SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Index of Articles for this Newsgroup

 [3-2503]    [2504-3255]    [3256-3756]    [3757-4956]    [4957-5560]    [5561-6211]    [6212-6540]   
 [6541-6821]    [6822-7179]    [7180-7403]    [7404-7884]    [7885-8133]    [8134-8404]    [8405-8634]   
 [8635-8704]    [8705-9004]    [9005-9434]    [9435-9687]    [9688-9766]    [9767-10157]    [10159-10298]   
 [10299-10451]    [10452-10801]    [10802-11023]    [11024-11316]    [11317-11554]    [11555-11772]    [11773-12112]   
 [12113-12294]    [12295-12386]    [12387-12459]    [12460-12540]    [12541-12597]    [12598-12751]    [12752-12789]   
 [12791-13027]    [13028-13277]    [13278-13413]    [13414-13571]    [13572-13579]    [13581-13621]    [13623-14127]   
 [14128-14563]    [14564-14947]    [14948-15129]    [15130-15187]    [15188-15294]    [15295-15642]    [15643-15840]   
 [15841-16230]    [16231-16608]    [16609-16645]    [16647-17506]    [17507-18252]    [18253-18468]    [18469-18614]   
 [18615-18889]    [18890-19019]    [19020-19147]    [19020-19413]    [19414-19417]    [19418-19454]    [19456-20203]   
 [20204-20236]    [20238-20581]    [20582-20675]    [20676-20691]    [20692-20729]    [20730-20781]    [20782-20877]   
 [20878-20929]    [20930-21011]    [21012-21035]    [21036-21058]    [21059-21086]    [21087-21106]    [21107-21118]   
 [21119-21137]    [21138-21281]    [21282-21374]    [21375-21486]    [21487-21558]    [21559-21587]    [21588-21634]   
 [21635-21692]    [21693-21713]    [21714-21739]    [21740-21784]    [21785-21811]    [21812-21834]    [21835-21897]   
 [21898-21920]    [21921-21950]    [21951-21981]    [21982-21988]    [21989-22009]    [22010-22029]    [22030-22044]   
 [22045-22049]    [22050-22086]    [22087-22492]    [22493-22536]    [22537-22574]    [22575-22595]    [22596-22618]   
 [22619-22657]    [22658-22708]    [22709-22759]    [22760-22779]    [22780-22809]    [22810-22863]    [22864-23010]   
 [23011-23067]    [23068-23083]    [23084-23109]    [23110-23127]    [23128-23138]    [23139-23172]    [23173-23247]   
 [23248-23298]    [23299-23312]    [23313-23352]    [23353-23432]    [23433-23451]    [23452-23463]    [23464-23476]   
 [23477-23490]    [23491-23511]    [23512-23525]    [23526-23578]    [23579-23583]    [23584-23608]    [23609-23637]   
 [23638-23648]    [23649-23673]    [23674-23830]    [23831-23856]    [23857-23871]    [23872-23890]    [23891-23907]   
 [23908-24156]    [24157-24194]    [24195-24228]    [24229-24241]    [24242-24252]    [24253-24288]    [24289-24347]   
 [24348-24378]    [5791-5791]   


http://www.sff.net/



Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:26:43
============================================================

Article 23638
From: Filksinger" 
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 18:48:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Proof the Terrorists Have Won
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I can only assume that they wanted to do the "scavenger hunt" when the mall
was otherwise closed, and they were the only people inside. Otherwise, it
wouldn't be necessary to tell the mall at all.

-- 
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined

RPostelnek wrote:
> What do shoppers do, just register to go to particular stores?
>
> Rosie



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23639
From: fader55@delete.sbcglobal.net (Fader)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:00:47 GMT
Subject: Robin William's Peace Plan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I really like #7

Fader





> You gotta love Robin Williams... Leave it to
> Robin Williams to come up with the
> perfect plan . what we need now is for  our UN
> Ambassador to stand up and repeat
> this message.
>
>
>
>
> Robin William's plan...(Hard to argue with this
> logic!)
>
> I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I
> have not heard  of a plan for
> peace.  So, here's one plan.
>
> 1.) The US will apologize to the world for our
> "interference" in their affairs,
> past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini,
> Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic and the
> rest of those 'good ole boys,' We will never
> "interfere" again.
>
> 2.) We will withdraw our troops from all over the
> world, starting with  Germany,
> South Korea and the Philippines.  They don't want
> us there. We would station
> troops at our borders. No one sneaking through
> holes in the
> fence.
>
> 3.) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their
> affairs together and leave.
> We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days
> the remainder will be gathered
> up and deported immediately, regardless of who or
> where they are. France would
> welcome them.
>
> 4.) All ! future visitors will be thoroughly
> checked and limited to 90 days
> unless given a special permit. No one from a
> terrorist nation would be allowed
> in. If you don't like it there, change it
> yourself and don't hide here. Asylum
> would never be available to anyone. We don't need
> any more cab drivers or 7-11
> cashiers.
>
> 5.) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older
> ones are the bombers. If they
> don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's
> back home baby.
>
> 6.) The US will make a strong effort to become
> self-sufficient energy wise. This
> will include developing nonpolluting sources of
> energy but will require a
> temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan
> wilderness. The caribou will have to
> cope for a while.
>
> 7.) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing
> countries $10 a barrel! for their
> oil. If they don't like it, we go some place
> else. They can go somewhere else to
> sell their production. (About a week of the wells
> filling up the storage sites
> would be enough.)
>
> 8.) If there is a famine or other natural
> catastrophe in the world, we will not
> "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever,
> for seeds, rain, cement or
> whatever they need.  Besides most of what we give
> them is stolen or given to the
> army. The people who need it most get very
> little, if anything.
>
> 9.) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated
> island some place.  We don't need
> the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides,
> the building would make a good
> homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
>
> 10.) All Americans must go to charm and beauty
> school. That way, no one can call
> us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we
> speak is ENGLISH.....learn
> it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a
> plan.
>
> "The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give
> me your poor, your tired, your
> huddled masses.'  She's got a baseball bat and
> she's yelling,
> 'You want a piece of me?'"

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23640
From: cdozo 
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:05:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Robin William's Peace Plan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


This is not really from Robin Williams. See:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp

Carol
=========

On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:00:47 GMT, fader55@delete.sbcglobal.net (Fader)
wrote:

>I really like #7
>
>Fader
>
>
>
>
>
>> You gotta love Robin Williams... Leave it to
>> Robin Williams to come up with the
>> perfect plan . what we need now is for  our UN
>> Ambassador to stand up and repeat
>> this message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robin William's plan...(Hard to argue with this
>> logic!)
>>
>> I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I
>> have not heard  of a plan for
>> peace.  So, here's one plan.
>>
>> 1.) The US will apologize to the world for our
>> "interference" in their affairs,
>> past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini,
>> Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic and the
>> rest of those 'good ole boys,' We will never
>> "interfere" again.
>>
>> 2.) We will withdraw our troops from all over the
>> world, starting with  Germany,
>> South Korea and the Philippines.  They don't want
>> us there. We would station
>> troops at our borders. No one sneaking through
>> holes in the
>> fence.
>>
>> 3.) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their
>> affairs together and leave.
>> We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days
>> the remainder will be gathered
>> up and deported immediately, regardless of who or
>> where they are. France would
>> welcome them.
>>
>> 4.) All ! future visitors will be thoroughly
>> checked and limited to 90 days
>> unless given a special permit. No one from a
>> terrorist nation would be allowed
>> in. If you don't like it there, change it
>> yourself and don't hide here. Asylum
>> would never be available to anyone. We don't need
>> any more cab drivers or 7-11
>> cashiers.
>>
>> 5.) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older
>> ones are the bombers. If they
>> don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's
>> back home baby.
>>
>> 6.) The US will make a strong effort to become
>> self-sufficient energy wise. This
>> will include developing nonpolluting sources of
>> energy but will require a
>> temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan
>> wilderness. The caribou will have to
>> cope for a while.
>>
>> 7.) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing
>> countries $10 a barrel! for their
>> oil. If they don't like it, we go some place
>> else. They can go somewhere else to
>> sell their production. (About a week of the wells
>> filling up the storage sites
>> would be enough.)
>>
>> 8.) If there is a famine or other natural
>> catastrophe in the world, we will not
>> "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever,
>> for seeds, rain, cement or
>> whatever they need.  Besides most of what we give
>> them is stolen or given to the
>> army. The people who need it most get very
>> little, if anything.
>>
>> 9.) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated
>> island some place.  We don't need
>> the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides,
>> the building would make a good
>> homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
>>
>> 10.) All Americans must go to charm and beauty
>> school. That way, no one can call
>> us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we
>> speak is ENGLISH.....learn
>> it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a
>> plan.
>>
>> "The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give
>> me your poor, your tired, your
>> huddled masses.'  She's got a baseball bat and
>> she's yelling,
>> 'You want a piece of me?'"


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23641
From: Filksinger" 
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 19:47:42 -0700
Subject: Some Questions About Guns
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I am having a discussion with some friends on a gaming list I frequent, and
I find myself getting into an area where I am no longer certain that my
opinion is solid enough for debate. I have experience with handguns, but I
never really learned combat shooting. So, I have a couple of questions.

1. When firing "double-taps" with a handgun, does it take at least some
practice to get the second round to reliably hit? For new people attempting
it, does the first round tend to start to move off target until they get it
down?

2. Is the second round less accurate? Is it more likely to miss at a range,
or more likely to miss a moving target?

-- 
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23642
From: Oscagne" 
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 22:49:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Some Questions About Guns
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:40b0110a.0@news.sff.net...
> I am having a discussion with some friends on a gaming list I
frequent, and
> I find myself getting into an area where I am no longer certain
that my
> opinion is solid enough for debate. I have experience with
handguns, but I
> never really learned combat shooting. So, I have a couple of
questions.
>
> 1. When firing "double-taps" with a handgun, does it take at
least some
> practice to get the second round to reliably hit?

Absolutely.

> For new people attempting
> it, does the first round tend to start to move off target until
they get it
> down?

If a person is reasonably accurate in shooting anyway, the
double-tap technique does not affect the aim of the first shot.

> 2. Is the second round less accurate? Is it more likely to miss
at a range,
> or more likely to miss a moving target?

The second shot will be less accurate unless some time is put in
practicing double-tap, specifically.  Most shooters (including
me) haven't put in the time necessary to get proficient at it.

They make special targets for the technique.  They are basically
hanging iron plates in front of a normal paper target.  The idea
is that you have to shoot the plate to make it swing up and out
of the way, then the second shot has to hit the paper before the
plate can descend and get in the way.  Practice this at short
distances, gradually increasing the range as proficiency is
gained.

It's also advisable to start with a smaller caliber weapon to
learn, then move to larger calibers later.  Since it's recoil
that causes the second shot to be less accurate, it's easier to
make the second shot with a smaller weapon that has less recoil.

-- 
Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics
wanna read a story?  http://users4.ev1.net/~mcgrew/mss
or see my goofy website?
http://users4.ev1.net/~mcgrew/webpage/home.htm

The next Heinlein Readers Group chats will be:
"Warm-Body Democracy in Heinlein" on
Thursday, January 22 at 8:00 p.m. central and
Saturday, January 24 at 4:00 p.m. central.
See http://heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html#info
to participate.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23643
From: Charles Graft 
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 05:55:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

WJaKe--
     I have felt for some time that some outside the box thinking is
needed to get into space.  Several books (the best of which IMHO is "The
Right Stuff", have considered it a major mistake to have stopped
development of piloted high altitude vehicles such s the X-15 and
Dyna-Soar in favor of the capsules; many of which can and were operated
by monkeys.

    I have always felt that using rocket power to get the shuttle off
of  the ground and into the upper atmosphere was grossly inefficient.  A
slightly modified commercial airliner (747)  carries the shuttle around
quite routinely -- why not design a clean sheet version designed to
carry it to 75,000 or so feet at mach 3 or so?  Using wings and the
oxygen in the atmosphere would sure beat having to lift tons of oxygen
and burn it in the atmosphere.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

"Seen on the door to a light-wave lab: 'Do not look into laser with
remaining good eye.'"



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23644
From: Filksinger" 
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:31:07 -0700
Subject: Green Nukes?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

According to this article, one of the foremost heroes of the Green movement
is now stumping for nuclear power.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=524313
-- 
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23645
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 20:01:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charlie:  I have had the same or similar thought as that for many
years.  Starting when I first heard of the launch of the Pegasus
rocket.  Fired from under the wing of an old B-52 cruising along at
about 540 mph and at about 38,000 feet altitude.  The spec released
way back then said that the 20 ton (40,000 lb) craft, tucked under a
wing much like an X-15 was, put one thousand pounds into low earth
orbit (LEO).  If it was not doing 540 at 38,000 feet it could only
put 500 lbs into LEO.  That advantage may just be scalable for
larger rockets.  The 747, or the C-5 or the Antonov 225 could launch
an order of magnitude larger craft under similar speeds and
altitudes.  Imagine what could be done without even stretching
today's heavy-lift aircraft technology for, as you say a 'clean
sheet' or purpose built, high altitude rocket launching aircraft?

I be willing to bet that a half million pound weight rocket could be
launched from 40K feet at 620 mph with technology available in 1985.
I purpose built launch aircraft might be much better than this.  Do
you recall the old Valkerie, the B-70?  I wonder what the ratio of
"advantage" would be for a rocket launched, as you said, from 75,000
feet and mach three??? 
  Is there anyway of estimating the advantage at all?

