Thread
:
BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
View Single Post
#
65
June 25th 04, 03:52 AM
N2EY
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:
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...
Yup - trying to catch up to the Soviets...
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.
Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part to decide whether it is OK
for the country to split tiself in half so that some people (with light colored
skin) can continue own other people (with dark colored skin). The fact that the
dark colored skin people's ancestors were dragged from their homes by brute
force is conveniently ignored by those who want to continue to own them.
Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded.
Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the
standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying
heavily damaged during the war.
Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The transatlantic
cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter.
Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war.
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).
Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry leads
to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases
hazards of sea travel.
Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased
demand for those technologies.
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.
Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed,
permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost
and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of guns.
50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding and
modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into much
of Europe.
Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of
the television. Satellite communications.
Satellite communications? Where?
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.
Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian
applications.
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"...?!?!
Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called
engineering. You don't need a war to do it.
I don't think so, Jim.
It's true.
All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments.
Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems?
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.
There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another. Modern
construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others.
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.
Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing...
MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't.
Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some?
In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.
Oh?
Yes.
How much do you pay for a calculator these days?
Nothing. Last calculator I bought was in the mid 1980s. I use the Windows
calculator function. Free.
How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought?
$589 for the basic Elecraft K2 kit, which I assembled. Also has the ATU and
audio filter options, which I assembled.
The Southgate Type 7 (completed 1995) was built from recycled parts and cost
less than $100. The Type 6 (1985) cost a bit more. I've never owned any non-US
made ham gear.
Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan?
Dental Xrays since I was a kid. Never a CT scan. Had my first up-periscope last
year....
All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in
order to advance military or space technology.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just develop the technologies straight out? If
you need better medical Xray machines, develop them.
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.
The PC was not developed for the space program. Nor for the military.
And the Saturn V worked pretty good, didn't it?
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?
Actually, yes. Much of the manufacturing technology no longer exists. Anyone
who worked on those systems above a certain level is now retired, or close to
it.
Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the
Shuttle bay.
That could work. I had the same idea years ago.
The Shuttle carries it to the Moon,
Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit, let
alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay
*empty*.
If it could be done, NASA would have done it already.
The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no more.
Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the LM/CSM
combo is so small.
the mission drops in, and brings at
least part of the lander home for re-use itself.
Only ways such a system could work is if the Shuttle stayed in earth orbit and
the lunar package went from there.
And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the Apollo
missions, not a long term base.
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?
Yes.
NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?!
Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how
much money it costs to create one NASA job.
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
Sure - at a price.
But why not solve our problems directly?
And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space
program?
Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence. Education.
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.
What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program have
been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All unmanned,
and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling with
the development of fiber optics.
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.
While there have been some benefits, they have not been overwhelming. Most of
them did not require the space program. Or war.
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...?!?!
What do you think could be harvested from the Moon that can't be had for much
less right here on earth?
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.
CNG tankers don't. Railroad tank cars don't.
Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability.
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)
Not a valid comparison. In the history of shuttle missions, the result is
binary. Either everybody gets back safe and sound from a mission, or everyone
dies and the mission is a total loss. Doesn't matter how many miles or flown -
the important variable is how many missions are flown. Challenger blew up
before going 100 miles of its last mission, Columbia burned up after going all
but about 2000 miles of its last mission.
The important fact is that about 1 of 75 missions has been a complete loss.
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?
Yes. But that's not the point.
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.
Nope. JFK needed to save face after the Bay of Pigs embarrassment. There was
serious talk of scrapping the whole manned program, maybe even all of NASA,
after the various problems of exploding rockets and the Popped Cork fiasco,
while the Russians were orbiting dogs and taking pictures of the far side of
the moon. (The Rooskies had lots of failures too - they just didn't talk about
them).
There were more than a few people who thought that the Air Force should do
manned space flight. There were plans for followups to the X-15 that would
reach orbit at far less cost and complexity than the ballistic-missile
spam-in-a-can NASA approach. In fact, the X-15 did reach "space" - it exceeded
62.2 miles altitude.
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.
Who is there to compete with for space?
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 race to the moon wasn't friendly. And it didn't build better mouse traps.
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.
The *only* reason was to put high paying jobs in LBJ's home state.
The launch facility is in Florida for physics reasons. The ideal launch
location would be on the equator, but the continental US doesn't go that far
south. And there should be water or desert to the east of the launch pad so
failed launches don't land on people.
The Houston facility could be anywhere there is communications.
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.
That's pure BS.
Union workers built the spacecraft. If we could afford to have them build
rockets, we could afford to have them build cars.
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.
That's because the car companies wanted it that way. Here's why:
After WW2, American car manufacturers thought that the way to maximize profits
was simply to sell more and more cars. One way to do that was to have this
year's model be bigger, faster, more powerful or simply 'more' than last
year's. Safety, economy, and pollution were minor concerns - the important
thing was to plant in the public's mind the idea that this year's car was
somehow a lot better - and at the same time, keep manufacturing costs down.
So body styles changed every year - sheet metal is cheap. Fundamental research
into engine design and such was not a high priority at all. The result was cars
that were big, heavy, inefficient, dirty and fell apart or rusted out in a
relatively short time.
Most of all, the focus was short-term. Sell more cars next quarter! Where we'd
get all the fuel to run them wasn't a concern.
The Germans and the Japanese were
forced
by economics, infrastructure and geography to do "small".
Not really - look at Mercedes. What they did was look at *quality* first. They
set out to design cars that were efficient and well built. They improved the
basic technologies, not just the sheet metal.
Ever hear of a guy named Deming? He wound up in Japan because US manufacturers
didn't want him.
The USA could have been developing better surface transportation systems in the
'50s and '60s and '70s. But we didn't because those things weren't given any
priority. That myopia continues today.
Imagine if the commitment had been made back in 1973 for the USA to become
energy independent by the end of the 20th century. Do you doubt that it could
have been done? Imagine being able to tell OPEC to take a hike.
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.
Very true. But the X-15 was designed with slide rules. No computers aboard,
either.
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...?!?!
Why not? You just pointed out that they did it for $30 million compared to many
times that for the X-15. Why *not* let the private folks do it?
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.
OK - let's have the details.
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?
Nope.
We set out a reasonable budget for manned space flight and do what can be done
with that budget. And we focus more on real-world problems.
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?
Nobody knows. Most of the failures were mission-ending. The probe went silent
and was never heard from again.
Heck, even if the Columbia astronauts had known about the problem that caused
the loss of their ship, there was nothing they could have done about it.
Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars....
Yep...same 186,000MPS that wew ahve here on Earth...
I mean how much time it takes.
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.
Besides that.
And how much all of it would cost?
Who cares?
Those of us who have to pay for it.
We poor billions into pork barrel projects that DON'T
provide ANY return every year
Like what? What are you willing to cut in order to fund a Mars mission?
...why not spend it on something that will...?!?!
Sorry - the ROI of a Mars mission just isn't there.
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.
You're avoiding the question. How much additional tax are *YOU* willing to pay?
Imagine what the communications possibilites alone would be
by using the moon for alternative wireless technologies...
There aren't any. The moon isn't a good platform for such things. In short, it
sucks.
Geostationary orbit is the way to do that job.
Ham radio connection: Back in the '70s there was something called "Project
Moonray" that was supposed to go on the last Apollo lunar mission. The idea was
that a small package would be deployed on the moon to repeat amateur signals
the way OSCARs did. Except that by being on the moon, it would be easy to
track.
Sounded good at first. But the problems were many. Size and weight were
severely limited, and the package had to be rated for manned flight.
But the big problem was that the results were not worth the requirements. For
example, the moon is roughly 10 times farther away than geostationary and
roughly 100 to 1000 times farther away than low earth orbit. You do the math on
what that does to path loss.
Also, the package would be bked by the sun for 2 weeks, then in darkness for 2
weeks. Temperature variations of over 400 degrees.
It didn't happen.
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...?!?!
Yes. It's simple: If you want a better mouse trap, study mouse behavior and
trap design, and build one. Don't go off building racecars, hoping that some
development of race car technology will somehow spill over into mouse trap
technology.
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?
No. We address the problems directly. On a budget.
Until they
develop the "transporter"...?!?! Until Zephraim Cochrane develops warp
drive?
Those are all fantasies, Steve.
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...?!?!
We don't mark time. We make a long term plan and reasonable budget.
Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded.
We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies
from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the
outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups ranging
from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts.
And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development,
transportation, and energy independence.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Reply With Quote
