NEWS - Bush May Announce Return To Moon At Kitty Hawk - Space Daily

On or about Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:18:47 GMT, Scott Lowther
made the sensational claim that:
I'm surprised you didn't mention the killer cyborg junior Senator from
New York.

What, Darth Hillary has been replaced?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

On or about Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:43:27 -0600, Pat Flannery
made the sensational claim that:
Hell, for all we know the "Orbital Space Plane" may end up being a
ballistic capsule.

I thought that was already settled. At least I remember Kim Keller saying so,
and that it probably wasn't going to be a completely reusable design. But
we're still going to call it OSP dammit! And I like it that way, it's a gov't
program after all, so it only makes sense that a spaceplane would have no
wings.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

On or about Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:50:35 -0600, Pat Flannery
made the sensational claim that:
But he still got to screw Marilyn Monroe, which is more than any of you
heathens are going to be able to accomplish without violating several
laws of man and nature.

How close is having slept with a Jennifer Hewitt?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:50:35 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

But he still got to screw Marilyn Monroe, which is more than any of you
heathens are going to be able to accomplish without violating several
laws of man and nature.

....Actually, I thought that the majority of CT Nutters had agreed that
it was Bobby who nailed MM, not JFK. After all, JFK had Judith Exner
already, as well as one other intern, and with that bad back I doubt
he could have taken on MM even in her drugged out states.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:23:59 GMT, LooseChanj
wrote:

On or about Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:50:35 -0600, Pat Flannery
made the sensational claim that:
But he still got to screw Marilyn Monroe, which is more than any of you
heathens are going to be able to accomplish without violating several
laws of man and nature.

How close is having slept with a Jennifer Hewitt?

....Depends on whether she lied there and sweated, or just lied there.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

(Allen Thomson) wrote:

Ya know, though I have no doubt that Dan Q was a bit vague on the
details, and though I often enjoyed a chuckle thanks to him, I just
got a slightly eerie twinge about that famous quote.

I.e., it is pretty much right, or at least not too wrong:


[details snipped]

Again, I do not claim that DQ did or did not know what relation his
words had to physical reality. But if you analyze the text as
written, it's not a stretch to say that it's pretty much in line
with what a lot of today's planetologists would say, or at least
admit into the space of reasonable discussion.

A friend of mine is from Indiana and has long been perturbed by the
national reputation Quayle recieved. According to him, he always
seemed a sharp cookie, until exposed to the merciless glare of a
national media which *must* find something to hang a story on.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

JRS: In article , seen in
news:sci.space.policy, Kevin Willoughby
posted at Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:57:00 :-
In article ,
says...
The USA, using 1960's technology, needed under 7.5 years to go from
Glenn-in-Mercury to Moon-Landing, with a delay of ?? caused by Apollo I.

Yes, but a lot of ground work was done before Glenn's flight. The F-1
design had begun years before. North American was working on the Apollo
CSM. Various big Saturns were on the drawing board.

It's hard to say just when the US started working on potentially manned
spaceflight; but ISTR that little of value was done before the
Importation of Wernher von Braun, whenever that was. Under 17 years,
maximum.

The Chinese have been launching to orbit, including many loads as big as
Mercury, since 1970. They have been thinking about the Moon for a
considerable while. We may not know all that they have been actively
working on.


That was when NASA was young, encouraging innovation and wild ideas
(flying two Geminis at once, flying Apollo 8, LOR, all-up testing), and
willing to take out insurance against the unknowns (when an Agena
failed, they just happened to have this little Target Docking gadget
sitting in a hanger, heck, the entire Gemini program was both an
admission of ignorance and a way of learning what had to be learned
before Apollo was flyable).

Much of what was learned then is available to everybody now, if they are
willing to use it.

More important, the quality of the senior management was extraordinary.
I'm not aware of a von Bruan in today's NASA, nor a Gilruth, nor a Web,
nor a, well, the list goes on.

Indeed. And the Chinese could be implementing additional management
techniques impractical in the USA - but effective.


There in a risk that Forty-Three might want to defend against.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:42:54 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

A friend of mine is from Indiana and has long been perturbed by the
national reputation Quayle recieved. According to him, he always
seemed a sharp cookie, until exposed to the merciless glare of a
national media which *must* find something to hang a story on.

....There is a theory about Quayl (SIC) that goes something along the
lines of "He really is quite intelligent, but simply was unable to
handle the pressure of being under nationwide scrutiny, and was merely
providing a textbook example of one form of stage fright."

Of course, I subscribe to that theory about as strongly as I believe
Shirley Chisholm had a chance of winning in '72...

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"George William Herbert" wrote in message
...
Dave O'Neill dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote:
A Proton/Ariane5/etc... size launcher can soft land around 6,000kg
of cargo on the surface at a reasonable cost for supply purposes.

Six tons?

Could you document that and/or provide numbers?

I've been working on lunar missions for some time and get
payloads around three tons off a Proton, A5, D-IV etc.

Checking on The Encylopedia, the last sample return mission massed 5,800kg's
and was launched using the Proton. I didn't do the sums myself but a
collegue did them and was pretty sure you could manage things with a Proton.

I could see if I kept the numbers if you want. They were sketchy though, we
were looking at a proof of concept, and frankly, we couldn't make the
numbers add up even with 6 tonnes.

Dave

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

Well the ice would come as a surprise for the crew at Arecibo, and none
was seen after Lunar Prospector crash dove into the area it was supposed
to be in. It could be there of course, but it's far from a sure thing.


Ice is uncertain, but hydrogen is not -- the neutron spectra are pretty
clear that there's plenty of slightly-buried hydrogen there. Precisely
what form it is in, they don't tell us, but ice seems likely.

Hydrogen could be from Ammonia as well as water ice. My guess is both.

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