Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 7/2/2004 5:40 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Exactly. And "composites"...And computing power 1000 fold greater than
what Apollo had...

More like a million fold...

So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should
we spend billions of tax dollars on it?

"SpaceShip" 1 barely went suborbital.

That's as high as X-15 ever went.

But other than to use it to demonstrate the VERY basic theories of
rudimentary manuevering in a near-vacuum, what did it do?

What can a sub-orbital ship hope to offer that aircraft operating at lower
altitudes don't alread offfer?

The machines can't fix them selves enroute or on-site.

So you build more reliable machines. Learning how to do that is an earthbound
benefit of a space program!

And if you're not "thre" to witness the failure and know what failed, how
do you fix it?

I am reminded of pilots returning and trying to relate thier perceptions
of problems, and how to fix them.

The communications gear was a no-brainer. AFCS (Automatic Flight COntrol
System) in the CH53 was very dynamic, even for the antiquated systems in the
older A models...Nothing substituted for getting on the bird and experiencing
the abnormal behaviour first had.

Many human ills cannot be self-repaired, either.

Any your point is...?!?!

Look at Cassini-Huygens - more than 7 years in space and performing
perfectly.

Uh huh...Against how many that never left the pad, or failed enroute?
Those "robot"

I am willing to bet that the Brit's "Beagle 2" mission burnt up on
entering the Martian atmosphere.

Why? What data supports that?

"................................................. .."

(sound of signal from probe after "re-entry")

Maybe had it been a manned mission, the
1/10th of a degree attitude adjustment necessary to PREVENT it could have
been made.

Doubtful. The machines are faster and more accurate at such tasks than
humans.

Not always.

Know why I carry my stethoscope at all times in the ER despite a plethora
of "non-invasive diagnostic devices"...?!?!

Because those "machines" are NOT always faster and more accurate than a
human. Nor do those machines have the ability to "filter out" the audible
ectopics that the human brain has.

How many other massive spaceborne telescopes have we had on orbit?

There are some smaller ones but none like Hubble.

I reiterate the adjective "massive"...! ! ! ! !


I'm not confused at all. Some folks, however, think that because humans went
from Kitty Hawk to supersonic flight in less than half a century, and from
there to the Sea of Tranquility in another quarter century, that such progres
would continue on a linear path. It doesn't.

Not linear, but certainly with a certain degree of advancement.

I for one don't see it happening.

The Cassini mission is great, but what new technology or methodolgy are we
using?

Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take
the risks and send it into space.

Even though it was known that the optics were defective.

But they were able to compensate for that.

Why not do it right the first time?

How does anyone know what's "right" the first time until somenthing HAS
been tried, and either found to work "as advertised", or return to the drawing
board?

How does man learn to do these things in space if we send machines to
try and do it?

Why should humans take unreasonable risks to do what can be done by machines?

What's "unreasonable"...?!?!

I MIGHT contract hepatitis or HIV in my profession, despite "religious"
use of PPE and "Universal Precautions"...

So...Considering that, do Nurses and Physicians just thrown up their arms
and say "unreasonable risk" and quit?

I'd hope not.

And I'd hope we'd move manned space flight forward from LEO.

And how do we "teach" a machine to do something if we ourselves don't
already know how it should be done?

It's done all the time. Look at the newest fly-by-wire military aircraft like
the joint services fighter. Its aerodynamically characteristics are such that
a
human pilot cannot fly it directly - takes too many corrections in too little
time. But a computer can fly it directly.

Uh huh.

And how does the computer "know" what's an "unusual attitude" and correct
it?

How does the computer know the difference between that same "unusual
attitude" as a result of loss-of-control (needs to be corrected) or a desired
input (the pilot deems it necessary to be in that "unusual attitude")...?!?!

The human pilot tells the computer what he/she wants the plane to do and the
computer figures out how to move the control surfaces to make that happen.

Uh huh.

And what if the computer refuses to let the pilot do it?

And how does that computer "know" what to do?

My point in the last couple of paragraphs is that persons who KNOW how to
fly teach (program, in this case) the computer what it meeds ot know.

No machine to date, and to the best of my knowledge, has taken it upon
itself to "learn" somehting it wasn't programmed with. (Shades of "COLOSSUS:
The Forbin Project")

More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human
error.
People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired,
etc.
By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that
the crew could do nothing about.

Oh?

Yep.

Could the Columbia crew have gone EVA and fixed the busted shuttle tiles with
what was onboard that last mission?

No, they couldn't. But we could have put emergency stores on an unmanned
flight to send to them, or they may have been able to "lifeboat" at ISS.

Those scenarios have been the subject of public discussion before.

"Human Risk" and cost are the only two reasons they've not done it in the
past.

It cost us dearly with Columbia. Imagine if we had just put one MMP on
board each shuttle for one 30-60 minute pre-reentry EVA for Columbia (obviously
it wasn't an issue with

They were engineering errors if we patently accept the investigation's
reports. The errors were due to a failure of the people making the decisons.

In the case of Challenger, yes.

Thiokol said "go" after being coerced by NASA people to let Challenger
fly. Coerced by men...not robots.

Yep. Men from Reagan;s White House....

Nope...Men from NASA.

It was suggested that thios would place the crew at too much risk.

There's also the fact that a lot of flaws could not be fixed. If the Columbia
crew had lnown there was a problem with foam damage, could they have fixed
it?

Probably not.

But in the long run they more than likely might have survived the mission.
Again, we could have put extra stores on an unmanned loft or got them to ISS
until another shuttle could get to them...

The idea of a small "ROV" be built for the same purpose was made..

"Too much time and money".

I'll bet a bunch of MIT kids could have designed the thing as a class
project for less than a mil...

Designed, maybe. Built, tested and certified for manned space flight? No.

Why?

They couldn't put a package together that NASA could adopt and
incorporate?

From where are current NASA "rocket scientists" gleaned anyway?

Compare that against the loss we suffered.

Exactly. The humans made a wrong decision. Even though they were
professionals,
they messed up.

Oooops.

And any one of them or all of them could have stepped off a curb into
on-coming traffic.

I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just
solutions awaiting implementation!

Standard HR BS.

Jiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmm........

The facts a

Some problems have no solution. ("What is the exact value of pi expressed as
the ratio of two integers?).

And in what PRACTICAL applications of formulas using "pi" have we NOT been
able to incorporate it to effective use?

Some problems have a theoretical solution but it cannot be found in practice
(Traveling salesman problem)

Where to find a clean bed, cheap meal and female company?

NO PROBLEM!

Some problems have realizable solutions.

Time and effort. That's all it takes. Many problems are great and no
EASY solution is at hand. (ie: curing the cold, cancer, HIV, getting Lennie and
Brain to act like adults...etc etc etc)

I believe we'll find cures. I believe man will travel at "warp speeds".
Not today...Not even tomorrow...but one day...

I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant
someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done.

Yep. I believe we will one day find outr how to go light speed or
better.
It's just a matter of time, money and effort.

No, it isn't.

At this point we do not know if such travel is possible...(SNIP TO...)

As it stands right now, our knowledge of physics says it cannot be done.

Fifty years ago our knowledge of physics said that the sound barrier was a
tuffy...

Ten years before that our knowledge of physics suggested the detonation of
a nuclear device would cause the whole world to explode at once.

Even after the Wright Brothers submitted evidence that they had "flown",
reputable scientists of the age were saying manned flight, and certainly
PRACTICAL manned flight would never happen.

Not a matter of better rockets or materials - it's the very nature of the
universe
that is the limit. Of course that knowledge could change! But at the present
time, human travel at or beyond the speed of light is *not* a matter of money
or effort; it's a matter of physical reality. Basic relativity physics, IOW.

And as Hans says so well:

"Reality does not care what you believe"

So far, I'd say that the human imagination, when properly interfaced with
human ingenuity and dedication, has done a pretty good job of making things
"happen".

I'd sure like to google-up these comments 50 years from now and see just
how far we progressed, and then either see if they exceeded expectation, or if
not, why not.

There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be
enslaved,
either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those
jobs. That problem was solved.

Yep..We just look the other way at the border once in a while! =)

By saying that, even humorosly, you're saying you believe some people have to
be enslaved economically.

They don't HAVE to, Jim.

Most of those people coming across the border certainly see it as a step
up...

Would you KNOWINGLY put your self at risk to do what THEY do to get here
if you thought you were going to be enslaved?

Those people are desperate and determined to make a better life for
themselves and thier families. If they peceived themselves as being
"enslaved", they'd not voluntarily submit them selves to it by the
hundreds-of-thousands every year.

There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be
allowed
to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to be
a
problem.

That's a matter of opinion.

Several political pundits have said that a lot of the "vote" that went
to Bill Clinton did so because some segment of women voters thought
he was more
handsome than President Bush, and thought that his rhetoric on women's
"issues" was "sweet".

And who are these "pundits"?

Take your pick. Wanna start at the top with ABC's anchors and work your
way down to UPN? It was the regular topic of the news "magazines" back in 92,
96 and 2000.

What is their data?

Who knows? Who cares? There were women willing to be on-camera and
acknowledge that they voted, in part, based upon looks and perception of
Clinton as "pro-woman".

Too bad they didn't know "pro-woman" just meant he wasn't gay.

Most of all, even if their claim is true, how is it any different from:

Men who won't vote for a black person?
Men who won't vote for a Roman Catholic? Or a Jew?
Men who won't vote for a person from a certain place or region?
Men who won't vote for someone because they "feel" he "cannot be trusted"?

None at all.

Too bad that there isn't a test to determine voter competency, huh...?!?!

There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children
to
read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and
factories.

Obviously it's still true.

No, it isn't.

Sure it is.

Not as much in the United States, anymore, but certainly in a great many
OTHER nations of the world.

A very large part of our imports from India and Pakistan are made by
kids.

That may be - but we don't have to import those things.

You're right...we don't "have" to...

But we do...

Yes...it will still be there...but I for one am very disappointed that
after four decades of manned space travel, we still haven't done a darned
thing
to REALLY start exploring "space"...!

We haven't? I say we have!

To the degree we we COULD be exploring it?

I say no. We COULD have been walking on Mars this past summer during the
Earth/Mars approach. It would have been the ideal time, we had more than
enough time to plan for it, and we had the inertia to get there.

73

Steve, K4YZ