SLAM! Scientists float plan to blast water to moon

Hi All
Here is an interesting idea:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12953794/from/RSS/

I think they should put this out for a bid/competition/prize
Who suggested making a prize of delivering X tons of water to LEO?

Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

Space Cadet wrote:
Hi All
Here is an interesting idea:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12953794/from/RSS/

I think they should put this out for a bid/competition/prize
Who suggested making a prize of delivering X tons of water to LEO?

Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

A number of us--including myself--have long advocated delivering water
or some form of propellants to LEO as the most logical way to conduct
extensive deep-space operations.

As for prizes, guaranteed markets would be far more effective. Many
have made the point that prizes produce highly leveraged results;
however, this is another way of saying that prizes are a very effective
way of jerking around the entrepreneur. One-shot prizes are not
effective ways of enticing normal investors--patrons perhaps, but not
investors.

I have suggested that multiple agreements for guaranteed payments for
delivery of water (or propellants) to LEO would be a very effective way
to create an invesment climate for developing low-cost access to LEO.
I suggest that each prospective deliverer of water would enter into
COTS-like agreements with proposer-defined milestones and prices.
Failure to meet milestones would void the agreement and open up
opportunities for more realistic approaches. However, I would hope
that the initial set of agreements would allow for modest support of as
many as 20 concepts.

I have also suggested the size of the market guarantees should be
related to price with some type of leveraged, elasticity formula. For
example, a company proposing to deliver water at $1000 / kg would
get a guarantee worth twice as many dollars as someone proposing
$2000 /kg (four times as much water). As reported at Space Access
2006, we expect to get down to about $536/kg at very high traffic
levels with out Space Van 2010.

I've been slow in getting our Space Van 2010 on our web site. However,
for a partial preview, go to: http://www.tour2space.com/newindex.htm

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)

Space Cadet wrote:

Here is an interesting idea:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12953794/from/RSS/

I think they should put this out for a bid/competition/prize
Who suggested making a prize of delivering X tons of water to LEO?

No, but if we had a prize for butt ****ing dumb ideas, this one would be
a real winner.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Let's see, from the economics point of view, a few mathematical
calculations show, IMO, that heavy lift is at least an order of
magnitude dumber idea than propellants (or ice or water) in LEO.
In response to your comment, that leaves me at a loss for words
to describe how dumb an idea heavy lift is in comparison with
low-cost delivery of propellants (or water or ice) to LEO for
deep-space exploration on a grand scale.

I have to compliment you on how effectively you can contribute
to the noise level of intelligent discussion.

Regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Len wrote:
Let's see, from the economics point of view, a few mathematical
calculations show, IMO, that heavy lift is at least an order of
magnitude dumber idea than propellants (or ice or water) in LEO.

Anything other than tourists in LEO is a real dumb idea, you've already
polluted and cluttered it up beyond belief with space junk and debris.

Wouldn't you agree that removal of real space junk is a useful LEO
mission?

I think there are many other useful LEO missions. IMO, the
usefulness and potential cost-effectiveness of a "huge" LEO telecom
system would be worth some additional clutter.

In response to your comment, that leaves me at a loss for words
to describe how dumb an idea heavy lift is in comparison with
low-cost delivery of propellants (or water or ice) to LEO for
deep-space exploration on a grand scale.

There already is water in deep space on a grand scale, you idiot.

I assume you mean water at the lunar poles--which I also find
extremely intriguing. However, I think that the cost of space access
from the Earth's surface to LEO can be reduced to the point that
water transported to LEO might be more economical than trying
to get lunar ice to a useful location. Perhaps some combination
might turn out to be best. But the answer is not clear at this
time.

I have to compliment you on how effectively you can contribute
to the noise level of intelligent discussion.

If you are actually interested in moving that water around in deep
space, which we already know exists almost everywhere in deep space in
truly vast quantities, I can suggest you peruse Tony Zuppero's work :

http://www.neofuel.com

Interesting, but not an open-and-shut case versus low-cost
transport of water from the Earht's surface to LEO. BTW, the
object is not to move water around in deep space, but to provide
propellants in LEO in order to move other things around in deep space.
The propellants (posssibly in the form of water to be electrolycized),
is needed in LEO, not in deep space.

I am fairly confident in the total stupidity of impactors and fly by
shootings. You appear to be totally indoctrinated by your corrupt and
perverse culture. You need to get over it. Improve yourself.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by corrupt and perverse
culture, and how this might impact how we develop space for the
good of humanity.

Regards,

Right, sure.

I usually save "Best regards" for those with established civility;
but I still have hope for others.

Len


http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Len wrote:
Let's see, from the economics point of view, a few mathematical
calculations show, IMO, that heavy lift is at least an order of
magnitude dumber idea than propellants (or ice or water) in LEO.

Anything other than tourists in LEO is a real dumb idea, you've already
polluted and cluttered it up beyond belief with space junk and debris.

In response to your comment, that leaves me at a loss for words
to describe how dumb an idea heavy lift is in comparison with
low-cost delivery of propellants (or water or ice) to LEO for
deep-space exploration on a grand scale.

There already is water in deep space on a grand scale, you idiot.

I have to compliment you on how effectively you can contribute
to the noise level of intelligent discussion.

If you are actually interested in moving that water around in deep
space, which we already know exists almost everywhere in deep space in
truly vast quantities, I can suggest you peruse Tony Zuppero's work :

http://www.neofuel.com

I am fairly confident in the total stupidity of impactors and fly by
shootings. You appear to be totally indoctrinated by your corrupt and
perverse culture. You need to get over it. Improve yourself.

Regards,

Right, sure.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"Len" wrote in news:1148921271.437717.303070
@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Len wrote:

Regards,

Right, sure.

I usually save "Best regards" for those with established civility;
but I still have hope for others.

You might as well give up hope for Elifritz. He has consistently
demonstrated contempt for civility, and on multiple occasions has
explicitly stated that he disdains the entire concept. For him, a statement
delivered with an insult is always superior to a statement delivered alone.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Len wrote:

Let's see, from the economics point of view, a few mathematical
calculations show, IMO, that heavy lift is at least an order of
magnitude dumber idea than propellants (or ice or water) in LEO.
Anything other than tourists in LEO is a real dumb idea, you've already
polluted and cluttered it up beyond belief with space junk and debris.

Wouldn't you agree that removal of real space junk is a useful LEO
mission?

Sure, what do you propose, blowing them to **** with another impactor?

I think there are many other useful LEO missions. IMO, the
usefulness and potential cost-effectiveness of a "huge" LEO telecom
system would be worth some additional clutter.

As opposed to say, GEO, where they are far more useful.

Nothing like finding anything to avoid the obvious solution.

In response to your comment, that leaves me at a loss for words
to describe how dumb an idea heavy lift is in comparison with
low-cost delivery of propellants (or water or ice) to LEO for
deep-space exploration on a grand scale.

There already is water in deep space on a grand scale, you idiot.

I assume you mean water at the lunar poles--which I also find
extremely intriguing.

Er ... no, deep space is not the lunar poles. Regardless, whatever is on
the moon will be used on the moon. If we ever get to that point, clearly
the lunar exports will be finished products. However, the rational
approach to space related problems still remains propulsion and launch,
CELSS and residual fuel storage, reusability, retrofitability and SSTO.

However, I think that the cost of space access
from the Earth's surface to LEO can be reduced to the point that
water transported to LEO might be more economical than trying
to get lunar ice to a useful location.

Ah, a great insight. Launching things from the surface of the Earth!

You know, since the gravity well is so steep around here, from here to
deep space, perhaps there is something to this launching from the Earth
business, since we have effectively no infrastructure in deep space yet.

Perhaps some combination
might turn out to be best. But the answer is not clear at this
time.

It seems pretty clear to me :

Propulsion, launch, CELSS, fuel storage in equatorial orbit.

I have to compliment you on how effectively you can contribute
to the noise level of intelligent discussion.
If you are actually interested in moving that water around in deep
space, which we already know exists almost everywhere in deep space in
truly vast quantities, I can suggest you peruse Tony Zuppero's work :

http://www.neofuel.com

Interesting, but not an open-and-shut case versus low-cost
transport of water from the Earht's surface to LEO.

I don't claim it is. I claim propulsion and launch are the key to LEO
and beyond.

BTW, the
object is not to move water around in deep space, but to provide
propellants in LEO in order to move other things around in deep space.

As opposed to say, propulsion and launch. Another brilliant deduction.

The propellants (posssibly in the form of water to be electrolycized),
is needed in LEO, not in deep space.

Er, no, what is needed to get to LEO is propulsion and launch. There is
no way in hell we are going all the way to deep space and return those
materials to LEO. That's a pretty clear sign of irrational thought.

I am fairly confident in the total stupidity of impactors and fly by
shootings. You appear to be totally indoctrinated by your corrupt and
perverse culture. You need to get over it. Improve yourself.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by corrupt and perverse
culture, and how this might impact how we develop space for the
good of humanity.

By not addressing propulsion and launch problems in a rational manner.

But by all means, continue dreaming.

I usually save "Best regards" for those with established civility;
but I still have hope for others.

I often wonder what other approaches to irrational thought there are.

I'm trying to deal with blatant irrationality here, and you are clearly
one of the irrational ones here.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Right, sure.

I usually save "Best regards" for those with established civility;
but I still have hope for others.

You might as well give up hope for Elifritz. He has consistently
demonstrated contempt for civility, and on multiple occasions has
explicitly stated that he disdains the entire concept. For him, a statement
delivered with an insult is always superior to a statement delivered alone.

As long as you rightard idiots continue to promote NASA philosophies of
throwing away cryogenic tankage and high performance cryogenic engines,
and fly by impactors over rovers, I will always treat you with disdain.

Now, what, if anything, rational do you have to say about propulsion and
launch, CELSS and residual fuel scavenging in equatorial orbit?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Len wrote:

Let's see, from the economics point of view, a few mathematical
calculations show, IMO, that heavy lift is at least an order of
magnitude dumber idea than propellants (or ice or water) in LEO.
Anything other than tourists in LEO is a real dumb idea, you've already
polluted and cluttered it up beyond belief with space junk and debris.

Wouldn't you agree that removal of real space junk is a useful LEO
mission?

Sure, what do you propose, blowing them to **** with another impactor?

No, with good enough economics, one can probably come up with
a better solution than than.

I think there are many other useful LEO missions. IMO, the
usefulness and potential cost-effectiveness of a "huge" LEO telecom
system would be worth some additional clutter.

As opposed to say, GEO, where they are far more useful.

Nothing like finding anything to avoid the obvious solution.

There you go again, shooting from the hip with very little
real knowledge.

Like most alternatives, both sides of a question usually have
advantages and disadvantages. However, a "huge" LEO telecom
system has some rather strong potential advantages for mobile
communications. These include:

- small cell sizes result in much stronger signal strength, much
greater total capacity, and much better frequency conservation.
- much greater capacity is both a marketing/economic
advantage and disadvantage. It takes a lot of effort to sell
the capacity; however, the cost to the consumer can be
an order or magnitude, or two orders of magnitude, cheaper
- near zenith angles make for better reception in mountainous
areas and cities.
- LEO doesn't have GEO's latency problem

Len