Korea as Number One

[gambit]

As I said, the world doesn’t work your foolish way!

Do you know what is Nature that criticizes US space shuttle program?

Do you know who is J. Stiglitz that call US government of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%?

Further, do you know who is Jefferson?

According to your Vietnamese type of fe@king logic, all those people/entities are “seditious and traitorous”. So you, the fool, to tell them to renounce their US citizenship and leave.

And YOU the FOOL tell J. Stiglitz China is 0.001%, 1000 better than US 1%.

So how many of them speaks in support of another country the way the Chinese-Americans on this forum speaks for China? Funny how you avoid that. Got your 'red machine' yet?

The biggest difference between you and those educated is EDUCATION. Now, make sure USA is not your Vietnam. Don’t attempt to hijack USA to serve your purpose of releasing your personal hatred. In fact, you are the treacherously traitorous and YOU should do our 99% a favor by renouncing your US citizenship and leaving the country.

Education does not immune a person from being dishonest, as you have been. If you read something that appeals to you, it does not absolve you of the responsibility to perform due diligence. There are much greater amount of professionals who strongly disagree with the absurd argument that the Space Shuttle is a 'failure'. Have you read their arguments? Of course not. You take this position out of hatred for your country, not because you conducted any reasonably objective research into the issue.

So tell US, if you are in trouble overseas, would you run to the Chinese Embassy or would you cry out loudly that you are an American?

 

[gpit]

So how many of them speaks in support of another country the way the Chinese-Americans on this forum speaks for China? Funny how you avoid that. Got your 'red machine' yet?


Education does not immune a person from being dishonest, as you have been. If you read something that appeals to you, it does not absolve you of the responsibility to perform due diligence. There are much greater amount of professionals who strongly disagree with the absurd argument that the Space Shuttle is a 'failure'. Have you read their arguments? Of course not. You take this position out of hatred for your country, not because you conducted any reasonably objective research into the issue.

So tell US, if you are in trouble overseas, would you run to the Chinese Embassy or would you cry out loudly that you are an American?

As typical Americans, we always root for the week and unjustly suppressed. Often, wisdom is in minority's hand especially when fools rampantly outnumber limited Wiseman in this forum.

China is week, and China is unjustly suppressed internationally among demonizing western chorus. Any educated people know it. I have repeatedly stated that China has a lot of evil parts, especially in dealing with domestic issues. It nonetheless is very unjust to suppress a different and splendid civilization just because it is culturally “them”, not “us”.

It’s a violation of nature to leave the world only one voice, one form, one tradition/culture, one political system, or one “type” – that is a cult religion.

In fact, evil China does something better than USA and many other democracies. For instance, one country two systems. No any other country in this world, with any types of governance, has the guts to let two different, even contradictory, political systems peacefully co-exist within, and let them compete peacefully. It is a tremendous wisdom!

Thus, rooting for China and welcoming it as a stake holder reflects real American value, and is good for USA, and good for human being.

On the other side, this government is sliding toward a government of the 1%, by the 1% and for the 1% as described by renowned economists and Nobel Laureate. Only your enfant-stage brain would believe to make China 0.001% will negate US’s 1%? Do you see your foolishness in your ridiculous logic?

In addition, space shuttle has proven to be a failure by Nature, and Space experts. And I, as a free man, not you the slave, think they are right. If you think there are dissidents, then let them voice theirs.

BUT, now YOU tell us why those outstanding American citizens and first-rate scientists have to renounce their US citizenship (if they are) simply because of their objective and scientific studies? Why don’t you instead put forward your opinions/studies or the opinions/studies you think are right, but clownishly whining for their renouncing their US citizenship like an idiot?

As I said: the world doesn’t work your foolish way. You face it and take it.

Jingoism doesn’t negate the fact of 1% government. Jingoism doesn’t make space shuttle success. Rather it only makes you more like David Koresh of Waco, Texas.


You degraded behavior only reflect that you are a typical feudalist in mentality and a fundamentalist in activity, a Stalinist who'd like to purge any dissident, a termite in US society: honestly chewing, destroying and subverting the fundamentals of US values. I know there are a lot people as you from backward countries: stupid yet presumptuous and do not want to learn. Fortunately America doesn’t work your foolish way.

Thus, it is clear that it is YOU who want to hijack US for venting your personal hatred, and YOU who dishonestly honey-coat US in appearance and harm US in reality. Therefore, it is YOU who better renounce your citizenship and leave the country for good: this great country suffers too much recently from your type of fundamentalists and extremists, from top to bottom. If it persists, sooner or later China will catch up on us in one way or another.

Oh, by the way, according to your funny BS logic of typical high school dropout, maybe Your Foolisest never bother to know that US embassies are paid by our tax money to protect the citizens. If US government did not impose us tax, in general there would be no logic to go US embassy. And do we the 99% taxpayers have to honey-coat the 1% and let it rotten further, or we the taxpayer denied the protection?

Dude, shake off your delusion: this is America, not Vietnam. America doesn’t work your foolish way!

 

[Götterdämmerung]

That is your opinion.

Strange though that some communities in the US are spending loads of money just to make their streests look nicer by putting the cables underground. Your fellow countrymen/women seem to share my opinion.

http://www.eparisextra.com/category/local-news/downtown/

Scroll to the bottom
2009 March « Santa Clarita City Briefs

Park Lane West | Community News – Bay Street Streetscape Project

And you still fail to tell me what safety codes Germany or posh areas like Beverly Hills is violating.

Indeed comparing a pioneering reusable space vehicle against the established expendable one-way use method is like comparing an orange against the watermelon.

Indeed, and it was you who brought that comparison in.

Show me a credible argument against reusable vehicles. Do we discard a car once we arrived at the destination? Heck, do we discard a bicycle? Anytime you make something reusable, you are going to incur much higher cost because it must be much more physically robust to withstand repeated usage. But why is it that we persists in making so many things in life, especially tools, reusable? Back in WW II, the US wisely withdrew experienced combat pilots to stateside after X missions so they could impart their knowledge for the next generation of combat pilots. What they knew were institutionalized to this day. The Japanese, and to lesser extent the Germans, did not. The result was that eventually the odds caught up with their best combat pilots and the Japanese had to resorted to suicide pilots. Ask the Japanese how much easier and less expensive it was to train one-way pilots and manufacture one-way 'fighter' aircrafts.

Why are you bringing all the cars and bicycles in? Who is comparing apples with watermelons again? Fact is, the Space Shuttle was a failed experimen. Period! Maybe in the distant future there will come a new concept of reusable space vehicle that will avoid all the mistakes that the Space Shuttle made. But none of us has a crystal ball to tell how that concept will be and when that will happen.

So yes, comparing the Space Shuttle, a pioneering vehicle and program against the established method of one-time use throw-away vehicle is very much like comparing the orange against the watermelon. Here is your problem:

- Show us a credible argument on why it WOULD BE impractical to have a reusable space vehicle. Not technical feasibility because we know that it is technically feasible. But why would it be impractical.

- Show us a credible argument that in the future, ALL space vehicles WILL BE one-way expendable. Eurosnobs believes they know everything about anything so it should be easy for you to divine the future, right?

Circular 'logic' is what I call 'self insured and self assured logic' because its goal is to convince the believer that he can never be wrong. That is what I see here: The Space Shuttle, the first of the reusable type, is the only one of its kind because it is too expensive and it is too expensive because it is the only one of its kind.

There is no arguments against reusable space vehicles but that does not negate the fact that the Space Shuttle was a failed experiment and thus the US gov stopped the development of a second generation of Space Shuttle. We might have to wait for a very different concept of reusable space vehicles.

So by your argument, compare to the orange, we should not eat the watermelon because it is too heavy, it require a dangerous tool -- the knife -- to open because its rind is too thick, it is too messy, and it has too many seeds.

Who said anything about not eating a watermelon. It's one of my favourite fruits. Stop using strawman arguments like a fishwife having a fit in a lost debate!

Uh huh...

If Power Lines Fall, Why Don't They Go Underground? : NPR

There are two methods for buried power lines: tunnel and earth.

Tunnel buried power lines are sometimes inside tunnels that are as large as a human being is tall. Earth buried is when the power lines are simply insulated and buried in close proximity to each other into the ground. Insulation gets thicker with higher voltages and that incur cost. Tunnel buried power lines must be insulated to the same degree as well. Not so with overhead power lines that can be bare copper.

What kind of insulation? How about pressurized oil?

Blablabla and yet we use less energy than the US without compromising living standard, comfort and safety.

High-voltage cable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many methods but all of them costs far more than overhead power lines.

Sure, you like it cheap, huh?

So when Europe began to rebuild after WW II, crude and rude explanation as it is, the reality is that the bombs pretty much dug up the neccessary underground infrastructures for the Europeans to do as they see fit when it comes to how to run electricity to their homes with the unexpected consequence of giving Eurosnobs like yourself a convenient crutch to make yourself feel better over the Americans. It is not so possible for the US except for new housing developments, like in my neighborhood. The Japanese have their overhead power lines and bombs dug up their grounds as well. For the Australians, no bombs did the hard work for their lands and they have overhead power lines.

Funny though, all the pictures of German towns and cities I have posted in this thread dating back from 1890 to 1940, none of them have utility poles in the pictures even though by 1910 all of Germany was electrified. Paris did not get one bomb during WWII and not one utility pole can be seen. The same in Switzerland and Scandinavia, no war damages and still no utility poles.

In the cities and towns, buried power lines are distribution, not transmission lines which are overhead and spans over the continent. If a distribution line run along a road, it cost more to duct those distribution lines so they do not creep due to road vibrations. There cannot be anything over the paths because access to the lines must be available no matter how infrequent it may be so the land must be purchased or somehow secured. Buried power lines, regardless which method, must be highly overengineered (cost) in order to withstand powerful and persistent physical forces that comes with civilization in the form of cities and towns with their roads. It also cost more to replace and/or upgrade buried power lines because of growth. These costs, may be up to 50 times depending on earth composition, are always passed on to the consumers one way or another.

blablabla, in Europe transmission lines outside the city and town are overhead, distribution lines in cities and towns are underground. There is no point to repeat what I said earlier in lengthly sentences.

