Topic: Fly me to the Moon (Read 9236 times)

Toasty0 · « **on:** January 30, 2004, 12:44:52 am »

While President Bush's new out-of-this-world vision has generated worldwide debate over whether private industry should play a bigger role in space exploration, one company is poised to answer the question with an enthusiastic thud later this year.

Thousands of people have paid to have messages, business cards, art or ashes of loved ones sent to the Moon on the Trailblazer robotic probe, which if successful will slam into the lunar surface and squash any doubt about the looming commercialization of space.

The mission is a private venture of California-based TransOrbital Inc., which is also drawing on corporate sponsorships and advertising to fund the effort.

After years of delay, launch is now slated for this fall, company President Dennis Laurie said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Individuals can book items for the flight at the company's web site, transorbital.net. Sending a business card to the Moon costs $2,500. Other relics or mementos can fly for $2,500 per gram. A text message costs $17.

Creative financing

Trailblazer will orbit the Moon for about three months, sending back high-quality and potentially saleable photos of Apollo landing sites, plus HDTV-quality video that might be sold for advertising use. Data will be collected to create a new, high-resolution lunar map, also potentially saleable.

The craft will then de-orbit and disintegrate upon impact. Some 22 pounds (10 kilograms) of personal effects will remain intact, housed in a protective capsule that will tunnel 13-16 feet (4-5 meters) into the lunar surface.

TransOrbital initially had planned a July 2001 launch. Trailblazer was later expected to go up early this year. But a new deal struck with Hewlett Packard last summer, which will allow anyone with a properly equipped handheld computer to communicate with the lunar orbiter, forced additional engineering, Laurie said.

"We'd like to have as many people either send things to the Moon or access the satellite while it's in orbit around the Moon as possible," he said. Terrestrial communicators would get a confirmation message that the craft had received a signal.

Despite delays, the 242-pound (110-kilogram) orbiter is under construction, the launch vehicle is in place at a Russian facility, and it looks like liftoff will occur "in October or November of this year," Laurie said. He added that he's 80 to 90 percent confident in that forecast.

Good model for NASA

Proponents of expanded space exploration and the commercialization of space are eager for a private mission like this.

Brian Chase, executive director of the National Space Society, said TransOrbital's concept is sound.

In fact he said NASA could learn a thing or two from the approach.

Chase thinks the space agency should provide incentives for the private sector by buying data, rather than just doling out contracts for spacecraft construction. The current way of doing business leaves the space agency, in many cases, in charge of overseeing construction, running flight operations and doing the scientific observations, "a lot of details that probably NASA doesn't need to worry about."

Given Bush's call to put humans back on the Moon, Chase told SPACE.com, "Now is a great time" for a mission like TransOrbital's to succeed.

"I think it bolsters the case that there is a role for the private sector in space exploration," he said, adding that unlike some advocates of privatization he sees the government continuing to play a dominant role.

TransOrbital appears to have little immediate competition.

Nearly four years ago another company, LunaCorp, got $1 million in backing from Radio Shack to design a robotic craft that would be assembled on the International Space Station and launch from there to the Moon. Like TransOrbital's probe, it would generate high-resolution pictures and video and involve public participation.

LunaCorp President David Gump said yesterday the mission awaits further funding before construction could begin.

"Our prospects obviously improved with the President's declaration," Gump said, adding that LunaCorp's mission would be one way to repurpose the space station toward lunar exploration. Bush had said research on the station should be refocused to support his grand vision of putting people on the Moon and Mars.

On the verge

Meanwhile, TransOrbital appears to be the only company on the verge of launching a privately funded spacecraft beyond Earth orbit. Yet because the company is private, it is not known with certainty whether it is financially prepared for liftoff.

In a test in 2002 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, TransOrbital put a dummy craft into Earth orbit using a Russian Dnepr rocket. The same setup will be used for the Moon launch.

Laurie said the Baikonur success should convince potential supporters that the company has the finances, engineering and planning resources to make the lunar trip a reality. "You just go that one step farther," he said.

TransOrbital plans to make money off this and future planned missions to the Moon by selling advertisements and sponsorships in addition to the revenue it collects on its web site.

Laurie would not divulge sales figures but said "thousands of messages and products" have been booked for the flight. The cards and other personal items, "will contribute significantly" to the revenue of the project, he said.

Additional revenue could come from Trailblazer's lunar map, which will be the highest resolution ever and could help NASA and other private firms plan future lunar forays, he said.

The mission is expected to cost less than $20 million.

Critics of the project have expressed worry about littering the Moon. Most of the critics, Laurie said, are environmentalists "who would like to make sure the Moon won't suffer some of the ungracious treatment the Earth has experienced."

TransOrbital has been addressing the environmental concerns from the outset, he said, and the Trailblazer mission is the only private, beyond-Earth-orbit spaceflight plan presently approved by State Department. The agency required TransOrbital show that the impact "wouldn't disturb the normal environment in any untoward way," he said.

I see the potential now. Billions...no, make that trillions can be earned hauling Earth's trash to the moon for quick-impact disposal.

Will it be called landfill or moonfill?

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2004, 01:43:10 am »

Meanwhile back on Earth.....

Jobs are threatened in S. California and other aerospace centers as the cancellation of future shuttle and next generation reusable engine plans kicks in. News of cancellations or major engine programs have already reached employees, although nothing as of yet has been publicly announced.

