Wow, a resurrected post not done by jkwhoever!

Re MENSA, I've been a member on and off since 1968. A few meetings were enough to convince that there were too many people at those meetings who were overly impressed with themselves, something that makes a meeting long and boring, with pettiness as first order of business.

I've had interesting conversations by correspondence with a few MENSAns, but most folks at the meetings talk too much and say too little.

Besides this, the main reason for remaining a member was the monthly magazine whose "Letters to the Editor" section was a hoot. Most of the letters consisted of "I'm smarter than the author of that article and therefore I'm right!" followed next month by "I'm smarter than the author of that letter to the editor about that article and therefore I'm right!" and so on.

Speaking of humor, concerning that 4-year-old quote of a Groucho Marx quip even older, yes, Groucho had writers, but he also ad-libbed on a regular basis. One of the many anecdotes about George S. Kaufman takes place during a rehearsal of "Animal Crackers". Kaufman listened to the Marx Brothers have their way with his script before finally complaining: "Excuse me for interrupting, but I thought for a minute I actually heard a line I wrote."

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I was a MENSAN for years. Sheeesh what a bunch of thingies, &*%^$£$$$%%%^ and boring.

Thing is, I live not 2 mile away from the HQ, so I see the leftovers almost daily.

MENSA. George street, Wolverhampton WV!..................I.....................No sense of humour. ALL trekkies/trekkers..............Stop me now!!!!!!

__________________
What's the youngest you could die of old age?

It is! I cycle 13 miles to work each day and live at the top of a fairly high (about 500') hill.

Needless to say, I get a bit of a workout on the way back home!

But you're right - at my average velocity, air resistance eats up 5.7 times, or about 82% of my energy. Going uphill, it's negligeable, but going downhill, it's eating up more than 95% of my energy.

The cool thing is that in the city, I'm usually passing cars rather than them passing me.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

After passing my test back in the 80s, I went to precisely three Mensa meetings before I realized IQ and common sense are neither negatively nor positively correlated.

Ask for the Ask Maralyn (sp?) column, thanks, but I'd rather not. I've spotted so many holes in her "answers" over the years that I can't even read Parade anymore.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

You raise an interesting question: What's the smallest total mass of a rocket, given current technology, that could escape Earth's orbit and reach the Moon? (non-landing - just to the mid-point). No payload - just the rocket and guidance system.

I would think there would have to be a practical limit due to atmospheric friction, but certainly the greater the g-forces it could withstand during acceleration, to a point, the less mass it would have to have. I say to a point for there's a tradeoff between energy efficiency with higher thrust and getting too fast too soon and loosing too much energy in the lower atmosphere.

Then again, the 250 kt AGM-69A SRAM (Short Range Attack Missile) launched by the likes of the venerable B-52 and the FB-111A could achieve greater than Mach 3 (first stage) and Mach (classified) (second stage) and travel a hundred miles in several minutes before hitting it's target.

Quite a feat for a 1,000 missile carrying a 200 kT W-69 thermonuclear warhead.

Especially in 1969.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

So? everyone knows that the US gets ALL its technology from Aliens

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

You raise an interesting question: What's the smallest total mass of a rocket, given current technology, that could escape Earth's orbit and reach the Moon? (non-landing - just to the mid-point). No payload - just the rocket and guidance system.

That is an interesting question. My first thought is of the Pegasus XL, only instead of having a payload into Earth orbit, you'd use added propellant for the upper stage. Would that be enough to reach the moon? With a solid fuel engine with an Isp of 240 seconds, perhaps not. What if you launched a small liquid fueled final stage with a higher Isp? That might work.

If you were going for the lowest possible mass, I think you'd need an air-launched liquid fuel rocket. With the higher Isp from the liquid fuel, it could be a lot less massive than the Pegasus but a lot more dangerous to the carrier aircraft.

I would think there would have to be a practical limit due to atmospheric friction, but certainly the greater the g-forces it could withstand during acceleration, to a point, the less mass it would have to have. I say to a point for there's a tradeoff between energy efficiency with higher thrust and getting too fast too soon and loosing too much energy in the lower atmosphere.

Everything in engineer is a tradeoff, especially for space vehicles. If you build a vehicle for higher G loadings, then you may gain some efficiencies. However, you'd also have some potentially significant weight penalties because you'd need a heavier structure to withstand the loads. If it is a solid fueled system, you might have to contend with a heavier casing to withstand higher internal pressures. Your avionics would need to be more rugged to withstand heavier G and vibration loads, too. Nothing is free.