Thread
:
BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
View Single Post
#
112
June 29th 04, 11:06 PM
Len Over 21
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(Weiner
von Brawn, hero of space) writes:
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:
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.
And tommorow an orbiter scanning FOR "X" shows up, Jim...
Maybe that 1/1000 chance that we see something from "just the right
angle" happens...
Weiner been reading "X Men" comics again? :-)
OK...four years.
That's a completely different game. You just doubled the available time.
And it's still four yeas less than the "usual" development time for
aviation projects (The F22's been in the works for a decade already and is
just
now about readu to start manufacture).
Tell us all about Weiner's aeronautic work. Easy to do with one
word. :-)
Weiner spent time at Edwards or Nellis? Go zoom-zoom in sky?
Or just go zoom-zoom with imagination?
The Harrier has been "operational" for three decades with USMC.
Highest flight failure rates of any US military aircraft. But, it does
insure a capability of commissioned officer advancement...through
pilot attrition.
Again...IF we wanted to get it now "now", I think we could do it.
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.
Why?
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.
We all know what happened to MIR. :-)
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.
That was the best way to go THEN.
Weiner on decision board THEN? NOW? Don't think so.
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.
It's a wheel that doesn't require re-invention.
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Ritta mistake.
Launching requires "insertion" between existing satellites and assorted
space junk. Those satellites and junk aren't a constant for very long.
Certainly not for a decade let alone millenia.
The launch "window" referred to so glibly by TV "science commentators"
is governed by a launch trajectory missing all those other objects in
orbit. There isn't a pocket calculator built anywhere, not a palm pilot or
similar that can hold all that information and then calculate it.
The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big
problem.
How many civilians have walked on the moon, Jim?
The very first one was. :-)
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.
Weiner, us readers know YOU can't be persuaded anywhichway,
not by us, not by DoD, and certainly not by NASA. :-)
You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic
physics.
I am not ignoring any physics, Jim.
You don't mention any...:-) All you have is Will and Idea.
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.
Strange. I had a flight on a Continental Airlines Boeing 707
in 1958. Had another flight on a 707 around 1992. Didn't
notice any aircraft size expansion at all. Seemed the same.
Sunnuvagun! Maybe Boeing fed them some kind of aluminum
hormone in the last dozen years? Must be... :-)
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..."
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 F-1 engines (five) on the Apollo mission Saturn first stage were
designed and built by Rocketdyne Division of North American
Aviation...which, after purchase by Rockwell International, became
(on legal paper) Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International.
Rocketdyne has since been purchased by Boeing Aircraft Company.
The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) is used in a triad on the
shuttle itself. SSME is designed and built by Rocketdyne. The
SRBs (solid rocket booster) are reuseable only if they don't suffer
damage on return to Earth. Rocketdyne doesn't build the SRBs
which are only good for about a minute of the seven-plus long
launch phase.
Sunnuvagun! How about that? :-)
Ya think they learned anything in the process...?!?! I certainly do.
Did what? Learn something? I doubt that.
Weiner go to any rocket test firings? Michoud? Santa Su? Cape?
Not likely. Weiner gets his PhuD dissertation from cadging used
copies of AW&ST. :-)
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.
CADD = Computer Aided Design and DRAFTING.
Weiner, you have NEVER "bent tin" (worked with sheet metal)
or "laid lead" (did drawings on paper) in any aerospace company.
You don't know squat about "configuration management" (the
big buzzword for "drawing control" of the last 3 decades).
Weiner, you have NEVER checked drawings in any aero company,
let alone an electronics one, and have NEVER signed the "approved"
block on any paper or mylar drawings. Don't give us this song and
dance about "CAD right into the first flying prototype." The CADD
is PRINCIPALLY DONE TO REDUCE THE ENORMOUS QUANTITY
OF DRAWINGS that pile up to make all the parts. A sidelight is
that, by using IT skills, the CADD can be configured to do "fit"
tests on major assemblies for the physical assembly of a craft.
Boeing proved that with the triple-seven, made it a holy thing in
their documentary film for
PR
purposes.
The F-17 Nighthawk, then the B-2, were first modeled with CAD,
just the DESIGN part, in order to get the best compromise
planform for minimal RF reflection and for minimal IR radiation.
CADD entered later when the final planform was solidified. The
man-hours cost for the CAD (just the Design part) was staggering
because it took a long time to get close to optimum.
You're forgetting the physics again.
No. I'm not.
That may be true. One can't forget what one hasn't learned.
:-)
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.
Weiner von Brawn, explain "Lagrange Point" to the studio audience.
Use only one solar system pair for simplicity, give numbers.
Explain "space parking." Synchronous orbit only synchronous in
terms of observer on object being orbited...thing in orbit is still going
around and around and around...like nursie faking knowledge.
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"...?!?!
Absolutely. Convair designed it as an ICBM lifter. A weapons
platform first...then a THROWAWAY sat launch vehicle.
Atlas had thin skin. Nursie have thin skin. Nursie = Atlas?
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.
How tricky, Jim?
In one case (TLI) only one of the craft was under manned control. In the
case of CSM/LM rendevous, there were two craft under manned control.
Starting with Gemini-Agena up trough Shuttle-ISS, don't you think we've
gotten the technique pretty well down pat...???
Only basic principles. That's not enough for "all." Get with it.
Add "zero g fuel tank connection system"
How did the Russians "refuel" MIR for oover a decade? Swap out propane
tanks at the convienience store?
Weiner tell studio audience how that was done? Weiner big guru
in space, knowitall, been there, but got no T-shirts.
Apollo took only about 8 years. With slide rules. And an enormous price tag.
Becasue we'd never done it before. Now it's software you can download in
a couple minutes.
Weiner tell studio audience links to software sites? MSN? Adobe?
Which ftp site, Weiner? Give details. No shooting from lip.
Well there's the rub. Again, "how much money" as opposed to the
logistics of getting it done.
I included the logistics.
The logisitics is the money!
Weiner show pie chart to studio audience? Explain where costs go?
Weiner only make big log as part of icy BM, not do for real...
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?
Technologies change with time, acquisition of new data on physics
of solar system (mascons, etc.), requirements of manufacturing,
trying to push "performance envelope."
NASA have plenty archives. Found in "configuration management"
warehouses. :-)
NASA do many boo-boos in later years. See Challenger and ice,
freezing of SRB assembly O-rings, blow-through. See Columbia
and plastic foam used to prevent ice build-up, come loose like
done before, make hole in wing. O-ring problem, main tank foam
fall-off in archives, was ignored. Tsk.
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.
Uh huh.
Why Weiner von Brawn in Huntsville, AL? Do consulting? On
what? Why LPN go to rocket town? Put band-aids on fool
tanks? Nursie make big brag.
It COULD have been done 30+ years ago but "we" were too cheap to open
our wallets then to avoid the costs today.
We not have Weiner von Brawn, expert on space, to tell us how.
:-)
What we HAD under Carter were stifling inflation.
Science and industry MOVED under Reagan. Not a boast on my
part...archived historical facts.
Archived political party SPIN! :-)
And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and
stealing the money from them?
Only under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton...they make "hostile
actions" orders for murine corpse do school board fights. :-)
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'll spend more money trying to defeat gay marriage than what replacing
Columbia and Challenger would cost.
Besides...we HAVEN'T replaced them...Challenger splashed 18 years ago
now. Where's IT'S replacement...?!?!?
Endeavor, first flight in 1992.
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.
I agree.
That's why I put it in " " brackets.
It WAS a problem then. It's a worse one now.
We not have Weiner von Brawn as guru 30 years ago. Now we
have nursieland spaced-out guru mumbling in ham radio news-
grope about spaceflight. :-)
And I bet with some simple programming we can defeat jamming of our
commercial satellites...
Not against RF overload.
That would take a system capable of putting a massive amount of RF across
an extremely wide range of frequencies for a significant amount of time, Jim.
Like from 400MHZ to over 5GHZ.
THAT would be expensive, and would NOT be the kind of technology you
could load into a Ryder truck.
Nursie study solar flare characteristics, effects of EMP nuke, get
back to us.
Nursie then study REAL band space of comm sats and maximum
power input values, do math for RF path loss, find narrow beam
antenna gain and power needed from terrestrial location. Nursie
have little calculator? Slide rule? [can do with slide rule]
What nursie come up with?
Why is it OK to buy consumer goods from China but not rockets?
Because I am not worried about the Red Chinese using the technology used
to make rubber duckies and t-shirts to overwhem us.
Nursie tawk baby tawk with "rubber duckies" gonna "overwhem" us?
:-)
Nursie get newer copies of Time, see China now have equivalent
astronauts and launch vehicles. In all the papers...
Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them.
Engieneers do them when adequately funded!
"Engieneers?" They use "engien values" in math? :-)
DaVinci dreamed of a great many things that have only been made practical
in the last 100 years...Because we spent the money on research to develop the
materials to let the enginees make it happen!
Now we be "enginees?" :-)
Nursie show us "practical" model of SCREW DRIVE helicopter?
DaVinci show drawing of same. We not do dat yet.
You're still avoiding that simple question....
I am not "avoiding" anything Jim.
I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers.
No? Not all answers? Looks to readers like Weiner have all
answers for everything. Just have Republican in White House
and solve all problems! :-)
I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward
today.
What "program," nursie? Magellan "nothing?"
Nursie and shrink go to JPL and discuss. Get shrink rapped
and both go in fruitcake display.
They prove the technology is no damn good. It's a spectrum polluter. It's
just plain stupid.
They proved that THIS method is a spectrum polluter. Can there NEVER be
a development that might work?
Nursie need look at latest ARRL Comment on 04-37. Open-wire electric
power line using only ONE phase as distribution line WILL BE A SPECTRUM
POLLUTER REGARDLESS OF MODULATION TYPE.
Nursie fruitcake with morse nuts. No think.
LHA / WMD
Reply With Quote
