Return to the moon: Who's happy?

January 10, 2004

Alex Terrell wrote:

Again, this comes back to execution. Will it crowd out the private
sector. Will it provide opportunities?

No, but it will provide a great platform for political grandstanding next
week. I look forward to the program's future execution, i.e. - cut.

I can only speak for US SSTO CELSS kind of guys - we can't even get the
space station right. We can't even get it right on Earth. The goal of any
civilization should be to become a solar powered, space faring
civilization, that is, space colonization, not a gasoline, diesel,
kerosene and nuclear powered war mongering civilization which we are now.

So, why do we have to rely on Soyuz and Ariane, when we've got the Delta
IV?

My suggestion to the private sector, beat NASA to the punch, the Delta IV
medium has a 6000 lb trans-lunar capacity complete with upper stage, it
should be doable to circumnavigate. Aviation really began to progress
after Charles Lindbergh flew to Paris.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/rocket.htm

I can only speak for US SSTO CELSS kind of guys - we can't even get the
space station right.

The Space Station is Dead Weight! It doesn't do anything beside provide a home
for a few astronauts.

We can't even get it right on Earth. The goal of any
civilization should be to become a solar powered, space faring
civilization, that is, space colonization, not a gasoline, diesel,
kerosene and nuclear powered war mongering civilization which we are now.

The laws of supply and demand wil take care of gasoline and diesel for which
solar power is a poor substitute. The reason we use those fuels is because of
their energy density and their convientient liquid form at Earth temperatures
and pressures. Hydrogen is a gas at these same temperatures and pressures. With
hydrogen powered cars, one does not so much fill up one's tank as pressurize
it. At 1 atmosphere hydrogen contains very little energy, this is why we use
petrochemicals.

As for being nuclear powered, nuclear power is actually very convienient in
space, waste disposal is fairly simple too, there is a lot of space to lose
nuclear waste in, especially if one is exploring the Solar System rather than
simply orbiting the Earth at low altitude.

As for war mongering civilization, we have been war mongered against, they
attacked us! If you want war mongering civilizations look no further than the
Middle East. The Middle East is full of war mongering Arabs that beat their
swords and shoot their machineguns into the air at every occasion and these are
the more peaceable types. Arabs are always looking for excuses to fight. Some
of them will look for any excuse to go strap on a bomb and go blow themselves
up. The Pakistanis cheered when their country developed nuclear weapons without
a thought that now they are nuclear targets they might die! Arabs are always
the first to address their grevances with violence, no other way occurs to
their simple-minded heads, only if violence does not at first work will they
try more subtle methods of protest on concert with more violence. That is your
war mongering civilization, and we have to protect ourselves from them! Perhaps
you thing we can stick our heads in the sand and they'll go away? Perhaps you
think we can close our eyes and open them again and the two World Trade Center
towers will once again be standing? You liberals always critisize us from you
"Ivory Towers" where you thing you'll be safe while the rest of us live in
danger! When an airplane crashes into one of your "Ivory towers" you'll
scramble for safety, shut up for a while until you can find some other lofty
perch for you to criticise us from.

Tom

January 10, 2004

TKalbfus wrote:

The laws of supply and demand wil take care of gasoline and diesel for which
solar power is a poor substitute. The reason we use those fuels is because of
their energy density and their convientient liquid form at Earth temperatures

You are a denialist fool.

As for being nuclear powered, nuclear power is actually very convienient in

You are a denialist fool.

As for war mongering civilization, we have been war mongered against, they

You are a denialist fool.

You can't even spiel 'cenvenyent' right.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
I think this is a major improvement, for a number of reasons discusse
elsewhere.

Last night there was some guy from the Mars society on english news
saying this was really bad, because the moon's a waste of space, and
Mars has been pushed back so far that it won't happen.

There was also some planatery scientist saying this was really bad
because manned space flight is a waste of space.

I think the O'Neil

Minor quibble O'Neill.

:-)

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
I think this is a major improvement, for a number of reasons discusse
elsewhere.

Last night there was some guy from the Mars society on english news
saying this was really bad, because the moon's a waste of space, and
Mars has been pushed back so far that it won't happen.

There was also some planatery scientist saying this was really bad
because manned space flight is a waste of space.

I think the O'Neil followers (I guess I include myself in there)
should be quite happy. In theory, setting up a permanent lunar base
should enable use of raw materials, and we build from there.

No O'Neill colony will ever become a reality is my opinion. Terraforming
Mars is much more productive, resulting in space for countless billions of
people.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

January 10, 2004

TKalbfus wrote:

The laws of supply and demand wil take care of gasoline and diesel for
which
solar power is a poor substitute. The reason we use those fuels is because
of
their energy density and their convientient liquid form at Earth
temperatures

You are a denialist fool.

OK then have fun driving your Solar Powered Car! I sure hope it doesn't rain
while your doing so! Or that you get caught after dark.

Lack of ingenuity noted. How, ummm, American.
Introducing : cryogenic Hydrogen and Oxygen!

How about simply introducing liquid hydrocarbons like octane and
methanol? Produced using little more than energy, water and biomass.
Cheap, power-dense and good for the environment. Plus they run at night
and in blizzards and don't require wacky new powerplants and cryogen
storage systems.

As for being nuclear powered, nuclear power is actually very convienient in

You are a denialist fool.

Would you like your life support system to sut down during the Lunar night due
to lack of power?

Lack in ingenuity noted.

What lack of ingenuity? Use a nuke and you're good to go.



--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

January 10, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Lack of ingenuity noted. How, ummm, American.
Introducing : cryogenic Hydrogen and Oxygen!

How about simply introducing liquid hydrocarbons like octane and
methanol? Produced using little more than energy, water and biomass.
Cheap, power-dense and good for the environment. Plus they run at night
and in blizzards and don't require wacky new powerplants and cryogen
storage systems.

You mean like those wacky rocket engines?

Oh great, another global pollution and global warming denialist.

As for being nuclear powered, nuclear power is actually very convienient in

Lack in ingenuity noted.

What lack of ingenuity? Use a nuke and you're good to go.

Oh gwate, a nudder gwoble nucalur prowiferation denielist.

Pwenty of urwanium out in dem der starz.

How about a NASA whose job it is to protect the home planet, by developing solar power
and hydrogen energy technology, closed ecological life support system technology,
space colonization technology and, of course, remote sensing and asteroid detection
and defense technology. You know, 'as only NASA can', and all that.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

January 10, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Lack of ingenuity noted. How, ummm, American.
Introducing : cryogenic Hydrogen and Oxygen!

How about simply introducing liquid hydrocarbons like octane and
methanol? Produced using little more than energy, water and biomass.
Cheap, power-dense and good for the environment. Plus they run at night
and in blizzards and don't require wacky new powerplants and cryogen
storage systems.

You mean like those wacky rocket engines?

Yes. Cryogenic technologies appropriate for launch vehicles just might
not be applicable to cars, which was the subject at hand.

Oh great, another global pollution and global warming denialist.

Please explain how having a biomass - fuel - CO2 - biomass loop is
somehow "global pollution." And please explain how it is that we are
supposed to *stop* the natural warming and cooling cyucles of the Earth.
And also please explain how much colder you want it to be. Another ice
age make you happy, perhaps?


As for being nuclear powered, nuclear power is actually very convienient in

Lack in ingenuity noted.

What lack of ingenuity? Use a nuke and you're good to go.

Oh gwate, a nudder gwoble nucalur prowiferation denielist.

Pwenty of urwanium out in dem der starz.

Let us know when you pass second grade, hmmm?


How about a NASA whose job it is to protect the home planet, by developing solar power
and hydrogen energy technology, closed ecological life support system technology,
space colonization technology ...

That would be technology highly dependant upon nuclear power.

and, of course, remote sensing and asteroid detection
and defense technology.

And that would still be nuclear power.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

I think the O'Neil followers (I guess I include myself in there)
should be quite happy.

The private sector funadamentalists - what do they think (Rand?)
Again, this comes back to execution.
Hm, i think O'Neill would never had though of government going out to mine
those asteroids and build settlements. IOW, i dont think anything O'Neill
visioned would ever happen without large-scale commercial involvement.

Thats the thing, only destination and some details on means how to get there
has been revealed, but the fundamental question, WHY, hasnt been answered
yet. If the answer is the usual "inspiration, science and exploration", i
think many will be disappointed ( while many will be blindsided because they
just see their pet idea coming to reality )

But as you pointed out, this particular destination would be very suitable
for people with visions of large-scale space development. So the entire
development thing might just get enough momentum out of this.

-kert

January 10, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:

Yes. Cryogenic technologies appropriate for launch vehicles just might
not be applicable to cars, which was the subject at hand.

Catalyzed hydrogen and oxygen formation and reaction is applicable to just about everything.

Oh great, another global pollution and global warming denialist.

Please explain how having a biomass - fuel - CO2 - biomass loop is
somehow "global pollution."

Combustion is inherently a very dirty process, catalyzed hydrogen and oxygen formation and
reaction is not.

And please explain how it is that we are
supposed to *stop* the natural warming and cooling cyucles of the Earth.

By modifying global greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.

And also please explain how much colder you want it to be. Another ice
age make you happy, perhaps?

Denialist nonsense.

Let us know when you pass second grade, hmmm?

Let me know when you start to acknowledge the veracity of the scientific method.

How about a NASA whose job it is to protect the home planet, by developing solar power
and hydrogen energy technology, closed ecological life support system technology,
space colonization technology ...

That would be technology highly dependant upon nuclear power.

That would be a very unpleasant planet to live on, not worth protecting.

and, of course, remote sensing and asteroid detection
and defense technology.

And that would still be nuclear power.

That would be a very unpleasant inner solar system, not worth colonizing.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net