The earliest one could expect any new program initiative to start would be next fiscal year, given the governments procurement procedure. This assumes the funding is actually authorized by Congress. Meanwhile, I'd not be surprised to see significant layoffs. Layoffs of the engineering experience that will be needed...

FYI: The only Apollo engine hardware that still exists is in Houston in a museum. To my knowledge, no tooling or even detailed drawings have survived. Most Apollo engineers have long since retired, along with their expertise...

FYI#2: The Bush Space Initiative calls for the CEV to be lifted by Delta 4 or Atlas heavy lift engines (ie Air Force engines). These are disposable engines built "on the cheap", and were never designed for manned flight. They have an occasional tendency to go BOOM.

Sirgod · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2004, 09:38:31 am »

Quote:

Meanwhile back on Earth.....

Jobs are threatened in S. California and other aerospace centers as the cancellation of future shuttle and next generation reusable engine plans kicks in. News of cancellations or major engine programs have already reached employees, although nothing as of yet has been publicly announced.

The earliest one could expect any new program initiative to start would be next fiscal year, given the governments procurement procedure. This assumes the funding is actually authorized by Congress. Meanwhile, I'd not be surprised to see significant layoffs. Layoffs of the engineering experience that will be needed...

FYI: The only Apollo engine hardware that still exists is in Houston in a museum. To my knowledge, no tooling or even detailed drawings have survived. Most Apollo engineers have long since retired, along with their expertise...

FYI#2: The Bush Space Initiative calls for the CEV to be lifted by Delta 4 or Atlas heavy lift engines (ie Air Force engines). These are disposable engines built "on the cheap", and were never designed for manned flight. They have an occasional tendency to go BOOM.

FYI#1 : you are correct my friend. US Senetor William Proxmire of Wisnonsin killed the Moon/Mars program, and Had all referance Documents to the Tech Of The Saturn Rocket destoyed.To Quote Gordon Cooper

"Why would any Forward-thinking nation actually destroy It's own leading Edge technology? Killing the saturn Program was not only a waste of Billions of dollars- Qualifying Proxmire for a liftem Golden Fleece Award - But a crime against Space exploration and the advancment of technology in General. I'm still angry about It , and will be untill my dying day.
"

There was actually tech back then For the Proposed Mars landing by man Circa 1980. I believe It was also destoyed around the time.

Stephen

edit a brief Bio on william Proxmire...

http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/P/Proxmire.html

Quote:

William Proxmire (Edward William Proxmire), 1915?, U.S. Senator (1957?89), b. Lake Forest, Ill. He worked in army counterintelligence during World War II and later entered politics, serving (1951?52) as a Democrat in the Wisconsin state assembly. After three unsuccessful attempts at the governorship, he was elected (1957) to the Senate to fill the vacancy created by the death of Joseph McCarthy. Considered a maverick by his Senate colleagues, Proxmire opposed wasteful government spending, especially by the military. He led (1970?71) the successful fight in Congress against financing the supersonic transport plane. He was chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (1975?81, 1987?89). Proxmire wrote Report from Wasteland (1970) and Uncle Sam : the Last of the Bigtime Spenders (1972).

Sirgod · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2004, 07:55:15 pm »

making a small Bump, Was looking for some info from here for a Discussion elsewhere.

Stephen

Khalee · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2004, 08:03:29 pm »

So the moon is going to be earths garbage dump, weve allready poluted our own planet so sure lets polute another with our trash.

Sirgod · « **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2004, 08:13:17 pm »

Thanks for the Link Kmelew. I'm reading through It right now.

Stephen

edit, Yep, I'll have to get this book Pretty soon.

Delta One · « **Reply #8 on:** April 01, 2004, 08:45:25 am »

You don't need Americans to be engineers for the american space program.

I'm sure I can get 1000 Indians to do it for the price of 10 Americans.

Heck and if I hire a Russian to pilot the spaceship I won't have to pay him as much either!

Iceman · « **Reply #10 on:** April 01, 2004, 01:39:00 pm »

Give me a starship, and I'll fly it to the edge of existence for you. Free.

Sirgod · « **Reply #12 on:** April 01, 2004, 01:46:37 pm »

I don't think So EZkill, Apollo 13 and apollo 11 I believe where using the S5.

Interestingly enough I just came across this.

link

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:24 -0600
To: Kepi
From: Kepi
Subject: Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges
Source: NewMax.com
http://38.201.154.103/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539

Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges

Christopher Ruddy
February 11, 1999

Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, the astronaut slated to be the first man to walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the Feb. 16 edition of Star magazine.

In another stunning development, a lead NASA investigator has charged that the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and two other astronauts.

The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom, 48, has gone public with the family?s long-held belief that their father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.

The Jan. 27, 1967, Apollo I mission was a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight.

NASA concluded that the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, as well as astronauts Edward H. White and Roger Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that burst from the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote the catastrophe off as an accident.

"My father?s death was no accident. He was murdered," Grissom, a commercial pilot, told Star.

Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated" metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules? electrical power source from an outside source to the ship?s batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage. When one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship?s batteries, a spark was created that ignited a fireball.

Clark Mac Donald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence. Breaking more than three decades of silence, Mac Donald says he determined that an electrical short caused by the changeover to battery power had sparked the fire.

He says that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space program.

"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth, but I didn?t want to hurt NASA?s image or cause trouble," Mac Donald told the paper. "But I can?t let one more day go by without the truth being known."

Grissom?s widow, Betty, now 71, told Star she agrees with her son?s claim that her husband had been murdered.

"I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon."

Scott Grissom told Star that the motive for his father?s killing may have been related to NASA?s desire not have his father be the first man to walk on the moon because of criticism leveled at Grissom in 1961 after his Mercury capsule, Liberty 7, sunk in the Atlantic.

Critics of Grissom, including novelist Tom Wolfe, have claimed the astronaut panicked when his space capsule landed in the ocean, and he prematurely pulled an explosive charge to open the ship?s hatch, causing it to sink.

Fellow astronauts, however, gave Grissom the benefit of the doubt for several reasons. Grissom was a decorated Korean War pilot who had flown nearly 100 combat missions. He was a courageous man not known to panic.

There was also evidence that the explosive device on the hatch could accidentally blow without being pulled?a fact that led NASA to remove such devices from future spacecraft.

Also, had Grissom pulled the explosive release on the hatch, his hand or arm should have had powder and bruise marks. Neither were found.

Grissom, one of the original Mercury seven, was the senior astronaut when the Apollo missions began.

Among the astronauts, Grissom was the most critical of the problem-plagued Apollo program, and the main Apollo contractor, North American Aviation.

Shortly before his death, Grissom had taken a large lemon and hung it around the space capsule as the press looked on. He had suggested publicly that the project could never be accomplished on time.

The Associated Press reported, "?Pretty slim? was the way [Grissom] put his Apollo?s chances of meeting its mission requirements."

The Grissom family had reason to doubt the official NASA ruling from the beginning. Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space program.

The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret Service protection and had been moved from his home to a secure safehouse.

According to his wife, Grissom had warned her that "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it?s likely to be me."

The Apollo I disaster led to a series of congressional hearings into the incident and NASA. During the hearings, one launch pad inspector, Thomas Baron, sharply criticized NASA?s handling of the incident and testified that the astronauts attempted to escape the capsule earlier than officially claimed.

Baron was fired soon after giving the testimony, and died, along with his wife, when his car was struck by a train. Authorities ruled the deaths as suicide.

During the congressional hearings, Sen. Walter Mondale questioned the efficacy of manned space programs. Manned space flights were opposed by many of the leading space scientists at the time, including Drs. James Van Allen and Thomas Gold.

c 1998, NewsMax.com
---------------------------------------

I don't know what to think Having read this accusation, and I need to do some more research on It before I can form an opinion.

stephen

EZKILL · « **Reply #13 on:** April 01, 2004, 02:50:04 pm »

But Apollo I was an accident in the capsule (oxygen saturation and a spark caused that one) and Apollo XIII had a tank blow up long after the Saturn V was jettisoned.

Sirgod · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2004, 03:00:23 pm »

That's very true. I hadn't had time to research It yet, But you are correct.

I would love to see the S 5 built using modern day materials. Where is stormBringer BTW, he would be great in this thread. He would Explain How Coconuts and Modern Psycholigy can Rebuild the S5 and make It Stronger, faster, Better then what we had.

Heck Sethan would quote Lee Major's work in the Advance in the Space race.

Seriously, I hope that we can find at least one copy for the S5 plans. We could Practicly Launch the ISS into space easily.

Stephen

Iceman · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:04:10 pm »

We could always tear apart the one in the Space Museum in Florida, its a lifesize model built but never used, suspended in stages above a tour site. If I can find the pictures, I'll scan them.

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:26:20 pm »

The museum parts are non-functional. No functional Saturn V parts remain. No drawings of the design remain.
The men who originally designed and built it are dead or retired.

Iceman · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2004, 02:24:16 pm »

Does non-functional mean not present, however? Sadly I don't know for sure.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2004, 02:59:58 pm »

Yes. Unfortunately, Recreatingthe Saturn would not be coste effective. The cost would dwarf it's old price and that using the old tech. Improving it would be even more. The Saturn is gone forever. The nearest thing is the Proton or the Arriane 5.

The losers who terminated the program and those who destroyed the engineering data should be shot if they were not already dead.

Iceman · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2004, 06:02:52 pm »

I agree totally. However some type of booster would probably needed to get to Mars or anywhere else with any speed. Anyone know how long it'd take to get to the Moon with current tech? I know is was 4 days, give or take during the Apollo missions.

Inquiry · « **Reply #22 on:** April 14, 2004, 09:39:37 pm »

Does this thread title have anything to do with Evangelion's closing theme?

Inquiry · « **Reply #23 on:** April 18, 2004, 08:07:11 pm »

*bump*

Well, does it?

ActiveX · « **Reply #25 on:** April 24, 2004, 01:28:00 am »

Why is yer name green?

Toasty0 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2004, 12:44:52 am »

While President Bush's new out-of-this-world vision has generated worldwide debate over whether private industry should play a bigger role in space exploration, one company is poised to answer the question with an enthusiastic thud later this year.

Thousands of people have paid to have messages, business cards, art or ashes of loved ones sent to the Moon on the Trailblazer robotic probe, which if successful will slam into the lunar surface and squash any doubt about the looming commercialization of space.

The mission is a private venture of California-based TransOrbital Inc., which is also drawing on corporate sponsorships and advertising to fund the effort.

After years of delay, launch is now slated for this fall, company President Dennis Laurie said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Individuals can book items for the flight at the company's web site, transorbital.net. Sending a business card to the Moon costs $2,500. Other relics or mementos can fly for $2,500 per gram. A text message costs $17.

Creative financing

Trailblazer will orbit the Moon for about three months, sending back high-quality and potentially saleable photos of Apollo landing sites, plus HDTV-quality video that might be sold for advertising use. Data will be collected to create a new, high-resolution lunar map, also potentially saleable.

The craft will then de-orbit and disintegrate upon impact. Some 22 pounds (10 kilograms) of personal effects will remain intact, housed in a protective capsule that will tunnel 13-16 feet (4-5 meters) into the lunar surface.

TransOrbital initially had planned a July 2001 launch. Trailblazer was later expected to go up early this year. But a new deal struck with Hewlett Packard last summer, which will allow anyone with a properly equipped handheld computer to communicate with the lunar orbiter, forced additional engineering, Laurie said.

"We'd like to have as many people either send things to the Moon or access the satellite while it's in orbit around the Moon as possible," he said. Terrestrial communicators would get a confirmation message that the craft had received a signal.

Despite delays, the 242-pound (110-kilogram) orbiter is under construction, the launch vehicle is in place at a Russian facility, and it looks like liftoff will occur "in October or November of this year," Laurie said. He added that he's 80 to 90 percent confident in that forecast.

Good model for NASA

Proponents of expanded space exploration and the commercialization of space are eager for a private mission like this.

Brian Chase, executive director of the National Space Society, said TransOrbital's concept is sound.

In fact he said NASA could learn a thing or two from the approach.

Chase thinks the space agency should provide incentives for the private sector by buying data, rather than just doling out contracts for spacecraft construction. The current way of doing business leaves the space agency, in many cases, in charge of overseeing construction, running flight operations and doing the scientific observations, "a lot of details that probably NASA doesn't need to worry about."

Given Bush's call to put humans back on the Moon, Chase told SPACE.com, "Now is a great time" for a mission like TransOrbital's to succeed.

"I think it bolsters the case that there is a role for the private sector in space exploration," he said, adding that unlike some advocates of privatization he sees the government continuing to play a dominant role.

TransOrbital appears to have little immediate competition.

Nearly four years ago another company, LunaCorp, got $1 million in backing from Radio Shack to design a robotic craft that would be assembled on the International Space Station and launch from there to the Moon. Like TransOrbital's probe, it would generate high-resolution pictures and video and involve public participation.

LunaCorp President David Gump said yesterday the mission awaits further funding before construction could begin.

"Our prospects obviously improved with the President's declaration," Gump said, adding that LunaCorp's mission would be one way to repurpose the space station toward lunar exploration. Bush had said research on the station should be refocused to support his grand vision of putting people on the Moon and Mars.

On the verge

Meanwhile, TransOrbital appears to be the only company on the verge of launching a privately funded spacecraft beyond Earth orbit. Yet because the company is private, it is not known with certainty whether it is financially prepared for liftoff.

In a test in 2002 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, TransOrbital put a dummy craft into Earth orbit using a Russian Dnepr rocket. The same setup will be used for the Moon launch.

Laurie said the Baikonur success should convince potential supporters that the company has the finances, engineering and planning resources to make the lunar trip a reality. "You just go that one step farther," he said.

TransOrbital plans to make money off this and future planned missions to the Moon by selling advertisements and sponsorships in addition to the revenue it collects on its web site.

Laurie would not divulge sales figures but said "thousands of messages and products" have been booked for the flight. The cards and other personal items, "will contribute significantly" to the revenue of the project, he said.

Additional revenue could come from Trailblazer's lunar map, which will be the highest resolution ever and could help NASA and other private firms plan future lunar forays, he said.

The mission is expected to cost less than $20 million.

Critics of the project have expressed worry about littering the Moon. Most of the critics, Laurie said, are environmentalists "who would like to make sure the Moon won't suffer some of the ungracious treatment the Earth has experienced."

TransOrbital has been addressing the environmental concerns from the outset, he said, and the Trailblazer mission is the only private, beyond-Earth-orbit spaceflight plan presently approved by State Department. The agency required TransOrbital show that the impact "wouldn't disturb the normal environment in any untoward way," he said.

I see the potential now. Billions...no, make that trillions can be earned hauling Earth's trash to the moon for quick-impact disposal.

Will it be called landfill or moonfill?

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2004, 01:43:10 am »

Meanwhile back on Earth.....

Jobs are threatened in S. California and other aerospace centers as the cancellation of future shuttle and next generation reusable engine plans kicks in. News of cancellations or major engine programs have already reached employees, although nothing as of yet has been publicly announced.

The earliest one could expect any new program initiative to start would be next fiscal year, given the governments procurement procedure. This assumes the funding is actually authorized by Congress. Meanwhile, I'd not be surprised to see significant layoffs. Layoffs of the engineering experience that will be needed...

FYI: The only Apollo engine hardware that still exists is in Houston in a museum. To my knowledge, no tooling or even detailed drawings have survived. Most Apollo engineers have long since retired, along with their expertise...

FYI#2: The Bush Space Initiative calls for the CEV to be lifted by Delta 4 or Atlas heavy lift engines (ie Air Force engines). These are disposable engines built "on the cheap", and were never designed for manned flight. They have an occasional tendency to go BOOM.

Sirgod · « **Reply #33 on:** March 31, 2004, 07:55:15 pm »

making a small Bump, Was looking for some info from here for a Discussion elsewhere.

Stephen

Khalee · « **Reply #34 on:** March 31, 2004, 08:03:29 pm »

So the moon is going to be earths garbage dump, weve allready poluted our own planet so sure lets polute another with our trash.

Sirgod · « **Reply #36 on:** March 31, 2004, 08:13:17 pm »

Thanks for the Link Kmelew. I'm reading through It right now.

Stephen

edit, Yep, I'll have to get this book Pretty soon.

Delta One · « **Reply #37 on:** April 01, 2004, 08:45:25 am »

You don't need Americans to be engineers for the american space program.

I'm sure I can get 1000 Indians to do it for the price of 10 Americans.

Heck and if I hire a Russian to pilot the spaceship I won't have to pay him as much either!

Iceman · « **Reply #39 on:** April 01, 2004, 01:39:00 pm »

Give me a starship, and I'll fly it to the edge of existence for you. Free.

Sirgod · « **Reply #41 on:** April 01, 2004, 01:46:37 pm »

I don't think So EZkill, Apollo 13 and apollo 11 I believe where using the S5.

Interestingly enough I just came across this.

link

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:24 -0600
To: Kepi
From: Kepi
Subject: Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges
Source: NewMax.com
http://38.201.154.103/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539

Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges

Christopher Ruddy
February 11, 1999

Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, the astronaut slated to be the first man to walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the Feb. 16 edition of Star magazine.

In another stunning development, a lead NASA investigator has charged that the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and two other astronauts.

The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom, 48, has gone public with the family?s long-held belief that their father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.

The Jan. 27, 1967, Apollo I mission was a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight.

NASA concluded that the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, as well as astronauts Edward H. White and Roger Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that burst from the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote the catastrophe off as an accident.

"My father?s death was no accident. He was murdered," Grissom, a commercial pilot, told Star.

Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated" metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules? electrical power source from an outside source to the ship?s batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage. When one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship?s batteries, a spark was created that ignited a fireball.

Clark Mac Donald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence. Breaking more than three decades of silence, Mac Donald says he determined that an electrical short caused by the changeover to battery power had sparked the fire.

He says that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space program.

"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth, but I didn?t want to hurt NASA?s image or cause trouble," Mac Donald told the paper. "But I can?t let one more day go by without the truth being known."

Grissom?s widow, Betty, now 71, told Star she agrees with her son?s claim that her husband had been murdered.

"I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon."

Scott Grissom told Star that the motive for his father?s killing may have been related to NASA?s desire not have his father be the first man to walk on the moon because of criticism leveled at Grissom in 1961 after his Mercury capsule, Liberty 7, sunk in the Atlantic.

Critics of Grissom, including novelist Tom Wolfe, have claimed the astronaut panicked when his space capsule landed in the ocean, and he prematurely pulled an explosive charge to open the ship?s hatch, causing it to sink.

Fellow astronauts, however, gave Grissom the benefit of the doubt for several reasons. Grissom was a decorated Korean War pilot who had flown nearly 100 combat missions. He was a courageous man not known to panic.

There was also evidence that the explosive device on the hatch could accidentally blow without being pulled?a fact that led NASA to remove such devices from future spacecraft.

Also, had Grissom pulled the explosive release on the hatch, his hand or arm should have had powder and bruise marks. Neither were found.

Grissom, one of the original Mercury seven, was the senior astronaut when the Apollo missions began.

Among the astronauts, Grissom was the most critical of the problem-plagued Apollo program, and the main Apollo contractor, North American Aviation.

Shortly before his death, Grissom had taken a large lemon and hung it around the space capsule as the press looked on. He had suggested publicly that the project could never be accomplished on time.

The Associated Press reported, "?Pretty slim? was the way [Grissom] put his Apollo?s chances of meeting its mission requirements."

The Grissom family had reason to doubt the official NASA ruling from the beginning. Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space program.

The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret Service protection and had been moved from his home to a secure safehouse.

According to his wife, Grissom had warned her that "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it?s likely to be me."

The Apollo I disaster led to a series of congressional hearings into the incident and NASA. During the hearings, one launch pad inspector, Thomas Baron, sharply criticized NASA?s handling of the incident and testified that the astronauts attempted to escape the capsule earlier than officially claimed.

Baron was fired soon after giving the testimony, and died, along with his wife, when his car was struck by a train. Authorities ruled the deaths as suicide.

During the congressional hearings, Sen. Walter Mondale questioned the efficacy of manned space programs. Manned space flights were opposed by many of the leading space scientists at the time, including Drs. James Van Allen and Thomas Gold.

c 1998, NewsMax.com
---------------------------------------

I don't know what to think Having read this accusation, and I need to do some more research on It before I can form an opinion.

stephen

EZKILL · « **Reply #42 on:** April 01, 2004, 02:50:04 pm »

But Apollo I was an accident in the capsule (oxygen saturation and a spark caused that one) and Apollo XIII had a tank blow up long after the Saturn V was jettisoned.

Sirgod · « **Reply #43 on:** April 01, 2004, 03:00:23 pm »

That's very true. I hadn't had time to research It yet, But you are correct.

I would love to see the S 5 built using modern day materials. Where is stormBringer BTW, he would be great in this thread. He would Explain How Coconuts and Modern Psycholigy can Rebuild the S5 and make It Stronger, faster, Better then what we had.

Heck Sethan would quote Lee Major's work in the Advance in the Space race.

Seriously, I hope that we can find at least one copy for the S5 plans. We could Practicly Launch the ISS into space easily.

