From: Ruth2443@webtv.net (Ruth Richards) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: MOON LANDING Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:02:40 -0500 (EST) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 14 Message-ID: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhROWKIClWrDuUiwCaMw0aAiUaY91wIUIfR3fkOzgGnwg+XpUzTNx2taUOs= Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64643 Sorry but I have eyes, the sky was dark in the moon landing and still no stars it was not daylight at all. There were no springs in the flag it was blowing. I also have noticed something myself. With no gravity on the moon when they were driving there little nassa 4 wheeler. It was launching rocks left and right yet they just fell to the moon surface WHY DIDN'T THOSE LITTLE LIGHT ROCKS FLOAT AWAY??????????? Im not interested in hearing anymore crap so don't even bother. I am a skeptic of the moon landing and as a skeptic I say prove it or shut up. Why have we never went back? Ill tell you, because we never went there to begin with. RUTHS HUSBAND ###### Message-ID: <3AB2DD4D.24AE17A4@home.com> From: Suzanne Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en]C-AtHome0405 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 36 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 03:40:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.67.6.118 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 984800453 24.67.6.118 (Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:40:53 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:40:53 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!kanja.arnes.si!news-hub.siol.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.ab.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64687 Ruth Richards wrote: > Sorry but I have eyes, the sky was dark in the moon landing and still no > stars it was not daylight at all. There were no springs in the flag it > was blowing. I also have noticed something myself. With no gravity > on the moon when they were driving there little nassa 4 wheeler. It was > launching rocks left and right yet they just fell to the moon surface > WHY DIDN'T THOSE LITTLE LIGHT ROCKS FLOAT AWAY??????????? > Im not interested in hearing anymore crap so don't even > bother. I am a skeptic of the moon landing and as a skeptic I say > prove it or shut up. Why have we never went back? Ill tell you, > because we never went there to begin with. > > RUTHS HUSBAND Sorry I'm giggling at your sig line. I have to agree that there's definitely some suspicious evidence. But for me, I really couldn't care less either way. If the moon was a total scam to fool the people of the world, imagine what other scams are really going on. Humans are distracted by so many things. Imagine how much disinformation is out there. It's endless. Area 51, UFO's, abductees, microchip implantees, mind control, cults, food scares, pollution, lucid dreams, OBE's.... We live in a world of "duality" and because of this there will always be at least 2 potential truths. I think as human being we have to take responsibility in recognizing what we believe to be true, not from what the media says, but what we feel inside. When we die and leave this planet, ultimately we'll have to deal with our own belief systems. Suzanne ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:16:53 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 82 Message-ID: <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du111-26.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 984820650 3659 195.100.26.111 (17 Mar 2001 09:17:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Mar 2001 09:17:30 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64642 Hi Ruth's husband, (I donīt know why I bother, but still...) Look, you have the right to believe anything you want - I certainly believe many "strange" things - but your arguments against the Moon landing are really very weak and easy to tear apart. Ruth Richards wrote: > > Sorry but I have eyes, the sky was dark in the moon landing and still no > stars it was not daylight at all. Of course the sky was dark, but there was daylight anyway. Daylight on the Moon is like that, because the moon has no atmosphers. If it hadnīt been daylight the Moon surface would have been totally dark. > There were no springs in the flag it was blowing. At least in all footage I have seen the flag is perfectly still, extended, while they are filming. And ask yourself: if NASA really did a "Capricorn One", donīt you think they would have fixed things that easy? > I also have noticed something myself. With no gravity on the moon Good grief, of course there is gravity on the Moon, it is just weaker (1/6 to be precise) than on the Earth. > when they were driving there little nassa 4 wheeler. It was launching rocks > left and right yet they just fell to the moon surface WHY DIDN'T THOSE > LITTLE LIGHT ROCKS FLOAT AWAY??????????? Dude, see that Caps Lock button on your keyboard? Press it so the Caps Lock LED goes out. Yellingīs impolite, you know. Now, thatīs better. Well, because the Moon has gravity, far starters. It is weaker than the Earthīs so, rocks and dust wonīt fall down quite as fast, but fall down they will. I think you are confusing the Moon with open space. In open space there is zero-g (well, actually it is not, but it is free fall, so you *feel* zero-g). > Im not interested in hearing anymore crap so don't even bother. Like I said, I donīt know why I bother, but perhaps I have too much free time... ;-) > I am a skeptic of the moon landing and as a skeptic I say prove it or shut > up. Well, I think I just proved it. Unless you have some more substantial arguments. > Why have we never went back? Ill tell you, because we never went there to > begin with. It is really a shame that we never did go back, but that is because of political and budgetary reasons. In the 1960s, going to the Moon was a race with the Soviet Union, a political contest with a lot of prestige involved. Thus NASA got basically everything they wanted and a huge budget. Nowadays, the USSR is no more and Congress is tightening the purse strings. And I must say I am very disappointed with the latest events. Pluto/Kuiper prope? Cancelled. X-33 and X-34? Cancelled. Mars program? Beset with sloppiness that made them lose 2 probes, and cut back in scale. It seems like the ISS is taking *all* the dough. I must say that I actually almost believe in *another* conspiracy theory reagarding NASA. If anyone is interested in hearing about it, let me know. > RUTHS HUSBAND /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### Message-ID: <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> From: Suzanne Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en]C-AtHome0405 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 91 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:40:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.67.6.118 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 984843643 24.67.6.118 (Sat, 17 Mar 2001 07:40:43 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 07:40:43 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.ab.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64685 Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > Hi Ruth's husband, > > (I donīt know why I bother, but still...) > > Look, you have the right to believe anything you want - I certainly > believe many "strange" things - but your arguments against the Moon > landing are really very weak and easy to tear apart. > > Ruth Richards wrote: > > > > Sorry but I have eyes, the sky was dark in the moon landing and still no > > stars it was not daylight at all. > > Of course the sky was dark, but there was daylight anyway. Daylight on > the Moon is like that, because the moon has no atmosphers. If it hadnīt > been daylight the Moon surface would have been totally dark. > > > There were no springs in the flag it was blowing. > > At least in all footage I have seen the flag is perfectly still, > extended, while they are filming. And ask yourself: if NASA really did a > "Capricorn One", donīt you think they would have fixed things that easy? > > > I also have noticed something myself. With no gravity on the moon > > Good grief, of course there is gravity on the Moon, it is just weaker > (1/6 to be precise) than on the Earth. > > > when they were driving there little nassa 4 wheeler. It was launching rocks > > left and right yet they just fell to the moon surface WHY DIDN'T THOSE > > LITTLE LIGHT ROCKS FLOAT AWAY??????????? > > Dude, see that Caps Lock button on your keyboard? Press it so the Caps > Lock LED goes out. Yellingīs impolite, you know. Now, thatīs better. > > Well, because the Moon has gravity, far starters. It is weaker than the > Earthīs so, rocks and dust wonīt fall down quite as fast, but fall down > they will. > > I think you are confusing the Moon with open space. In open space there > is zero-g (well, actually it is not, but it is free fall, so you *feel* > zero-g). > > > Im not interested in hearing anymore crap so don't even bother. > > Like I said, I donīt know why I bother, but perhaps I have too much free > time... ;-) > > > I am a skeptic of the moon landing and as a skeptic I say prove it or shut > > up. > > Well, I think I just proved it. Unless you have some more substantial > arguments. > > > Why have we never went back? Ill tell you, because we never went there to > > begin with. > > It is really a shame that we never did go back, but that is because of > political and budgetary reasons. > > In the 1960s, going to the Moon was a race with the Soviet Union, a > political contest with a lot of prestige involved. Thus NASA got > basically everything they wanted and a huge budget. Nowadays, the USSR > is no more and Congress is tightening the purse strings. > > And I must say I am very disappointed with the latest events. > Pluto/Kuiper prope? Cancelled. X-33 and X-34? Cancelled. Mars program? > Beset with sloppiness that made them lose 2 probes, and cut back in > scale. It seems like the ISS is taking *all* the dough. > > I must say that I actually almost believe in *another* conspiracy theory > reagarding NASA. If anyone is interested in hearing about it, let me > know. > /Gunnar Hey, I'm game for a good *conspiracy theory*. It always inspires some good old fashioned thinking. Suzanne > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### Message-ID: <3AB38BDE.F3084AAB@worldnet.att.net> From: cher Reply-To: gruendemann@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:06:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.78.170.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 984845190 12.78.170.8 (Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:06:30 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:06:30 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64663 Well considering that mankind never goes anywhere without leaving a mess, why not see if there are images of space junk on the surface of the moon? Seems reasonable. Ruth Richards wrote: > > Sorry but I have eyes, the sky was dark in the moon landing and still no > stars it was not daylight at all. There were no springs in the flag it > was blowing. I also have noticed something myself. With no gravity > on the moon when they were driving there little nassa 4 wheeler. It was > launching rocks left and right yet they just fell to the moon surface > WHY DIDN'T THOSE LITTLE LIGHT ROCKS FLOAT AWAY??????????? > Im not interested in hearing anymore crap so don't even > bother. I am a skeptic of the moon landing and as a skeptic I say > prove it or shut up. Why have we never went back? Ill tell you, > because we never went there to begin with. > > RUTHS HUSBAND ###### From: not-me@not-here.net (Janice) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Message-ID: <3ab3b1f5.1095609@news.starlinx.com> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 93 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:49:52 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-lFa9+2nGLFxA1BV2/ltbfqrJwydagQFgZ96x46G5aBWz31fJVad1P8ifBuvra1LUCHRPcp3FS8qaoK1!+LDewrnIMQYAc/0My8eTPg4mq8U= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:53:33 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64733 On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:16:53 +0100, Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: >Hi Ruth's husband, > >(I donīt know why I bother, but still...) > >Look, you have the right to believe anything you want - I certainly >believe many "strange" things - but your arguments against the Moon >landing are really very weak and easy to tear apart. > >Ruth Richards wrote: >> >> Sorry but I have eyes, the sky was dark in the moon landing and still no >> stars it was not daylight at all. > >Of course the sky was dark, but there was daylight anyway. Daylight on >the Moon is like that, because the moon has no atmosphers. If it hadnīt >been daylight the Moon surface would have been totally dark. > >> There were no springs in the flag it was blowing. > >At least in all footage I have seen the flag is perfectly still, >extended, while they are filming. And ask yourself: if NASA really did a >"Capricorn One", donīt you think they would have fixed things that easy? > >> I also have noticed something myself. With no gravity on the moon > >Good grief, of course there is gravity on the Moon, it is just weaker >(1/6 to be precise) than on the Earth. > >> when they were driving there little nassa 4 wheeler. It was launching rocks >> left and right yet they just fell to the moon surface WHY DIDN'T THOSE >> LITTLE LIGHT ROCKS FLOAT AWAY??????????? > >Dude, see that Caps Lock button on your keyboard? Press it so the Caps >Lock LED goes out. Yellingīs impolite, you know. Now, thatīs better. > >Well, because the Moon has gravity, far starters. It is weaker than the >Earthīs so, rocks and dust wonīt fall down quite as fast, but fall down >they will. > >I think you are confusing the Moon with open space. In open space there >is zero-g (well, actually it is not, but it is free fall, so you *feel* >zero-g). > >> Im not interested in hearing anymore crap so don't even bother. > >Like I said, I donīt know why I bother, but perhaps I have too much free >time... ;-) > >> I am a skeptic of the moon landing and as a skeptic I say prove it or shut >> up. > >Well, I think I just proved it. Unless you have some more substantial >arguments. > >> Why have we never went back? Ill tell you, because we never went there to >> begin with. > >It is really a shame that we never did go back, but that is because of >political and budgetary reasons. > >In the 1960s, going to the Moon was a race with the Soviet Union, a >political contest with a lot of prestige involved. Thus NASA got >basically everything they wanted and a huge budget. Nowadays, the USSR >is no more and Congress is tightening the purse strings. > >And I must say I am very disappointed with the latest events. >Pluto/Kuiper prope? Cancelled. X-33 and X-34? Cancelled. Mars program? >Beset with sloppiness that made them lose 2 probes, and cut back in >scale. It seems like the ISS is taking *all* the dough. Eek, don't bring that one up. My husband's company (Lockheed Martin) was involved in that fiasco with the metric vs. English measurements. 8*) (No, Jay didn't design any parts for that; all his projects have worked so far.) >I must say that I actually almost believe in *another* conspiracy theory >reagarding NASA. If anyone is interested in hearing about it, let me >know. Sure, why not? ------- The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures. --Despair, Inc. ------- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.htm ###### From: Ruth2443@webtv.net (Ruth Richards) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:09:37 -0500 (EST) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 7 Message-ID: <15429-3AB3B671-109@storefull-104.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <3AB2DD4D.24AE17A4@home.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhQ6PvOPxySYeLLy3FTEfGnUO5ykEwIVAIUCcpC9+CGrbTpm/fX4Ak3yJ5Ta Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64703 I suppose its possible we really went to the moon maybe even probable. However I remain a skeptic but since this is alt.out of body please forgive my off topic post. Lets drop the moon landing talk now and back to obe's. TR ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:52:46 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 89 Message-ID: <3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: sdu39-238.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 984858803 14162 195.163.238.39 (17 Mar 2001 19:53:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Mar 2001 19:53:23 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!194.213.69.151!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64701 Hi Suzanne and Janice, Suzanne wrote: > Hey, I'm game for a good *conspiracy theory*. It always inspires some good > old fashioned thinking. > > Suzanne When you think of it this isnīt actually so far-fetched... Anyway, the conspiracy theory is about why it is so expensive to go to space. The background is that one-use rockets are extremely expensive; it costs roughly $5000-10000 to put a lb of payload into low-Earth orbit. This has not changed since the 60s (taking inflation into account)!!! Unbelievable! The Space Shuttle was supposed to be much cheaper, but instead it has turned out to be even more expensive than ordinary rockets like Delta or Ariane. This because of the huge number of people needed to go thru it after every time etc. Some 5-6 years ago a division within McDonnell Douglas came up with a proposal for a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle, the Delta Clipper, that would take off and land vertically unmanned. It using proven technology with normal materials and rocket engines, was designed to be 100% reusable and lower payload costs by a factor of 10. A half-scale prototype, the DC-X, was built, and it performed beautifully. Then Nasa awoke and became involved. For some reason they decided not to develop this, but made a contest for the industry. In this, the Lockheed Venturestar proposal won. The Venturestar was a vertical-takeoff, horizontal-landing SSTO using very advanced and new tech; linear aerospike engines, integrated lifting body, advanced composites etc. It also was supposed to be able to lower operating costs by a factor 10, but would cost 5 times as much and take twice as long to develop. So NASA chose that one, and McDonnell Douglas canceled their Delta Clipper program, since NASA had made their choice. So, a half-scale prototype for the VentureStar, the X-33, was built. At first it went ok, but soon they got problems with all the new tech, leading to delays and cost overruns. And now that GWB is in the White House, it gets axed completely. So, now NASA is stuck with the Shuttle and its staggering costs for who knows how many years. The X-33 and Venturestar was supposed to be the successor, now there is none. Allright, now weīre getting to the conspiracy: Does NASA (and the govt) really want space launches to be cheap? They seem to