomed to Earth gravity again. So on Mir and the ISS,
> astronauts and cosmonauts need to exercise frequently to minimize this
> effect. However, it doesn't seem to be possible to eliminate it with
> current technology.
>
> --Bill.
Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
Hi.
Gravity generators per se are not in violation of the laws of physics.
However, they are far in advance of any current technology that we have. In
order to generate an artificial gravity field, without the use of
centrifugal force, we'd have to create and manipulate graviton particles.
For each of the fundamental forces, there is a fundamental boson which
carries the 'information' from one particle to another. How do two electrons
know how to react to each other? The photon 'carries' information from one
electron to the other, 'telling' it about the existence of the other
particle. How do two bodies know that the other exists, and that it's
attracted to it? The graviton 'carries' that information.
The only problem is, we haven't even seen the graviton in an experimental
situation. We are not even vaguely close to some method of generating or
manipulating gravitons, in order to create an artificial gravity field in
space, or on the earth. Our very first application would be some method of
'blocking' the gravitons, so that we could create zero gravity on earth. The
possibilities of that would be endless, and whoever could make such a device
would swiftly be Richer Than God.
Since no such device is currently being fitted to 747's, I think it's a safe
bet to say that artificial gravity in any form does not exist. Apart from
using centrifugal force to 'fake' it. Even that isn't in use in space
situations.
later,
David Drew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:01 AM
Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
> letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
> think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
> already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
> developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
> am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
> physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
> Jesse Long
To clarify: the centrifuge technique is more of a gravity simulator,
rather than the sort of gravity generator that is imagined for Star
Trek or such.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> as early as the year 2003.
Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
that are currently in production are rockets. There are liquid-fuelled
rockets, which can be turned on and off ("throttled"), and there
are solid-fuel rockets which cannot be turned off once started. Examples
of liquid-fuelled rockets are the main engines on the Space Shuttle,
and the manoeuvring thrusters on the Space Shuttle (actually, somebody
please check me on that, are they really rocket thrusters, or just
pressurized gas?). Examples of solid-fuel rockets are the two boosters
on the side of the Space Shuttle.
There are a variety of engine concepts being researched for the future,
but none are in use. These include SCRAMjets (no good in space, only
in the atmosphere), nuclear power, etc. Most of these concepts only
change what the engine uses for energy or "fuel", and not how they
generate the thrust to move a ship---they still rely upon a rocket
nozzle for the thrust. Most of these engine ideas, including "ion
drives" are still the stuff of science fiction, and it will be a very
long time before we see them in use..., *if* they ever see use.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
Wrong! Ion rockets are in use now, and have been for 30 years. They're just
not big enough to for sub-orbital work.
See
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/08/18/deep.space.1/index.html
later,
David Drew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca>
To: <lugnet.space@lugnet.com>; <lugnet.loc.au@lugnet.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of • which
> some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> as early as the year 2003.
Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
that are currently in production are rockets. There are liquid-fuelled
rockets, which can be turned on and off ("throttled"), and there
are solid-fuel rockets which cannot be turned off once started. Examples
of liquid-fuelled rockets are the main engines on the Space Shuttle,
and the manoeuvring thrusters on the Space Shuttle (actually, somebody
please check me on that, are they really rocket thrusters, or just
pressurized gas?). Examples of solid-fuel rockets are the two boosters
on the side of the Space Shuttle.
There are a variety of engine concepts being researched for the future,
but none are in use. These include SCRAMjets (no good in space, only
in the atmosphere), nuclear power, etc. Most of these concepts only
change what the engine uses for energy or "fuel", and not how they
generate the thrust to move a ship---they still rely upon a rocket
nozzle for the thrust. Most of these engine ideas, including "ion
drives" are still the stuff of science fiction, and it will be a very
long time before we see them in use..., *if* they ever see use.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> > working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> > propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> > some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> > as early as the year 2003.
>
> Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
> that are currently in production are rockets.
Are you sure about this? I believe there are ion drives in use on some
research sats already. They are extremely low thrust mercury based but have,
again, been shown to work for stationkeeping, unless my memory is completely
fried.
I want to say Clementine had them but I can't remember.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
No I'm not familiar with that motion picture. That's keen that they
featured an Asteroid Cave-Mouth Monster in a movie. I just hope that it
wasn't a comedy because the danger posed by these creatures to space ships
is very real and no laughing matter.
(Snipped some stuff about a "Sarlacc Pit Monster" which quite frankly to me
sounds like something that is made up and therefore has no place in a
serious scientific discussion such as the ones being carried on in this
forum in response to the dictate that "space ships must have wings." Let's
try and stay on topic.)
> My space craft is very handy because it has two
> support craft that are by themselves very well armed and the engines can
> also double as guns and I believe I have around forty weapons total on my
> space craft or possibly more than forty weapons and it is only seventy three
> Lego studs long, or in the case of human measurements, about the size of the
> Galactic Mediator, which is about two feet in length so I think that I do
> not need to poke the monster, I think I need to make some nice space monster
> burgers and space monster steaks.
I'm sorry - it's been many years since my class on Faulkner so I'm a little
rusty on interpreting the meaning of run-on sentences with multiple layers
of ideas attempting to be expressed so I'm left a little confused by this
statement. Could you perhaps clarify how an engine can also be a gun? Are
the bullets fired out the exhaust pipe? I must admit that a "forty weapons
total...or possibly more than forty weapons" to "seventy three Lego studs
long" ratio sounds very impressive. I must confess my ignorance though
about this "Galactic Mediator" you've mentioned but if it is only two feet
long I'd have to say that I don't see how much mediating could be
accomplished in the galaxy or how this negates the need to "poke the monster".
> My space craft is known as a Gaea
> Federation Galaxy Destroyer not because it is a good name but the fact that
> a destroyer is equipped with many guns but not as many as a battleship, or
> in the context of space, a battle cruiser.
I applaud you for not choosing a name just because it is "good" - too often
those who don't know any better make this fatal mistake in the naming of
there vessels. My ship is known as "Ralph" - also not because it's a good
name but because I once saw a documentary on TV about folks who worship a
head of lettuce named Ralph and I figure if it's good enough for a leafy,
spherical god then it's certainly good enough for a space ship. I'm not
quite sure why the "Gaea Galaxy Federation" part is required because it is a
destroyer but I'll take your word for it. However, you've also left me with
another question - If a destroyer has 40 weapons per 73 studs then what is
the weapon to stud ratio for a battle cruiser (sticking with the context of
space though I am tempted to start speaking in the context of time which for
me has always been the more attractive half of the whole space-time duo).
> The primary function of a
> destroyer is not only to provide support for reconnaissance teams but to
> also patrol the enemy territory for signs of terrorism, violence, and other
> threats and to destroy smaller vessels as well as defending the larger
> vessels of the representative space fleet, or protecting the bigger space
> craft in the space fleet.
If the destroyer is patrolling in the enemy terriory and spots signs of
"terrorism, violence and threats" does it help to encourage these
activities? After all these are exactly the kinds of activities I would
think one would wish upon an enemy. Also I think your use of the word
"patrol" is a little deceptive - if the destroyer is in enemy territory
isn't "invade" a more appropriate description of its action?
> Some of the features on my wings also are part of
> my DualFire (IGTM) technology and this technology allows the nine engines,
> three main engines, two auxillary engines/intergalactic ballistic missiles,
> and four guns/teritary auxillary engines, to act as either thrust or as a
> weapon andevery engine is controlled individually so that they change their
> functions at the press of a button on the control panel inside of the ship.
Wow! From your many posts I kniew that you weren't simply some guy playing
with LEGO toys and I was right. I can only hope (being the patriotic U.S.
citizen that I am) that your Dualfire (IGTM) technology does not fall into
the hands of some rogue enemy nation such as England or New Zealand. I'm
particularly impressed by the fact that these dual purpose engine/weapons
are all controlled by a the presse of a single button - AND you've actually
but that button inside the ship. And I thought I was hot stuff because my
ship Ralph is completely controlled by telepathy from a lay-z-boy and the
only buttons inside of it are the ones holding my space trousers up (I have
this thing about zippers and velcro and don't even get me started on belts).
> Have I answered your question correctly, G?
What was my question again? I forgot. Oh well, lets just say that you
answered it correctly - I'll give you a B+ which is a respectable passing
grade by any standard.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> > > working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> > > propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> > > some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> > > as early as the year 2003.
> >
> > Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
> > that are currently in production are rockets.
>
> Are you sure about this? I believe there are ion drives in use on some
> research sats already. They are extremely low thrust mercury based but have,
> again, been shown to work for stationkeeping, unless my memory is completely
> fried.
>
> I want to say Clementine had them but I can't remember.
Deep Space One, among others, but that was of course only the
testbed in 1999-2000. Isn't the service life only about six months
on the units being sent up now? (I know one has run longer, but the
expected life is only about 150-180 days.)
