Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick
Abdul Ahad
days, since the Columbia disaster, and any future direction on whether
to continue the ailing Shuttle program for decades more or to invest
in a whole new ball game for future orbital transfers - all looking
somewhat patchy, I have a few simple (but fanciful) thoughts that I
would like to share with you all!
Considering that the ISS in its final guise post-completion will be
substantially below what I would have liked to see with a 21st century
orbital facility, I reckon we should (or NASA should) make a future
aim towards the Moon.
I was always under the impression that the ISS would be an advanced
facility for testing such things as artificail gravity with rotating
modules, new and innovative interplanetary propulsion technologies, it
would act as an orbital foot hold for building manned Mars rockets,
provide a half way house for future journeys to the Moon, etc. Clearly
these things are not going to happen and with the ISS mass vs its
orbital altitude of just 400-km, there is no further room to expand
the Station within dynamical constraints. Even as it stands, the ISS
orbit is prone to rapid decay and without periodic re-boosts from the
Soyuz and Shuttle, there is risk of re-entry!
Back to the Moon idea. Suppose we could dis-assemble the ISS piece by
piece and fire each bit of hardware on low cost, fuel efficient,
transfers to a fixed location on the near side of the Moon ready for
future re-assembly into a Moon base? The Earth-Moon transfer can be
low cost, as much of the hard work of lifting massive solar panels,
radiators, truss segments, service modules, etc into LEO has already
been done and they are expensive and vital components. A delta-V
increment impulse from an ISS orbital velocity of 7.7 km/s to an
Earth-Moon transfer escape of circa 11 km/s should be easy. Assuming
we can manage this first phase, it should then be a new motivation for
the international participants in the ISS program to aim for a lunar
base. Funding support from countries like Japan, India and even China
(up and coming space nations) may be more forthcoming with this idea
once they know we have a fixed location in mind.
I reckon this idea will gain psychological acceptance also. Everyone
looks up at the night sky and dreams of going to the Moon, its the
nearest object of any size to resemble a *world* as opposed to near
Earth *space*. So if you're American (I'm not) then lobby the US
government to send up all Shuttle missions from this day forth with
this idea in mind! If we're lucky, then by 2010 we could have the
first Saturn 5s and Proton's launching men to the Moon once again,
this time to build a Moon base for all eternity. Then we will have
made REAL progress in space!
Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/
Hallerb
What we REALLY need is a low cost way to orbit! Get that and everything else
becomes more mangeable
Abdul Ahad
> >Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick
>
> What we REALLY need is a low cost way to orbit! Get that and everything else
> becomes more mangeable
Sure, but the point I am making is that we have already done much of
the hard work of getting expensive, heavy loaded equipment out of
Earth's gravity well to build the ISS in first place. What I am
proposing is that we use EXISTING hardware in low Earth orbit (i.e.
parts of the ISS itself) to use for a Moon base. With a
post-completion mass of 450 metric tonnes, the ISS will act as a
substantial bank of quality spare parts for such a base, and as I have
already suggested, the cost for sending these bits to the Moon should
be minimal. Under the "proposal" once the Shuttle crews have
dis-assembled the Station, all we need is a series of low fuel
boosters (which could be ferried via the Shuttle or unmanned Soyuz?)
equipped with autonomous navigation & guidance for firing each bit of
hardware straight down to a fixed location on the lunar surface.
There, they await re-assembly into a future base.
This first phase sounds do-able with current technology and within
manageable costs.
B. Isaksen
decade's time frame. How do you explauin to russia, japa, europe and
other partners that their property/terretorila borders are being
stuffed around? Why do you want to send a spacestation from where it
is reachable to where it might be reachable by only one rightful
owner?
It is cheaper to do microgravity research closer to home. Perhaps you
dont want to do that, but many modules and partners joined precisly to
do microgravity research.
Why do you want to move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of
power, and for radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to
something it not is designed for? Does it disturb your nightsky? (just
kidding).
You see there are problems with this approach. I once had a similar
thought. Feel free to check out:
Sincerly
Bjørn Ove
Abdul Ahad
...How do you explauin to russia, japa, europe and
other partners that their property/terretorila borders are being
stuffed around? Why do you want to send a spacestation from where it
is reachable to where it might be reachable by only one rightful
owner?...
The ISS is a 16 nation participation program and the *properties* of
each nation is represented on the Station with its own flag/logo. It
gets "stuffed around" in orbit around the world anyway, so why not
give the Station a meaningful resting place on the near side of the
Moon? As for reach, well that will be phase 2 of the idea i'm
proposing when human crews would need to journey to the Moon and man
the base in the future.
...Perhaps you dont want to do that, but many modules and partners
joined precisly to do microgravity research...
We've been doing 'microgravity' research since the days of Skylab,
Apollo-Soyuz, Salyut, Shuttle, Mir and now the ISS itself with no less
than 8 Expedition crews to date. Total microgravity research for 30
years. Do we need any more?
...move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of power, and for
radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to something it not
is designed for?...
The Lunar surface will be an even better environment for durability of
the ISS components, with more gravity, a stable solid floor
underneath, and not to mention 50% to 75% radiation shielding by the
Moon itself. In its current orbit, the ISS is 100% exposed all around
to both radiation and orbital debris. The thermal balance should be
maintainable on the Moon with minimal changes. In orbit, the ISS goes
through the -200 to +200 degrees of temp. variation on a constant
basis, revolving between the Sun side to the Earth shadow 15 times
every 24 hours. On the Moon, you will get the same cycle repeating but
only just once per month (between full moon and new moon).
...Does it disturb your nightsky?...
No. I actually marvel looking up at the ISS when it glides just 380-km
above my house!
Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent
"The AA Institute of Space Science & Technology is a strong proponent
of Moon bases and manned Mars missions."
Jorge R. Frank
news:3416b228.03111...@posting.google.com:
> bren...@hotmail.com (B. Isaksen) wrote in message
> news:<96118ed1.0311...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> ...Perhaps you dont want to do that, but many modules and partners
>> joined precisly to do microgravity research...
>
> We've been doing 'microgravity' research since the days of Skylab,
> Apollo-Soyuz, Salyut, Shuttle, Mir and now the ISS itself with no less
> than 8 Expedition crews to date. Total microgravity research for 30
> years. Do we need any more?
Yes. We still don't have effective countermeasures for a crew to travel to
Mars, for example, and be able to function effectively in Martian gravity
immediately.
>> ...move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of power, and for
>> radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to something it not
>> is designed for?...
>
> The Lunar surface will be an even better environment for durability of
> the ISS components, with more gravity, a stable solid floor
> underneath, and not to mention 50% to 75% radiation shielding by the
> Moon itself.
That's fine once you've got them there, but the modules definitely aren't
designed to survive the journey. Even in LEO, the station gets into thermal
trouble if it's away from its design attitudes for more than a few hours.
You'd need some pretty elaborate thermal control for the modules to survive
a several-days' trip to the moon. The modules will also need a minimum
"keep-alive" level of electrical power. The bottom line is that you can't
just lob the modules at the moon; you will need to attach a rather
elaborate and expensive support structure to them once you've detached them
from the ISS solar arrays and radiators.
Landing the modules will also be non-trivial. Compare an Apollo LM ascent
stage to a typical ISS module, and that will give you an idea of the size
descent stage you'll need to soft-land them on the moon. Actually, you'll
need more than that, since the Apollo LM descent stage was designed to land
from lunar orbit. So you'll either need an additional LOI stage, like the
Apollo SM, or a larger descent stage that can do a direct descent from a
translunar trajectory without having to enter lunar orbit first.
Bottom line is, this idea isn't impossible, but it isn't terribly smart,
either. It would be much cheaper to custom-build an inflatable Transhab-
like lunar habitat and send that to the moon, rather than go to the trouble
of adapting ISS modules to do something they weren't designed to do.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Abdul Ahad
> aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk (Abdul Ahad) wrote in
> news:3416b228.03111...@posting.google.com:
>
> > bren...@hotmail.com (B. Isaksen) wrote in message
> > news:<96118ed1.0311...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >> ...Perhaps you dont want to do that, but many modules and partners
> >> joined precisly to do microgravity research...
> >
> > We've been doing 'microgravity' research since the days of Skylab,
> > Apollo-Soyuz, Salyut, Shuttle, Mir and now the ISS itself with no less
> > than 8 Expedition crews to date. Total microgravity research for 30
> > years. Do we need any more?
>
> Yes. We still don't have effective countermeasures for a crew to travel to
> Mars, for example, and be able to function effectively in Martian gravity
> immediately.
>
> >> ...move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of power, and for
> >> radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to something it not
> >> is designed for?...
> >
> > The Lunar surface will be an even better environment for durability of
> > the ISS components, with more gravity, a stable solid floor
> > underneath, and not to mention 50% to 75% radiation shielding by the
> > Moon itself.
>
> >
> either. It would be much cheaper to custom-build an inflatable Transhab-
> like lunar habitat and send that to the moon, rather than go to the trouble
> of adapting ISS modules to do something they weren't designed to do.
I guess the ultimate question is if you're faced with the decision of
either abandoning the Station completely and de-orbiting it to a safe
destruction on re-entry (like the Russian Mir back in 2001) or
adapting the modules for future use in a Moon base...which of the two
options would be "smarter"?
With the current review and debate on the future direction for manned
Spaceflight being undertaken by the Bush administration, the above
question must be ultimately addressed. In any decisions about whether
to continue the Shuttle program or a new orbital space plane (OSP)
concept for the next 20-30 years (just to support Earth orbit-confined
'microgravity' research via the ISS) or set more distant and bigger
goals for achieveing permanent human presence on the Moon or Mars, the
ISS's future will play an integral part in such decisions.
Funding of long range projects like permanent Moon bases and crewed
Mars missions will call for cut backs in funding ISS operations.
Adapting the ISS modules for use in a future Moon base on the other
hand seems logically a sounder option, in my view.
Dale
wrote:
>Funding of long range projects like permanent Moon bases and crewed
>Mars missions will call for cut backs in funding ISS operations.
Why do you assume that? In the near-term, the major money needed
to fund a Moon base or a Mars mission is unlikely to arrive. By the time
it does, if ever, ISS will probably be near the end of its useful life
anyway.
>Adapting the ISS modules for use in a future Moon base on the other
>hand seems logically a sounder option, in my view.
But they weren't designed to be a moon base. Why divert/waste money
on doing that, rather than just using them for what they were intended
for, then developing an actual moon base from the start, should the
funding ever become available? If ISS is a bad thing now, why throw good
money after bad trying to turn it into something it was never meant to
be, and would probably fail miserably at?
Dale
dave schneider
[responding to aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk (Abdul Ahad)]
> >Adapting the ISS modules for use in a future Moon base on the other
> >hand seems logically a sounder option, in my view.
>
> But they weren't designed to be a moon base. Why divert/waste money
> on doing that, rather than just using them for what they were intended
> for, then developing an actual moon base from the start, should the
> funding ever become available? If ISS is a bad thing now, why throw good
> money after bad trying to turn it into something it was never meant to
> be, and would probably fail miserably at?
>
As Jorge pointed out, you have difficulty in moving them, and
difficulty with landing them. Even if you accomplish that, the
internal layout is all wrong for a surface-gravity environment
(somethings will be pointing the wrong way) and some of the equipment
may be limited in function under even 1/6G conditions (I know, it was
all tested in a 1G environment, but the mitigation of the 1G may have
required as much work as designing 1/6G stuff from scratch).
/dps
Abdul Ahad
I did say the idea was rather 'fanciful'... so its interesting to hear
some counter views. But ultimately, if I had the choice of binning the
ISS or blasting it to the Moonm I know exactly which one I would
choose. 450 metric tonnes of good qaulity hardware, already ferried
somewhere in the order of 80% of the way from Earth surface to the
Moon (measured in terms of launch effort and costs)... just to be
abandoned in the end, sounds a bit wasteful.
Jorge R. Frank
> I did say the idea was rather 'fanciful'... so its interesting to hear
> some counter views. But ultimately, if I had the choice of binning the
> ISS or blasting it to the Moonm I know exactly which one I would
> choose. 450 metric tonnes of good qaulity hardware, already ferried
> somewhere in the order of 80% of the way from Earth surface to the
> Moon (measured in terms of launch effort and costs)...
Wrong. It's not 80% there, in terms of costs.
> just to be
> abandoned in the end, sounds a bit wasteful.
I'll repeat my point, in stronger terms: it will be cheaper to custom-build
an inflatable lunar habitat, with the same habitable volume and capability
as ISS, than it would be to send ISS to the moon.
It would be wasteful to send ISS to the moon, and lose the capabilities of
ISS in LEO, rather than put an inflatable on the moon and leave ISS where
it is.
Abdul Ahad
> aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk (Abdul Ahad) wrote in
> news:3416b228.03111...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I did say the idea was rather 'fanciful'... so its interesting to hear
> > some counter views. But ultimately, if I had the choice of binning the
> > ISS or blasting it to the Moonm I know exactly which one I would
> > choose. 450 metric tonnes of good qaulity hardware, already ferried
> > somewhere in the order of 80% of the way from Earth surface to the
> > Moon (measured in terms of launch effort and costs)...
>
> Wrong. It's not 80% there, in terms of costs.
>
> > just to be
> > abandoned in the end, sounds a bit wasteful.
>
> I'll repeat my point, in stronger terms: it will be cheaper to custom-build
> an inflatable lunar habitat, with the same habitable volume and capability
> as ISS, than it would be to send ISS to the moon.
>
> It would be wasteful to send ISS to the moon, and lose the capabilities of
> ISS in LEO, rather than put an inflatable on the moon and leave ISS where
> it is.
How about calling an on-orbit auction for ISS parts when it nears end
of useful life? I'm sure the Chinese could save themselves a fortune
if they could *buy* on orbit components. They would probably have
more imagination and foresight to fulfill my ambitions by conquering
the Moon with a makeshift base of some kind using ISS spare parts! The
ISS is still only partly complete and if the ENGINEERS behind the
program had an ounce of imagination, its still not too late to send up
remaining pieces with a *future* lunar goal of some kind in mind.
One question: What exactly do you mean by an inflatable habitat? Is
this another one of those millions of hypothetical concepts that's
floating around in people's heads? I read so much 'intellectual
masturbation' (IM) on these groups, its incredible. I am a realist.
The ISS is a real bank of orbiting hardware already functioning as an
effective on-orbit 'moon base'. The idea of dismantling, adapating,
then launching to the Moon from a higher platform in LEO is a
realistic, lower cost concept than to start all over again from the
ground. You hold your views and I'll hold mine. A win-win situation.
cheers.
Dale
>How about calling an on-orbit auction for ISS parts when it nears end
>of useful life? I'm sure the Chinese could save themselves a fortune
>if they could *buy* on orbit components. They would probably have
>more imagination and foresight to fulfill my ambitions by conquering
>the Moon with a makeshift base of some kind using ISS spare parts! The
>ISS is still only partly complete and if the ENGINEERS behind the
>program had an ounce of imagination, its still not too late to send up
>remaining pieces with a *future* lunar goal of some kind in mind.
>
>One question: What exactly do you mean by an inflatable habitat? Is
>this another one of those millions of hypothetical concepts that's
>floating around in people's heads? I read so much 'intellectual
>masturbation' (IM) on these groups, its incredible. I am a realist.
>The ISS is a real bank of orbiting hardware already functioning as an
>effective on-orbit 'moon base'. The idea of dismantling, adapating,
>then launching to the Moon from a higher platform in LEO is a
>realistic, lower cost concept than to start all over again from the
>ground. You hold your views and I'll hold mine. A win-win situation.
>cheers.
Have you thought about this at all? Do you have any idea how much
it would cost to dismantle ISS, send up craft to take each section to
the moon and softly land them, then reassemble them on the moon?
BTW, there is fairly strong gravity on the moon. You'd have to support
them somehow- ISS doesn't have a flat "bottom". And then what do
you have? A station designed for low Earth orbit sitting on the surface
of the Moon. We could boost the Queen Mary into LEO- that doesn't
mean it's then "80%" on its way to becoming a useful Moon base.
Why not take the gazillion dollars this would require and fully fund ISS
to do what it was intended to do, plus build a Moon base (whether it's
inflatable or not is beside the point).
Dale
P.S. Your "IM" comment suggests to me that you're just trolling.
Oh well...
Hallerb
>Why not take the gazillion dollars this would require and fully fund ISS
>to do what it was intended to do,
Please tell me just WHAT was that?
Jorge R. Frank
> One question: What exactly do you mean by an inflatable habitat? Is
> this another one of those millions of hypothetical concepts that's
> floating around in people's heads?
No. It was originally a concept for a hab module during transit to/from
Mars. NASA decided to test it by using it for the ISS hab module. It would
have provided several times the volume of the original aluminum hab module
but could be launched on a single shuttle flight. NASA got as far as
building a test article on the ground and doing hypervelocity impact tests
to simulate micrometeoroids/orbital debris (Transhab turned out to be
*more* impact-resistant than the aluminum ISS modules), then Congress
cancelled the program. Google on "transhab" for more information.
> I read so much 'intellectual
> masturbation' (IM) on these groups, its incredible. I am a realist.
No, you are not. I have already described the high costs associated with
providing electrical power and thermal control to ISS modules during the
trip to the moon. I have described, in rough terms, the amount of
propulsion capability you would need to soft-land the modules on the moon.
Transhab would not have these problems since it could be sent to the moon
folded-up and inert, then inflated on arrival. It would require a large
descent stage, but you'd only need one of them, rather than one for each
ISS module. You have glossed over these details, preferring not to confront
them. Someone is engaging in mental masturbation in this discussion, but it
isn't me.
> The ISS is a real bank of orbiting hardware already functioning as an
> effective on-orbit 'moon base'. The idea of dismantling, adapating,
> then launching to the Moon from a higher platform in LEO is a
> realistic, lower cost concept than to start all over again from the
> ground.
This is a commonly held misconception: that the mere fact that a spacecraft
exists means that it can perform functions wildly different from those for
which it was designed, and that it would be cheaper to do that than to
build anew.
In reality, spacecraft can do well only those things they were designed to
do. If you try to design a spacecraft to do too many things, you will wind
up with a spacecraft that does none of them well. That is one of the
biggest lessons we should have learned from the space shuttle and ISS
programs.
You have a car, and you want a boat. You think that just because you
already own the car, and because cars and boats are both forms of
transportation, that it would be a good idea to modify your car into a
boat. While I agree that this is not impossible, I think you should just go
out and buy a boat.
> You hold your views and I'll hold mine.
Fair enough.
dave schneider
> We could boost the Queen Mary into LEO- that doesn't
> mean it's then "80%" on its way to becoming a useful Moon base.
But when you combine the ambience of Sir Winston's with all the ghost
stories, the Lunar tourists are sure going to be well taken care of!
(Actually, I don't really know what the ambience of Sir Winston's
is...my budget only ran to the Promenade Deck restaurant)
Who would the City of Long Beach pick to run the concessions? Would
the current operator get a preferred bid, or would it be wide open
again?
/dps
Dale
I'd say anybody who wants to ride on her on the way up should get first
crack at it. The sight of all those giant strap-ons igniting, followed by her
majestically sailing into the sky should be pretty impressive.
Dale
Abdul Ahad
already own the car, and because cars and boats are both forms of
transportation, that it would be a good idea to modify your car into a
boat. While I agree that this is not impossible, I think you should
just go
out and buy a boat.
I think this is a very crude example. You know full well, you can't
simply *buy* off the shelf Moon bases like that!
While the TransHab idea sounds good in theory, you would be looking at
long timelines for development and testing, at least a decade long
program with mega financial, political and engineering hurdles, launch
delays and possible disasters (Columbia), etc. along the way. Also, I
don't see the full support structure for this Transhab idea. Where
will the power come from and how will the thermal balance be achieved?
Where are the solar panels and radiators? I take it these would be
separate non-inflatable items of much heavier weight which will still
require multiple missions for launch from the ground, Earth-Moon
transfer, soft landing and re-assembly at the other end.
There would also be need for a major interim stage where the Transhab
and all of its auxilliary components will need extensive testing &
evaluation in LEO, prior to firing to the Moon.
Add all of this up and weigh against my original idea (I know this
will have to be an 'IM' exercise as we don't have all the facts) and
then come back and tell me what the score is. The ISS is a ready
functioning unit in space... alive today, here and now, with decades
of engineering refinements already factored into it. Far simpler job
of dismantling, adapting (shileding critical components for Van Allen
radiation), propulsion attachement and firing on un-manned transfers
to the Moon. For Earth-Moon propulsion, hi-thrust unmanned transfer
boosters could be taken up (poss. several at a time on the Shuttle?)
each equipped with its own guidance systems and descent rockets
perhaps similar to the ones used in the 1960's US Surveyor program.
(The Surveyor landers did not go into lunar orbit, they came straight
in from the E-M transfer and fired retro rockets for easy soft
landing, all tried and tested stuff.)
Once all the pieces are on the Moon's surface, then, perhaps a few
years later, the human crews arrive at the soon to be Lunar base and
start the re-assembly process. I am not proposing the initial 'ISS
Moon Base' will be in any way a perfect 'habitat', but it will give us
that all important FIRST foothold on the Moon for onward expansion of
the infrastructure.
Thereafter, several Transhabs could be incrementally added on top of
the ISS Base as part of the progressive development.
Dale
>Abdul Ahad
>http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent
>"The AA Institute of Space Science & Technology is a strong proponent
>of Moon bases and manned Mars missions."
"AA" being "Abdul Ahad", right? I just explored your website.
Well, I need to apologize for accusing you of being a troll. I was
very wrong. You are a nut. Nothing personal. The world needs a
few nuts. Keeps things interesting.
Good luck,
Dale
Jorge R. Frank
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
> news:<Xns94325CE4...@206.127.4.10>...
>> aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk (Abdul Ahad) wrote in
>> news:3416b228.03111...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> You have a car, and you want a boat. You think that just because you
> already own the car, and because cars and boats are both forms of
> transportation, that it would be a good idea to modify your car into a
> boat. While I agree that this is not impossible, I think you should
> just go
> out and buy a boat.
>
>
> I think this is a very crude example. You know full well, you can't
> simply *buy* off the shelf Moon bases like that!
The point stands. The boat is designed to be a boat; the car is not. It
will be easier and cheaper to build a boat from scratch than to modify a
car into a boat.
> While the TransHab idea sounds good in theory, you would be looking at
> long timelines for development and testing, at least a decade long
> program with mega financial, political and engineering hurdles, launch
> delays and possible disasters (Columbia), etc. along the way.
You'll need all that to take ISS to the moon. The TLI stage will need to be
a spacecraft in its own right, and probably considerably more elaborate
than the one needed for Transhab. You'll need to build a lot more of them,
too - have you actually *counted* how many modules there are on ISS? Have
you considered that *no* existing launcher is powerful enough to launch a
TLI stage *and* a lunar descent stage for an ISS module in a single launch?
In short, your plan will require a *lot* more launches than a Transhab
plan.
> Also, I
> don't see the full support structure for this Transhab idea. Where
> will the power come from and how will the thermal balance be achieved?
> Where are the solar panels and radiators? I take it these would be
> separate non-inflatable items of much heavier weight which will still
> require multiple missions for launch from the ground, Earth-Moon
> transfer, soft landing and re-assembly at the other end.
It doesn't need them while in transit. It's folded up and inert. It will
need them on the moon, of course, but it's better to custom build them than
to use ISS components. The ISS solar arrays and radiators are extremely
flimsy, and won't hold up under 1/6 g. The radiators also really don't work
that well unless you can point them *away* from the sun, which is
impossible on the lunar surface.
> There would also be need for a major interim stage where the Transhab
> and all of its auxilliary components will need extensive testing &
> evaluation in LEO, prior to firing to the Moon.
There's no need for that - you could assemble and integrate them on the
ground, and that would be a better test than testing in LEO.
> Add all of this up and weigh against my original idea (I know this
> will have to be an 'IM' exercise as we don't have all the facts) and
> then come back and tell me what the score is.
ISS-to-the-moon still comes out a big loser.
dave schneider
> >Dale <d...@oz.net> wrote:
> >> We could boost the Queen Mary into LEO- that doesn't
> >> mean it's then "80%" on its way to becoming a useful Moon base.
> I'd say anybody who wants to ride on her on the way up should get first
> crack at it. The sight of all those giant strap-ons igniting, followed by her
> majestically sailing into the sky should be pretty impressive.
>
LooseChanj
made the sensational claim that:
> Let's think out of the box guys!!!
Which box would that be? The bread box with the 100 gallons of water in it?
Or the moving box with the ton of feathers?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here
Abdul Ahad
> On 14 Nov 2003 03:08:26 -0800, aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk (Abdul Ahad) wrote:
>
> >Abdul Ahad
> >http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent
> >"The AA Institute of Space Science & Technology is a strong proponent
> >of Moon bases and manned Mars missions."
>
>
>
> Well, I need to apologize for accusing you of being a troll. I was
> very wrong.
> Good luck,
> Dale
Dale, thanks for your compliments, best of luck to you too mate.
Abdul
Abdul Ahad
> aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk (Abdul Ahad) wrote in
> news:3416b228.03111...@posting.google.com:
>
> > "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns94325CE4...@206.127.4.10>...
> >> aa_spa...@yahoo.co.uk (Abdul Ahad) wrote in
> >> news:3416b228.03111...@posting.google.com:
> >>
You don't say!!!