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

June 29th 04, 06:24 PM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/28/2004 7:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

And tommorow an orbiter scanning FOR "X" shows up, Jim...

What is X that we need so bad that it would be worth mining the moon?

(The F22's been in the works for a decade already and is just
now about readu to start manufacture).

And it has cost how much? Each copy will cost how much? And it can't
even get to orbit...

What do we not already know about fuel line connections that we don't
already know? What other magic is there to getting a fuel from one tank into
another? The Russians were doing it for over a decade with MIR.

With rocket fuel? Some of them are cryogenic, others highly corrosive.
And you're talking about a system that would be retrofit to the
shuttle.

Anything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do the work.

(like getting an Extra license out of the box, I suppose).

That was the best way to go THEN.

Sure. And the shuttle's cost, complexity and failures have shown that
it may still be the way.

I recall that when the shuttle was being proposed and developed it was
supposed to be a "space truck" that would be *less expensive* than
one-time rockets, and would be *cost competitive* for putting unmanned
satellites up. Hasn't happened - the Ariane is the price leader for
that job.

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.

We know exactly where the moon's going to be for the next 2000 years. We
can, with a handheld science calculator, do almost the same thing for earth
launches. It IS "rocket science", but one that's been thoroughly
developed and proven.

I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it's harder and more costly.

"Engineering is doing for a shilling what any fool can do for a
pound."

It's a wheel that doesn't require re-invention.

You could say that about the Saturn V approach.

The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big
problem.

How many civilians have walked on the moon, Jim?

What did it say on the side of the LM, Steve? "NASA", not "USAF".

And remember the words on the plaque:

"We came in peace, for all mankind"

Not as warriors. Not just for the USA. "In peace, for all mankind"

You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics.

I am not ignoring any physics, Jim.

Yes, you are.

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.

Yes, seats can be made smaller...

But the aircraft is 40% larger today than it was in 1969.

Sure - it's undergone 35 years of continuous development and
improvement, funded not by government but (mostly) by civilian sales
to airlines.

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.

Hmmmmmmm....

"...compnies like GE..."

Yep.

Now..I WONDER who it was that made (or were major contractors on) the
engines that presently put the shuttle in orbit, as well as about every other
rocket or aeronautical project since the 30's...?!?!

The shuttle doesn't have any jet engines.

Ya think they learned anything in the process...?!?! I certainly do.

I think they learned how to make better jet engines by making jet
engines, not by making rocket engines.

Which do you think would be the most effective way to learn how to
make a better ham rig - by building stereos or by building ham rigs?

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.

Eventually, but not like we used to.

The F-22 and the Boeing 777 were both aircraft that were CAD'd right into
a first flying prototype.

I know a bit about CADD, Steve. It's a great tool - I have over 21
years experience with it. But it does not do the thinking and creating
for you.

You're forgetting the physics again.

No. I'm not.

I know it takes a lot of fuel to get on-orbit.

I know it takes even more to get that magical 17,500+MPH to break orbit.

It also takes fuel to slow them down once they get there.

And I know it costs money to get them there.

How much of your own are you willing to pony up?

As for your repeated reminders about "physics", Jim, I'll point out that
ALL of the deep space flights were NOT launched on Saturn 5's...They went up on
Atlas-Centaurs, Arrianes, ot Titan-3C's.

Sure - one-use rockets. And they were relatively small packages that
were not coming back. Many of them spend *years* in transit because of
the limited rocket power that launched them.

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.

No, but you CAN park them in Earth orbit or you can park them in lunar
orbit.

Sure - but you said "park them along the way".

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.

Atlas was a "big one-use rocket"...?!?!

You ever see one reused after it boosted something to orbit?

How much can an Atlas get to LEO, anyway? How much could it get to the
moon?

Anybody who was in their 30s when Apollo was active is now retirement age. Or
dead.

What?

NASA didn't keep any archives? These guys "learned" all that stuff then
kept it to themselves?

A lot of stuff gets thrown out over time, or given away to museums.
And merely having a set of plans doesn't mean you know how to make
something, or use it.

Only because the money is imported from elsewhere.

Uh huh.

And why is that money "imported" fro "elsewhere", Jim?

Taxes. The government takes money from everyone and sends it to
certain places.

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

How much of *your* money...

Of "MY" money, we just spent over $100B invading another country that was
of dubious danger to us (certainly less than the old USSR was at one time),
and will continue to spend billions on for another decade.

Exactly. Yet we were told it had to be done by the same leader who
says BPL is needed and we need to go to Mars.

Now...If that $100B were allocated to a new lunar colony
project...?!?!

How much did Apollo cost in 2004 dollars?

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.

Sure it can be done.

It COULD have been done 30+ years ago but "we" were too cheap to open our
wallets then to avoid the costs today.

BINGO!

And it wasn't just "cheap". It was a lack of long-term commitment. For
example, reducing oil consumption by 50% in 2 years would cause major
problems. But if we'd done just 2% a year starting 30 years ago....

Recall that the president who tried to make progress in the area ("the
moral equivalent of war") was not reelected.

Well...today is here, and now it's going to be a quantum more expensive to
do the things we need to do, but STILL haven't done.

Again...it's the wallet problem...not the space problem that keeps us from
these things.

I say it's the long-term commitment problem.

Then create the impetus. How about tax credits for installing energy-saving
hardware? We had that under Carter - and Reagan tossed it away.

But wait, Jim!

Weren't you the same one decrying that certain persons get tax breaks that
you and I don't get...?!?!

Not me.

And almost everyone could get those energy tax breaks - back before
Reagan "got the government off our backs" by throwing them away.

Aren't those "tax credits" that encourage the Forbes 500 folks to USE those
billions to keep industry going...?!?!

Not to solve basic problems.

And if they're OK for the Forbes 500, why not for me?

What we HAD under Carter were stifling inflation.

Not because of anything he did.

Science and industry MOVED under Reagan. Not a boast on my
part...archived historical facts.

And the programs were started when?

73 de Jim, N2EY