"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...

Thanks for the segway, which brings us right back to the Code Test
argument (which happens a lot with the blind followers of the faith).

A couple of questions beg to be answered; perhaps you'd be kind enough to do
so.

1) Why do we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world?

Good question - I hope you have the answer.

Maybe because we don't hold youngsters accountable, at an age when
they might actually learn a life-long lesson. Then when they become
adults, their behavior is just not cute anymore. We incarcerate them
at that point.

Prison jobs are about the only growth industry in Ohio, even with the
Gov trying to close prisons.

2) What does Morse code have to do with it (other than, of course, causing
my washing machine to over-suds?)

I thought we were talking about what was good for America -and- the
blind followers of the faith. It was a natural turning point to
discuss the Morse Code Exam.

So, is the Morse Code Exam good for America?

Best regards from Rochester, NY - and don't strain the brain

Jim AA2QA

No sweatty-dah.

That's "no sweat" in Korean.

(;^) thought I'd give the peanut gallery some intellect to laugh at.)

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
m...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

What Clinton did was terrible to his
wife and daughter,
I really don't want to know what he did to his wife and daughter. The
details of what he did to Monica was bad enough.

but what damage to the country (other than a major distraction) did it
do?

Our government and our monetary system is a confidence game. When our
leaders go south, our confidence goes south, and our economy goes
south.


What bothered me is that since Clinton lied about something so unimportant,
what might he do to cover up something that was much more important.

He was a security risk. His whole executive branch was a security risk.

At the time, I had several German friends and they were totally baffled
about why he bothered to lie. To some extent, this probably hurt his
standing with foreign leaders though my memory tells me that as a whole
Europe loved Clinton.

There are no Puritans left in Europe. They all left on the Mayflower.

N2EY wrote:

It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis


Something got cut off there, Mike.


Oops, sorry about that. That's what I get when I get interrupted and
don't do a spell check,


I was just going to say that I would caution people about how a person
that I consider a patriot - Max Cleland - was attacked as unpatriotic
in a recent election.

Max lost 2 legs and an arm in the service of our country. Problem was,
he didn't have the "correct" politics. If you don't like the man's
political leanings, fine. Challenge his voting record.

But not his patriotism. That makes me want to puke.

All those that serve our country honorably are patriots in my book. Too
bad there is a new breed that ties patriotism to "goodthink" in addition
to the willingness to lay down your life for your country.

Seems political correctness has been reincarnated!

story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.


Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

Of course not. I never said they were, nor will I ever. But most I know
now admit to no shortcoming *ever*.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/23/2004 2:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

And President Bush is not the first to suggest that some scientific
breakthrough was close at hand. Billary made an announcement that there
was a
breakthrough in AIDS research that was about to revolutionalize the care
delivered to those victims.

One mistake doesn't justify another. And as terrible as AIDS is, we
are not dependent on foreign imports in order to deliver care to AIDS
patients.

Oh?

Do you know where much of the "unapproved" but wide used and effeective
drugs for AIDS treatment come from,. Jim?

There's a major influx of theraputics from "illegal" sources" that are
getting to folks...Not that it's a bad thing since most of them are
working...That's why there's been a big move on FDA to loosen it's standards on
AIDS treatments.

Afterall...what can they do? Kill them?

Still, it sounds nice, makes for great photo ops and is a pleasant PopSci
diversion from the reality that the US imports way too much oil, and pays
way
too much for it in the process. That payment isn't just in dollars per
barrel.

Agreed. But as long as we insist on not harvesting OUR reserves yet
are
willing to let the Arabs suck themselves dry, what are we to do.

First off, our reserves are not that large. Nor are they easy or
inexpensive to reach. Look up how much oil we'd get if we allowed
unrestricted drilling in Alaska. It's not nearly enough for us to tell
OPEC to stuff it.

Jim, there are a LOT of things that are not that easy to get to, nor are
they that "Inexpensive" to harvest...UNLESS we just bite the bone and spend the
money on the new infrastructure.

Imagine where we'd be in space travel if we'd continued our push out in
the 70's and 80's, instead of still debating it in the 21st Century...

Imagine where we might be as far as our own oil reserves might be if we
weren't so preoccupied with what it would "cost"...?!?!

What needs to be done is simply to become more efficient and wiser in
our energy use. But that's a complex set of problems that requires
discipline and longterm investment.

I agree.

I am the first one to support greater mass transit and re-invigorating our
railroads in support of this...I'd gladly spend my morning commute to work
reading the paper and sipping coffee rather than dodging Granny and worrying
about how wet the roads are.

Now if we can get the other 299,999,999 Americans to do the same. But do
you think the lobbyists in Detroit, Tokyo and Bonn will go along...?!?!

This isn't news. This "crisis" has been in the wings for decades.
People
a lot wiser than you or I have been promising this was coming, and they
were
right.

Yet our leaders since then simply ignore it. That's one reason Reagan
was so popular - he told us it was OK to have big fast cars, consume,
and not worry about where it all came from.

Our leaders are not "ignoring" it, Jim.

They are mirrors of thier consituencies. And the lobbys are spending
billions of dollars to tell everyone to buy more cars and trucks...And they are
doing it.

I se this on the same par with the "drought" in the SW United States.
To
whom is it a "surprise" that we are millions of acre-feet short of the
needed
water supplies out there?

The proponents of desalianation were hushed up by politicos 20 years
ago
who insisted that present infrastructure would support SW US needs well
into
the 21st Century.

Well, it's the 21st century now...

The problem is technological disconnect. Too many people just don't
think about what keeps everything running, or what it really costs.
And the political leadership keeps them insulated from it.

For example, it is much more safe, clean and efficient to travel by
modern electric railways like France's TGV than by air or car. For
distances up to several hundred miles it's actually faster. But
building such systems costs time and money, plus a commitment from
govt. that just isn't there. (Amtrak's entire capital budget would
build a few new runways at a major airport).

Or another example: There *used to be* considerable tax credits for
installing energy saving equipment in your home. Replace the old HVAC
with more efficient hardware, insulate, replace the windows, etc., and
document it, and the IRS gave you a break. That was in Carter's time.
Reagan's "get the government off your back" tax simplification dumped
it.

And
that we'll have permanent moon colonies and manned missions to Mars in
the
"near future". No mention of how it will be paid for, or what real
benefits
will accrue. Heck, there isn't even a commitment to save the Hubble
space
telescope or replace the shuttle.

Again...all of this "forecasted" in the 50's and 60's.

And it hasn't happened because of the enormous cost and dubious benefits.
But
now Bush talks about it like we should make it a national priority.

And why shouldn't we?

Because it's simply not worth what it will cost to do it.

Oh?

For example, consider the fact that it is estimated to cost $26,000
per pound to deliver freight to the moon. That's based on mass
production of next-generation rockets specifically designed to do the
job. Maybe that price can be shaved a bit, but it is fundamentally
governed by the physics of the situation.

You're assuming that all we are going to do is go up there and look back
at Eart and play moongolf.

Now figure how many *tons* of equipment and supplies need to be
shipped to the moon in order to set up a permanent base.

And it get's MORE expensive to send that stuff up every day.

Remember that
the temperature on the lunar surface varies more than 400 degrees from
day to night, and that each is 2 weeks long. Also remember that the
moon has no significant magnetic field or atmosphere, so there is
absolutely no protection from any of the various forms of solar and
cosmic radiation that constantly bombard it. Satellites in low earth
orbit are afforded some protection by the earth's magnetic field, and
if things get really bad humans in orbit can get back to the earth's
surface in minutes. The moon is a totally different story.

We already have the technology to build adequate shelter for them.

And as crass as it may sound, more Americans are killed in automobile
accidents every MONTH than have been killed in the space program since it's
INCEPTION.

