More about movie "Moon"

From Slate:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bro...-the-moon.aspx
Here's that NASA master list pdf for things to do on the Moon, BTW:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/163560main_L...Objectives.pdf

Pat

On Jun 15, 12:02*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
*From Slate:http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bro...06/12/go-to-mo...

The whole premise of one guy to the moon with a robot?! C'mon, what
happened to the buddy system? They don't even want people to hike
alone on maintained trails in the Grand Canyon. So how does a lone guy
get sent to the moon on a three year contract? More than a faulty
premise...

Here's that NASA master list pdf for things to do on the Moon, BTW:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/163560main_L...Objectives.pdf

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen it before.

Eric

Eric Chomko writes:

On Jun 15, 12:02=A0am, Pat Flannery wrote:
=A0From Slate:http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bro...ive/2009/06/1=
2/go-to-mo...

The whole premise of one guy to the moon with a robot?! C'mon, what
happened to the buddy system? They don't even want people to hike
alone on maintained trails in the Grand Canyon. So how does a lone guy
get sent to the moon on a three year contract?

Well, how *else* are they going to get commentary on the worst
movies ever made?

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Nebus wrote:
Well, how *else* are they going to get commentary on the worst
movies ever made?


Why, by going to the Badmovies.org website of course!:
http://www.badmovies.org/
It must be pure hell to be Mothra and have to lay an egg that large:
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/rebi...rthmothra1.jpg
Sort of the Kiwi bird of the Japanese monster world.
Meanwhile, back about "Moon"... which seems more likely? One guy stuck
in a helium 3 mining outpost on the far side of the Moon, or one guy
getting sucked down the inside of a giant monolith in Jupiter orbit, and
then... oh man, it is such a trip! You just _have_ to drop acid before
you see it! :-)

Pat

In sci.space.history Eric Chomko wrote:
So how does a lone guy get sent to the moon on a three year
contract?

World-class cost structure?

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Eric Chomko wrote:

So how does a lone guy get sent to the moon on a three year
contract?


World-class cost structure?


Actually, when you think about it, using the absolute minimal crew at
the station makes a lot of sense over that period of time due to all the
food and water you can avoid having to send to the Moon.
By weight, the total amount of helium 3 being sent back to Earth won't
be that much, so keeping cargo costs and weight to the Moon down lets
you use fairly small spacecraft for resupplying the base and returning
product.

Pat

In sci.space.policy Pat Flannery wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Eric Chomko wrote:
So how does a lone guy get sent to the moon on a three year
contract?
World-class cost structure?

Actually, when you think about it, using the absolute minimal crew
at the station makes a lot of sense over that period of time due to
all the food and water you can avoid having to send to the Moon. By
weight, the total amount of helium 3 being sent back to Earth won't
be that much, so keeping cargo costs and weight to the Moon down
lets you use fairly small spacecraft for resupplying the base and
returning product.

Indeed, from a business/spreadsheet perspective it does appear to make
sense. Normally, I allow the signatures on my posts to be chosen
randomly by my news client, but in this case though I will override
and assert there should be at least a little more to the decision than
that.

rick jones
--
the road to hell is paved with business decisions...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
.. .


Joseph Nebus wrote:
Well, how *else* are they going to get commentary on the worst movies ever
made?

Why, by going to the Badmovies.org website of course!:
http://www.badmovies.org/
It must be pure hell to be Mothra and have to lay an egg that large:
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/rebi...rthmothra1.jpg
Sort of the Kiwi bird of the Japanese monster world.
Meanwhile, back about "Moon"... which seems more likely? One guy stuck in a
helium 3 mining outpost on the far side of the Moon, or one guy getting sucked
down the inside of a giant monolith in Jupiter orbit, and then... oh man, it
is such a trip! You just _have_ to drop acid before you see it! :-)

Oh the colors!

The best scene for that was when the entire screen flashed
day-glo red....on and off ...with each time a new warning blasting
COMPUTER MALFUNCTION.....LIFE FUNCTIONS CRITICAL
and then LIFE FUNCTIONS TERMINATED.

Exploding on-and-off like a spotlight burning into your brain.

But I just recently bought my first big screen HDTV, and ya know, until
then I'd never seen 2001 with any kind of quality picture or sound.
But comcast on demand has a HD version with almost perfect sound
and picture. So I just watched it again for the first time in quite a while
and it was great, even by today's standards imho.

I'd forgotten how much the soundtrack made the picture work.
The movie works with only the sound, and the sparse dialogue
makes it works with only the picture. That's unique!
Together the two are hypnotizing and at times spectacular.

What big budget sci-fi movie today would spend almost a half hour
listening to classical music while only a few spacecraft drift around, and
someone eating dinner? Just to give the audience a sense of really
being there? What big budget sci-fi would leave the ending so
chaotic and uncertain?




Pat

*From:* Pat Flannery
*Date:* Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:59:55 -0500

Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Eric Chomko wrote:

So how does a lone guy get sent to the moon on a three year
contract?


World-class cost structure?


Actually, when you think about it, using the absolute minimal crew
at the station makes a lot of sense over that period of time due to
all the food and water you can avoid having to send to the Moon.
By weight, the total amount of helium 3 being sent back to Earth
won't be that much, so keeping cargo costs and weight to the Moon
down lets you use fairly small spacecraft for resupplying the base
and returning product.

Pat


The absolute minimal crew in any extended isolated post is three. Then if
something really bad happens to one of them there are still two to carry
on. One person stuck in an isolated outpost tends to go mad.

This was established by Trinity House the UK lighthouse organisation
thanks to a rather macabre incident in the Smalls lighthouse in 1801.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalls_Lighthouse

However all Trinity House lighthouses are now automated, a solution which
also would be likely to apply to a low cost lunar mining setup.

wrote:

The absolute minimal crew in any extended isolated post is three. Then if
something really bad happens to one of them there are still two to carry
on. One person stuck in an isolated outpost tends to go mad.

I think this movie is about that happening from what I've read.

Pat