[Home]��� [Hazy Archives]��� [Hazy BBS]

Scott W
Launch of Moon Camera
Mon Oct 18 17:57:19 1999


Would the shuttle be able to handle not only the weight of the mooncam(probably not a problem), but also the weight of the fuel to get to the moon, as well as a small reserve (I feel that the moon cam should have a solar array for power, but a small reserve of fuel would be prudent in case (a) the panels fail or (b) a large correction in the mooncams orbit is needed and the solar array can't provide enough power?)

Ideas/comments?

Dr. V. Boom Ba
Re: Launch of Moon Camera
Mon Oct 18 19:43:09 1999


I feel it is incumbent upon us to be environmentally responsive at all stages of this expedition. Therefore we should use non-leaded fuel where possible.

Science1
Short term MoonCam fix
Mon Oct 18 21:07:58 1999


Get NASA to supply constant earth downlink for lunar prospectors cam's? Or modify lunar prospector (slightly?) to include this mission (MoonCam)? Go for it political people!
Geez, they are already going there, with all the right equipment!!! Duh!

Scott W
The Unofficial MoonCam Website.
Tue Oct 19 00:36:52 1999


I've been following this "MoonCam" thread around for the last few days, and I must say I'm rather intrigued by the idea.

I hope no one minds, but I've taken the liberty of creating a website dedicated to the idea. The URL is:

http://www.crosswinds.net/~mooncam

I hope you think it's allright. It's kinda rough around the edges yet, but I think it's a good start.

Thanks in advance for input and advice

-Scott W

GOM
Hello Scott . . .
Tue Oct 19 03:05:39 1999


My first impression is that it's rather early in the game to have a site for an idea that is still growing and changing.

However, I did have it on my "hit list" in the long run that a website would be one necessary tool. I had just assumed (always dangerous!) in the back of my mind that Jason would be the natural person to tackle such a project due to his flair for the English language. But I can't speak for him.

My request for Jason to write a letter was just my personal attempt to due something positive. He did an excellent job of it. My original focus was NASA, but the MoonCam idea seems to be generating a lot of other good ideas in terms of the target audience. I am very pleased to see the response, the interest and the enthusiasm. I do think, to accomplish the MoonCam project that the public needs to be made aware of it. Once a realistic project can be put together, I hope the public will back it.

Thanks for helping out.

Da Grump

Scott W
No problem, Grumpy Old Man.
Tue Oct 19 04:10:30 1999


I also realize it's early in the ball game, and that's why the site is generally nonspecific, and other than here, non-advertised. My main focus was simply to build a starting point; a point where we all could see where we are in terms of thinking, and maybe a place to let others read and brainstorm.

I also know this is your brainchild, and I'm not trying to usurp authority. I just thought that if there was a central location where the people here could get the information without reading through a bunch of older posts it might make it easier.

If you and Jason want to work on the website, I'll send you the password to do so.

Scott

Scott W
One other thing...
Tue Oct 19 04:16:52 1999


I was thinking about the "Celebrity Poster Child" need, and although I can't think of any astronauts, I know there are a few very notable Hollywood types - Tom Hanks really springs to mind - who are enthralled by the space program (Hanks is VERY keen on the Apollo projects - not only Apollo 13, but the HBO mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon").

Also, I would think that the more respected science fiction authors - Ben Bova, Arthur C. Clarke, etc., would be interested in this project. Bova wrote a non-fiction novel (I can't remember the title) about our need to push for space exploration and development.

Somewhat Less Grumpy
Re: "I also know this is your brain child" . . .
Tue Oct 19 04:38:36 1999


No, let's get that cleared up right now. Acct seems to have that impression also. My main function is to bitch and moan about NASA's latest less than impressive Mars effort. If my stimulation brought about the MoonCam idea, then good. It was Grendel's idea first. I think Hazy Editor may have been the one to coin the term "MoonCam".

So, unless I am corrected by others who read the posts more carefully, I believe that it was a group effort. That's a very impressive accomplishment, imo. Hopefully it is one of those unstoppable great ideas!

I have essentially no computer skills, so I would just be a detriment to your website. Jason is highly skilled and would be an asset, if he has time available. He always seems to be willing to help others, which I admire.

One other point about your website: I think Danny and Eddie both had already commented on the need to have a way of keeping the MoonCam ideas and info from being trampled by all the other topics going here on Hazy/Mission Control. So I would guess that they would both approve. Good to hear from you.

Thx again,

Da Grump

:)

GOM
Good point.!!! Clarke would seem like . . .
Tue Oct 19 04:23:50 1999


a natural. But maybe too old now? He didn't look good the last time I saw him on something. May have been Discovery Channel.

Hanks might be perfect. Let's see how others react . . .

Scott W
All I know is this...
Tue Oct 19 04:40:09 1999


...it's nice having something to work towards.

It's funny, but this reminds me of a conversation I got into with my friend Gene last summer.

He and I were talking about NASA's pathetic budget, and all of the positive things that could happen if we got out into space. We also got to talking about raising public awareness of the problem, and the names of Clarke and Hanks came up, as well as The Asimov and Roddenbury estates, came up as high profile people who could help out. The problem was finding a specific cause to rally around.

