James White wrote:
Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.


Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?



Get British intelligence to say spammers have weapons of mass destruction.

Then Bush will jam guided missiles up their butts.

I know it's not a market solution, but I still like it.

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?

Yes, but it would require revamping the internet.

I could introduce you to some mobile network operators who think they can do
just that.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:57:02 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?

Yes, but it would require revamping the internet.

I could introduce you to some mobile network operators who think they can
do
just that.

It's not a technical challenge-

lot like access to space, actually).

"Joe Strout" <joe@strout.net> wrote in message
news:joe-2DBF22.09130319112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
In article <744cc401.0311182349.4cbf026d@posting.google.com>,
stevejdufour@yahoo.com (Steve Dufour) wrote:

Quite an interesting article, I thought:

http://space.com/news/moon_astronomy_031117.html

Yes, thank you (I never bother to go to space.com anymore, so I
appreciate a link when it occasionally posts something useful). Here
are some related ones (which you'd think space.com would have included,
but I certainly didn't see them):

ILEWG home (?): http://www.lpi.usra.edu/ILEWG/
(appears a bit out of date in some parts, updated in others)

ILEWG forum: http://www.estec.esa.nl/ilewg/
(appears a bit out of date)

Original ILEWG home page, now apparently defunct:
http://ilewg.jsc.nasa.gov/

ILEWG 5 conference schedule:
http://www.spaceagepub.com/program.html

I'm rather skeptical about their plans to get people on the Moon within
a decade, but I certainly applaud their ambition.
Joseph J. Strout

The exploration of space has been ceded to a new generation of miniature
intelligent robot machines. The Moon has been mooted as a "way station" for
space exploration but the recent downward revision of the amount of
available water has pretty well put paid to that idea.
Mars seems the great prize toward which the scientific explorers are
attracted. I recently read a newsgroup which is dedicated to ideas for
systems which might "terraform" it's arid deserts and make the planet
inhabitable.
One is forced to ask why such methods are not being mooted for the far more
mundane yet much more important task of making the Earth's deserts and
desertified areas (many of which until recently supported agriculture) once
more fertile and productive? Are the Namib or the Taclamacan deserts for
some reason less glamorous than the arid icy wastes of Mars?
If it can't be made to work in those places, where atmospheric pressure,
oxygen and heat are far more abundant than they are on Mars, then
environmental engineering aimed at producing a liveable environment there is
about as realistic as the next perpetual motion machine is.
Perhaps many people are in the business of producing brightly coloured
science fantasy, and just don't realize it.

Des.

"Mike Rhino" <october2003@alexanderpics.com> wrote

Water can be sent to the moon. If we can get iron, aluminum, silicone,
and
oxygen mines working on the moon, we can reduce the amount of stuff we
need
from Earth.

And here's an important point. If mining on the moon, as you say, there
will be lots of oxygen available. Thus, one only needs to bring up the
hydrogen from Earth. The atomic ratio, as we all know from the formula H2O,
is 2-to-1, but the weight ratio is more interesting from this standpoint.
One ton of hydrogen combines with eight tons of oxygen to make 9 tons of
water. The same ratio applies for LH2/LO2 propellant.

That's significant leveraging.


Rgds,
Mike Combs

Tom Merkle wrote:

Dick Morris <richard.a.morris@boeing.com> wrote in message news:<3FBE3E09.CDE76FBF@boeing.com>...
Alan Erskine wrote:

In the "More stories" links on the right, one thing they seem to miss about
landing at the south pole is the amount of propellant it would require to go
from what would, essentially be an equatorial approach to the Moon to a
polar orbit.

The Moon is 240,000 miles away - it's a trivial difference to aim for
the pole rather than the equator.

