It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Don't read this if you don't believe in colonization, the space stage, or venturing out and about

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Say only what needs to be said, in as few words as possible. If your thoughts are important, communicate them clearly. You will not reach others if your first signal is: "Do not read this if...."




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

I did not feel the need to impress anyone with my gramatical skill


I'm sorry, but if you actually understood language, grammar and syntax - you would understand that they are tools there to aid communication, not to 'show off'.

Your ideas seem interesting to me, and I will try to read your post again later. But get off your high horse. When you post a thread (or, frankly, write anything) the onus is on you to write an OP that will best convey the main points of the discussion you are trying to initiate. It's not our responsibility to figure out what you are saying.

Just because this is not school doesn't mean you don't need to use language properly to communicate your point. When you can type quickly and think quickly, the temptation is to brain dump and allow your consciousness to pour out onto a thread. Stop and think for a moment about what you really want to say and how to say it in the fewest words possible.

If you want people to read your thread, it's your responsibility to make it readable. It's not that difficult really:

-Use paragraphs
-Summarise your thoughts in a concise intro and outro

There are plenty of other techniques you can use to make your writing more readable - but those are the ones you would benefit from most. A wall of text that appears (to me at least) to be stream of consciousness is not communication, it's just a journal made public.

You may not be graded on this thread, but you will be judged on ATS (and the wider world) based on how well you communicate your ideas - so make it count!
edit on 14-7-2012 by TheStev because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
reply to post by g2v12
 


Precisely. It is all reduced to conjecture at this point. There is nothing to be done in a coherent way.

Which is relevant in how unique minds attempt to approach the topic.

Therefore, panoramic views are the only benefit to our contemplation at this conjecture of time....




I wouldn't make the concept of 'conjecture' the principle cause of any scientific investigation. If this were the case, then it would be fruitless to attempt any abridgement of the body of evidence (whatever that represents).

Any objective reality in the interest of a particular matter must be sought with an open mind for whatever evidence exists. Further, there must be assumptions (theorem) extended by the equations of scientific imagination. This is part of what science is based on.

One factor that separates debunkers from investigators is the rejection of circumstantial and hard evidence, based on unrealistic standards.

Debunkers always sell their brand of logic and skepticism as being scientific, when it fact it lacks the parameters of scientific procedure. The debunkers' standard for proof is so high, that it would be impossible for even the best scientists to form an opinion worthy of investigation.

The closer that man gets to the reality of his ineptitude, the more intimidated he feels. That is what the extraterrestrial presence means for many humans. Because any group of people possessing the knowledge and talent to travel vast distances and interact with people of Earth, constitutes a threat of uniqueness that trumps the best accomplishments of man.

There is allot of egotistical pride and inadequacy underlying the denial of the extraterrestrial presence.






edit on 15-7-2012 by g2v12 because: grammer



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by IseeyouIforseeyou
 





I mean they even stopped making shuttles cause of how expensive it is to burn all that fossil fuels.



The main engines in the orbiter burn liquid hydrogen and oxygen pumped from the external tank by very powerful turbo pumps that burn some of the propellants to feed the orbiter's engines. Before entering the combustion chambers, the liquid hydrogen at -420 degrees Fahrenheit is used to cool the nozzles and combustion chambers so they won't start melting, then explode and destroy the spacecraft. Liquid hydrogen and oxygen is the most energetic combination of fuels for a rocket but the extremely low temperatures and low density of the liquid hydrogen required huge and heavily insulated tanks. The solid rocket boosters burn a mixture of aluminum powder, ammonium perchlorate, iron oxide and other chemicals combined with a binding agent. Each booster holds more than a million pounds of what amounts to high explosives. The external tank holds 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen, which weighs about 1.5 million pounds, more than 20 times the weight of the tank itself. So far no better chemical fuels have been found.

link


The byproduct of its combustion with oxygen alone is water vapor (although if its combustion is with oxygen and nitrogen it can form toxic chemicals), which can be cooled with some of the liquid hydrogen. Since water is considered harmless to the environment, an engine burning it can be considered "zero emissions." Liquid hydrogen also has a much higher specific energy than gasoline, natural gas, or diesel.[11]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen

It looks like you might want to work on your theories a little more.

It was a great read, but so was "Where the red fern grows".



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
In the early stages of space flights NASA used Kerosene in the first stage of the massive Saturn V, but other fuels in the second and third stages cobining liquid OX in the vacuum of space as an oxidizer.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Nice, but is it me or was I the only one that read in the paper that NASA has stated they they will no longer use shuttles as they strained current funding for other maybe more effective projects? The resources derived from recent launches are still no where near economical, and this type of propulsion is still expensive to obtain and use at mass, which again makes you think why haven't they used a fuel that is derived literally at almost no cost already? Are they implying that they don't have the technology at all, even after contact with other beings from this world? Or is it just a hobby really, run the shuttles once in a while to make you think they are still using the old technology?
edit on 15-7-2012 by IseeyouIforseeyou because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2012 by IseeyouIforseeyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by IseeyouIforseeyou
 



Nice, but is it me or was I the only one that read in the paper that NASA has stated they they will no longer use shuttles as they strained current funding for other maybe more effective projects?


Sadly, that's true.


The resources derived from recent launches are still no where near economical, and this type of propulsion is still expensive to obtain and use at mass, which again makes you think why haven't they used a fuel that is derived literally at almost no cost already?


Because they haven't found one.


Are they implying that they don't have the technology at all, even after contact with other beings from this world?


What makes you think they have had contact with extraterrestrial beings, and if they did, why would these beings share their technology with us?


Or is it just a hobby really, run the shuttles once in a while to make you think they are still using the old technology?


Or maybe it was the best they could do.




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join