At 08:12 AM 10/2/01 -0700, Matt Beland wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >On Tuesday 02 October 2001 07:43 am, David Honig wrote: >> At 02:00 PM 10/2/01 +0100, Ken Brown wrote: >> >And if you can put up a bloody huge enough launcher on the moon, (use >> >solar energy or nuclear - why not - it is one place in the system that >> >we don't care about pollution) then you can send material back all the >> >way to LEO by slingshot, and when it is captured by the facility at LEO, >> >> And Lloyds pays out when you miss the catch? >> >> (Then again, NASA played plutonium slingshot without coverage... ) > >Bah. Read a physics text sometime. Miss the catch and the payload continues >on in it's original path, which would be at a tangent to the intended orbit >and therefore to the surface.
Why don't you consider worst case scenarios, and aerobraking. > >As for NASA playing "plutonium slingshot", they did indeed - with a huge >margin for error, and a design so pessimistic that even if the damned thing >had slammed head-on into the planet, there would almost certainly have been >zero contamination. If the canister HAD broken, the contamination would have >been roughly on the scale of Three Mile Island, which killed 0 people and did >0 environmental damage. Why don't you consider worst case scenarios, and aerobraking. > >If you and the other idiots want to object to the things NASA and others do, >fine. Be my guest. But do your homework FIRST. Why don't you consider worst case scenarios, and aerobraking.