Kasparov Signing in NYC

Is there a place to find out about Garry's scheduled appearances (found nothing on kasparovagent.com)? I missed the chance to see him in Bethesda last time because I didn't find out until a day late:<.

Kaspy should downsize his political aspirations and just run for USCF President.

:-)

Senior Mig,

Is there a chance that you can coax Mr. Kasparov to do a book signing in Los Angeles? All of them so far have been in East cost, in particular New York.

-LAT

Yah, LA was part of the original October book tour schedule, which also included Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco. But Garry's selection as the Other Russia presidential and parliamentary candidate scuttled the second week of the tour. Don't think it's in the cards this time either, unfortunately. I was rather hoping for a reimbursed trip to SF to see my family, alas.

I've noticed a few articles floating around about Garry's withdrawal from the Russian presidential race. I could be wrong, but the cited reason, that they were unable to secure a venue for holding a nominations conference due to landlord pressuring, does not seem entirely compelling. It is useless to speculate I guess, but maybe some direct threats were issued?

My guess is Kaspy just realized he has no realistic chances for election and then found a way to blame Putin for it. That no one in Moscow would rent him space for a convention doesn't seem convincing. On the other hand, there is an interesting fight for the world cup going on right now. I would have thought that would take priority over a Kasparov book signing. Mig should take a look at the number of comments posted in response to his articles about Kasparov's politics and book tours and it won't be difficult for him to realize what kind of material really interests visitors to this site.

I second LAT and hope that Kasparov will consider visiting L.A. soon.

Though we have few great chess landmarks here, we do have the Pasadena jail where one of his Great Predecessors stayed.

It appears that being a chess champion can be a dangerous occupation.

For further evidence of this, just listen to the Korchnoi interview on ChessVibe.

"No one knows the power of the state until he has spent time in a prison cell." - Tolstoy

Now that Kasparov has left politics, it won't probably be long before he'll find it quite boring to sign up autographs and write books. Therefore a comeback to chess is not unrealistic. When he left three years ago, Kasparov did it while winning the strongest tournament in a situation where he could expect no rematch with Kramnik. Today, the world championship is open to everybody and a comeback would be quite a challenge. Therefore I put my bet on it :o)

"I'll try to get gary wear a Santa hat". Business is business for sure, my friend... but now that politics are definitely over for Kasparov, I'm not quite certain that signing books for patzers in a santa hat is really such a high achievement for the all-time best chess player.

As a matter of fact, we should note that even Paris Hilton has spent more time in jail than Kasparov. Com'on Gary. Your political thing is a total mess. The only thing you can do is play chess. Today your old rivals Ivanchuk, Anand, Gelfand, Shirov and Kamsky are dominating the field. Come back to business and crush them all.

Guess Garry is not the only former champ to come out with a new book for the holidays. Wonder if they will be trading?
"My 61 Memorable Games" Bobby's New Book, revision from his previous "60" Game edition, plus his comments on the first game of the Fischer/Spassky 1992 Match.
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?Viewitem&item=320196692877

I propose to name "I'm not quite certain that signing books for patzers in a santa hat is really such a high achievement for the all-time best chess player." the phrase of the month. I'd give more than a few bucks to see Kasparov's reaction to it.

Caspy's failure was guaranteed, given his lack of experience in fields other than chess.

As simple as that.

Is there no other way Kasparov can say, re-enter Russia after gaining strength in the US or for example, Germany ? Its a very painful way to try and make a mark in Russian politics. Its pretty scary too, no doubt.

I think 5 days in jail was enough to make Garry understand that say 5 years would not be a good thing. And that withdrawing and claiming moral victory (I would have won but Putin did touch move) is a safer way forward.

What time will Kasparov be at the book signing until?

Kasparov may be something of a megalomaniac, but I doubt even he entertained for a second the possibility of making any electoral inroads into Putin's camp (at least at this stage).

He set out to raise the profile of the opposition in Russia and highlight the state of "democracy" there (see the comments of the independent observers, there's no need to take Kasparov's word for it), which he's succeeded in doing. So the "failure" comments above are very wide of the mark...