Ed J

On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:55:20 -0500, Charles Graft
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:

>WJaKe--
>     I have felt for some time that some outside the box thinking is
>needed to get into space.  Several books (the best of which IMHO is "The
>Right Stuff", have considered it a major mistake to have stopped
>development of piloted high altitude vehicles such s the X-15 and
>Dyna-Soar in favor of the capsules; many of which can and were operated
>by monkeys.
>
>    I have always felt that using rocket power to get the shuttle off
>of  the ground and into the upper atmosphere was grossly inefficient.  A
>slightly modified commercial airliner (747)  carries the shuttle around
>quite routinely -- why not design a clean sheet version designed to
>carry it to 75,000 or so feet at mach 3 or so?  Using wings and the
>oxygen in the atmosphere would sure beat having to lift tons of oxygen
>and burn it in the atmosphere.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23646
From: Filksinger" 
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:00:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed Johnson wrote:
<snip>
>   Is there anyway of estimating the advantage at all?

Absolutely. Just as around at JPL, and if they aren't too busy, I'll bet
someone could give you a good idea.:)

Unfortunately, I can't.:(
-- 
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23647
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 23:38:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Filksinger:  I would like to ask them. I wonder if anyone from JPL
hangs around a forum with the name of Heinlein in it's title?
   I only hope that his two to one advantage is available for any
size rocket.  Where 2:1 means twice thepayload weight put into LEO
when launched at 540 mph and 38K feet altitude.  I am also aware of
the advantage of scale.  The old Saturn 5 rocket could put  250K lbs
into orbit with a total lift-off weight of 6 million lbs. That's a
1:24  payload to total weight ratio.   The pegasus is 1:40 (1:80 if
ground launched) payload to total rocket weight.
  The larger the rocket, the greater the economy of scale.
  The shuttle puts about 260K lbs into orbit (200k of which returns)
for a slightly over 4 million lb total.  A 1:16 ratio if you ignore
the reusable nature of the shuttle and just look at the efficiency
of the launch vehicle ratio to total payload weight into orbit. 
   Somewhere in between a 40k Pegasus and a 4,000k shuttle launch is
what could probably be launched from the air.  400k lbs should be
possible on any of the three planes previously mentioned.  Twice
that on a purpose-built craft.  I assume that if 1:80 is possible
with a 40k lb launch vehicle and 1:16 is routinely done with a
4,000k lb shuttle, then somewhere in between is quite possible for a
400k lb launch vehicle.  Does anyone know where to look for payload
specs on launch vehicles smaller than the shuttle?  Smaller than 1M
lb would be useful in this discussion.  The titan is probably too
big, and the new revised Atlas may also be quite large, I not too
sure.  I have some numbers (payload ratios) in my mind, but I am not
at all sure of just how valid they might be.
  I just can't imagine someone in private industry modifying a 1.3
million pound lift-off weight Antonov 225 with six of the latest 90k
lb thrust turbo-fan jet engines and launching a serious (400k + lb)
rocket from its back.  The plane could handle the payload.  It would
be quite a thing for the Russians to accomplish; headline grabbing.
  Someone once called a similar situation a "failure of will".

Ed J

On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:00:20 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:

>Ed Johnson wrote:
><snip>
>>   Is there anyway of estimating the advantage at all?
>
>Absolutely. Just as around at JPL, and if they aren't too busy, I'll bet
>someone could give you a good idea.:)
>
>Unfortunately, I can't.:(


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23648
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 23:45:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charlie:  I recall that a Minuteman missile was launched from the
cargo bay of a C5 Galaxy aircraft many years ago.  A parachute was
used to drag the solid-fuel ICBM out the back while the C5 was
flying.  I was launched from mid-air.  I have personally launched
two different Minuteman III missiles from the ground from Vandenberg
AFB and that was quite impressive.  I only wish that I was part of
the project that carried off the air launch.

Ed J

On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:55:20 -0500, Charles Graft
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:

>WJaKe--
>     I have felt for some time that some outside the box thinking is
>needed to get into space.  Several books (the best of which IMHO is "The
>Right Stuff", have considered it a major mistake to have stopped
>development of piloted high altitude vehicles such s the X-15 and
>Dyna-Soar in favor of the capsules; many of which can and were operated
>by monkeys.
>
>    I have always felt that using rocket power to get the shuttle off
>of  the ground and into the upper atmosphere was grossly inefficient.  A
>slightly modified commercial airliner (747)  carries the shuttle around
>quite routinely -- why not design a clean sheet version designed to
>carry it to 75,000 or so feet at mach 3 or so?  Using wings and the
>oxygen in the atmosphere would sure beat having to lift tons of oxygen
>and burn it in the atmosphere.


------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:26:43
First article in this archive:  23638
Last article in this archive:   23648
Oldest article in this archive: Sun, 16 May 2004 18:48:01 -0700
Newest article in this archive: Wed, 26 May 2004 00:11:25 -0400