Re: Which Apollo landing site would you revisit?

[EAC]

(C. F. Leon) wrote in message >...
> Which one would you recommend, and why?

Apollo 14's landing site. To make sure that Apollo 14 DID landed
there.

> You've got various criteria for stay time and consumables,
> so the nostalgic attraction of Apollo 11 has low priority.

Well... Apollo 11's landing site do seems to be nice.

But if the nostalgic attraction of Apollo 11 has low priority, then
shouldn't all previous Apollo landing sites also have low priority. I
mean that it's only revisiting, when you'e exploring, you should look
for new sites, not old sites.


Anyway. I don't think that any future landing in the near future is
possible. 'They' don't got the visa to go there and the locals were
pretty much upset when 'they' sent a group of people to go there
without permission. Poor Armstrong, he must have a nervous break down
from going there.

[Brad Guth]

(EAC) wrote in message >...
> (C. F. Leon) wrote in message >...
> > Which one would you recommend, and why?
>
> Apollo 14's landing site. To make sure that Apollo 14 DID landed
> there.
>
> > You've got various criteria for stay time and consumables,
> > so the nostalgic attraction of Apollo 11 has low priority.
>
> Well... Apollo 11's landing site do seems to be nice.
>
> But if the nostalgic attraction of Apollo 11 has low priority, then
> shouldn't all previous Apollo landing sites also have low priority. I
> mean that it's only revisiting, when you'e exploring, you should look
> for new sites, not old sites.
>
>
> Anyway. I don't think that any future landing in the near future is
> possible. 'They' don't got the visa to go there and the locals were
> pretty much upset when 'they' sent a group of people to go there
> without permission. Poor Armstrong, he must have a nervous break down
> from going there.

Besides our not having the capital to go much of anywhere, though of
all places the moon is certainly by far the least costly and even
extremely cheap as far as anything robotic or merely of satellite
worth, by which that lunar satellite can manage a good number of
rounds to suit just about any survey requirement that'll obtain
imaging resolution of twice to four times better off than of Mars,
that's because the lunar orbit can be so much closer. Although, a
manned mission is simply out of the question, for reasons of radiation
as well as the fact that we still do not have a working lunar lander
technology.

Of course if you're one of those pro-NASA sorts that has a link to
such lunar lander flight proficiency documentation, we'd all be quite
interested to study that because, of all things Apollo that could
enentually place man on Mars, as an up-scaled and purely rocket
powered lander is certainly going to be just the ticket.

Hell bells folks, we can't hardly keep those V22 Ospreys in the air,
so how we ever pulled off those late 60s "fly-by-wire" affects is
still undocumented, as there's not even a test flight support file in
existence for the 1/6th gravity scaled prototype (pilotted) version
was ever accomplished, only crash results were obtained.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-learned.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Brad Guth > typed:

> Although, a
> manned mission is simply out of the question, for reasons of radiation
> as well as the fact that we still do not have a working lunar lander
> technology.

Other than, I suppose, all those other lunar landers that landed on
the moon? <G>
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.