In the tri-county area of Southern Tennessee where I live alone, we've had
enough fatal MVA's since June 1st to staff ISS for the next couple of years.

How many tons of equipment would it take to establish a permanent moon
colony of any size? How many pounds of supplies per year to keep it
stocked?

So we sit around and say "what if" until the sun goes nova?

As for what it "costs", Jim, what about it's rewards? The advancement of
computing technology alone, spurred on by technological developments in the
space program, have moved you and I, the little guys" ahead quantum leaps.

Or look at how much even the scaled-down ISS has cost so far - and
it's only in earth orbit.

And think of what it could accomplish if we'd quit trying to do band-aid
financing of the programs...?!?! Medical research alone could pay for the
thing in less than a decade.

But I guess we'll just sit around and pout about how much it costs
"today"...

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell
it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

The Iowa case will set a precedent.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing.

Maybe. Or maybe not - many technologies that were highly touted never made a
dime and faded away. How many billions were lost on the Iridium system?

The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

President Bush and Commissioner Powell say it's not a problem. NTIA says BPL
can reduce line noise. A lot of "professionals" say we amateurs don't know what
we're talking about. Folks like ARRL have produced voluminuous documentation
and measurements of what BPL interference is like, yet that has not been
convincing to FCC.

How does anyone argue against that?

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

You mean his father who presented evidence before the UN that turned out not to
be very accurate? He didn't want to, but his boss insisted. Same thing is going
on with BPL. Shrub wants *anything* that looks good in the techno-world. And
he's goit highly paid *professionals* telling him BPL and HF radio can coexist
peacefully.

So what else can be done? Thousands of hams and others saying "BPL is bad"
hasn't stopped it. FCC doesn't have to go with the majority, or even interpret
its own rules the same way all the time.

devil's advocate mode = ON

Besides, Len, who really uses HF radio much anymore? The important military
stuff all goes by satellite, right? You don't see the Pentagon making trouble
about BPL. Ships use GMDRSS and EPIRB and satellites and such. SWBC is being
replaced by satellites and netcasting. All that's really left on HF are hams,
cbs, freebanders and some backup systems. HF is unreliable at best and useless
at worst. It's slow, error prone and inadequate for things like streaming video
and broadband connectivity. The few services still using it are "living in the
past", aren't they?

Besides, why are *you* upset, Len? You're not a ham.

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Gonad
the Librarian) writes:


snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.



Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...


Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time
here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.

I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.

Nobody have it yet? Jim, you're usually good at this sort of thing.

I thought I'd let others have a crack at it.

August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard.

Guess who was president.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

(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.

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.

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.

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!!!"

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.

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.

Today there is no such need or competition.

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.

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?

And how much all of it would cost?

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.

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.


73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Mike Coslo wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:


In article ,
(Gonad
the Librarian) writes:


snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.



Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...


Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time
here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.



I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.


Nobody have it yet? Jim, you're usually good at this sort of thing.


I thought I'd let others have a crack at it.

August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard.

Guess who was president.....

73 de Jim, N2EY


Good guess, but not quite. We were moving away from the Gold Standard
at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted
Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level -
something considered intolerable.

We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The
initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that
soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate
dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an
economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an
inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980.

The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal conservative!

Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Shoot.... the power line noise around here is horrendous !!! AM broadcast
radio is spotty at best when driving around and that includes stations that
are actually close (25 miles or less) and the intereference makes listening
to talk radio almost impossible unless you find that "magic spot" to park
and listen. What really burns my bum is that one of the stations I DO like
is WJR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can only imagine what might happen if BPL happens here.....


Ryan KC8PMX


It's not that BPL will reduce power line noise but rather that the
companies
must reduce the noise to get BPL to work!!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 8:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(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.

Well, Jim, if you want to get THAT specific we were actually crashing
RANGER probes into the moon in the early 60's...

I thought that "...in the 70's" was fairly generic since we landed there
in 1969 and all of the rest of the landings occured before we were out ov Viet
Nam.

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".

Then some review of American History is in order.

With the exception of the Revolution, most technological advances were
during or immediately after some major conflict, especially since 1860.
(Please note the use of the word "advancements", not necessarily inception)

Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in trauma
medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy. Photography
becomes popular.

World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and is
ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances in
the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches).

World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but
not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet engine,
further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of
pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology
skyrockets.

Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of
the television. Satellite communications.

Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional
advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian
MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of
helos) IR/NVG technology.

SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices, especially
into medical field.

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.

Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?!

I don't think so, Jim. All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments. Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened
after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the
above.

Or they're the result of government programs that are done
to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy.

Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes. MAY
have happened otherwise, but it didn't.

In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.

Oh?

How much do you pay for a calculator these days?

How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought?

Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan?

All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in order
to advance military or space technology.

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.

And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a
slide rule or pencil and paper.

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.

Why? Did we get stupid in the last 30+ years?

Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle
bay. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, the mission drops in, and brings at
least part of the lander home for re-use itself.

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.

Oh?

NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?!
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

And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space
program?

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!!!"

Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of
government spending".

But we can also defer that with cooperation with business against futures
for mining, technology development, etc. The opportunities are there...We just
need to have the gonads to take them.

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.

Yep...the public lost interest since there was no "obvious" return on thier
investment other than national pride. However the long terms benefits have
been overwhelming.

NOW...if we were to take the chance on an expedition or perm/semi-perm
base on the Moon to determine it's value to be harvested...?!?!

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.

As for your "reliability analysis" try the numbers based on miles
flown...(Just proof that you can make any set of numbers look good/bad)

The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and
LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them.

Do you think it would have been different with Nixon in the White House in
1960? He was an avowed anit-Communist. Do you think he might not ahve made
the same challenge, faced with the same circumstances...?!?! I bet he would
have made the challenge earlier than JFK did.

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.

Today there is no such need or competition.

There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim. No..we don't need to build a
bigger, more deadly nuke, but a bit of friendly rivalry goes a long way towards
building a better and cheaper mouse trap.

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?)

I am sure that having been in LBJ's home state had soemthing to do with
it...But being more-or-less half way between FL and CA helped. Much of
America's space program is out of Edwards and Vandenberg, if you will recall.

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.

Because American unions demanded wages that pushed the cost of American
cars through the roof. Also, American tastes in automobiles up until then were
for bigger, heavier and faster..."Small" was not a generally popular concept in
the 50's and 60's, if you'll recall. The Germans and the Japanese were forced
by economics, infrastructure and geography to do "small".

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.

Not by a private entrepreneur and not with the expectation of being able
to carry two passengers.

Also, despite the similarities in delivery techniques (parasite lifter),
the control and recovery techniques are different.

It took the USAF hundreds of millions of (1960's) dollars to do what these
guys did for under $30M...I wonder what the 1960-to-2004 cost comparisons look
like?

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.

OK...so we sit out manned space flight until private investors can get
up-to-speed with governmental levels of service...?!?!

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?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

And I cannot see those costs getting any less impressive if we wait until
2014 or 2024 to do it.

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.

So again...we bring human exploration and technology to a screaming halt
due to our fear of the cash register?

And as for the failed Mars missions, do you think that maybe if there had
been someone there to fix the problem that the mission could have proceeded?

Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars....

Yep...same 186,000MPS that wew ahve here on Earth...

What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be
had any other way?

Having a Human Being actually stand on it, for one.

And how much all of it would cost?

Who cares? We poor billions into pork barrel projects that DON'T provide
ANY return every year...why not spend it on something that will...?!?!

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.

See above. Imagine what the communications possibilites alone would be by
using the moon for alternative wireless technologies...

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.

Oh? They are...?!?!

Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly
inefficient means of progress.

So we just wait until a more efficient way is developed? Until they
develop the "transporter"...?!?! Until Zephraim Cochrane develops warp drive?

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.

So we just mark time until...when...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