On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
> Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.

Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
that glaring mistake.

Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.

It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
ever witnessed.

As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
>> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
>> > Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.
>> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
>> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
>> that glaring mistake.
>>
>> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
>> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
>> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
>> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
>>
>> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
>> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
>> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
>> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
>> ever witnessed.
>>
>> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
>> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
>> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
>> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
>> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
>
>NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
>like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.

The majority of India's mission relies upon technology they never had
to develop. Nasa developed it.

On 8/28/23 8:57 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
>> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.
>> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
>> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
>> that glaring mistake.
>>
>> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
>> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
>> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
>> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
>>
>> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
>> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
>> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
>> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
>> ever witnessed.
>>
>> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
>> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
>> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
>> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
>> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
>
> NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
> like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.
>

I never guess on costs because of the probable negativity and
misinformation of such a practice. Should I do my homework, I might
then state my opinion about something, but not before I have some facts.

Every post you've made in this thread has been misinformative, negative,
and irrelevant.

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:35:18 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
> >> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
> >> > Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing..
> >> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
> >> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
> >> that glaring mistake.
> >>
> >> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
> >> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
> >> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
> >> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
> >>
> >> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
> >> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
> >> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
> >> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
> >> ever witnessed.
> >>
> >> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
> >> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
> >> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
> >> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
> >> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
> >
> >NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
> >like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.
> The majority of India's mission relies upon technology they never had
> to develop. Nasa developed it.

So, NASA just handed it over to the Indians?
US landed on the Moon first time because the NAZI scientist Von Braun.
He was the head of the Apollo program back in the 60s.

On 8/28/23 11:18 PM, StarDust wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:35:18 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
>>>> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.
>>>> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
>>>> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
>>>> that glaring mistake.
>>>>
>>>> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
>>>> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
>>>> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
>>>> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
>>>>
>>>> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
>>>> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
>>>> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
>>>> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
>>>> ever witnessed.
>>>>
>>>> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
>>>> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
>>>> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
>>>> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
>>>> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
>>>
>>> NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
>>> like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.
>> The majority of India's mission relies upon technology they never had
>> to develop. Nasa developed it.
>
> So, NASA just handed it over to the Indians?
They may have obtained the technology info using the same method the
Russians used to get atomic bomb info-- active spying. Save a lot of $
that way with a consequence of course should the spy be apprehended. I
also doubt that the NASA info was all that top secret and certainly
nothing like the nuclear info. Who knows, they may have obtained the
info mostly online.

On 8/28/23 8:57 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
>> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.
>> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
>> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
>> that glaring mistake.
>>
>> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
>> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
>> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
>> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
>>
>> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
>> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
>> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
>> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
>> ever witnessed.
>>
>> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
>> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
>> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
>> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
>> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
>
> NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
> like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.
>

Sorry, I'm in the wrong forum here, have been for several days. Did not
realize that you were NOT the Rich I've been referring to. I need to
start wearing my glasses since I hate contacts so I can see what I'm doing.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:18:34 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:35:18?PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
>> >> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
>> >> > Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.
>> >> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
>> >> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
>> >> that glaring mistake.
>> >>
>> >> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
>> >> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
>> >> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
>> >> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
>> >>
>> >> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
>> >> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
>> >> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
>> >> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
>> >> ever witnessed.
>> >>
>> >> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
>> >> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
>> >> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
>> >> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
>> >> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
>> >
>> >NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
>> >like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.
>> The majority of India's mission relies upon technology they never had
>> to develop. Nasa developed it.
>
>So, NASA just handed it over to the Indians?
>US landed on the Moon first time because the NAZI scientist Von Braun.
>He was the head of the Apollo program back in the 60s.

Von Braun provided a good deal of design. But the technology was
developed by Nasa at American taxpayer expense. Very little of it was
secret or proprietary, which is why most of the rocket technology that
exists today, as used by every country, rests heavily on Nasa's work.
Nothing wrong with that, no "stealing" involved.

Absent all that existing technology, it would have cost India billions
of dollars (and decades of time) to mount a mission to the Moon.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:33:22 AM UTC-7, >
> wrote:
> >On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:35:18?PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
> >> >> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
> >> >> > Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.
> >> >> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
> >> >> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
> >> >> that glaring mistake.
> >> >>
> >> >> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
> >> >> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
> >> >> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
> >> >> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
> >> >>
> >> >> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
> >> >> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
> >> >> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
> >> >> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
> >> >> ever witnessed.
> >> >>
> >> >> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
> >> >> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
> >> >> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
> >> >> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
> >> >> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
> >> >
> >> >NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
> >> >like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.
> >> The majority of India's mission relies upon technology they never had
> >> to develop. Nasa developed it.
> >
> >So, NASA just handed it over to the Indians?
> >US landed on the Moon first time because the NAZI scientist Von Braun.
> >He was the head of the Apollo program back in the 60s.
> Von Braun provided a good deal of design. But the technology was
> developed by Nasa at American taxpayer expense. Very little of it was
> secret or proprietary, which is why most of the rocket technology that
> exists today, as used by every country, rests heavily on Nasa's work.
> Nothing wrong with that, no "stealing" involved.
>
> Absent all that existing technology, it would have cost India billions
> of dollars (and decades of time) to mount a mission to the Moon.