In the US state Florida, the potential for flooding from the swamp and the sea is very real, given the varying water tables, so it make sense to have overhead power lines where even though they are at greater risk with hurricanes, repairs after such is far less expensive and less time consuming than it would be compare to a tunnel flooded with sea water. What about areas that have both water and frost tables? I guess Germany is fortunate enough to have been spared the conflict to allow the luxury of aesthetics with buried power lines with the unintened consequence of giving Eurosnobs a way to feel superior to the Americans.

Guess what, we too haves swamp and low lands with a high water table in northern Germany. Many places are indeed under the sea level but protected by levees and yet all the powerlines in towns and cities are underground. We also have heavy storms in spring and autumn. And hold your breath, we also have bloody cold winter with -20° C.

Bottom line is this...Your arguments are stale and are not taken seriously by engineers worldwide who have experience at building and maintaining both overhead and buried power lines. Most chose the latter. But if you must feel that it is important to mislead a few gullible people on an anonymous Internet forum to the superiority of the Europeans with buried power lines the best example of civilized Europe...Be my guest and have a nut.

Bottom line is: your fellow countrymen/women are following us by putting cables in the city underground if they have the financial mean, that is. Our engineers are second to none and they are the ones who have put our cables underground.

 

[gambit]

Strange though that some communities in the US are spending loads of money just to make their streests look nicer by putting the cables underground. Your fellow countrymen/women seem to share my opinion.

Nothing strange about it. Here is where you are wrong: I never said that the overhead power lines system is superior in anyway. I only pointed out the uncomfortable facts that underground power lines are not as advantageous as you tried to posit and you did it from ignorance at that. The best argument for underground power lines is aesthetics and any other advantages over the alternate are slight. If some communities can afford it they can get it. But that does not mean the method is inherently superior and so overwhelmingly that its argument alone will compel others to obey. So far, the sway goes to the overhead power lines method.

And you still fail to tell me what safety codes Germany or posh areas like Beverly Hills is violating.

Please...Am not interested in detailing how certain safety codes can or may not violate aesthetics sensibilities. There is no way you can convince everyone that there is a definitive standard to measure how something 'look nice'. What is 'nice' to one may be offensive to another. It must be that German desire to control.

Why are you bringing all the cars and bicycles in? Who is comparing apples with watermelons again? Fact is, the Space Shuttle was a failed experimen. Period! Maybe in the distant future there will come a new concept of reusable space vehicle that will avoid all the mistakes that the Space Shuttle made. But none of us has a crystal ball to tell how that concept will be and when that will happen.

That is funny and revealing how the intellectual dishonest can speak contradictory things at the same time without knowing they do it. If you cannot tell the future then how can you say what we have now is a failure? Is it a fact simply because you pronounce 'Fact is' with no supporting evidence? You sound like Edison when he called Tesla's alternating current (AC) theory as: '...splendid, but they are utterly impractical.'

So let us continue...

Since you had to concede that you have no credible arguments against the reusable space vehicle concept, we will move on to HOW the Space Shuttle is reusable. We can start with aerodynamic exploitations. If you assert that the Space Shuttle is a 'failure' then give us a credible explanation as to why aerodynamic exploitations is a failed method when said reusable vehicle is in atmosphere. Give us a credible speculation as to why the Chinese WILL NOT go to same route. Please consult in private with the Chinese members regarding 'Chinese physics' to support your arguments.

This is gonna be good...

There is no arguments against reusable space vehicles but that does not negate the fact that the Space Shuttle was a failed experiment and thus the US gov stopped the development of a second generation of Space Shuttle. We might have to wait for a very different concept of reusable space vehicles.

Who said anything about not eating a watermelon. It's one of my favourite fruits. Stop using strawman arguments like a fishwife having a fit in a lost debate!

I asked you on why NOT the Apollo moon program is a 'failure' by your simplistic argument and you lamely responded that the rocket idea persisted. What a joke that was.

The Apollo program lasted for 11 years with 10 manned missions to the Moon and back. Manned does not mean landed. Each mission was a total discard, from booster rocket to command module with half of the lunar excursion module (LEM) left on the moon for the landed missions. So if we go by your simplistic argument, since no one have returned to the Moon since Apollo 17 back in Dec 1972, the entire endeavor must be considered a 'failure', but because the Chinese is planning to go to the Moon, the Apollo program must be considered a success. How do we know if the Chinese will use the same methods to land on the Moon? We do not. Given the Chinese penchant for copying successful endeavors, the Chinese will most likely execute the same methods.

Whereas with the Space Shuttle, only the main fuel tank was discarded, the rest recycled and reuse. Conveniently, because no one followed the design, the vehicle is considered a 'failure' just to poke US in the eye. We do not know if the Chinese will actually make it the Moon, but the Apollo program must remain a success despite absence of follow ups. But for the Space Shuttle, even though the possibility exists that the Chinese will copy the design in the future, for now the Space Shuttle must be a 'failure' in order to make sucking up to the Chinese valid.

The intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics are gold medal worthy and I readily yield this podium.

There are two non-financial arguments for calling the Space Shuttle a resounding success:

- Outcome
- Process

Considering the Space Shuttle is first reusable type from humankind on Earth, a total of six orbit worthy vehicles were built and together flew 135 missions. The 'outcome' based argument demonstrated that we can build reusable vehicles, hence, the Space Shuttle is a success.

The 'process' argument is more complex and is even more supportive for the judgement of success. In the process supportive argument, we break the item down to individual components and examine their utility and benefits, immediate and long term. Here is where you completely missed the WW II pilots analogy. So much for that Eurosnob intelligence and sophistication. Each time an experienced combat pilot is reassigned to training new pilots, experiences and knowledge make better a new pilot. Just like how today's cars are much more powerful, safer, and more reliable than when Mercedes and Ford started out in the business.

For example...Each time a shuttle returned to Earth, its structural integrity is examined and one of the many tools use is the classic strain gauge and there were 130 per wing as well as other sites.

Shuttle fueling test on tap Friday | Space News, STS-133, Space Shuttle, International Space Station

Another 18 strain gauges and 21 thermocouples were attached to the skin of the tank near the right-side thrust panel. Engineers then re-applied foam insulation.

Materials and structures do not last forever. The harsh environment of space and the changes in environments a shuttle must undergo, from weightlessness and no atmosphere to weighted with atmosphere, demands that we know as much about their effects as possible. The Space Shuttle is the first reusable space vehicle with wings that must endure extreme cold and heat. Each wing leading edge have 22 temperature sensors to monitor temperature gradients and spread over time. Each wing also have 66 accelerometers to monitor structural movements under reentry stress and each device measures at 20,000 readings/sec. The knowledge that we gained PER MISSION and ACCUMULATIVE over 135 missions WILL BE invaluable for future designs, in materials and structural.

Does China have this kind of data? No? Does the Russians? No as well? But the US does and we will share this knowledge. What a 'failure' the Space Shuttle program turned out to be when for the past 30 years we produced and accumulated this kind of engineering knowledge and insights that China or anyone aspiring space traveling country can use in the future.

The Russians have a lot of knowledge about long duration weightlessness, but having a human being experiencing short term cycling between weightlessness and being weighted produces its own physiological effects and with 135 missions with many astronauts, men and women, we have plenty of data to study and to prepare for future long duration exploration of our solar system.

Does China have this kind of data? Was it China or Russia that made possible space tourism? No. Russia did provided the vehicle for the first space tourist, Dennis Tito, but it was the US with the Space Shuttle data on repeated human cycling between weightlessness and being weighted that gave non-astronaut space travelers like Dennis Tito (2001), Charles Walker (1984), or Christa McAullife (1986) their drastically reduced training to be in space.

About Space Shuttle Discovery

First non-astronaut to fly on space shuttle, Charles Walker (1984)

Tito was the first PAYING non-astronaut in space, in effect, the first space tourist.

Space tourism for non-astronauts is a reality thanks to the US and our Space Shuttles, certainly no thanks to China and Germany. By the way, the word 'cycling' does not mean the stationary exercise bicycle.

Being weightless does not equal to being mass-less and when there is mass, physical forces are in play. Which country have the most experience at using construction tools larger than hand tools in space, as in the robotic arm on the Space Shuttle? China?

The financial argument for the Space Shuttle being a 'failure' is weak from the start by the simple fact that the first of anything will have cost that are non-comparable, or to put it another way, you need a competitor who is also a first attempt to make a valid comparison and judgement, like IF the Soviets' Buran was running Soviet payloads at the same time the Americans were running ours. The Space Shuttle is a first and to this day have no competitor. If cost is the sole determinant, then the Ford Model T is superior to the Ferrari Testarosa because the T is cheaper to produce and took only two work shifts to build? Probably so in Eurosnob 'logic'.

How much did it cost to build Eiffel Tower? For what purpose? Is there a comparable structure like the Brandenburg Gate elsewhere in the world? Is there a utility to all that ornate carvings on the structure? But since there is nothing else like either the Eiffel Tower and the Brandenburg Gate and since we are operating on Eurosnob 'logic' of cost only, we have to conclude that both structures are spectacular failures. Same for the Lincoln Memorial in the US and Pyramids in Egypt. In fact, the Egyptian pyramids are truly 'failures' because the one we have in Vegas -- The Luxor -- is a gaming resort, got plenty of blinking lights, and is always filled with pretty girls. Or how about the Voyager probe that is at the edge of interstellar space? Since no one followed US, that mean the Voyager probe program is a 'failure' as well.

But if we measure the Space Shuttle program with non-financial metrics then the program is an undeniable success from only 7 vehicles that ended up with 135 launches over 30 yrs. It will take China decades to meet that record, let alone exceed, assuming the US will remain static in space for that long.

So who is really losing the debate now? And yes, it is still YOU who are comparing the orange against the watermelon.

Blablabla and yet we use less energy than the US without compromising living standard, comfort and safety.

Germany is the size of what US state and with how many people compare to US?

Funny though, all the pictures of German towns and cities I have posted in this thread dating back from 1890 to 1940, none of them have utility poles in the pictures even though by 1910 all of Germany was electrified. Paris did not get one bomb during WWII and not one utility pole can be seen. The same in Switzerland and Scandinavia, no war damages and still no utility poles.

And am willing to bet you do not know the differences between DC and AC over long distances that affected the decision to go which way, over or buried, back then. I will leave you in suspenders for that.

blablabla, in Europe transmission lines outside the city and town are overhead, distribution lines in cities and towns are underground. There is no point to repeat what I said earlier in lengthly sentences.