Mishanp, Kasparov's failure is total. Who cares about the so-called "democracy" in Russia? Probably you care much more than the average russian who's just happy to have had a president who managed to bring Russia's growth rate up to a 7-8 % yearly for the last 10 years.

You're all talking about democracy because your stomachs are always full. But russian people are just happy to have something to eat today. Please don't believe that the nation on earth with the highest education level, with the best chess players, please don't believe that those people are idiots.

By the way, in our western "democracies" (where neo-fascism happens to be everyday more represented, wether it's with Bush, UK following the USA in neo-colonial wars, Berlusconi's Italia, French Sarkozy and his good ex-terrorist friend Kadhafi), the word non-democratic represents just a philosophical concept created to give us more moral credit in front of our free but vastly controled media to go to "save" any random country in the world where people didn't vote for the good "democratic" leader.

Let's say for instance Chavez. Everywhere in the western world he's considered a nothing, but he is amongst the rare leaders on earth to have been elected in a democratic fashion...

The democracy today sounds really like the heretic concept in the middle ages. Just a way to burn who you want where you want and when you want.

By the way, in terms of democracy I can't recall of a single operation carried out by your champion Kasparov when he was chess world champion that could be called democratic. Unless you consider two-players chess federations as a valid form of democracy.

And about Kasparov's failure, yes it's total, but it's quite logical. Chess is a game. Chess has rules. Kasparov has spent all his life mastering chess, but following the rules.

Putin is the guy who is creating the rules in Russia. Therefore they don't have a quite similar thinking canvas. Kasparov is certain that "life imitates chess", but still can't admit, or even just see, that life does NOT imitates chess, that chess is just a game, that a nation leader will NOT follow the rules because his task is precisely to change permanently the rules to make it possible to bring better living standards for his population.

So please stop with this "democracy" concept. Democracy has almost never proved to be a solution to mankind's problem. Maybe you can cite USA from 1900 to 1965, maybe Athens from 650 BC up to Pericles, but apart from this rares examples, considered by everybody to be the common goal, it would be hard to name a democratic era of rapid progress for a nation when it's quite easy to name plenty of fantastic jumps made under the authority of a tyrant.

Just think about Japan under Meiji, about Germany from 1933 up to 40, about Russia from 1923 to 1940 under Stalin, about France with Napoleon, Sweden with Gustav Vasa, Russia under Piotr the Great... in fact almost any big economical step forward made by almost any nation has been done under the authority of a strong leader. And in fact the disorder mechanically created by democracy makes it almost unpossible to create the proper conditions for a fast advance.

The only reason why USA is Nr 1 in the world today is NOT democracy. The only reason why USA is world leader today is that it's been located 4000 miles away from any battlefield for the last 150 years.

To Ruslan, We're actually a Republic, not a Democracy. Being 4000 miles away from any battlefield for the last 150 years??..well we saved Europe from Hitler's jackboots, and we're taking it to the Radical Islamic Terrorists, if not us, then who? You're like the folks who are always bashing cops, but then when you're in trouble, who do you call? Garry has explained his side many, many times, as to why he has chosen to fight. I take him at his word, if you choose not to, that's on you. I tip my hat to him.

I'm sorry Mr Towell but I'm still waiting to see an islamic soldier attacking america, while on the other hand I have no problems to see GIs in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, in Irak, in Afghanistan, in Cuba, in Argentina, in Turkey, in Panama, in Guatemala, in South Korea, in Germany, in Japan, in Chili and so on...

I still have a few problems to talk with people who have problems to understand simple notions such as "war destroys your homeland". You see, the WW2 has taken place almost anywhere on earth but in the US. Therefore, your country wasn't destroyed and nothing had to be rebuilt in 1945. Shall I add that the 300000 losses the USA suffered during this war were in terms of ratio/population the weakest one amongst the countries engaged ? Well of course for each of those 300000 guys it was certainly a drama, but it was little compared with the economic and human drama of war in Russia, Poland, Ukraina, Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Japan, England ... do you see now what I mean?

