Thread
:
BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
View Single Post
#
102
June 29th 04, 01:47 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: 6/27/2004 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!
You'd lose the bet.
Like I said..."If we wanted to..."
How much of your money are you willing to put up to make it happen?
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.
The moon has been under such observation for almost 40 years. Nothing of that
sort of value has been found.
What would you say to someone who said that we must not drill for oil in any
new areas because doing so *might* destroy some rare species - and we might
have an unforeseen need to that rare species?
Betcha we could have a Shuttle-loadable lander in two years.
You'd lose the bet.
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.
That's a completely different game. You just doubled the available time.
And I would not be surprised if a design isn't setting
around in a drawer for just such a project somewhare.
That's a long way from a workable system.
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?
Because the orbiter and lander weigh quite a bit, that's why.
We could use an Arianne to boost the tanks into orbit and the Shuttle
could mate with it.
How much can an Ariane take to orbit?
If you're willing to contract out part of the job to the ESA, why not China?
Either way, it won't be "US" (as in "USA") going to the moon.
The Ariane would have to put the tanks into an orbit that the shuttle could
reach easily. And a docking system that would make fuel and oxidizer
connections would have to be developed to make the hookup. That's a new
technology right there.
Or the extra tanks could be boosted into trans-lunar
eliptical orbit as an orbiting tanker.
By what launch vehicle?
If you did have a launch vehicle capable of putting tanks into a translunar
orbit, that doesn't solve the problem of how the shuttle is supposed to get out
of earth orbit and meet them. And since the orbital period would be much
longer, the chances of not being able to catch up would be much greater.
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.
Then you need another launch vehicle and a new technology.
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.
Yep. Because after looking at all the alternatives, that was the best way to
go.
I am not suggesting we do this all in one lift.
Then the problems and the cost multiply.
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.
Yep. But you need at least one new technology, and at least two carefully-timed
launches. Can be done but it's harder and more costly.
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.
How much of your own money are you willing to lay out to make it happen?
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?
Yes.
If it could be done, NASA would have done it already.
Oh?
Yes.
Why only NASA?
The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big
problem.
And what makes you think that NASA may not have already penciled this
mission out?
Nobody says they haven't. But that's a long way from doing it.
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.
You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics.
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!
If it was practical, they would have done it for just that reason. Which tells
you it's not.
Jim, the first Boeing 747's carried under 300 people about 6K to 7K
miles.
So? They're not spacecraft.
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?
Right - after decades of continuous development and upgrades, the range has
been increased. And by eliminating features and making seats smaller, more
people have been crammed aboard.
Better engines are one big reason. Those engines weren't a result of the space
or military programs. They were the result of companies like GE working to sell
civilian aircraft engines. If they could show enough fuel saving with a new
design, the airlines would buy the new engines.
On top of all that, you don't push a new airliner to the limits of performance
right away.
Other than just "not wanting to", what's holding us back?
Money! How much of *your* money are you willing to spend on a new series of
moon missions? Mars missions?
Just because?
The physics of the problem is the key to all of it.
I don't think physics is the problem.
Then you don't understand physics as it relates to space travel.
We just need to start issuing "round to-it's" to the folks who make
these
programs (pardon the pun) fly.
That means ...money. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. How much....
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.
That's enough.
And that's only from actually building the things...The engineering
could
be done now in CAD with a minimum of expense.
Not true. CADD helps but you still need to build the thing.
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.
You're forgetting the physics again.
No, I don't have "the numbers"...But I know we (yes, Lennie...The "Royal
We") can do it if we wanted to.
Only if the resources are allocated. Which means $$ out of everyone's pockets.
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.
Then you should know that you can't "park" ships along the way to the moon.
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.
Big one-use rockets.
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!
Sure. But the initial move wasn't really a rendezvous - it was just the CSM
separating, turning around, docking and pulling the LM out.
The only really tricky rendezvous was when the LM came back up from the lunar
surface to meet the CSM.
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.
Add "zero g fuel tank connection system"
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.
Suppose it takes one worker with a manual post hole digger 10 minutes to dig
one post hole. That does not mean ten workers with the same tools can do the
job in one minute.
There's a lot more to engineering than simply drawing plans.
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.
Apollo took only about 8 years. With slide rules. And an enormous price tag.
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"...
That changes the whole game.
So what would be your assessment on a reasonable timeline?
That depends on the funding.
What needs to be done is for there to be a *long term* commitment. That means a
dependable, sustainable budget for the next couple of decades, dedicated to
certain goals. Then the timelines are derived from the resources.
The programs of the '60s were rush jobs with essentially a blank check for
funding. That sort of thing simply could not be sustained indefinitely.
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...?!?!
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?
Well there's the rub. Again, "how much money" as opposed to the
logistics of getting it done.
I included the logistics.
(1) Define the mission. How's this...A "permanent" manned base on the
Moon with a staff of at least four.
OK. Now, how many tons of equipment are needed to build the base, and how much
in supplies per year?
(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.
Sure. But recall that for an unknown amount of time, *everything* has to come
from earth. And unlike LEO, there's no quick easy escape home if things go
wrong.
(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.
Tons?
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.
Well, sort of.
First off, there must be a system that can get the modules there intact -
including landing them on the lunar surface. Building the ISS has been tough
enough - the trip to the moon is much more difficult.
(Ironic that the fist colony on the Moon would be a trailer park,
eh...?!?!)
Nope!
Second part: The modules must be buried in the lunar surface, or contain heavy
shielding. Lunar radiation is much worse than LEO - no lunar magnetic field.
Also need people and supplies.
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.
Anybody who was in their 30s when Apollo was active is now retirement age. Or
dead.
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.
That's true of any company town.
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)
Only because the money is imported from elsewhere.
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.
How much of *your* money...
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?
Just as you described:
1) We describe the problem to be solved. Example: Energy independence. We
define what it means and what has to change.
2) We gather pertinent data. Look at how much is being imported, where it comes
from, how it is used, and how it could be reduced or replaced.
3) We set up adequately funded and properly run programs to make it happen.
Won't happen overnight but it can be done.
With the exception of recreational technologies and the Internet, almost
every "advancement" has been in entertainment and recreation.
Not true at all!
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.
Then create the impetus. How about tax credits for installing energy-saving
hardware? We had that under Carter - and Reagan tossed it away.
How about an ongoing program to improve transit so that people have a
reasonable alternative to driving everywhere? Sustainable communities where you
don't have to drive everywhere.
As for technologies, note this:
- The efficiency of air-conditioning and refrigeration is now far greater than
it was 20 years ago - even without old fashioned CFC refrigerants.
- More efficient lighting technologies reduce both the energy used and the
resulting AC load in summertime.
- Automobile technology has advanced on so many fronts it's hard to list them
all.
- Building techniques and materials have advanced - better insulation, more
efficient heating, even low-flush toilets all add up.
In the mean time, we "solve" problems by throwing money at them.
That's what you want to do in space....
That's
the root reason we decry the space program..."Let's spend the money on
Earth!"
But we're not doing it.
Well...I never DID see where Mickey D's was on orbit yet, so where ELSE
is the money being spent...?!?!
What's needed is to spend the money fixing Earth's problems.
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!
How? Americans are fatter and less fit now than ever before.
And we will NEVER be free of poverty.
If we take that attitude, we won't be.
The Demoncrats thrive on it!
Pure BS.
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...
Yes, they have. By diverting resources and attention away from those problems.
If nothing else a lot of that has been IMproved...
How?
There's hardly a single aspect of human endeavor outside of Somalia and
Ethiopia that ISN'T touched by the space program.
Sure. But that doesn't mean we must go back to the moon in a big hurry.
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.
Sure - but all of that was from unmanned satellites. Many are of commercial
origin. Heck, OSCAR 1 was launched over 40 years ago.
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.
I remember ECHO 1.
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...?!?!
Many schools are at about that level today because the commitment is not there
to fund them adequately. Heck, some schools don't have enough books!
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.
Exactly. It gets spent on giving congresscritters joyrides and in replacing
destroyed orbiters.
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...?!?!
Everything wasn't fine then.
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!
What *are* you talking about?
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.
Sounds like a good idea.
Now the news on several internet sites is that the LA reserves are down
by 5 to 7 million acre-feet of water.
Were the plants built?
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.
I don't mean make a profit. Not at all.
Unless they find oil on the Moon, I don't ever see space
travel as being able to produce it's own direct profit.
It's not about 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.
So what's the solution? Satellites are just as vulnerable.
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.
How did they find him? Was he in the USA? Did he do it continually?
And I bet with some simple programming we can defeat jamming of our
commercial satellites...
Not against RF overload.
and I am willing to bet that c-note to the nickle
that
the military birds are a bit more sophisticated already!
Sure. But they don't keep the economy going.
Fiber is the future.
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"... ! ! !
Yes. That's what the shuttle did when it blew up. Level the playing field.
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!
Nope. But that's not the point! Even derailed, the tank cars didn't blow up.
The ARES activations are about precautions.
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.
Then another problem surfaced. Is it really fixed?
This time it was FOD to the leading edges of the wings.
Not the same...certainly not "over and over".
Dead is dead. Two orbiters and their crews a total loss.
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 did the Russians. They never got there.
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 ! ! !
So? The moon isn't ours.
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!
You suggested the Ariane earlier.
Why is it OK to buy consumer goods from China but not rockets?
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 have one. In fact I've never had anything else.
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..."
Part of engineering is recognizing the problems beforehand, and not going off
on wild or wasteful tangents.
I'm about HOW we can do things.
Me too. I'm an engineer.
Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them.
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.
Read it again without couching it in "liberal/conservative" or
"democrat/republican" terms.
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!
You're still avoiding that simple question....
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 basic idea is simply wrong. Power lines are simply not meant for RF. They
are pretty good antennas, though. That's why the BPL systems need so many
repeaters - the "line loss" at RF is largely from radiation!
Here's a simple analogy:
Let's say we lived (decades ago) in an area prone to heavy downpours. So along
the backs of everyone's property we dig a stormwater ditch. The grading is such
that when it rains, the excess water runs into the ditch and off to lower
ground. The ditch is lined to prevent erosion but it's open to the air.
Then we decide to connect to a sewage system. Which means a lot of digging to
put in big pipes to everyone's property. Expensive.
So somebody says "why not just use the stormwater ditch for sewage?" Technology
is developed to pump the raw sewage to the ditch, and to divert it at the end
of the ditch to the sewage system. The system "works" to the extent that the
sewage winds up in the sewage system, and yet the stormwater doesn't. And it's
arguably cheaper and faster than all those sewer pipes.
But the folks downwind have to smell it! And they complain.
That's BPL in a nutshell.
The recent deployments only bear that out.
They prove the technology is no damn good. It's a spectrum polluter. It's just
plain stupid.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Reply With Quote