It wasn't Von Braun alone, but a hole German rocket scientist team brought in under Paperclip!
Russia after the war took 4000 German scientists and their family, anyone who worked close to rockets.
They built Star City in Russia!
US Senator and Astronaut John Glen said -
Soviets got ahead of us in space, because they had more of the German rocket scientist than the US!

https://imgs.search.brave.com/dfu00bloiyR7J9zo3PU86CegCQuBhzTAAtLlwdQ7cIE/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxv/YWQud2lraW1lZGlh/Lm9yZy93aWtpcGVk/aWEvY29tbW9ucy84/Lzg5L0tlbm5lZHlf/dm9uYnJhdW5fMTlt/YXk2M18wMi5qcGc

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:28:25 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:33:22?AM UTC-7, >
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:35:18?PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
>> >> >> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
>> >> >> > Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.
>> >> >> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
>> >> >> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
>> >> >> that glaring mistake.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
>> >> >> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
>> >> >> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
>> >> >> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
>> >> >> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
>> >> >> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
>> >> >> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
>> >> >> ever witnessed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
>> >> >> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
>> >> >> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
>> >> >> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
>> >> >> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
>> >> >
>> >> >NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
>> >> >like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.
>> >> The majority of India's mission relies upon technology they never had
>> >> to develop. Nasa developed it.
>> >
>> >So, NASA just handed it over to the Indians?
>> >US landed on the Moon first time because the NAZI scientist Von Braun.
>> >He was the head of the Apollo program back in the 60s.
>> Von Braun provided a good deal of design. But the technology was
>> developed by Nasa at American taxpayer expense. Very little of it was
>> secret or proprietary, which is why most of the rocket technology that
>> exists today, as used by every country, rests heavily on Nasa's work.
>> Nothing wrong with that, no "stealing" involved.
>>
>> Absent all that existing technology, it would have cost India billions
>> of dollars (and decades of time) to mount a mission to the Moon.
>
>It wasn't Von Braun alone, but a hole German rocket scientist team brought in under Paperclip!
>Russia after the war took 4000 German scientists and their family, anyone who worked close to rockets.
>They built Star City in Russia!
>US Senator and Astronaut John Glen said -
>Soviets got ahead of us in space, because they had more of the German rocket scientist than the US!
>
>https://imgs.search.brave.com/dfu00bloiyR7J9zo3PU86CegCQuBhzTAAtLlwdQ7cIE/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxv/YWQud2lraW1lZGlh/Lm9yZy93aWtpcGVk/aWEvY29tbW9ucy84/Lzg5L0tlbm5lZHlf/dm9uYnJhdW5fMTlt/YXk2M18wMi5qcGc

But it is American technology that the world uses in their rockets.
Not Russian.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:16:14 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:28:25 -0700 (PDT),
>
> >On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:33:22?AM UTC-7, >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:35:18?PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:27:43 UTC-4, AB wrote:
> >> >> >> On 8/27/23 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
> >> >> >> > Nor the $1.5 billion the U.S. would have costed to do the same thing.
> >> >> >> Your sentence contains a verb tense error for starters. I can see that
> >> >> >> you would never even be considered for work in such an endeavor with
> >> >> >> that glaring mistake.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Second, where is your evidence demonstrating that it would cost "1.5
> >> >> >> billion" for the US to perform the same task? My opinion would be that
> >> >> >> I seriously doubt it would cost anywhere near that amount. And this is a
> >> >> >> strong statement based in part on costs for past probes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It always amazes me when someone not even residing in the US makes such
> >> >> >> strong statements and opinions based on absolutely no evidence or truth,
> >> >> >> and actually chooses to continue to live in ignorance. If "ignorance is
> >> >> >> bliss" it sure applies here although in the most negative way I have
> >> >> >> ever witnessed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As others have basically told you many times, I will also reiterate
> >> >> >> again: educate yourself before making rash, unproven statements. I
> >> >> >> KNOW this will most likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes), but there
> >> >> >> is always the extremely remote possibility that beneficial change might
> >> >> >> occur that would halt this eternal pessimistically aberrant behavior.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >NASA launches a rocket, lands on the moon, deploys a rover. TELL us the cost you think it would be. Then when you say something
> >> >> >like $200M, I'll laugh out loud. NASA missions cost more than any other country's space missions.
> >> >> The majority of India's mission relies upon technology they never had
> >> >> to develop. Nasa developed it.
> >> >
> >> >So, NASA just handed it over to the Indians?
> >> >US landed on the Moon first time because the NAZI scientist Von Braun..
> >> >He was the head of the Apollo program back in the 60s.
> >> Von Braun provided a good deal of design. But the technology was
> >> developed by Nasa at American taxpayer expense. Very little of it was
> >> secret or proprietary, which is why most of the rocket technology that
> >> exists today, as used by every country, rests heavily on Nasa's work.
> >> Nothing wrong with that, no "stealing" involved.
> >>
> >> Absent all that existing technology, it would have cost India billions
> >> of dollars (and decades of time) to mount a mission to the Moon.
> >
> >It wasn't Von Braun alone, but a hole German rocket scientist team brought in under Paperclip!
> >Russia after the war took 4000 German scientists and their family, anyone who worked close to rockets.
> >They built Star City in Russia!
> >US Senator and Astronaut John Glen said -
> >Soviets got ahead of us in space, because they had more of the German rocket scientist than the US!
> >
> >https://imgs.search.brave.com/dfu00bloiyR7J9zo3PU86CegCQuBhzTAAtLlwdQ7cIE/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxv/YWQud2lraW1lZGlh/Lm9yZy93aWtpcGVk/aWEvY29tbW9ucy84/Lzg5L0tlbm5lZHlf/dm9uYnJhdW5fMTlt/YXk2M18wMi5qcGc
> But it is American technology that the world uses in their rockets.
> Not Russian.

Technology transfer between countries always happens, often it's part of a business deals, like I give you 3 pigs for a cow!
Our co. back in the 90s was penalized for illegal technology transfer to China!
Why do you think Trump took those documents from the WH to his home?