Soviet Mars 3 lander found?

On Apr 19, 11:06*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9c415da2-6e95-4a9c-8373-186f9d8cded5
@t5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...

Tourism is a important industry, and while fake shuttles or fake
anything can be built the real thing is always better...

Not when "the real thing" would cost too much to recover, restore, or
maintain. *That's reality. *You're living in a fantasy world.

Here is current real world example that is not a spacecraft and would
seem to be easier to recover and restore than Snoopy:

The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the world's first nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier, and is therefore historically significant in that
rearguard. *The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was officially inactivated
December 1, 2012. *Enterprise will eventually be decommissioned and will
then be *scrapped* once its nuclear reactors have been removed. *I'm
sure there are many people who feel this is a tragedy and would like to
see her converted into a museum.

But that is simply *not* practical given the requirement to remove the
nuclear reactors from her. *By the time enough of the ship has been
removed in order to take out the reactors, there just isn't going to be
much left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ent...ecommissioning

http://www.enterprise.navy.mil/

From the above site, click on "Public Relations" (lower left side of
page) and then "Frequently Asked Questions" (near the top of the page).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In the case of enterprise the nuke fuel must be removed, and the ship
cut apart to remove the reactor and at least 2 sections one on either
side of the reactor part because they will be a hazard and help as
shielding to the reactor part.

This would leave little to display

But snoopy is there for the taking. People laughed at me about saturn
engine recovery.Today they are on solid ground and being prepped for
display

In article 255c949b-6c15-4388-9379-
, says...

On Apr 19, 11:06*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9c415da2-6e95-4a9c-8373-186f9d8cded5
@t5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...
Tourism is a important industry, and while fake shuttles or fake
anything can be built the real thing is always better...

Not when "the real thing" would cost too much to recover, restore, or
maintain. *That's reality. *You're living in a fantasy world.

Here is current real world example that is not a spacecraft and would
seem to be easier to recover and restore than Snoopy:

http://www.enterprise.navy.mil/

From the above site, click on "Public Relations" (lower left side of
page) and then "Frequently Asked Questions" (near the top of the page).

In the case of enterprise the nuke fuel must be removed, and the ship
cut apart to remove the reactor and at least 2 sections one on either
side of the reactor part because they will be a hazard and help as
shielding to the reactor part.

This would leave little to display

But snoopy is there for the taking.

You're certifiably insane. It would be far cheaper to put Enterprise
back together after removing the reactor than it would be to find and
recover Snoopy. Why you accept the demise of Enterprise but somehow
think recovering Snoopy would be a cake walk is insanity. You have no
clue how hard it would truly be.

People laughed at me about saturn
engine recovery.Today they are on solid ground and being prepped for
display

Again, this was funded by private money. If there isn't enough private
money to put Enterprise back together, there sure as heck isn't enough
money to find and recover Snoopy. That's reality. Deal with it.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Apr 19, 7:55*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:06*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9c415da2-6e95-4a9c-8373-186f9d8cded5
@t5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...

Tourism is a important industry, and while fake shuttles or fake
anything can be built the real thing is always better...

Not when "the real thing" would cost too much to recover, restore, or
maintain. *That's reality. *You're living in a fantasy world.

Here is current real world example that is not a spacecraft and would
seem to be easier to recover and restore than Snoopy:

The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the world's first nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier, and is therefore historically significant in that
rearguard. *The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was officially inactivated
December 1, 2012. *Enterprise will eventually be decommissioned and will
then be *scrapped* once its nuclear reactors have been removed. *I'm
sure there are many people who feel this is a tragedy and would like to
see her converted into a museum.

But that is simply *not* practical given the requirement to remove the
nuclear reactors from her. *By the time enough of the ship has been
removed in order to take out the reactors, there just isn't going to be
much left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ent...ecommissioning

http://www.enterprise.navy.mil/

From the above site, click on "Public Relations" (lower left side of
page) and then "Frequently Asked Questions" (near the top of the page)..