You're talking about radical islamic terrorists. I'm just seing that as a vast myth organized by your own CIA. In fact, the main terrorists I'm seing today are those at the white house. They have killed more than a million humans with their wars in Afghanistan and Irak. They have also killed 3000 persons on the 9/11, organizing the explosion of their own civilian buildings to create proper conditions for the war.

Mr Towell, you're not a republic, or a democracy any more. The voting problems during the 2000 and 2004 elections put USA at the same level as Zimbabwe in terms of respecting the democratic, or respublican electoral rules.

You're not a respublic any more since the mid sixties. In fact, what happened with Bush could have happened before, in 72 with Nixon. Thanx to two journalists those who took the power today had to wait a little and to keep under cover for a while. But today, I ensure you that apart from the most naive amongst US citizens, nobody on earth does believe any more that USA is a respublic, a democracy, or anything else than a global imperialistic dominating power able to organize wars to plunder any country.

"You're talking about radical islamic terrorists. I'm just seing that as a vast myth organized by your own CIA. In fact, the main terrorists I'm seing today are those at the white house. They have killed more than a million humans with their wars in Afghanistan and Irak. They have also killed 3000 persons on the 9/11, organizing the explosion of their own civilian buildings to create proper conditions for the war."
-Posted by: Ruslan at December 16, 2007 04:01

Only the most extreme crackpot conspiracy theorist could believe that the U.S. government might have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. It's simply arrogant and ignorant to come on here and state it as fact when you are unable to provide a shred of evidence. Go ahead and pretend you're in the majority with your opinions, that's what self-appointed authorities like to do. Plunder any country you say? Pretty sure the U.S. loses a considerable sum every day they occupy Iraq.

Cynical Gripe, I totally agree with you. USA loses a consideral sum every day they occupy Iraq. The dozen milliards of dollars used to send troops are sure worth much more than the less milliards dollars the US economy gets with oil contracts in Iraq.

What you probably don't realize is that the people paying to send soldiers are not the ones who get money from the oil contract. The US citizens pay, the US soldiers may loose their lives as well, but Bush and his friends are making good money out of this situation.

As a reminder, Larry Silverstein got 6 billion dollars from 9/11. As another reminder, when WTC7 collapsed, all the federal services that were in charge of the Enron affair were destroyed. No more documents, no more proofs, 15 billion dollars stolen and nobody has talked about it ever since. As another reminder, Silverstein took his insurance specifically against risks linked with terrorism 22 days before the crash. As a last little reminder, Silverstein had bought both towers one year before for a little 15 million dollars because according to federal laws he had to invest 2 billion dollars to remove all the asbestos that had been put in the towers when they were built in the 60ies.

In France the first thing they teach you in the police school when you wanna become an investigator is to look who benefits from the crime. Here I think it's quite obvious.

I don't even talk here about all the pull options taken against Delta during the 15 days before the crash. Nor will I talk about all the evidence available in such movies like 911 mysteries or loose change.

Cynical Gripe, I've spent 10 years in my life as a soldier, in the french army. I know what's explosives. I know what's thermate. I know how to cut a steel frame. I know how an exit hole made by a missile looks like. I know what's a controled demolition. All I can tell you is that no boeing could crash into pentagon flying at 120 mph 5 meters above the ground, leaving a 5 meters round hole in the wall. All I can tell you is that no house will fell directly in its footprint when it collapses. Not even those that are 10 meters high. So just imagine how likely it is for TWO 400 METERS BUILDINGS to fall like they did.

I won't even discuss here the fact that walls of concrete have left marks in walls up to 600 meters away from WTC 1 and 2. Because it's quite clear for geniuses like you that when, for some reason, a part of the tower wall was ejected from the tower at a 400 meters height, it could fly 600 meters to crash in another structure. Because everybody knows that concrete walls fly, they don't fall because of their remarkable aerodynamic properties that make their weight a neglectable data.

Close your eyes, Cynical Gripe. Sleep in peace, and God bless America.

Why is he bothering? I thought his book tour, oops, I mean "presidential bid" was over.

Ruslan is a troll and should be ignored.

H L M, why? What argument do you seriously bring in to say what you say?

You know, you have nowadays plenty of sites explaining clearly that what happened on 9/11 CAN NOT HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY THE OFFICIAL VERSION CLAIMS IT DID.

Because when you speak with an idiot and tell him that fire cannot cause the collapse of the twin towers, the idiot naively answers you "yeah but you forget about the planes".

Therefore here is my question : when World Trade Center Nr 7 collapsed in the front of all the world media, why did it collapse? Where was the plane? How much of an idiot do you have to be not to see that it was a controled demolition?

Just look at the evidences, Sir H L M. They are available everywhere. Don't believe in what TV says because it's just propaganda.

http://911research.wtc7.net/

Look at the movies of the controled demolition of WTC 7, they are available. Go and search on Internet videos of controled demolitions, and just compare. Think. And then, if you come back to tell me that I'm a troll, then you're just a plain and severe idiot.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

On this nice little site, you'll find a non exhaustive list of people, american or non american, scientists, engineers, architects, high rank officers, pilots, 9/11 family members and so on... who all point out the flaws of the official version.

H L M, I suggest that you go there and watch the names. General Wesley Clark for instance, purple star in Vietnam. Please add him to your own personal troll list. Right?

Well, let's see. The probability that item "Kasparov Signing in NYC" would end up with 9/11 discussion is 1/64 (it's a chess-blog after all), the probability that it would be hijacked by someone is 1/64 (see above), the probability that the hijacker is a supporter of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is 1/1000 (presumably for each person in the list referred by Ruslan there are 1000 more people who don't believe in it).
The aggregate probability that we all are reading these Ruslan's posts here would be:
1/64 * 1/64 * 1/1000 = 1/4096000
Conclusion: unless the probability of an event is strictly equal to 0, the event could happen.

Ruslan--

1) What's the probability that four guys with blades can overpower two unsuspecting guys flying a plane? 99%? higher?

2) Air traffic controllers have plenty to do making sure all their flights are taking off and landing safely. Do they really track every one of thousands of planes all the way from take-off to landing? What's the probability that a controller doesn't notice a flight is heading toward the wrong city? 99%?

"...flying jetliners into small targets..." These folks went to flight school, right? Learned to control up-down, left-right, speed? Flying a plane into a huge building sounds a whole lot easier than putting it down on a runway, and thousands of folks have licenses to do that.

You're going to have to do a whole lot better than than, and unless the imaginary hijackers were playing chess during the flight, why not just take this whole discussion elsewhere?

Ruslan says:"the people paying to send soldiers are not the ones who get money from the oil contract. The US citizens pay, the US soldiers may loose their lives as well, but Bush and his friends are making good money out of this situation."
I can't resist mentioning a study of the economics of imperialist britain. It turns out over its imperialistic past, the net overall gain from colonialism was more or less zero. But the point is who made the gains and who paid for the losses. The Iraq war as cited by Ruslan is a good example of the nature and causes of wars, and the gullibility of the population in embracing it.

Well at least there is one person understanding what happened here amongst the readers.

You know, about the "conspiracy theory", naming it a theory is already a mistake. Considering that it's a theory BY DEFAULT means that you give it 0% chances to have happened. Considering it was an option would mean that you'd not use that term. But that term was forged by US mass-media for idiots.

Just another idea. Of course, this is a chess blog, but ... but I can't resist. I can't resist to prove how much US propaganda is childish and how much people have to be idiots to believe in it.

I won't talk about physics here. I won't talk about the ratio between the weight of a rocket and the payload to put it in low orbit, or in GTO...

Just will give you a little image that even the dumbest idiot can understand : look at saturn V. This is what is necessary to go from the earth to the moon.

Then, have a look at the lunar module. Ok ok please don't laugh now. Because this can go from the moon to the earth. Yeah, you've got it. On earth, the gravity is equal to 6 times the gravity of the moon, and you need the 3000 tons of Saturn 5. But from the moon, the 4547 kgs of the LEM are just enough to travel back to earth. Again, how much of an idiot do you have to be to believe that?

How much of an idiot do you have to be to believe in such faery tales?

How many faery tales do you need to open your eyes on what you see on TV?

No man ever went on the moon.
Not even talking about the bad videos still available clearly showing that all this was a fake video show, a simple physical calculation brings in sufficient proof.

Chirurgical warfare does not exists.
Well ... maybe on TV, but when B-52's are launching 84 MK82 227 kgs bombs, I strongly doubt that those "intelligent" bombs make the difference between an hospital and a soldier.

The US Government organized 9/11.
Just look at the WTC7 falling on any video and tell my why this was the first and only case in the history of mankind where a steel frame building did collapse because of (minor) flames.

The muslims are not terrorists.
In fact, "terrorist" was already the name given by german nazi against all those who were fighting for freedom in their respective countries to get rid of them.

Roosevelt knew for Pearl Harbor.
Well ... this the only subject here that is open to discussion. For this one I'm not sure, but Roosevelt was quite probably aware of the fact that the japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor.

Machiavel
Goebbels
Rumsfeld

I put those three names on a same moral level.

Ok, for the amateurs : 3000 tons of Saturn V did officially put in GTO (geostationnary transfer orbit) 60 tons of what would go to the moon. That means that the ratio weight of rocket/GTO payload was equal to 1/200.

With a gravity equal to 1/6 of earth gravity on the moon, that means that just to reach the moon's GTO with the lunar module (which went back to earth and officialy weights 4547 kgs) you'd need a 200/6x4547 = 151 tons rocket.

I'm not even talking here about the amount of propellant needed to travel from the earth to the moon and from the moon back to earth. Nor am I talking about the amount of propellant needed for a space ship flying from earth to land on the moon. Just talking about what you need to send an object on geostationnary transfer orbit.

To add about the faery tales told at that time, Saturn 5 was supposed to be able to put in GTO 60 tons with its 3000 tons weight. Today, Ariane 5, with its technology is able to put 10 tons in GTO, while weighting 700 tons. That means that the ratio weight/gto of saturn V is supposed to be far better in 65 than the same rating for Ariane 5 today (1/200 against 1/700 today).

Again, if you take your calculator and just calculate the amount of propellant necessary to send only the 150 kgs of Armstrong and Aldring from the earth to GTO, then from GTO to the moon, then to land on the moon, then to get on the moon GTO, then to get back on earth, then you get :

150 kgs x 2 = 300 kgs to get back to earth
300 kgs x 33 = 10 tons to quit the moon and reach its GO
10 tons x 33 = 330 tons to deccelerate from the moon GTO to the moon
330 tons X 2 = 660 tons to travel from earth GTO to the moon orbit
Those 660 are already equal to 11 times the GTO payload of saturn V.
And I'm not even talking here about Collins, the TV equipment, the jeeps, the american flag (the one moving on the TV shows), the space suits or the LEM. No. Just to send two superstrong US GIs that can resist during a full week without food, water, oxygen, even for them it's unpossible...

Believe in TV. And take some more peanut butter, you can sleep in peace, and God Bless America.

Oh, by the way... about the junction between Lunar Module and The Command module, which is supposed to have occured in low orbit around the moon... the first time it really happened was in 1971, 23 of april, when a Soyuz 10 module reached a Saliut 1 satellite. That was around the earth, and that was - at that time - a technical performance far away from the US capabilities.

Should I add that it's quite obvious that from 1957 up to now, russian technology has been by far superior to the US one, that the first space flight was russian, first human flight as well, most long stays in space are russians, and that you really have little, if not zero reasons to believe that just in 1969 the USA would raise from nothing to such an advance, to get back just after to their previous level...

Should I add that with our technology and space knowledge in 2007, sending a man to the moon may still be unpossible today...

Ruslan,

Before we get totally carried away...

Earth escape velocity is 11.2 km/sec, or about 420 mph.
--You need a huge rocket to get all that moon round-trip crap, (vehicle, fuel, load) going 420 mph.

Lunar escape velocity is 2.4 km/sec, or about 90 mph.
--Every day you see vehicles equipped for a weekend trip going down the highway at 90 mph.

Ruslan says:"the people paying to send soldiers are not the ones who get money from the oil contract. The US citizens pay, the US soldiers may loose their lives as well, but Bush and his friends are making good money out of this situation."
I can't resist mentioning a study of the economics of imperialist britain. It turns out over its imperialistic past, the net overall gain from colonialism was more or less zero. But the point is who made the gains and who paid for the losses. The Iraq war as cited by Ruslan is a good example of the nature and causes of wars, and the gullibility of the population in embracing it.

Do sum video search at http://videosearchtool.info/ and seee for yourself..
1 picture is worth 1000 words
1 video is worth 10000000000000 words and stays short.

Mr Greg Koster,
Before we get totally carried away,

earth escape velocity is indeed of 11.2 kms/sec, which is 11.2 x 3600 km/hours, which is almost 24000 miles per hour. Which is quite huge.

Moon escape velocity is equal to almost 10000 miles per hour. That is a little bit fast for vehicles equiped for a weekend trip.

I won't be harsh. Everybody makes mistakes.

Of course if you're using a rocket you don't actually need to start it off at the escape velocity. Wikipedia ;)
----------------------
Misconceptions
Planetary or lunar escape velocity is sometimes misunderstood to be the speed a powered vehicle (such as a rocket) must travel to leave orbit, however this is not the case. The surface escape velocity can be thought of in terms of the speed an artillery shell or bullet fired from the surface would have to travel (ignoring the effects of drag) to leave orbit, but it is not the speed a rocket or other powered object would have to travel. An object under power could leave the Earth's gravity at any speed, assuming enough fuel and the object is accelerating away from the earth surface. A practical application that might involve an object leaving earth orbit at speeds much lower than the escape velocity is the hypothetical space elevator.

However, to escape from a body's gravity, a vehicle must at some point exceed the local, rather than the surface escape velocity: as the vehicle climbs against gravity, the speed necessary to escape is very greatly reduced.

Mishanp, you're right, but this changes nothing to the point that the official payload of Saturn V, that is exactly 47 tons, can in no way to to the moon, land a 4547 kg lunar module, and get back home.

This also changes nothing to the fact that the first aknowledged "space encounter" was practised - with huge problems - in 1971 by russian teams just above earth, and that in 1969 technology would simply never allow a man to walk on the moon. I still am almost certain that sending a man to the moon today would quite certainly be out of reach for us. Which means that in 69 it was either science fiction, or faery tales, or regular US propaganda.

But the way Apollo 13 was supposed to have happened, and how happily it closed the chapter of human flights to the moon... all this is simply ridiculous.

As ridiculous as to believe that WTC 7 did collapse in 6.5 secs because of a fire. There are so many proofs that US government was the head of 9/11 that it simply shows that the average IQ of the human being is close to my anal temperature.

"There are so many proofs that US government was the head of 9/11 that it simply shows that the average IQ of the human being is close to my anal temperature."

- Well, the average IQ of the human being is 100 by definition, is it not? And if you meant degrees on the Farenheit scale I guess it would be normal. Otherwise if you mean Celsium (and it looks like you did) it would mean you've got one hot ass.

"Well, let's see. The probability that item "Kasparov Signing in NYC" would end up with 9/11 discussion is 1/64 (it's a chess-blog after all), the probability that it would be hijacked by someone is 1/64 (see above), the probability that the hijacker is a supporter of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is 1/1000 (presumably for each person in the list referred by Ruslan there are 1000 more people who don't believe in it).
The aggregate probability that we all are reading these Ruslan's posts here would be:
1/64 * 1/64 * 1/1000 = 1/4096000
Conclusion: unless the probability of an event is strictly equal to 0, the event could happen."

I liked this one. Multiply it by the probability that a poster would bring up his anal temperature in this very blog entry, and you get a number so small that it can be discarded for all practical purposes. I guess it means this thread doesn't exist.

Ruslan, how can one person believe so much nonsense simultaneously?

If you actually care about your weird and wonderful claims then you can find their refutations with a quick google.

For the rockets, for instance: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Rockets.htm
----------------------------
Were Apollo Saturn rockets big enough to reach the moon. Where was all the fuel they'd need stored?

