![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
Did you see me shaking, or something?
I don't recall being worried at all, except for you, Joe (and your dualistic nature)
Did you see me shaking, or something?
I don't recall being worried at all, except for you, Joe (and your dualistic nature)
You seemed pretty concerned to post...Originally Posted by Horn
...and after explaining the impracticality of ejecting them due to the high cost, you replied,
If you weren't concerned {worried} about it, why even mention the possibility of them hitting swingsets if you already knew it was a non-issue?
Concern and worry are two different things, Joe. But your dualistic nature wouldn't let you know this.
Of course its a concern, and not an impractical one.
Clear skies for lift off is much less of a concern than coexistence within a Cuisinart.
Especially when any proceeds go to feed bean counters and insurance salesman.
It is an impractical one. You used "swing sets" to conjur up images of playing children being hit/killed by falling satellites. To me, that would make it seem as though you are more than mildly concerned about it.
ETA: After all, the whole "what about the children" fear is the same game the gov plays when they pull their crap. Why stoop to their level?
Which is why I figured satellites crashing together creating a debris field strewn with busted satellite parts would be a good thing, as the small pieces would most certainly burn up on re-entry thereby relieving your fears of intact satellites being able to sometimes survive re-entry.
Don't you agree that many small pieces burning up upon contact with the atmosphere and therefore being unable to reach the ground is much better than large chunks possibly hitting your kids swing set?
...and what's this cuisinart are you keep talking about? First it's falling satellites, then space debris, and now on to food processors. lol
Where are the impractical numbers, Joe?
We're still awaiting your "Accountant's Cuisinart Terror Show" to end.
I already answered that in this post.
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...l=1#post466987
Look at the link and see all the different kinds of rockets and notice their cost per pound to low Earth orbit and then consider that instead of those rockets you'd need a Saturn V rocket in order to do what you proposed doing. The first stage would get it up there and then once the satellite was dead, you'd need the 2nd and 3rd stages to lift it beyond Earths gravitational influence. Remember, you said to add boosters to them. Boosters are rockets.
It would increase costs substantially from what you see in that link for all those small rockets that can lift a payload a couple hundred miles at most, to what you proposed by adding the rocket power to attain 11km a second as opposed to 5km a second. To go that much faster costs a lot more.
There is no cost too great to avoid living under a Cuisinart, your statements otherwise are polluted in both soul and spirit.
Who's getting chopped up in the cuisinart you keep going on about? The kids on the swing set that won't actually get hit by a satellite? lol
LOL! Thats filmed at Hastings and Hornby. I've gone to that walkway many times for a smoke.
Here is a picture of the building along side that the meteorite almost hit. It is from the back of the building, the next block down (W Cordova). The upper left corner also shows clearly the same skyscraper beside the comet. Below it is the walkway, and after than Hornby street.
http://www.pnwarchitecture.com/Legac...rClub-001a.jpg
Here is the article I got the picture from: Dick Cheney to Speak at Notorious Child Trafficking Center in Vancouver on September 26 This being the building (Vancouver Club).
So they fixed the area up pretty good after the space junk hit?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote