Slashdot Mirror
First Commercial Moon Mission Approved
dorantrist writes "A Discovery Channel article that The U.S. Government has just licensed the first commercial mission to the moon to TransOrbital, Inc.. Part of the mission is "to VERIFY Apollo and other landing sites" because there are still a few people out there who believe the Apollo program was a hoax. --Maybe they can also pickup the golf balls left by Alan Shepard?"
Who thinks that people silly enough to believe the first trip to the moon was a hoax will now believe that this trip is for real?
"...to VERIFY Apollo and other landing sites"
Great, they're going to send back fake pictures of the Apollo landing site...
I wouldn't invest in that. Imagine the parking tickets and littering fines waiting for them when they land. I'll bet the US goverment isn't going to refund their taxes to cover it.
"To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
I wanna know what right the US has to grant commercial missions to the moon. Like we are the only country that has rights to the moon as a resource.
The next big wars will be over space shipping lanes.
riley
Maybe they can also pickup the golf balls left by Alan Shepard?
dont have to..... take a look here or more specifically this animation.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm sure we've got a shitload powerful enough to see the landing site from here. Why the hell send another ship?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I bet this company was started years ago by the military in secret and now after all this time, when the dust has settled and the heat has let up, is going back to the studio to fake another landing. :)
This time I bet ILM will put some really cool animals and critters on the moon. Maybe even some faces in the rocks and a giant underground mine with a real live arnold.
WOW.
If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.
What does Telebit think of this name? Do bad I sold my trailblazer modem some years ago, but i still have a worldblazer somewhere...
Why do they need permission from the US?
Why does this company need to get approval of the US Gov?
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
This is the future of space travel. I can't download the article for some reason ( /.'ed already?) Once businesses get interested in traveling to the moon, progress will begin to pick up where NASA's work ended. I think this is a good thing.
"Trailblazer is expected to launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan within the next nine to 12 months. "
So, WTF does it have to do withthe US government?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
lander: we are now returning with alan sheperds balls.
base: what was that? (chuckle)
lander: i said were returning with alan shepards balls.
base: hehe, sweet. did you use the retractable cup tool to scoop them up?
lander: yes, we used the cup.
base: would you say that your... hehehehehe, cupping alan shepards balls?
lander: umm, yes, weve successfully cupped his balls.... do you guys hear laughing over the frequency cutting in?
base: oh no, no laughing here. would you say your excited to be cupping....
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
The U.S. Government has just licensed the first commercial mission to the moon.
TransOrbital, Inc. received permission from various government agencies last week to send a probe back to the Earth's little sister.
Received permission?? Did I miss the part where the US Gov't purchased the moon?
Transorbital has been granted permission by the U.S. government to land on the moon.
Since when do we need permission to land on the moon? Does NASA own the damned thing?
Who grants permission to leave the Earth? I didn't know we had a warden.
Am I the only person disturbed by the idea that people will go to the moon and strip mine with abandon, and destroy its beauty from the perspective of people on Earth? I think something will never be the same about our little neighborhood of space when people look up and see lights all over the moon at night and they've dug up the man in the moon's face... ;)
Cryptic Allusion - New Mac and Dreamcast Games!
This won't change their minds. These people are never going to believe we landed on the moon. They'll just convince themselves that TansOrbital is a puppet company. I'm not even sure if they'd believe the whole deal if they went up themselves, took off their helmets and died from exposure to the vacuum and cold.
I fund it a bit amusing that you even need permission to do this! Other countries may venture into space, corporations already have satellites launched. Is this really that big of a deal? If you really needed permission, why doesn't a world wide governing body like the U.N. make this decision, rather than the U.S.?
Bill, can you factor this prime number for me?
Because they are launching from the US.
Well, I'm still somewhat skeptical that they'll actually be able to do it ... I'll believe it when it happens. But if they do manage it, I think that it's a good step forward. As the government doesn't seem to have much interest in getting us to space, we're going to have to rely on commercial ventures to do it for us.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Eaxactly what I was wondering. WTF is up with that, you need permission to leave the planet? Well, I guees maybe you need permission to come back, but still...
Edith Keeler Must Die
This company was approved for a moon mission? I'm supposed to believe they are going to make it to the moon, when they can't even build a decent website? They have a banner add (a cheesy one) advertising leaving your mark on the moon. Tell me this is a joke?
Because they need to go through US airspace, kinda gotta make sure no planes are in the flight path of what is a essentially a big missile you know?
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
Who would be believe a phony government agency disguised as a "privately" held company anyway? I sure as hell wouldn't. :)
Because NASA is orchestrating it's masonic conspiracy.
Actually if you read the article they are launching from Kazakhstan.
Don't these guys know anything about marketing!?! What they should have mentioned is building the first Wi-Fi network and WarShuttling.
Shooting off another space mission to take pictures of the landing site from the first space mission isn't going to convince skeptics, who are convinced that all these space missions are big left wing conspiracies. What they need to do is go up there and dust the moon with some colored powder or something.
"Trlblzr wuz here! 02"
That'll convince them.
The angel in the oatmeal.
-- Find the Truth...
So it's highly unlikely to travel through US airspace. No?
So WTF does it have to do with the US government?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Unless it belongs to some aliens already.
From that ancient movie shown to Lisa Simpson:
:)
"The moon belongs to America."
Because they are incorporated in the US and therefore bound by its laws and regulatory agencies, I assume.
Trailblazer will also carry a time capsule containing messages and personal items that will remain on the moon where the craft crashes.
Children's letters to God to jettison -- check.
--
Disclaimer: The above statement probably includes half-truths, because real truth is too complicated.
If you read the Press Release the reason TransOribital says, is beacause they must satisfy a number of design requirments and directives which took them 2 years to complete.
Assuming it launches from a part of the US one kind of need US permission to fly super large launch vehicles. The US doesn't take kindly to unscheduled large object flying around in US airspace nor would I suspect many other countries would either.
