From: Gary Matteson <mystrius.nul>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:40:49 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:50:25 -0500
Subject: Re: First Quasi-Satellite Of Venus Discovered -


>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:08:53 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>Subject: Re: First Quasi-Satellite Of Venus Discovered

>>From: Kyle King <kyleking.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:38:09 -0600
>>Subject: Re: First Quasi-Satellite Of Venus Discovered

<snip>

>>As Alfred points out, they could harbor a treasure trove of
>>resources, and would require the combined efforts of
>>astronomers, computational physicists, space engineers, and
>>adventurous 'spelunkers'.

<snip>

>Even if we knew the asteroid was made of platinum, it still
>doesn't make cost sense. If you add up all the costs of getting
>a vehicle to the asteroid and bringing the resource back to
>Earth, it will still be much cheaper to buy the resource from
>China through Walmart. Launch costs are hellishly expensive and
>even with Burt Rutan's genius, its going to add too much to the
>cost of the resource. Then consider the cost of human operation
>in near zero gravity (on the asteroid) for long periods of time.
>ISS crew hour costs are at least $1000/hr (not their pay check,
>just the effective cost of them as a resource) and likely alot
>more.

>The only real way to make a profit from resource in the near
>term (10-30 yrs) is energy related, such as fusion (if it ever
>works) fuel from the Moon or space solar power (presently still
>too costly to implement but Rutan-like genius could help).


Living in a capitalist society, I appreciate this point of view
however, is it not presumptuous of us to assume, given the
possibility there are space-faring peoples 'out there', that
money is necessarily an issue for them, just because we do? I
cannot accept that argument as valid.


Gary Matteson

http://www.geocities.com/sparky_from_nebraska/Unofficial_MUFON-NE