Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/29/2004 12:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message

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.

Yes...That's how they had adequate fuel for the attitude control rockets
to reposition the station.

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

I never said it was easy!

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

Yep!

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"

But the crews (with one exception) WERE all warriors. None laess than a
Lieutenant Colonel, as I recall.

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

I am not ignoring any physics, Jim.

Yes, you are.

OK...if you say so. But I reiterate the only "physics" being ignored here
are the one's involving the movement of the arm to the wallet.

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.

The Boeing project was a spin-off of of their entry to what became the C-5
Galaxy.

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

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

But you said "big"...

(You've 'set the parameters' on me based on one word, Jim...my turn!)

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.

And I bet that a lot of the technical data is still out there that we
wouldn't have to completely re-engineer the wheel again.

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

How much did Apollo cost in 2004 dollars?

So we wait and see how much it costs in 2014 dollars? Or 2024 dollars?
Or 2034 dollars?

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.

All he had to do is hike the skirt of a woman 20+ years his junior then
lie about it, and he would've been re-elected.

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

And the programs were started when?

A LOT of programs were started before the Regan era...AND languished.
RR pulled out the stops.

73

Steve, K4YZ