Reguardless of the stance on the privitazation of space, many functions will still fall under US Federal juristiction and regulation. After all you don't want thousands of pounds of rocket fuel falling on major cities do you?
Yes, it's strange at first sight that you need a license, from the US government no less, to go to the moon. They don't even launch there, they launch from Kazakhstan, as the article says.
But that also means this is a US company launching space craft from abroad. I would think a few permits are involved there - like in exporting it there in the first place. I don't know exactly what sort of technology export restrictions there currently are, but I think spacecraft will be covered.
And of course they need a license from the guy who patented 'flying to the moon' as a business method...
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The US Gov probably has export restrictions (especially since 9/11) on alot of the technology they are using for the launch.
Ok then lets see, the list of export controlled components in a rocket is large, no.
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
My guess is that it's for the rights to launch. Just a matter of getting permission from the FAA I think.
At least it wasn't an X-10 pop-up ....
...getting Lance Bass & the rest of N'Sync in space permanently ...using the new lunar rover with bulldozer blade mounted on the front to carve a Pepsi logo into the surface of the moon to offset launch costs ...and the number 1 reason...
It's the ultimate vaction go where few have gone before.
from the article:
"Trailblazer is expected to launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan within the next nine to 12 months. Trailblazer will also carry a time capsule containing messages and personal items that will remain on the moon where the craft crashes.
"
If you want to establish imperial right to the moon, just establish the precedent of demanding control over such activities. Companies such as Transorbital are not rich; they cave quickly. But now precedent is established: the U.S. claims the right to regulate U.S. companies' activities on the moon, even if launched from another country.
Editorially I add that the precedents established in cases such as Noriega and various internet sites overseas has given the U.S. expanded *expected* control of activies in other countries. We're essentially claiming, bit-by-bit, hegemony over the planet by any means necessary. It's not a vile conspiracy, merely the Logic of Empire.
Sneakers. Good one. Didn't they stage the lunar landing at a sound stage in San Bernadino, CA?
It's not so much a matter of getting permission, but to inform people of what's going on. MOST launches are at least announced, since especially in this day and age, you don't want to launch off rockets without informing anyone. Jittery governments who are in the dark might think its the start of a nuclear attack. This HAS happened in the past. We don't care that you launch rockets, we just want to make sure they're going into space and not somewhere else.
Its also important that if something goes wrong with the spacecraft and all contact is lost, the craft (or debris from it) can be tracked by those who are most concerned about such things. A single screw in low earth orbit can cause major havoc if it impacts a spacecraft. You want to know where it is.
The other issue is to insure compliance with any international treaties with regards to propulsion systems or use of celestial bodies for which someone at one point in time might have signed a treaty for. True, they could launch the rocket anyway, and probably nobody could do much about it. But there's no sense pissing anyone off if a yes answer is overwhelmingly probable anyway.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
And it has fuck all to do with permission to go to the moon.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Okay, so let's see. We have the technology to digitally edit people out of video scenes in REALTIME. We have the technology to digitally add in elements to a video scene (I would assume in realtime). We have the technology to do damn near anything we want digitally, given enough time and servers, short of making fully-believable humans. And some pictures supposedly sent back from a satellite is going to convince someone who thinks they managed to fake the moon landings 30+ years ago that they were wrong? Riiiiight.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
No government owns the moon. There is an international treaty/pact/something which states that no country may place a claim on any celestial body (scroll down to article 2). This has, however, not stopped private enterprise from placing such claims.
so thy got a shitty web page. That tells me they're not spending money on web design. Maybe tha banner ad was a quickie made by one of the engineers on some spare time? Maybe you should't blast a company by it's public outlook and give them a chance to actually get to the moon. Then when the money is rolling in from tourists, mining, whatever, you can bitch because the web page isn't up to your petty standards.
>
Maybe so that the US doesn't think that it's some sort of warhead being launched ...
Why does this company need to get approval of the US Gov?
... hmmm ... lemme seee ... that'll be $50k to search for the corresponding form. Unreturnable if it turns out there ain't one." - but I figure it was worth it just because it looks good on their front page.
My thoughts exactly.
I presume it's just a publicity gag. Considering that a) the moon is legally (AFAIK), as well as de-facto international, and b) they'll be neither launching from the US, nor flying through US airspace, I guess they just went up to various government organisations (NASA, EPA, federal reserve, you name it) and asked for a signed chitty saying that it was okey-dokey for them to be flying to to moon.
Not that this didn't generate any revenue for the goverment ("Permission to fly to the moon
yes, we have no bananas
You don't lunch things into space without letting the super powers know, and getting their approval. Remember the Reagan era Star Wars? How do we know they aren't sending nukes up there?
It's a matter of international security that you don't allow just anyone to lunch rockets and orbit things over your head.
But please be kind to the native moonians.
Sleep is for the Weak
Because if you launch from North America it will surely show up on Norad's screen.
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
... the US government has granted permission to an undisclosed public company to verify that stories posted on /. are real.
As an added bonus, this mission will weed out all duplicate submissions, spelling, grammars, etc. of the stories.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
You will always have skeptics, just liek you will always have people who believe in UFO's. I've seen articles about how the mission was a hoax and they are quite convincing. If your going to teb moon bring a drilling rig, set up some experiments. Mount a teliscope, a big reflector dish anything. but dont go just to find some stupid golf balls.
OK I must ask. What is the name of the TV show where they went to the moon to make $$$ on the stuff that was left on the Moon and when did it air?
Thanks
You don't own it until you "improve" it. That is have permanent residents living there without significant outside assistance. This rule of international law has applied to everything from continents (e.g. Australia) to homesteads (e.g. some company wanted land in the US west, or rather the oil under it, and sued for the government to take it away from the homesteader since he hadn't built a good enough cabin and hadn't cleared land for a garden -- they only lost because of a statute of limitations issue).
The next step is bulldozing everything in sight -- so when you look up at night and notice that all the peaks have been flattened and all the craters have been filled in, then you'll know that somebody really owns it!
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
whats worse is a life where you patrol slashdot for grammar heirs.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
lunch = Launch
typing to damn fast
Ping time'll be a real bitch, though (somewhere around 2600 ms)...and people thought satellite Internet service was bad. I'd also think it would be too easy for the Media Mafia to throw some jamming satellites into low-earth orbit that would interfere with "Havenco, Lunar Division."
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Never bothered the US before. e.g.
(1) All the earth belongs to God. Voted.
(2) God can give any part of the earth to His chosen people. Voted.
(3) We are His chosen people. Voted.
but he'd have to learn to spell kazakhstan
Actually they had to cancel that lesson when he failed all attempts at learning to pronounce it.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Launching from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, not the U.S.
Which still raises the question, why do they need permission? Courtesy to NASA, or did the U.S. demand the company request permission? If the second, I think a immensely bad precedent has been set.
that was brought up in the fox documentary about the moon landing?
For the most part, any first year physics student could counter the arguments in the documentary, which is why there were no real physicists on the show. The one that they had merely said something to the effect of "Yeah, there are a lot of crackpots out there".
For example:
1. The astronaut is climing down the lander, and is in shadow, yet his space suit is brightly lit, suggesting a studio lighting scenario.
Answer: You may have noticed that the moon reflects light. This is why it allows us to see at night.
2. The pictures are exceptionally clear, yet the astronauts were not trained photographers.
Answer: any photograph taken in a vacuum will look more clear, due to less distortion from the atmosphere.
3. There is a picture of the lander, and some rocks around it, then a picture of the "same scene" with no lander.
Answer: Due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon, large boulders and even mountains may appear to look like close-up rocks when photographed.
4. The lander just appears to "take off", with no acceleration.
Answer: That's because it was a "catapult", you idiot, not a rocket. Escape velocity on the moon is tiny compared to earth, so a large enough explosion will do the trick.
5. The flag appears to be "waving in the wind".
Answer: only when the astronaut is touching it, you retard. When he lets go, it just sits there. I can make a flag wave too. Even with no wind. Imagine that.
There were other, equally stupid pieces of "evidence", but there was ONE thing I could not explain.
In some of the photos, the camera's crosshair is *partially behind* the scene. How is that possible unless the photos were airbrushed?
WWJD? JWRTFA!
An an unrelated topic, who else would like to see them send Lance Bass into space, and NOT BRING HIM BACK?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Helpful link, but does this mean that if Russia wanted to launch a similar mission to the Moon they would have to seek U.S. approval? I guess this may only apply to U.S. companies. Still seems odd.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Uh, I think anyone trying to patent the "idea" of moon travel will have a peaved bus driver and equally peaved housewife, who, incidentially has apparently been there many times.
Photoshop anyone? :P
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Everyone is upset over asking the US for permission.
Its only worth getting upset if the US denied permission to go. Then, what would they do about it?
Sleep is for the Weak
Consider that there are literally thousands of satellites presently in low-earth orbit, some functional, some merely centimeter-sized pieces of debris. Much of this is being tracked by US Air Defense, and orbital elements for spy sats are not generally made public, for obvious reasons.
So, it is likely that these folks submitted a mission plan and trajectory to the US, which then returned it to them and said "that should work fine, have fun". They were not "getting permission to leave the planet", they were getting a go-ahead to help keep their moon shuttle from an accidental collision with either an unregistered spysat or the odd bit of space junk as they pass through LEO. This has been common practice for many years now.
Cheers,
Mouser
MOD this crap down! It is a cut & paste troll from this link:
http://spiralx.dyndns.org/texts/troll1.html
Check it out on google. He's Karma Whoring. AND BTW IT WASN'T FUNNY. It sounded like some maniac touting gun owners rights again....you people....
...many Europeans still don't believe people have actually landed on the North American continent!
;)
Many believe that life on other continents is just to absurd an idea to take seriously. Or, if life is there, the ocean is just too big a distance to cross, so we will never know.
In fact there is an European internet project called SATI@home, or Search for American Territories Intelligence, that is listening for intelligent life in North America. This project may fail though. If there is life in North America, it is likely that Europeans would never be able to decode the meaning of any of the messages or culture.
Many Europeans think its all just political mumbo jumbo anyway.
"The concept most foreign in all religions is that of a universe existing forever. Beginnings and endings are a fools dream."
-Anonymous
How about because there is no atmosphere in which the dust to float around, you non-physics fuck!
How can people believe we didn't go to the moon? How else would you explain where the mormons came from?
Actually a real question would be - what do they explain happens to the people/rockets shot into space? That we maybe just toss them up there for fun?
Ave Molech Setting
You took the words right out of my mouth. If there's one way to inhibit the development of private sector space exploration/exploitation, it's to keep government involved. Perhaps under current law the FAA needs to coordinate the blastoff so they don't take out any 747s on the way up. But I can't think of any reason why government needs to be involved after that. If these people want to take the risk, and do it in a peaceful manner, I'm all for it.
I'm applying for a patent on the process of going to the moon. Anyone who wants in, let me know.
I know there is prior art on this, but that was with OLD computers. My patent will be doing it aided by NEW computers.
Sleep is for the Weak
Keep in mind that most all land borders are defined by either a water line or a sales line. When the colonists came to the new world it was pretty much... I claim everything from here until it stops. Ever see what the state of Louisiana looked like? The other states/colonies just kinda went on in a line to the west until they hit water.. Last time I checked, no water was on the moon. So I suppose it's all part of the US! *grin*
Personally, I'd like to see the Apollo landing site declared an International Historical Site. As the man said, it was a giant leap for all of mankind, and I'd like to see it preserved as-is.
Yes, I know this mission is just going to take pictures, but sooner or later someone (Chinese? Bill Gates?) is going to once again land on the moon, and could casually destroy a significant part of mankind's history.
<Offtopic_LeftWingRant>
Nope. The next big wars will be fought over *water*, one of the most common substances on the planet
And with 1/5 of the world's fresh water Canada will be the grand prize. However the battle will not be fought with guns, or planes but in court with lawyers, and trade tariffs. The losers will be hundreds of thousands of species whose habitats are damaged when watersheds are diverted from their natural course.
</Offtopic_LeftWingRant>
Ahh, but I hold the patent on a method of verifying landing sites with a digital imaging device from space.
Anything you say will be held against you.
--Besides the obvious mining of lunar ores, the first likely commercial uses will be the advantages offered by the moon's location and the vacuum of space. That vacuum is far better than any that can be created in labs and manufacturing facilities on Earth, for instance. There is also the isolation. Research involving radiation or dangerous biological agents could be done on the moon with little danger of releases to Earth's environment. --
What about getting the biological stuff to the moon? - DUH. Couldn't the rocket have a chance of exploding and releasing the bio or radio active material?
Also, why do they need to convince people that we have already went to the moon? I lived in Florida back in the day many miles from Kenedy Space Center, and yet we could still see that Saturn 5 rocket. I have been to the space center, inside the vehicle assembly building. It is all to massive and real to be fake.
This article sounds like a lot of marketing to me.
Then of course, you'll need to learn to capitalize it -- and no, I don't mean to fund it.
That probe, dubbed Trailblazer, will orbit the moon for 90 days...The last part of Trailblazer's mission will be to crash land on the lunar surface...But there's no doubt, he said, that it is intended as a step in the direction of putting people back on the moon.
This mission isn't manned, nor will it be landing on the moon and returning to earth. It's pretty much just a survey probe. Pretty boring actually, if you ask me.
Do not read this sig.
Thanks -- makes much more sense.
... combine the failed trip by 'N-Sync "singer" Lance Bass to the ISS with this trip... they could leave him on the face of the moon holding up a *BIG* sign, and anybody with a decent telescope could verify the veracity of the Apollo missions themselves.
At least he'd finally be doing something useful and (only slightly) more entertaining than usual.
MOTHER: "Okay, boss. This LTX-71 concealable mic is part of the same system that NASA used when they faked the Apollo moon landings. The astronauts broadcast around the world from a soundstage at Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino, California, so if it worked for them, it shouldn't give us too many problems."
- "Sneakers"
I think other posters have already explained that very well, so I won't repeat that here.
But talking about the satellite and orbits issue, it may be interesting but bear in mind that orbital elements or ephemeredes are only valid for a certain amount of time after they are issued (up to a few weeks); this is due to the effects of things like atmospheric drag, orbital corrections and the alike. This is particularly true for low-orbit satellites like ISS and the Space Shuttle (when in orbit, off course)
Specially interesting, see here a chart of the orbital height of the International Space Station over time. Quite interesting chart.
and Kevin Bacon be on this flight, too? Tom was so heroic last time he went. I hope he has better luck this time..'
Anything you say will be held against you.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
soooooooooooooooooooo funnnnnnnnnnnnny !!!!!!!!!!!
.....
I laughed my pants off
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Maybe while they're at it they can also confirm that the moon is littered with ruins. Rumor has it that the reason why we haven't gone back is because there are ruins there from someone else. If it's true it may very well tie in with the "glass worms" on mars.
enterprisemission
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Who thinks that people silly enough to believe the first trip to the moon was a hoax will now believe that this trip is for real?
That was my first thought too.
But then I realized that the solution is obvious: We just need to round up all the people who think that the moon landing was a hoax, take them to the moon, and -- this is the important bit -- leave them there.
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
I knew I had seen this piece of text before:
: spiralx.dyndns.org/texts/troll1.html
The original link (don't seem to be working though)
http://spiralx.dyndns.org/texts/troll1.html
The Google cache, amen!
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:YFmy6y5PKzMC
"The resources on the moon are worth billions," he said.
If this is all they're worth, I can hardly see how the moon's resources can be commercialized. Given the cost of the ISS, it will likely take _trillions_ to establish a realiable infrastructure for mining and transport, not to mention day to day operating costs.
Ultra-secure data storage, eh?
More like, "Huh? Who writes this stuff?"
How valuable does my data have to be to invest a skagillion quatloos (or however much it costs) to shoot my data onto the Moon (with the very real risk that it won't make it or get lost) and then spend another skagillion quatloos to bring it back if I need the backups? If someone seriously starts this business in the near future, I'll put a business plan together for not-quite-ultra-secure data storage by putting it in an out-of-service submarine on the bottom of Lake Superior. (Oh, wait, Sealand is already doing something like this.)
--- "It annoyed me, so I fixed it." -- Tom's First Principle of Engineering
Yes, you missed it. I remember hearing about it in an informative educational documentary: "The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men. Will you be among them?"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Verify?
The sharpest image ever taken of the moon from the Earth's surface "is 0.07 arcsec, or about 130 metres on the lunar surface (in the N-S direction). Elevation differences of a few tens of metres only are therefore visible by the shadows they cast. The VLT image represents what an astronaut (with normal eye acuity of 1 arcmin) would see from 400 km above the surface." (European Southern Observatory press release, August 9, 2002).
I mean if I believed in the flat earth it's all a conspiracy of the gubmint, the masons, the illuminati-bilberg group-zog theories then I would have to assume that this is a hoax too!! It stands to reason you can't reason your way over paranoia.
Will Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon be on this flight, too?
;-)
No, But I'm betting on Trish Stewart and Joel Higgins will be riding in a moonship that Andy Griffith made out of an old cement mixer truck...
Oops, that's already been done
The surviving family of Jackie Gleason is suing for patent infringement.
/.'d into slag.
They claim that Jackie Gleason held the intellectual property for going to the moon some 15 years prior to the 1969 lunar landing. "To the moon, Alice!" is the phrase being used as proof that the business model was originally Gleason's.
TransOrbital could not be reached for comment due to a massive Slashdot effect, but expects that their poor webservers will be replaced sometime next week after being
"Our ancestor, The Great One, would have wanted us to protect his intellectual property," one of the relatives was quoted as saying.
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
Actualy, the US and russia have signed treaties banning 'ownership' of space. It belongs to all humankind (they did this to save money).
We do however, have restrictions on setting off huge balistic missles in our airspace..
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
They say you can put a short message on the moon for $2500.
I'd send one that says:
"Hacked by Chinese."
Too bad this company's not going to Mars.
Who can forget the urban legend about Mr. Gorsky?
When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement but followed it by several remarks, usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control. Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the enigmatic remark "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky."
Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled.
On July 5, 1995 (in Tampa Bay, FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded. Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.
When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with a friend in the backyard. His friend hit a fly ball which landed in the front of his neighbor's bedroom windows. His neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky.
As he leaned down to pick up the ball, young Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, "Oral sex! You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
So let me get this straight. Since the U.S. was the first to land there, we own the moon?
Not quite: see Outer Space Treaty. Pay particular attention to Article VI.
TransOrbital, Inc. is a US company which gives the US government jurisdiction.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
What they really need to do to convince the skeptics is to leave something behind that *IS* visible from the earth. Like a big Nike swoosh. I bet Nike would pay $10 to $20 billion for it. If they wouldn't, Pepsi would. That oughta cover R&D on some kind of lightweight reflective (or non-reflective...?) deployable device big enough to be visible with binoculars. Or, a space-based solar-powered laser that could project an image on the dark parts of the moon during new moon phases-- but that would mean going to a lagrange point instead of the moon itself maybe. I dunno. Anyway, it would be hella cool.
So, have all the new countries signed the Outer Space Treaty?
"...Part of the mission is "to VERIFY Apollo and other landing sites..."
I mean, give me a break.
This new farce will just be assembled in the same warehouse in Roswell that Apollo was done in, and who's gonna fall for that?
Not me.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Not the mission - I think that it's great. I'm talking about the moon landing hoax people.
Part of this mission is to verify the Apollo landing sites. The only reason this is necessary is because of stupidity.
In the other story about gravity wave speed I wrote that whatever the speed, gravity will always be slower than the speed of stupid. I was marked as a troll (are unfunny jokes trolls?) but this just goes to prove my point.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
This just in: Lance Bass from N'Sync, Britney Spears, Kylie Minogue, and Olivia Newton-John will be paying $20 million apiece to travel to the moon, where they will be able to set up a streaming mp3 wireless broadcast outside of the jurisdiction of the RIAA or CARP. Free CRAP music for everyone!
JWL.Freakwitch.net
Thanks!
db
Cig:
ôô
They should leave something huge on the moon as prove that they were there and tell people how to find it with higher end telescopes to show us that somebody has indeed stepped on the moon.
Maybe they could leave a large colored sheet that would be visible from Earth.
Don't forget Helium 3. There's supposed to be quite a bit of it on the moon. Many scientists have postulated that Helium 3 would make the best fuel for a fusion reactor.
IANAL, but why would any organization need to seek approval from the US to go to the moon? To get into orbit, yeah, darn well better coordinate, but I don't think the US can really deny anyone with the means to journey from the earth and the moon.
I'm just worried that someone with a frikkin' moon-based "laser" will be able to take out their facility. does alan parsons have anything to do with this?
Another favorite "Hoax Clue" is the wrong way shadow of the astronauth saluting picture. It is rather obvious to anyone looking at the astronauts feet that the man is not standing on the little hill he appears to be standing on, but is actually in mid-air (for lack of a better term). The video of the same event shows him saluting and jumping up off the ground.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Research involving radiation or dangerous biological agents could be done on the moon with little danger of releases to Earth's environment.
Until the experiment goes bad, blows up and sends the moon and all inhabitants of Moon Base Alpha hurtling thru space...
"Part of the mission is "to VERIFY Apollo and other landing sites" because there are still a few people out there who believe the Apollo program was a hoax"
Hehehe, they are so worried that more people will understand that it was all a hoax to fool the world that the US scientists were ahead of everyone else that they are going to throw away more of the taxpayers money to "prove it". lmao
Anyone wondering how they can have satelites with optics that can photo your belt buckle, but no optics that can photo the "left overs" or any of the moon cars?
Not only is this a dupe posting, but it doesn't even credit the source. It's bad enough this thing gets modded up to +5 every time there's a moon story. Sheesh.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
There was no reasoning with him. He believed that the moon landing was a hoax because we did not have the technology to reach the moon at that time.
He also believed that we got the early solid state transistors from the aliens via the Roswell crash.
I never was able to figure out how these to beleifs could coincide.... Boggles the mind....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I dont understand, Why do they need permission from the US Government? America doesn't own the moon just because they have a flag sticking on it, and even thats unverified.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrgorsky.htm
This legend, seemingly an obvious joke, began circulating on the Internet in mid-1995 and was picked up by the media a few months later. The inclusion of specific details (e.g., the name of Armstrong's neighbor, the date of the press conference on which he revealed the meaning of his remark) apparently led some to believe the farcical story might have some truth to it.
At its most basic level, this tale is a humorous anecdote that plays on the stereotypical portrayal of Jewish wives as reluctant to engage in recreational sex (and especially oral sex). In variant forms of this legend the last name of Neil Armstrong's neighbor is different, but the name used is always a "Jewish-sounding" one, such as Gorsky, Seligman, Schultz, or Klein; the unusual word order employed by the wife in her refusal ("Oral sex you want?") is also a stereotypical speech pattern attributed to Jews. On another level, this legend can be seen as an attempt to humanize a cultural hero by associating him with a story that is both humorous and racy: Neil Armstrong, the world-famous astronaut, is made to seem like a "regular" guy.
Any doubts about the veracity of this legend are laid to rest by the official NASA transcripts of the Apollo 11 mission, which record no such statement having been made by Armstrong. Armstrong himself said in late 1995 that he first heard the anecdote delivered as a joke by comedian Buddy Hackett in California.
I am not a geologist, but I have long understood that the crusts of planets are generally composed of minerals rich in light elements (e.g. magnesium, aluminum, silicon), and that only tectonic activity and volcanism bring the heavier elements up from deeper in the planet. The Moon is a very small body and not tectonically active (although there are some volcanic craters and features on her surface.) I would guess that the Moon's surface rocks are mostly silicates of the light metals, not much different from the most common rocks on Earth. We've already got magnesium, aluminum, and silicon in enormous abundance.
hyacinthus.
... if you do a frame by frame shot
of this sequence you can very plainly see a rock APPEAR
and then disappear.
If anything debunks the moon shot. This is it.
Um, how is this definitive proof that it was staged? Why, if they made the footage on earth and doctored it, would they insert a rock for a single frame? Why would they need to insert rocks anyway, we've got plenty on earth.
More likely (to me) is a defect in the film or in the transmission. They didn't have digital video cameras and mpeg-4 video back then, so I wouldn't expect it to be perfect. Especially if it were shot on the moon.
in order to have your opinion.
Evil is the money of root.
worked for the israelis, didn't it?
Some of us have fallen in love with the notion of giving without reserve-Raoul Vanegiem, Revolution of Everyday Life
Calm down. It's because it's a US corporation, and according to international law, the US is responsible for policing anything from it's borders that goes up there. If they were a French company, they'd need to satisfy the French government's requirements. Scroll back on up this forum - someone cited the exact law, agreed to by the united nations.
Sheesh.
--
Evan (no reference)
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Why does the US government have to license trips to the moon? The satellite is taking off from Russia, and neither space nor the moon are US territories. The article didn't clear this up, can anyone else?
It will be proved that the Apollo landing really did happen. 5 seconds later it will all be destoyed by a huge yellow vogon ship to make way for a new hyperspace bypass :p
for final proof of the moon landings, visit http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/Apoll oLaser.html.
Apollo 11 left a mirror up there so that we could use a laser rangefinder to calculate the distance to the moon.
It's still there - and it still is working. You can remove your tin foil hat now...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Have all you fools forgotten about the guy they left behind? As I live and breath, we have to get him back so he can collect his social security and find who Garfield is!
The Lonely Astronaut
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Oh, it would get there. The moon is rather hard to miss, and there's not much interference. And the cost per byte wouldn't be that much more than keeping it on Earth. What you'd use this for is the stuff that you absolutely can't afford to loose, and can't afford for anyone else to get their hands on either (say, the backup design files for your company's $1G/year mainline products).
Potential hazards on the Moon:
asteroid strike.
Potential hazards on Earth:
asteroid strike
terrorists
fire
flood
Earthquake
your competition
teen hackers
disgruntled ex employees....
BTW, have you seen the new IBM effort called the Icecube, that fits a 1.2 TByte server into a 12" cube?
I found the tape of the *real* landing from the web.
It goes:
"That's one small.....Oh Shit! I accidently tore my suit on on uhhh oh, Daisy Dai...Da.uh.... [static]"
Table-ized A.I.
Hard to believe that they will have enough revenue @$20 per customer to fund a program like this. Hopefully the Better Business Bureau will help folks get their money back when they fail...
We are specifically NOT claiming any property on the Moon. As an aside, the mission-conclusion impact spot will be targeted to avoid any known landing sites or other spots of historical or particular geographical (selenegraphical?)interest.
If you are actually trying to claim it's a hoax - I'm not sure - then think about the *difficulty* of pulling this off... what follows is quoted from another /. thread long ago. It covers most of the difficulties rather nicely I think.
#
For the interest of Slashdot readers, national governments, and any other interested organization, I am posting instructions on how to fake a moon landing and not get caught for 30 years.
Before the Landing
Put out a request for tenders for a contract to build the lunar hardware to major aerospace companies. It would be pretty obvious after the fact that no one had built your launchers and landers.
In the contracts, give a specification that would lead the 10,000 engineers who work on the project to reasonably believe that the equipment could be used to land on the moon. Engineers are smart people; they could easily spot holes in your assumptions if you make the requirements less stringent than they have to be. If it were obvious that the hardware couldn't land on the moon, you would be caught.
Have the hardward manufactured and delivered. Again easy to spot if this wasn't done, especially for a Saturn V-class rocket and related assemblies.
In summary: You would actually have to build stuff that would probably be able to land a man on the moon, with all the associated expenses.
During the missions:
You will actually have to launch the thing you contracted to build. You could launch something else -- but why bother? We've already established that you have to build a moon rocket, and you'd have to pay off everyone who was involved in its destruction and substitution. Besides, it would be big news, so news organizations would want to film the launch of the big rocket.
So, the capsule could be suborbital, or stay in orbit, and the rest of the mission could be faked, right? Wrong. Antennas around the world will be tracking the radio signals from the capsule, including the continuous telemetry feeds. Something would have to go to the moon, on a realistic lunar trajectory, or this would be immediately spotted by legions of radio astronomers and HAM radio amateurs around the world, many of whom have advanced signal processing available to them (like Doppler analysis, etc.). They would also be able to tell the difference between a lunar trajectory and a different orbit, like a geosynchronous orbit, because of the moon's particular position in the sky.
So, the capsule has to go to the moon. Does it have to orbit? Yes. The capsule must stay in the vicinity of the moon for several days (again checked by those with large radio antennas). The only foolproof way to do that is to orbit.
So, the capsule has to orbit. Does it have to land? Yes. While in orbit, the capsule can't communicate with Earth from the far side of the moon. Yet a lander must be able to send continuous telemetry to the Earth. It would be pretty obvious fakery to have the "lander"'s telemetry fade out at the same time as the capsule's.
Does it have to come back? Yes; for the same trajectory reason. The return trajectory could be tracked.
Does the capsule/lander have to be manned? Not necessarily, but there would be many complications if it weren't. You would have to be able to carry on ground/capsule communications in a realistic manner even though the communications from the capsule would have to be recorded and beamed back (because your radio is being monitored). The "astronauts" would be unable to perform any diagnostic tasks aboard the spacecraft (because they're not aboard it), so the entire flight control team would have to be in on the hoax (dozens, even hundreds, of people to pay off).
In summary: You would have to actually send something to the moon, which may as well be manned.
After the Landing
Bring back tons of "moon rocks" and other materials for analysis by independent scientists around the world. These rocks could not be obviously of terrestrial origin, implying some exotic materials science (or creative geology). Either that or pay off anyone who comes in contact with the "lunar samples".
And if you're NASA - do this seven times, with one of the seven attempts turning into a remarkably realistic failure.
The upshot: It's equally easy and expensive to actually land a man on the moon than fake it convincingly. Furthermore, the evidence for fakery would not be found in trivial forms of evidence, like photographs, but in more obvious places, like contracts, accounting, radio monitoring, and the lunar samples themselves.
There's no $$$ in 'team'...
www..--..net - for incisive, w
Well, #1, the purpose of mining would not be for use on Earth, but for use in space, and for that every mineral on the Moon is useful, being many km/sec closer to anywhere in space than minerals on Earth.
Second, the Moon had a (very ancient) volcanically active past - the Mare basins on the near side are volcanic basalts, there are several mountainous regions that appear to be volcanic rather than caused by impacts, and numerous "rille" formations thought to be collapsed lava tubes, etc. One of the mineral deposits associated with some of this is the 'KREEP' that includes some concentrations of heavy metals, including thorium and uranium.
Third, the Moon's surface is exposed directly to the solar wind and apparently has quite high and useful (if we had fusion power plants) concentrations of Helium-3. That is probably the only mining target that would actually be worth transporting back down to Earth.
Energy: time to change the picture.
And if something _does_ escape, where's it going to go? You could set off an H bomb on the Moon, and _nobody could tell the difference afterwords_! There's no air and no ground water to spread stuff around, so even if something does leak, it's not going anywhere. Even if a bacteria could survive, it would cyst up and stay put. The most you'd lose is one crater. Considering all of the NIMBY problems here on Earth, I'd rather that it be done up there.
obviously you've been then?
idiot.
not to say we haven't been, but anyone so sure of themsleves to not give respectable speculation and doubt its place, well, you are of the type of persons that need to be dropped off and forgotten.
vary sad.
besides, why does a commercial company need government approval to go to the moon anyway?...something worth a real discussion.
:T:R:A:N:S:
That's Paul Blase, CTO of TransOrbital - he knows what he's talking about :-)
Energy: time to change the picture.
wreck? Isn't that a bit harsh for one little bitty probe? Of course we certainly hope that this will lead to further industrialization and colonization, which will really drive the environmentalists up the wall. Wrecking all of that natural purity. Of course, most of these people would have us back in the stone age (except for themselves, of course). Here's a clue: take a look at what happened to the Native Americans. For a variety of reasons (not, I'll admit, their own fault - check out "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond) they didn't explore beyond their own shores. Well, they found out that the boundless sea wasn't quite as boundless as they'd thought.
Stasis is impossible, we must either grow, or die. Of course that doesn't mean that we have to be vicious or ugly about it, but if we don't expand life into space than we'll end up stewing in our own juices.
Nope, it's just that the guy in South Africa (I think) got it first and wanted a LOT of money for it. We had better things to spend it on.
Who's messing with God? We're just getting closer to some of His handywork to admire it better.
I think you just need permission to launch. They don't want people building giant rockets in their backyard and then blowing up 10 feet off the ground, destroying the neighborhood.
Plus, a space bound commercial rocket looks a lot like a Russia bound government nuke so you need to prevent misunderstandings.
You clearly have not spent much time in the American desert.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I'm impressed. I wonder if this company also entered the X-Prize contest.
:)
The TransOrbital web site doesn't state what the total weight of their spacecraft. It's interesting that they chose to work with the former Soviet space program (which is probably why they really needed permission. We do have rules about technology export). They say it's a "microspacecraft" -- wonder why they're not launching using a Pegasus rocket? Is it just cheaper (or perhaps less paperwork!) to use a Russian rocket?
Hopefully this will open up new interest in space, better launch vehicles, etc.
BTW, regarding proof of past Moon shots and this one, just watch at night for the rocket flares during orbital maneuvers. You can triangulate the distance this way. Someone out there did this for a later Apoolo mission -- I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to visit Google and learn more.
So America owns the moon now and people need their approval??????????
Strange days....
Burma?
The reason that's not an easy story to believe is that if someone was making a FAKE lunar rover film, they'd have to put in extra effort to make a rock appear in just one frame. What in the world would be the motivation behind putting in such extra effort to make the film LESS credible? It's not going to happen by "accident" and it's not something someone involved would WANT to do on purpose.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
...and their hilarious "Mars Propaganda Project" in preparation of upcoming Mars missions:
The purpose of the Mars Project is to create and deploy fossils and/or ruins suggesting the prior existence of life and/or civilisation on the surface of Mars. Possibilities include artefacts which connect to various aspects of the Bible or other Earth mythology. It is intended that this is accomplished before NASA or some other agency sends amanned mission to Mars.
Link to archived site since original page is down.
(Their faq is still a classic of internet humour...)
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
I'd be happier if Carmack and Co could check for us.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
No, it might not. Remember Challenger? Rockets blow up. (And, yes, trucks from Iron Mountain also get into traffic accidents. But you've lost a lot less money using them.)
If I had a billion dollar/year product, I assert (waving the back of an envelope vigorously) that it is cheaper per byte to outfit a private army, take over a small Carribean island and bury the data (suitably protected from the elements) beneath a palm tree than to launch it into space and onto the Moon. Much easier to retrieve, too.
--- "It annoyed me, so I fixed it." -- Tom's First Principle of Engineering
I wonder if a sufficiently powerful telescope could make out the landing sites on the moon. You could even charge people to look through it.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
1. Send commercial expedition to the moon.
2. Verify Apollo landings.
3. Profit!
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(Interesting to note the use of a global view when referring to the moon.. Kinda like in Scifi movies when people who've never been to Earth talk about "the whole world".)
Anyway, because of the conditions on the moon, it'd be pretty hard to screw things up anymore than they are already. Nothing's better at containing biological weapons than a pure vacuum and constant unfiltered irradiation from the sun. Nuclear weapons tests would be almost unnoticable. There's no atmosphere in which to spread radioactive dust, no water supply to contaminate with deadly bacteria.
Well, of course. I don't mean to suggest that they gave the mission profile a green light, and then forgot about it. The anticipated trajectory will be tracked until the launch, presumably, and if a satellite should approach the exit corridor too closely, I'm sure they'll make the phone call. But they need to register a flight plan with a US agency so that this can be done.
Many thanks for the ISS orbital height plot. It is interesting to see the dramatic changes during boost, though even these seem to develop over a couple of days (I didn't realise the burns lasted that long).
Cheers,
Mouser
Uh, data is "information", it's not a physical object. GPS signals are data, satellite broadcasts are data, people out in the remotest part of Nebraska use "data" they get from space all day long. It's very easy to retrieve, once you have a physical facility in place to store and forward (for secure stuff you'd want to be sure it was exceedingly well encrypted). The Moon is the ultimate off-site storage location!
Energy: time to change the picture.
the blue pill.
Ignorance is bliss man.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
This site explains it all in terms everyone can understand.
Support SETI@home
There was no reason to "stop and start filming". Doing the sequence as stop-motion animation (as you seem to be implying was done) would have been more effort than making it smooth, and would have looked more obiviously a fake.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Guy comes to Ronald Reagan:
-"Mr. President, Mr. President, the Russians went up to the Moon and painted it red!"
R. Reagan: "No Problem. Send an Apollo Mission to paint 'Coka Cola' across it."
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Dead Body - Dig it up. Lots of useful raw materials up there - lack of oxygen might be a downer in terms of refining in situ (thereby reducing pollution down here, reducing mass to be transported etc...) but probably not insurmountable.
Find some water! Start digging. Then start launching metal bars at Earth to be caught in a big orbiting basket!
It is interesting to see the dramatic changes during boost, though even these seem to develop over a couple of days (I didn't realise the burns lasted that long)
Of course they don't, the burns are very short. They only need to supply apply a little more force than the atmospheric drag is excersing on the station. Maybe a quick review of your old physics text book would be in order ;) There's this fairly well known phrase that says:
An object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force
Maybe a quick review of your old physics text book would be in order ;)
:-) I was specifically referring to the burns that take place in October, December, March and April, that have a noticeable time-to-rise that is easily visible on the chart. Whether this is due to a slow, elongated burn, or multiple short bursts that can't be clearly made out at the plot's resolution, I can't say. Perhaps I should have been clearer and said that I didn't realise the series of burns took so long to commence.
Hardly, but many thanks for the patronisation.
An object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force
Yes, but the orbit-averaged height doesn't bloody well increase unless acted upon by an external force, now does it? Turn off the engine, and your orbit is fixed (sans atmospheric intereference).
Cheers,
Mouser
Ever read "Canticle for Leibowitz" ?
You said it was "a clip of the
the lunar rover moving around the surface of the moon." If you were faking it, I would think you could just shoot some footage of people driving around a rocky area on earth in a lunar rover in a sound stage. I don't see the need for any stop-motion or multi-shot trickery which would introduce the chance for a 'blooper' when someone forgot a rock in one shot.
And even so, even if there were multiple shots and they were spliced together to accomplish some effect, you'd expect the rock to be missing from multiple frames. Why would they splice in only 1 frame from an alternate shot? It doesn't make sense.
To me, if you suppose it is doctored, having an item missing in a single frame suggests that it was either added in the other frames frame-by-frame or removed from this one frame. That is what my earlier argument was based on - if you were going to the painstaking effort of editted frame-by-frame, why would you do it just to add (or substract) a plain old rock? If you wanted the rock in the picture, you'd have put it there in the first place.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
That would be done with a lander, duh. The Time Capsule is images on a metal disk, in a hardened capsule, which would survive the impact.
Actually, they did it because international treaties state that if a company from Country A launches something into space, regardless of where it is launched from, the government of Country A is financially responsible for any damage caused, i.e. the rocket goes off course and lands on somebody's house over in Country B.
Also, people want to control the amount of space debris, because early on, nobody really worried about it, and it has now become a problem. There are, in fact, people whose job is to track space debris, and if it is going to collide with something important (space shuttle/ISS/satellite/top secret death ray) make sure whatever it was that was so important gets out of the way. A company would not be very happy if they spent millions to launch a satellite, only to have it get knocked out of existence by space junk striking it at a few thousand meters per second.
And let's not forget the export controls. The company would need the US gov'ts approval to get the damn thing outside of US borders in the first place. Just imagine the heads that would roll if some company's multimillion dollar space vehicle was impounded by customs on its way to the launch site.