| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 24th 04, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#3
June 25th 04, 03:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: 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... Yup - trying to catch up to the Soviets... 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. Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part to decide whether it is OK for the country to split tiself in half so that some people (with light colored skin) can continue own other people (with dark colored skin). The fact that the dark colored skin people's ancestors were dragged from their homes by brute force is conveniently ignored by those who want to continue to own them. Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded. Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying heavily damaged during the war. Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The transatlantic cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter. Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war. 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). Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry leads to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases hazards of sea travel. Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased demand for those technologies. 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. Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed, permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of guns. 50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding and modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into much of Europe. Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of the television. Satellite communications. Satellite communications? Where? 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. Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian applications. 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"...?!?! Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called engineering. You don't need a war to do it. I don't think so, Jim. It's true. All of the major developments of other technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by governments. Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems? 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. There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another. Modern construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others. 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. Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing... MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't. Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some? In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. Oh? Yes. How much do you pay for a calculator these days? Nothing. Last calculator I bought was in the mid 1980s. I use the Windows calculator function. Free. How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought? $589 for the basic Elecraft K2 kit, which I assembled. Also has the ATU and audio filter options, which I assembled. The Southgate Type 7 (completed 1995) was built from recycled parts and cost less than $100. The Type 6 (1985) cost a bit more. I've never owned any non-US made ham gear. Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan? Dental Xrays since I was a kid. Never a CT scan. Had my first up-periscope last year.... All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in order to advance military or space technology. Wouldn't it make more sense to just develop the technologies straight out? If you need better medical Xray machines, develop them. 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. The PC was not developed for the space program. Nor for the military. And the Saturn V worked pretty good, didn't it? 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? Actually, yes. Much of the manufacturing technology no longer exists. Anyone who worked on those systems above a certain level is now retired, or close to it. Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle bay. That could work. I had the same idea years ago. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit, let alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay *empty*. If it could be done, NASA would have done it already. The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no more. Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the LM/CSM combo is so small. 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. And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the Apollo missions, not a long term base. 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? Yes. NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?! Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how much money it costs to create one NASA job. 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. But why not solve our problems directly? And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space program? Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence. Education. 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. What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program have been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All unmanned, and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling with the development of fiber optics. 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. While there have been some benefits, they have not been overwhelming. Most of them did not require the space program. Or war. 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...?!?! What do you think could be harvested from the Moon that can't be had for much less right here on earth? 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. Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability. 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) Not a valid comparison. In the history of shuttle missions, the result is binary. Either everybody gets back safe and sound from a mission, or everyone dies and the mission is a total loss. Doesn't matter how many miles or flown - the important variable is how many missions are flown. Challenger blew up before going 100 miles of its last mission, Columbia burned up after going all but about 2000 miles of its last mission. The important fact is that about 1 of 75 missions has been a complete loss. 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? Yes. But that's not the point. 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. Nope. JFK needed to save face after the Bay of Pigs embarrassment. There was serious talk of scrapping the whole manned program, maybe even all of NASA, after the various problems of exploding rockets and the Popped Cork fiasco, while the Russians were orbiting dogs and taking pictures of the far side of the moon. (The Rooskies had lots of failures too - they just didn't talk about them). There were more than a few people who thought that the Air Force should do manned space flight. There were plans for followups to the X-15 that would reach orbit at far less cost and complexity than the ballistic-missile spam-in-a-can NASA approach. In fact, the X-15 did reach "space" - it exceeded 62.2 miles altitude. 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. Who is there to compete with for space? 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 race to the moon wasn't friendly. And it didn't build better mouse traps. 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. The *only* reason was to put high paying jobs in LBJ's home state. The launch facility is in Florida for physics reasons. The ideal launch location would be on the equator, but the continental US doesn't go that far south. And there should be water or desert to the east of the launch pad so failed launches don't land on people. The Houston facility could be anywhere there is communications. 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. That's pure BS. Union workers built the spacecraft. If we could afford to have them build rockets, we could afford to have them build cars. 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. That's because the car companies wanted it that way. Here's why: After WW2, American car manufacturers thought that the way to maximize profits was simply to sell more and more cars. One way to do that was to have this year's model be bigger, faster, more powerful or simply 'more' than last year's. Safety, economy, and pollution were minor concerns - the important thing was to plant in the public's mind the idea that this year's car was somehow a lot better - and at the same time, keep manufacturing costs down. So body styles changed every year - sheet metal is cheap. Fundamental research into engine design and such was not a high priority at all. The result was cars that were big, heavy, inefficient, dirty and fell apart or rusted out in a relatively short time. Most of all, the focus was short-term. Sell more cars next quarter! Where we'd get all the fuel to run them wasn't a concern. The Germans and the Japanese were forced by economics, infrastructure and geography to do "small". Not really - look at Mercedes. What they did was look at *quality* first. They set out to design cars that were efficient and well built. They improved the basic technologies, not just the sheet metal. Ever hear of a guy named Deming? He wound up in Japan because US manufacturers didn't want him. The USA could have been developing better surface transportation systems in the '50s and '60s and '70s. But we didn't because those things weren't given any priority. That myopia continues today. Imagine if the commitment had been made back in 1973 for the USA to become energy independent by the end of the 20th century. Do you doubt that it could have been done? Imagine being able to tell OPEC to take a hike. 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. Very true. But the X-15 was designed with slide rules. No computers aboard, either. 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...?!?! Why not? You just pointed out that they did it for $30 million compared to many times that for the X-15. Why *not* let the private folks do it? 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. OK - let's have the details. 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? Nope. We set out a reasonable budget for manned space flight and do what can be done with that budget. And we focus more on real-world problems. 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? Nobody knows. Most of the failures were mission-ending. The probe went silent and was never heard from again. Heck, even if the Columbia astronauts had known about the problem that caused the loss of their ship, there was nothing they could have done about it. Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars.... Yep...same 186,000MPS that wew ahve here on Earth... I mean how much time it takes. 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. Besides that. And how much all of it would cost? Who cares? Those of us who have to pay for it. We poor billions into pork barrel projects that DON'T provide ANY return every year Like what? What are you willing to cut in order to fund a Mars mission? ...why not spend it on something that will...?!?! Sorry - the ROI of a Mars mission just isn't there. 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. You're avoiding the question. How much additional tax are *YOU* willing to pay? Imagine what the communications possibilites alone would be by using the moon for alternative wireless technologies... There aren't any. The moon isn't a good platform for such things. In short, it sucks. Geostationary orbit is the way to do that job. Ham radio connection: Back in the '70s there was something called "Project Moonray" that was supposed to go on the last Apollo lunar mission. The idea was that a small package would be deployed on the moon to repeat amateur signals the way OSCARs did. Except that by being on the moon, it would be easy to track. Sounded good at first. But the problems were many. Size and weight were severely limited, and the package had to be rated for manned flight. But the big problem was that the results were not worth the requirements. For example, the moon is roughly 10 times farther away than geostationary and roughly 100 to 1000 times farther away than low earth orbit. You do the math on what that does to path loss. Also, the package would be bked by the sun for 2 weeks, then in darkness for 2 weeks. Temperature variations of over 400 degrees. It didn't happen. 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...?!?! Yes. It's simple: If you want a better mouse trap, study mouse behavior and trap design, and build one. Don't go off building racecars, hoping that some development of race car technology will somehow spill over into mouse trap technology. 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? No. We address the problems directly. On a budget. Until they develop the "transporter"...?!?! Until Zephraim Cochrane develops warp drive? Those are all fantasies, Steve. 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...?!?! We don't mark time. We make a long term plan and reasonable budget. Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded. We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups ranging from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts. And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development, transportation, and energy independence. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#4
June 25th 04, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/24/2004 9:52 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: 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... Yup - trying to catch up to the Soviets... And "nothing" we did had ANYthing to do with science, technology or research...?!?! You are saying we spent those funds and that effort SOLELY to "catch up with the Soviets"...?!?! Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in trauma medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy. Photography becomes popular. Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part...(SNIP) Yes, Jim...I think we all know WHY the war was fought. HOW did that negate anything I said? Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded. Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying heavily damaged during the war. Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The transatlantic cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter. Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war. So...you are telling me that NONE of the advancements and improvements occured asa a result of the war. OK. If you say so. 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). Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry leads to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases hazards of sea travel. Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased demand for those technologies. And the advancement of submarine technology increased our ability to do further marine research in the following years. Commercial radio for the masses follows developments of new technology during the war. Commercial aviation blossoms after the war. 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. Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed, permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of guns. 50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding and modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into much of Europe. So what you're telling me is that NONE of the POSITIVE things that came from this era are valid, and that since a lot of bad things DID occur, we should shun the good ones too...?!?! Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of the television. Satellite communications. Satellite communications? Where? Jim... We developed new technologies DURING the conflict. The increased spending and military build-up incidental to the Korean Conflict and the ensuing "Cold War" DID spur on "satellite" communications...Did it not? 