Soviet Mars 3 lander found?

On Apr 18, 10:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 886f02af-c357-4764-b44d-
, says...







On Apr 18, 12:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:44*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Realtively speaking there are some nearby systems with planets in the
habitible zone. *snoopy would be a excellent long term item to study,
since its been exposed so long to deep space, unlike the long term
studies done in earth orbit......

Only if we were going to build your hypothetical drone as a copy of
Snoopy. *You see, examination of Snoopy won't tell us anything except
how IT weathered. *This is why things like the Long Exposure Facility
are DESIGNED; to tell us about materials other than those current
things are built of.

how long was the long exposure facility exposed to heliospheric orbit?

Rather irrelevant.

Jesus, I wish you'd learn something about SOMETHING...

you are irrelevant.......

you offer nothing but garbage to discussions here.......

Bob, I think you're quite mistaken. *You're the one making baseless
assertions. *Either support them, or drop them.

I've got two issues with your assertion that retrieving Snoopy would be
something worth doing.

1. *How is the environment in a a heliocentric orbit (like Snoopy)
different than that in an earth orbit (like a geosync comsat)? *If so,
are those differences statistically significant from a materials
sciences point of view?

2. *Are the materials on Snoopy even relevant anymore? *Remember that
it's been about half a century since the materials were chosen for the
LEM design. *How relevant are those materials choices today?

If you can't answer the above questions, then data from the results from
materials exposure experiments on LDEF, Mir, and ISS should suffice.

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

Examing snoopy in its current shape could tell us much about
conditions in heliospheric orbit, and perhaps recover somethin g in
earth orbit from around the same time and compare them.

The LM was built very light weight, seeing how those old light thin
materials held up could help the selection process in the future.

LDEF, Mir, and ISS none of these have 40 years of exposure, and they
are all earth orbit exposure..

you dont know what you dont know.....

snoopy or other long term exposure artifacts can help future
exploration.

perhaps something about heliospheric causes wierd erosions of metal?

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
bob haller wrote:


Examing snoopy in its current shape could tell us much about
conditions in heliospheric orbit, and perhaps recover somethin g in
earth orbit from around the same time and compare them.


Or it could tell us absolutely nothing useful, which is by far the
more probable outcome.


The LM was built very light weight, seeing how those old light thin
materials held up could help the selection process in the future.


Or it could tell us absolutely nothing useful, which is by far the
more probable outcome.


LDEF, Mir, and ISS none of these have 40 years of exposure, and they
are all earth orbit exposure..

you dont know what you dont know.....


There is no 'magic line', where suddenly everything degrades. These
processes are gradual, so you can extrapolate out in time.


snoopy or other long term exposure artifacts can help future
exploration.


Hogwash. You should have stuck with 'could' and merely looked
ignorant, instead of looking like a stupid liar.


perhaps something about heliospheric causes wierd erosions of metal?



Like his tinfoil hat?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

In article 6eacbeec-81e3-4cd8-bf04-4c0e1a93aba7
@f18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 18, 10:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 886f02af-c357-4764-b44d-
, says...







On Apr 18, 12:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:44*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Realtively speaking there are some nearby systems with planets in the
habitible zone. *snoopy would be a excellent long term item to study,
since its been exposed so long to deep space, unlike the long term
studies done in earth orbit......

Only if we were going to build your hypothetical drone as a copy of
Snoopy. *You see, examination of Snoopy won't tell us anything except
how IT weathered. *This is why things like the Long Exposure Facility
are DESIGNED; to tell us about materials other than those current
things are built of.

how long was the long exposure facility exposed to heliospheric orbit?

Rather irrelevant.

Jesus, I wish you'd learn something about SOMETHING...

you are irrelevant.......

you offer nothing but garbage to discussions here.......

Bob, I think you're quite mistaken. *You're the one making baseless
assertions. *Either support them, or drop them.

I've got two issues with your assertion that retrieving Snoopy would be
something worth doing.

1. *How is the environment in a a heliocentric orbit (like Snoopy)
different than that in an earth orbit (like a geosync comsat)? *If so,
are those differences statistically significant from a materials
sciences point of view?

2. *Are the materials on Snoopy even relevant anymore? *Remember that
it's been about half a century since the materials were chosen for the
LEM design. *How relevant are those materials choices today?

If you can't answer the above questions, then data from the results from
materials exposure experiments on LDEF, Mir, and ISS should suffice.