He's talking about inclinations rather than distances. The moon is in
roughly an equitorial orbit. If you launch into a trans lunar orbit


One does not have to launch to the Moon from equatorial orbit, or even
the Moon's orbital plane. We could get to the Moon from a low, polar

Earth orbit if we wanted to, and enter any kind of lunar orbit we want
as well, including an equatorial orbit. The Moon passes through the
[snip lunar interception basics]
Vary the timing (and delta-v) of the burn
slightly and you can pass over any portion of the Moon's limb, and thus
enter an orbit with any desired inclination.

You pay a significant payload penalty to launch into high inclination
orbits, so, in practice, we would use a low inclination orbit to get to
the Moon. But we can still enter any orbit about the Moon we want just
by adjusting the aim point.
Not true. It will cost you payload.

Duh. If you read my post I was saying that if you assume starting from
an earth equitorial orbit (which Alan obviously is), it is indeed much
easier to get into a low inclination moon orbit than a polar one.

(although simplifying your trajectory calculations). In fact, I think
one or more of the Apollo missions actually did launch out of the
ecliptic. Maybe all of them. I'll get back to you.

As a member of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics for 15 years, I have witnessed time and again NASA's
over-promising, over-marketing and underestimating costs. ...
Individuals like Burt Rutan, Dennis Tito and Elon Musk are pushing
the boundaries, building affordable space hardware and investing where
no investor has gone before.They are also changing the rules when it
comes to the economics of space travel.If not dragged down by our own
space bureaucracy, the new space entrepreneurs will no doubt make
major advances toward affordable access to space. ...
So, what must be done? Let's get government out of the way of
space entrepreneurs and put in place policies that encourage such
private-sector space initiatives. ...
projects with incentives like the Zero Gravity/Zero Tax proposal. With
such empowerment, mind-boggling projects like the collection of solar
power from arrays of solar panels hold the promise of an abundant
energy source for humankind. ...
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, is chairman of the
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science Committee.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:35:05 -0500 (EST)
herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:



Rep. Dana Rohbabeacher is an honest politician. Here in Florida we have
no such animal. NASA for the last 30 years has all the wrong stuff. It
took the thrill out of exploring space by doing year after year low
orbit experiments. Like most polititions when they steal money and kill
they cover up,stone wall and lie.(sounds like Nixen) They have covered
up the Columbia tragedy,and will pay off the relatives of those dead
astronouts the same way they paid the relatives of the Challenger crew.
Commander Smith family got 2.5 million. Lets hope until we
have a NASA with the right stuff,they will use robots instead of people.
Lets hope we can have a NASA that does not lie,or steal money (100
million still missing) Lets hope when they fly a shuttle in
March the head man of NASA is aboard. Lets
bring back the great engineering of the Apollo,and build a base on the
moon. Its only three days away,and do our weightless experiments coming
and going. That saves time and lots of money. Time to take the wings
off the shuttle. Bert




Absolutely, I read a while back about these so called low earth orbit
experiments and how that justified the ISS, it is all a load of
crap. They are not doing anything in low earth orbit that cannot
be done right here on the ground in suitable labs. In fact I'll
wager that more important experiments are indeed being
carried out down here on the ground than any experiments that they can
come up with to do on the ISS.

To my astonishment I even read recently somewhere that NASA is
planning to launch the shuttle!!(sometime in early new year and
subject to safety tests!!!) Well sod their safety tests I wouldnt
get on it for sure... What a waste of lives, money and manpower
and for what??..


Still hoping they will abandone the ISS.

merkletr@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote in message news:<c1d524e3.0311221131.3cb03f76@posting.google.com>...

(although simplifying your trajectory calculations). In fact, I think
one or more of the Apollo missions actually did launch out of the
ecliptic. Maybe all of them. I'll get back to you.

BTW, Apollo 11 was the only one that launched coplanar (in the same
plane as the moon).

I still haven't convinced myself that launch azimuth isn't a
significant factor in lunar orbit v, but I found my copy of
"Fundamentals of astrodynamics," so stand by...

Tom Merkle