Commercial Moonship

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:06:09 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:08:48 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...

On 10/09/2016 5:12 PM, William Mook wrote:
Consider eight external tank sized airframes. Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array, and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank. The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant (117.23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen. The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

The eighth tank carries 412.14 metric tons of propellant (64.41 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and 348.74 metric tons of liquid oxygen). The tank structure is 18.55 metric tons. The remaining 221.31 metric tons is dedicated to 10 decks. Four passenger cabin decks consist of 28 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. A fifth crew deck consists of 14 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. There are
five
additional decks with supplies, rocket belts, airlocks, propellant and so forth.

112 passengers and 14 crew members are taken to the moon and they fly to the lunar surface on individual rocket belts 7 times in a week - and return to Earth.

Why?

Because it's Mook it doesn't have to make any sense.

Don't confabulate your confusion with presumed confusion of others. Things that make no sense to you make no sense to you because you're stupid. Not because others are stupid.

So name calling instead of producing evidence

That's what you do, not what I did in response to Sylvia's question.

that there is actually a
market for "rocket belts" to the surface of the moon.

I showed how for a given mass in low earth orbit you could get nearly double the number of people and hundreds of times the landings. Obviously using personal rocket belts provides considerable advantage. Further, rocket belts may be used as an ejection seat during launch to improve safety, and for those who wish to do so, be used to skydive from the moon to a soft touchdown on Earth's surface another added value.

Classy Mook,
really classy.

Its funny how you make things up and act like your fantasies are real.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

What's obvious Fred is that you're Jeff's sockpuppet to give his more outrageous fantasies some semblance of reality.

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:14:26 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:08:48 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...

On 10/09/2016 5:12 PM, William Mook wrote:
Consider eight external tank sized airframes. Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array, and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank. The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant (117.23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen. The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

The eighth tank carries 412.14 metric tons of propellant (64.41 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and 348.74 metric tons of liquid oxygen). The tank structure is 18.55 metric tons. The remaining 221.31 metric tons is dedicated to 10 decks. Four passenger cabin decks consist of 28 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. A fifth crew deck consists of 14 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. There are
five
additional decks with supplies, rocket belts, airlocks, propellant and so forth.

112 passengers and 14 crew members are taken to the moon and they fly to the lunar surface on individual rocket belts 7 times in a week - and return to Earth.

Why?

Because it's Mook it doesn't have to make any sense.

Don't confabulate your confusion with presumed confusion of others. Things that make no sense to you make no sense to you because you're stupid. Not because others are stupid.


So name calling instead of producing evidence that there is actually a
market for "rocket belts" to the surface of the moon. Classy Mook,
really classy.


It's all he's ever got, Jeff. That should be obvious to everyone by
now.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:37:21 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Dude, if Sylvia was being rhetorical, there is no real answer.


Dude, you still don't understand her question.

She asked why. I answered it. You're the one making an ass of yourself.



If Sylvia was truly wondering why you should take a rocket belt ride from lunar orbit and back many times rather than land once and stay put, I gave her the answer she asked for. Deal with it.


I don't think that's what she was wondering.


So?


I prefer to think Sylvia asks honest questions.


She did.

That's why I answered it.

You still don't get it.

You're still listening to your gut and thinking that's the real world.


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

On 3/10/2016 3:52 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:08:48 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...

On 10/09/2016 5:12 PM, William Mook wrote:
Consider eight external tank sized airframes. Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array, and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank. The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant (117.23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen. The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

The eighth tank carries 412.14 metric tons of propellant (64.41 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and 348.74 metric tons of liquid oxygen). The tank structure is 18.55 metric tons. The remaining 221.31 metric tons is dedicated to 10 decks. Four passenger cabin decks consist of 28 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. A fifth crew deck consists of 14 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. There are five
additional decks with supplies, rocket belts, airlocks, propellant and so forth.

112 passengers and 14 crew members are taken to the moon and they fly to the lunar surface on individual rocket belts 7 times in a week - and return to Earth.

Why?

Because it's Mook it doesn't have to make any sense.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Don't confabulate your confusion with presumed confusion of others. Things that make no sense to you make no sense to you because you're stupid. Not because others are stupid.


