| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#102
June 29th 04, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: (N2EY) Date: 6/27/2004 8:36 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... So...there's NO technology that exisits today that would allow us to land a man on the moon in say...two years...if we really wanted to...?!?! Probably not. Not in two years, anyway. I bet there is! You'd lose the bet. Like I said..."If we wanted to..." How much of your money are you willing to put up to make it happen? 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. What would you say to someone who said that we must not drill for oil in any new areas because doing so *might* destroy some rare species - and we might have an unforeseen need to that rare species? Betcha we could have a Shuttle-loadable lander in two years. You'd lose the bet. So we can't configue an auxiliary fuel system? I doubt it can be done in two years. Do you really think a lunar lander that will fit in the Shuttle cargo bay and be compatible with its systems could be designed, built, tested, integrated and ready for launch to the Moon in less than two years? Including all the other facilities that would be needed to support it? I don't. OK...four years. That's a completely different game. You just doubled the available time. And I would not be surprised if a design isn't setting around in a drawer for just such a project somewhare. That's a long way from a workable system. Now about the auxiliary fuel system: It would have to be installed in the cargo bay, reducing the space and weight available for the lander. It would have to carry enough fuel to enable the shuttle and lander to leave earth orbit, enter lunar orbit, leave lunar orbit and then configure for reeentry. That's a lot of fuel and oxidizer. Why? Because the orbiter and lander weigh quite a bit, that's why. We could use an Arianne to boost the tanks into orbit and the Shuttle could mate with it. How much can an Ariane take to orbit? If you're willing to contract out part of the job to the ESA, why not China? Either way, it won't be "US" (as in "USA") going to the moon. 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. Or the extra tanks could be boosted into trans-lunar eliptical orbit as an orbiting tanker. By what launch vehicle? If you did have a launch vehicle capable of putting tanks into a translunar orbit, that doesn't solve the problem of how the shuttle is supposed to get out of earth orbit and meet them. And since the orbital period would be much longer, the chances of not being able to catch up would be much greater. It will take an extra 30 years to figure out how to install the fuel tanks necessary to do it? It may not be possible at all even if the entire cargo bay is used for the tanks. That's only if you think in terms of the dimensions of the Shuttle. Again, there's nothing that says we can't piggyback the extra stuff to orbit. Then you need another launch vehicle and a new technology. Look at the design of a Saturn V. Note how much of it is fuel tank and how little is CSM and LEM. Note how much it weighs at launch, how much of it goes to the moon, how much comes back from the moon and how much is left for reentry. 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. I am not suggesting we do this all in one lift. Then the problems and the cost multiply. Those numbers are determined by the basic physics of how much energy it takes to escape the earth's and the moon's gravity. So we get it to orbit, get "the package" together on orbit, then loft it into TLI from there. 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. For every "but how do we..." there are at least a dozen options...It's just a matter of starting with one and getting the ball rolling. How much of your own money are you willing to lay out to make it happen? I'll bet you a nickle to a C-Note that Burt Rutan could rough out a workable method on a napkin in a Mojave restaurant and have itr working in that two years. You would lose. Oh? Yes. If it could be done, NASA would have done it already. Oh? Yes. Why only NASA? The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big problem. 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. You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics. Why? Because it would be a great way to push the shuttle program. That's what the "teacher in space" fiasco was about. Also the reason Congresscritters have taken shuttle rides. Well right there's a darn good reason TO "push" the shuttle! If it was practical, they would have done it for just that reason. Which tells you it's not. Jim, the first Boeing 747's carried under 300 people about 6K to 7K miles. So? They're not spacecraft. Now almost 40 years later it can carry over 500 in some configurations and fly non-stop over 20 hours (London to Sydney...What's that...12K miles? 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. 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. On top of all that, you don't push a new airliner to the limits of performance right away. Other than just "not wanting to", what's holding us back? Money! How much of *your* money are you willing to spend on a new series of moon missions? Mars missions? Just because? The physics of the problem is the key to all of it. I don't think physics is the problem. Then you don't understand physics as it relates to space travel. We just need to start issuing "round to-it's" to the folks who make these programs (pardon the pun) fly. That means ...money. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. How much.... They've had to fight Congress and ignorant laymen for 30 years just to stay in LEO. So has every other program. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Exactly. And that's the ONLY thing holding us back. That's enough. 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. Go ahead. Show me the numbers. How much does a shuttle weigh? How small and light can a lander be made? How much fuel is needed to do the jobs? The lander can be as small and as light as the mission dictates, or as big as we think we need it to be for the mission. You're forgetting the physics again. No, I don't have "the numbers"...But I know we (yes, Lennie...The "Royal We") can do it if we wanted to. Only if the resources are allocated. Which means $$ out of everyone's pockets. 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. 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. We've already proven that on-orbit rendevous, docking and EVA construction is a no-brainer. Not a no-brainer at all. What has been shown is that it can be done. In low earth orbit. 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. So again...WHAT new technology do we ahve to develop to go back to the Moon? - New lunar lander - New heavy lift rockets - New systems to get to lunar orbit and back that's a short list. Add "zero g fuel tank connection system" Or we could just build more Saturn Vs. And I still say we could CAD these things now and have them on orbit in a relatively short time. Suppose it takes one worker with a manual post hole digger 10 minutes to dig one post hole. That does not mean ten workers with the same tools can do the job in one minute. There's a lot more to engineering than simply drawing plans. My two years may be too optimistic, but I bet if we said "do this" today, it wouldn't take another 10 years to do like Apollo. Apollo took only about 8 years. With slide rules. And an enormous price tag. HARDWARE, yes...we need new machines. but so far, Jim, your "arguments" have not swayed me that we could do it if we wanted to... Of course it could be done. We know that; it was done almost 40 years ago using rockets designed with slide rules and controlled with computers that make a pocket calculator look smart. The question is - could it be done in two years? The answer is no. OK...I defer to your suggestion of "not in 2 years"... That changes the whole game. So what would be your assessment on a reasonable timeline? That depends on the funding. What needs to be done is for there to be a *long term* commitment. That means a dependable, sustainable budget for the next couple of decades, dedicated to certain goals. Then the timelines are derived from the resources. The programs of the '60s were rush jobs with essentially a blank check for funding. That sort of thing simply could not be sustained indefinitely. the mission drops in, and brings at least part of the lander home for re-use itself. Only ways such a system could work is if the Shuttle stayed in earth orbit and the lunar package went from there. Why? Basic physics. The energy required to send the whole shuttle to lunar orbit and back again is simply too great. "Too great"...?!?! Or too expensive...?!?! Too great. And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the Apollo missions, not a long term base. As long as you keep thinking that, then that's all we'll do. What's your solution, Steve? How many tons of supplies and equipment are needed to establish a permanent lunar base? How much money to build everything needed, and to get it to the moon? How many years and launches to do it? Well there's the rub. Again, "how much money" as opposed to the logistics of getting it done. I included the logistics. (1) Define the mission. How's this...A "permanent" manned base on the Moon with a staff of at least four. OK. Now, how many tons of equipment are needed to build the base, and how much in supplies per year? (2) Define the human need since that's really the biggest "consumable". That part's not really hard, though, since there are reams of texts on human physiology and what it takes to support a human in terms of nuourishment, hydration, etc. Sure. But recall that for an unknown amount of time, *everything* has to come from earth. And unlike LEO, there's no quick easy escape home if things go wrong. (3) Define short term and long term mission objectives. Again, Not too difficult to do since the first priority is going to be getting the base in place and getting it habitable. Tons? My solution (idea?) is to have prefab'ed modules lofted via unmanned missions. They are remotely soft landed within small radius of the intended base site. The modules are fitted with wheels from in the package and a "tow vehicle" is landed. The units are then towed to the site, lowered to a sitting position and mated together. "Instant" base. Well, sort of. First off, there must be a system that can get the modules there intact - including landing them on the lunar surface. Building the ISS has been tough enough - the trip to the moon is much more difficult. (Ironic that the fist colony on the Moon would be a trailer park, eh...?!?!) Nope! Second part: The modules must be buried in the lunar surface, or contain heavy shielding. Lunar radiation is much worse than LEO - no lunar magnetic field. Also need people and supplies. So...NASA doesn't hire drivers, janitors, security personel, health care workers, mechanics, etc? Not nearly so many as they hire highly trained and educated people. It sounds to me like you are trying to justify a larger manned space program by pitching it as a jobs program for Ph.Ds. No...Although I am sure there are a few Ph.D's out there who would gladly relinquish thier janitor's garb for a suit and tie again. Anybody who was in their 30s when Apollo was active is now retirement age. Or dead. But if you get into ANY "aerospace" town, there are legions of businesses not DIRECTLY associated with aerospace, but very important...Groceries, gas stations, spas, markets, etc etc etc. That's true of any company town. 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. If we pump up NASA for a new deep space or lunar program, it means that every company that contracts with it would be able to Sure - at a price. Sheeesh. You're the one complaining about getting ripped off every April 15. How much of *your* money... But why not solve our problems directly? Sure...Why not. Let's just go ahead and drop a billion dollars into social welfare programs to feed and house the poor. Who said anything about that? I'm talking about solving problems like education, infrastructure, and energy independence. Of course. And how do we "solve" those problems, Jim? Just as you described: 1) We describe the problem to be solved. Example: Energy independence. We define what it means and what has to change. 2) We gather pertinent data. Look at how much is being imported, where it comes from, how it is used, and how it could be reduced or replaced. 3) We set up adequately funded and properly run programs to make it happen. Won't happen overnight but it can be done. With the exception of recreational technologies and the Internet, almost every "advancement" has been in entertainment and recreation. Not true at all! We've not had any "research" technologies to speak of change, and we certainly won't without some sort of impetus to get them going. Then create the impetus. How about tax credits for installing energy-saving hardware? We had that under Carter - and Reagan tossed it away. How about an ongoing program to improve transit so that people have a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere? Sustainable communities where you don't have to drive everywhere. As for technologies, note this: - The efficiency of air-conditioning and refrigeration is now far greater than it was 20 years ago - even without old fashioned CFC refrigerants. - More efficient lighting technologies reduce both the energy used and the resulting AC load in summertime. - Automobile technology has advanced on so many fronts it's hard to list them all. - Building techniques and materials have advanced - better insulation, more efficient heating, even low-flush toilets all add up. In the mean time, we "solve" problems by throwing money at them. That's what you want to do in space.... That's the root reason we decry the space program..."Let's spend the money on Earth!" But we're not doing it. Well...I never DID see where Mickey D's was on orbit yet, so where ELSE is the money being spent...?!?! What's needed is to spend the money fixing Earth's problems. The space program of the '60s didn't liberate us from poverty. Nor did it promote our wellness. It created some jobs and some new technologies but at enormous cost. Space HAS promoted our wellness, Jim! I can attest to that! How? Americans are fatter and less fit now than ever before. And we will NEVER be free of poverty. If we take that attitude, we won't be. The Demoncrats thrive on it! Pure BS. Yep. Haven't you seen how US education ranks against other countries in the developed world? Or how much of our oil is imported? Or any of a host of other things that need fixing? And not a single one of those has been impeded BY the space program, Jim... Yes, they have. By diverting resources and attention away from those problems. If nothing else a lot of that has been IMproved... How? There's hardly a single aspect of human endeavor outside of Somalia and Ethiopia that ISN'T touched by the space program. Sure. But that doesn't mean we must go back to the moon in a big hurry. Space technology has helped prospect for oil, helps find safer routes for ships at sea and has helped in the development of new processes for medication manufacture. Sure - but all of that was from unmanned satellites. Many are of commercial origin. Heck, OSCAR 1 was launched over 40 years ago. Those "aluminized" ballons that are so popular now are a spin-off of the technology to make polymerized plastics for NASA, as are the discs that make CD's. I remember ECHO 1. If you want, we can trash all of that, go back to pencil, paper and slide rules, and "Movietone" newsreels for "audio visuals" at school...?!?! Many schools are at about that level today because the commitment is not there to fund them adequately. Heck, some schools don't have enough books! 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 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. Things are NOT so fine now, but not yet to disaster proportions, but that light at the end of the tunnel is NOT salvation! It's the on-coming train! What *are* you talking about? Here's a quick one...Desalination. Plants were designed in the 60's for SoCal that would have used solar heating to help desalt seawater for LA, SFO and SDG. Sounds like a good idea. Now the news on several internet sites is that the LA reserves are down by 5 to 7 million acre-feet of water. Were the plants built? This doesn't mean we shouldn't have a space program - we should. But it has to stand on its own merits. Going into space is worth doing for its own sake, not as a jobs program. If we want it to "stand on it's own merits' (I assume you mean 'make a profit') then we might as well just forget anything beyond LEO and sell NASA to the Red Chinese. I don't mean make a profit. Not at all. Unless they find oil on the Moon, I don't ever see space travel as being able to produce it's own direct profit. It's not about profit. Fiber optics = interruptable infrastructure. Fiber