Instead of replying twice, try reading once

Space/Science » in reply to re: The Earth is NOT a good Lunar Analogue

Instead of replying twice, try reading once

Nick Hoffman — 7/1/2009 12:57:54 AM (archived)

If you can't respond to my genuine observations as to WHY e.g. Meteor crater is a BAD place to test lunar remote sensing, then don't bother to reply at all.

As far as funding goes, there is more demand for funding than available funds. YOU must make a cogent, rational, and coherent case for why the funds should go to your "baby".

The whole thread (34 posts)

LRO 2 hours from Lunar orbit - Ainz - 6/23/2009 7:47:14 AM
- first images on the ground - Doug Ellison - 7/2/2009 7:00:41 PM
- So how long do you think it'll be before we can get to Mars in under a week? - Lee - 6/24/2009 11:53:40 AM
  - Only nuclear propulsion offers such speed. And even so, there will be a small payload with such a trajectory. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 7/2/2009 2:51:07 PM
  - Big MoFo'ing Pulse Rockets - Adam - 6/30/2009 10:16:50 AM
- Now in Orbit OK - nick hoffman - 6/24/2009 12:20:56 AM
  - But is it the right probe? - E.P. - 6/24/2009 1:09:57 AM
    - re: But is it the right probe? - Doug Ellison - 6/24/2009 8:57:48 AM
      - re: But is it the right probe? - E.P. - 6/24/2009 3:56:25 PM
        
        Impact debris...hmmm. - TB - 6/24/2009 11:19:19 PM
        
        Comets are not just volatiles - Nick Hoffman - 6/30/2009 4:13:44 AM
        
        Speaking of impact debris on the Moon... - Socrates II - 6/25/2009 2:03:23 PM
        
        Speaking of impact debris on the Moon... - Socrates II - 6/25/2009 2:00:38 PM
        
        re: Impact debris...hmmm. - gbaikie - 6/25/2009 4:59:32 AM
        
        re: Impact debris...hmmm. - E.P. - 6/29/2009 2:52:14 PM
        
        The Earth is NOT a good Lunar Analogue - Nick Hoffman - 6/30/2009 4:36:13 AM
        
        re: The Earth is NOT a good Lunar Analogue - E.P. - 6/30/2009 4:34:23 PM
        
        re: The Earth is NOT a good Lunar Analogue - E.P. - 6/30/2009 4:34:07 PM
        
        Instead of replying twice, try reading once - Nick Hoffman - 7/1/2009 12:57:54 AM
        
        re: But is it the right probe? - Doug Ellison - 6/24/2009 9:51:45 PM
        
        re: But is it the right probe? - E.P. - 6/29/2009 2:42:29 PM
        
        Answer the question properly, see NH's 6/29/2009 post above. (n/t) - Doug Ellison - 6/30/2009 7:57:29 AM
        
        The difference between professional imaging and semi-professional - E.P. - 6/30/2009 6:47:10 PM
        
        [EP - play the ball, and not the man] - Moderator Nick - 7/1/2009 1:08:23 AM
        
        The hypocisy of your suggestion is humourous - E.P. - 7/3/2009 12:51:11 AM
        
        While we're giving orders - E.P. - 6/30/2009 4:41:06 PM
        
        [E.P. this is not the place for this discussion] - Nick Hoffman - 7/1/2009 12:59:30 AM
        
        agreed - Doug Ellison - 7/1/2009 4:36:52 PM
        
        Thie poiht, Doug, is that there is a difference between amateur and professional image processing (n/t) - E.P. - 7/3/2009 12:41:26 AM
        
        so? - Doug Ellison - 7/3/2009 7:06:04 AM
      - That would be difficult, if not impossible, on any body that has no atmosphere (n/t) - TB - 6/24/2009 3:13:14 PM
      - re: But is it the right probe? - gbaikie - 6/24/2009 10:42:36 AM
        
        What about all the supposed water ice at the south pole? - Socrates II - 6/24/2009 3:59:21 PM
        
        re: What about all the supposed water ice at the south pole? - Marsbug - 6/24/2009 8:13:03 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (34 posts)