The problem I see is that after a person has got over the whole "I'm on
the moon" thing, they're realise that it's actually a pretty dull place.
After all, no one who's been there has ever gone back

So they'd go down once, then it's "Been there, done that, want to go
home". They'll tell others that it's exciting at first, but otherwise
very tedious.

And there goes your market.

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 4:39:21 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 3/10/2016 3:52 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:08:48 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...

On 10/09/2016 5:12 PM, William Mook wrote:
Consider eight external tank sized airframes. Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array, and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank. The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant (117..23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen. The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

The eighth tank carries 412.14 metric tons of propellant (64.41 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and 348.74 metric tons of liquid oxygen). The tank structure is 18.55 metric tons. The remaining 221.31 metric tons is dedicated to 10 decks. Four passenger cabin decks consist of 28 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. A fifth crew deck consists of 14 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. There are five
additional decks with supplies, rocket belts, airlocks, propellant and so forth.

112 passengers and 14 crew members are taken to the moon and they fly to the lunar surface on individual rocket belts 7 times in a week - and return to Earth.

Why?

Because it's Mook it doesn't have to make any sense.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Don't confabulate your confusion with presumed confusion of others. Things that make no sense to you make no sense to you because you're stupid. Not because others are stupid.


The problem I see is that after a person has got over the whole "I'm on
the moon" thing, they're realise that it's actually a pretty dull place.

I see why it might be easy to imagine that sitting in the comfort of your home. However, actually being there has properties that have deeper and richer impact. Things can be more than we know. So, when we try to imagine an experience based only on what we know, the reality of the experience is always richer and deeper.

Astronauts who have been to the moon report this, though it is not widely known;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UVuzDDTdgs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQkUf-TOsmY

After all, no one who's been there has ever gone back

Well, clearly, if people have a choice at the same price of

(1) landing with 128 other people at one spot on the moon and are stuck there for a week or two, or;
(2) landing with those they choose to land, anywhere they choose to land up to 7 times;

I would expect (2) would be preferred by most early-adopters.


So they'd go down once, then it's "Been there, done that, want to go
home".

I can see why you imagine that, but based on the reports from people I have spoken with about this, and I've had the great opportunity to speak with Edgar Mitchell, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Alan Bean, about this specific topic, and they found it a deep and rich experience.

My sense is that if you were in your cabin orbiting the moon - with access to detailed maps of interesting features on the moon - that you would plan to visit - this would be the main activity during the 3 day journey out from Earth. When you are in lunar orbit, you have your departure slotted with all the others, and you basically spend 11 hours on the surface with 4 hour transit - and 1 hour prep and return - then you spend a day resting and speaking with others - and then on to your next chosen site. And so on for the next 14 days - 7 visits - 14 days.

Each person has their own retinue of rocket drones that film them and their activities - and they spend the return flight using AI to edit it along with scenes available from the crew and the ship itself. They dispatch greetings from space to their friends - they even negotiate with news organisations for content.

They'll tell others that it's exciting at first, but otherwise
very tedious.

It seems to me you haven't shared an evening of drinking with people who have actually been to the moon, and seen the excitement they exhibit at the real prospect of returning and choosing their own landing spot, after orbiting the place for a few times.

And there goes your market.

Well, there's no counting for abject lack of imagination is there? Like I said, doing a thing is different than thinking about doing a thing. I would tell you, if you already haven't, to jump out of an airplane with a wingsuit - and see how you feel after. See if you feel its tedious or not. And this is just falling a few thousand feet through air at 200 mph! lol.

Sylvia.

People will compete with one another to do more and more exciting things - and post the results on youtube! lol.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVcV9ItdZ8w

Now, there may be nothing to any of these photos, but you can see how the seeming unusual catches people's imagination - and that will lead them to try to engage the unknown and figure out what its all about - creating a sort of theatre - a theatre that any promoter would exploit to build enthusiasm and interest in their services.

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

Not being able to see this is a reflection of your lack of imagination and lack of direct experience with the sorts of experience we're talking about.

In article ,
says...

What's obvious Fred is that you're Jeff's sockpuppet to give his more outrageous fantasies some semblance of reality.