Stephen

Iceman · « **Reply #44 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:04:10 pm »

We could always tear apart the one in the Space Museum in Florida, its a lifesize model built but never used, suspended in stages above a tour site. If I can find the pictures, I'll scan them.

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #45 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:26:20 pm »

The museum parts are non-functional. No functional Saturn V parts remain. No drawings of the design remain.
The men who originally designed and built it are dead or retired.

Iceman · « **Reply #46 on:** April 03, 2004, 02:24:16 pm »

Does non-functional mean not present, however? Sadly I don't know for sure.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #47 on:** April 03, 2004, 02:59:58 pm »

Yes. Unfortunately, Recreatingthe Saturn would not be coste effective. The cost would dwarf it's old price and that using the old tech. Improving it would be even more. The Saturn is gone forever. The nearest thing is the Proton or the Arriane 5.

The losers who terminated the program and those who destroyed the engineering data should be shot if they were not already dead.

Iceman · « **Reply #48 on:** April 03, 2004, 06:02:52 pm »

I agree totally. However some type of booster would probably needed to get to Mars or anywhere else with any speed. Anyone know how long it'd take to get to the Moon with current tech? I know is was 4 days, give or take during the Apollo missions.

Inquiry · « **Reply #51 on:** April 14, 2004, 09:39:37 pm »

Does this thread title have anything to do with Evangelion's closing theme?

Inquiry · « **Reply #52 on:** April 18, 2004, 08:07:11 pm »

*bump*

Well, does it?

ActiveX · « **Reply #54 on:** April 24, 2004, 01:28:00 am »

Why is yer name green?

Toasty0 · « **Reply #58 on:** January 30, 2004, 12:44:52 am »

While President Bush's new out-of-this-world vision has generated worldwide debate over whether private industry should play a bigger role in space exploration, one company is poised to answer the question with an enthusiastic thud later this year.

Thousands of people have paid to have messages, business cards, art or ashes of loved ones sent to the Moon on the Trailblazer robotic probe, which if successful will slam into the lunar surface and squash any doubt about the looming commercialization of space.

The mission is a private venture of California-based TransOrbital Inc., which is also drawing on corporate sponsorships and advertising to fund the effort.

After years of delay, launch is now slated for this fall, company President Dennis Laurie said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Individuals can book items for the flight at the company's web site, transorbital.net. Sending a business card to the Moon costs $2,500. Other relics or mementos can fly for $2,500 per gram. A text message costs $17.

Creative financing

Trailblazer will orbit the Moon for about three months, sending back high-quality and potentially saleable photos of Apollo landing sites, plus HDTV-quality video that might be sold for advertising use. Data will be collected to create a new, high-resolution lunar map, also potentially saleable.

The craft will then de-orbit and disintegrate upon impact. Some 22 pounds (10 kilograms) of personal effects will remain intact, housed in a protective capsule that will tunnel 13-16 feet (4-5 meters) into the lunar surface.

TransOrbital initially had planned a July 2001 launch. Trailblazer was later expected to go up early this year. But a new deal struck with Hewlett Packard last summer, which will allow anyone with a properly equipped handheld computer to communicate with the lunar orbiter, forced additional engineering, Laurie said.

"We'd like to have as many people either send things to the Moon or access the satellite while it's in orbit around the Moon as possible," he said. Terrestrial communicators would get a confirmation message that the craft had received a signal.

Despite delays, the 242-pound (110-kilogram) orbiter is under construction, the launch vehicle is in place at a Russian facility, and it looks like liftoff will occur "in October or November of this year," Laurie said. He added that he's 80 to 90 percent confident in that forecast.

Good model for NASA

Proponents of expanded space exploration and the commercialization of space are eager for a private mission like this.

Brian Chase, executive director of the National Space Society, said TransOrbital's concept is sound.

In fact he said NASA could learn a thing or two from the approach.

Chase thinks the space agency should provide incentives for the private sector by buying data, rather than just doling out contracts for spacecraft construction. The current way of doing business leaves the space agency, in many cases, in charge of overseeing construction, running flight operations and doing the scientific observations, "a lot of details that probably NASA doesn't need to worry about."

Given Bush's call to put humans back on the Moon, Chase told SPACE.com, "Now is a great time" for a mission like TransOrbital's to succeed.

"I think it bolsters the case that there is a role for the private sector in space exploration," he said, adding that unlike some advocates of privatization he sees the government continuing to play a dominant role.

TransOrbital appears to have little immediate competition.

Nearly four years ago another company, LunaCorp, got $1 million in backing from Radio Shack to design a robotic craft that would be assembled on the International Space Station and launch from there to the Moon. Like TransOrbital's probe, it would generate high-resolution pictures and video and involve public participation.

LunaCorp President David Gump said yesterday the mission awaits further funding before construction could begin.

"Our prospects obviously improved with the President's declaration," Gump said, adding that LunaCorp's mission would be one way to repurpose the space station toward lunar exploration. Bush had said research on the station should be refocused to support his grand vision of putting people on the Moon and Mars.

On the verge

Meanwhile, TransOrbital appears to be the only company on the verge of launching a privately funded spacecraft beyond Earth orbit. Yet because the company is private, it is not known with certainty whether it is financially prepared for liftoff.

In a test in 2002 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, TransOrbital put a dummy craft into Earth orbit using a Russian Dnepr rocket. The same setup will be used for the Moon launch.

Laurie said the Baikonur success should convince potential supporters that the company has the finances, engineering and planning resources to make the lunar trip a reality. "You just go that one step farther," he said.

TransOrbital plans to make money off this and future planned missions to the Moon by selling advertisements and sponsorships in addition to the revenue it collects on its web site.

Laurie would not divulge sales figures but said "thousands of messages and products" have been booked for the flight. The cards and other personal items, "will contribute significantly" to the revenue of the project, he said.

Additional revenue could come from Trailblazer's lunar map, which will be the highest resolution ever and could help NASA and other private firms plan future lunar forays, he said.

The mission is expected to cost less than $20 million.

Critics of the project have expressed worry about littering the Moon. Most of the critics, Laurie said, are environmentalists "who would like to make sure the Moon won't suffer some of the ungracious treatment the Earth has experienced."

TransOrbital has been addressing the environmental concerns from the outset, he said, and the Trailblazer mission is the only private, beyond-Earth-orbit spaceflight plan presently approved by State Department. The agency required TransOrbital show that the impact "wouldn't disturb the normal environment in any untoward way," he said.

I see the potential now. Billions...no, make that trillions can be earned hauling Earth's trash to the moon for quick-impact disposal.

Will it be called landfill or moonfill?

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #59 on:** January 30, 2004, 01:43:10 am »

Meanwhile back on Earth.....

Jobs are threatened in S. California and other aerospace centers as the cancellation of future shuttle and next generation reusable engine plans kicks in. News of cancellations or major engine programs have already reached employees, although nothing as of yet has been publicly announced.

The earliest one could expect any new program initiative to start would be next fiscal year, given the governments procurement procedure. This assumes the funding is actually authorized by Congress. Meanwhile, I'd not be surprised to see significant layoffs. Layoffs of the engineering experience that will be needed...

FYI: The only Apollo engine hardware that still exists is in Houston in a museum. To my knowledge, no tooling or even detailed drawings have survived. Most Apollo engineers have long since retired, along with their expertise...

FYI#2: The Bush Space Initiative calls for the CEV to be lifted by Delta 4 or Atlas heavy lift engines (ie Air Force engines). These are disposable engines built "on the cheap", and were never designed for manned flight. They have an occasional tendency to go BOOM.

Sirgod · « **Reply #62 on:** March 31, 2004, 07:55:15 pm »

making a small Bump, Was looking for some info from here for a Discussion elsewhere.

Stephen

Khalee · « **Reply #63 on:** March 31, 2004, 08:03:29 pm »

So the moon is going to be earths garbage dump, weve allready poluted our own planet so sure lets polute another with our trash.

Sirgod · « **Reply #65 on:** March 31, 2004, 08:13:17 pm »

Thanks for the Link Kmelew. I'm reading through It right now.

Stephen

edit, Yep, I'll have to get this book Pretty soon.

Delta One · « **Reply #66 on:** April 01, 2004, 08:45:25 am »

You don't need Americans to be engineers for the american space program.

I'm sure I can get 1000 Indians to do it for the price of 10 Americans.

Heck and if I hire a Russian to pilot the spaceship I won't have to pay him as much either!

Iceman · « **Reply #68 on:** April 01, 2004, 01:39:00 pm »

Give me a starship, and I'll fly it to the edge of existence for you. Free.

Sirgod · « **Reply #70 on:** April 01, 2004, 01:46:37 pm »

I don't think So EZkill, Apollo 13 and apollo 11 I believe where using the S5.

Interestingly enough I just came across this.

link

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:24 -0600
To: Kepi
From: Kepi
Subject: Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges
Source: NewMax.com
http://38.201.154.103/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539

Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges

Christopher Ruddy
February 11, 1999

Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, the astronaut slated to be the first man to walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the Feb. 16 edition of Star magazine.

In another stunning development, a lead NASA investigator has charged that the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and two other astronauts.

The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom, 48, has gone public with the family?s long-held belief that their father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.

The Jan. 27, 1967, Apollo I mission was a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight.

NASA concluded that the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, as well as astronauts Edward H. White and Roger Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that burst from the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote the catastrophe off as an accident.

"My father?s death was no accident. He was murdered," Grissom, a commercial pilot, told Star.

Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated" metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules? electrical power source from an outside source to the ship?s batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage. When one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship?s batteries, a spark was created that ignited a fireball.

Clark Mac Donald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence. Breaking more than three decades of silence, Mac Donald says he determined that an electrical short caused by the changeover to battery power had sparked the fire.

He says that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space program.

"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth, but I didn?t want to hurt NASA?s image or cause trouble," Mac Donald told the paper. "But I can?t let one more day go by without the truth being known."

Grissom?s widow, Betty, now 71, told Star she agrees with her son?s claim that her husband had been murdered.

"I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon."

Scott Grissom told Star that the motive for his father?s killing may have been related to NASA?s desire not have his father be the first man to walk on the moon because of criticism leveled at Grissom in 1961 after his Mercury capsule, Liberty 7, sunk in the Atlantic.

Critics of Grissom, including novelist Tom Wolfe, have claimed the astronaut panicked when his space capsule landed in the ocean, and he prematurely pulled an explosive charge to open the ship?s hatch, causing it to sink.

Fellow astronauts, however, gave Grissom the benefit of the doubt for several reasons. Grissom was a decorated Korean War pilot who had flown nearly 100 combat missions. He was a courageous man not known to panic.

There was also evidence that the explosive device on the hatch could accidentally blow without being pulled?a fact that led NASA to remove such devices from future spacecraft.

