OT - Mars Mission

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:31:10 GMT, "Default"

user_sucking@the_host.smooth said:

what's so gr8 about the asteroids?

Don't [censored] off Asteriods - it was the only video game I could play !

John T Remove the singers of Spam before replying

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:22:40 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂> PS. I think a manned (or 'inhabited' to use non-gender-specific )> terminology) is excellent
:news; I just can't see the point in going )> via the moon.

"Manned" is non gender specific enough for me.

🙂 )I suspect its because you can send it in bits to the moon and then build it up )and launch from
:there. That would be cheaper because you use a standard )launcher and launch the heavier vehicle
:from the lower gravity than have to )build a mega launcher to get it off the earth in one piece.

Just one question. If this big ship is designed to launch in a lower gravity situation, how the H*ll
is it going to leave Mars ?
--
Comm again, Mike.

pmailkeey wondered:

Quoted message said:

Just one question. If this big ship is designed to launch in a lower gravity situation, how the
H*ll is it going to leave Mars ?

I imagine it would have a smaller lander module, which would land on Mars while the mother ship
remained in orbit.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

In article <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

the whole program costs less per year than Americans spend on snacks for their pets

That sounds a bit unlikely - they're talking about $1 trillion, so about $4,000 per capita.

Quoted message said:

Not a surprise. The US also spends less per capita on foreign aid than any other industrialised
nation, but is top of the list in military aid. Amazing - who could have predicted that?

I'm reminded of the statistic which Bill Bailey quotes - that the US spends more on pornography in a
year than the third world debt, thus leading to his song 'I will not look at titties for a year'
which has some brilliant lines in it, none of which I can remember unfortunately so you'll have to
take my word for it.

ttfn

Martin

--
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that
are doing it." - Dan Quayle

Martin Harlow [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

"Well, the whole program costs less per year than Americans spend on snacks for their pets"

Somehow I find that hard to believe, unless the cost of such a mission actualy derives from
cutting corners.

Personally I don't believe, and nor do I like, the idea of going to Mars. The trip and way to
accomplish it is plain "stupid".

Dave Larrington said:

No, but they've got an Infinite Improbability Drive.

Highly unlightly.

Vince.

Martin Harlow said:

I'm reminded of the statistic which Bill Bailey quotes - that the US spends more on pornography in
a year than the third world debt ...

Does that mean the third world is stuck in poverty so the merkins can have a [censored]?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

AndyMorris said:

Quoted message said:

I'm reminded of the statistic which Bill Bailey quotes - that the US spends more on pornography
in a year than the third world debt ...

Quoted message said:

Does that mean the third world is stuck in poverty so the merkins can have a [censored]?

Actually some parts of the USA are so poor that Ghanaian doctors go there to train in third world
medicine. Some US districts have successfully applied for aid from their own third-world programmes.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On 16 Jan 2004 04:11:55 -0800, [email hidden] (Robert
McDonald) wrote:

🙂> To wander even further OT, why bother with Mars? )Cos the Merrcains can't allow the Chinese to
:get there first (or to )inhabit the moon for that matter. Mind you, if there was oil
🙂there..........

If they find oil on the Moon, it'll be from a previous visit !
--
Comm again, Mike.

[email hidden] (pmailkeey) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:22:40 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂> PS. I think a manned (or 'inhabited' to use non-gender-specific )> terminology) is excellent
:news; I just can't see the point in going )> via the moon.

"Manned" is non gender specific enough for me.

🙂 )I suspect its because you can send it in bits to the moon and then build it up )and launch
:from there. That would be cheaper because you use a standard )launcher and launch the heavier
:vehicle from the lower gravity than have to )build a mega launcher to get it off the earth in
:one piece.

Just one question. If this big ship is designed to launch in a lower gravity situation, how the
H*ll is it going to leave Mars ?

all I can say is; Capricorn One, the best sci fi film ever made. It has even got me wondering about
the Moon landings.

pmailkeey said:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:22:40 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

🙂I suspect its because you can send it in bits to the moon and then
build it up
🙂and launch from there. That would be cheaper because you use a
standard
🙂launcher and launch the heavier vehicle from the lower gravity than
have to
🙂build a mega launcher to get it off the earth in one piece.

Just one question. If this big ship is designed to launch in a lower gravity situation, how the
H*ll is it going to leave Mars ?