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:14:26 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
So name calling instead of producing evidence that there is
actually a
market for "rocket belts" to the surface of the moon. Classy Mook,
really classy.


It's all he's ever got, Jeff. That should be obvious to everyone by
now.

Followed by top-posting, which is pretty much giving the middle finger
to Usenet News etiquette while he's at it...

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:06:09 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:08:48 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...

On 10/09/2016 5:12 PM, William Mook wrote:
Consider eight external tank sized airframes. Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array, and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank. The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant (117.23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen. The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

The eighth tank carries 412.14 metric tons of propellant (64.41 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and 348.74 metric tons of liquid oxygen). The tank structure is 18.55 metric tons. The remaining 221.31 metric tons is dedicated to 10 decks. Four passenger cabin decks consist of 28 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. A fifth crew deck consists of 14 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. There are
five
additional decks with supplies, rocket belts, airlocks, propellant and so forth.

112 passengers and 14 crew members are taken to the moon and they fly to the lunar surface on individual rocket belts 7 times in a week - and return to Earth.

Why?

Because it's Mook it doesn't have to make any sense.

Don't confabulate your confusion with presumed confusion of others. Things that make no sense to you make no sense to you because you're stupid. Not because others are stupid.

So name calling instead of producing evidence

That's what you do, not what I did in response to Sylvia's question.


See YOUR comment that I was responding to.

that there is actually a
market for "rocket belts" to the surface of the moon.

I showed how for a given mass in low earth orbit you could get nearly double the number of people and hundreds of times the landings. Obviously using personal rocket belts provides considerable advantage. Further, rocket belts may be used as an ejection seat during launch to improve safety, and for those who wish to do so, be used to skydive from the moon to a soft touchdown on Earth's surface another added value.


You still don't understand the question (and you're not going to use
'rocket belts' as a launch escape system).


Classy Mook,
really classy.

Its funny how you make things up and act like your fantasies are real.


Mook, do you not realize that everyone can read what you write?


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

William Mook wrote:


What's obvious Fred is that you're Jeff's sockpuppet to give his more outrageous fantasies some semblance of reality.


Mook, you're delusional. As has repeatedly been explained to you,
everyone who thinks you're a nutter is not the same person (because if
they were, there would only be two people on the internet).


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

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:37:21 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Dude, if Sylvia was being rhetorical, there is no real answer.


Dude, you still don't understand her question.


She asked why. I answered it. You're the one making an ass of yourself.


Poor Mook still doesn't even understand the question.




If Sylvia was truly wondering why you should take a rocket belt ride from lunar orbit and back many times rather than land once and stay put, I gave her the answer she asked for. Deal with it.


I don't think that's what she was wondering.


So?


So you didn't answer her question, dude. lol.




I prefer to think Sylvia asks honest questions.


She did.


That's why I answered it.


Except you didn't. You haven't even figured out what she asked you
yet.



You still don't get it.


You're still listening to your gut and thinking that's the real world.


Your head is still up your ass inspecting the interior of your gut and
thinking your delusions are the real world.


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

When a message is replied to in e-mail, Internet forums, or Usenet, the original can often be included, or "quoted", in a variety of different posting styles.

The main options are interleaved posting (also called inline replying, in which the different parts of the reply follow the relevant parts of the original post), bottom-posting (in which the reply follows the quote) or top-posting (in which the reply precedes the quoted original message). For each of those options, there is also the issue of whether trimming of the original text is allowed, required or preferred.

For a long time the traditional style was to post the answer below as much of the quoted original as was necessary to understand the reply (bottom or inline). Many years later, when email became widespread in business communication, it became a widespread policy to reply above the entire original and leave it (supposedly untouched) below the reply.

Top posting is now standard.

Live with it you neanderthal.


On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 12:00:21 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

What's obvious Fred is that you're Jeff's sockpuppet to give his more outrageous fantasies some semblance of reality.

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 8:14:26 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
So name calling instead of producing evidence that there is
actually a
market for "rocket belts" to the surface of the moon. Classy Mook,
really classy.


It's all he's ever got, Jeff. That should be obvious to everyone by
now.

Followed by top-posting, which is pretty much giving the middle finger
to Usenet News etiquette while he's at it...

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.