What to do with the moon?

I think our moon is the ideal test bed for robotic exploration. Its
close by, water is of great interest. We could invest boatloads of
bucks in unmanned exploration while setting up a fuel plant and
moonbase for eventual manned operations. robots would be easy to
control, tiny time delay!

The robotics could easily be controlled from earth in colleges and
universities worldwide

This money and excitement could make the US a world leader in
robotics if its done right.... perhaps get robotics advanced enough
to be home helpers and hazardous workers in places like mines, thus
saving human lives!

Require any spin offs to pay royalties, which would get reinvested in
space exploration!

The money spent could re employ the shuttle workers losing their jobs.
A WIN WIN for EVERYONE!

On Oct 24, 6:16*pm, " wrote:
I think our moon is the ideal test bed for robotic exploration. Its
close by, water is of great interest. We could invest boatloads of
bucks in unmanned exploration while setting up a fuel plant and
moonbase for eventual manned operations. robots would be easy to
control, tiny time delay!

The robotics could easily be controlled from earth in colleges and
universities worldwide

This money and excitement could make the US a world leader in
robotics if its done right.... perhaps get robotics advanced enough
to be home helpers and hazardous workers in places like mines, thus
saving human lives!

Require any spin offs to pay royalties, which would get reinvested in
space exploration!

The money spent could re employ the shuttle workers losing their jobs.
A WIN WIN for EVERYONE!

Make it a 50/50 public/private owned investment, and you got a win-win
done deal.

~ BG

wrote:
I think our moon is the ideal test bed for robotic exploration. Its
close by, water is of great interest. We could invest boatloads of
bucks in unmanned exploration while setting up a fuel plant and
moonbase for eventual manned operations. robots would be easy to
control, tiny time delay!

The robotics could easily be controlled from earth in colleges and
universities worldwide

This money and excitement could make the US a world leader in
robotics if its done right.... perhaps get robotics advanced enough
to be home helpers and hazardous workers in places like mines, thus
saving human lives!

Require any spin offs to pay royalties, which would get reinvested in
space exploration!

The money spent could re employ the shuttle workers losing their jobs.
A WIN WIN for EVERYONE!

We don't have a moon base yet? When we gonna stop dragging our asses
along the ground like a dog with worms?
We should already have a Cape Canaveral on the Moon and building
spacecraft there because it's easy to launch from there. We should be
mining the moon, asteroids and exploring the outer planet moons and
sending light speed probes to other galaxies not to mention exploring
the Milky way. We must get these monkey brain politicians out of the
government.



--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

On 25 Oct, 02:16, " wrote:
I think our moon is the ideal test bed for robotic exploration. Its
close by, water is of great interest. We could invest boatloads of
bucks in unmanned exploration while setting up a fuel plant and
moonbase for eventual manned operations. robots would be easy to
control, tiny time delay!

The robotics could easily be controlled from earth in colleges and
universities worldwide

This money and excitement could make the US a world leader in
robotics if its done right.... perhaps get robotics advanced enough
to be home helpers and hazardous workers in places like mines, thus
saving human lives!

Require any spin offs to pay royalties, which would get reinvested in
space exploration!

The money spent could re employ the shuttle workers losing their jobs.
A WIN WIN for EVERYONE!

Yes, this is one idea that as I put it won't cost the Earth. Brad
suggests 50/50 pubic private finance. In fact given some public money
- it need not be very much I think a lot of private investment would
follow.

The public money would go to providing some subsidy for transportation
to the Moon. Let Google, Microsoft etc. go to the Moon at no more than
marginal cost. Private companies would be in charge of building the
robots. Google would love to offer you a robot - Moon tested - Will
withstand a hard vacuum, will work between -80 and +120C minimal
maintainance.

I mentioned that a true Tea Party supporter would raise money to go to
Mars from public subscription. I think we could get the major computer
hardware companies signing up for the Moon.

Asteroids offer an alternative destination. If anyone wanted to go to
Vesta the same conditions would apply.

BTW - Google is cash rich.


- Ian Parker

On Oct 25, 9:11*am, LSMFT wrote:
wrote:
I think our moon is the ideal test bed for robotic exploration. Its
close by, water is of great interest. We could invest boatloads of
bucks in unmanned exploration while setting up a fuel plant and
moonbase for eventual manned operations. robots would be easy to
control, tiny time delay!

The robotics could easily be controlled from earth in colleges and
universities worldwide

This money and excitement could make the US a world leader in
robotics if its done right.... perhaps get robotics advanced enough
to be home helpers and hazardous workers in places like mines, thus
saving human lives!

