Google/X-Prize Moon Contest

On Sep 17, 8:25 am, Len wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:26 pm, Einar wrote:





Len wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:

:In article ,
: "Jim Relsh" wrote:
:
: Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
: the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
: insurance would be phenomenal.
:
:
:You're wrong.
:

And yet you make no case for why he is wrong and it is not obvious
that he is.

Rand and Joe only replied in kind, Fred. Why does an
unsubstantiated statement require a substantiated
rebuttal? Both are matters of opinion, and my opinion
is that Jim Relsh is wrong and Rand and Joe are right.

That having been said, Space Adventures and their
Russian partners seem to think that there is a market
for a lunar tourist flyby to the tune of $100 million a pop.
I think that within the near future, that getting the cost
of access to low-Earth orbit down to about $500/kg
should be quite feasible. This translates to landing
tourists on the moon for far, far less than $100 million
each--even when the burden of a solar-flare storm
cellar is factored in. A storm cellar with perhaps
30 cm of water shielding might have a mass of
perhaps 12,000 kg--or maybe 1000 kg per passenger.
If we exchange the 12,000 kg of water for 12,000 kg or
so of regolith sandbags, then the value of this "byproduct"
may put a big dent in the transportation cost of the storm
cellar. A lot would depend upon the value of water on the
moon--and the value of lunar regolith on LEO.

As for liability, there is already a [temporary] law
on the books limiting liability claims by those
would-be space tourists who knowledgeably and
willingly sign waivers. Air travel is remarkably
safe. Yet people do die in airliner crashes.
Lacking gross negligence, there seems to be
established limits on liability claims by airline
passengers. Why is space travel so grossly
different? After all, air travel used to be far
more dangerous. And the problem of third-
party liability between here and the moon would
seem to be somewhat relaxed relative to air
travel.

Sure, the above is gross conjecture at this point.
However, gross proclamations that lunar mining
or lunar tourism can never be economically feasible
are completely irresponsible.

Len

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

Hello,

as usual you write great, informative, posts. It would be an amasing
experience to fly around the Moon, to gase at its surface from
observation windows aboard a spacecraft. I´m sure, eventually cruise
liner business will move into space, carrying tourists who will wish
to gase at the sights of the Solar System, from observation domes or
windows.

I understand that it may not really be that difficult, once we have
spacecrafts carrying tourists into orbit, to move over into the
Moongasing business. Assume an orbital spacestation, and a fully
fueled craft waiting for the tourists at the transit spacestation.

Cheers, Einar

Heinlein said it all. When you get to low Earth orbit,
you are half way to anywhere in the solar system.
It's just that we have done such a lousy job of getting
to LEO. We intend to correct that. It really isn't all
that hard--except for raising the private capital to do it.

Len- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's the all-inclusive global pollution budget and the reqired plus
subsequent all-inclusive drain on human and energy resources per kg
placed into LEO?
- Brad Guth -

Len wrote:

On Sep 15, 6:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:

:In article ,
: "Jim Relsh" wrote:
:
: Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
: the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
: insurance would be phenomenal.
:
:
:You're wrong.
:

And yet you make no case for why he is wrong and it is not obvious
that he is.

Rand and Joe only replied in kind, Fred.

They did no such thing Len.

Why does an unsubstantiated statement require a substantiated
rebuttal?

I note he made not one but _three_ opinion statements with a factual
(testable) basis (I.E. 'there is nothing to mine economically').
Rand and Joe... Didn't.


[Len's factual discourse snipped}

Thank you for that.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Len wrote:

I was thinking in terms of something more classical - a bottle of
one's favorite comestible say.

Well, there's an Armenian cognac that is difficult
to obtain. But I like Grand Marnier...that's more
readily available. Perhaps you have something
in mind in roughly the same price range.

Len

Oops!. I guess I should have looked up the meaning
of comestible, before I assumed it was something
to drink. Nonetheless, Grand Marnier would still
suit me. Unless you are a teetotaler.

As happens sometimes, my mind thought one word, my fingers typed
another. Indeed I meant something to drink.

As I invited Greg to do, contact me off list and we'll gen up the
details.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Sep 17, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:25 am, Len wrote:



On Sep 16, 9:26 pm, Einar wrote:

Len wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:

:In article ,
: "Jim Relsh" wrote:
:
: Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
: the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
: insurance would be phenomenal.
:
:
:You're wrong.
:

And yet you make no case for why he is wrong and it is not obvious
that he is.

Rand and Joe only replied in kind, Fred. Why does an
unsubstantiated statement require a substantiated
rebuttal? Both are matters of opinion, and my opinion
is that Jim Relsh is wrong and Rand and Joe are right.

That having been said, Space Adventures and their
Russian partners seem to think that there is a market
for a lunar tourist flyby to the tune of $100 million a pop.
I think that within the near future, that getting the cost
of access to low-Earth orbit down to about $500/kg
should be quite feasible. This translates to landing
tourists on the moon for far, far less than $100 million
each--even when the burden of a solar-flare storm
cellar is factored in. A storm cellar with perhaps
30 cm of water shielding might have a mass of
perhaps 12,000 kg--or maybe 1000 kg per passenger.
If we exchange the 12,000 kg of water for 12,000 kg or
so of regolith sandbags, then the value of this "byproduct"
may put a big dent in the transportation cost of the storm
cellar. A lot would depend upon the value of water on the
moon--and the value of lunar regolith on LEO.

As for liability, there is already a [temporary] law
on the books limiting liability claims by those
would-be space tourists who knowledgeably and
willingly sign waivers. Air travel is remarkably
safe. Yet people do die in airliner crashes.
Lacking gross negligence, there seems to be
established limits on liability claims by airline
passengers. Why is space travel so grossly
different? After all, air travel used to be far
more dangerous. And the problem of third-
party liability between here and the moon would
seem to be somewhat relaxed relative to air
travel.

Sure, the above is gross conjecture at this point.
However, gross proclamations that lunar mining
or lunar tourism can never be economically feasible
are completely irresponsible.

Len

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

Hello,

as usual you write great, informative, posts. It would be an amasing
experience to fly around the Moon, to gase at its surface from
observation windows aboard a spacecraft. I´m sure, eventually cruise
liner business will move into space, carrying tourists who will wish
to gase at the sights of the Solar System, from observation domes or
windows.

I understand that it may not really be that difficult, once we have
spacecrafts carrying tourists into orbit, to move over into the
Moongasing business. Assume an orbital spacestation, and a fully
fueled craft waiting for the tourists at the transit spacestation.

Cheers, Einar

Heinlein said it all. When you get to low Earth orbit,
you are half way to anywhere in the solar system.
It's just that we have done such a lousy job of getting
to LEO. We intend to correct that. It really isn't all
that hard--except for raising the private capital to do it.

Len- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's the all-inclusive global pollution budget and the reqired plus
subsequent all-inclusive drain on human and energy resources per kg
placed into LEO?
- Brad Guth -

If the powers that be so choose, then I think there
is a good possibility that the net drain should be
negative--given the potential for clean energy
generation, nuclear waste disposal, sun scattering/
shading in L-1, etc.

Len

On Sep 15, 2:22 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:13:26 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Jim
:Relsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
:
:Private enterprise won't fly since there's nothing to mine economically on
:the Moon and tourist flights would be far too dangerous, the liabillity
:insurance would be phenomenal.
:
:Another ignorant county heard from.
:

And yet you say nothing at all to rebut his assertions...

He never does!!


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

On Sep 17, 12:10 pm, Len wrote:
On Sep 17, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote:
What's the all-inclusive global pollution budget and the reqired plus
subsequent all-inclusive drain on human and energy resources per kg
placed into LEO?
- Brad Guth -

If the powers that be so choose, then I think there
is a good possibility that the net drain should be
negative--given the potential for clean energy
generation, nuclear waste disposal, sun scattering/
shading in L-1, etc.

There's great potential gains to be made upon establishing the LSE-CM/
ISS, and way better yet on behalf of getting our moon relocated to
Earth's L1. However, are we talking about a decade after those Willie
Moo GSO laser cannon deployments, or perhaps a century before that
nifty resource of clean energy break-even or rather their all-
inclusive cost and environmental offset point is reached? (if ever)

In other words, since 100% of everything physical has to be derived
from Earth, what's the all-inclusive birth to grave budget in terms of
humans, system infrastructure and terrestrial energy resources for
accomplishing those Willie Moo SBLs? (please include those pesky
factors of terrestrial pollution generated in the process of making
this happen)
- Brad Guth -

"Jeff Findley" replied to "Jim Relsh"
:
Are you saying tourist flights to the Moon would be far to dangerous? If
so, what makes them more dangerous than the existing Soyuz tourist flights?

The cislunar environment is subject to more radiation than one finds in
Low Earth Orbit. I'd call that a legitimate reason for considering
flights to the moon to be more dangerous than flights to a LEO station.

Of course, a reasonable design for a lunar tourism vehicle would take
that into consideration and provide enough shielding to address the
problem.

Derek Lyons wrote:

Len wrote:


I was thinking in terms of something more classical - a bottle of
one's favorite comestible say.

Well, there's an Armenian cognac that is difficult
to obtain. But I like Grand Marnier...that's more
readily available. Perhaps you have something
in mind in roughly the same price range.

Len

Oops!. I guess I should have looked up the meaning
of comestible, before I assumed it was something
to drink. Nonetheless, Grand Marnier would still
suit me. Unless you are a teetotaler.


As happens sometimes, my mind thought one word, my fingers typed
another. Indeed I meant something to drink.

If you have problems connecting your fingers to your mind,
maybe you should keep your distances of that Grand Marnier.
Should you win your bet, I offer my services to get rid of
the liquid in the bottle. :-)


Alain Fournier

On Sep 17, 4:57 pm, Alan Anderson wrote:
"Jeff Findley" replied to "Jim Relsh"
:

Are you saying tourist flights to the Moon would be far to dangerous? If
so, what makes them more dangerous than the existing Soyuz tourist flights?

The cislunar environment is subject to more radiation than one finds in
Low Earth Orbit. I'd call that a legitimate reason for considering
flights to the moon to be more dangerous than flights to a LEO station.

Of course, a reasonable design for a lunar tourism vehicle would take
that into consideration and provide enough shielding to address the
problem.

The fully solar illuninated moon is at times only better than 8 to 12
fold worse off than within our Van Allen belts that can deliver 2e3 Sv/
year while shielded by 5/16" aluminum. Our moon when at 12 fold worse
off is only 274 rem or rads per hour while shielded by the very same
5/16" aluminum, and obviously it gets worse yet if your DNA is limited
to the protection as provived by a moonsuit.

Orbiting at 100 km from the moon is capable of being just as bad off
if not worse than being right down on that physically dark and salty
deck.
- Brad Guth -

Alan Anderson wrote:

"Jeff Findley" replied to "Jim Relsh"
:
Are you saying tourist flights to the Moon would be far to dangerous? If
so, what makes them more dangerous than the existing Soyuz tourist flights?

The cislunar environment is subject to more radiation than one finds in
Low Earth Orbit. I'd call that a legitimate reason for considering
flights to the moon to be more dangerous than flights to a LEO station.

Of course, a reasonable design for a lunar tourism vehicle would take
that into consideration and provide enough shielding to address the
problem.

Such shielding, for the brief duration of a lunar flyby or brief
orbital/landing visit, is trivial to provide.

Remember, radiation is dangerous not just in proportion to the
strength - but the duration of exposure.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL