Thread
:
BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
View Single Post
#
134
July 5th 04, 02:53 AM
N2EY
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:
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:
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?
SpaceShipOne or X-15?
What can a sub-orbital ship hope to offer that aircraft operating at
lower altitudes don't alread offfer?
Not much on their own. But such ships are the first step to low-cost manned
orbital missions. An X-15 flight cost far less than any Mercury mission, for
example.
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?
Depends on the failure. Many failures give warnings via telemetry. Others show
up in simulation. For example, one of the Voyager scan platforms froze up, yet
was remotely fixed by analysis of an earthbound simulator.
I am reminded of pilots returning and trying to relate thier perceptions
of problems, and how to fix them.
Remember also pilots who never got back.
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.
But the CH53 was intended to be a human-piloted aircraft, used in a variety of
roles.
Many human ills cannot be self-repaired, either.
Any your point is...?!?!
That the risk must be balanced against the benefits.
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?
Such as?
Would you rather humans not explore Mars, Venus or the outer gas-giant planets
at all until manned missions can be sent?
Those "robot"
Robot what?
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")
Burning up is only one of many explanations. The silence could also be caused
by:
- Some part of the reentry system failed that did *not* result in burn-up
(parachute didn't open, hard landing damage, etc.
- Some part of communications system failed
- Landing site anomalies
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.
Can you think of an example?
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.
That's good but the problem of reentry is completely different. Can you
estimate a 1/10th degree angle error better an faster than an automatic system
designed for the job? Particularly in 3 axes at spacecraft speeds?
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"...! ! ! ! !
Hubble is unmanned. One of those robots. Its aiming accuracy is considerably
better than 1/10 of a degree, I think.
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
progress would continue on a linear path. It doesn't.
Not linear, but certainly with a certain degree of advancement.
And we have lots of advancement.
I for one don't see it happening.
I do.
The Cassini mission is great, but what new technology or methodolgy are
we using?
Several:
- Cassini carries with it the probe Huygens.
- Cassini used gravitational boosts from other planets to get to Saturn years
faster than with rocket power alone.
- Cassini has smarter computers, better sensors, etc.
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?
That's what engineering is all about.
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"...?!?!
1 in 75 chance of total loss of mission crew and equipment, I think.
I MIGHT contract hepatitis or HIV in my profession, despite "religious"
use of PPE and "Universal Precautions"...
Do you the chances of that are 1 in 75?
So...Considering that, do Nurses and Physicians just thrown up their arms
and say "unreasonable risk" and quit?
I'd hope not.
No - but what they have done is to increase the precautions taken - with *all*
patients. This costs more money and time, and reduces "productivity". But it's
necessary. And the risks are far less than 1 in 75.
And I'd hope we'd move manned space flight forward from LEO.
Me too.
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.
Absolutely true.
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")...?!?!
You misunderstand how those systems work. Their job is to figure out how to get
the plane to fly the way the human pilot wants it to.
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.
Yep. Look it up.
And what if the computer refuses to let the pilot do it?
It doesn't happen.
If the computers fail badly enough, the pilot has to eject. There's no direct
mechanical link from the control stick and foot pedals to the aircraft control
surfaces. That's what fly-by-wire means.
And how does that computer "know" what to do?
Programming.
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.
And my point is that the computer does things the humans cannot. It makes an
unflyable plane flyable.
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")
Not the point.
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.
Perhaps an unmanned supply mission could have been sent - that would be a job
for robots! But the orbits of Columbia and ISS were simply too different.
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
With what?
Again, if the crew had done an EVA and seen the damage, they could not fix it
anyway.
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.
Who were pressured by Reagan's White House. Documented fact - the White House
wanted the "teacher in space" program to go. It had already been delayed. The
whole shuttle program was way behind schedule. But rather than admit that the
schedule was simply unrealistic. and should be revised, pressure to launch was
fed down the chain of command.
Try to remember what the mindset was back then. NASA had *never* lost *anyone*
in space before Challenger. The Apollo 1 fire, horrible as it was, did not
result from a rocket or reentry system failure. Apollo 13 got back safely. At
least some folks thought NASA was "overcautious".
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.
How?
Again, we could have put extra stores on an unmanned loft or got them to ISS
until another shuttle could get to them...
See above.
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?
Because there's a lot of work to getting something actually built, tested, and
certified as safe to take into space. Particularly something new.
They couldn't put a package together that NASA could adopt and
incorporate?
Still has to meet the requirements. For example, if a component in the package
- *any* component - decides to outgas certain chemicals, all kinds of problems
can happen. So the components used all need to be certified and tested. And the
manufacturing and assembly processes need to be certified and tested. Look at
how long it takes to build and launch an OSCAR..
From where are current NASA "rocket scientists" gleaned anyway?
Lots of places.
Compare that against the loss we suffered.
Exactly. The humans made a wrong decision. Even though they were
professionals, they messed up.
Oooops.
Happens.
And any one of them or all of them could have stepped off a curb into
on-coming traffic.
But that would not have put other people's lives at risk - only their own.
I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just
solutions awaiting implementation!
Standard HR BS.
Jiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmm........
It's standard HR BS. That's a plain, simple fact. Nothing is ever difficult for
the person who doesn't have to do the work.
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?
Not the point. All values of pi used by humans in real-world problems are
approximations.
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!
You don't know what the traveling salesman problem is, do you?
I'll explain it in another post.
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,
These problems may or may not have complete solutions. For example, there may
be types of cancer that simply cannot be cured - but they may be preventable.
getting Lennie and Brain to act like adults...etc etc etc)
I repeat:
Some problems have no solution.
Some problems have a theoretical solution but it cannot be found in practice
I believe we'll find cures.
I do too. Or preventatives, which are even better. (I don;t think a true cure
for, say, polio was ever developed. But vaccines were)/
I believe man will travel at "warp speeds".
Perhaps humans will. But it may be simply impossible.
Not today...Not even tomorrow...but one day...
Only if it is possible. Reality does not care what you believe.
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...
No, it did not. Fifty years ago (1954) it had been broken many times.
Ten years before that our knowledge of physics suggested the detonation
of a nuclear device would cause the whole world to explode at once.
Not true.
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.
Has anyone submitted evidence of humans traveling faster than light?
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".
Only things that are possible. Bullets and V2 rockets broke the "sound barrier"
before the X-1 did. The question was not "could something go faster than sound"
but "how do you make an airplane that can do it?"
Nothing goes at light speed except light (in the broadest sense). Nothing with
a nonzero rest mass has been accelerated to or beyond light speed. Basic
relativity physics.
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.
You don't seem to understand the difference between knowing something is
possible and not knowing how to do it, and not knowing if something is possible
at all.
Specifically, the current knowledge of physics says that "warp speed" is simply
not possible because the universe isn't built to allow it.
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.
I know it. Do you?
Most of those people coming across the border certainly see it as a step
up...
Doesn't mean it's right.
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?
Doesn't mean it's right.
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.
All sorts of people took all sorts of risks to get to the USA.
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.
Show us.
What is their data?
Who knows? Who cares?
I do.
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".
How many?
Too bad they didn't know "pro-woman" just meant he wasn't gay.
Means a lot more than that.
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.
Exactly.
Too bad that there isn't a test to determine voter competency,
huh...?!?!
There is. But it only applies to naturalized citizens.
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.
Only because they believe it to be true.
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...
Because too many people place low price above other considerations.
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?
How much more of your money are you willing to spend?
I say no. We COULD have been walking on Mars this past summer during
the Earth/Mars approach.
How do you know?
It would have been the ideal time,
If you say that, you don't understand much about how such missions actually
work. Particularly the orbital mechanics of getting from here to there and
back.
we had more than
enough time to plan for it, and we had the inertia to get there.
Easy to say if you don't have to actually do it.
Tell us how big a manned Mars mission ship would have to be in order to get to
Mars and back, carrying all the supplies, spares and equipment needed. Or give
us an alternative scenario, such as sending supply ships on ahead to Martian
orbit - *with details*. Tell us how long the trip would be, and what the
relative planetary positions would be at the start, Martian landing, and
return.
Tell us how those who land on Mars would deal with the cold, wind, and dust.
Most of all tell us what it would all cost, and what we would do that could not
be done by robots.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Reply With Quote