Boeing (Hughes) built DS1's unit, which can be seen here:
http://www.hughespace.com/factsheets/xips/nstar/ionengine.html
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, David Drew writes:
> Hi.
> Gravity generators per se are not in violation of the laws of physics.
> However, they are far in advance of any current technology that we have. In
> order to generate an artificial gravity field, without the use of
> centrifugal force, we'd have to create and manipulate graviton particles.
>
> For each of the fundamental forces, there is a fundamental boson which
> carries the 'information' from one particle to another. How do two electrons
> know how to react to each other? The photon 'carries' information from one
> electron to the other, 'telling' it about the existence of the other
> particle. How do two bodies know that the other exists, and that it's
> attracted to it? The graviton 'carries' that information.
>
> The only problem is, we haven't even seen the graviton in an experimental
> situation. We are not even vaguely close to some method of generating or
> manipulating gravitons, in order to create an artificial gravity field in
> space, or on the earth. Our very first application would be some method of
> 'blocking' the gravitons, so that we could create zero gravity on earth. The
> possibilities of that would be endless, and whoever could make such a device
> would swiftly be Richer Than God.
>
> Since no such device is currently being fitted to 747's, I think it's a safe
> bet to say that artificial gravity in any form does not exist. Apart from
> using centrifugal force to 'fake' it. Even that isn't in use in space
> situations.
>
> later,
> David Drew.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:01 AM
>
> Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
> letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
> think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
> already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
> developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
> am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
> physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
> Jesse Long
The first issue in this reply is no person can become richer than God
because God gave people the concept of money and currency in their minds. I
could devote a whole other letter about this situation but I am not talking
about religion in this letter. What is the difference between a photon and
a proton and did you mean to say "proton" in the space where you said
"photon?" I also have another question, what is a graviton particle? I am
not very experienced in the laws of physics because I have not taken these
courses in college. Please explain these concepts to me, David.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
> > letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
> > think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
> > already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
> > developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
> > am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
> > physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
> > Jesse Long
>
> To clarify: the centrifuge technique is more of a gravity simulator,
> rather than the sort of gravity generator that is imagined for Star
> Trek or such.
>
> --Bill.
Thank you, Bill for clarifying that response to my reply letter. Could
there exist a way that a gravity generator be used for some sort of gravity
simulator? I am not very experienced in the laws of physics and I am sorry
for causing so many people pain in their heads and the consumption of many
white pills.
Jesse Long
P.S. I am simply trying to understand how physics operates in life. I
believe that many of these statements that you say to me are correct but
many have also never been truly tested under ideal circumstances in outer space.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, David Drew writes:
> Wrong! Ion rockets are in use now, and have been for 30 years. They're just
> not big enough to for sub-orbital work.
>
> See
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/08/18/deep.space.1/index.html
>
> later,
> David Drew
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca>
> To: <lugnet.space@lugnet.com>; <lugnet.loc.au@lugnet.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
>
>
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> > working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> > propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of • which
> > some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> > as early as the year 2003.
>
> Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
> that are currently in production are rockets. There are liquid-fuelled
> rockets, which can be turned on and off ("throttled"), and there
> are solid-fuel rockets which cannot be turned off once started. Examples
> of liquid-fuelled rockets are the main engines on the Space Shuttle,
> and the manoeuvring thrusters on the Space Shuttle (actually, somebody
> please check me on that, are they really rocket thrusters, or just
> pressurized gas?). Examples of solid-fuel rockets are the two boosters
> on the side of the Space Shuttle.
>
> There are a variety of engine concepts being researched for the future,
> but none are in use. These include SCRAMjets (no good in space, only
> in the atmosphere), nuclear power, etc. Most of these concepts only
> change what the engine uses for energy or "fuel", and not how they
> generate the thrust to move a ship---they still rely upon a rocket
> nozzle for the thrust. Most of these engine ideas, including "ion
> drives" are still the stuff of science fiction, and it will be a very
> long time before we see them in use..., *if* they ever see use.
>
> KDJ
> _______________________________________
> LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Perhaps I was referring to the fact that they may have been trying to build
larger ion engines for space travel? I know that these engines are a
defininte possibility and I apologize for my error, David.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Greg Perry writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> > where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> > Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
>
> No I'm not familiar with that motion picture. That's keen that they
> featured an Asteroid Cave-Mouth Monster in a movie. I just hope that it
> wasn't a comedy because the danger posed by these creatures to space ships
> is very real and no laughing matter.
>
> (Snipped some stuff about a "Sarlacc Pit Monster" which quite frankly to me
> sounds like something that is made up and therefore has no place in a
> serious scientific discussion such as the ones being carried on in this
> forum in response to the dictate that "space ships must have wings." Let's
> try and stay on topic.)
>
> > My space craft is very handy because it has two
> > support craft that are by themselves very well armed and the engines can
> > also double as guns and I believe I have around forty weapons total on my
> > space craft or possibly more than forty weapons and it is only seventy three
> > Lego studs long, or in the case of human measurements, about the size of the
> > Galactic Mediator, which is about two feet in length so I think that I do
> > not need to poke the monster, I think I need to make some nice space monster
> > burgers and space monster steaks.
>
> I'm sorry - it's been many years since my class on Faulkner so I'm a little
> rusty on interpreting the meaning of run-on sentences with multiple layers
> of ideas attempting to be expressed so I'm left a little confused by this
> statement. Could you perhaps clarify how an engine can also be a gun? Are
> the bullets fired out the exhaust pipe? I must admit that a "forty weapons
> total...or possibly more than forty weapons" to "seventy three Lego studs
> long" ratio sounds very impressive. I must confess my ignorance though
> about this "Galactic Mediator" you've mentioned but if it is only two feet
> long I'd have to say that I don't see how much mediating could be
> accomplished in the galaxy or how this negates the need to "poke the monster".
>
> > My space craft is known as a Gaea
> > Federation Galaxy Destroyer not because it is a good name but the fact that
> > a destroyer is equipped with many guns but not as many as a battleship, or
> > in the context of space, a battle cruiser.
>
> I applaud you for not choosing a name just because it is "good" - too often
> those who don't know any better make this fatal mistake in the naming of
> there vessels. My ship is known as "Ralph" - also not because it's a good
> name but because I once saw a documentary on TV about folks who worship a
> head of lettuce named Ralph and I figure if it's good enough for a leafy,
> spherical god then it's certainly good enough for a space ship. I'm not
> quite sure why the "Gaea Galaxy Federation" part is required because it is a
> destroyer but I'll take your word for it. However, you've also left me with
> another question - If a destroyer has 40 weapons per 73 studs then what is
> the weapon to stud ratio for a battle cruiser (sticking with the context of
> space though I am tempted to start speaking in the context of time which for
> me has always been the more attractive half of the whole space-time duo).
>
> > The primary function of a
> > destroyer is not only to provide support for reconnaissance teams but to
> > also patrol the enemy territory for signs of terrorism, violence, and other
> > threats and to destroy smaller vessels as well as defending the larger
> > vessels of the representative space fleet, or protecting the bigger space
> > craft in the space fleet.
>
> If the destroyer is patrolling in the enemy terriory and spots signs of
> "terrorism, violence and threats" does it help to encourage these
> activities? After all these are exactly the kinds of activities I would
> think one would wish upon an enemy. Also I think your use of the word
> "patrol" is a little deceptive - if the destroyer is in enemy territory
> isn't "invade" a more appropriate description of its action?
>
> > Some of the features on my wings also are part of
> > my DualFire (IGTM) technology and this technology allows the nine engines,
> > three main engines, two auxillary engines/intergalactic ballistic missiles,
> > and four guns/teritary auxillary engines, to act as either thrust or as a
> > weapon andevery engine is controlled individually so that they change their
> > functions at the press of a button on the control panel inside of the ship.
>
> Wow! From your many posts I kniew that you weren't simply some guy playing
> with LEGO toys and I was right. I can only hope (being the patriotic U.S.
> citizen that I am) that your Dualfire (IGTM) technology does not fall into
> the hands of some rogue enemy nation such as England or New Zealand. I'm
> particularly impressed by the fact that these dual purpose engine/weapons
> are all controlled by a the presse of a single button - AND you've actually
> but that button inside the ship. And I thought I was hot stuff because my
> ship Ralph is completely controlled by telepathy from a lay-z-boy and the
> only buttons inside of it are the ones holding my space trousers up (I have
> this thing about zippers and velcro and don't even get me started on belts).
>
> > Have I answered your question correctly, G?
>
> What was my question again? I forgot. Oh well, lets just say that you
> answered it correctly - I'll give you a B+ which is a respectable passing
> grade by any standard.
I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
then go to http://www.starwars.com . The following sentence that you
snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
will rephrase my information about my space craft.
The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
vessel. I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
defense robot. I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
engines. I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
Greg. I named this vessel the Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer because this
vessel is made for the Gaea Federation, a story I have built for around six
years using my Legos. The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
the native forces of that region of space.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
> wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
> Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
> then go to http://www.starwars.com .
I really don't think you confused him. Maybe I'm giving it away, but it was
all well crafted sarcasm.
> The following sentence that you
> snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
> this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
> Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
> pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
AMAZING! Those movies sound pretty neat. I wonder why I haven't seen those
before, being a space nut and all. Are they in theatres or do I have to
rent them? I sure hope they're in theatres, but knowing my luck, they were
made in the late 70s or something, meaning I wasn't born yet.
> I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
> will rephrase my information about my space craft.
> The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
> the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
> length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
> Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
> vessel. I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
> had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
> defense robot.
Geez! 80 weapons? Is there even room for a spacehip with that many guns?
Maybe I should just stop building ships. I'm used to engineering sopme
pretty cool realistic military vessels, with detailed interiors and all.
But, I'm no match for a little (yes, little) ship with 80 frikkin weapons on
it. I think I'll retire early. But 80...seriously, there's no room to
store ammo, much less capacitors big enough for them to be all energy
weapons. Wait let me guess, you suck the energy from interstellar medium,
or use the abundance of gravity in space to charge it?
> I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
> monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
> steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
> destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
> ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
Ree-hee-hee-heeallly? Wow, you're the man. Maybe we should all stop
building ships.
> You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
> the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
> and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
> guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
> engines.
Your weapons must be extra specially shielded too to survive being shot out
an engine. Hats off to you.
> I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
> pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
> Greg.
That's ok, looks like you're doing just fine with 80 weapons on a little
ship like that.
> The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
> is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
> patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
> unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
> exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
> invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
> the native forces of that region of space.
Why not invade and explore at the same time?
-Tim (added loc.au back, cause they're loving this discussion)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, David Drew writes:
> Wrong! Ion rockets are in use now, and have been for 30 years. They're just
> not big enough to for sub-orbital work.
>
> See
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/08/18/deep.space.1/index.html
Okay, I got smoked on that one! :] Serves me right for
A) saying something based on assumption, and
B) venturing out of atmospherics ;]
In retrospect though, JAL seemed to
imply that these things were going to be installed on the Shuttle
or something in 2003 and I said "no way". When I think space
propulsion for the most part I only look at lift systems. Shoot,
I just can't get out of atmospheric propulsion no matter how hard
I try ;] From the links posted here on ion drives it seems they're
not applicable to atmospheric ops.
Anyhow, thanx for setting me straight. I need to go turn in my
aero degree now, been meaning to do that for some time. I've
been working in automotive for too long and it's made me stupid ;]
If an ion drive shows up in your next car, you know who to
blame now :]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
> wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
> Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
> then go to http://www.starwars.com . The following sentence that you
> snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
> this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
> Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
> pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
I believe there is also an Episode I: The Phantom Menace (recently
released), and there may also be sequels to Episode I, called Episode II and
Episode III, forming a prequel trilogy. Who knows what types of Freudian
Symbol Monsters might appear in those movies?
> I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
> will rephrase my information about my space craft.
> The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
> the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
> length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
> Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
> vessel.
Jesse, do you think that LEGO people are really that small in their own
universe? In other words, when we build a LEGO model is it 1:1 scale or 1:36
scale (or something else)?
> I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
> had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
> defense robot. I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
> monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
> steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
> destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
> ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
Why do you need to make space monster burgers and/or steaks? Do they taste
nice? And is it ethical to cook space monsterss when there are so many
delightful soy products in the universe? I generally think it's a bad idea
to "poke the monster" anyway -- some people grow hair on the palms of their
hands...
Concerning 200-300 stud long capital ships. If they were as heavily armed as
your space craft they might have at least 120, maybe as many as 360, exhaust
weapons which would be a lot more than the 40-80 wepaons on your space ship.
Again this is ethically dubious, in my opinion. I am also interested in the
defense robot you have. Is it armed?
> You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
> the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
> and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
> guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
> engines.
Is this dangerous at all? What if you want to move and fire your weapons at
the same time?
> I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
> pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
> Greg. I named this vessel the Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer because this
> vessel is made for the Gaea Federation, a story I have built for around six
> years using my Legos. The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
> Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
They are LEGO blocks, not Legos, Jesse, please see my post here:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=29565
I am interested in the names of your factions. Is Gaea a name for the Earth
based faction? Does it relect the Mother Earth? Is it peaceful and nurturing
or patriarchal and menacing? Is it a Federation like the US or a Federation
like the EU? Are Aliens allowed in the Federation? Is it a democracy like
the US or a democracy like Iraq?
Are the Nomads nomads, ie do they travel around with no fixed settlements?
Or does the whole Empire travel around to different planets? Are they good
or evil? Do they have an Emperor? Are they Humans or Aliens? I hope you can
help with my questions, Jesse.
> The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
> is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
> patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
> unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
> exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
> invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
> the native forces of that region of space.
To take a contemporary example: What about the US spy plane that was
disabled in _contested_ airspace near China, and landed in China? Was it on
patrol, or invading? What if the "native forces" consider the mere presence
of your space craft an attack?
Anyway, I'm interested in hearing more about your creations Jesse. Thanks.
--DaveL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
> > wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
> > Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
> > then go to http://www.starwars.com . The following sentence that you
> > snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
> > this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
> > Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
> > pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
>
> I believe there is also an Episode I: The Phantom Menace (recently
> released), and there may also be sequels to Episode I, called Episode II and
> Episode III, forming a prequel trilogy. Who knows what types of Freudian
> Symbol Monsters might appear in those movies?
>
> > I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
> > will rephrase my information about my space craft.
> > The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
> > the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
> > length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
> > Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
> > vessel.
>
> Jesse, do you think that LEGO people are really that small in their own
> universe? In other words, when we build a LEGO model is it 1:1 scale or 1:36
> scale (or something else)?
>
> > I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
> > had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
> > defense robot. I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
> > monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
> > steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
> > destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
> > ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
>
> Why do you need to make space monster burgers and/or steaks? Do they taste
> nice? And is it ethical to cook space monsterss when there are so many
> delightful soy products in the universe? I generally think it's a bad idea
> to "poke the monster" anyway -- some people grow hair on the palms of their
> hands...
>
> Concerning 200-300 stud long capital ships. If they were as heavily armed as
> your space craft they might have at least 120, maybe as many as 360, exhaust
> weapons which would be a lot more than the 40-80 wepaons on your space ship.
> Again this is ethically dubious, in my opinion. I am also interested in the
> defense robot you have. Is it armed?
>
> > You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
> > the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
> > and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
> > guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
> > engines.
>
> Is this dangerous at all? What if you want to move and fire your weapons at
> the same time?
>
> > I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
> > pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
> > Greg. I named this vessel the Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer because this
> > vessel is made for the Gaea Federation, a story I have built for around six
> > years using my Legos. The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
> > Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
>
> They are LEGO blocks, not Legos, Jesse, please see my post here:
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=29565
>
> I am interested in the names of your factions. Is Gaea a name for the Earth
> based faction? Does it relect the Mother Earth? Is it peaceful and nurturing
> or patriarchal and menacing? Is it a Federation like the US or a Federation
> like the EU? Are Aliens allowed in the Federation? Is it a democracy like
> the US or a democracy like Iraq?
>
> Are the Nomads nomads, ie do they travel around with no fixed settlements?
> Or does the whole Empire travel around to different planets? Are they good
> or evil? Do they have an Emperor? Are they Humans or Aliens? I hope you can
> help with my questions, Jesse.
>
> > The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
> > is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
> > patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
> > unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
> > exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
> > invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
> > the native forces of that region of space.
>
> To take a contemporary example: What about the US spy plane that was
> disabled in _contested_ airspace near China, and landed in China? Was it on
> patrol, or invading? What if the "native forces" consider the mere presence
> of your space craft an attack?
>
> Anyway, I'm interested in hearing more about your creations Jesse. Thanks.
> --DaveL
I believe that your comment about those monsters in Episode II and Episode
III of the new Star Wars Trilogy. The monsters near the city of Otoh Gunga
were scary enough for me. The comment about the stud length is a generally
accepted standard for Lego Space builders with their space craft. The stud
is a bump on a Lego brick or plate that is measured in the amount of these
studs long and wide on a space craft. The height of space craft is
generally measured by Lego brick height, that is how many Lego bricks equal
the height of the space craft. The opinion that I share with you about the
scale of the space craft is that Lego space craft are measured in stud
length and that there does not exist, as far as my limited knowledge of Lego
building is concerned, a general standard for the scale of these space ships
but that the scale is determined by the individual Lego builder of space
craft. There will probably exist replies to the contrary to this comment
but as I stated earlier, I do not know if there is a standard measurement of
scale for Lego space craft and if I am wrong with my statement, please
inform me with your information to my comment.
