Commercial moon mission

[nebularain]

That's what is says!

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020902/moon.html

[David Hall]

Yeah, good luck to them. I hope it helps to spark a renewal in lunar missions in general. It already seems to be happening in space circles. There are several probes and whatnot planned, and the Chinese are aiming for the Moon with their manned spaceflight program. I also think it's a good sign that the commercial sector is interested. Maybe if we do it right we can stay for good this time.

(BTW, TransOrbital was mentioned before in the loonyhoax forum: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...117&forum=3&61 )

[David Hall]

Here's the TransOrbital homepage:

http://www.transorbital.net/index.html

[nebularain]

But it's interesting from this article to see what they paln on doing with it:

TransOrbital, Inc. received permission from various government agencies last week to send a probe back to the Earth's little sister. That probe, dubbed Trailblazer, will orbit the moon for 90 days, filming portraits of Earth as it rises over the lunar horizon and mapping the moonscape in unprecedented detail — as small as one meter in diameter.

"We're also looking to verify Apollo and other landing sites," said TransOrbital President Dennis Laurie. He said "verify" because there are still a few people out there who believe the Apollo program was a hoax. The last part of Trailblazer's mission will be to crash land on the lunar surface, taking "barnstorming" videos the whole way down.

Hey, if they get the pictures of the landing sites, do you think the Hoaxers will finally be satisfied?

Duh! What am I thinking? They'll probably claim the new pictures to be faked, too, won't they? Sigh.

[Argos]

One more link

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020902/020902-8.html

The question of government authorization...

Who/what has jurisdiction over the Moon?

If I build a space craft in my backyard, must I ask for a government's permission to go where I please? Are we jailed on Earth? Which government should I ask permission to?

It's kinda strange for me, and I don't like this. I don't like governments telling me where to go and what to do.

The same happens with sending messages to ET.

I just don't want to ask anyone to get in contact with whosoever I please in any planet of the universe.

[traztx]

On 2002-09-10 08:20, Argos wrote:
If I build a space craft in my backyard, must I ask for a government's permission to go where I please? Are we jailed on Earth? Which government should I ask permission to?

If you managed to secretly build a starship in your backyard and took it for a ride to Sirius, I doubt anyone would be able to chase you down and write a citation for speeding.

Just be careful not to fry any endangered spotted owls or scare the neighbor's cows on your way out, or they might not welcome you home upon your return.

And try not to take any pictures of Earth from space, for instance if Israel is in view. People with big guns get freaky about that.

[Argos]

You didn't answer my question...

[SpacedOut]

Go to the BABB thread David Hall provided - The roll of the U.S. Government was discussed there.

[Argos]

On 2002-09-10 10:30, SpacedOut wrote:
Go to the BABB thread David Hall provided - The roll of the U.S. Government was discussed there.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to peruse it in search of this specific info.

But how about the role of other governments?

Whom should I ask a permission to go to space by my own means?

Putting in another way:

What would happen if TransOrbital didn't ask US government to go to the Moon? What would happen if it just counted down and fired to orbit?
What would happen if the launch was from the middle of the ocean, outta the jurisdiction of whatever nation?

Who the hell has jurisdiction on Moon's affairs? Who's got the final word on what can and cannot be done there?

This has implications to your freedom.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-09-10 15:34 ]</font>

[David Hall]

Outer Space Treaty:
http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/space/outerspace.html

Moon Treaty:
http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/space/moon.html

Main page with a list of space-related treaties (including the above):
http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/spacelaw.htm

As I seem to remember from some long-ago discussion, there's still some debate as to whether these treaties allow the ownership of private property on the Moon.

And last, a page on the historical preservation of the lunar landing sites:
http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlega...eservation.htm

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-09-10 11:03, Argos wrote:
Who the hell has jurisdiction on Moon's affairs? Who's got the final word on what can and cannot be done there?

This has implications to your freedom.

Lauching a big rocket bears huge "implications" on your safety and international security.
Every sane government must down "unsolicited" rockets.

[Argos]

[quote]
On 2002-09-10 12:29, AgoraBasta wrote:

Every sane government must down "unsolicited" rockets.

Every sane government should not introduce itself in private affairs. Period.

