tilos
Science1 I replied to your peer review below.
Sun Oct 17 16:48:07 1999


The intent of the repost was to demonstrate that what was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek ranting on my part started the discussion that actually led to a very good idea by Grendel. I haven't read all the old threads so please point out if the above statement is inaccurate.

While your points were quite valid logic flaws in my somewhat emotion based post I do believe that I can back up the basic premise that there is a reason the general public doesn't hear or see much about the Moon beyond what was available three decades ago.

If the answer is that the Moon is a dead, boring place and the money was better spent elsewhere then at least those who are hung-up on "Lunar Conspiracy Theories" can move on to new delusions. Personally I'm more interested in Remote Sensing data of archeological sites as these are areas with plenty of oxygen (on the surface at least) and are most definitely a part of our history as a species.

I feel fortunate to live in a time of such exciting possibilities of discovery on multiple fronts. I readily admit to not being well grounded in the more technical areas of most of what is discussed here - I just like to provide a perspective that is based more on feeling and intuition than anything else. Some would call that being a "BullS^&*$%" but I hope there is more substance to my thoughts than mindless rhetoric.

I will have some things to run by you later concerning the MoonCam. One being the feasibility of a space launched vehicle (on a Shuttle Mission), which GOM I think suggested earlier. This would reduce the chance of failure considerably I would think. The most likely part of a mission to lose the payload would be in the first minutes after launch. It is hard to improvise and find a way around a malfunction if the payload just did a 15,000 mph (guessing) Swan dive into good ole Terra Firma.

Danny

Science1
Generation of ideas
Sun Oct 17 18:47:28 1999


My post to your repost of the Grendel's post was a whimsical response to Grendel's "why" questions, lol. I think we are in basic agreement on this. I do not exclude the possibility of something "covert" going on up there? if so it would be from the DoD direction? not NASA..I am prone to think it unlikely because of costs but I am open to evidence. I am a firm advocate of this kind of interchange as a source of good ideas, logic not withstanding. Have you ever heard of the book "Signetics" by W.J.J. Gordon? I think you would like it. I think these "rants" may be important, as is emotion and imagination, and again your points are well taken. Emotion +logic=reason. I partially agree with your risk assessment, although just as many things can go wrong on orbit or at insertion, just look at the Titan IV and Athena failures, but you do make a good point.

tilos
Some relevant links... Beal was what I was searching for
Mon Oct 18 00:06:12 1999


the others caught my eye while I was looking.

Beal Aerospace is about 15 minutes from where I work if I am not mistaken. Robert Bigelow might have some competition I haven't read any of this yet but will.

I'll check in on Tuesday to see how things are going.

Danny

http://www.bealaerospace.com/news.html

http://www.space-frontier.org/index.html

http://www.logsupport.com/nasa2.html

http://www.apscharts.com/abbrev.html

Science1
Great links
Mon Oct 18 15:23:37 1999


I wonder if the Beal development program includes launching mass simulators (dummy payload) for first few launches...maybe the dummy need be not be so dumb?? They seem to have earth escape mission profiles planned or developed... this is a good thing!

tilos
Maybe a MoonCam could hitch a free ride as a test payload?
Mon Oct 18 16:31:30 1999


I assume that was the direction you headed. If the cost of the MoonCam was less than the cost of a paid trip then the risk of loss due to launch vehicle failure would be acceptable economically (this part is pure numbers for the most part - of course final decisions are always subjective do to the decision maker being human.)

Danny