The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
on my space monster steaks.
The defense robot that you mentioned in response to my post is indeed armed,
and quite heavily as well so if my defense robot was not armed then why
would I refer to my robot as a defense robot? The robot that I have on my
space craft has 12 guns that mastly point in a upward direction and they
serve as wings for the robot. The arms have two huge cannons as well as two
huge claws that once held magnets to a long destroyed M-Tron vehicle, a
Celestial Forager if my memory is correct in this letter. The head of the
robot has a gun and so does the tail of my robot and my robot vaguely
resembles a scorpion in the structure of the body. The intake valves on my
engines can always fire but my exhaust valves have to stop in order to fire
but since I have plenty of guns to fire on the enemy without the exhaust
valves, it is not a problem with my space craft. I also not that my space
craft is constructed of both bricks and plates, as is the usual standard of
Lego space craft and so it becomes exhausting to say Lego bricks and plates
in every sentence so I simply say Legos to indicate that I am meaning Lego
bricks and plates but I do appreciate the effort of your response to my letter.
The construction of the Gaea Federation is similar to a intergalactic
European Union but without the antisemetic overtones that are rampant in
that organization. The organization was led by what we refer to as the
planet Earth but other members are also a part of this organization. This
organization is an open organization so the individual members have to
comply with certain standards in order to belong to the Gaea Federation. I
do not, however, have a certain political structure for my Gaea Federation
but the Nomadic Empire is certainly similar to a hybrid of the Muslim
Federation in the Middle East, Africa, and into Central Asia and the
Galactic Empire.
The last three questions I will answer to you now, Dave. The first question
is about poking the monster causing hair to grow on the palms of your hands.
I think that question should be answered in another place, like the romance
rooms and the adults only rooms on Yahoo, that is, if you are talking about
some subject that originates from those rooms and thankfully I do stay away
from those rooms. The second question that I will answer is let the
photgraphs tell the story to you, Dave. I am not lying about the numerous
guns on my space craft and the photographs will prove the truth about the
space craft, Dave. The third question that I will answer is I do not know
who is right, the United States of America of Communist China. I do believe
that it was wrong for China to let that pilot disable that plane but if
China is right, there should have been a different way of telling the
American forces that they were in violation of Chinese air space and the
Americans should have complied with the Chinese government but if the
American government ignored the Chinese government, then it was the fault of
the American government. I, personally, do not know the truth about that
situation so I have tried to answer as many of your questions as humanly
possible and if there are any question you feel a need to ask, then ask me,
Dave.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> valves, it is not a problem with my space craft. I also not that my space
> craft is constructed of both bricks and plates, as is the usual standard of
> Lego space craft and so it becomes exhausting to say Lego bricks and plates
> in every sentence so I simply say Legos to indicate that I am meaning Lego
> bricks and plates but I do appreciate the effort of your response to my letter.
I have posted this message by accident---please ignore it everyone.
Thanx ;]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> who is right, the United States of America of Communist China. I do believe
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Y'know, if I think about the world as a glorified "Civ" game, then
I believe this will be the outcome ;]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
Like Jon Palmer already kindly asked, could you please separate your LONG
paragraphs.
You do this by pressing a button on your keyboard called _ENTER_ or _RETURN_.
Hope you understand and use this advice.
Mladen Pejic, over and out!
http://members.attcanada.ca/~milovan/index.htm
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Dave Low writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
> > > wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
> > > Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
> > > then go to http://www.starwars.com . The following sentence that you
> > > snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
> > > this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
> > > Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
> > > pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
> >
> > I believe there is also an Episode I: The Phantom Menace (recently
> > released), and there may also be sequels to Episode I, called Episode II and
> > Episode III, forming a prequel trilogy. Who knows what types of Freudian
> > Symbol Monsters might appear in those movies?
> >
> > > I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
> > > will rephrase my information about my space craft.
> > > The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
> > > the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
> > > length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
> > > Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
> > > vessel.
> >
> > Jesse, do you think that LEGO people are really that small in their own
> > universe? In other words, when we build a LEGO model is it 1:1 scale or 1:36
> > scale (or something else)?
> >
> > > I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
> > > had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
> > > defense robot. I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
> > > monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
> > > steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
> > > destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
> > > ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
> >
> > Why do you need to make space monster burgers and/or steaks? Do they taste
> > nice? And is it ethical to cook space monsterss when there are so many
> > delightful soy products in the universe? I generally think it's a bad idea
> > to "poke the monster" anyway -- some people grow hair on the palms of their
> > hands...
> >
> > Concerning 200-300 stud long capital ships. If they were as heavily armed as
> > your space craft they might have at least 120, maybe as many as 360, exhaust
> > weapons which would be a lot more than the 40-80 wepaons on your space ship.
> > Again this is ethically dubious, in my opinion. I am also interested in the
> > defense robot you have. Is it armed?
> >
> > > You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
> > > the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
> > > and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
> > > guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
> > > engines.
> >
> > Is this dangerous at all? What if you want to move and fire your weapons at
> > the same time?
> >
> > > I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
> > > pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
> > > Greg. I named this vessel the Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer because this
> > > vessel is made for the Gaea Federation, a story I have built for around six
> > > years using my Legos. The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
> > > Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
> >
> > They are LEGO blocks, not Legos, Jesse, please see my post here:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=29565
> >
> > I am interested in the names of your factions. Is Gaea a name for the Earth
> > based faction? Does it relect the Mother Earth? Is it peaceful and nurturing
> > or patriarchal and menacing? Is it a Federation like the US or a Federation
> > like the EU? Are Aliens allowed in the Federation? Is it a democracy like
> > the US or a democracy like Iraq?
> >
> > Are the Nomads nomads, ie do they travel around with no fixed settlements?
> > Or does the whole Empire travel around to different planets? Are they good
> > or evil? Do they have an Emperor? Are they Humans or Aliens? I hope you can
> > help with my questions, Jesse.
> >
> > > The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
> > > is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
> > > patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
> > > unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
> > > exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
> > > invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
> > > the native forces of that region of space.
> >
> > To take a contemporary example: What about the US spy plane that was
> > disabled in _contested_ airspace near China, and landed in China? Was it on
> > patrol, or invading? What if the "native forces" consider the mere presence
> > of your space craft an attack?
> >
> > Anyway, I'm interested in hearing more about your creations Jesse. Thanks.
> > --DaveL
> I believe that your comment about those monsters in Episode II and Episode
> III of the new Star Wars Trilogy. The monsters near the city of Otoh Gunga
> were scary enough for me. The comment about the stud length is a generally
> accepted standard for Lego Space builders with their space craft. The stud
> is a bump on a Lego brick or plate that is measured in the amount of these
> studs long and wide on a space craft. The height of space craft is
> generally measured by Lego brick height, that is how many Lego bricks equal
> the height of the space craft. The opinion that I share with you about the
> scale of the space craft is that Lego space craft are measured in stud
> length and that there does not exist, as far as my limited knowledge of Lego
> building is concerned, a general standard for the scale of these space ships
> but that the scale is determined by the individual Lego builder of space
> craft. There will probably exist replies to the contrary to this comment
> but as I stated earlier, I do not know if there is a standard measurement of
> scale for Lego space craft and if I am wrong with my statement, please
> inform me with your information to my comment.
> The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
> Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
> or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> on my space monster steaks.
> The defense robot that you mentioned in response to my post is indeed armed,
> and quite heavily as well so if my defense robot was not armed then why
> would I refer to my robot as a defense robot? The robot that I have on my
> space craft has 12 guns that mastly point in a upward direction and they
> serve as wings for the robot. The arms have two huge cannons as well as two
> huge claws that once held magnets to a long destroyed M-Tron vehicle, a
> Celestial Forager if my memory is correct in this letter. The head of the
> robot has a gun and so does the tail of my robot and my robot vaguely
> resembles a scorpion in the structure of the body. The intake valves on my
> engines can always fire but my exhaust valves have to stop in order to fire
> but since I have plenty of guns to fire on the enemy without the exhaust
> valves, it is not a problem with my space craft. I also not that my space
> craft is constructed of both bricks and plates, as is the usual standard of
> Lego space craft and so it becomes exhausting to say Lego bricks and plates
> in every sentence so I simply say Legos to indicate that I am meaning Lego
> bricks and plates but I do appreciate the effort of your response to my • letter.
> The construction of the Gaea Federation is similar to a intergalactic
> European Union but without the antisemetic overtones that are rampant in
> that organization. The organization was led by what we refer to as the
> planet Earth but other members are also a part of this organization. This
> organization is an open organization so the individual members have to
> comply with certain standards in order to belong to the Gaea Federation. I
> do not, however, have a certain political structure for my Gaea Federation
> but the Nomadic Empire is certainly similar to a hybrid of the Muslim
> Federation in the Middle East, Africa, and into Central Asia and the
> Galactic Empire.
> The last three questions I will answer to you now, Dave. The first question
> is about poking the monster causing hair to grow on the palms of your hands.
> I think that question should be answered in another place, like the romance
> rooms and the adults only rooms on Yahoo, that is, if you are talking about
> some subject that originates from those rooms and thankfully I do stay away
> from those rooms. The second question that I will answer is let the
> photgraphs tell the story to you, Dave. I am not lying about the numerous
> guns on my space craft and the photographs will prove the truth about the
> space craft, Dave. The third question that I will answer is I do not know
> who is right, the United States of America of Communist China. I do believe
> that it was wrong for China to let that pilot disable that plane but if
> China is right, there should have been a different way of telling the
> American forces that they were in violation of Chinese air space and the
> Americans should have complied with the Chinese government but if the
> American government ignored the Chinese government, then it was the fault of
> the American government. I, personally, do not know the truth about that
> situation so I have tried to answer as many of your questions as humanly
> possible and if there are any question you feel a need to ask, then ask me,
> Dave.
> Jesse Long
|
|
| |
Whoa hoss, slooooowwww dooooowwwwwn. You're rambling a TON here. Why not
take the time to think about a reply and write it into nice paragraphs, so
we can all read it. Better yet, why not go do something more productive?
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I believe that your comment about those monsters in Episode II and Episode
> III of the new Star Wars Trilogy. The monsters near the city of Otoh Gunga
> were scary enough for me.
I'm sorry to be rude, but you're _really bad_ about picking up sarcasm. The
last few replies made to you in this group have been 110% sarcastic. I
usually don't fly off the handle (this is nothing) like this, but your stuff
is driving me to the nuthouse. (no, its not putting me in the car, steering
the wheel, going down the road, towards an insane asylum. Its a figure of
speech. Just like 'baiting' is, it doesn't mean you're a fish)
The thing here is, you tried parcticipating in the discussion, but you are
unwilling to have a rational conversation. Everything is the way it is,
becaue you say it is. That's not the way things work, sorry. Also, try not
to take things so literally. I don't care about Levitical food laws, I
don't care about the origin of the idea of money. This is a space
discussion (or was, now its a sarcastic humor-fest and a critique on writing
styles), not a Jesse-Tell-Everyone-How-Things-Work discussion. (afterall,
I'll bet we're all stupid and uneducated and have no idea how the world
works. That's why we can type messages, discuss things, and wow, use a
computer!)
> There will probably exist replies to the contrary to this comment
> but as I stated earlier, I do not know if there is a standard measurement of
> scale for Lego space craft and if I am wrong with my statement, please
> inform me with your information to my comment.
But if you were wrong, would you listen if you were corrected?
> The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> other Lego creations.
Awww.
> There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
Do you believe everything everyone tells you? Oh wait, you believe
everything people tell you, outside this discussion group. Just cause
someone's on tee vee, doesn't mean they know everything.
> Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> depending on what you usually put on those foods.
Tell me, have you actually had a space monster burger?
> I prefer to use ketchup,
> or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> on my space monster steaks.
Oh let me guess, your mommy cuts the steak in the shape of a space monster.
> The defense robot that you mentioned in response to my post is indeed armed,
> and quite heavily as well so if my defense robot was not armed then why
> would I refer to my robot as a defense robot. The robot that I have on my
> space craft has 12 guns that mastly point in a upward direction and they
> serve as wings for the robot.
Guns that are engines, guns that are wings. Bitchin' technology.
> The arms have two huge cannons as well as two
> huge claws that once held magnets to a long destroyed M-Tron vehicle, a
> Celestial Forager if my memory is correct in this letter. The head of the
> robot has a gun and so does the tail of my robot and my robot vaguely
> resembles a scorpion in the structure of the body. The intake valves on my
> engines can always fire but my exhaust valves have to stop in order to fire
> but since I have plenty of guns to fire on the enemy without the exhaust
> valves, it is not a problem with my space craft.
You must rule the universe. I worship you.
> The last three questions I will answer to you now, Dave. The first question
> is about poking the monster causing hair to grow on the palms of your hands.
> I think that question should be answered in another place, like the romance
> rooms and the adults only rooms on Yahoo, that is, if you are talking about
> some subject that originates from those rooms and thankfully I do stay away
> from those rooms.
This is the funniest thing I think I've heard in a long time.
> The second question that I will answer is let the
> photgraphs tell the story to you, Dave.
Where are the photographs? Guess they can't tell a story if you can't see em.
(at least I have not seen them posted, if they are and I missed them, I
apologize)
> I am not lying about the numerous
> guns on my space craft and the photographs will prove the truth about the
> space craft, Dave.
I think we know that you're not lying. But I think we know that in a
realistic spacecraft, there literally could not exist that many guns. But,
I don't have the energy to debate that with you, especially cause I know
you'll insist you're right.
> The third question that I will answer is I do not know
> who is right, the United States of America of Communist China. I do believe
> that it was wrong for China to let that pilot disable that plane but if
> China is right, there should have been a different way of telling the
> American forces that they were in violation of Chinese air space and the
> Americans should have complied with the Chinese government but if the
> American government ignored the Chinese government, then it was the fault of
> the American government. I, personally, do not know the truth about that
> situation so I have tried to answer as many of your questions as humanly
> possible and if there are any question you feel a need to ask, then ask me,
> Dave.
I need to ask you, do you believe everything a communist totalitarian
government says? If you do, you're more of a sucker than I thought you were.
Disclaimer: I'm not a mean person. I'm just very very frustrated at your
no-brainer responses that are poorly communicated, ramble, and make little
sense. I've been patient (and so has everyone else), but they kept up (if
you started talking sense and it was logical, hey we'd be having a cool
chat). Now I'm a little nutty cause of them.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In article <0vj4jtk6fmkntqugjf67381rp3be5um9u6@4ax.com>, Steve Bliss
<steve.bliss@home.com> wrote:
> > A spacecraft should be like a Swiss army knife, a gadget ready for every
> > unforeseeable occasion!
>
> I'm getting this image of a gargatuan space ship, rapidly approaching
> and decelerating. As it draws near, the large tachyon pulse antenna
> switchblades out from the port side...
...In the heat of battle, the captain presses the wrong button to
engage the maxi*zappo ray gun, and out pops the intergalactic corkscrew
and fish scaler.
<duck and run>
jk
|
|
| |
In article <GFCos3.DxM@lugnet.com>, Jesse Alan Long
<joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
> Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
I've always envisioned an empire as a large, sprawling governmental
body that tended to stay put, at least until the natives got restless.
It must be stressful to return from a long range deep penetration
preemptive "patrol" and find your home has wandered off.
jk
|
|
| |
In article <GFD24A.Mz@lugnet.com>, Kyle D. Jackson
<flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca> wrote:
> In retrospect though, JAL seemed to
> imply that these things were going to be installed on the Shuttle
> or something in 2003 and I said "no way". When I think space
> propulsion for the most part I only look at lift systems. Shoot,
> I just can't get out of atmospheric propulsion no matter how hard
> I try ;] From the links posted here on ion drives it seems they're
> not applicable to atmospheric ops.
Why do you say with your words that ion engines will not be used on the
Space Shuttle in 2003, Kyle. What you fail to realize is that ion
drives were invented in society long ago. Do not argue with me on this,
Kyle, because just last week I saw this great documentary film on my
JVC television set that showed me with my own eyes that there are
already space defense fighters with twin ion engines and wings and they
fly through space and make a great roaring sound when they fly by and
shoot and it would make a great video game for my Sony Playstation 2
but not for Super Nintendo GameBoy because the screen is too small and
they would have to change it so it wouldnt be as good in my mind, Kyle.
;-)
jk
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, John Kornhaus writes:
> In article <GFD24A.Mz@lugnet.com>, Kyle D. Jackson
> <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca> wrote:
>
> > In retrospect though, JAL seemed to
> > imply that these things were going to be installed on the Shuttle
> > or something in 2003 and I said "no way". When I think space
> > propulsion for the most part I only look at lift systems. Shoot,
> > I just can't get out of atmospheric propulsion no matter how hard
> > I try ;] From the links posted here on ion drives it seems they're
> > not applicable to atmospheric ops.
>
> Why do you say with your words
Um, because he tried saying it with his toes and it didn't work out? I used
to try typing with my toes and it made a big mess. My big toe was too big to
work the backspace key right.
> that ion engines will not be used on the
> Space Shuttle in 2003, Kyle.
Because everyone knows that we are all going to be abducted by aliens in
2002 which will put a crimp in shuttle operations. Among other things. Have
you ever been abducted by an alien? I have. It's kind of different. They
have these big ships and they come up and go whoosh and then they dissect
you. I didn't like the dissection part.
> What you fail to realize is that ion
> drives were invented in society long ago. Do not argue with me on this,
> Kyle, because just last week I saw this great documentary film on my
> JVC television set that showed me with my own eyes that there are
> already space defense fighters with twin ion engines and wings and they
> fly through space and make a great roaring sound
But, but... in space, no one can hear you scream! Sigourny Weaver said so.
Don't you think she'd make a great Lego builder? Anyway, I saw it in some
movie about monsters and, um, aliens. on my RCA television set, too! RCA
comes after JVC in the alphabet so it must be better.
But I guess screaming isn't roaring so we're OK on that. Screaming, no,
roaring yes. Got it. Please read my next letter when I write it where I will
discuss whooshing and why you can hear that.
> when they fly by and
> shoot and it would make a great video game for my Sony Playstation 2
> but not for Super Nintendo GameBoy because the screen is too small
Ya but have you tried Game Boy Advance yet? it costs more so it must be
better. Someone from Lego told me they are developing virtual bricks that
you can use on your gameboy but only in the sunlight because the silly
engineers at nintendo didn't use active matrix. Just last week Gabe from
penny arcade was complaining about that. He's so funny, don't you think? I
wonder if he ever played with legos? He has a pacman on his shirt you know,
and pacmen are round, kind of like the, what do you call them, um, dots, on
the top of the bricks.
> and
> they would have to change it so it wouldnt be as good in my mind, Kyle.
Defiantly (1) trimming loc.au from this post as I don't want to help them
gain on the pomies. Heck, maybe I should put loc.uk in??? What is with those
guys anyway, saying I'm funny? The very nerve.
1 - Hi Greg, I think this is your favorite typo, right?. What is it with
typos anyway? I think microsoft should invent something that automatically
corrects your speling when you make misteaks. maybe they could put little
red squiggly lines under your words kind of like this squiggle: ~~~~~~~ but
underneath. I think that would be a great idea and I am going to write bill
gates about it as soon as I get done putting my legos away.
larry o pieniazek
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, John Kornhaus writes:
>
> Why do you say with your words that ion engines will not be used on the
> Space Shuttle in 2003, Kyle. What you fail to realize is that ion
> drives were invented in society long ago. Do not argue with me on this,
> Kyle, because just last week I saw this great documentary film on my
> JVC television set that showed me with my own eyes that there are
> already space defense fighters with twin ion engines and wings and they
> fly through space and make a great roaring sound when they fly by and
> shoot and it would make a great video game for my Sony Playstation 2
> but not for Super Nintendo GameBoy because the screen is too small and
> they would have to change it so it wouldnt be as good in my mind, Kyle.
I've got 3 words for you, buddy: Commodore-64!
> ;-)
He-he ;] That was pretty good!
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
<snip>
> > G.
> Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
Ahem I dont know if any one has corrected you, and I hate to be nit picking
but the M.F. flew into a "cave" not a crater in the SECOND MOVIE called The
Empire Strikes Back.
thank you
|
|
| |
snip
> > G.
> Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
Ahem the M.F. flew into the monster, which is technically called a space
slug by George Lucas, in the Second movie not the first. The first starwars
movie was over That whole Death Star thing. The second (Empire Strikes
Back) is where the M.F. outruns an Imperial Star Destroyer.
thanks
kai
|
|
| |
Jesse Long wrote:
<snip>
> The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
> Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
> or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> on my space monster steaks.
Sorry to interrupt guys, bu this is the *funniest* thread I faced for a
long time..:-D
Is this Jesse character is real? I mean does he really exist?
I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my attitude was
same to this conversation, but I really started to believe that Jesse is
a fiction.
I'm sure he is not the Jesse Long that we know from RTL and early days
of Lugnet.
Selçuk
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kai Brodersen writes:
> snip
> > > G.
> > Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> > where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> > Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
>
> Ahem the M.F. flew into the monster, which is technically called a space
> slug by George Lucas, in the Second movie not the first. The first starwars
> movie was over That whole Death Star thing. The second (Empire Strikes
> Back) is where the M.F. outruns an Imperial Star Destroyer.
>
> thanks
> kai
You are correct about the Super Star Destroyer comment but I know that it
was in Star Wars that they ended up inside the space slug (which I believe
appears to be an early ancestor of those worms in another science fiction
story named Tremors) and not The Empire Strikes Back, Kai. I apologize for
correcting your statement, Kai.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
>
> Jesse Long wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> > perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> > certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> > with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> > first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> > insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> > most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> > other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> > 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> > buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> > and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> > and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
> > Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> > depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
> > or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> > K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> > on my space monster steaks.
>
> Sorry to interrupt guys, bu this is the *funniest* thread I faced for a
> long time..:-D
> Is this Jesse character is real? I mean does he really exist?
>
> I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my attitude was
> same to this conversation, but I really started to believe that Jesse is
> a fiction.
>
> I'm sure he is not the Jesse Long that we know from RTL and early days
> of Lugnet.
>
> Selçuk
There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
do you indicate by that statement? The second question is was there another
person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
person has my name on Lugnet.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kai Brodersen writes:
> <snip>
> > > G.
> > Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> > where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> > Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
>
> Ahem I dont know if any one has corrected you, and I hate to be nit picking
> but the M.F. flew into a "cave" not a crater in the SECOND MOVIE called The
> Empire Strikes Back.
>
>
> thank you
By quite a coincedence, my library has the Star Wars Trilogy and I would
like to rent those movies but my parents would probably stop me because I
have seen each movie about five times in two years and possibly as many as a
dozen times in my life. If I am right, I will tell you, according to the
timer on my video cassette recorder, when the eact moments of the motion
picture that the event occurs in that particular section of the Star Wars
Trilogy.
Jesse Long
P.S. You can obviously indicate from my letter that my parents are NOT
really interested in the Star Wars Trilogy.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> >
> > Jesse Long wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> > > perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> > > certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> > > with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> > > first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> > > insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> > > most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> > > other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> > > 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> > > buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> > > and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> > > and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
> > > Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> > > depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
> > > or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> > > K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> > > on my space monster steaks.
> >
> > Sorry to interrupt guys, bu this is the *funniest* thread I faced for a
> > long time..:-D
> > Is this Jesse character is real? I mean does he really exist?
> >
> > I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my attitude was
> > same to this conversation, but I really started to believe that Jesse is
> > a fiction.
> >
> > I'm sure he is not the Jesse Long that we know from RTL and early days
> > of Lugnet.
> >
> > Selçuk
> There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
> not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
> humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
> seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
> his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
> are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
> seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
> on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
> understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
> beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
> do you indicate by that statement? The second question is was there another
> person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> you speak of, Selcuk?
RTL stands for Rec.Toys.Lego a news group that existed before LUGNET.
> I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> person has my name on Lugnet.
> Jesse Long
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kai Brodersen writes:
> > <snip>
> > > > G.
> > > Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> > > where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> > > Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
> >
> > Ahem I dont know if any one has corrected you, and I hate to be nit picking
> > but the M.F. flew into a "cave" not a crater in the SECOND MOVIE called The
> > Empire Strikes Back.
> >
> >
> > thank you
> By quite a coincedence, my library has the Star Wars Trilogy and I would
> like to rent those movies but my parents would probably stop me because I
> have seen each movie about five times in two years and possibly as many as a
> dozen times in my life. If I am right, I will tell you, according to the
> timer on my video cassette recorder, when the eact moments of the motion
> picture that the event occurs in that particular section of the Star Wars
> Trilogy.
> Jesse Long
> P.S. You can obviously indicate from my letter that my parents are NOT
> really interested in the Star Wars Trilogy.
Stop. you are both technically right.
Although it is hard to justify the usage of the term "flying into a crater"
inasmuch as you can fly into a cave.
The giant worm-like creature was inside a cave-like hole that was located in
the center of a giant crater. I don't need a copy of the movie to remember
that.
Jesse, the attitude has got to go, man. No one is interested in the timer
measurments things happened at in Star Wars Trilogy movies. As for your
parents stopping you from renting a movie... I will resist the urge to
comment on someone in college who lets his parents have that much control in
his life. I'm not judging you, I'm just very surprised.
cheers!
Joel Kuester
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> Stop. you are both technically right.
Actually not!
What REALLY happened was that the MF flew into a crater/cave and then
monkeys flew out my butt!
=oP
-- Hop-Frog (The Giant Thread Killer)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> > Stop. you are both technically right.
>
> Actually not!
>
> What REALLY happened was that the MF flew into a crater/cave and then
> monkeys flew out my butt!
"No way, Wayne!"
LFB (who beats the dead threads...*thump* *thump*)
XFUT -> .o-t.fun
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> > Stop. you are both technically right.
>
> Actually not!
>
> What REALLY happened was that the MF flew into a crater/cave and then
> monkeys flew out my butt!
>
> =oP
>
> -- Hop-Frog (The Giant Thread Killer)
So that's where they went! Call off the search party fellow Oz-simians, that
amphibious phreak Hop-Frog was the kidnapper!
--DaveL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Richard Marchetti writes:
> What REALLY happened was that the MF flew into a crater/cave and then
> monkeys flew out my butt!
No, I think you'll find that the flying monkeys are from The Wizard of Oz. ;-)
> -- Hop-Frog (The Giant Thread Killer)
It's not dead yet. :-)
Cheers
Richie Dulin
Patrician of Brick Morpork
|
|
| |
Jesse Alan Long wrote:
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> > Sorry to interrupt guys, bu this is the *funniest* thread I faced for a
> > long time..:-D
> > Is this Jesse character is real? I mean does he really exist?
> >
> > I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my attitude was
> > same to this conversation, but I really started to believe that Jesse is
> > a fiction.
> >
> > I'm sure he is not the Jesse Long that we know from RTL and early days
> > of Lugnet.
> >
> > Selçuk
> There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
> not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
> humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
> seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
> his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
> are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
> seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
> on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
> understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
> beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
> do you indicate by that statement?
It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
At first, I thought that you were a teen, just were rambling around, and
there was no need to be harsh to you.
But after this much weird and funny postings, and reading that you were
21, I started to believe that this comical "Jesse Long" character that
you presented here in lugnet is either fictional, created to make some
fun with us, (so I said I believed "Jesse long" is not real, I already
know that there is someone hitting the keys in front oh his/her PC) or
you are really a child trying to sell him/herself as an adult.
I still believe the same thing.
> The second question is was there another
> person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> person has my name on Lugnet.
> Jesse Long
Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
(rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
"ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
"x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
Selçuk
|
|
| |
Heya Selçuk-
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
> Jesse Alan Long wrote:
> > There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
> > not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
> > humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
> > seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
> > his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
> > are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
> > seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
> > on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
> > understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
> > beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
> > do you indicate by that statement?
>
> It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
> At first, I thought that you were a teen, just were rambling around, and
> there was no need to be harsh to you.
>
> But after this much weird and funny postings, and reading that you were
> 21, I started to believe that this comical "Jesse Long" character that
> you presented here in lugnet is either fictional, created to make some
> fun with us, (so I said I believed "Jesse long" is not real, I already
> know that there is someone hitting the keys in front oh his/her PC) or
> you are really a child trying to sell him/herself as an adult.
>
> I still believe the same thing.
No comment, except that this has been a most interesting
week and a half on LUGnet.
> > The second question is was there another
> > person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> > you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> > have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> > also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> > was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> > kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> > person has my name on Lugnet.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
> (rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
> still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
I remember that Jesse--has anyone spoken with him in the last
year or so? And as for that Pokemon thing (I think Team Rocket
is a Pokemon thing)...hmmm.
> "ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
> "x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Heya Selçuk-
>
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> >
> > It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> > attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
>
> I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
> quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
> wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
Needless to say it is very appearent to me. Do I undesrtand your own language
better than you or what?..:-)
Anyway, the thing I tried to express (and couldn't, by looking the respose) is:
* I really don't appreciate beating (kicking, slapping, attacking, etc.) the
"innocent clueless" (clueless, but innocent at the same time, as in children).
* And I didn't appreciate the tone of this conversation (this tread) at the
beginning since it was looking like people were beating an innocent clueless.
My English still needs to much work..:-)
> > At first, I thought that you were a teen, just were rambling around, and
> > there was no need to be harsh to you.
> >
> > But after this much weird and funny postings, and reading that you were
> > 21, I started to believe that this comical "Jesse Long" character that
> > you presented here in lugnet is either fictional, created to make some
> > fun with us, (so I said I believed "Jesse long" is not real, I already
> > know that there is someone hitting the keys in front oh his/her PC) or
> > you are really a child trying to sell him/herself as an adult.
> >
> > I still believe the same thing.
>
> No comment, except that this has been a most interesting
> week and a half on LUGnet.
>
> > > The second question is was there another
> > > person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> > > you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> > > have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> > > also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> > > was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> > > kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> > > person has my name on Lugnet.
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
> > (rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
> > still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
>
> I remember that Jesse--has anyone spoken with him in the last
> year or so? And as for that Pokemon thing (I think Team Rocket
> is a Pokemon thing)...hmmm.
Look:
http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=11247
>
> > "ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
> > "x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
>
> It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
> don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
> communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
>
> best
>
> LFB
Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything and laugh
hard to his face...
:-)
Since you already know everything (1) I will not explain you anything related
to Turkish alphabet..:-)
Selçuk
(1) http://www.lugnet.com/faq/~88/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Heya Selçuk-
>
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> > Jesse Alan Long wrote:
> > > There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
> > > not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
> > > humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
> > > seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
> > > his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
> > > are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
> > > seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
> > > on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
> > > understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
> > > beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
> > > do you indicate by that statement?
> >
> > It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> > attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
>
> I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
> quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
> wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
>
> > At first, I thought that you were a teen, just were rambling around, and
> > there was no need to be harsh to you.
> >
> > But after this much weird and funny postings, and reading that you were
> > 21, I started to believe that this comical "Jesse Long" character that
> > you presented here in lugnet is either fictional, created to make some
> > fun with us, (so I said I believed "Jesse long" is not real, I already
> > know that there is someone hitting the keys in front oh his/her PC) or
> > you are really a child trying to sell him/herself as an adult.
> >
> > I still believe the same thing.
>
> No comment, except that this has been a most interesting
> week and a half on LUGnet.
>
> > > The second question is was there another
> > > person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> > > you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> > > have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> > > also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> > > was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> > > kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> > > person has my name on Lugnet.
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
> > (rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
> > still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
>
> I remember that Jesse--has anyone spoken with him in the last
> year or so? And as for that Pokemon thing (I think Team Rocket
> is a Pokemon thing)...hmmm.
>
> > "ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
> > "x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
>
> It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
> don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
> communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
>
> best
>
> LFB
I think that you do not understand that sentence, either, Lindsay? The
problem is that you respond with the sentence, 'I think that's what Jesse
wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).' What do you
mean by that sentence, Lindsay? I knew that the name for that mark started
with the letter 's' but the name of the word escaped my mind and thank you,
Lindsay, for making me remember that word in my mind. The last answer to
your question is yes, Jesse is from Pokemon but she is the girl from Team
Rocket and her name is J-E-S-S-I-E and the guy is named James. The problem
that has irritated me even more is that some people have the NERVE to spell
my name that way, especially government people. This has been a mistake
that has happened ever since I was born into this world. :.(
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
> Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything and >laugh hard to his face...
>
> :-)
Hopefully that smiley means you were kidding... you guys are both respected
contributors, and I think LFB was just trying to help clarify why your
wording may have been confusing.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > > It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> > > attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
> >
> > I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
> > quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
> > wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
>
> [snip snip]
>
> I think that you do not understand that sentence, either, Lindsay? The
> problem is that you respond with the sentence, 'I think that's what Jesse
> wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).' What do you
> mean by that sentence, Lindsay?
Oh, it just seemed to me that the sentence wasn't fully clear
because of the way it was worded, and I posited that this might
have been the same reason you asked for a clarification.
Granted, it's faaaaaaaaar better than I'd ever do in Turkish. :)
> I knew that the name for that mark started
> with the letter 's' but the name of the word escaped my mind and thank you,
> Lindsay, for making me remember that word in my mind. The last answer to
> your question is yes, Jesse is from Pokemon but she is the girl from Team
> Rocket and her name is J-E-S-S-I-E and the guy is named James. The problem
> that has irritated me even more is that some people have the NERVE to spell
> my name that way, especially government people. This has been a mistake
> that has happened ever since I was born into this world. :.(
Believe you me, I know alllll about having one's name slaughtered.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
Hey Selçuk
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > >
> > > It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> > > attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
> >
> > I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
> > quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
> > wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
>
> Needless to say it is very appearent to me. Do I undesrtand your own language
> better than you or what?..:-)
Well, you're not an American, so it's entirely possible. :)
> Anyway, the thing I tried to express (and couldn't, by looking the respose) is:
>
> * I really don't appreciate beating (kicking, slapping, attacking, etc.) the
> "innocent clueless" (clueless, but innocent at the same time, as in children).
Okay. The "the" was missing, which is what screwed me up.
Three little letters, a world of comprehension. I got all
the words, but couldn't separate the sentence out into its
constituent parts.
> * And I didn't appreciate the tone of this conversation (this tread) at the
> beginning since it was looking like people were beating an innocent clueless.
>
> My English still needs to much work..:-)
"All your base are mine!" Nah, your English is quite good,
even more so given that you're not in an English-speaking
country. A few months in the US or England (or maybe even
Australia...hi, .loc.au) and you'd be speaking better than
most of the natives...actually, you already are, what am I
saying?
Remind me to share the "bizarro language" I've seen in papers
sometime. It's totally incomprehensible.
> > > > The second question is was there another
> > > > person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> > > > you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> > > > have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> > > > also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> > > > was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> > > > kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> > > > person has my name on Lugnet.
> > > > Jesse Long
> > >
> > > Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
> > > (rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
> > > still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
> >
> > I remember that Jesse--has anyone spoken with him in the last
> > year or so? And as for that Pokemon thing (I think Team Rocket
> > is a Pokemon thing)...hmmm.
>
> Look:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=11247
Wow! He's out there! Watch your step, everyone...and
make sure you CLOSE THOSE SENTENCE FRAGMENTS! :)
> > > "ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
> > > "x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
> >
> > It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
> > don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
> > communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
>
> Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
> Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything
> and laugh hard to his face...
No, no, no. Just add a STRONG backwoods accent, and it makes
*perfect* sense, a-yawp.
> Since you already know everything (1) I will not explain you anything related
> to Turkish alphabet..:-)
That Ottoman stuff is beyond me, anyways.
> (1) http://www.lugnet.com/faq/~88/
*BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA* When the hades heck did THAT
show up there? Shiri, when I see you at Brickfest, you're in SOOO
much trouble!(1) ;)
best
LFB
(1) Assuming, of course, I can get my now over-inflated head
through the door...and no, I'm not yet a PhD.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
<snip>
> > > Lindsay wrote:
> > > It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
> > > don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
> > > communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
> >
> > Selçuk wrote:
> > Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
> > Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything
> > and laugh hard to his face...
>
> No, no, no. Just add a STRONG backwoods accent, and it makes
> *perfect* sense, a-yawp.
LOL! You may not find it hard to believe that I speak much worse English
after two years in the good ol' US of A.
As for that sentence, I just pretended Chris was saying it. ;-) Here's a
translation!
"I think it's more the cedilla [the mark below ç - Lindsay misspelled its
name!] than the letter. We don't like French over here. Are you and your
friends communist or something?"
<grin>
> > (1) http://www.lugnet.com/faq/~88/
>
> *BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA* When the hades heck did THAT
> show up there? Shiri, when I see you at Brickfest, you're in SOOO
> much trouble!(1) ;)
The night of the 24th-25th. I was suffering from horrible insomnia and
decided it would be a good occupation.
I'm thinkin of adding many more "name pronounciation" keys. I'd like to know
how to say Larry's last name, for example, and there are many more I have no
clue how to say. (Chris teases me for how I say Dave Low and Dave Schuler's
last names, especially. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone except me...)
> (1) Assuming, of course, I can get my now over-inflated head
> through the door...and no, I'm not yet a PhD.
Sorry, my mistake. I was inferring that you were on your post-doc all this
year, but I guess it was a pre-doc? ;-) Good luck with all that!
-Shiri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
>
> LOL! You may not find it hard to believe that I speak much worse English
> after two years in the good ol' US of A.
8?) Even in my short trip (~5 weeks) I found myself pronouncing things with
an accent, just to get the Murkans to understand!!
> I'm thinkin of adding many more "name pronounciation" keys. I'd like to know
> how to say Larry's last name,
Didn't actually ask the Pieniazeks how they pronounce it, but I say it like
Peen-yart-sik, accent on the 2nd syllable. Or maybe even Pin-yart-sik. Lar?
> for example, and there are many more I have no
> clue how to say. (Chris teases me for how I say Dave Low and Dave Schuler's
> last names, especially. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone except me...)
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> Didn't actually ask the Pieniazeks how they pronounce it, but I say it like
> Peen-yart-sik, accent on the 2nd syllable. Or maybe even Pin-yart-sik. Lar?
Close. No R.
pin-yacht-sick (yachts are big boats so that's the syllable that gets the
accent)
My Polish relatives say it "more correctly" as pin-o-scheck.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
> > Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything and >laugh hard to his face...
> >
> > :-)
>
> Hopefully that smiley means you were kidding... you guys are both respected
> contributors, and I think LFB was just trying to help clarify why your
> wording may have been confusing.
>
> ++Lar
Easy Larry, we are just making some fun..:-) No hard feelings involved
in anyway.
Thanks, though..:-)
Selçuk
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > Since you already know everything (1) I will not explain you anything related
> > to Turkish alphabet..:-)
>
> That Ottoman stuff is beyond me, anyways.
Then...:-),
Turkish alphabet is a completely different thing than anything Ottoman. It was
introduced in 1928 by Atatürk, based on the Latin alphabet that you already
knew and been using for centuries. It has some "weird" characters like "ÜüÖöÇç"
and some others (that you can't see if I type) like dotless small "i", dotted
capital "I", soft "g" (g with an umlaut above), and "s" with cedilla. And it
doesn't have "x", "q" and "w". There was also a soft "a" (a with an umlaut
above), just added to pronounce Arabic words in our language (There are *too*
many Arabic words in our language, still) but it is mostly not used now, and
excluded from the alphabet.
Before that we were using Arabic alphabet, beginning from the acceptance of
Islam as the religion of Turkish People, at the times we were still living in
central Asia (around 9th century, IIRC). I still can't believe using this
awkward and inconvenient alphabet for centuries. Do you know that you can't
type letter "p" in Arabic alphabet? Besides that several other natural sounds
of Turkish language cannot be represented by arabic alphabet. It is very hard
to learn, at the same time. Ther are some complexities like letters changing
their appearances according to their places in a word, and vowels changing
their sounds with added small signs around them.
It was a very very big step for the proceeding cultural revolution to change
the Arabic alphabet with the new one. And a very brave one at that time, since
the first response was "they are changing the alphabet of Kouran with the
devil's alphabet". Perfect medieval thinking, except being at the beginning of
20th century. But you couldn't get better from a culture who didn't accept the
use of Gutenberg's machine till 300 years after its invention, by fearing to
use "devil's apparatus". Even then, it was forbidden to copy Kouran with
it..:-)
Selçuk
P.S. IANAH, you know..:-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
>
> > > Since you already know everything (1) I will not explain you anything related
> > > to Turkish alphabet..:-)
> >
> > That Ottoman stuff is beyond me, anyways.
>
> Then...:-),
>
> Turkish alphabet is a completely different thing than anything Ottoman. It was
> introduced in 1928 by Atatürk, based on the Latin alphabet that you already
> knew and been using for centuries. It has some "weird" characters like "ÜüÖöÇç"
> and some others (that you can't see if I type) like dotless small "i", dotted
> capital "I", soft "g" (g with an umlaut above), and "s" with cedilla. And it
> doesn't have "x", "q" and "w". There was also a soft "a" (a with an umlaut
> above), just added to pronounce Arabic words in our language (There are *too*
> many Arabic words in our language, still) but it is mostly not used now, and
> excluded from the alphabet.
>
> Before that we were using Arabic alphabet, beginning from the acceptance of
> Islam as the religion of Turkish People, at the times we were still living in
> central Asia (around 9th century, IIRC). I still can't believe using this
> awkward and inconvenient alphabet for centuries. Do you know that you can't
> type letter "p" in Arabic alphabet? Besides that several other natural sounds
> of Turkish language cannot be represented by arabic alphabet. It is very hard
> to learn, at the same time. Ther are some complexities like letters changing
> their appearances according to their places in a word, and vowels changing
> their sounds with added small signs around them.
>
> It was a very very big step for the proceeding cultural revolution to change
> the Arabic alphabet with the new one. And a very brave one at that time, since
> the first response was "they are changing the alphabet of Kouran with the
> devil's alphabet". Perfect medieval thinking, except being at the beginning of
> 20th century. But you couldn't get better from a culture who didn't accept the
> use of Gutenberg's machine till 300 years after its invention, by fearing to
> use "devil's apparatus". Even then, it was forbidden to copy Kouran with
> it..:-)
>
> Selçuk
>
> P.S. IANAH, you know..:-)
You think that Turkish or Arabic is hard, try learning how to speak AND
write Japanese, and I am not even from Japan! The Japanese language has
over 1,400 different characters known as kanji and there are two different
subcategories for each system and I believe that they are referred to as
hirigana and katagana. (If I am wrong in that aspect, then it is either a
mistake in the book I am reading about learning Japanese or a mistake that I
have personally made in my mind so please correct me, Dori-san.) Katagana
is the more commonly used form of the Japanese text but hirigana is also
used but then again I am only beginning to learn that language.
So, do you not believe that I am real, Selcuk, or do I have to show you a
photograph of myself with some identification (and you are not going to see
my Social Security number so sorry, Selcuk)? Are you still angry at me, Selcuk?
Jesse Long
|
|
|
