N2EY wrote:
(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.
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". 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. Or they're the result of government programs that are done
to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy.
In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.
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.
Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon?
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.
Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the
supply path.
I wouldn't say reinvented, but it would need to be re-done. I suspect
that a new moon mission would be much much different. I would guess
in-orbit assembly for the propulsion system, possibly the ship.
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.
Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that
we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of
course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue
eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^)
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!!!"
As opposed to the "Don't tax but spend like a drunken sailor" other types?
Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of
government spending".
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.
We found out we could make more money selling our hats to each
other.... for a little while anyhoo.
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.
The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and
LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them. 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.
I know I'm in my post field day weird move, but I wonder which country
posted the first bowel movement in space?
Today there is no such need or competition.
Just wait 5 years.
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?)
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.
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.
But that X-15 took a monumental effort and support structure. That is
the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the
Rutan effort is almost easy. Did you see the pix of the technicians
working on the plane? Jeans, T-Shirts and sneakers, and done in a
workshop, not a humongous facility with cleanrooms and scary nasty
chemicals sitting around. then they push it out of the "garage" hook it
up to the White Knight and off they go.
Despite the goal, I don't see the real lesson as getting to space, but
the way they are doing it.
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.
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?
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.
Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars....
What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be
had any other way?
Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As
much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their
discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from
the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to
put people somewhere - I don't support it.
AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are
giving them now.
The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime.
At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle,
packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the
Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me
goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my
support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that
ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time.
Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take
the risks and send it into space.
It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go
back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the
way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical
imaging.
We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to.
Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but
now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it.
My how we have changed. We aren't inspired. We demand that our
explorers have the same safety factor as our automobiles. We are now
pussies.
If they told me that a servicing or retrieval mission to the shuttle
wouldn't take place unless I was on board, I'd be on my way down there
right now.
And how much all of it would cost?
I think there is a psychological and social cost to *not* do it.
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.
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.
Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems.
Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly
inefficient means of progress.
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.
Ahh, but whose balance, Jim? I think that humankind badly NEEDS the
sense of exploration and adventure and the frontier effect of space. My
price tag of balance is a lot higher than yours, which is in turn a lot
higher than a lot of other people's
If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to
sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us
there some day.
- Mike KB3EIA -