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In the case of enterprise the nuke fuel must be removed, and the ship
cut apart to remove the reactor and at least 2 sections one on either
side of the *reactor part because they will be a hazard and help as
shielding to the reactor part.

This would leave little to display

But snoopy is there for the taking. People laughed at me about saturn
engine recovery.Today they are on solid ground and being prepped for
display

Snoopy is *NOT* "there for the taking". *First you have to find it.
Then you have to mount a mission to return it intact. *That would cost
more than cleaning up the Enterprise.

Are you REALLY this stupid, Bobbert, or do you just need the attention
of people telling you you're an idiot?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

its only a matter of time till snoopy is recovered, and lots of other
space artifacts too.

while were looking for asteroids snoopy will likely turn up, then its
just a matter of money to recover it.

its just sad the apollo 11 LM upper stage wasnt put in heliospheric
orbit, now that would be better than the liberty bell.......

hopefully I will live long enough to see snoopy recovered.......

On Apr 20, 12:27*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:55*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:06*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9c415da2-6e95-4a9c-8373-186f9d8cded5
@t5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...

Tourism is a important industry, and while fake shuttles or fake
anything can be built the real thing is always better...

Not when "the real thing" would cost too much to recover, restore, or
maintain. *That's reality. *You're living in a fantasy world.

Here is current real world example that is not a spacecraft and would
seem to be easier to recover and restore than Snoopy:

The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the world's first nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier, and is therefore historically significant in that
rearguard. *The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was officially inactivated
December 1, 2012. *Enterprise will eventually be decommissioned and will
then be *scrapped* once its nuclear reactors have been removed. *I'm
sure there are many people who feel this is a tragedy and would like to
see her converted into a museum.

But that is simply *not* practical given the requirement to remove the
nuclear reactors from her. *By the time enough of the ship has been
removed in order to take out the reactors, there just isn't going to be
much left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ent...ecommissioning

http://www.enterprise.navy.mil/

From the above site, click on "Public Relations" (lower left side of
page) and then "Frequently Asked Questions" (near the top of the page).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In the case of enterprise the nuke fuel must be removed, and the ship
cut apart to remove the reactor and at least 2 sections one on either
side of the *reactor part because they will be a hazard and help as
shielding to the reactor part.

This would leave little to display

But snoopy is there for the taking. People laughed at me about saturn
engine recovery.Today they are on solid ground and being prepped for
display

Snoopy is *NOT* "there for the taking". *First you have to find it.
Then you have to mount a mission to return it intact. *That would cost
more than cleaning up the Enterprise.

Are you REALLY this stupid, Bobbert, or do you just need the attention
of people telling you you're an idiot?

its only a matter of time till snoopy is recovered, and lots of other
space artifacts too.

Really? *And why is that?



while were looking for asteroids snoopy will likely turn up, then its
just a matter of money to recover it.

You don't know what "likely" means, do you?



its just sad the apollo 11 LM upper stage wasnt put in heliospheric
orbit, now that would be better than the liberty bell.......

And cost many orders of magnitude more to recover, which means nobody
would bother.



hopefully I will live long enough to see snoopy recovered.......

Good luck with that. *Hopefully you will now STFU about it until it
happens.

--
"Ordinarily fred is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

if apollo 11s LM upper stage hadnt crashed into the moon, people today
would be planning on recovering it. at best some parts will be
recovered from its crash site on the moon. as far as I know it hasnt
been spotted yet.....

On Apr 21, 3:44*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:27*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:55*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:06*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9c415da2-6e95-4a9c-8373-186f9d8cded5
@t5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...

Tourism is a important industry, and while fake shuttles or fake
anything can be built the real thing is always better...

Not when "the real thing" would cost too much to recover, restore, or
maintain. *That's reality. *You're living in a fantasy world..

Here is current real world example that is not a spacecraft and would
seem to be easier to recover and restore than Snoopy:

The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the world's first nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier, and is therefore historically significant in that
rearguard. *The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was officially inactivated
December 1, 2012. *Enterprise will eventually be decommissioned and will
then be *scrapped* once its nuclear reactors have been removed. *I'm
sure there are many people who feel this is a tragedy and would like to
see her converted into a museum.