Who knows, this could be it.

I also noticed Art's name mentioned below. And while it is true that he is not a true journalist (not that he claims to be), but neither are any of us (that I know of). There is a problem, though, with his close ties to Richard Hoaglund.

GOM
One more quick point about Clarke . . .
Tue Oct 19 11:25:29 1999


As I recall, back in the 50's, he was the first one to suggest putting communication satellites up high enough to maintain synchronous orbit. So another satellite should be right up his alley!

Isn't he still over in Sri Lanka, or whatever they call it nowadays? Now I'm wondering if he has a website? He was always into a wide variety of interesting things.

Gatekeeper....
The power or " .ORG " ....
Tue Oct 19 12:28:19 1999


I see some problems with inclusion or realization of the plan towards a public personality at this time.

The first steps are in the capable hands of Debaser at this time. Until the draft is more complete and founded on good principle and DATA....

Introduction of this idea too soon could result in a PR coup for the whomever is entrusted with it....unless it is registered in a non-profit status like a .org domain name which would hold idea's presented inside as proprietary.

Proper consideration towards the establishments that we use to research our ideas, the data MUST be represented by identifying and/or contacting with requests for permission to include in it.

It all boils down to PR with the powers that be....

Is it good for their image?
Benefits of support outweigh the arguement of cost....no matter if it comes to reality or not....is this a vehicle for more awareness of space ventures initiated by a private group of citizens interested and driven to a specific goal?

What sort of existing laws govern this sort of John Q. Public design and production of a "Product" specifically designed to provide images of a "Heavenly Body" generally thought of as public domain where NO real sovreign (sp?) governing body can enforce law?

Does the flag placed there by the early incarnation of NASA constitute the USA as a potential governing body?

The only thing they can govern as far as I know is launch point I would think.

Questions and/or statements?

Gates of Babylon....

GOM
Wow Gates! Food for thought . . .
Tue Oct 19 13:10:22 1999



Quote: "Does the flag placed there by the early incarnation of NASA constitute the USA as a potential governing body?

The only thing they can govern as far as I know is launch point I would think."

I can't imagine the US as being able to "claim" the entire moon without a massive international uproar. I am not sure about this, but I suspect that it would be considered more like the way Antartica is handled. Kind of a research lab open to any country tough enough to make the effort.

But no, just thinking aloud, maybe not. The moon is much larger and at one point our military considered it to be a valuable "high ground". So maybe we have unofficially kind of claimed it until someone else comes along. Frankly, we seem to be just ignoring it. That drives the explorer in me absolutely bonkers!

Another option is that maybe the moon will be deeded over to the United Nations. Don't they already have some type of claim or jurisdiction over our own national parks? I can't remember that exact details. Boy, I'm not being too helpful here am I?

As far as governing launch points, that would only apply to launches from within US territory, wouldn't it? I thought that other countries were somehow involved in the sea launch capability that Grendel has mentioned.

Btw, I think you are correct about actually getting any public figure involved in the MoonCam/LEO project at this time. But isn't it fun just to speculate about? I think the more names we have on the table, the more it stimulates conversation about the best way to go. I'm partial to old timers like Clarke, or one of the astronauts. But I also realize that the times have passed me by. But Oprah??? Forgive me Wun, I am struggling to visualize just how that would work . . . No disrespect intended.

Also, Gates, you are correct about Jason. At least in my grumpy opinion. He has a talent for words that would be difficult to match anywhere. However, you are also a very critical part of making this baby fly. I could spend the next two years (well realisically more like ten years!) and not get up to your level of knowledge. We probably don't have that kind of time to waste.

I'll tell you one thing, after all this discussion and very interesting commentary: I will be watching like a hawk the next satellite NASA sends up to Mars!!!

Da Grump

:)

Wun
Grumpy..:))
Tue Oct 19 18:56:41 1999


on the run here...

I did say "Oprah"ize..the venture..meaning..she gets stuff out to the man and woman in the street with great dispatch.. look at her "bookclub"
Its been a while since I watched the programme..but she does have the "common touch" which means ,as you know,she gets new ideas across and really gets people interested in her causes..so someone like that.full of enthusiasm.reaches a lot of people..all across the board..
Especially the women..you forget the old saying..
"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"
and maybe the Moon and the stars as well..hm?))

GOM
Ya got me there, Wun . . . ^
Tue Oct 19 19:55:00 1999

tilos
Who owns the Moon ?
Tue Oct 19 13:31:59 1999


That very issue is addressed in the "New" MJ-12 documents that Firmage/Wood/Wood have put out. I need to read it again but the term is Res something or another. As a matter of fact it might be no human group will ever have rights to the Moon. Good point .. I had thought about posting something on it earlier - It is a relevant topic.

danny

Grendel
Re: Who owns the Moon.
Tue Oct 19 22:43:22 1999


According to the Treaty on Space Exploration. ratified by 95 countries including the US, nobody does. Specifically:

"Article II: Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

However (there's always a however) high flown sentiments don't always work out in practice and treaties are not always adhered to. Article IV of the same treaty says you can't put any kind of weapon in space and - specifically - not in orbit around the earth. But we do. A similar treaty says nobody owns Antarctica, but those sectors are still there on the map and if you want to set up an observation post in the Norwegian sector you have to ask the Norwegians. That says ownership to me.