For the sake of not engaging ourselves in sterile political discussions I stop here. It's been too much for this old anarchist heart of mine. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-09-10 14:46 ]</font>

[Argos]

On 2002-09-10 11:56, David Hall wrote:
Outer Space Treaty:
http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/space/outerspace.html

Moon Treaty:
http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/space/moon.html

Main page with a list of space-related treaties (including the above):
http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/spacelaw.htm

As I seem to remember from some long-ago discussion, there's still some debate as to whether these treaties allow the ownership of private property on the Moon.

And last, a page on the historical preservation of the lunar landing sites:
http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlega...eservation.htm

I don't remember to have signed any of them.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] I'm here guessing if an African, or Middle eastern or soviet citizen recalls having granted permission to their "governments" to sign any of them. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

But as I just said, no more politics...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-09-10 15:10 ]</font>

[Thumper]

Argos wrote:
But as I just said, no more politics...

Hopefully this is not politics and your heart can take this. I'm also hoping that this doesn't violate any BABB rules but here are excerpts from another page on the Lunar Conspiracy board addressing why TransOrbital would need approval from certain US agencies. First were JayUtah's comments:

Q:since when did the United States of America own the Moon, and have to be consulted for approval to fly there?

Jay's Answer: Well, I think the answer to this and your next question lies in the fact that it's a U.S. company. It's not so much the fact that the U.S. asserts global ownership of the moon, but that a U.S. company wanting to do certain things that have international implications must get the approval of the U.S. government.

In leiu of mutual-support treaties, it could be that reciprocity exists between various space agencies and governments -- operations approved by one are honored by all. I really don't know if that's the case. But I don't believe the U.S. government is trying to exercise control over all space operations dealing with the moon.

Ilya wrote: State Department approval is needed to take the spacecraft - any spacecraft, - to Russia and Kazakhstan.

NOAA (why that particular organization, beats me) must approve all photos of the Earth, particularly of Israel, even incidental ones. It also must certify the spacecraft as not presenting an orbital debris hazard.

Neither organization is concerned with Moon per se.


Now that I think about it, NOAA's responsibilities make an odd sense.

Until a few years ago NOAA was the only entity in the US which routinely released large numbers of satellite photos to the public. Consequently it has had a mechanism in place to ensure that photos which compromise national security are NOT released. Pentagon and NRO have not need for such mechanism, since their satellite photos are not released by default. So when private operators taking and selling photos from orbit came to be, NOAA was tasked to ensure they do not leak sensitive information either. AFAIK, it is not a matter of looking at every photo and censoring them - all satellite operators have agreed simply not to photograph a few sensitive areas in the first place. TransOrbital must have signed a similar agreement.

As for the orbital debris, NOAA already deals with maritime pollution and hazards to shipping. When orbital debris became an issue, it must have fallen into their lap by default.
_____________________________

Helps that helps. The entire topic is on Lunar Conspiracies: Moon Hoax Should Go Away Soon. This is from page 1.

-Thumper







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thumper on 2002-09-10 15:39 ]</font>

[Argos]

On 2002-09-10 12:29, AgoraBasta wrote:

Lauching a big rocket bears huge "implications" on your safety

Not on mine's [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

and international security.

Anyone capable of launching a rocket would make things right. Remember: you're in the middle of pacific. Eight minutes and there it goes, quietly into orbit.

Something went wrong? Push the abort button.

Every sane government must down "unsolicited" rockets.

Hope that it won't extrapolate to : Every sane government should open your mail. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-09-10 15:40 ]</font>

[Argos]

On 2002-09-10 15:38, Thumper wrote:
Argos wrote:
But as I just said, no more politics...

Hopefully this is not politics and your heart can take this. I'm also hoping that this doesn't violate any BABB rules (...)

Thank you Thumper. This adds too much.

This is a serious matter. But I can't refrain from some childish criticism. I was raised in an individualist environment. The slightest hint of "government control" makes my blood pressure hit 18/10 and takes away my good sense. A legacy of youth times.

Best regards.

[Argos]

Been thinking...

Had Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, Von Braun, followed such strict rules on not launching “unsolicited” rockets perhaps we would still be crawling on Earth’s surface.

We need freedom for breaking through.

It’s funny how the governments (or more exactly, the “social superstructures”) take possession of human’s creativity and block further developments, by imposing “controls”. Goddard was free to launch his rockets, in his homestead. Now we have to beg bureaucrats to do the same. And you’d better have big bucks, case contrary your plea will fall in moorish ears.

As to responsibility, safety and security, I don’t think there’s a reason to believe that a government will display more responsibility than a trusted commercial firm. We are sick of hearing of “rogue” states. I myself trust more my telephone company than any government on Earth (and you should better do the same, for the simple reason that there’s no such thing as a “sane government”).

I just hope they don’t forbid me

a)Pointing my scope to the stars: astronomy is a dangerous science. It enlightens. It makes you think. Governments don’t like that. It ultimately raises serious questions on international security.

b) Flying my model airplanes: It’s a dangerous activity, that “bears huge implications to your safety and international security”. How will the government know if your beautiful vintage Spitfire model is not carrying a couple of kilos of semtex?

[mallen]

Argos,

There are some very good reasons why the government would/should want to know if someone were going to launch a rocket (ignoring any sort of control-freak reasons):

1) Since the rocket has to travel through the airspace, the FAA really should know about it. A rocket suddenly shooting up from the ground would scare the begeezus out of many pilots, especially with the state of alert the world is in now.

2) Large rockets and ballistic missiles look remarkably similar. Your rocket might light up the Russian missile detection system, and their nukes might light you up.

3) The exhaust from a rocket (depending on the fuel) can be some pretty nasty stuff. It's generally considered rude to rain toxins down on your downwind neighbors.

4) The chance of a mishap is not necessarily insignificant. Even with an abort mechanism, a failed launch would still rain debris all over the place.

And of course, there are the national security paranoia reasons, but we won't bother with them.

In short, notifying the government and relevant agencies is just a nice thing to do.

- Mike

[Thargoid]

Didn't Kesler get squashed by the feds? IIRC, they wouldn't give them permission to launch the roton, causing investors to run away.

[Argos]

On 2002-09-11 22:05, mallen wrote:
Argos,

There are some very good reasons why the government would/should want to know if someone were going to launch a rocket

Ok, Mike. Thanks.

Of course I know all objections.

But sometimes a rebel spirit takes possession of me and I lose my senses.

Consider my rantings as a "speak out" by a romantic ex-hippie (not that i'm *too* old. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img])sitting before a computer screen on a sleepy afternoon.

OOps, excuse-me. I hear a toc-toc. Reality is knocking on my door...

[Argos]

On 2002-09-12 00:41, Thargoid wrote:
Didn't Kesler get squashed by the feds? IIRC, they wouldn't give them permission to launch the roton, causing investors to run away.

This is an example of what I mean with "begging bureaucrats". Goddard didn't need this...

[SpacedOut]

While Goddard might not have needed permission - much simpler times from todays crowded skys. A number of years ago a few HS kids in a nearby town launched a small rocket that pierced the wing (and fuel tank) of a small plane on approach to a local airport. Fortunately, the pilot was able to land and the authorities didn't press charges because they believed the kids weren't trying to hit the plane.

Now imagine what a rocket capable of orbital flight would do to a commercial air liner.

[Rich]

Goddard et al also didn't live in an era in which national governments (not to mention potential independent international groups, like terrorists) own and are meticulously aware of launches of vehicles capable of delivering nuclear, chemical, or biological devices.

I, for one, would be very concerned if my government failed to attempt the shootdown of an unauthorized ballistic launch from their own territory... especially in this age of global terrorism.

[The Shade]

On 2002-09-12 15:17, Rich wrote:
Goddard et al also didn't live in an era in which national governments (not to mention potential independent international groups, like terrorists) own and are meticulously aware of launches of vehicles capable of delivering nuclear, chemical, or biological devices.

I, for one, would be very concerned if my government failed to attempt the shootdown of an unauthorized ballistic launch from their own territory... especially in this age of global terrorism.

Well said. With the right technical know-how, it wouldn't be that difficult to convert a rocket into an ICBM. That really makes me a bit queazy.

Just imagine on October 4, 1957. Everyone is marvelling at Sputnik. But a few military officials were probably wondering: "What if they'd put a high-yield explosive device in the nose cone of that rocket?" The same scenario could be conceivable with today's terrorists.

[Kaptain K]

Just imagine on October 4, 1957. Everyone is marvelling at Sputnik. But a few military officials were probably wondering: "What if they'd put a high-yield explosive device in the nose cone of that rocket?"

Just where do you think those big rockets (both the Russian's and the American's) came from? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] The boosters used to lift satelites into space were originally designed as IinterContinental Ballistic Missiles for lobbing nukes around the world.

[The Shade]

On 2002-09-13 10:34, Kaptain K wrote:

Just imagine on October 4, 1957. Everyone is marvelling at Sputnik. But a few military officials were probably wondering: "What if they'd put a high-yield explosive device in the nose cone of that rocket?"

Just where do you think those big rockets (both the Russian's and the American's) came from? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] The boosters used to lift satelites into space were originally designed as IinterContinental Ballistic Missiles for lobbing nukes around the world.

I meant that the USSR could have put something else in the nose cone. I'm glad they put Sputnik in there and that the world did indeed marvel at the feat.

To keep this on-topic, sure, I would like to see a commercial trip to the moon by an independant, private organization. But, with the reasons previously stated, it would still be quite difficult because of securiy reasons.

[Argos]

On 2002-09-13 10:45, The Shade wrote:

To keep this on-topic, sure, I would like to see a commercial trip to the moon by an independant, private organization. But, with the reasons previously stated, it would still be quite difficult because of securiy reasons.

So i would.

The problem is that the trade-off between liberty and security will end up leaving us with almost nothing.

To be enchained in a safe, gilded cage...Is that living?

[Rich]

The choice between liberty and security is a false dichotomy fobbed-off on us by people who reap political profits from you believing it.

That aside, it is a huge leap to say that regulation of launches falls into any liberty/security argument. It's just common sense that someone should be checking and certifying not only the safety of your launch vehicle but also that it delivers its payload where you say it will and that the payload won't just end up crashing into someone else's payload. We follow this common sense logic when inspecting commercial airline operations and planning flights. Why should a flight who's destination is outside the atmosphere be any different?

It wouldn't take too many improperly planned deliveries to set-up a situation that could destroy billions of dollars worth of other people's hardware. Worst possible case, you could have the debris cascade scenario occur, in which a series of collisions create an increasingly large cloud of debris that destroys more satellites, which create more debris, and so on. In the end carelessness and lack of coordination could render it nearly impossible to get a vehicle out of NEO with any reasonable chance of success.

Then you have catastrophic failures during launch. Do you want some half-baked creation exploding in a haze of burning rocket fuel and flying chunks of metal over your house? Not me. What if the payload is dangerous? I'd like someone to perform a safety check and ensure a safe flight path for a payload containing, oh let's say... a plutonium power source. Yes, I'd definitely want someone looking into that.

What if the Russians or Chinese see a launch they were not previously notified of and think it could be a hostile missile launch? It's happened before and we narrowly missed a nuclear tragedy.

Now all of the above examples could be looked at from a safety perspective, I suppose. IMHO, we'd be much better served to look at them from an economic perspective; what are the potential gains of unfettered launches, what are the costs of managing all launches, what are the potential costs in the case of launch failures or poorly planned deliveries? Obviously, my position is that the cost of providing oversight of all launches is not all that high, and has negligible impact on the profits or other potential benefits of groups seeking cheaper access to space... whereas the potential costs of failure are very high indeed.

[Argos]

On 2002-09-16 10:06, Rich wrote:
The choice between liberty and security is a false dichotomy fobbed-off on us

Not on me.

And I don't think it's a false dichotomy either.

I don't know what degree of liberty (or lack of) satisfies you. But this is the West. You are (still) free to keep believing what you like. But don't take this freedom for granted.

[AgoraBasta]

Argos,

It's quite safe to launch a toy rocket from your backyard - granted. Now start scaling the experiment up - at some point the magnitude of event's failure consequences becomes dangerous to your family, then to your neighbours, then to your town/city whatever. At certain point the probable consequences turn strongly irreversible and impossible to compensate for by an individual. Hence, some public authority must interfere in order to share liabilities. A perfectly private scheme is also possible - you could try get an insurance against probable adverse consequences. Now try to estimate the cost of such contract and degree of interference from the insurer's officers into your project... And how would you feel about the people whose lives you endanger? And how should they act upon you?