But that is simply *not* practical given the requirement to remove the
nuclear reactors from her. *By the time enough of the ship has been
removed in order to take out the reactors, there just isn't going to be
much left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ent...ecommissioning

http://www.enterprise.navy.mil/

From the above site, click on "Public Relations" (lower left side of
page) and then "Frequently Asked Questions" (near the top of the page).

In the case of enterprise the nuke fuel must be removed, and the ship
cut apart to remove the reactor and at least 2 sections one on either
side of the *reactor part because they will be a hazard and help as
shielding to the reactor part.

This would leave little to display

But snoopy is there for the taking. People laughed at me about saturn
engine recovery.Today they are on solid ground and being prepped for
display

Snoopy is *NOT* "there for the taking". *First you have to find it.

as far as I know it hasnt
been spotted yet.....

Because nobody is doing any kind of systematic search for it BECAUSE
IT'S NOT IMPORTANT.


the moon has been imaged systematically a lot latey.

it probably hasnt been spotted since its light construction combined
with impact speed the parts are probably very small, even too small to
image

not a matter of if but when

Let me know when they'll pay enough to cover the costs of mounting the
effort and I'll go ahead an book that ski vacation in Hell....


the thing about this is, we have had missions to earth crossing
asteroids, we are planning on a mission to move a asteroid thats
larger than snoopy, there are surveys to find asteroids.

infrastructure wise all the parts necessary to recover snoopy will be
in place for other purposes. all it will take is funding the actual
hardware. plus launch vehicles are getting much cheaper thanks to
musk.....

everything has a right time for all sorts of reasons. the right time
for snoopy is now.

excellent proof of concept for a asteroid mover.

plus the science issues......

how has snoopy held up after so long, how about any living organisms
onboard???

humans lived aboard..... what of poop packages?

it probably hasnt been spotted since its light construction combined
with impact speed the parts are probably very small, even too small to
image

And such an impact left no discernable mark? *Face it, Bobbert, you're
a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this. *Nobody sane thinks
it's worthwhile.


apollo 11s LM impact is no doubt lost in all the other moon
impacts.....

and its light construction will leave few marks at impact for anyone
to find......

On Monday, April 22, 2013 6:30:41 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:


it probably hasnt been spotted since its light construction combined

with impact speed the parts are probably very small, even too small to

image



And such an impact left no discernable mark? *Face it, Bobbert, you're

a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this. *Nobody sane thinks

it's worthwhile.





apollo 11s LM impact is no doubt lost in all the other moon

impacts.....



and its light construction will leave few marks at impact for anyone

to find......

So you really think an object weighing 5 tons and impacting at a speed of ~4600 meters per second isn't going to leave a mark?

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:11:28 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:

I've got two issues with your assertion that retrieving Snoopy would be something worth doing. 1. How is the environment in a a heliocentric orbit (like Snoopy) different than that in an earth orbit (like a geosync comsat)? If so, are those differences statistically significant from a materials sciences point of view?


(Sorry if I didn't clip this properly.)

There is at least one major difference between terrestrial & heliocentric orbit, (assuming all else being the same, such as distance, inclination, etc), and that is radiation dosage. Objects in terrestrial orbit are at least for the most part protected by the Van Allen belts. I really don't know how this is important from a materials point-of-view, however (not my field). But that is the reason that we do experiments, is to find out the unpredictable. Snoopy, to use the current example, is a free experiment on 40/50/100 years of solar exposure, without blowing the budget on a dedicated experiment that will take another generation to perform. Now, will you get the PARTICULAR information relevant to your company's contracts? Probably not- it's going to be informative in general terms, and probably not applicable to any actual questions for a Mars mission, for instance. But if we use Alden's concept of long-term transport ships (as we probably will eventually, when large-scale, regular missions become feasible), it probably would be relevant.

BTW, wasn't the original topic sighting the Soviet Mars 3 lander?