Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 8:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:


In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology.

(to send people to the moon)

We barely had the
technology to get to the moon in the 70s.

Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there
about a decade earlier.

Well, Jim, if you want to get THAT specific we were actually crashing
RANGER probes into the moon in the early 60's...

I thought that "...in the 70's" was fairly generic since we landed there
in 1969 and all of the rest of the landings occured before we were out ov Viet
Nam.

History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society
happen in the wake of war.

Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most".

Then some review of American History is in order.

With the exception of the Revolution, most technological advances were
during or immediately after some major conflict, especially since 1860.
(Please note the use of the word "advancements", not necessarily inception)

Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in trauma
medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy. Photography
becomes popular.

World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and is
ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances in
the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches).

World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but
not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet engine,
further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of
pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology
skyrockets.

Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of
the television. Satellite communications.

Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional
advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian
MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of
helos) IR/NVG technology.

SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices, especially
into medical field.

In many cases those
"jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive
investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in
peacetime.

Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?!

I don't think so, Jim. All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments. Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened
after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the
above.

Or they're the result of government programs that are done
to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy.

Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes. MAY
have happened otherwise, but it didn't.

In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.

Oh?

How much do you pay for a calculator these days?

How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought?

Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan?

All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in order
to advance military or space technology.

RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides
based on the Apollo program alone.

Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA.

And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a
slide rule or pencil and paper.

No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious
plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have
to be reinvented.

Why? Did we get stupid in the last 30+ years?

Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle
bay. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, the mission drops in, and brings at
least part of the lander home for re-use itself.

For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask
WHERE
in space are you going to spend that money?

We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people
here. And address problems long-term.

Oh?

NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?!
If we pump up NASA for a new deep space or lunar program, it means that every
company that contracts with it would be able to

And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space
program?

A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of
technical advencement.

Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives
those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!"

Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of
government spending".

But we can also defer that with cooperation with business against futures
for mining, technology development, etc. The opportunities are there...We just
need to have the gonads to take them.

It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place.
Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar
mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece.
Literally.

Yep...the public lost interest since there was no "obvious" return on thier
investment other than national pride. However the long terms benefits have
been overwhelming.

NOW...if we were to take the chance on an expedition or perm/semi-perm
base on the Moon to determine it's value to be harvested...?!?!

All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a
marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure.
The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown
verifies the reliability analysis.

Things that are filled with hundreds of tons of volatile combustables are
bound to go boom.

As for your "reliability analysis" try the numbers based on miles
flown...(Just proof that you can make any set of numbers look good/bad)

The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and
LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them.

Do you think it would have been different with Nixon in the White House in
1960? He was an avowed anit-Communist. Do you think he might not ahve made
the same challenge, faced with the same circumstances...?!?! I bet he would
have made the challenge earlier than JFK did.

They were essentially done to
compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that
practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth
satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit,
first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first
pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet
Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises
in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that
if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the
same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them.

Today there is no such need or competition.

There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim. No..we don't need to build a
bigger, more deadly nuke, but a bit of friendly rivalry goes a long way towards
building a better and cheaper mouse trap.

The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it.
They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it
didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own
Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when
the launch facility is in Florida?)

I am sure that having been in LBJ's home state had soemthing to do with
it...But being more-or-less half way between FL and CA helped. Much of
America's space program is out of Edwards and Vandenberg, if you will recall.

Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when
Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to
go to Germany and Japan for them.

Because American unions demanded wages that pushed the cost of American
cars through the roof. Also, American tastes in automobiles up until then were
for bigger, heavier and faster..."Small" was not a generally popular concept in
the 50's and 60's, if you'll recall. The Germans and the Japanese were forced
by economics, infrastructure and geography to do "small".

I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that
a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way.

As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years
ago with the X-15.

Not by a private entrepreneur and not with the expectation of being able
to carry two passengers.

Also, despite the similarities in delivery techniques (parasite lifter),
the control and recovery techniques are different.

It took the USAF hundreds of millions of (1960's) dollars to do what these
guys did for under $30M...I wonder what the 1960-to-2004 cost comparisons look
like?

And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for
manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded
basis.

OK...so we sit out manned space flight until private investors can get
up-to-speed with governmental levels of service...?!?!

So why not Mars?

Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you
have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big
and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and
how completely on their own they would be?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

And I cannot see those costs getting any less impressive if we wait until
2014 or 2024 to do it.

Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo
missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a
year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the
lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian
gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed
completely.

So again...we bring human exploration and technology to a screaming halt
due to our fear of the cash register?

And as for the failed Mars missions, do you think that maybe if there had
been someone there to fix the problem that the mission could have proceeded?

Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars....

Yep...same 186,000MPS that wew ahve here on Earth...

What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be
had any other way?

Having a Human Being actually stand on it, for one.

And how much all of it would cost?

Who cares? We poor billions into pork barrel projects that DON'T provide
ANY return every year...why not spend it on something that will...?!?!

Why not research stations on the Moon?

How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's
really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such
until the bills for it show up.

See above. Imagine what the communications possibilites alone would be by
using the moon for alternative wireless technologies...

Unless you want
to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon"
conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it?

Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper,
faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on
earth.

Oh? They are...?!?!

Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly
inefficient means of progress.

So we just wait until a more efficient way is developed? Until they
develop the "transporter"...?!?! Until Zephraim Cochrane develops warp drive?

None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do
so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs.

So we just mark time until...when...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