do everything in their power to cripple and then kill every promising attempt. The answer: Probably no. You see, 80% of the shuttle launches carry military payloads: KH-11 spy satellites, surveillance satellites, communications satellites (perhaps even nuclear warheads). To the US military the fact that they have to pay quite a lot for their space assets means much less than that almost no other nations can afford to do the same. This gives the US a very big advantage. What would happen if there was a new generation of reusable boosters capable of cutting launch costs by 90%? Then a lot more nations would be able to afford satellites of their own, either by buying a booster of their own or buying launches from others who had them. Nations including Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea... then the US would lose a very significant edge, and might have to stop bullying other nations around... and we canīt have that, can we? So the powers that be has decided that in order to protect their power spaceflight has to continue to be excessively expensive, no matter that it is an assault on the future... Well, thatīs about it. Tell me what you think. See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:52:50 -0600 Organization: Happy Noodle Boy! Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <3AB2DD4D.24AE17A4@home.com> <15429-3AB3B671-109@storefull-104.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-689.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) X-Face: "w/5:'{b21!-UbG8:}Tk?P%!\!n(cgznyt]sJL5N2_2bsRhGTRJ%UX!Wx%GgGA.Ri]*PQJB>y%sHxmrIRlVPU/3\@JI8H}KHLQbbzA)1j,*4mxqqt\}[L"XpE1\C7xg2mJH]NelCKASP;xvO'}"W(8y+kf,EyaeHk"h.DUlJ-L%p+jk|E1i0V>_$(5nnx,'GnM^%Sd0V Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64740 In article <15429-3AB3B671-109@storefull-104.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Ruth2443@webtv.net (Ruth Richards) wrote: > I suppose its possible we really went to the moon maybe even probable. > However I remain a skeptic No, you aren't a skeptic. > but since this is alt.out of body please > forgive my off topic post. Lets drop the moon landing talk now and back > to obe's. > Nah, it was a useful thread -- it smoked out a few credulous loons. -- pz ###### Message-ID: <3AB3C425.72972B7F@home.com> From: Suzanne Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en]C-AtHome0405 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> <3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 103 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:06:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.67.6.118 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 984859582 24.67.6.118 (Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:06:22 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:06:22 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.ab.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64762 Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > Hi Suzanne and Janice, > > Suzanne wrote: > > > Hey, I'm game for a good *conspiracy theory*. It always inspires some good > > old fashioned thinking. > > > > Suzanne > > When you think of it this isnīt actually so far-fetched... > > Anyway, the conspiracy theory is about why it is so expensive to go to > space. > The background is that one-use rockets are extremely expensive; it costs > roughly $5000-10000 to put a lb of payload into low-Earth orbit. This > has not changed since the 60s (taking inflation into account)!!! > Unbelievable! > > The Space Shuttle was supposed to be much cheaper, but instead it has > turned out to be even more expensive than ordinary rockets like Delta or > Ariane. This because of the huge number of people needed to go thru it > after every time etc. > > Some 5-6 years ago a division within McDonnell Douglas came up with a > proposal for a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle, the Delta Clipper, > that would take off and land vertically unmanned. It using proven > technology with normal materials and rocket engines, was designed to be > 100% reusable and lower payload costs by a factor of 10. > > A half-scale prototype, the DC-X, was built, and it performed > beautifully. Then Nasa awoke and became involved. For some reason they > decided not to develop this, but made a contest for the industry. In > this, the Lockheed Venturestar proposal won. > > The Venturestar was a vertical-takeoff, horizontal-landing SSTO using > very advanced and new tech; linear aerospike engines, integrated lifting > body, advanced composites etc. It also was supposed to be able to lower > operating costs by a factor 10, but would cost 5 times as much and take > twice as long to develop. So NASA chose that one, and McDonnell Douglas > canceled their Delta Clipper program, since NASA had made their choice. > > So, a half-scale prototype for the VentureStar, the X-33, was built. At > first it went ok, but soon they got problems with all the new tech, > leading to delays and cost overruns. And now that GWB is in the White > House, it gets axed completely. > > So, now NASA is stuck with the Shuttle and its staggering costs for who > knows how many years. The X-33 and Venturestar was supposed to be the > successor, now there is none. > > Allright, now weīre getting to the conspiracy: > > Does NASA (and the govt) really want space launches to be cheap? They > seem to do everything in their power to cripple and then kill every > promising attempt. > > The answer: Probably no. > > You see, 80% of the shuttle launches carry military payloads: KH-11 spy > satellites, surveillance satellites, communications satellites (perhaps > even nuclear warheads). > > To the US military the fact that they have to pay quite a lot for their > space assets means much less than that almost no other nations can > afford to do the same. This gives the US a very big advantage. > > What would happen if there was a new generation of reusable boosters > capable of cutting launch costs by 90%? Then a lot more nations would be > able to afford satellites of their own, either by buying a booster of > their own or buying launches from others who had them. > > Nations including Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea... then the US > would lose a very significant edge, and might have to stop bullying > other nations around... and we canīt have that, can we? > > So the powers that be has decided that in order to protect their power > spaceflight has to continue to be excessively expensive, no matter that > it is an assault on the future... > > Well, thatīs about it. Tell me what you think. I think that this is a very plausible theory, in fact it is probably true. Everybody knows that money = power in this current world. I don't even see it as a conspiracy, it's just logical. Thanks for sharing it, Gunnar. Suzanne > > > See you out there... > > /Gunnar > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> <3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se> Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Lines: 124 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:28:11 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.11 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 984868075 216.241.33.11 (Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:27:55 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:27:55 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64756 Hey there Gunnar, Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote in message news:3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se... > Hi Suzanne and Janice, > > Suzanne wrote: > > > Hey, I'm game for a good *conspiracy theory*. It always inspires some good > > old fashioned thinking. > > > > Suzanne > > When you think of it this isnīt actually so far-fetched... > > Anyway, the conspiracy theory is about why it is so expensive to go to > space. > The background is that one-use rockets are extremely expensive; it costs > roughly $5000-10000 to put a lb of payload into low-Earth orbit. This > has not changed since the 60s (taking inflation into account)!!! > Unbelievable! > > The Space Shuttle was supposed to be much cheaper, but instead it has > turned out to be even more expensive than ordinary rockets like Delta or > Ariane. This because of the huge number of people needed to go thru it > after every time etc. > > Some 5-6 years ago a division within McDonnell Douglas came up with a > proposal for a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle, the Delta Clipper, > that would take off and land vertically unmanned. It using proven > technology with normal materials and rocket engines, was designed to be > 100% reusable and lower payload costs by a factor of 10. Don't you mean horizontal take off and land? I had read about a htol vehical a few years ago that seemed really cool. It only carried a hydrogen tank (no oxygen) which cut the weight by a huge amount since the one part oxygen weighs 4 times what the 2 parts of hydrogen weighs. It would get the oxygen from the atmosphere by virtue of it's sheer speed, ramjet style, of Mach 23! (fast eh?). It did have a small O2 tank but only for use when it reached orbiting altitude. From what I read, it was perfectly feasable limited only by the high cost of manufacturing the amazing turbines for such an engine, but still, never came to fruitation. > > A half-scale prototype, the DC-X, was built, and it performed > beautifully. Then Nasa awoke and became involved. For some reason they > decided not to develop this, but made a contest for the industry. In > this, the Lockheed Venturestar proposal won. > > The Venturestar was a vertical-takeoff, horizontal-landing SSTO using > very advanced and new tech; linear aerospike engines, integrated lifting > body, advanced composites etc. It also was supposed to be able to lower > operating costs by a factor 10, but would cost 5 times as much and take > twice as long to develop. So NASA chose that one, and McDonnell Douglas > canceled their Delta Clipper program, since NASA had made their choice. > > So, a half-scale prototype for the VentureStar, the X-33, was built. At > first it went ok, but soon they got problems with all the new tech, > leading to delays and cost overruns. And now that GWB is in the White > House, it gets axed completely. This isn't the first illogical thing he's done and I'm sure it won't be the last. > > So, now NASA is stuck with the Shuttle and its staggering costs for who > knows how many years. The X-33 and Venturestar was supposed to be the > successor, now there is none. > > Allright, now weīre getting to the conspiracy: > > Does NASA (and the govt) really want space launches to be cheap? They > seem to do everything in their power to cripple and then kill every > promising attempt. > > The answer: Probably no. > > You see, 80% of the shuttle launches carry military payloads: KH-11 spy > satellites, surveillance satellites, communications satellites (perhaps > even nuclear warheads). > > To the US military the fact that they have to pay quite a lot for their > space assets means much less than that almost no other nations can > afford to do the same. This gives the US a very big advantage. > > What would happen if there was a new generation of reusable boosters > capable of cutting launch costs by 90%? Then a lot more nations would be > able to afford satellites of their own, either by buying a booster of > their own or buying launches from others who had them. > > Nations including Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea... then the US > would lose a very significant edge, and might have to stop bullying > other nations around... and we canīt have that, can we? > > So the powers that be has decided that in order to protect their power > spaceflight has to continue to be excessively expensive, no matter that > it is an assault on the future... > > Well, thatīs about it. Tell me what you think. Interesting theory, but I think I see some flaws. For one thing, if we were to develop cheap space transportation, we would have to sell it to other countries in order for them to use it. If we want to keep it out of their hands, we simply don't sell it! Of course other third world countries aren't as back country as some of us Americans have been led to believe and so you could say that if we developed it, they could copy it, except there's one flaw with that logic as well. If we can develop cheap space transport because it's doable, so can they. Even if we don't do it. The fact that they aren't says it might not be so doable as we think. Ken > > See you out there... > > /Gunnar > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:00:10 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3AB4953A.56FFC2E@algonet.se> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> <3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se> <3AB3C425.72972B7F@home.com> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du152-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 984913246 17257 195.100.93.152 (18 Mar 2001 11:00:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Mar 2001 11:00:46 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!194.213.69.151!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64696 Hi Suzanne, Suzanne wrote: > I think that this is a very plausible theory, in fact it is probably true. Yeah, or at least sometimes it seems so. > Everybody knows that money = power in this current world. I don't even see > it as a conspiracy, it's just logical. It is a Logical Conspiracy! ;-) > Thanks for sharing it, Gunnar. Anytime. > Suzanne See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:01:04 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 94 Message-ID: <3AB49570.65D02ACA@algonet.se> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> <3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du152-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 984913301 17257 195.100.93.152 (18 Mar 2001 11:01:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Mar 2001 11:01:41 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64699 Hi Ken, The Original Ken wrote: > > Hey there Gunnar, > Don't you mean horizontal take off and land? No, not this one. See > I had read about a htol vehical a few years ago that seemed really cool. Yeah, but Hotol was a British design IIRC. > It only carried a hydrogen tank (no oxygen) which cut the weight by a huge > amount since the one part oxygen weighs 4 times what the 2 parts of > hydrogen weighs. It would get the oxygen from the atmosphere by virtue of > it's sheer speed, ramjet style, of Mach 23! (fast eh?). It did have a > small O2 tank but only for use when it reached orbiting altitude. From > what I read, it was perfectly feasable limited only by the high cost of > manufacturing the amazing turbines for such an engine, but still, never > came to fruitation. Yep, it turned out the scramjet engines were somewhat harder to get to work than they anticipated, and later of course it got the budgetary kiss o'death. > This isn't the first illogical thing he's done and I'm sure it won't be the > last. Too true. But what was even more strange was that NASA selected a program which was estimated to be much more expensive and technically difficult over a cheaper and simpler one, where there were not significant advantages of the selected one, whether in terms of payload, operating costs, infrastructure needed, flexibility etc. Donīt get me wrong, I really liked the Venturestar too, and it would have been beautiful. But the technical difficulties was a lot bigger. > Interesting theory, but I think I see some flaws. For one thing, if we > were to develop cheap space transportation, we would have to sell it to > other countries in order for them to use it. If we want to keep it out of > their hands, we simply don't sell it! Yes, but if you donīt sell it they can copy it or make their own design. Thereīs the Columbus factor. People are very unwilling to commit vast resources to something if they think it canīt be done. You donīt throw billions (perhaps tens of billions) of dollars at a project if you think it is impossible. Someone has to do it first. > Of course other third world countries aren't as back country as some of us > Americans have been led to believe and so you could say that if we > developed it, they could copy it, except there's one flaw with that logic > as well. If we can develop cheap space transport because it's doable, so > can they. Even if we don't do it. The fact that they aren't says it might > not be so doable as we think. Well, it is like this: even if SSTO space transport would lower *operating costs* by 90%, it would still be prohibitively expensive for most countries to *develop* it. Certainly countries like Iraq and Cuba could not afford developing it in any case, but China and Japan definately could. And China has no qualms about selling hi-tech to 3rd world nations - supersonic fighters, missiles, even nuclear weapons tech (it is rumored, to Pakistan). Scene in Chinese Space HQ, Peking: - "Look, even the USA canīt do it, and here you come asking for many billions of Yuan to do an impossible thing. No, the Peopleīs Government needs the money for more tanks." Doing it is eminently doable - it has been shown countless times. The math works. And lots of projects has been started and funded with billions of dollars. I donīt think that would be the case if it wasnīt doable. It is just that each promising project gets the axe some time between every private competitor has been canceled and project finish. Some of us are wondering why this might be so. > Ken See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:18:10 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3AB49972.2B148CC2@algonet.se> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> <3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se> <3AB49570.65D02ACA@algonet.se> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du152-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 984914327 19162 195.100.93.152 (18 Mar 2001 11:18:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Mar 2001 11:18:47 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!194.213.69.151!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64697 Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > No, not this one. See Oops. Forgot to include the link. See http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/menu_dcx.htm for info on the DC-X. See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: 18 Mar 2001 23:11:47 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 122 Message-ID: <6uwv9mybfg.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> <3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 984953507 2076 10.0.3.2 (18 Mar 2001 22:11:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Mar 2001 22:11:47 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64765 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > Suzanne wrote: > > > Hey, I'm game for a good *conspiracy theory*. It always inspires some good > > old fashioned thinking. > > The Space Shuttle was supposed to be much cheaper, but instead it has > turned out to be even more expensive than ordinary rockets like Delta or > Ariane. This because of the huge number of people needed to go thru it > after every time etc. Which is BTW necessary for any reusable space craft, due to the need to dimension parts at the lowest weight possible. That means per-flight manual labor vs automatable production of throw away rockets. Just look at how many rockets the Soviets sent up, manufacturing them in Boeing 747 size series. Or ESA does with Ariane. Or the French producing (as only ones!) cheap nuclear power whith their mass produced series of reactors. Or look at why fast food restaurants use through away plates and cutlery to save washing costs. Where Delta Clipper would have been cheaper is in flight attendent personnel (10s instead of 1000). > A half-scale prototype, the DC-X, Nitpick: One third scale. > was built, and it performed beautifully. That it did. > Then Nasa awoke and became involved. For some reason they > decided not to develop this, but made a contest for the industry. Standard bureaucratic procedure. They can be sued for not giving competiors a chance if they don't. Bad for you career. No joke: a government building in a village about 50km from here was converted to an wood-chips heating system, because this is an environmentally friendly material, and recycles forrestry waste. They were required by law to make an international bid for wood chips deliverer. If the local forrest had not been cheaper (sole allowed criteria if the offered material is equal (and what fire wood is not?)) they would have had to have bought it internationally and shipped it to here. So much for environment. > The Venturestar was a vertical-takeoff, horizontal-landing SSTO using > very advanced and new tech; linear aerospike engines, integrated lifting > body, advanced composites etc. With other word: attractive. Just think about it, you are an government project manager. You can either: - buy and run something simple and non-spectacular, or - you can research and experiment some cool high tech > operating costs by a factor 10, but would cost 5 times as much and take > twice as long to develop. So NASA chose that one, and McDonnell Douglas Wow, even better. For the later you get 5 times bigger budget (= 5 times more important in internal dick size wars). The bill is payed by someone else (tax payers who have no choice). And for added bonus your seat is garanteed for longer also. You are also "making" (not you really, but bureaucrats miss that point) something great high tech. Problems do not exists (both firms say their stuff will work). What would you chose for your career? Hint: I work at an government owned university. I like running an 5% loaded $50'000 server (my boss bought it before I was in his group). > So, a half-scale prototype for the VentureStar, the X-33, was built. At > first it went ok, but soon they got problems with all the new tech, Normal. They ignored KISS (keep it simple stupid), because they are not engineers, but rather spectacle-drawn managers. > Does NASA (and the govt) really want space launches to be cheap? More launches? Better public image (and so more budget)? Sure. > They > seem to do everything in their power to cripple and then kill every > promising attempt. Go read some discordian theory. Particularly the bit about dependance on superiors, "yes man" and incompetence. > To the US military the fact that they have to pay quite a lot for their > space assets means much less than that almost no other nations can > afford to do the same. This gives the US a very big advantage. Chinese have "long march". So anyone can get their stuff up there. Today volume counts (just look at the GWB reawakened "star wars" plans). > Well, thatīs about it. Tell me what you think. It doesn't fly (pun noticed and liked). -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/FH/BSc, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:25:09 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 125 Message-ID: <3AB64F05.1768A1DE@algonet.se> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB32B85.5012F867@algonet.se> <3AB385ED.35240BF5@home.com> <3AB3C08E.AA36EBBE@algonet.se> <6uwv9mybfg.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du80-92.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 985026348 2244 195.100.92.80 (19 Mar 2001 18:25:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Mar 2001 18:25:48 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!194.213.69.151!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64766 Hi Neil, Neil Franklin wrote: > Which is BTW necessary for any reusable space craft, due to the need to > dimension parts at the lowest weight possible. Yep, but one of the goals of the DC-X was to get it into more airline-like treatment. > That means per-flight manual labor vs automatable production of throw away > rockets. Just look at how many rockets the Soviets sent up, manufacturing > them in Boeing 747 size series. Or ESA does with Ariane. Or the French > producing (as only ones!) cheap nuclear power whith their mass produced > series of reactors. Or look at why fast food restaurants use through away > plates and cutlery to save washing costs. Indeed. But you donīt build a use-once 747. That would be silly. > Where Delta Clipper would have been cheaper is in flight attendent > personnel (10s instead of 1000). Yep. And 24 hours vs months. > Nitpick: One third scale. Right you are (dang, should have double-checked). > Standard bureaucratic procedure. They can be sued for not giving competiors > a chance if they don't. Bad for you career. Ok. > No joke: a government building in a village about 50km from here was > converted to an wood-chips heating system, because this is an > environmentally friendly material, and recycles forrestry waste. > > They were required by law to make an international bid for wood chips > deliverer. If the local forrest had not been cheaper (sole allowed criteria > if the offered material is equal (and what fire wood is not?)) they would > have had to have bought it internationally and shipped it to here. So much > for environment. Idiotic. > With other word: attractive. Just think about it, you are an government > project manager. You can either: > > - buy and run something simple and non-spectacular, or > - you can research and experiment some cool high tech NASA does indeed have high-risk new-tech programs. But a new reusable booster should not be like that *if it is not necessary*, methinks. > Wow, even better. For the later you get 5 times bigger budget (= 5 times > more important in internal dick size wars). The bill is payed by someone > else (tax payers who have no choice). Great. > And for added bonus your seat is garanteed for longer also. > > You are also "making" (not you really, but bureaucrats miss that point) > something great high tech. Problems do not exists (both firms say their > stuff will work). > > What would you chose for your career? > > Hint: I work at an government owned university. I like running an 5% > loaded $50'000 server (my boss bought it before I was in his group). I see... > Normal. They ignored KISS (keep it simple stupid), because they are not > engineers, but rather spectacle-drawn managers. Hmm... > More launches? Better public image (and so more budget)? Sure. I suppose I should clarify that I do believe *most* NASA personnel really want to succeed. The conspiracy (if any) works at top-level, decision-making, fund-granting level. > Go read some discordian theory. Particularly the bit about dependance on > superiors, "yes man" and incompetence. Actually I have been thinking on reading up on discordianism if I get the time... > Chinese have "long march". So anyone can get their stuff up there. Right, but Long March is still more expensive than 10% of shuttle costs (which were the goals of the Delta Clipper and VentureStar). > Today volume counts (just look at the GWB reawakened "star wars" plans). Sure volume counts, but it can only bring down costs so far. Titanium alloys (or whatever they are using) and construction of rockets are not for free, neither is the fuel, the avionics and the extensive testing that must be done to assure that what you get is not just a really big fireworks show. > > Well, thatīs about it. Tell me what you think. > > It doesn't fly (pun noticed and liked). Well, I didnīt believe in it before either. I read about this "conspiracy theory" back in 1995, but thought it too implausible. But now they have done it again. Or maybe it is just me being so disappointed with the cancellation... - "Yes, thatīs right, Citizen. Go back to sleep, and be happy. Failure to be happy is treason, and treason is punishable by summary execution. Have a Nice Day." See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB38BDE.F3084AAB@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Lines: 9 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:10:17 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.178 X-Trace: news2.atl 985183905 216.78.240.178 (Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:11:45 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:11:45 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64817 "B.D. Yager" wrote in message news:Hv2u6.6$3i3.221@client... : Wow. I haven't been missing much, now have I?.... Nah. Good to see ya back Bruce! Did you bring Trishy back with you? Hope you two had a wonderful time! ;) ###### From: "B.D. Yager" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB38BDE.F3084AAB@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Lines: 72 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:52:11 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.31.188.48 X-Trace: client 985183335 206.31.188.48 (Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:02:15 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:02:15 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!europa.netcrusader.net!208.184.7.66!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!peerfeed.news.psi.net!filter.news.psi.net!reader.dist.news.psi.net!client!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64873 Wow. I haven't been missing much, now have I?.... > >Ruth Richards husband wrote:>> >> Sorry but I have eyes, the sky was dark in the moon landing and still no >> stars it was not daylight at all. What sky? The moon has no atmosphere. When you see "daylight", you are seeing the reflection of sunlight off from atmospheric particles. And while I'm certainly no expert in NASA procedures, common sense would seem to indicate that any photographic lenses used would have to be heavily coated in direct, unfiltered sunlight (example: welding lenses) in order to protect eyes, film, etc. Starlight would not have the magnitude to show through at all. There were no springs in the flag it >> was blowing. No atmosphere = no blowing. The flag was *moving*. Ever heard of inertia? I also have noticed something myself. With no gravity >> on the moon Oh boy. Who told you there was no gravity on the moon? Mass = gravity. Did you sleep *entirely* through elementary school? when they were driving there little nassa 4 wheeler. It was >> launching rocks left and right yet they just fell to the moon surface >> WHY DIDN'T THOSE LITTLE LIGHT ROCKS FLOAT AWAY??????????? Because they did not reach escape velocity???????? >> Im not interested in hearing anymore crap so don't even >> bother. Is this what you told your 3rd grade science teacher, as well? I am a skeptic of the moon landing and as a skeptic I say >> prove it or shut up. Why have we never went back? Ill tell you, >> because we never went there to begin with. >> >> RUTHS HUSBAND This is the mentality which our educational system is turning out, these days? Oh boy. We're doomed. B.D. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: MOON LANDING Date: 21 Mar 2001 17:54:23 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 17 Message-ID: <6ulmpzkqps.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <23898-3AB2D3D0-54@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3AB38BDE.F3084AAB@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 985193663 561 10.0.3.2 (21 Mar 2001 16:54:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Mar 2001 16:54:23 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:64883 "B.D. Yager" writes: > >Ruth Richards husband wrote:>> > > >> I am a skeptic of the moon landing and as a skeptic I say > >> prove it or shut up. Why have we never went back? Ill tell you, > >> because we never went there to begin with. > > This is the mentality which our educational system is turning out, these > days? Oh boy. We're doomed. Nah. We have Usenet. We can correct all of this. :-) -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/FH/BSc, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer