Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/27/2004 8:36 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

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.

I bet there is!

Like I said..."If we wanted to..."

Tomorrow, a lunar orbiter discovers what appears to be deposits of "X".
We need "X" really bad, and we know if we don't have a quonset hut sitting on
it, it's fair game. Betcha we could have a Shuttle-loadable lander in two
years.

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.

OK...four years. And I would not be surprised if a design isn't setting
around in a drawer for just such a project somewhare.

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.

Why?

We could use an Arianne to boost the tanks into orbit and the Shuttle
could mate with it. Or the extra tanks could be boosted into trans-lunar
eliptical orbit as an orbiting tanker.

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.

That's only if you think in terms of the dimensions of the Shuttle.
Again, there's nothing that says we can't piggyback the extra stuff to orbit.

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.

The Saturn V was designed to be a one-booster-lifts all flight.

I am not suggesting we do this all in one lift.

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

So we get it to orbit, get "the package" together on orbit, then loft it
into TLI from there.

For every "but how do we..." there are at least a dozen options...It's
just a matter of starting with one and getting the ball rolling.

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.

Oh?

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

Oh?

Yes.

Why only NASA?

And what makes you think that NASA may not have already penciled this
mission out? You HAVE told me of reasons why you think it won't work one
certain way, Jim, but you've NOT shown me or caused me to believe it CAN'T be
done under ANY circumstances.

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.

Well right there's a darn good reason TO "push" the shuttle!

Jim, the first Boeing 747's carried under 300 people about 6K to 7K miles.
Now almost 40 years later it can carry over 500 in some configurations and fly
non-stop over 20 hours (London to Sydney...What's that...12K miles?

Other than just "not wanting to", what's holding us back?

Just because?

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

I don't think physics is the problem.

We just need to start issuing "round to-it's" to the folks who make these
programs (pardon the pun) fly.

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.

Exactly.

And that's the ONLY thing holding us back.

And that's only from actually building the things...The engineering could
be done now in CAD with a minimum of expense.

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?

The lander can be as small and as light as the mission dictates, or as big
as we think we need it to be for the mission.

No, I don't have "the numbers"...But I know we (yes, Lennie...The "Royal
We") can do it if we wanted to.

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

Do you know what a Lagrange point is?

Sure I do.

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

The same way we got RANGER, "Lunar Orbiter", Apollo and who knows how
manyn other lunar exploration packages 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.

CM/LM rendevous was done after TLI and after LM ascension in lunar orbit.
Both waaaaaaay outside 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.

And I still say we could CAD these things now and have them on orbit in a
relatively short time. My two years may be too optimistic, but I bet if we
said "do this" today, it wouldn't take another 10 years to do like Apollo.

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.

OK...I defer to your suggestion of "not in 2 years"...

So what would be your assessment on a reasonable timeline?

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.

"Too great"...?!?! Or too expensive...?!?!

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?

Well there's the rub. Again, "how much money" as opposed to the logistics
of getting it done.

(1) Define the mission. How's this...A "permanent" manned base on the
Moon with a staff of at least four.

(2) Define the human need since that's really the biggest "consumable".
That part's not really hard, though, since there are reams of texts on human
physiology and what it takes to support a human in terms of nuourishment,
hydration, etc.

(3) Define short term and long term mission objectives. Again, Not too
difficult to do since the first priority is going to be getting the base in
place and getting it habitable.

My solution (idea?) is to have prefab'ed modules lofted via unmanned
missions. They are remotely soft landed within small radius of the intended
base site. The modules are fitted with wheels from in the package and a "tow
vehicle" is landed. The units are then towed to the site, lowered to a sitting
position and mated together. "Instant" base.

(Ironic that the fist colony on the Moon would be a trailer park,
eh...?!?!)

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.

No...Although I am sure there are a few Ph.D's out there who would gladly
relinquish thier janitor's garb for a suit and tie again.

But if you get into ANY "aerospace" town, there are legions of businesses
not DIRECTLY associated with aerospace, but very important...Groceries, gas
stations, spas, markets, etc etc etc.

