Smart-1 Images of the Moon

Man, I'm impressed. Thank Goodness science and technology keep marching forward
for now, because it means that we can look better, closer, and with more
information than before. And despite what some apparently think here, we don't
really know our own Moon that well, even just the geography. Heck, we really
don't know everything about the closest planet that we can study the geography
of, the earth.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
Hasn't the Moon been completely mapped (photos and laser altimeter) by
previous missions? This looks like one of those "leaf raking" projects
for scientists.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=31413
Quote

"SMART-1's camera AMIE will enable scientists to study the Moon's
topography and surface texture once again. It measures visible light at
a million points in a field of view 5 degrees wide, and filters can
select yellow light, red light or very short infrared rays. By looking
at selected regions from different angles, and under different lighting
conditions, AMIE will provide new clues to how the lunar surface has
evolved.

"With longer infrared rays, the infrared spectrometer SIR will map the
surface distribution of minerals such as pyroxenes, olivines and
feldspars. It will do this in far more detail than Clementine did, when
it scanned the lunar surface at six different infrared bands. SIR
distinguishes about 256 wavelength bands, from 0.9 to 2.4 microns. The
mineralogy will reveal effects of cratering and maria formation, and the
nature of subsurface layers exposed by fractures in the Moon's crust.

End of Quote

In addition, there is an X-Ray spectrometer which will detect X-ray
fluorescence allowing surface element abundancies to be determined.

Hadn't noticed these images of Earth before either:

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/...lack_hires.jpg

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/...lack_hires.jpg

Stunning.

All sadly black & white - does anybody know in what part of the spectrum the
camera takes these images? (e.g. does the CCD use a red filter or something
more broad?)

Ta,
Paul.

Position a satellite in orbit around the Moon and the robots would up-link
to it, whenever they have the data bank full. Than the satellite would
transmit this data to earth, when ever is convenient.
Gee, Moon is only a spit from earth, 3 days flying so.
Back in the 80's, 90's the explanation was, hy we don't go to the Moon any
more, there is nothing on the Moon that would interest us, it is a dead
planet, we must rather go to Mars.

JS

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news:5bXJd.71$Q_4.54@trnddc02...
They could have, but what two or three instruments are you going to put in
each robot, since if you're going to launch so many you need to make each
as simple as possible for cost reasons? And then you need to monitor
them. Even if you store information in each robot for later retrieval,
you need time on radio telescopes to retrieve the data. High gain
antennas on each robot adds complexity in pointing the dish and finding
Earth relative to the robots current position.

Monitoring a lot of robots on the Moon is going to chew up a lot of DSN
time. My guess is individual and separate frequencies for each robot, so
each needs to be tuned to and listened separately. One wonders if the
TDRS system can be used to do the monitoring. Whether this is doable or
not I don't know.

And those are just some of the issues that need to be considered. NASA
has studied this idea, and I believe it's still in the works.

Again, a good idea that might be used some day, but it isn't as simple as
it appears, like all ideas, and it has its costs and tradeoffs.

--
Sincerely,
--- Dave

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Szaki" wrote in message
...
They should've dump a dozen or so robots on the Moon surfuce, crawling
around for years, finding who knows what.
It can be done fraction of the price of one of the Mars mission.
JS


"Ernie Wright" wrote in message
...
Tim Killian wrote:

Hasn't the Moon been completely mapped (photos and laser altimeter) by
previous missions?

No. The state of our knowledge about the Moon's surface is much worse
than it is for either Venus or Mars. The only post-Apollo mapping was
done by Clementine in the mid-90's, as far as I know, and the quality
and completeness of the data it returned isn't comparable.

A quick way to see this is to compare the globes offered by Sky and
Telescope.

http://skyandtelescope.com/shopatsky...lobes&Pag e=1

The "NASA Moon Globe" uses the same hand-painted map used on globes sold
by Rand McNally 35 years ago.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

Szaki - I love the idea of roving Luna; it should have been done long
ago!

But - why do you think that it can be done a fraction of the cost of
one Mars mission? In fact, the costs would be nearly the same, which
is why we have focused on Mars instead. (Given that we only have so
much to spend, which is the more interesting target, Mars or the Moon?)

1) The biggest challenge in space exploration is escaping the Earth's
gravity. It takes a similar amount of energy to get from Earth to the
Moon as it does to get from Earth to Mars. Any minor savings in fuel
to get there is more than offset by the fact that the Moon lacks an
atmosphere, so that we can't use aerobraking and economical parachutes
and airbags for entry and landing.

2) The Moon rovers would most likely be similar in design to the Mars
rovers. Where is the cost savings there?

3) As you suggest in another thread, a support orbiter would be a
logical data relay, as well as a recon tool to supplement rover
activities. We already have three sats in orbit around Mars that
provide this support role; your proposed Lunar exploration would
require a sat that does not yet exist, adding to the costs.

Given President Bush's space exploration initiative, I am confident
that we will soon follow a plan of exploration much like what you have
outlined. However, unless we have some breakthrough in economical
pricing of payload to orbit, the costs of exploring Luna will be
similar to what we have invested into exploring Mars.

Kudos to ESA's SMART-1!

*****
~May you have clear skies & a star to steer by! =A4Michael=A4

~************************************************* *************~
~ =A4MICHAEL FOERSTER=A4
~ =A4The Starry-Nite Society ~ Research Astronomer
~ =A4NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab ~ Solar System Ambassador
~ =A4NASA's Night Sky Network ~ Project Manager(Starry-Nite)
~ =A4Project ASTRO / Polaris ~ Mission Specialist
~ =A4SLOOH.com Radio ~ Co-Host of "The Event Horizon"
["The Event Horizon" is on the air every
Friday nite, 8-10pm EST, aka Saturday morning 1-3 UT]
~ =A4E-Address: Skywatch@(insert domain from next line).net
~ =A4Domain: Starry-Nite.net
~ =A4N42=B031'13.3" =A4 W83=B008'43.2" =A4 668' =A4 -5 GMT
~www2.jpl.nasa.gov/ambassador/profiles/Michael_Foerster.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ FAMOUS LAST WORDS - A SERIES
~ "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling
~ on his face and not Gary Cooper."
~
~ Actor Gary Cooper on his decision to not take the
~ leading role in the movie, "Gone With The Wind"
~************************************************* *************~

Cost out the mission for us, and get back to us. As I said, NASA looks into
this, not necessarily for the Moon, but it can be applied to anything with a
solid surface. And the NASA budget got crunched again, not that this is nothing
new, but I wish it would quit happening every year.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Szaki" wrote in message
...
Position a satellite in orbit around the Moon and the robots would up-link to
it, whenever they have the data bank full. Than the satellite would transmit
this data to earth, when ever is convenient.
Gee, Moon is only a spit from earth, 3 days flying so.
Back in the 80's, 90's the explanation was, hy we don't go to the Moon any
more, there is nothing on the Moon that would interest us, it is a dead
planet, we must rather go to Mars.

JS

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news:5bXJd.71$Q_4.54@trnddc02...
They could have, but what two or three instruments are you going to put in
each robot, since if you're going to launch so many you need to make each as
simple as possible for cost reasons? And then you need to monitor them.
Even if you store information in each robot for later retrieval, you need
time on radio telescopes to retrieve the data. High gain antennas on each
robot adds complexity in pointing the dish and finding Earth relative to the
robots current position.

Monitoring a lot of robots on the Moon is going to chew up a lot of DSN time.
My guess is individual and separate frequencies for each robot, so each needs
to be tuned to and listened separately. One wonders if the TDRS system can
be used to do the monitoring. Whether this is doable or not I don't know.

And those are just some of the issues that need to be considered. NASA has
studied this idea, and I believe it's still in the works.

Again, a good idea that might be used some day, but it isn't as simple as it
appears, like all ideas, and it has its costs and tradeoffs.

--
Sincerely,
--- Dave

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Szaki" wrote in message
...
They should've dump a dozen or so robots on the Moon surfuce, crawling
around for years, finding who knows what.
It can be done fraction of the price of one of the Mars mission.
JS


"Ernie Wright" wrote in message
...
Tim Killian wrote:

Hasn't the Moon been completely mapped (photos and laser altimeter) by
previous missions?

No. The state of our knowledge about the Moon's surface is much worse
than it is for either Venus or Mars. The only post-Apollo mapping was
done by Clementine in the mid-90's, as far as I know, and the quality
and completeness of the data it returned isn't comparable.

A quick way to see this is to compare the globes offered by Sky and
Telescope.

http://skyandtelescope.com/shopatsky...lobes&Pag e=1

The "NASA Moon Globe" uses the same hand-painted map used on globes sold
by Rand McNally 35 years ago.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

I don't think he's thought it through, as far as cost is concerned. Just
putting forth an idea, and hoping someone else will find all the bugs and make
it work.

But as I said, someone has looked into this. In fact, something similar but
without rovers, called Netlander for Mars, was in the works - I should know,
since I worked on it at JPL. The idea was to send four identical landers, three
to land within a thousand miles of one another, and the other at the other end
of the planet. No direct like to Earth, but they were going to use one or more
of the Mars orbiters as relay stations. The idea was, in part, to learn more
about what drives, and what patterns, happen in the Martian weather. This is an
important factor for future manned missions, since it seems likely that the
sandstorms that wrack Mars from time to time is definitely a hazard to both the
men and the equipment.

But axed due to a shrinking budget. And the fact that they underestimated the
cost of MER, and raided other projects to keep MER funded. Funny how this
didn't get into the official public release, just like the fact that Pathfinder
was actually more expensive than they said once you factor in the pre-project
costs of borrowed technology from other projects.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message
oups.com...
Szaki - I love the idea of roving Luna; it should have been done long
ago!

But - why do you think that it can be done a fraction of the cost of
one Mars mission? In fact, the costs would be nearly the same, which
is why we have focused on Mars instead. (Given that we only have so
much to spend, which is the more interesting target, Mars or the Moon?)

1) The biggest challenge in space exploration is escaping the Earth's
gravity. It takes a similar amount of energy to get from Earth to the
Moon as it does to get from Earth to Mars. Any minor savings in fuel
to get there is more than offset by the fact that the Moon lacks an
atmosphere, so that we can't use aerobraking and economical parachutes
and airbags for entry and landing.

2) The Moon rovers would most likely be similar in design to the Mars
rovers. Where is the cost savings there?

3) As you suggest in another thread, a support orbiter would be a
logical data relay, as well as a recon tool to supplement rover
activities. We already have three sats in orbit around Mars that
provide this support role; your proposed Lunar exploration would
require a sat that does not yet exist, adding to the costs.

Given President Bush's space exploration initiative, I am confident
that we will soon follow a plan of exploration much like what you have
outlined. However, unless we have some breakthrough in economical
pricing of payload to orbit, the costs of exploring Luna will be
similar to what we have invested into exploring Mars.

Kudos to ESA's SMART-1!

*****
~May you have clear skies & a star to steer by! ¤Michael¤

~************************************************* *************~
~ ¤MICHAEL FOERSTER¤
~ ¤The Starry-Nite Society ~ Research Astronomer
~ ¤NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab ~ Solar System Ambassador
~ ¤NASA's Night Sky Network ~ Project Manager(Starry-Nite)
~ ¤Project ASTRO / Polaris ~ Mission Specialist
~ ¤SLOOH.com Radio ~ Co-Host of "The Event Horizon"
["The Event Horizon" is on the air every
Friday nite, 8-10pm EST, aka Saturday morning 1-3 UT]
~ ¤E-Address: Skywatch@(insert domain from next line).net
~ ¤Domain: Starry-Nite.net
~ ¤N42°31'13.3" ¤ W83°08'43.2" ¤ 668' ¤ -5 GMT
~www2.jpl.nasa.gov/ambassador/profiles/Michael_Foerster.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ FAMOUS LAST WORDS - A SERIES
~ "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling
~ on his face and not Gary Cooper."
~
~ Actor Gary Cooper on his decision to not take the
~ leading role in the movie, "Gone With The Wind"
~************************************************* *************~

Well, I'm not a cost accountant.
It would be lot easier and cheaper to build a human colony on the Moon first
than on the Mars, for sure.
We haven't even landed a men on Mars yet, but 40 years ago there was a few
on the Moon.
Yes, there has to be basic element of material found localy, to able to
sustain life, which seems the Moon don't have, but we could've done more
search, that's what the robots are for.
Also, Moon don't have an atmosphere to protect us from cosmic radiation, but
underground building would be a possibility.
Julius

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news:M9bKd.463$Pr4.54@trnddc03...
Cost out the mission for us, and get back to us. As I said, NASA looks
into this, not necessarily for the Moon, but it can be applied to anything
with a solid surface. And the NASA budget got crunched again, not that
this is nothing new, but I wish it would quit happening every year.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Szaki" wrote in message
...
Position a satellite in orbit around the Moon and the robots would
up-link to it, whenever they have the data bank full. Than the satellite
would transmit this data to earth, when ever is convenient.
Gee, Moon is only a spit from earth, 3 days flying so.
Back in the 80's, 90's the explanation was, hy we don't go to the Moon
any more, there is nothing on the Moon that would interest us, it is a
dead planet, we must rather go to Mars.

JS

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news:5bXJd.71$Q_4.54@trnddc02...
They could have, but what two or three instruments are you going to put
in each robot, since if you're going to launch so many you need to make
each as simple as possible for cost reasons? And then you need to
monitor them. Even if you store information in each robot for later
retrieval, you need time on radio telescopes to retrieve the data. High
gain antennas on each robot adds complexity in pointing the dish and
finding Earth relative to the robots current position.

Monitoring a lot of robots on the Moon is going to chew up a lot of DSN
time. My guess is individual and separate frequencies for each robot, so
each needs to be tuned to and listened separately. One wonders if the
TDRS system can be used to do the monitoring. Whether this is doable or
not I don't know.

And those are just some of the issues that need to be considered. NASA
has studied this idea, and I believe it's still in the works.

Again, a good idea that might be used some day, but it isn't as simple
as it appears, like all ideas, and it has its costs and tradeoffs.

--
Sincerely,
--- Dave

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Szaki" wrote in message
...
They should've dump a dozen or so robots on the Moon surfuce, crawling
around for years, finding who knows what.
It can be done fraction of the price of one of the Mars mission.
JS


"Ernie Wright" wrote in message
...
Tim Killian wrote:

Hasn't the Moon been completely mapped (photos and laser altimeter)
by previous missions?

No. The state of our knowledge about the Moon's surface is much worse
than it is for either Venus or Mars. The only post-Apollo mapping was
done by Clementine in the mid-90's, as far as I know, and the quality
and completeness of the data it returned isn't comparable.

A quick way to see this is to compare the globes offered by Sky and
Telescope.

http://skyandtelescope.com/shopatsky...lobes&Pag e=1

The "NASA Moon Globe" uses the same hand-painted map used on globes
sold
by Rand McNally 35 years ago.

- Ernie
http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

wrote in message
oups.com...
Szaki - I love the idea of roving Luna; it should have been done long
ago!
*Me too!(o:

But - why do you think that it can be done a fraction of the cost of
one Mars mission?
*Be cause, dumping 12 robots on the Moon, don't need 12 missions, can be
done with 1 or 2. Technology is there, 40 years old, we landed "MEN" on the
Moon, that was very expensive.
Easier to fly to the Moon than to Mars.
Controling the robots would be easier because the shorter respons time.

In fact, the costs would be nearly the same, which
is why we have focused on Mars instead. (Given that we only have so
much to spend, which is the more interesting target, Mars or the Moon?)

*Sure, Mars is a more intresting target, but it's too far, too many unknown
facts has to be worked out. Right now, we are happy if can dump a robot
packed in ballons on Mars, uncontroled landing. They promise by 2020 human
mission to Mars, I don't think so.
Moon would've provide constant human presens in space and a hole range of
scientific break throughs dealing with space.

1) The biggest challenge in space exploration is escaping the Earth's
gravity. It takes a similar amount of energy to get from Earth to the
Moon as it does to get from Earth to Mars.

*How about time? Moon vs. Mars?

Any minor savings in fuel
to get there is more than offset by the fact that the Moon lacks an
atmosphere, so that we can't use aerobraking and economical parachutes
and airbags for entry and landing.

*How was the landing done in the 60's on the Moon? Jets, never worked on
Mars. Only the airbag technology worked on Mars, shakes the hell out of your
instruments.

2) The Moon rovers would most likely be similar in design to the Mars
rovers. Where is the cost savings there?

*Savings is in the production, to build the same technology that works, over
and over. Like the way the Russians doing it with their rockets. Constant
experimentation is expansive and dangerous too.

3) As you suggest in another thread, a support orbiter would be a
logical data relay, as well as a recon tool to supplement rover
activities. We already have three sats in orbit around Mars that
provide this support role; your proposed Lunar exploration would
require a sat that does not yet exist, adding to the costs.

*Same vehicle carrying the robots can stay in orbit around the Moon and
perform as a relay to earth. Nothing new in that.
It can carry 5-6 robots in one mission, size of the Sojourner Rover .
At Loral, we packed 6 and 12 GlobolStar satellites into one Soyuz rocket in
one lunch, in 1998.. Well, the first never reached orbit, all others did, 48
total.

Given President Bush's space exploration initiative, I am confident
that we will soon follow a plan of exploration much like what you have
outlined. However, unless we have some breakthrough in economical
pricing of payload to orbit, the costs of exploring Luna will be
similar to what we have invested into exploring Mars.

*Shot down the Space Shuttle, too expensive. I know would heart national
pride, but use what works.
JS

What bugs, men walked on the Moon all most 40 years ago, I was a kid? This
is not some thing one has to invent all over again.
Landing on Mars, yes, that's new, many new problems, new environment, long
distance etc...
We spend so much money and time on the Space Station, when little by little
we could've build a colony on the Moon.
It could've start with landing a tunnel digging robot, find existing caves,
modify and make small craters habitable.
Possibilities are infinite.

Julius

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news:AfbKd.484$Pr4.55@trnddc03...
I don't think he's thought it through, as far as cost is concerned. Just
putting forth an idea, and hoping someone else will find all the bugs and
make it work.

But as I said, someone has looked into this. In fact, something similar
but without rovers, called Netlander for Mars, was in the works - I should
know, since I worked on it at JPL. The idea was to send four identical
landers, three to land within a thousand miles of one another, and the
other at the other end of the planet. No direct like to Earth, but they
were going to use one or more of the Mars orbiters as relay stations. The
idea was, in part, to learn more about what drives, and what patterns,
happen in the Martian weather. This is an important factor for future
manned missions, since it seems likely that the sandstorms that wrack Mars
from time to time is definitely a hazard to both the men and the
equipment.

But axed due to a shrinking budget. And the fact that they underestimated
the cost of MER, and raided other projects to keep MER funded. Funny how
this didn't get into the official public release, just like the fact that
Pathfinder was actually more expensive than they said once you factor in
the pre-project costs of borrowed technology from other projects.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message
oups.com...
Szaki - I love the idea of roving Luna; it should have been done long
ago!

But - why do you think that it can be done a fraction of the cost of
one Mars mission? In fact, the costs would be nearly the same, which
is why we have focused on Mars instead. (Given that we only have so
much to spend, which is the more interesting target, Mars or the Moon?)

1) The biggest challenge in space exploration is escaping the Earth's
gravity. It takes a similar amount of energy to get from Earth to the
Moon as it does to get from Earth to Mars. Any minor savings in fuel
to get there is more than offset by the fact that the Moon lacks an
atmosphere, so that we can't use aerobraking and economical parachutes
and airbags for entry and landing.

2) The Moon rovers would most likely be similar in design to the Mars
rovers. Where is the cost savings there?

3) As you suggest in another thread, a support orbiter would be a
logical data relay, as well as a recon tool to supplement rover
activities. We already have three sats in orbit around Mars that
provide this support role; your proposed Lunar exploration would
require a sat that does not yet exist, adding to the costs.

Given President Bush's space exploration initiative, I am confident
that we will soon follow a plan of exploration much like what you have
outlined. However, unless we have some breakthrough in economical
pricing of payload to orbit, the costs of exploring Luna will be
similar to what we have invested into exploring Mars.

Kudos to ESA's SMART-1!

*****
~May you have clear skies & a star to steer by! ¤Michael¤

~************************************************* *************~
~ ¤MICHAEL FOERSTER¤
~ ¤The Starry-Nite Society ~ Research Astronomer
~ ¤NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab ~ Solar System Ambassador
~ ¤NASA's Night Sky Network ~ Project Manager(Starry-Nite)
~ ¤Project ASTRO / Polaris ~ Mission Specialist
~ ¤SLOOH.com Radio ~ Co-Host of "The Event Horizon"
["The Event Horizon" is on the air every
Friday nite, 8-10pm EST, aka Saturday morning 1-3 UT]
~ ¤E-Address: Skywatch@(insert domain from next line).net
~ ¤Domain: Starry-Nite.net
~ ¤N42°31'13.3" ¤ W83°08'43.2" ¤ 668' ¤ -5 GMT
~www2.jpl.nasa.gov/ambassador/profiles/Michael_Foerster.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ FAMOUS LAST WORDS - A SERIES
~ "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling
~ on his face and not Gary Cooper."
~
~ Actor Gary Cooper on his decision to not take the
~ leading role in the movie, "Gone With The Wind"
~************************************************* *************~

"Szaki" wrote in message
...
Well, I'm not a cost accountant.
It would be lot easier and cheaper to build a human colony on the Moon first
than on the Mars, for sure.

No argument there. Not to mention that taking a three day or so journey is a
lot less tiring to the body than several months (at the best launch time). Or
that at least you don't have to worry about dust or sand storms. On the other
hand, the chance of finding some residuals from life, if not life itself, is a
lot better on Mars than on the Moon.


We haven't even landed a men on Mars yet, but 40 years ago there was a few on
the Moon.
Yes, there has to be basic element of material found localy, to able to
sustain life, which seems the Moon don't have, but we could've done more
search, that's what the robots are for.
Also, Moon don't have an atmosphere to protect us from cosmic radiation, but
underground building would be a possibility.

Actually, building underground is probably a good thing to do on Mars also.
There isn't enough of any magnetic field to protect you from radiation, and the
atmosphere is too thin to afford any either, and then there are the frequent
dust and sand storms. Works for people in both Northern Africa and Eastern
Australia, so why not?

--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------



"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news:M9bKd.463$Pr4.54@trnddc03...
Cost out the mission for us, and get back to us. As I said, NASA looks into
this, not necessarily for the Moon, but it can be applied to anything with a
solid surface. And the NASA budget got crunched again, not that this is
nothing new, but I wish it would quit happening every year.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave

"Szaki" wrote in message
...
Position a satellite in orbit around the Moon and the robots would up-link
to it, whenever they have the data bank full. Than the satellite would
transmit this data to earth, when ever is convenient.
Gee, Moon is only a spit from earth, 3 days flying so.
Back in the 80's, 90's the explanation was, hy we don't go to the Moon any
more, there is nothing on the Moon that would interest us, it is a dead
planet, we must rather go to Mars.