The Moon

"william mook" wrote in message
om...

William, what do aus.services.emergency and aus.bicycle have to do with
this? There's already been one dickhe.... idiot whinging on these two
groups about cross-posting and I'm the one who cops it.


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...

William, what do aus.services.emergency and aus.bicycle have to do with
this? There's already been one dickhe.... idiot whinging on these two
groups about cross-posting and I'm the one who cops it.


Why are you bitching at me? I'm posting within my group. If someone
earlier in the thread cross-posted the hell out of it, you should be
talking with them. It isn't me!

If no one cross-posted prior to my post - it still isn't me, because I
don't pay a bit of attention to where things are cross posting. I
would have to look up how to do a cross-post since I've never done it.

So, if no one cross-posted prior to my post - then look in your
software, or someone somewhere else who is f**king with me and the
system in a vain effort to bring negative attention my way.

Anything I can do to help, you let me know.

But it isn't me doing this cross-posting.

Thanks.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...

William, what do aus.services.emergency and aus.bicycle have to do with
this? There's already been one dickhe.... idiot whinging on these two
groups about cross-posting and I'm the one who cops it.

Alan I can bring this to your attention;

YOU CROSS-POSTED TO THOSE GROUPS YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT - ACCORDING
TO THE HISTORY I'M GETTING FROM MY SOFTWARE - DO YOU CONCUR? HERE IS
WHAT I GET:

From: Alan Erskine )
Subject: The Moon

View this article only
Newsgroups: aus.services.emergency, sci.space.history,
sci.space.policy, sci.space.shuttle, aus.bicycle
Date: 2004-10-09 18:14:05 PST

"warrenb" wrote in message
...
It makes more sense/cheaper to live on the bottom of the ocean, or build a
biosphere in the desert

Why does it make more sense? Why is it cheaper?


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge


******************************************

"william mook" wrote in message
m...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...

William, what do aus.services.emergency and aus.bicycle have to do with
this? There's already been one dickhe.... idiot whinging on these two
groups about cross-posting and I'm the one who cops it.


Why are you bitching at me? I'm posting within my group. If someone
earlier in the thread cross-posted the hell out of it, you should be
talking with them. It isn't me!

If no one cross-posted prior to my post - it still isn't me, because I
don't pay a bit of attention to where things are cross posting. I
would have to look up how to do a cross-post since I've never done it.

So, if no one cross-posted prior to my post - then look in your
software, or someone somewhere else who is f**king with me and the
system in a vain effort to bring negative attention my way.

I tried to explain it that it was _me_ copping it, but if you want to take
it that way, ok by me. Just for the record, I wasn't "bitching" at you; you
were posting within _lots_ of groups, including the two I removed. Even
google lets you remove groups.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"william mook" wrote in message
m...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...

William, what do aus.services.emergency and aus.bicycle have to do with
this? There's already been one dickhe.... idiot whinging on these two
groups about cross-posting and I'm the one who cops it.

Alan I can bring this to your attention;

YOU CROSS-POSTED TO THOSE GROUPS YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT - ACCORDING
TO THE HISTORY I'M GETTING FROM MY SOFTWARE - DO YOU CONCUR? HERE IS
WHAT I GET:

What a dickhead. Bye bye. plonk


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

Sander Vesik wrote:
In sci.space.policy Scott Hedrick wrote:

"WarrenB" wrote in message
...

WHAT IDIOTS SPEND MONEY ON GOING TO THE MOON

The Japanese and Europeans, of course.

Isn't the European bird about to arrive after taking a *year* to get there?



Umm... Why should it have tried to get there faster? SMART-1 is a nice
cheap satellite - wheres the glory in mindlessly dumping money on
probes that could just as well be done cheaper?



You could try educating Scott about the potential of probes using ion
engines and inexpensive miniaturized components. But it would be wasted
effort. Hedrick is an idiot.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

dave wrote in message ...
Johnboy wrote:
We can get people to
the Moon in five years,



But why?


I,m not sure that thats not the saddest thing I have ever heard anyone say.

I'm sure its the dumbest! Our capacity to operate in space allows us
to tap into to extraterrestrial resources. This comes precisely at
the time our growing needs are beginning to outstrip terrestrial
resources. Clearly delaying or diminishing our capacity in this area
will cost future generations dearly. Plainly we should move
agressively to develop the skills needed to tap abundand
extraterrestrial resources as quickly as possible and bring about
those changes that are needed to transform life on Earth to one of
plenty for all.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...
"william mook" wrote in message
m...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...