Apparently they are going to park the ship on Phobos and cycle the rest of the way.

Colin
--

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

all I can say is; Capricorn One, the best sci fi film ever made. It has even got me wondering
about the Moon landings.

Hmm, possibly for some radically different value of best to that which I normally use.

I thought it was pretty dreadful. But then I liked Silent Running, so what do I know?

cheers, clive

Clive George said:

I thought it was pretty dreadful. But then I liked Silent Running, so what do I know?

Not to be confused with the excellent Cool Runnings ;-)

Tony

Quoted message said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

all I can say is; Capricorn One, the best sci fi film ever made. It has even got me wondering
about the Moon landings.

Hmm, possibly for some radically different value of best to that which I normally use.

I thought it was pretty dreadful. But then I liked Silent Running, so what do I know?

cheers, clive

Silent Running, that hippy and those 3 walking washing powder boxes?? and that awful song by Joan
Baez. Do I detect a bit of Arthur Dent in your invective?

MM (The man in the shack)

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

all I can say is; Capricorn One, the best sci fi film ever made. It has even got me wondering
about the Moon landings.

Hmm, possibly for some radically different value of best to that which I normally use.

I thought it was pretty dreadful. But then I liked Silent Running, so

what

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do I know?

cheers, clive

Silent Running, that hippy and those 3 walking washing powder boxes?? and that awful song by
Joan Baez.

Yup, that's the one. I rather liked it.

Actually, is Capricorn One sci-fi? The point of it is that there isn't enough sci - does it in fact
count as a paranoid conspiracy thriller instead? In which case I'm sure there have been better ones
(unfortunately I keep on thinking of that one with Sandra Bullock in, and as far as i'm concerned
that's a pretty good clue that a film is unwatchably bad (possibly speed aside)).

Quoted message said:

Do I detect a bit of Arthur Dent in your invective?

Not today thank you.

cheers, clive

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

I thought it was pretty dreadful. But then I liked Silent Running, so what do I know?

Not to be confused with the excellent Cool Runnings ;-)

Tony

Is that about a Jamaican Mars mission?

The point about Capricorn One was that the merkins would do absolutely anything to convince the
world that they were ahead of the space/arms race. (so no change there). My Grandad said at the time
of Apollo XI it was all a fix. 35 years later has anyone actually got a picture of the basey bit of
the Moduley thing in the Mare Tranquilitatis? and yet they can tell you what size the craters on
Pluto are.

[email hidden] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh it's not that the people from Nasa said it couldn't be done - it's that they said Dumbya
thinking doing a base on the moon as a launch pad to Mars was not the best way to do it.

I suspect the whole Moon/Mars announcement is also to serve as a useful launch pad for the Bush re-
election (or "re-electifisation" as the Dead Ringers team would probably render it!) campaign. Or am
I just being cynical?

Quoted message said:

But what do Nasa know. ;-)

Depends. "Known knowns" or "known unknowns"? ;-)

David E. Belcher

MSeries said:

Velvet wrote: .

Quoted message said:

Of course, they'll need to work out some way of generating fuel up there rather than lugging the
stuff up from earth each time -

Just wait until its day time and the moon will be down there so the fuel will fall there on
its own !!!

They are counting on comet debris ice lurking in shady craters at the South Pole.

Water +sunlight = rocket fuel.

Mind that speed camera on Phobos!

Richard Webb

In message <[email hidden]>, [Not Responding]

Quoted message said:

Pres Bush said that a Lunar base will help any mars mission because the moon's lower gravity will
make it cheaper to launch a spacecraft.

Is it me or the Merkin that's missing something here? Surely, unless you build your rocket
ship, Barney Rubble style, out of moonrocks you'd have to lug your space ship parts up from
Earth anyway.

But not the fuel, which could be made from the water on the moon.

--
Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), ANL, Leeds SA, Leeds Anti-war coalition OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6
F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4 No to software patents! No to DRM/EUCD - hands off our
computers!

In message <[email hidden]>, MartinM

Quoted message said:

all I can say is; Capricorn One, the best sci fi film ever made. It has even got me wondering
about the Moon landings.

iangoddard.netmoon01.htmOpen ↗

That site, and the sites linked from it demolish the moon hoax theory.

--
Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), ANL, Leeds SA, Leeds Anti-war coalition OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6
F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4 No to software patents! No to DRM/EUCD - hands off our
computers!