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

Examing snoopy in its current shape could tell us much about
conditions in heliospheric orbit, and perhaps recover somethin g in
earth orbit from around the same time and compare them.

Please answer the question: What is different about the environment in
a heliocentric orbit when compared to an earth orbit?

The LM was built very light weight, seeing how those old light thin
materials held up could help the selection process in the future.

The LM design is half a century old. Name the specific materials used
on Snoopy which are in use on today's spacecraft.

LDEF, Mir, and ISS none of these have 40 years of exposure, and they
are all earth orbit exposure..

Much of engineering is extrapolation from available data. Why do you
think this can't be done with the materials experiments which have been
returned to earth for examination over the history of the space program?

you dont know what you dont know.....

For you, that would appear to be a lot.

snoopy or other long term exposure artifacts can help future
exploration.

This is an unsupported assertion.

perhaps something about heliospheric causes wierd erosions of metal?

In other words, you do not know of a single scientific reason for
retrieving Snoopy.

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 Apr 18, 2:42*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6eacbeec-81e3-4cd8-bf04-4c0e1a93aba7
@f18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...







On Apr 18, 10:11 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 886f02af-c357-4764-b44d-
, says...

On Apr 18, 12:47 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:44 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Realtively speaking there are some nearby systems with planets in the
habitible zone. snoopy would be a excellent long term item to study,
since its been exposed so long to deep space, unlike the long term
studies done in earth orbit......

Only if we were going to build your hypothetical drone as a copy of
Snoopy. You see, examination of Snoopy won't tell us anything except
how IT weathered. This is why things like the Long Exposure Facility
are DESIGNED; to tell us about materials other than those current
things are built of.

how long was the long exposure facility exposed to heliospheric orbit?

Rather irrelevant.

Jesus, I wish you'd learn something about SOMETHING...

you are irrelevant.......

you offer nothing but garbage to discussions here.......

Bob, I think you're quite mistaken. You're the one making baseless
assertions. Either support them, or drop them.

I've got two issues with your assertion that retrieving Snoopy would be
something worth doing.

1. How is the environment in a a heliocentric orbit (like Snoopy)
different than that in an earth orbit (like a geosync comsat)? If so,
are those differences statistically significant from a materials
sciences point of view?

2. Are the materials on Snoopy even relevant anymore? Remember that
it's been about half a century since the materials were chosen for the
LEM design. How relevant are those materials choices today?

If you can't answer the above questions, then data from the results from
materials exposure experiments on LDEF, Mir, and ISS should suffice.

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

Examing snoopy in its current shape could tell us much about
conditions in heliospheric orbit, and perhaps recover somethin g in
earth orbit from around the same time and compare them.

Please answer the question: *What is different about the environment in
a heliocentric orbit when compared to an earth orbit?

The LM was built very light weight, seeing how those old light thin
materials held up could help the selection process in the future.

The LM design is half a century old. *Name the specific materials used
on Snoopy which are in use on today's spacecraft.

LDEF, Mir, and ISS none of these have 40 years of exposure, and they
are all earth orbit exposure..

Much of engineering is extrapolation from available data. *Why do you
think this can't be done with the materials experiments which have been
returned to earth for examination over the history of the space program?

you dont know what you dont know.....

For you, that would appear to be a lot.

snoopy or other long term exposure artifacts can help future
exploration.

This is an unsupported assertion.

perhaps something about heliospheric causes wierd *erosions of metal?

In other words, you do not know of a single scientific reason for
retrieving Snoopy.

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

why did they retrieve the engines from the apollo saturn 5s?

In article 3ad4ac5b-f2ff-47fc-8c38-c57d1f3c7c00
@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

why did they retrieve the engines from the apollo saturn 5s?

Because they the project was funded with *private* money. This was
*never* funded by NASA or any other US government agency, even though
they've had nearly half a century to do so.

On top of that, F-1 retrieval from the ocean is cheap and easy when
compared with trying to retrieve Snoopy from its (unknown) heliocentric
orbit. I don't see *anyone* with private money jumping to fund your
harebrained scheme to retrieve Snoopy, or any other "artifact" in deep
space. The government sure as heck isn't going to fund retrieval of
"artifacts" from some unknown heliocentric orbit.

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 Apr 18, 4:52*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 3ad4ac5b-f2ff-47fc-8c38-c57d1f3c7c00
@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...



why did they retrieve the engines from the apollo saturn 5s?

Because they the project was funded with *private* money. *This was
*never* funded by NASA or any other US government agency, even though
they've had nearly half a century to do so.

On top of that, F-1 retrieval from the ocean is cheap and easy when
compared with trying to retrieve Snoopy from its (unknown) heliocentric
orbit. *I don't see *anyone* with private money jumping to fund your
harebrained scheme to retrieve Snoopy, or any other "artifact" in deep
space. *The government sure as heck isn't going to fund retrieval of
"artifacts" from some unknown heliocentric orbit.

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

dont be too certain, retrieval of asteroids has already been
announced.

plus with the decreasing costs to orbit thanks to musk a private
mission could get funded....

it would have a lot in common with moving asteroids. Tracking snoopy
will get easier while searching for asteroids, and theres also some
saturn stages in heliospheric.....

the easy part may be finding and moving these to near earth orbit.
landing them will be harder however someone may want to retrieve
hubble, and doing that could pave the way to return big things from
orbit.

ISS would make a awesome display

think out of the box, the box isnt your friend

In article d735a600-b9e5-49a1-a093-9e5a39d359c7
@y12g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 18, 4:52*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 3ad4ac5b-f2ff-47fc-8c38-c57d1f3c7c00
@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...



why did they retrieve the engines from the apollo saturn 5s?

Because they the project was funded with *private* money. *This was
*never* funded by NASA or any other US government agency, even though
they've had nearly half a century to do so.

On top of that, F-1 retrieval from the ocean is cheap and easy when
compared with trying to retrieve Snoopy from its (unknown) heliocentric
orbit. *I don't see *anyone* with private money jumping to fund your
harebrained scheme to retrieve Snoopy, or any other "artifact" in deep
space. *The government sure as heck isn't going to fund retrieval of
"artifacts" from some unknown heliocentric orbit.

dont be too certain, retrieval of asteroids has already been
announced.

Proposed. I'm not certain that proposed mission will go anywhere
either. NASA is grasping at straws since Congress won't fund a return
to the moon, yet they're still funding SLS and Orion. It's the shuttle
program all over again, only SLS/Orion has yet to find the equivalent of
the shuttle's "Spacelab" mission. In other words, a make-work mission
since the obvious mission isn't funded.

plus with the decreasing costs to orbit thanks to musk a private
mission could get funded....

Ocean recovery and space recovery are apples and orangutans.

it would have a lot in common with moving asteroids. Tracking snoopy
will get easier while searching for asteroids, and theres also some
saturn stages in heliospheric.....

Except we know what Snoopy is made of! We have not yet explored an
asteroid "up close and personal" with a manned mission, which is the
intent of retrieving it in the first place.

the easy part may be finding and moving these to near earth orbit.
landing them will be harder however someone may want to retrieve
hubble, and doing that could pave the way to return big things from
orbit.

ISS would make a awesome display

And ISS display made up of modules used for testing and training would
make an awesome display.

think out of the box, the box isnt your friend

In your case, your box really needs padded walls and a door which opens
only from the outside.

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...

bob haller wrote:


why did they retrieve the engines from the apollo saturn 5s?


Ego.

True. Take a rich man with a wild hair...

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 Apr 19, 7:30*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



bob haller wrote:

why did they retrieve the engines from the apollo saturn 5s?

Ego.

True. *Take a rich man with a wild hair...

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

gee why have all the national parks? why was the liberty bell
retained? how about indenpendence hall? why have the NASM and uhazey
center? Why did so many places fight over getting a shuttle?

Tourism is a important industry, and while fake shuttles or fake
anything can be built the real thing is always better...

In article 9c415da2-6e95-4a9c-8373-186f9d8cded5
@t5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...
Tourism is a important industry, and while fake shuttles or fake
anything can be built the real thing is always better...

Not when "the real thing" would cost too much to recover, restore, or
maintain. That's reality. You're living in a fantasy world.

Here is current real world example that is not a spacecraft and would
seem to be easier to recover and restore than Snoopy:

The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the world's first nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier, and is therefore historically significant in that
rearguard. The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was officially inactivated
December 1, 2012. Enterprise will eventually be decommissioned and will
then be *scrapped* once its nuclear reactors have been removed. I'm
sure there are many people who feel this is a tragedy and would like to
see her converted into a museum.

But that is simply *not* practical given the requirement to remove the
nuclear reactors from her. By the time enough of the ship has been
removed in order to take out the reactors, there just isn't going to be
much left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ent...ecommissioning

http://www.enterprise.navy.mil/

From the above site, click on "Public Relations" (lower left side of
page) and then "Frequently Asked Questions" (near the top of the page).

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