Guess what, we too haves swamp and low lands with a high water table in northern Germany. Many places are indeed under the sea level but protected by levees and yet all the powerlines in towns and cities are underground. We also have heavy storms in spring and autumn. And hold your breath, we also have bloody cold winter with -20° C.

Bottom line is: your fellow countrymen/women are following us by putting cables in the city underground if they have the financial mean, that is. Our engineers are second to none and they are the ones who have put our cables underground.

Am willing to bet that prior to this discussion, you did not know the difference between a transmission line and a distribution line, and that there are serious practical issues and problems associated with both. When I read that comment from you about how 'superior' Europe is with buried power lines, I know right off the bat that you do not know what the hell you were talking about. The engineers could present all kinds of technically sound arguments against one way or the other but the final decision is still political in nature.

The decision to bury power lines in spite of knowing your land is below the water table is not a wise one just because you want your place to 'look nice'. Not all decisions are wise decisions. Levees can fail or be overwhelmed. Plus there is global warming coming to melt all that polar ice so now to deal with that possibility Germany must pay even more to build new overhead lines, right? Looks like the Americans are not so stupid after all.

I know you are desperate to maintain the delusion that somehow you are 'superior' to the Americans on this forum, but the reality is that by latching on to this shallow argument you are no different than the American 'red neck' you so believe you are his better. Your history is filled with wars over economics, bigotry, and petty jealousy. You have great successes as well as great failures, the most recent and spectacular failure was WW II and you had to rely upon the 'inferior' Americans to help you rebuild and to protect you against the Soviets. I have sipped long sessions of coffee just to watch jackbooted German neo-Nazis strut their stuff on the streets. I fought against their ****** literature when their odious beliefs were exported to the US and disseminated to US airmen.

So if you need buried power lines to convince yourself that you are my better, go right on...

 

[doidoi2]

Nothing strange about it. Here is where you are wrong: I never said that the overhead power lines system is superior in anyway. I only pointed out the uncomfortable facts that underground power lines are not as advantageous as you tried to posit and you did it from ignorance at that. The best argument for underground power lines is aesthetics and any other advantages over the alternate are slight. If some communities can afford it they can get it. But that does not mean the method is inherently superior and so overwhelmingly that its argument alone will compel others to obey. So far, the sway goes to the overhead power lines method.


Please...Am not interested in detailing how certain safety codes can or may not violate aesthetics sensibilities. There is no way you can convince everyone that there is a definitive standard to measure how something 'look nice'. What is 'nice' to one may be offensive to another. It must be that German desire to control.


That is funny and revealing how the intellectual dishonest can speak contradictory things at the same time without knowing they do it. If you cannot tell the future then how can you say what we have now is a failure? Is it a fact simply because you pronounce 'Fact is' with no supporting evidence? You sound like Edison when he called Tesla's alternating current (AC) theory as: '...splendid, but they are utterly impractical.'

So let us continue...

Since you had to concede that you have no credible arguments against the reusable space vehicle concept, we will move on to HOW the Space Shuttle is reusable. We can start with aerodynamic exploitations. If you assert that the Space Shuttle is a 'failure' then give us a credible explanation as to why aerodynamic exploitations is a failed method when said reusable vehicle is in atmosphere. Give us a credible speculation as to why the Chinese WILL NOT go to same route. Please consult in private with the Chinese members regarding 'Chinese physics' to support your arguments.

This is gonna be good...


I asked you on why NOT the Apollo moon program is a 'failure' by your simplistic argument and you lamely responded that the rocket idea persisted. What a joke that was.

The Apollo program lasted for 11 years with 10 manned missions to the Moon and back. Manned does not mean landed. Each mission was a total discard, from booster rocket to command module with half of the lunar excursion module (LEM) left on the moon for the landed missions. So if we go by your simplistic argument, since no one have returned to the Moon since Apollo 17 back in Dec 1972, the entire endeavor must be considered a 'failure', but because the Chinese is planning to go to the Moon, the Apollo program must be considered a success. How do we know if the Chinese will use the same methods to land on the Moon? We do not. Given the Chinese penchant for copying successful endeavors, the Chinese will most likely execute the same methods.

Whereas with the Space Shuttle, only the main fuel tank was discarded, the rest recycled and reuse. Conveniently, because no one followed the design, the vehicle is considered a 'failure' just to poke US in the eye. We do not know if the Chinese will actually make it the Moon, but the Apollo program must remain a success despite absence of follow ups. But for the Space Shuttle, even though the possibility exists that the Chinese will copy the design in the future, for now the Space Shuttle must be a 'failure' in order to make sucking up to the Chinese valid.

The intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics are gold medal worthy and I readily yield this podium.

There are two non-financial arguments for calling the Space Shuttle a resounding success:

- Outcome
- Process

Considering the Space Shuttle is first reusable type from humankind on Earth, a total of six orbit worthy vehicles were built and together flew 135 missions. The 'outcome' based argument demonstrated that we can build reusable vehicles, hence, the Space Shuttle is a success.

The 'process' argument is more complex and is even more supportive for the judgement of success. In the process supportive argument, we break the item down to individual components and examine their utility and benefits, immediate and long term. Here is where you completely missed the WW II pilots analogy. So much for that Eurosnob intelligence and sophistication. Each time an experienced combat pilot is reassigned to training new pilots, experiences and knowledge make better a new pilot. Just like how today's cars are much more powerful, safer, and more reliable than when Mercedes and Ford started out in the business.

For example...Each time a shuttle returned to Earth, its structural integrity is examined and one of the many tools use is the classic strain gauge and there were 130 per wing as well as other sites.

Shuttle fueling test on tap Friday | Space News, STS-133, Space Shuttle, International Space Station

Materials and structures do not last forever. The harsh environment of space and the changes in environments a shuttle must undergo, from weightlessness and no atmosphere to weighted with atmosphere, demands that we know as much about their effects as possible. The Space Shuttle is the first reusable space vehicle with wings that must endure extreme cold and heat. Each wing leading edge have 22 temperature sensors to monitor temperature gradients and spread over time. Each wing also have 66 accelerometers to monitor structural movements under reentry stress and each device measures at 20,000 readings/sec. The knowledge that we gained PER MISSION and ACCUMULATIVE over 135 missions WILL BE invaluable for future designs, in materials and structural.

Does China have this kind of data? No? Does the Russians? No as well? But the US does and we will share this knowledge. What a 'failure' the Space Shuttle program turned out to be when for the past 30 years we produced and accumulated this kind of engineering knowledge and insights that China or anyone aspiring space traveling country can use in the future.

The Russians have a lot of knowledge about long duration weightlessness, but having a human being experiencing short term cycling between weightlessness and being weighted produces its own physiological effects and with 135 missions with many astronauts, men and women, we have plenty of data to study and to prepare for future long duration exploration of our solar system.

Does China have this kind of data? Was it China or Russia that made possible space tourism? No. Russia did provided the vehicle for the first space tourist, Dennis Tito, but it was the US with the Space Shuttle data on repeated human cycling between weightlessness and being weighted that gave non-astronaut space travelers like Dennis Tito (2001), Charles Walker (1984), or Christa McAullife (1986) their drastically reduced training to be in space.

About Space Shuttle Discovery


Tito was the first PAYING non-astronaut in space, in effect, the first space tourist.

Space tourism for non-astronauts is a reality thanks to the US and our Space Shuttles, certainly no thanks to China and Germany. By the way, the word 'cycling' does not mean the stationary exercise bicycle.

Being weightless does not equal to being mass-less and when there is mass, physical forces are in play. Which country have the most experience at using construction tools larger than hand tools in space, as in the robotic arm on the Space Shuttle? China?

The financial argument for the Space Shuttle being a 'failure' is weak from the start by the simple fact that the first of anything will have cost that are non-comparable, or to put it another way, you need a competitor who is also a first attempt to make a valid comparison and judgement, like IF the Soviets' Buran was running Soviet payloads at the same time the Americans were running ours. The Space Shuttle is a first and to this day have no competitor. If cost is the sole determinant, then the Ford Model T is superior to the Ferrari Testarosa because the T is cheaper to produce and took only two work shifts to build? Probably so in Eurosnob 'logic'.

How much did it cost to build Eiffel Tower? For what purpose? Is there a comparable structure like the Brandenburg Gate elsewhere in the world? Is there a utility to all that ornate carvings on the structure? But since there is nothing else like either the Eiffel Tower and the Brandenburg Gate and since we are operating on Eurosnob 'logic' of cost only, we have to conclude that both structures are spectacular failures. Same for the Lincoln Memorial in the US and Pyramids in Egypt. In fact, the Egyptian pyramids are truly 'failures' because the one we have in Vegas -- The Luxor -- is a gaming resort, got plenty of blinking lights, and is always filled with pretty girls. Or how about the Voyager probe that is at the edge of interstellar space? Since no one followed US, that mean the Voyager probe program is a 'failure' as well.

But if we measure the Space Shuttle program with non-financial metrics then the program is an undeniable success from only 7 vehicles that ended up with 135 launches over 30 yrs. It will take China decades to meet that record, let alone exceed, assuming the US will remain static in space for that long.

So who is really losing the debate now? And yes, it is still YOU who are comparing the orange against the watermelon.


Germany is the size of what US state and with how many people compare to US?


And am willing to bet you do not know the differences between DC and AC over long distances that affected the decision to go which way, over or buried, back then. I will leave you in suspenders for that.


Am willing to bet that prior to this discussion, you did not know the difference between a transmission line and a distribution line, and that there are serious practical issues and problems associated with both. When I read that comment from you about how 'superior' Europe is with buried power lines, I know right off the bat that you do not know what the hell you were talking about. The engineers could present all kinds of technically sound arguments against one way or the other but the final decision is still political in nature.

The decision to bury power lines in spite of knowing your land is below the water table is not a wise one just because you want your place to 'look nice'. Not all decisions are wise decisions. Levees can fail or be overwhelmed. Plus there is global warming coming to melt all that polar ice so now to deal with that possibility Germany must pay even more to build new overhead lines, right? Looks like the Americans are not so stupid after all.

I know you are desperate to maintain the delusion that somehow you are 'superior' to the Americans on this forum, but the reality is that by latching on to this shallow argument you are no different than the American 'red neck' you so believe you are his better. Your history is filled with wars over economics, bigotry, and petty jealousy. You have great successes as well as great failures, the most recent and spectacular failure was WW II and you had to rely upon the 'inferior' Americans to help you rebuild and to protect you against the Soviets. I have sipped long sessions of coffee just to watch jackbooted German neo-Nazis strut their stuff on the streets. I fought against their ****** literature when their odious beliefs were exported to the US and disseminated to US airmen.

So if you need buried power lines to convince yourself that you are my better, go right on...

How the hell did you guys manage to turn this thread into a thread about power lines?

Hint: no one cares. Go away. Get a job.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Nothing strange about it. Here is where you are wrong: I never said that the overhead power lines system is superior in anyway. I only pointed out the uncomfortable facts that underground power lines are not as advantageous as you tried to posit and you did it from ignorance at that. The best argument for underground power lines is aesthetics and any other advantages over the alternate are slight. If some communities can afford it they can get it. But that does not mean the method is inherently superior and so overwhelmingly that its argument alone will compel others to obey. So far, the sway goes to the overhead power lines method.


Please...Am not interested in detailing how certain safety codes can or may not violate aesthetics sensibilities. There is no way you can convince everyone that there is a definitive standard to measure how something 'look nice'. What is 'nice' to one may be offensive to another. It must be that German desire to control.


That is funny and revealing how the intellectual dishonest can speak contradictory things at the same time without knowing they do it. If you cannot tell the future then how can you say what we have now is a failure? Is it a fact simply because you pronounce 'Fact is' with no supporting evidence? You sound like Edison when he called Tesla's alternating current (AC) theory as: '...splendid, but they are utterly impractical.'

So let us continue...

Since you had to concede that you have no credible arguments against the reusable space vehicle concept, we will move on to HOW the Space Shuttle is reusable. We can start with aerodynamic exploitations. If you assert that the Space Shuttle is a 'failure' then give us a credible explanation as to why aerodynamic exploitations is a failed method when said reusable vehicle is in atmosphere. Give us a credible speculation as to why the Chinese WILL NOT go to same route. Please consult in private with the Chinese members regarding 'Chinese physics' to support your arguments.

This is gonna be good...


I asked you on why NOT the Apollo moon program is a 'failure' by your simplistic argument and you lamely responded that the rocket idea persisted. What a joke that was.

The Apollo program lasted for 11 years with 10 manned missions to the Moon and back. Manned does not mean landed. Each mission was a total discard, from booster rocket to command module with half of the lunar excursion module (LEM) left on the moon for the landed missions. So if we go by your simplistic argument, since no one have returned to the Moon since Apollo 17 back in Dec 1972, the entire endeavor must be considered a 'failure', but because the Chinese is planning to go to the Moon, the Apollo program must be considered a success. How do we know if the Chinese will use the same methods to land on the Moon? We do not. Given the Chinese penchant for copying successful endeavors, the Chinese will most likely execute the same methods.

Whereas with the Space Shuttle, only the main fuel tank was discarded, the rest recycled and reuse. Conveniently, because no one followed the design, the vehicle is considered a 'failure' just to poke US in the eye. We do not know if the Chinese will actually make it the Moon, but the Apollo program must remain a success despite absence of follow ups. But for the Space Shuttle, even though the possibility exists that the Chinese will copy the design in the future, for now the Space Shuttle must be a 'failure' in order to make sucking up to the Chinese valid.

The intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics are gold medal worthy and I readily yield this podium.

There are two non-financial arguments for calling the Space Shuttle a resounding success:

- Outcome
- Process

Considering the Space Shuttle is first reusable type from humankind on Earth, a total of six orbit worthy vehicles were built and together flew 135 missions. The 'outcome' based argument demonstrated that we can build reusable vehicles, hence, the Space Shuttle is a success.

The 'process' argument is more complex and is even more supportive for the judgement of success. In the process supportive argument, we break the item down to individual components and examine their utility and benefits, immediate and long term. Here is where you completely missed the WW II pilots analogy. So much for that Eurosnob intelligence and sophistication. Each time an experienced combat pilot is reassigned to training new pilots, experiences and knowledge make better a new pilot. Just like how today's cars are much more powerful, safer, and more reliable than when Mercedes and Ford started out in the business.

For example...Each time a shuttle returned to Earth, its structural integrity is examined and one of the many tools use is the classic strain gauge and there were 130 per wing as well as other sites.

Shuttle fueling test on tap Friday | Space News, STS-133, Space Shuttle, International Space Station

Materials and structures do not last forever. The harsh environment of space and the changes in environments a shuttle must undergo, from weightlessness and no atmosphere to weighted with atmosphere, demands that we know as much about their effects as possible. The Space Shuttle is the first reusable space vehicle with wings that must endure extreme cold and heat. Each wing leading edge have 22 temperature sensors to monitor temperature gradients and spread over time. Each wing also have 66 accelerometers to monitor structural movements under reentry stress and each device measures at 20,000 readings/sec. The knowledge that we gained PER MISSION and ACCUMULATIVE over 135 missions WILL BE invaluable for future designs, in materials and structural.

Does China have this kind of data? No? Does the Russians? No as well? But the US does and we will share this knowledge. What a 'failure' the Space Shuttle program turned out to be when for the past 30 years we produced and accumulated this kind of engineering knowledge and insights that China or anyone aspiring space traveling country can use in the future.

The Russians have a lot of knowledge about long duration weightlessness, but having a human being experiencing short term cycling between weightlessness and being weighted produces its own physiological effects and with 135 missions with many astronauts, men and women, we have plenty of data to study and to prepare for future long duration exploration of our solar system.

Does China have this kind of data? Was it China or Russia that made possible space tourism? No. Russia did provided the vehicle for the first space tourist, Dennis Tito, but it was the US with the Space Shuttle data on repeated human cycling between weightlessness and being weighted that gave non-astronaut space travelers like Dennis Tito (2001), Charles Walker (1984), or Christa McAullife (1986) their drastically reduced training to be in space.

About Space Shuttle Discovery


Tito was the first PAYING non-astronaut in space, in effect, the first space tourist.

Space tourism for non-astronauts is a reality thanks to the US and our Space Shuttles, certainly no thanks to China and Germany. By the way, the word 'cycling' does not mean the stationary exercise bicycle.

Being weightless does not equal to being mass-less and when there is mass, physical forces are in play. Which country have the most experience at using construction tools larger than hand tools in space, as in the robotic arm on the Space Shuttle? China?

The financial argument for the Space Shuttle being a 'failure' is weak from the start by the simple fact that the first of anything will have cost that are non-comparable, or to put it another way, you need a competitor who is also a first attempt to make a valid comparison and judgement, like IF the Soviets' Buran was running Soviet payloads at the same time the Americans were running ours. The Space Shuttle is a first and to this day have no competitor. If cost is the sole determinant, then the Ford Model T is superior to the Ferrari Testarosa because the T is cheaper to produce and took only two work shifts to build? Probably so in Eurosnob 'logic'.

How much did it cost to build Eiffel Tower? For what purpose? Is there a comparable structure like the Brandenburg Gate elsewhere in the world? Is there a utility to all that ornate carvings on the structure? But since there is nothing else like either the Eiffel Tower and the Brandenburg Gate and since we are operating on Eurosnob 'logic' of cost only, we have to conclude that both structures are spectacular failures. Same for the Lincoln Memorial in the US and Pyramids in Egypt. In fact, the Egyptian pyramids are truly 'failures' because the one we have in Vegas -- The Luxor -- is a gaming resort, got plenty of blinking lights, and is always filled with pretty girls. Or how about the Voyager probe that is at the edge of interstellar space? Since no one followed US, that mean the Voyager probe program is a 'failure' as well.

But if we measure the Space Shuttle program with non-financial metrics then the program is an undeniable success from only 7 vehicles that ended up with 135 launches over 30 yrs. It will take China decades to meet that record, let alone exceed, assuming the US will remain static in space for that long.

So who is really losing the debate now? And yes, it is still YOU who are comparing the orange against the watermelon.


Germany is the size of what US state and with how many people compare to US?


And am willing to bet you do not know the differences between DC and AC over long distances that affected the decision to go which way, over or buried, back then. I will leave you in suspenders for that.


Am willing to bet that prior to this discussion, you did not know the difference between a transmission line and a distribution line, and that there are serious practical issues and problems associated with both. When I read that comment from you about how 'superior' Europe is with buried power lines, I know right off the bat that you do not know what the hell you were talking about. The engineers could present all kinds of technically sound arguments against one way or the other but the final decision is still political in nature.

The decision to bury power lines in spite of knowing your land is below the water table is not a wise one just because you want your place to 'look nice'. Not all decisions are wise decisions. Levees can fail or be overwhelmed. Plus there is global warming coming to melt all that polar ice so now to deal with that possibility Germany must pay even more to build new overhead lines, right? Looks like the Americans are not so stupid after all.

I know you are desperate to maintain the delusion that somehow you are 'superior' to the Americans on this forum, but the reality is that by latching on to this shallow argument you are no different than the American 'red neck' you so believe you are his better. Your history is filled with wars over economics, bigotry, and petty jealousy. You have great successes as well as great failures, the most recent and spectacular failure was WW II and you had to rely upon the 'inferior' Americans to help you rebuild and to protect you against the Soviets. I have sipped long sessions of coffee just to watch jackbooted German neo-Nazis strut their stuff on the streets. I fought against their ****** literature when their odious beliefs were exported to the US and disseminated to US airmen.

So if you need buried power lines to convince yourself that you are my better, go right on...

Get laid and get a life!

 

[Banana]

Get laid and get a life!

You got Laid by Him.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

You got Laid by Him.

You seem to have experience with him.

 

[Banana]

You seem to have experience with him.

Your Chinese Friends got Loads of that. Ask them.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Your Chinese Friends got Loads of that. Ask them.

You seem to be very interested in this kind of man-on-man action.

 

[debashish_j20]

Your Chinese Friends got Loads of that. Ask them.

dude i think Gutter-däm-merung is some random chinese guy,not german....avoid him!!


P.S.--i know after reading this message he will try to reply me with sin words,but i will avoid him too!!