Minimum Manned Moon Mission (4M)

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 6:44:05 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

A 150 kg astronaut in a long-duration mechanical counter pressure spacesuit using advanced MEMs based life support and power systems, allows 15 days survival for an astronaut.

You want to send a 330 pound astronaut on a long duration mission?

I'm stating the payload I'm taking to the moon and back. This includes 85 kg for the 65 kg for the long duration space suit and supplies for 15 days.

Are
you sending an NFL linebacker to the moon?

No, you are misreading what I'm saying.

Are you insane?

No, but you are if you think you're making any sort of sense. Recall, I said we start with our payload, which includes the astronaut and all the things needed to keep them alive for 15 days.

There goes
your mass budget! No offense to our heavier readers here (my doctor
says I could lose a few pounds, so I'm included in that).

You weigh 150 kg naked? hmm..

But seriously, how can *anyone* take *you* seriously when you make bone-
headed mistakes like this?

You're the one making the mistake. I clearly stated that we start with our PAYLOAD, which is 150 kg for our astronaut. 85 kg is the figure I use for the person, 65 kg for the suit and supplies.

Besides, you've already been told the rest
of the crap you propose for this fictional mission is sci-fi, research
topics,

Not really.

not ready for prime time, half baked,

Not at all..

not ready for prime
time...

You've already said that. Why don't you calm down?

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 Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 5:25:59 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 4:47:02 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...


Yeah, computer based cash registers, cryptocurrency, drone package
delivery, none of that exists. lol.

Yeah, like I said none of your stuff gets done.

Dude, where have you been?

Been to a store lately? lol. There's barely a store that doesn't use my products.


No, not so much, Mookie.

http://www.google.com/patents/US4903200



Looked at bitcoins lately? Greece is rushing into them, prices have doubled in the past month. As the economic crisis unfolds bitcoins will rise in value to unprecedented levels as legacy currencies evaporate in value.


Mookie claims to have invented bitcoin? Yeah, right.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igAY9WjAhhk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVyJfohUa1E


Looked to the sky lately? Drone delivery is being widely adopted.


For a very tiny definition of 'widely' and you didn't invent this,
either.


http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...livery-service

I wrote about fast package delivery using GPS enabled drones in the 1990s in this newsgroup. Scott Loather and George Herbert said it would never happen. Today I am heavily invested in several companies that are developing these.




ONE is not 'widely'.

One is enough to prove you were wrong about them not existing at all! And you are wrong about one existing.

In the United States initial attempts at commercial use of UAVs, such as the Tacocopter company for food delivery, were blocked by FAA regulation. As of 2014, delivering of packages with drones in the United States is not permitted. On the 13th March 2015, in Sheffield, FPS Distribution completed the first commercial delivery using a UAV - it was a belt tensioner. It has several drones operating in the UK.


The RQ-7 Shadow is capable of delivering a 20 lb (9.1 kg) "Quick-MEDS" canister to front-line troops. There are several of these.

UAVs transport medicines and vaccines, and retrieve medical samples, into and out of remote or otherwise inaccessible regions.

"Ambulance drones" rapidly deliver defibrillators in the crucial few minutes after cardiac arrests, and include livestream communication capability allowing paramedics to remotely observe and instruct on-scene individuals in how to use the defibrillators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-rEI4bezWc

There are many of these in operation in Germany today.

Drug cartels have used UAVs to transport contraband for years using GPS-guided UAVs.

From 2013 through 2015, UAVs were observed delivering items into prisons on at least four occasions in the United States while four separate but similar incidents occurred in Ireland, Britain, Australia and Canada as well. Corrections officials estimate they intercept only about 1/3 of all drone deliveries. The most popular item? Tobacco. Next most popular? Cell phones..

The FAA declared the Tacocopter a taco delivery concept utilizing a smartphone app to order drone-delivered tacos in San Francisco area created by MIT graduate Star Simpson in July 2011, garnering the public and the media attention.

An independent British franchise of Domino's Pizza introduced a remote-controlled drone, called DomiCopter, to deliver pizzas. It was developed by a joint effort of U.K. drone specialist AeroSight, Big Communications and creative agency T + Biscuits.

Matternet is a Silicon Valley startup developing small UAVs for the delivery of lightweight goods. It had its origins in 2011 out of Singularity University, based at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, CA.

Their transportation solution comprises small UAVs able to carry up to 1 kilogram goods over distances of up to 20 kilometers on a battery charge. The UAVs are connected to a Cloud Software that aggregates weather, terrain and airspace data, and creates geo-fenced aerial routes for safe flight. The system is controlled by a smartphone app. It's been reported that Matternet is also developing automatic landing stations, where the UAVs would swap batteries to extend their range.

Google has been testing UAVs in Australia for three years. The Google X program known as "Project Wing" aims to produce drones that can deliver not only products sold via e-commerce, but larger delivery items as well.

In December 2013, in a research project of Deutsche Post AG subsidiary DHL, a sub-kilogram quantity of medicine was delivered via a prototype Microdrones "parcelcopter," raising speculation that disaster relief may be the first place the company will use the technology.[27][28]
DHL Parcelcopter - already in use in Germany.

In February 2014, the prime minister and cabinet affairs minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced that the UAE planned to launch a fleet of UAVs for civilian purposes.[30] Plans were for the UAVs to use fingerprint and eye-recognition systems to deliver official documents such as passports, ID cards and licenses, and supply emergency services at accidents. A battery-powered prototype four rotor UAV about half a meter across was displayed in Dubai.



You routinely take papers out of context,


No I don't. Look if that were the case you'd be able to show precisely when I did that and talk about the the context it should have been taken in.. In that case we'd have a logical discussion about the point of fact that was in dispute. Not an attack of personalities and the calling of names.


He routinely drops names and glosses over details to make himself feel
more important. That's how you can know he's a mook.

You routinely make statements that have no bearing on reality at all, such as the one above.


misquote them

No I don't. If that were the case you cite point by point the misquotation and we'd have a discussion about that. None of you does that. In all cases you attack me personally and are quite unfair about it.


I'd say 'misinterpret' vice "misquote" and I just chalk that up to him
not understand what he's pointing to.

Saying it one thing. Demonstrating it another.


and then claim they
prove the tech can be done

Yes, I do cite peer reviewed papers, talk about what they mean, use a little analysis


And that's where you inevitably fall down, because your Mookie
MathSpew is not 'analysis' and is usually chasing off into a wrong
corner.

Any error would be easily demonstrated as such. Failing such demonstrations you call names and make baseless assertions that are counterfactual.


in an unrealistically short period of time.

If that were the case we'd be having discussions about what was a realistic time and what was not a realistic time and why. This would be a logical discussion revolving around supply chain issues and investment needs and so forth. They wouldn't take the form of personal attacks and unfair comments.


Instead what we get is Mook handwavium about how Magic Mookie MEMS
will make it all possible by next Tuesday. Or Mookie Moongate Mulch
about how it already exists but is being kept secret.

I didn't invent MEMS - I merely point to their development and what that implies for space policy going forward.


I have yet to see Mook orbital datacenters,

That's because you're not looking.


So your claim is you have birds up, flying, and working as a
datacenter? I'm sorry, but all the smoke just seems to have exited my
bull**** detector.

Moronic Mookspew elided

So, after all that spew, no Mookie datacenters up in space.


Inmarsat C became operational in 1991 using the store and forward protocols I've described here.







Yeah, Mookie, everyone is a clueless idiot but you.

Now now, don't over-generalise! I'm talking about you and your
behaviour
here. Nothing else.


Wait, I thought you were talking to me. Or did you get confused again.

Is there a difference? I'd have to see you both in the same room to
believe you weren't the same person. Truly.


Yes, there's a difference between Jeff, Fred and myself. Fred tends to be,
but not always the more caustic one.

We still don't have evidence that each of your do not inhabit the same body.


"We"?

All the readers of this group.

You mean you and the mouse in your pocket?

All the readers of this group.

I say that because
pretty much everyone else on planet Earth has all the 'evidence' they
require. It's not our fault you're a paranoid loon.

Anyone reading this would wonder if you three were the same person.


WE still don't have evidence that you're not just a poorly written
Artificial Stupidity System (ASS) spewing random ****e, as you do in
the rest of this article.

snip


All you have to do is watch me on television to see I'm for real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6pBS6uptE


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

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:46:39 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 5:32:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:24:12 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


A 150 kg astronaut in a long-duration mechanical counter pressure spacesuit using advanced MEMs based life support and power systems, allows 15 days survival for an astronaut.


You're postulating 330 pound astronauts? Just a bit chunky, no?

Only if he or she is naked.


Well, you did say 'astronaut'. For sane English speakers that means
just the human, Mookie.


Of course you misread what I say and blame me for your error.


Of course you miswrote what you wanted to say and then blame everyone
else for reading what you wrote.

Nonsense. I started by saying we start with a payload of 150 kg which is an astronaut in a MCP suit. You choose not to read it that way just so you can create pointless arguments so that you can abuse people and feel better about yourself, thinking wrongly you are superior to those you disagree with. Fact is, your arguments are stupid, what I said was plain. We start with 150 kg - which include the astronaut in a mechanical counter pressure suit.



Astronauts wear spacesuits. So obviously the 150 kg includes astronaut and spacesuit, especially since I said so in the sentence you're misreading..


Yes, they do,

That's right.

but that's not referred to as the astronaut.

Bull****. You made a statement based on what you think I said, I corrected your misapprehension. So, why are still going on about it? Because you're a freaking lunatic who NEEDS to argue with your betters to feel better about yourself! Get a ****ing life your moron.

In fact,
you said precisely the opposite of what you claim above,

We started with 150 kg payload which includes the astronaut their suit and all their supplies.

since you
said "A 150 kg astronaut in a long-duration mechanical counter
pressure spacesuit...".

In the context of the total payload for the whole system. You are arguing over nothing you lunatic. Its clear what I was doing, and you choose to misread things just so you can attack others and feel better about your miserable life.

You said that the part IN the suit (the
astronaut) weighed 150 kg, not that the astronaut plus equipment
weighed that.

You are being abusive. Highly abusive. I think you know that.

If you want people to not misread what you say, try not mis-saying it.

**** off nitwit.





A 150 kg astronaut in a Stargate using magic pixie dust based life
support and power systems, allows infinite survival for an astronauts.

Too bad stargazes and pixie dust don't exist then.


Too bad long-duration mechanical counter pressure spacesuits, MEMs
[sic. based life support systems, and MEMs [sic] based power systems
don't exist then.



snip much about things that are NOT ong-duration mechanical counter
pressure spacesuits,

Hey, you said MCPs didn't exist They were tested at Wright Field in the 1970s and found superior to Apollo suits. Apollo suits were already rated for 15 days wear. This is highly relevant.

MEMs [sic. based life support systems, and MEMs
[sic] based power systems

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...13468604006462


snip MookSpew

Um... you snipped the analysis dude. Snipping it doesn't constitute rebuttal. Though I realise that to someone as insane as you, it must give you great satisfaction to do that. I urge everyone reading this to see what this fellow has snipped! lol.


Um... that wasn't analysis dude.

Yes it was.


No it wasn't.

Yes it was.


It was MookSpew ****e.

Calling me names isn't a logical rebuttal either.


I didn't call you anything.

Right, so in your mind if I call your commentary insane, you don't think I'm saying anything about you? haha - funny world you live in.

I called your output ****e, because it
is.

And in your mind you think that's okay because you don't think it has any bearing at all on me.


One doesn't
waste time in rebuttal of absolute ****e, particularly when it's the
sort of diahrea you usually spray.

If what you said was really true, it would be simple for you to mount a logical rebuttal and not rely on character assassination.


Mount a logical rebuttal to Stargates, Mookie.

The word stargate is widely used in fiction. If you could supply a peer reviewed article that supports the existence or production of stargazes, I would be glad to review it for possible rebuttal.


Though I realise that to someone
as insane as you, it must give you great satisfaction to spray that.

Yet you're the one who is calling names, ignoring things that trouble you, and acting insanely.


You understand that all that was me mocking you and just rephrasing
what you said to me, right? Hoist by his own petard is the mook.

Its what you think was said, and what you think you're doing. You seem to have a need to attack others to feel better about yourself to gain a sense of superiority that you do not in fact possess.

I
urge everyone reading this to avoid what this fellow has snipped! lol.

I haven't snipped anything of yours.


I didn't say you did. Again we find that reading is not your strong
suit.

You're the one taking every opportunity to engage in abuse of others just to feel better about yourself.


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

Well, I'm going in for major surgery next week, so if all doesn't go well, you'll have the joy in knowing I've died.

I bet you ejaculated at that didn't you you miserable ****er.

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 4:05:31 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 5:25:59 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 4:47:02 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...


Yeah, computer based cash registers, cryptocurrency, drone package
delivery, none of that exists. lol.

Yeah, like I said none of your stuff gets done.

Dude, where have you been?

Been to a store lately? lol. There's barely a store that doesn't use my products.


No, not so much, Mookie.

http://www.google.com/patents/US4903200


And yet POS systems existed before your patent.

So? In patent law at that time you could produce products well in advance of the patent being issued. I built systems as early as the 1970s.






Looked at bitcoins lately? Greece is rushing into them, prices have doubled in the past month. As the economic crisis unfolds bitcoins will rise in value to unprecedented levels as legacy currencies evaporate in value.


Mookie claims to have invented bitcoin? Yeah, right.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igAY9WjAhhk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVyJfohUa1E


So Mookie is 4 years late to the game in even talking about it.

Being interviewed about it. There's a difference.


Looked to the sky lately? Drone delivery is being widely adopted.


For a very tiny definition of 'widely' and you didn't invent this,
either.


http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...livery-service

I wrote about fast package delivery using GPS enabled drones in the 1990s in this newsgroup. Scott Loather and George Herbert said it would never happen. Today I am heavily invested in several companies that are developing these.




ONE is not 'widely'.

One is enough to prove you were wrong about them not existing at all! And you are wrong about one existing.


Since I never said they didn't exist at all (once again, everyone who
thinks you're a mook is not the same person, Mookie),

I treat you assholes all the same, you haven't proven yourselves to be different anyway. It saves time and energy.

you've shown
nothing except that you need to start reading what people actually
write and stop listening to the voices in your head.

You don't trouble yourself to read anything I write with any care or understanding. On the contrary, you seem to have an insatiable need to feel better than others and will stick at nothing to take any opportunity to denigrate others just so you can feel a little better about yourself you miserable ****.

Here's what I said.

Who gives a ****? It always comes down to the same thing. You're so ****ing smart and everyone else is a ****ing fool. **** off.

"For a very tiny definition of 'widely' and you didn't invent this,
either."

Its not the only thing you said asshole.


Please explain how you parlay that into my saying they don't exist at
all.

Like I said I treat all three of you assholes as the same person. It saves time. I mean, you read their **** as closely as you read mine. So, I figure if A says they don't exist, and you say something in general agreement, and nothing against it, then I figure you've read it too and agree with it.. So **** off.

Someone is ranting on idiotically about 150 kg astronauts - and not ranting on about saying delivery drones don't exist? Give me a break! I presume you and others read each others **** as carefully as you read mine. Your abject silence on the subject of the non-existence of drones means that you concur.

So **** off.

snip MookSpew






You routinely take papers out of context,


No I don't. Look if that were the case you'd be able to show precisely when I did that and talk about the the context it should have been taken in. In that case we'd have a logical discussion about the point of fact that was in dispute. Not an attack of personalities and the calling of names.


He routinely drops names and glosses over details to make himself feel
more important. That's how you can know he's a mook.


You routinely make statements that have no bearing on reality at all, such as the one above.


Irony: It's not like silvery or bronzy.

**** off. I don't deserve this abuse, and the fact that you persist in it tells everyone what a miserable **** you are.



misquote them

No I don't. If that were the case you cite point by point the misquotation and we'd have a discussion about that. None of you does that. In all cases you attack me personally and are quite unfair about it.


I'd say 'misinterpret' vice "misquote" and I just chalk that up to him
not understand what he's pointing to.

Saying it one thing. Demonstrating it another.


Your own mistakes demonstrate it clearly to all. This is what upsets
you.

Nonsense. If that were the case you'd sit their in happy silence you miserable ****.


and then claim they
prove the tech can be done

Yes, I do cite peer reviewed papers, talk about what they mean, use a little analysis


And that's where you inevitably fall down, because your Mookie
MathSpew is not 'analysis' and is usually chasing off into a wrong
corner.


Any error would be easily demonstrated as such. Failing such demonstrations you call names and make baseless assertions that are counterfactual.


Please demonstrate that there is no such thing as the Stargate
Program.

A negative cannot be proven. However, we can say that stargates are a feature of several works of fiction, that there are no peer reviewed articles that talk of them, their physics or their production. None.

In contrast positronium was demonstrated to exist in the 1940s and there has been steady progress in the engineering of positronium experiments and equipment since that time. Results are written up widely in peer reviewed literature and this is the subject of ongoing research and development.

So, anyone who seriously compares positronium to stargates is stark raving mad.

We'll wait.

Wait on this mother****er.



in an unrealistically short period of time.

If that were the case we'd be having discussions about what was a realistic time and what was not a realistic time and why. This would be a logical discussion revolving around supply chain issues and investment needs and so forth. They wouldn't take the form of personal attacks and unfair comments.


Instead what we get is Mook handwavium about how Magic Mookie MEMS
will make it all possible by next Tuesday. Or Mookie Moongate Mulch
about how it already exists but is being kept secret.

I didn't invent MEMS - I merely point to their development and what that implies for space policy going forward.


Yes, we know you didn't invent MEMS. It's obvious from the ignorance
you display about the field in your efforts to "point to their
development and what that implies for space policy going forward".

You're the one who is ignorant.


I have yet to see Mook orbital datacenters,

That's because you're not looking.


So your claim is you have birds up, flying, and working as a
datacenter? I'm sorry, but all the smoke just seems to have exited my
bull**** detector.

Moronic Mookspew elided

So, after all that spew, no Mookie datacenters up in space.


Inmarsat C became operational in 1991 using the store and forward protocols I've described here.


Irrelevant.

Relevant. The store and forward technology is precisely what I described earlier.

So, after all that spew, no Mookie datacenters up in
space.








Yeah, Mookie, everyone is a clueless idiot but you.

Now now, don't over-generalise! I'm talking about you and your
behaviour
here. Nothing else.


Wait, I thought you were talking to me. Or did you get confused again.

Is there a difference? I'd have to see you both in the same room to
believe you weren't the same person. Truly.


Yes, there's a difference between Jeff, Fred and myself. Fred tends to be,
but not always the more caustic one.

We still don't have evidence that each of your do not inhabit the same body.


"We"?

All the readers of this group.


"All the readers of this group" think you're a paranoid loon, Mook.
"All the readers of this group" know who is who around here except for
you, Mook.


You mean you and the mouse in your pocket?

All the readers of this group.


"All the readers of this group" think you're a paranoid loon, Mook.
"All the readers of this group" know who is who around here except for
you, Mook.


I say that because
pretty much everyone else on planet Earth has all the 'evidence' they
require. It's not our fault you're a paranoid loon.

Anyone reading this would wonder if you three were the same person.


"All the readers of this group" think you're a paranoid loon, Mook.
"All the readers of this group" know who is who around here except for
you, Mook.



WE still don't have evidence that you're not just a poorly written
Artificial Stupidity System (ASS) spewing random ****e, as you do in
the rest of this article.

snip


All you have to do is watch me on television to see I'm for real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6pBS6uptE


You've never heard of CGI? Or actors? Or simply modeling the ASS on
some Net Nut?


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

In article ,
says...

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 6:44:05 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

A 150 kg astronaut in a long-duration mechanical counter pressure spacesuit using advanced MEMs based life support and power systems, allows 15 days survival for an astronaut.

You want to send a 330 pound astronaut on a long duration mission?

I'm stating the payload I'm taking to the moon and back. This includes 85 kg for the 65 kg for the long duration space suit and supplies for 15 days.

Then you need to be more precise when you word things. This was a
particularly hilarious sentence and was interpreted the same way by more
than one person.

snip

Besides, you've already been told the rest
of the crap you propose for this fictional mission is sci-fi, research
topics,

Not really.

Yes really. It's all research, not engineering.

not ready for prime time, half baked,

Not at all..

Yes really.

not ready for prime
time...

You've already said that. Why don't you calm down?

Why don't you stop spewing random research topics like they're ready for
final product engineering?

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 article ,
says...

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 5:25:59 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 4:47:02 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...


Yeah, computer based cash registers, cryptocurrency, drone package
delivery, none of that exists. lol.

Yeah, like I said none of your stuff gets done.

Dude, where have you been?

Been to a store lately? lol. There's barely a store that doesn't use my products.


No, not so much, Mookie.

http://www.google.com/patents/US4903200

Fee status: Lapsed


Looked at bitcoins lately? Greece is rushing into them, prices have
doubled in the past month. As the economic crisis unfolds bitcoins will
rise in value to unprecedented levels as legacy currencies evaporate in
value.


Mookie claims to have invented bitcoin? Yeah, right.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igAY9WjAhhk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVyJfohUa1E

Videos of you spewing the supposed advantages of bitcon. Yawn.

Looked to the sky lately? Drone delivery is being widely adopted.


For a very tiny definition of 'widely' and you didn't invent this,
either.


http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...livery-service

I wrote about fast package delivery using GPS enabled drones in the 1990s in this newsgroup. Scott Loather and George Herbert said it would never happen. Today I am heavily invested in several companies that are developing these.

I'd like to see you drag up a Google Groups link for this one (since
they absorbed DejaNews long ago). I certainly don't remember your
presense in these newsgroups back in the 1990's.

As for heavily investing in companies developing this, so are thousands
of other people. It's not your ability to invest in companies that
gives you a bad name in the sci.space newsgroups. It's your constant
stream of b.s. about what you think is possible with current technology.

The latest crap you posted involved self replicating nanobots building
huge sheets of diamondoid material close enough to the sun to harvest
positrons. That's bull**** at the start because self replicating robots
DO NOT EXIST in any way, shape, or form!!!! This is not current tech,
this *is* the very definition of science fiction.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science+fiction
science fiction
noun
1. a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge
and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.

You have a very active imagination Mook. Your posts belong in
rec.arts.sf.written, not any of the sci.space groups.

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