Also, had Grissom pulled the explosive release on the hatch, his hand or arm should have had powder and bruise marks. Neither were found.

Grissom, one of the original Mercury seven, was the senior astronaut when the Apollo missions began.

Among the astronauts, Grissom was the most critical of the problem-plagued Apollo program, and the main Apollo contractor, North American Aviation.

Shortly before his death, Grissom had taken a large lemon and hung it around the space capsule as the press looked on. He had suggested publicly that the project could never be accomplished on time.

The Associated Press reported, "?Pretty slim? was the way [Grissom] put his Apollo?s chances of meeting its mission requirements."

The Grissom family had reason to doubt the official NASA ruling from the beginning. Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space program.

The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret Service protection and had been moved from his home to a secure safehouse.

According to his wife, Grissom had warned her that "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it?s likely to be me."

The Apollo I disaster led to a series of congressional hearings into the incident and NASA. During the hearings, one launch pad inspector, Thomas Baron, sharply criticized NASA?s handling of the incident and testified that the astronauts attempted to escape the capsule earlier than officially claimed.

Baron was fired soon after giving the testimony, and died, along with his wife, when his car was struck by a train. Authorities ruled the deaths as suicide.

During the congressional hearings, Sen. Walter Mondale questioned the efficacy of manned space programs. Manned space flights were opposed by many of the leading space scientists at the time, including Drs. James Van Allen and Thomas Gold.

c 1998, NewsMax.com
---------------------------------------

I don't know what to think Having read this accusation, and I need to do some more research on It before I can form an opinion.

stephen

EZKILL · « **Reply #71 on:** April 01, 2004, 02:50:04 pm »

But Apollo I was an accident in the capsule (oxygen saturation and a spark caused that one) and Apollo XIII had a tank blow up long after the Saturn V was jettisoned.

Sirgod · « **Reply #72 on:** April 01, 2004, 03:00:23 pm »

That's very true. I hadn't had time to research It yet, But you are correct.

I would love to see the S 5 built using modern day materials. Where is stormBringer BTW, he would be great in this thread. He would Explain How Coconuts and Modern Psycholigy can Rebuild the S5 and make It Stronger, faster, Better then what we had.

Heck Sethan would quote Lee Major's work in the Advance in the Space race.

Seriously, I hope that we can find at least one copy for the S5 plans. We could Practicly Launch the ISS into space easily.

Stephen

Iceman · « **Reply #73 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:04:10 pm »

We could always tear apart the one in the Space Museum in Florida, its a lifesize model built but never used, suspended in stages above a tour site. If I can find the pictures, I'll scan them.

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #74 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:26:20 pm »

The museum parts are non-functional. No functional Saturn V parts remain. No drawings of the design remain.
The men who originally designed and built it are dead or retired.

Iceman · « **Reply #75 on:** April 03, 2004, 02:24:16 pm »

Does non-functional mean not present, however? Sadly I don't know for sure.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #76 on:** April 03, 2004, 02:59:58 pm »

Yes. Unfortunately, Recreatingthe Saturn would not be coste effective. The cost would dwarf it's old price and that using the old tech. Improving it would be even more. The Saturn is gone forever. The nearest thing is the Proton or the Arriane 5.

The losers who terminated the program and those who destroyed the engineering data should be shot if they were not already dead.

Iceman · « **Reply #77 on:** April 03, 2004, 06:02:52 pm »

I agree totally. However some type of booster would probably needed to get to Mars or anywhere else with any speed. Anyone know how long it'd take to get to the Moon with current tech? I know is was 4 days, give or take during the Apollo missions.

Inquiry · « **Reply #80 on:** April 14, 2004, 09:39:37 pm »

Does this thread title have anything to do with Evangelion's closing theme?

Inquiry · « **Reply #81 on:** April 18, 2004, 08:07:11 pm »

*bump*

Well, does it?

ActiveX · « **Reply #83 on:** April 24, 2004, 01:28:00 am »

Why is yer name green?

Sirgod · « **Reply #87 on:** October 05, 2004, 12:48:35 pm »

Bumping this since It mentions a Discussion About Gordon Cooper and his Life.

Stephen

News:

Topic: Fly me to the Moon (Read 9236 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Toasty0

Death_Merchant

Sirgod

Toasty0

Sirgod

Khalee

Kmelew

Sirgod

Delta One

Sirgod

Iceman

*EZKILL*

Sirgod

*EZKILL*

Sirgod

Iceman

Death_Merchant

Iceman

Stormbringer

Iceman

Stormbringer

Sirgod

Inquiry

Inquiry

Toasty0

ActiveX

Toasty0

ActiveX

Inquiry

Toasty0

Death_Merchant

Sirgod

Toasty0

Sirgod

Khalee

Kmelew

Sirgod

Delta One

Sirgod

Iceman

*EZKILL*

Sirgod

*EZKILL*

Sirgod

Iceman

Death_Merchant

Iceman

Stormbringer

Iceman

Stormbringer

Sirgod

Inquiry

Inquiry

Toasty0

ActiveX

Toasty0

ActiveX

Inquiry

Toasty0

Death_Merchant

Sirgod

Toasty0

Sirgod

Khalee

Kmelew

Sirgod

Delta One

Sirgod

Iceman

*EZKILL*

Sirgod

*EZKILL*

Sirgod

Iceman

Topic: Fly me to the Moon (Read 9236 times)

EZKILL

EZKILL

EZKILL

EZKILL

EZKILL

EZKILL