|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Oct 5, 2007 15:20
Japan lunar probe reaches orbit
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/ba6e27556d88b3...#003f35e7781e5cdb
JAXA SELENE/SELINE via H-2A/H-IIA
http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f13/index_e.html
http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/index_e.htm
For some silly odd reason there's been nothing of any good (meaning
informative or otherwise deductive) usenet chat about this JAXA moon
mission. It's as though being all super hush-hush or taboo/
nondisclosure rated. Wonder why? (and why the intentional
disinformation spelling of the mission name "SELINE"?)
"The KAGUYA mission targets are the global characterization of lunar
surface and detailed gravimetry."
Sounds perfectly nifty and worth every bit of whatever that mission of
remote obtained science can contribute about our physically dark,
somewhat salty and otherwise unavoidably naked/anticathode worthy
mascon of gamma and X-ray saturated environment, especially as for
eventually offering detailed review per each of our NASA/Apollo hard
landings or impact sites.
|
| Show full article (2.96Kb) |
| 368 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Oct 7, 2007 04:50
On Oct 5, 4:27 pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:> BradGuth wrote:
>
>
>> JAXA SELENE/SELINE via H-2A/H-IIA
>> http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f13/index_e.html
>> http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/index_e.htm
>> For some silly odd reason there's been nothing of any good (meaning
>> informative or otherwise deductive) usenet chat about this JAXA moon
>> mission. It's as though being all super hush-hush or taboo/
>> nondisclosure rated. Wonder why? (and why the intentional
>> disinformation spelling of the mission name "SELINE"?) >
> It is ignored because it is politicized crap. NASA has a vast
> treasure trove of deep frozen asstronaught urine and feces - in
> duplicate!
|
| Show full article (2.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Oct 7, 2007 22:06
Where's all the usual gauntlet of those brown-nosed semitic clowns
claiming their NASA/Apollo Quran is but all there is to say about our
salty old moon?
- Brad Guth -
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John GriffinJohn Griffin Date: Oct 8, 2007 10:01
BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:
> Why all the unusual lack of topic interest, or rather perhaps
> why the ongoing official banishment of anything JAXA SELENE?
Who cares? Hint: Nobody and nobody else, i.e., only you.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Oct 8, 2007 15:14
On Oct 8, 10:01 am, John Griffin yahooie.com> wrote:> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:>> Why all the unusual lack of topic interest, or rather perhaps
>> why the ongoing official banishment of anything JAXA SELENE?
>
> Who cares? Hint: Nobody and nobody else, i.e., only you.
Gee whiz, of JAXA taking essentially 5 weeks in order to establish
their 100 km orbit, and having used up a 107:1 ratio worth of rocket
per payload that was less than 14%% inert, is what seems perfecty
doable.
Can you otherwise say as to why JAXA was so fly-by-rocket inefficient?
Say again how our NASA Apollo semitic Third Reich wizards managed to
accomplish their rad-hard 3 day trip to the moon with fuel and payload
to spare, and having only a 60:1 ratio of rocket per payload that was
nearly 30%% inert to start off with.
Is there a little something special about such fly-by-rocket physics
we're not being told?
- Brad Guth -
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John GriffinJohn Griffin Date: Oct 8, 2007 19:36
BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:01 am, John Griffin yahooie.com>
> wrote: >> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:>>> Why all the unusual lack of topic interest, or rather
>>> perhaps why the ongoing official banishment of anything
>>> JAXA SELENE?
>>
>> Who cares? Hint: Nobody and nobody else, i.e., only you.
>
> Gee whiz, of JAXA taking essentially 5 weeks in order to
> establish their 100 km orbit, and having used up a 107:1 ratio
> worth of rocket per payload that was less than 14%% inert, is
> what seems perfecty doable.
>
> Can you otherwise say as to why JAXA was so fly-by-rocket
> inefficient?
|
| Show full article (1.81Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Oct 9, 2007 04:06
On Oct 8, 10:15 pm, "Matt Wiser" yahoo.com> wrote:> John Griffin yahooie.com> wrote:
>
> John, put the Guthball in your killfile. He belongs there. There's no arguing with him and those
> of his ilk (paranoic conspriacy-theory wackos), and I gave up trying. I'll take the word of
> Apollo Astronauts I've met (Al Bean, LMP Apollo 12; and Jack Schmitt, LMP Apollo 17) over
> some refugee from a lunaticy asylum's delusional fantasies any day. If, and I do mean if,
> anyone believes a word of his ravings, then I've got some beachfront property for sale: in
> New Mexico! (the bridge in Brooklyn's long been off the market) Just plonk him and forget
> about him.
That's right, any time the whole truth and nothing but the truth
emerges, just killfile it, or otherwise fully attack it as much the
same as those Yids intentionally attacked our USS LIBERTY, and then
simply continually lie about it as being merely an accident or some
kind of friendly fire misunderstanding.
- Brad Guth -
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Oct 9, 2007 04:44
On Oct 8, 7:36 pm, John Griffin yahooie.com> wrote:> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:>> On Oct 8, 10:01 am, John Griffin yahooie.com>
>> wrote:>>> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:>>>> Why all the unusual lack of topic interest, or rather
>>>> perhaps why the ongoing official banishment of anything
>>>> JAXA SELENE?
>
>>> Who cares? Hint: Nobody and nobody else, i.e., only you.
>
>> Gee whiz, of JAXA taking essentially 5 weeks in order to
>> establish their 100 km orbit, and having used up a 107:1 ratio
>> worth of rocket per payload that was less than 14%% inert, is
>> what seems perfecty doable.
>
>> Can you otherwise say as to why JAXA was so fly-by-rocket
>> inefficient?
>
> We'll never know. It's too bad the term "Inscrutable orientals" ...
|
| Show full article (3.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