optics = what makes the modern communications world tick. I understand this. So do those who would like to do us harm. So what's the solution? Satellites are just as vulnerable. Satellites are interruptible infrastructure too. Heck, it's easy: Just build a high power ground jammer transmitter with a big dish (designed for the right frequencies) and point it at the satellite you wish to interrupt. Jam away. With good design, the jamming signal won't even be detected on earth. Sure it will....Some idiot did it to TBN (not that they didn't NEED jamming.....) and the guy responsible was collared in a day. How did they find him? Was he in the USA? Did he do it continually? And I bet with some simple programming we can defeat jamming of our commercial satellites... Not against RF overload. and I am willing to bet that c-note to the nickle that the military birds are a bit more sophisticated already! Sure. But they don't keep the economy going. Fiber is the future. 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. Things that are filled with hundreds of tons of volatile combustables are bound to go boom. CNG tankers don't. Railroad tank cars don't. ROTMFFLMMFAO ! ! ! ! ! ! When's the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car in the USA exploded and killed people? How many of them do you think are in use in the continental USA in the course of a year? Oh...NOW you add the modifier "and killed people"... ! ! ! Yes. That's what the shuttle did when it blew up. Level the playing field. Heck, Jim...QST alone carries several articles a year of ARES groups that were active at various derailed tanker cars a year...I bet there were even more than that by a magnitude! Nope. But that's not the point! Even derailed, the tank cars didn't blow up. The ARES activations are about precautions. Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability. And we'll improve that reliability by just not doing it anymore...?!?! Not by doing it the same way over and over again. The boosters for the Shuttle exploded once, we fixed that problem. Then another problem surfaced. Is it really fixed? This time it was FOD to the leading edges of the wings. Not the same...certainly not "over and over". Dead is dead. Two orbiters and their crews a total loss. There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim. Who is there to compete with for space? The Red Chinese for one. They just flew a manned mission a year or so ago, and they certainly have the resources and the wherewithall to exploit it. Right. They orbited one guy. The Soviets did it first - 43 years ago. One today. They DO have a Lunar plan in place, according to TIME, Scientific American and several other folks commenting on the issue. So did the Russians. They never got there. So it was one guy this time. When do you consider it a credible "threat"..?!?! Three? Five? Two dozen? If they land ONE man on the Moon in the next decade, that will be one more than WE have done in the last forty years ! ! ! So? The moon isn't ours. And considering thier track record for flooding markets with cheap alternatives that have, quite literally, put hundred of thousands if not millions of Americans out of work, I don't doubt they can do it there, too. By that logic, we should let them do it, and then buy the rockets from them. And put MORE Americans out of work? Flying payloads on rockets WE don't have control over? I'd rather not! You suggested the Ariane earlier. Why is it OK to buy consumer goods from China but not rockets? I'd rather know that bright, fast moving light in the sky was carrying Americans. I'd rather that there were more products I could buy that said "Made in USA". Me too. I'd like to have an all-US Amateur Station... I have one. In fact I've never had anything else. I don't see a whole lot of likelyhood that anything further will be forthcoming from this exchange, Jim. Why not? Do you think I'm joking? I'm not. That's the thing...I DON'T think you're joking, and every suggestion of what we MIGHT do in the space program is met with "we can't because..." Part of engineering is recognizing the problems beforehand, and not going off on wild or wasteful tangents. I'm about HOW we can do things. Me too. I'm an engineer. Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them. If you believe that "all that money" is going to no good use and that it's not a benefit in your daily life today, well then there's just no use doing it. I've not said that. What I have said is that the space and military programs are not the best way to solve our problems here on earth. Those problems need to be addressed directly. You want a better mousetrap, study mouse behavior and trap design. That's not how I've read it. Read it again without couching it in "liberal/conservative" or "democrat/republican" terms. I see the benefits of our space and technology programs every day. And as both an American and as a human with a bit more than average sense of adventure, I'd like to see us reach out beyond our own celestial home and take advantage of the opportunities "out there". So would I. But at the same time, I realize how big space is, and how empty. And the basic physics of the problems inherent in space travel. Unfortunatley GETTING there will be neither cheap or without risk, but I for one think the benefits will ultimately be enormous. How much of *your* money are you willing to spend? Because that's what will fund it. Better funding American space programs than leasing others! You're still avoiding that simple question.... And consider this: President Bush made *another* speech where he supported BPL and said it was up to NTIA to figure out how to avoid interference. How come our president and those BPL folks don't know that BPL is a bad idea from the get-go? Anybody with even a basic engineering education can see the problems staring you in the face. I for one don't think the IDEA of BPL is bad. I think the technology for it isn't up to par and warrants more research. The basic idea is simply wrong. Power lines are simply not meant for RF. They are pretty good antennas, though. That's why the BPL systems need so many repeaters - the "line loss" at RF is largely from radiation! Here's a simple analogy: Let's say we lived (decades ago) in an area prone to heavy downpours. So along the backs of everyone's property we dig a stormwater ditch. The grading is such that when it rains, the excess water runs into the ditch and off to lower ground. The ditch is lined to prevent erosion but it's open to the air. Then we decide to connect to a sewage system. Which means a lot of digging to put in big pipes to everyone's property. Expensive. So somebody says "why not just use the stormwater ditch for sewage?" Technology is developed to pump the raw sewage to the ditch, and to divert it at the end of the ditch to the sewage system. The system "works" to the extent that the sewage winds up in the sewage system, and yet the stormwater doesn't. And it's arguably cheaper and faster than all those sewer pipes. But the folks downwind have to smell it! And they complain. That's BPL in a nutshell. The recent deployments only bear that out. They prove the technology is no damn good. It's a spectrum polluter. It's just plain stupid. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#103
June 29th 04, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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... 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). 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. 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. 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. The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big problem. How many civilians have walked on the moon, Jim? 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. You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics. I am not ignoring any physics, Jim. 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. 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...?!?! Ya think they learned anything in the process...?!?! I certainly do. 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. You're forgetting the physics again. No. I'm not. I know it takes a lot of fuel to get on-orbit. I know it takes even more to get that magical 17,500+MPH to break orbit. And I know it costs money to get them there. As for your repeated reminders about "physics", Jim, I'll point out that ALL of the deep space flights were NOT launched on Saturn 5's...They went up on Atlas-Centaurs, Arrianes, ot Titan-3C's. No, I don't have "the numbers"...But I know we (yes, Lennie...The "Royal We") can do it if we wanted to. Only if the resources are allocated. Which means $$ out of everyone's pockets. 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. 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"...?!?! 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...??? 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? 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. So what would be your assessment on a reasonable timeline? That depends on the funding. Sheeeeesh. Basic physics. The energy required to send the whole shuttle to lunar orbit and back again is simply too great. "Too great"...?!?! Or too expensive...?!?! Too great. Earlier in this same exchange you said too expensive, Jim. 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! 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? 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. And why is that money "imported" fro "elsewhere", Jim? You're the one complaining about getting ripped off every April 15. How much of *your* money... Of "MY" money, we just spent over $100B invading another country that was of dubious danger to us (certainly less than the old USSR was at one time), and will continue to spend billions on for another decade. Now...If that $100B were allocated to a new lunar colony project...?!?! 1) We describe the problem to be solved. Example: Energy independence. We define what it means and what has to change. 2) We gather pertinent data. Look at how much is being imported, where it comes from, how it is used, and how it could be reduced or replaced. 3) We set up adequately funded and properly run programs to make it happen. Won't happen overnight but it can be done. Sure it can be done. It COULD have been done 30+ years ago but "we" were too cheap to open our wallets then to avoid the costs today. Well...today is here, and now it's going to be a quantum more expensive to do the things we need to do, but STILL haven't done. Again...it's the wallet problem...not the space problem that keeps us from these things. Then create the impetus. How about tax credits for installing energy-saving hardware? We had that under Carter - and Reagan tossed it away. But wait, Jim! Weren't you the same one decrying that certain persons get tax breaks that you and I don't get...?!?! Aren't those "tax credits" that encourage the Forbes 500 folks to USE those billions to keep industry going...?!?! What we HAD under Carter were stifling inflation. Science and industry MOVED under Reagan. Not a boast on my part...archived historical facts. That's the root reason we decry the space program..."Let's spend the money on Earth!" But we're not doing it. Then if we're not spending the money now with no more than we're doing in space, how could this make it any worse? The move forward in industry and technology would be perpetuating in and of itself... Well...I never DID see where Mickey D's was on orbit yet, so where ELSE is the money being spent...?!?! What's needed is to spend the money fixing Earth's problems. I've heard that same argument used to finish off Apollo. We KO'd Apollo, yet schools are (in your estimation) no better off. Why is that? If you want, we can trash all of that, go back to pencil, paper and slide rules, and "Movietone" newsreels for "audio visuals" at school...?!?! Many schools are at about that level today because the commitment is not there to fund them adequately. Heck, some schools don't have enough books! And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and stealing the money from them? 