Back to the moon? When?

On Nov 9, 11:25 am, "Erich Kohl" wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

How did they manage to hide an entire planet, especially as nearby and
as albedo vibrant as Venus?

I'm pretty sure they were in cahoots with David Copperfield.

Being in "cahoots with David Copperfield" is about what it would have
taken, along with their rad-hard Kodak film and each of our Apollo
astronauts having established that essential cache of banked bone
marrow before doing their moon thing. Of course, it would also have
been a darn good idea for their having an actual R&D test proven fly-
by-rocket lander, as well as the real thing plus a whole lot more than
a 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload to start off with. Perhaps their hocus-
pocus David Copperfield of that era fixed all of that stuff as well.
Yids always were good at magic, as just look at what they'd
accomplished for Hitler.
--
Brad Guth

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Len" wrote in message
ups.com...
It just be that the conventional wisdom in 1962 might just have been right.
We won't go back to the moon until we adopt a LEO an affordable and sustainable
rendezvous approach. Now that we no longer have Saturn I's and cold-war
motives, a space transport capable of frequent, reliable, safe, low-cost access
to LEO is the first order of business.

I hope this turns out to be true, but I fear that Ares I, at least, has
gained enough inertia that the program can't be stopped. There is still
hope that Ares V will be cancelled because it, and the lunar program being
proposed by NASA, will be viewed as too expensive. A large part of why it's
going to be expensive is transportation costs. High transportation costs
means that every aspect of the lander, habitat, rover, and etc. designs will
be driven to minimum mass designs with high costs.

Nit: The mass of the design is driven by the capability of the
launcher, not it's cost.

Even with much lowered costs, there still remains the risks of launch
and transit. There still remains the costs associated with the
extreme enviroments the payload must endure, with being virtually
unique pieces of hardware, etc...

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

John Schilling wrote:

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:26:05 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:"D. Orbitt" wrote:

:Today, we're down to two major aerospace contractors, and they act
:like have a shakey unpoken agreement that one controls fighters, the
:other, bombers and heavy transports. One does missiles, the other does
:helicopters, only one does satellites, the other, ships, and so on.

:Nonsense. For just _one_ example... Boeing does Minuteman, while
:LockMart does Trident II.

When was the last time someone bought a Minuteman?

Sometime around 2040 AD, according to current plans.

In the meantime, keeping missiles built in the 1970s in good working
order, is not a trivial undertaking.

Are their many left from the 1970's? They've been jacking up the
nameplates and sliding new missiles underneath since the mid 80's.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

On Nov 9, 10:39 am, "Mike Combs"
wrote:
"Monte Davis" wrote in message

...



As Henry Spencer and others have pointed out many times, you need to
look at the appropriations and what they implied for outyears rather
than the announcements: anything beyond Apollo 20 was in trouble in
the 1967 budget, in dire trouble in the 1968 budget, and out of the
question in 1969's -- the last of the Johnson administration.

After Apollo 11, the critics said why are we still going to the moon when
we've already beaten the Russians. Sounds like it was simply a matter of
lag time.

It's actually a matter of the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
either of which you LLPOF folks and fellow rusemasters can't possibly
hope to deal with such truths without breaking wind. No wonder you
have no close friends.
--
Brad Guth

On Nov 9, 7:49 pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Len" wrote in message
ups.com...
It just be that the conventional wisdom in 1962 might just have been right.
We won't go back to the moon until we adopt a LEO an affordable and sustainable
rendezvous approach. Now that we no longer have Saturn I's and cold-war
motives, a space transport capable of frequent, reliable, safe, low-cost access
to LEO is the first order of business.

I hope this turns out to be true, but I fear that Ares I, at least, has
gained enough inertia that the program can't be stopped. There is still
hope that Ares V will be cancelled because it, and the lunar program being
proposed by NASA, will be viewed as too expensive. A large part of why it's
going to be expensive is transportation costs. High transportation costs
means that every aspect of the lander, habitat, rover, and etc. designs will
be driven to minimum mass designs with high costs.

Nit: The mass of the design is driven by the capability of the
launcher, not it's cost.

Even with much lowered costs, there still remains the risks of launch
and transit. There still remains the costs associated with the
extreme enviroments the payload must endure, with being virtually
unique pieces of hardware, etc...

These are important factors. However, they can be
addressed separately and appropriately. Getting to
LEO should not only be much cheaper, but also much
safer. Our own particular approach has safe, engine-out
abort at liftoff and generally good abort characteristics
throughout the trajectory--far superior to the Space
Shuttle.

Once in orbit, good economics may permit such
things as storm shelters for manned missions;
current costs generally preclude consideration of
storm cellars. Our storm-cellar concept envisages
water on the way to the moon, and regolith or some
other lunar-material sandbags on the way back to
LEO. The water would be useful on the moon; the
regolith or other lunar material may be useful on LEO.

The important thing is to have viable options for
the admittedly challenging problems.

Len

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 9 Nov, 15:35, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :
: :Then but not now.
: :
:
: Yes, now, too.
:
: :
: :This is the whole crux of the matter. I remember
: :round about the time of the Apollo landins the firm I was working for
: :bought an HP2000 minicomputer. "This computer went to the Moon" HP
: roudly told me. This was less than 1/100 the power of a modern chip.
: :The HP2000 was not capable of looking at an image and saying - this
: :shows evidence of water for example.
: :
:
: And nothing now can really do that, either, except for a geologist on
: site.
:
:
:I have some news for you Google is in fact developing software which
:will help to classify pictures.
:

I have some news for you:

1) What Google is developing will not come close to doing what you're
talking about.

2) Note the verb you used - "developing", as in does not exist and is
not the current state of the art.

3) Note the other verb you chose, "help to classify". Helping is not
the same as doing.

:Transmitting the
icture and having a decent attenna is a much more cost effective
:solution.

Wrong. Cost may be lower (although not as low as you think - there's
MUCH more to it than "having a decent attenna [sic]"), but
effectiveness is also much, much lower. In fact, the 'solution' you
suggest is *less* cost effective than people on site.

:However the question of how we test a hypothesis is interesting. Can
:we, for example, run a series of simulations and come up with a
:hypothesis that would explain the shape of rocks? Well in a sense we
:have. Start off with a black hole and some gas and hey presto we get a
:galaxy. We have indeed tested our hypothesis.
:
:BTW - The only geologist ever to fly on an Apollo mission was Harrison
:Schmidt.
:

And why do you think they sent him?

:
:Geologists were at mission control, ...
:

No they weren't. Ian, do you know anything about ANYTHING? Mission
Control doesn't do geology.

:... as they would be for a
:robot.
: :
: :Lunokhod was ven cruder. In fact
: :in the solar system you really don't have to do this. You can transmit
: :a picture back in JPEG. There is after all no limit to the time that
: :can be spent on the Moon.
: :
:
: This isn't magic. Bandwidth, power, time delays, etc. People are
: still orders of magnitude better.
:
:But 3 secs is not long for a decision. Bandwidth (from the Moon) is
:easily HDTV.

Do you not know the difference between bandwidth and delay or are you
just stupid?

:From Mars you have a delay. still a geological assessment
:is possible in a timely way. Anyway are you seriously twelling me that
:the best geologists would be on Mars.

No, you stupid ass. I'm telling you what I actually said. What you
make up is your problem.

:
: Ian, I really wish you'd learn something about what is actually
: possible given the current state of the art. It would keep you from
: posting oh so many silly things.
:
:You say a lot of silly things too.

And yet you are always unable to actually point to any without making
up lies.

:Yes there is nothing beyond 3KPa according to Bush.

????

:How can America have such a leader?

We're sane. You're not.


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

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Then but not now. This is the whole crux of the matter. I remember
:round about the time of the Apollo landins the firm I was working for
:bought an HP2000 minicomputer. "This computer went to the Moon" HP
:proudly told me. This was less than 1/100 the power of a modern chip.
:The HP2000 was not capable of looking at an image and saying - this
:shows evidence of water for example.
:
:No computer today can do that either, not even close. So what is your
oint?
:

Bit late with that response, Derek. :-)

I think Ian's problem is that he doesn't know much about technology
and doesn't understand what he does know, so he thinks Google
development is somehow 'magical'.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

In article . com,
Len wrote:

Our storm-cellar concept envisages
water on the way to the moon, and regolith or some
other lunar-material sandbags on the way back to
LEO. The water would be useful on the moon; the
regolith or other lunar material may be useful on LEO.

Wow. That is remarkably sensible. I sincerely hope I get to see a
system like that in place one day!

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
"D. Orbitt" wrote in message
ups.com...
Also, you have to remember that much of the blueprints, all the
tooling, the assembly lines, and almost all of the people that
designed and built the 60's Apollo hardware, and all their skills,
are long gone or retired and advanced in age.

The blueprints aren't gone. That's an urban ledgend.

Are the design drawings actually well preserved somewhere?

Yes. They're on microfiche.



--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)





--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Nov 9, 9:50 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

...

Jeff Findley wrote:
"D. Orbitt" wrote in message
roups.com...
Also, you have to remember that much of the blueprints, all the
tooling, the assembly lines, and almost all of the people that
designed and built the 60's Apollo hardware, and all their skills,
are long gone or retired and advanced in age.

The blueprints aren't gone. That's an urban ledgend.

Are the design drawings actually well preserved somewhere?

Yes. They're on microfiche.

Even if those semitic Third Reich wizards built us another fleet of
those reliable Saturn Vs, at 60:1 and having a nearly 30% inert GLOW
simply isn't going to get those Apollo like missions of nearly 50
tonnes into such a close orbit of our moon within slightly over 3
days. It just is not going to happen unless the laws of physics work
entirely different off-world.

Perhaps getting 24 tonnes (half Apollo) into lunar orbit within 3 days
is technically doable, but that's about it, that is unless the Saturn-
V has a few SRB's added to its butt.
--
Brad Guth