I am in Huntsville at least once a month. "Aerospace" is the "big
business", but all those other countless places are needed to support the
PEOPLE in "aerospace". (The 99% who get stuff done, and the 1% [ie:Lennie] who
go along for the ride and milk it for what they can...But they ALL make money
and spend money)

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.

Of course.

And how do we "solve" those problems, Jim?

With the exception of recreational technologies and the Internet, almost
every "advancement" has been in entertainment and recreation.

We've not had any "research" technologies to speak of change, and we
certainly won't without some sort of impetus to get them going.

In the mean time, we "solve" problems by throwing money at them. That's
the root reason we decry the space program..."Let's spend the money on Earth!"

Well...I never DID see where Mickey D's was on orbit yet, so where ELSE is
the money being spent...?!?!

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.

Space HAS promoted our wellness, Jim! I can attest to that!

And we will NEVER be free of poverty. The Demoncrats thrive on it!

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?

And not a single one of those has been impeded BY the space program,
Jim...If nothing else a lot of that has been IMproved...

There's hardly a single aspect of human endeavor outside of Somalia and
Ethiopia that ISN'T touched by the space program.

Space technology has helped prospect for oil, helps find safer routes for
ships at sea and has helped in the development of new processes for medication
manufacture.

Those "aluminized" ballons that are so popular now are a spin-off of the
technology to make polymerized plastics for NASA, as are the discs that make
CD's.

If you want, we can trash all of that, go back to pencil, paper and slide
rules, and "Movietone" newsreels for "audio visuals" at school...?!?!

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

Money.

We could have done all of those things 30 or more years ago (or at least
been positioned to be there by now...) but everything was "fine" then, so why
spend the money...?!?!

Things are NOT so fine now, but not yet to disaster proportions, but that
light at the end of the tunnel is NOT salvation! It's the on-coming train!

Here's a quick one...Desalination. Plants were designed in the 60's for
SoCal that would have used solar heating to help desalt seawater for LA, SFO
and SDG.

Now the news on several internet sites is that the LA reserves are down
by 5 to 7 million acre-feet of water.

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.

If we want it to "stand on it's own merits' (I assume you mean 'make a
profit') then we might as well just forget anything beyond LEO and sell NASA to
the Red Chinese. Unless they find oil on the Moon, I don't ever see space
travel as being able to produce it's own direct profit.

Fiber optics = interruptable infrastructure.

Fiber optics = what makes the modern communications world tick.

I understand this. So do those who would like to do us harm.

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.

Sure it will....Some idiot did it to TBN (not that they didn't NEED
jamming.....) and the guy responsible was collared in a day.

And I bet with some simple programming we can defeat jamming of our
commercial satellites...and I am willing to bet that c-note to the nickle that
the military birds are a bit more sophisticated already!

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?

Oh...NOW you add the modifier "and killed people"... ! ! !

Heck, Jim...QST alone carries several articles a year of ARES groups that
were active at various derailed tanker cars a year...I bet there were even more
than that by a magnitude!

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.

The boosters for the Shuttle exploded once, we fixed that problem.

This time it was FOD to the leading edges of the wings.

Not the same...certainly not "over and over".

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.

One today.

They DO have a Lunar plan in place, according to TIME, Scientific American
and several other folks commenting on the issue. So it was one guy this time.
When do you consider it a credible "threat"..?!?! Three? Five? Two dozen?

If they land ONE man on the Moon in the next decade, that will be one more
than WE have done in the last forty years ! ! !

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.

And put MORE Americans out of work? Flying payloads on rockets WE don't
have control over?

I'd rather not!

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".

Me too. I'd like to have an all-US Amateur Station...

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.

That's the thing...I DON'T think you're joking, and every suggestion of
what we MIGHT do in the space program is met with "we can't because..."

I'm about HOW we can do things.

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.

That's not how I've read it.

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.

Better funding American space programs than leasing others!

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.

I for one don't think the IDEA of BPL is bad. I think the technology for
it isn't up to par and warrants more research.

The recent deployments only bear that out.

73

Steve, K4YZ