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...?!?!? 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. Things are NOT so fine now, but not yet to disaster proportions, but that light at the end of the tunnel is NOT salvation! It's the on-coming train! What *are* you talking about? Drought. Declining oil reserves. Internal security of our own borders. Here's a quick one...Desalination. Plants were designed in the 60's for SoCal that would have used solar heating to help desalt seawater for LA, SFO and SDG. Sounds like a good idea. Now the news on several internet sites is that the LA reserves are down by 5 to 7 million acre-feet of water. Were the plants built? Nope. They "cost" too much. I wonder what they'd cost today to build? I wonder what the cost of the decaying cities will be when those cities can no longer sustain thier populations, and the people go elsewhere to live? We will force the building of NEW infrastructure wherever these people wind up, and the old cities will have to be refurbished somehow. Ultimately I think they will have to still build the plants that should ahve started in the 70's, and it will cost even more then. Sure it will....Some idiot did it to TBN (not that they didn't NEED jamming.....) and the guy responsible was collared in a day. How did they find him? Was he in the USA? Did he do it continually? As I understand it he was found using the satellite itself to narrow him down. He was then found by the "usual" terran techniques. No, he didn't do it continually. 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. When's the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car in the USA exploded and killed people? How many of them do you think are in use in the continental USA in the course of a year? Oh...NOW you add the modifier "and killed people"... ! ! ! Yes. That's what the shuttle did when it blew up. Level the playing field. Ahhhhhhhh....I see...... Well, I still see the Manned Space Program as beiong over forty years old, and only 17 Americans have died in direct space flight operations or preparations. The boosters for the Shuttle exploded once, we fixed that problem. Then another problem surfaced. Is it really fixed? This time it was FOD to the leading edges of the wings. Not the same...certainly not "over and over". Dead is dead. Two orbiters and their crews a total loss. Yes. Dead is dead. They were tragedies, and we learned from them. I do not consider thier sacrifices as a "total loss". They DO have a Lunar plan in place, according to TIME, Scientific American and several other folks commenting on the issue. So did the Russians. They never got there. They never got there because they quit. They spent thier money elsewhere. It wasn't that they couldn't. If they land ONE man on the Moon in the next decade, that will be one more than WE have done in the last forty years ! ! ! So? The moon isn't ours. The Gulf of Siddra isn't "ours" either yet we patrol it with a Carrier Battle Group regularly. The differene with the Moon is that anyone who can get there can make use of what ever resources they find there. If it isn't us, it will be someone else. I would rather it BE us. I'd rather not! You suggested the Ariane earlier. Lacking a US alternative, I'd spend our monies with ESA before I'd send any more of it to the Pacific Rim..especially a PacRim controlled by the Red Chinese. 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. I'm about HOW we can do things. Me too. I'm an engineer. Then instead of tellingus what "can't" be done because of a lack of funding, tell us what CAN be done WITH adequate funding...And money spent SMARTLY, not just thrown into the pot and done with as you will..... Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them. Engieneers do them when adequately funded! 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! If you believe that "all that money" is going to no good use and that it's not a benefit in your daily life today, well then there's just no use doing it. I've not said that. What I have said is that the space and military programs are not the best way to solve our problems here on earth. Those problems need to be addressed directly. You want a better mousetrap, study mouse behavior and trap design. That's not how I've read it. Read it again without couching it in "liberal/conservative" or "democrat/republican" terms. I see the benefits of our space and technology programs every day. And as both an American and as a human with a bit more than average sense of adventure, I'd like to see us reach out beyond our own celestial home and take advantage of the opportunities "out there". So would I. But at the same time, I realize how big space is, and how empty. And the basic physics of the problems inherent in space travel. Unfortunatley GETTING there will be neither cheap or without risk, but I for one think the benefits will ultimately be enormous. How much of *your* money are you willing to spend? Because that's what will fund it. Better funding American space programs than leasing others! 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. I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward today. The recent deployments only bear that out. 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? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#104
June 29th 04, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 6/28/2004 5:54 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/27/2004 8:36 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: It was the early 70's when Detroit and the others really started slipping. That was the era of the Gremlins, the Mavericks, Pintos and Vegas. Yep. The main reason was simple: Detroit hadn't made the necessary investment in basic R&D. They knew how to make big heavy inefficient cars but not small efficient ones. My point exactly, Jim. We need to move the technology of our space program out of the 70/80's. Why? Is science and exploration market-driven? I think not. [Docktor Weiner von Brawn personality of nursie acting up...] Lots of baby-babble deleted. Brits at Mars first, fail in landing. Unknown reason. No, the Brits were not first on Mars. Yanks next with bouncy balloon lander idea. Works. Both times. Yes, it did. But we had already soft-landed on Mars quite a while ago, Sir Putzy. And not with the "bouncy bloon lander idea". And you're STILL a putz. Now you're just a baby-babbling putz. I don't know which was worse. I'd ask you to contribute something meaningful, but I know it will just be so laced with your ususal "I've got to show them I AM the superior intellect" spitefulness that anything you DO manage to say will be lost in the hate and the baby-babble. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#105
June 29th 04, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/27/2004 8:36 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: It was the early 70's when Detroit and the others really started slipping. That was the era of the Gremlins, the Mavericks, Pintos and Vegas. Yep. The main reason was simple: Detroit hadn't made the necessary investment in basic R&D. They knew how to make big heavy inefficient cars but not small efficient ones. My point exactly, Jim. Exactly. The USA should lead the world in surface transportation research and development, not be playing catch-up all the time. Ford is coming out with hybrid cars that get very good gas mileage - almost as good as my old diesel Rabbit. They're buying the technology from Toyota. We need to move the technology of our space program out of the 70/80's. That's being done every day. If we continue to set our sights on LEO, that's all we'll ever do, save for the occassional cutsie-robot pushing sand around and drilling a whopping 6 inches into the soil. THERE was a waste of money. How can you say that? It proved out a bunch of new technologies and gathered lots of data. And did it on schedule and within budget. If any part of the space program leads to earth-bound advances in technology, the Mars rover missions do. They didn't accomplish anything that on-orbit RADAR and spectral imaging couldn't accomplish. I disagree! Can orbital radar and imaging resolve features as small as the rovers can? Can they do the kind of analysis and sampling? Can they even do things like report surface temperature, wind, dust, etc.? If people are ever to go to Mars, we need lots of data on what the Martian surface is really like. The Moon is easier in some ways - no wind, no dust blown by the wind, no frigid night atmosphere to cool things down. But it looked cute on CNN. More than cute. It did the job. Note also that Mars has been a graveyard of failed missions. Yes, there were spectacular successes from Mariner IV to Viking to the rovers, but also many that were simply lost. Given the failure rate, a Mars trip with people is simply too risky right now. And remember that a mission with people has to come back! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#106
June 29th 04, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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: And tommorow an orbiter scanning FOR "X" shows up, Jim... What is X that we need so bad that it would be worth mining the moon? (The F22's been in the works for a decade already and is just now about readu to start manufacture). And it has cost how much? Each copy will cost how much? And it can't even get to orbit... 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. Anything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do the work. (like getting an Extra license out of the box, I suppose). That was the best way to go THEN. Sure. And the shuttle's cost, complexity and failures have shown that it may still be the way. I recall that when the shuttle was being proposed and developed it was supposed to be a "space truck" that would be *less expensive* than one-time rockets, and would be *cost competitive* for putting unmanned satellites up. Hasn't happened - the Ariane is the price leader for that job. 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. I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it's harder and more costly. "Engineering is doing for a shilling what any fool can do for a pound." It's a wheel that doesn't require re-invention. You could say that about the Saturn V approach. 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" You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics. I am not ignoring any physics, Jim. Yes, you are. 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. 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..." Yep. 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 shuttle doesn't have any jet engines. Ya think they learned anything in the process...?!?! I certainly do. I think they learned how to make better jet engines by making jet engines, not by making rocket engines. Which do you think would be the most effective way to learn how to make a better ham rig - by building stereos or by building ham rigs? 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. I know a bit about CADD, Steve. It's a great tool - I have over 21 years experience with it. But it does not do the thinking and creating for you. You're forgetting the physics again. No. I'm not. I know it takes a lot of fuel to get on-orbit. I know it takes even more to get that magical 17,500+MPH to break orbit. It also takes fuel to slow them down once they get there. And I know it costs money to get them there. How much of your own are you willing to pony up? As for your repeated reminders about "physics", Jim, I'll point out that ALL of the deep space flights were NOT launched on Saturn 5's...They went up on Atlas-Centaurs, Arrianes, ot Titan-3C's. Sure - one-use rockets. And they were relatively small packages that were not coming back. Many of them spend *years* in transit because of the limited rocket power that launched them. No, I don't have "the numbers"...But I know we (yes, Lennie...The "Royal We") can do it if we wanted to. Only if the resources are allocated. Which means $$ out of everyone's pockets. 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. Sure - but you said "park them along the way". 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"...?!?! You ever see one reused after it boosted something to orbit? How much can an Atlas get to LEO, anyway? How much could it get to the moon? 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? 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. Only because the money is imported from elsewhere. Uh huh. And why is that money "imported" fro "elsewhere", Jim? Taxes. The government takes money from everyone and sends it to certain places. You're the one complaining about getting ripped off every April 15. How much of *your* money... Of "MY" money, we just spent over $100B invading another country that was of dubious danger to us (certainly less than the old USSR was at one time), and will continue to spend billions on for another decade. Exactly. Yet we were told it had to be done by the same leader who says BPL is needed and we need to go to Mars. Now...If that $100B were allocated to a new lunar colony project...?!?! How much did Apollo cost in 2004 dollars? 1) We describe the problem to be solved. Example: Energy independence. We define what it means and what has to change. 2) We gather pertinent data. Look at how much is being imported, where it comes from, how it is used, and how it could be reduced or replaced. 3) We set up adequately funded and properly run programs to make it happen. Won't happen overnight but it can be done. Sure it can be done. 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. Well...today is here, and now it's going to be a quantum more expensive to do the things we need to do, but STILL haven't done. Again...it's the wallet problem...not the space problem that keeps us from these things. I say it's the long-term commitment problem. Then create the impetus. How about tax credits for installing energy-saving hardware? We had that under Carter - and Reagan tossed it away. But wait, Jim! Weren't you the same one decrying that certain persons get tax breaks that you and I don't get...?!?! Not me. And almost everyone could get those energy tax breaks - back before Reagan "got the government off our backs" by throwing them away. Aren't those "tax credits" that encourage the Forbes 500 folks to USE those billions to keep industry going...?!?! Not to solve basic problems. And if they're OK for the Forbes 500, why not for me? What we HAD under Carter were stifling inflation. Not because of anything he did. Science and industry MOVED under Reagan. Not a boast on my part...archived historical facts. And the programs were started when? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#107
June 29th 04, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 - |
|
#108
June 29th 04, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Jim, the first Boeing 747's carried under 300 people about 6K to 7K miles. Now almost 40 years later it can carry over 500 in some configurations and fly non-stop over 20 hours (London to Sydney...What's that...12K miles? Without refueling? Are you sure? http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS...apore.airline/ 10,000 miles in an Airbus A340-500 with Rolls Royce engines billed as longest airline flight. What airline flies London to Sydney nonstop? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#109
June 29th 04, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY) Date: 6/29/2004 3:03 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Jim, the first Boeing 747's carried under 300 people about 6K to 7K miles. Now almost 40 years later it can carry over 500 in some configurations and fly non-stop over 20 hours (London to Sydney...What's that...12K miles? Without refueling? Are you sure? http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS...apore.airline/ 10,000 miles in an Airbus A340-500 with Rolls Royce engines billed as longest airline flight. What airline flies London to Sydney nonstop? Note the date...this was news to me. The London to Sydney flight was on Quantas. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#110
June 29th 04, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
