RadioBanter - View Single Post - BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth

June 28th 04, 02:36 AM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 9:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

So...there's NO technology that exisits today that would allow us to land a
man on the moon in say...two years...if we really wanted to...?!?!

Probably not. Not in two years, anyway.

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*.

(sheeeesh)

So we can't configue an auxiliary fuel system?

I doubt it can be done in two years. Do you really think a lunar
lander that will fit in the Shuttle cargo bay and be compatible with
its systems could be designed, built, tested, integrated and ready for
launch to the Moon in less than two years? Including all the other
facilities that would be needed to support it? I don't.

They didn't start designing the LEM in 1967.

Now about the auxiliary fuel system:

It would have to be installed in the cargo bay, reducing the space and
weight available for the lander. It would have to carry enough fuel to
enable the shuttle and lander to leave earth orbit, enter lunar orbit,
leave lunar orbit and then configure for reeentry. That's a lot of
fuel and oxidizer.

It will take an extra 30 years to figure out how to install the fuel tanks
necessary to do it?

It may not be possible at all even if the entire cargo bay is used for
the tanks.

Look at the design of a Saturn V. Note how much of it is fuel tank and
how little is CSM and LEM. Note how much it weighs at launch, how much
of it goes to the moon, how much comes back from the moon and how much
is left for reentry.

Those numbers are determined by the basic physics of how much energy
it takes to escape the earth's and the moon's gravity.

The shuttle's liquid fuel engines are not radically more efficient
than those in a Saturn V. Their biggest claim to fame is that they are
more controllable and last longer.

I'll bet you a nickle to a C-Note that Burt Rutan could rough out a
workable method on a napkin in a Mojave restaurant and have itr working in that
two years.

You would lose.

If it could be done, NASA would have done it already.

Oh?

Yes.

Why?

Because it would be a great way to push the shuttle program. That's
what the "teacher in space" fiasco was about. Also the reason
Congresscritters have taken shuttle rides.

Just because?

The physics of the problem is the key to all of it.

They've had to fight Congress and ignorant laymen for 30 years just to
stay in LEO.

So has every other program.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

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.

Again, We can't figure out a piggyback fuel tank?

Go ahead. Show me the numbers. How much does a shuttle weigh? How
small and light can a lander be made? How much fuel is needed to do
the jobs?

We can't park "re-supply" ships along the way or in lunar orbit?

Do you know what a Lagrange point is?

The only practical point would be lunar orbit. Now, how would you get
a supply container there?

We've already proven that on-orbit rendevous, docking and EVA construction
is a no-brainer.

Not a no-brainer at all. What has been shown is that it can be done.
In low earth orbit.

So again...WHAT new technology do we ahve to develop to go back to the
Moon?

- New lunar lander
- New heavy lift rockets
- New systems to get to lunar orbit and back

that's a short list.

Or we could just build more Saturn Vs.

HARDWARE, yes...we need new machines. but so far, Jim, your "arguments"
have not swayed me that we could do it if we wanted to...

Of course it could be done. We know that; it was done almost 40 years
ago using rockets designed with slide rules and controlled with
computers that make a pocket calculator look smart.

The question is - could it be done in two years? The answer is no.

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.

Why?

Basic physics. The energy required to send the whole shuttle to lunar
orbit and back again is simply too great.

And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the
Apollo missions, not a long term base.

As long as you keep thinking that, then that's all we'll do.

What's your solution, Steve? How many tons of supplies and equipment
are needed to establish a permanent lunar base? How much money to
build everything needed, and to get it to the moon? How many years and
launches to do it?

If you think in terms of "what can this ONE sortie accomplish", you'd be
right. But that's already been addressed by countless suggestions of what we
COULD do if we wanted to.

With reasonable timelines and a sound program, yes.

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.

So...NASA doesn't hire drivers, janitors, security personel, health care
workers, mechanics, etc?

Not nearly so many as they hire highly trained and educated people.

It sounds to me like you are trying to justify a larger manned space
program by pitching it as a jobs program for Ph.Ds.

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.

Sheeesh.

You're the one complaining about getting ripped off every April 15.

But why not solve our problems directly?

Sure...Why not.

Let's just go ahead and drop a billion dollars into social welfare
programs to feed and house the poor.

Who said anything about that?

I'm talking about solving problems like education, infrastructure, and
energy independence.

Let's NOT do something to advance our technologies that will create
entirely new classes of jobs, promote our wellness and, hopefully, ultimately
develope technologies that might "liberate" us from poverty.

The space program of the '60s didn't liberate us from poverty. Nor did
it promote our wellness. It created some jobs and some new
technologies but at enormous cost.

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

Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence.
Education.

Uh huh.

Yep. Haven't you seen how US education ranks against other countries
in the developed world? Or how much of our oil is imported? Or any of
a host of other things that need fixing?

Why can't the USA have the best educational systems in the world? The
best surface transportation systems? The best energy systems? Energy
independence?

This doesn't mean we shouldn't have a space program - we should. But
it has to stand on its own merits. Going into space is worth doing for
its own sake, not as a jobs 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.

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.

Fiber optics = interruptable infrastructure.

Fiber optics = what makes the modern communications world tick.

Satellites are interruptible infrastructure too. Heck, it's easy: Just
build a high power ground jammer transmitter with a big dish (designed
for the right frequencies) and point it at the satellite you wish to
interrupt. Jam away. With good design, the jamming signal won't even
be detected 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.

ROTMFFLMMFAO ! ! ! ! ! !

When's the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car in the USA
exploded and killed people? How many of them do you think are in use
in the continental USA in the course of a year?

Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability.

And we'll improve that reliability by just not doing it anymore...?!?!

Not by doing it the same way over and over again.

There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim.

Who is there to compete with for space?

The Red Chinese for one. They just flew a manned mission a year or so
ago, and they certainly have the resources and the wherewithall to exploit it.

Right. They orbited one guy. The Soviets did it first - 43 years ago.

And considering thier track record for flooding markets with cheap
alternatives that have, quite literally, put hundred of thousands if not
millions of Americans out of work, I don't doubt they can do it there, too.

By that logic, we should let them do it, and then buy the rockets from
them.

I'd rather know that bright, fast moving light in the sky was carrying
Americans.

I'd rather that there were more products I could buy that said "Made
in USA".

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.

I don't see a whole lot of likelyhood that anything further will be
forthcoming from this exchange, Jim.

Why not? Do you think I'm joking? I'm not.

If you believe that "all that money" is
going to no good use and that it's not a benefit in your daily life today,
well then there's just no use doing it.

I've not said that. What I have said is that the space and military
programs are not the best way to solve our problems here on earth.
Those problems need to be addressed directly. You want a better
mousetrap, study mouse behavior and
trap design.

I see the benefits of our space and technology programs every day. And as
both an American and as a human with a bit more than average sense of
adventure, I'd like to see us reach out beyond our own celestial home and take
advantage of the opportunities "out there".

So would I. But at the same time, I realize how big space is, and how
empty. And the basic physics of the problems inherent in space travel.

Unfortunatley GETTING there will be neither cheap or without risk, but I
for one think the benefits will ultimately be enormous.

How much of *your* money are you willing to spend? Because that's what
will fund it.

And consider this: President Bush made *another* speech where he
supported BPL and said it was up to NTIA to figure out how to avoid
interference. How come our president and those BPL folks don't know
that BPL is a bad idea from the get-go? Anybody with even a basic
engineering education can see the problems staring you in the face.

73 de Jim, N2EY