Require any spin offs to pay royalties, which would get reinvested in
space exploration!

The money spent could re employ the shuttle workers losing their jobs.
A WIN WIN for EVERYONE!

We don't have a moon base yet? When we gonna stop dragging our asses
along the ground like a dog with worms?
We should already have a Cape Canaveral on the Moon and building
spacecraft there because it's easy to launch from there. We should be
mining the moon, asteroids and exploring the outer planet moons and
sending light speed probes to other galaxies not to mention exploring
the Milky way. We must get these monkey brain politicians out of the
government.

--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

Wormy dog asses is a good DARPA/NASA analogy. Perhaps it's because
they haven't actually accomplished what they claim, and otherwise
because that physically dark moon of ours is actually none too human
friendly.

~ BG

On Oct 25, 12:20*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 25 Oct, 02:16, " wrote:



I think our moon is the ideal test bed for robotic exploration. Its
close by, water is of great interest. We could invest boatloads of
bucks in unmanned exploration while setting up a fuel plant and
moonbase for eventual manned operations. robots would be easy to
control, tiny time delay!

The robotics could easily be controlled from earth in colleges and
universities worldwide

This money and excitement could make the US a world leader in
robotics if its done right.... perhaps get robotics advanced enough
to be home helpers and hazardous workers in places like mines, thus
saving human lives!

Require any spin offs to pay royalties, which would get reinvested in
space exploration!

The money spent could re employ the shuttle workers losing their jobs.
A WIN WIN for EVERYONE!

Yes, this is one idea that as I put it won't cost the Earth. Brad
suggests 50/50 pubic private finance. In fact given some public money
- it need not be very much I think a lot of private investment would
follow.

The public money would go to providing some subsidy for transportation
to the Moon. Let Google, Microsoft etc. go to the Moon at no more than
marginal cost. Private companies would be in charge of building the
robots. Google would love to offer you a robot - Moon tested - Will
withstand a hard vacuum, will work between -80 and +120C minimal
maintainance.

And rad-hard to boot. btw, it gets much colder than -80C within them
polar craters, as well as hotter in the sun due to the 1225 w/m2 of
secondary/recoil photons (mostly IR) that adds to the solar influx of
1370 w/m2.


I mentioned that a true Tea Party supporter would raise money to go to
Mars from public subscription. I think we could get the major computer
hardware companies signing up for the Moon.

Asteroids offer an alternative destination. If anyone wanted to go to
Vesta the same conditions would apply.

BTW - Google is cash rich.

* - Ian Parker

On Oct 24, 6:16*pm, " wrote:
I think our moon is the ideal test bed for robotic exploration. Its
close by, water is of great interest. We could invest boatloads of
bucks in unmanned exploration while setting up a fuel plant and
moonbase for eventual manned operations. robots would be easy to
control, tiny time delay!

The robotics could easily be controlled from earth in colleges and
universities worldwide

This money and excitement could make the US a world leader in
robotics if its done right.... perhaps get robotics advanced enough
to be home helpers and hazardous workers in places like mines, thus
saving human lives!

Require any spin offs to pay royalties, which would get reinvested in
space exploration!

The money spent could re employ the shuttle workers losing their jobs.
A WIN WIN for EVERYONE!

Yes, by all means let us continually employ those that have no real
job skills, other than to follow instructions like public owned borg
androids that are not allowed to think on their own, much less look
critically at whatever anyone else is doing. After all, the real cost
for such employees (with all benefits and other related factors
cranked in) is perhaps only costing us on average $250,000/year, each.

According to all things via DARPA and NASA/Apollo, our moon is
relatively passive and kinda harmless, even sort of inert because
nothing even reacts to the UV spectrum (of which our naked moon gets a
lot of raw UV as well as fully exposed to cosmic gamma and loads of
solar X-rays). Apparently it doesn’t hardly get very hot while fully
solar illuminated, or even all that solar/cosmic radiated, not even
the least bit nasty when caught within a direct CME flow or that of
the highly charged magneto-tail of Earth. There’s supposedly only a
little bit of surface electrostatic differential at the terminator
that manages to levitate the local dust 100 km (including hot sodium
that goes out to 9r as well as having a comet like tail of sodium
that’s only 900,000 km long), and most everywhere there’s hardly all
that much lose composite rock or dust (less than 0.1% of what you’d
think should be there), and what little dust there is clumps better
than similar dust here on Earth.