The way it really works (or will work) is, I suspect, similar to the precedents we have established here on earth. Planting a flag is a token towards ownership, but sovereignty is established by 'meaningful use and habitation' (I am quoting from The Law of Nations - a textbook I used once).

A case in point is the Falkland Islands. Shortly after gaining its independence from Spain, Argentina asserted a claim to the Malvinas (Falklands) and put a tripod with a metal Argentinian flag there. Sporadically, Argentinian seal hunters had encampments there, but no permanent presence. In the late 1800s the Brits established a permanent colony there, claimed it by 'force majeure' and have been in occupation ever since. Argentina tried to get the world court to recognize its claim but they came down on the side of Britain, because of the 'meaningful use and habitation' principle. Then Argentina tried force of arms, with the results that we saw - Britain had a bigger navy.

So, treaties notwithstanding, the ownership of the moon and other bodies will be vested in whoever establishes a permanent presence there. De facto, if not de jure.

The question is: Has Someone Else already done that? :)

PS: The whole text of the 'Treaty on Space Exploration' can be seen just by putting that in your search engine.

Popeye(tGoSP)
How much do you want to bet that
Wed Oct 20 01:55:21 1999


we already have a little plaque up there that "claims" the Moon for the United States. You know, just in case.

It is a moot point at this point in time, but things will definitely change when and/or if we actually do start putting bases and stuff up there. Then it will probably be an Antarctica like situation for awhile, and then those that got there first will end up owning the "land" they grabbed first. Same with Mars. Ownership is 9/10's, or 9 points, of the law (whichever).

GOM
LOL . . .You're probably right!!! ^
Wed Oct 20 02:07:46 1999

Debaser
Re: who owns the moon?
Tue Oct 19 14:04:46 1999


There is a treaty in place which forbids nations from claiming bodies as territories. The United Nations Treaty on Outer Space of 1967 prohibits claims of ownership by any state. Check the FAQ on who owns the moon at NASA for a little more info.

Question becomes not who owns the moon...but who owns the citizens trying to see the moon? ;) The government can't claim the moon as property but it can define what a citizen can and cannot do. However, a corporate entity seems to have much more ability to negotiate and sidestep these issues. We'll see...

Jason

Nancy
Re: who owns the moon?
Wed Oct 20 00:13:14 1999


I do!! I bought it from a traveling salesman. I also got a great deal on a bridge in Brooklyn.

Gatekeeper....
Which winds us back to a "WWW.MoonCam.ORG" registration....
Tue Oct 19 17:53:54 1999


We don't build it or send it up....that is contracted as well as the launch....Being non-profit, we could also specify the desired desired use of the system and have creative control over it's design by way of use..ie "Here is what do we want in a Moon Orbiter and here is what we understand to be needed in a SAT system....YADA YADA..."

Just throwing curves for the best possible outcome on the draft.

Nice work on the response Jason....Got me ya did! Cool!

Gates of Babylon....

Debaser
Re: mooncam.org
Tue Oct 19 18:13:17 1999


Please do keep throwing curves and giving constructive criticism! The harder we hold this up to the light and turn it over in our hands, the more solid the whole thing will be and the more realistic our expectations.

I agree with the idea of going .org. To add another reason, it'll show that we are on a non-profit mission here...well, financial profit, anyway :) That along with the idea of a mission statement have been great suggestions, Gates, thanks.

Jason

Gatekeeper....
Well you are the computer internet guy here....
Tue Oct 19 18:40:43 1999


Or I guess so is Castle....I suppose between the two of you it could get done....

Gates of Babylon....

Debaser
Just did a bit of research...
Tue Oct 19 18:58:09 1999


since I hadn't registered a .org before. I was concerned that you had to present not-for-profit proof, but that isn't the case. As we decide to move forward its an open option.

Jason

Gatekeeper....
Considering the potential.....
Tue Oct 19 19:03:30 1999


I would suggest that you now take time out to set up an accounting of a timetable on this issue in that if it should go you have your own accountability of time and any or all expenditures....and advancements in ideas or disclosures.

Cover the base now...and if it fizzles you have not lost anything really....but what if????

Gates of Babylon....

GOM
Jason, Don't mean to push you . . .
Tue Oct 19 20:01:16 1999


but I agree with Gates. That's a big "what if?"!!!

Debaser
Both of you, thanks...
Wed Oct 20 01:38:25 1999


Good idea. If nothing else, it is good accounting and organizational practices. The best way to make something happen to is to have it happening at the outset.

Jason

tilos
Res Nullis ? maybe .. I will definitely look this up.
Tue Oct 19 13:36:51 1999


as it is actually one of the things that circumstancially supports the premise that the Moon already has a landlord (we might be renters here on Earth as well for all I know)

This discussion was one of the things I found very believable in the MJ-12 docs.

GOM
Oh grrrreattt . . . The Reptilians beat us to it??? ^
Tue Oct 19 13:48:45 1999