William, what do aus.services.emergency and aus.bicycle have to do with
this? There's already been one dickhe.... idiot whinging on these two
groups about cross-posting and I'm the one who cops it.

Alan I can bring this to your attention;

YOU CROSS-POSTED TO THOSE GROUPS YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT - ACCORDING
TO THE HISTORY I'M GETTING FROM MY SOFTWARE - DO YOU CONCUR? HERE IS
WHAT I GET:

What a dickhead. Bye bye. plonk

WILL THE REAL ALAN ERSKINE PLEASE STAND UP!

Alan Erskine appears to be the unfortunate target of trolls. Check it
out;





And from someone who claims to be Alan Erskine himself;

Look closer. I post via bigpond ). I am
being trolled and the trolling is being attributed to me. The post
you refer to was probably from or
- free accounts.

Interesting.

Just re-posting and removing unwanted cross-posts to highly active
newsgroups who are very effective at complaining to Google! Don't
know why this person who is obviously not the person s/he claims to
be, reposted to them - except they're trying to make a scene. I'd
like to track them down and do something bad to them.

The choice of cross-posted newsgroups is interesting too. Who would
have known that aus.emergency.services would get the Google upper
management into such a tizzy? Whoever they are, f**k them!

Free and fair and open discussion is a great benefit to society and
shouldn't be f**ked with imho.


"Porn Shop Stiffy" hgfkmndvkytecsbemytbdmiunmswyeuiworeiowgfiorgjreo wrote in message ...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...
"warrenb" wrote in message
...
It makes more sense/cheaper to live on the bottom of the ocean, or
build a
biosphere in the desert

OK, let's see your numbers. Have you done the math to support this
claim, or
are you talking out of your Haller?

Well, for space travel, what you're paying for is momentum. So we're
talking cost of momentum. As the cost of momentum drops we can
project more for a given amount of money. This means we can do more
for a given amount of money. I propose that space based resources
will displace Earth based resources because space based assets will
deliver more stuff at lower price than terrestrial competitors.

Here's a typical launcher;

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pro8k82k.htm

A reasonably priced rocket these days is the Russian Proton rocket.
It costs $50 million and puts up about 19,760 kg into a 186 km orbit.
Speed of the payload is about 7.6 km/sec. Momentum then is mass times
speed so;

7,600 x 19,760 = 150,176,000 kg m/sec

and the cost is $50 million, so the cost per momentum today for
rockets is 3 kg m/sec per dollar. Or $0.33 per kg m/sec.

With this capability we can put up small satellites that can process
information and provide a global information network.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/echo.htm

In the 1950s and 60s the US orbited a pressurized mylar balloon that
was 30 m in diameter and massed 66kg. Since mass scales with area of
balloons, and the gas mass was not the largest component, we can say
that a 19,760 kg balloon would be 519 m in diameter. Built as an
inflatable concentrator this system would generate 115 MW of laser or
maser energy. At $50 million this is $0.50 per watt. Nearly
economic.


A fully reusable unpiloted vehicle might drop costs another factor of
ten, depending on launch rate.

Such a system would deliver solar pumped lasers to orbit at a cost of
$0.05 per watt. Definitely economic.

Once we have lasers of sufficient size and at appropriate costs, we
can imagine laser sustained detonation rockets with the laser beams
powered conventionally which might drop costs a factor of 100. Laser
rockets with laser beams powered by sunlight captured on the ground
might drop costs a factor of 1,000 - and space based capture of
sunlight to power laser beams might drop laser rocket costs by a
factor of 10,000. Nuclear pulse rockets have already been shown to be
capable of cost reductions by a factor of 10,000 or more from chemical
rockets. So;

Expendable Launch Vehicles - $330.00 per kg km/sec
Reusable Launch Vehicles - $33.00 per kg km/sec
First Generation Laser - $3.30 per kg km/sec
Second Generation Laser - $0.33 per kg km/sec
Third Generation Laser - $0.03 per kg km/sec
Nuclear Pulse Rocket - $0.003 per kg km/sec

As the costs for momentum drop the rockets get bigger and faster and
we have the following benefits;

ICBM - End of global warfare - 1950
Satellite - Global Communication - 1960
Power Satellite - Global Energy - 1970*Proposed
Asteroid Capture - Global Manufacturing - 1968*Proposed
Suborbital ballistic delivery -
Low cost orbital travel -
Space Homes -