Even though our moon that’s on average nearly dark as coal and looks
entirely monochromatic to us, meaning colorless as looking nearly
white or pastel gray from here on Earth, whereas directly from the
lunar surface its monochromatic average albedo was extensively
recorded on unfiltered Kodak film as more like 0.66 (roughly 6 times
albedo reflective as otherwise viewed from Earth), and there’s
absolutely no significant minerals as anything natural or even
artificial of Apollo ultra-white that reacts to all that available UV,
or otherwise having to reflect any of our extremely bluish planetshine
that only gets 40 times as vibrant as moon light here on Earth.
(somehow the violet and blue spectrum is filtered so nicely that
cameras need not bother with any spectrum cutoff or narrow bandpass
filters), as well as artificial shadow fill-in lighting doesn’t need
to be utilized because it’s exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum
illuminated with sufficient bounced/reflected fill-in, and even though
the one primary illumination is essentially a singular spot-source
that’s about as contrasty as you’re ever going to get, doesn’t seem to
matter.

In other words, even lunar nighttime with such terrific bluish
planetshine to work with, as such offers roughly a third as bright as
daytime illumination (less as perceived to the human eye because
there’s mostly the blue spectrum that’s missing a great deal of red,
green and yellow).

According to the most recent reports (again via public funded
research), our moon offers considerable tonnage of raw ice that’s just
sitting there in them 38K cryogenic polar craters. Odd that no H, H2,
O or O2 was ever directly detected, but then nothing about our naked
moon plays by the same physics rules as here on Earth.

Therefore a 50/50 funded private/public owned moon base and all the
related fly-by-rocket transports should become a done deal, because
all that’s needed is to basically scale up those 100% proven Apollo
missions, and William Mook already knows how to get 500 tonnes into
lunar orbit at near 10% the cost of anything proposed by our DARPA and
NASA. This 50/50 investment also opens up many of those need-to-know
or nondisclosure files pertaining to mission critical R&D, plus
disclosing many other secrets of developed technology that have also
been all public funded to begin with.

Obviously terrestrial logistics is all bought and paid for (many times
over) as is, unless our DARPA and NASA have secretly taken out second
and third mortgages with some private Chinese bank or investment group
that can’t be disclosed without dire consequences.

~ BG

(Ian Parker) wrote:
Yes, this is one idea that as I put it won't cost the Earth. Brad
suggests 50/50 pubic private finance. In fact given some public money
- it need not be very much I think a lot of private investment would
follow.

I think this is an excellent idea - partly because there are already
plenty of people thinking along these lines.

Google, for example, is doing the Lunar X Prize[1] - $30 million for the
first privately-funded team to send a robot to the moon, travel 500 meters
and transmit video, images and data back to the Earth.

And the JUSTSAP-funded PISCES project in Hawaii has a "Lunar Analog Test
Site" which has twice hosted rover prototypes to test technologies for
use on the moon[2].

I'm sure there are plenty more that I'm forgetting!

[1] http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/
[2] http://pisces.hilo.hawaii.edu/index.php?id=3

--
djb@ | Dan Birchall - Observation System Associate - Subaru Telescope.
naoj | Views I express are my own, certainly not those of my employer.
..org | Oh wicked, bad, naughty, _evil_ Dan! He is a _naughty_ person.

On Oct 25, 5:50*pm, Dan Birchall
wrote:
(Ian Parker) wrote:
*Yes, this is one idea that as I put it won't cost the Earth. Brad
*suggests 50/50 pubic private finance. In fact given some public money
*- it need not be very much I think a lot of private investment would
*follow.

I think this is an excellent idea - partly because there are already
plenty of people thinking along these lines.

Google, for example, is doing the *Lunar X Prize[1] - $30 million for the
first privately-funded team to send a robot to the moon, travel 500 meters
and transmit video, images and data back to the Earth.

And the JUSTSAP-funded PISCES project in Hawaii has a "Lunar Analog Test
Site" which has twice hosted rover prototypes to test technologies for
use on the moon[2].

I'm sure there are plenty more that I'm forgetting!

[1]http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/
[2]http://pisces.hilo.hawaii.edu/index.php?id=3

--
djb@ | Dan Birchall - Observation System Associate - Subaru Telescope.
naoj | Views I express are my own, certainly not those of my employer.
.org | Oh wicked, bad, naughty, _evil_ Dan! *He is a _naughty_ person.

Google could go for $300 million without a second thought.

Micro thrusters, tough/reliable electro-mechanicals and rad-hard micro
electronics that are extremely energy efficient should make it very
doable for a robotic lander and crawler to soft-land and trek through
that dust for at least a km.

~ BG

Get rid of it. The damned thing causes tides.

Sylvia.