The majority of the Saturn rockets were required to place Apollo 11 into an orbit of only 100 nautical miles high. After that other factors come into play; speed given by the angular rotation of Earth (they don't put the launch site near the equator just for the sunny weather) and the fact that once you're moving in space nothing will slow you.

All that was required from the rockets beyond this was to escape the initial Earth orbit (the "translunar injection", no small task, but not requiring as much effort as the initial stage) and any minor adjustments on the way. What it's really doing is establishing a bigger, 'loopier' orbit of Earth that will make it cross the path of the Moon's orbit. Once there it does another minor burn (the "lunar orbit insertion") and it's in a lunar orbit instead. So the rockets don't burn anything like all the way there and they never 'escape' from Earth's gravity. It's all done with orbits.

A lot of this 'proof' of a hoax is usually based on a comparison with the size of the Space Shuttle's fuel tanks and rockets. No consideration about the relative size and weights of either crafts. The Apollos actually jettisoned most of their rockets and weight once they have left the Earth, leaving behind a comparatively tiny orbiter and lander. The Shuttles, on the other hand, come back down pretty much as they left.
-----------------------
Anyway, surely this thread isn't getting enough readers to be worth trolling any longer ;)

"Refutations"

Based on zero knowledge acquired site, told by the same level knowledge people.

Saturn V sequence :

The first stage burned for 2.5 minutes, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 38 miles (61 kilometers) and a speed of 5300 mph (8600 km/h) and burning 2,000,000 kg of propellant.

After the first stage sequence, the second stage burned for 6 minutes and propelled the craft to 185 km (your 100 miles) and 24,600 km/h, bringing it close to orbital velocity.

I repeat. Close to orbital velocity. Of course, it's only 100 miles high. And the two first stages, by far the biggest ones of the rocket, are gone. BUT THE ROCKET, despite being at a quite low altitude, HAS ALREADY ALMOST ALL THE CINETIC ENERGY TO LEAVE THE EARTH GRAVITY.

As I told before already, to leave the earth and its gravity, you need a certain ratio between the rocket size and the payload. If you talk about Saturn V, the rocket weighted 3000 tons, and it could place on a geostationnary orbit 47 tons of payload.

Therefore, on the moon, where the gravity is equal to one sixth of the gravity on earth, you'd need a 600 tons rocket (one sixth of the propellant, energy, put it as you wish) to put in orbit the same 47 tons payload. Which means that you'd need a 60 tons rocket to put in orbit the lunar module, which weighted 4547 kgs.

Not even talking about the amount of propellant needed to travel from the earth to the moon, from the moon to the earth and to land on the moon (which is equal to the amount of energy needed to leave the moon), you see that the global weight of the lunar space ship (47 tons, that is the payload of saturn V) makes the realization of the mission totally unpossible.

Please now think about this four details.

First one, landing sequence on moon. That is, in aeronotics, called VTOL. Vertical take-off and landing. The first flight to use this technology was realized by the british short SC-1 in may 58. In 1969 this technology is still a delicate one, and the only plane to use it on an operational basis was the british Harrier.
What I mean is that at that time it was already difficult to operate a vertical take off and landing jet whose almost only task was to perform this operation, not with a thing that was supposed to carry dozens of tons of propellant to go to the moon and back to earth.

Second one, the complexity of the LEM meeting the vessel (CSM, command and service module) rotating around the moon. Again, the first time this operation was realized by a russian team was in 1971. It was not in a mission on the moon, it was just on low earth orbit, and it already was at that time a huge technological problem to solve.

Third one, the appolo guidance computer. If you suppose that in 1969 a computer was able to perform such tasks like this "super computer" was able of (during Apollo XIII this computer has alledgedly allowed the team to get back to earth on a stand-alone basis), then you must suppose that a hand pocket calculator is able today to put a rocket in orbit.
Then, what the hell are all those people doing, watching all those screens when a rocket is fired nowadays to perform such an easy task like puting a commercial satellite on geostationnary orbit? If it was so easy for the americans to create a computer in 1969 that allowed this first spaceship to travel as easily as it is for you to drive your car, why the hell are all those people still needed today to perform much easier tasks?

Fourth one, flag on the videos is moving despite of the lack of atmosphere on the moon,

Fifth one, and the images are widely available now, just look at the official videos and you'll just see that they are all fake.

Points 4 and 5 are only a proof that the TV shows were fake. I have to agree upon the fact that it proves nothing. You can imagine, for instance, that the US government wanted to show something, and that it was technically unpossible to receive videos from the moon, and that they therefore decided to create those video in order to show men walking on the moon...

But what you can't discuss is the calculation of the amount of propellant needed to accomplish the trip.

What you can't discuss is the simple fact that if nobody talks today about going "back" to the moon, it's quite certaily because today this travel cannot be performed yet.

What you can't discuss is the fact that, from a technical perspective, traveling to March and to the moon are two almost equal tasks. Of course the travel to march is longer, of course it requires a good knowledge of how man will adapt to long zero-gravity periods, of course it requires more food than the travel to the moon, and of course leaving march will require more propellant than leaving the moon (always the ratio between the payload and the weight of the rocket).

About march, the NASA says... 2040. Maybe. Just think about this. It's a longer trip, but the trip does not requires much bigger propellant consumption since once you've got your speed in space nothing will reduce your speed; so apart from the amount of food and the difficulty to find an idiot willing to risk his life to spend the two dumbest years of his life in a box with the noble goal to walk a few days in a cold, desertic and unfriendly place where even Mc Donalds wouldn't open a restaurant (how about you, mishanp ?), apart from those technical difficulties the technological level remains basically the same.

1969 for the moon, then 2040 on March, plus with a big maybe. And you can still find idiots to believe that in 1969 it was plausible...

Ruslan, you don't understand probability or math or even basic science it seems. In fact, you're just parroting someone else who also doesn't understand math, probability and basic science. Your (mis)assumptions about probability are covered in the first few chapters of any basic stat book...grab a stat or probability textbook and find out why you can't use probability the way you did (doesn't mean your 9/11 hypothesis is wrong, just means you should drop the probability argument).

And all your objections about lunar landings are old arguments and have been refuted long ago. See www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm and scroll to the bottom where you can find a list of sites both for and against the lunar landing. You've only been reading sites against the lunar landing...I know that because otherwise you'd be too embarrassed to use some of the arguments you did (e.g. flag waving on the moon: Status--Busted). You could still be right about the moon landing, but the points you raise are not evidence for your idea.

And on topic, Kasparov knows the politic game will be a decades long. His current goal is to raise awareness. It can take alternate political parties dozens of years to finally become a viable alternative. Talk of failure is nonsense. It is far too early in the game to make that pronouncement. Let's wait 20 years and see what we think then...and 20 years after that, we might have to change our minds again.

btw, anyone thinking Kasparov will come back to chess does not understand the type of person Kasparov is. He'll not be coming back. Chess is too small for him now, and offers nothing he doesn't already have.

Ruslan,

Thank you for the correction. I was only off by a factor of sixty, though.

From Putin's interview in Time as "Man of the year":

--The President, in our discussion, routinely suggests that Kasparov is a stooge of the West because he spoke to the foreign press in English after his arrest. "If you aspire to be a leader of your own country, you must speak your own language, for God's sake," he says.--

Putin may have a point there. I remember seeing Kasparov shouting in English in the footage of his arrest. It was bizarre. Now, I understand English, but the great majority of Russian population - perhaps as much as 95-99% does not - and I wouldn't be surprised that not only neutral observers didn't understand him, but neither did the people who were arresting him, or for that matter, the people on his side that were participating in the rally. Indeed, one has to wonder what Kasparov's audience is. It did seem like Kasparov was just making sure his Western bosses see he was doing the work. It is like as if the US presidential hopeful not only got himself arrested during a rally, but also ended up shouting slogans in Arabic. And then Kasparov blames Putin for not giving him TV opportunities. With appearances like that, the less Kasparov is on TV, the less he is disliked.

In terms of politics, Kasparov is a bad 1400.

To Bruce Towell and Ruslan:

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html