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. Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian applications. Applicaitons that were incidental to military spending and research. 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"...?!?! Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called engineering. You don't need a war to do it. No, you don't. It's just that we have developed a pattern of spurts of development coincidental to military spending or conflict. This is a documented fact. It happens. I don't think so, Jim. It's true. All of the major developments of other technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by governments. Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems? I agree. Now, what better to way to spur the development of newer technologies than to advance the space program...?!?! 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. There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another. Modern construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others. Jim...Jim...Jim... The rapid development of automotive technologies came after WW2...As did developments in aviation and communications. 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. Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing... MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't. Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some? In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. Oh? Yes. You've not proven it, Jim. We are presently exchanging these comments via a medium that was developed incidental to yet other military programs. The proliferation of the Internet has driven communication costs to all time lows. Cellular technology, based in part on techniques developed for secure communications for...you-know-who...have put a telephone on the hip of almost every American. How much do you pay for a calculator these days? Nothing. Last calculator I bought was in the mid 1980s. I use the Windows calculator function. Free. And you paid how much for your Windows program...Or the computer it was installed on when you got it? I remember simple function calculators costing $40 or more when I was in high school. I can get a decent full function scientific calculator for less than that now. How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought? $589 for the basic Elecraft K2 kit, which I assembled. Also has the ATU and audio filter options, which I assembled. Uh huh. And how much will that radio do compared to kit radios of only a decade earlier, and at what cost comparison...?!?!?! The Southgate Type 7 (completed 1995) was built from recycled parts and cost less than $100. The Type 6 (1985) cost a bit more. I've never owned any non-US made ham gear. Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan? Dental Xrays since I was a kid. Never a CT scan. Had my first up-periscope last year.... TMI, Jim...Waaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaay TMI... ! ! ! All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in order to advance military or space technology. Wouldn't it make more sense to just develop the technologies straight out? If you need better medical Xray machines, develop them. You can argue what OUGHT to be as opposed to WHAT IS all day, Jim. All you'll do is waste time. And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a slide rule or pencil and paper. The PC was not developed for the space program. Nor for the military. Who said anything about PC's, Jim? And the Saturn V worked pretty good, didn't it? Yep. Paid for by...?!?! In pursuit of...?!?! 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? Actually, yes. Much of the manufacturing technology no longer exists. Anyone who worked on those systems above a certain level is now retired, or close to it. 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...?!?! Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle bay. That could work. I had the same idea years ago. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit, let alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay *empty*. (sheeeesh) So we can't configue an auxiliary fuel system? It will take an extra 30 years to figure out how to install the fuel tanks necessary to do it? 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. If it could be done, NASA would have done it already. Oh? Why? Just because? They've had to fight Congress and ignorant laymen for 30 years just to stay in LEO. The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no more. Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the LM/CSM combo is so small. Again, We can't figure out a piggyback fuel tank? We can't park "re-supply" ships along the way or in lunar orbit? We've already proven that on-orbit rendevous, docking and EVA construction is a no-brainer. So again...WHAT new technology do we ahve to develop to go back to the Moon? 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... 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? 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. If you think in terms of "what can this ONE sortie accomplish", you'd be right. But that's already been addressed by countless suggestions of what we COULD do if we wanted to. 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? Yes. NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?! Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how much money it costs to create one NASA job. So...NASA doesn't hire drivers, janitors, security personel, health care workers, mechanics, etc? 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. 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. Let's NOT do something to advance our technologies that will create entirely new classes of jobs, promote our wellness and, hopefully, ultimately develope technologies that might "liberate" us from poverty. And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space program? Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence. Education. Uh huh. 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. What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program have been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All unmanned, and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling with the development of fiber optics. Fiber optics = interruptable infrastructure. 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 ! ! ! ! ! ! Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability. And we'll improve that reliability by just not doing it anymore...?!?! 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. 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. I'd rather know that bright, fast moving light in the sky was carrying Americans. Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded. We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups ranging from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts. And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development, transportation, and energy independence. I don't see a whole lot of likelyhood that anything further will be forthcoming from this exchange, Jim. 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 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". Unfortunatley GETTING there will be neither cheap or without risk, but I for one think the benefits will ultimately be enormous. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#6
June 28th 04, 02:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/24/2004 9:52 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: 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. Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle bay. That could work. I had the same idea years ago. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit, let alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay *empty*. (sheeeesh) 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. They didn't start designing the LEM in 1967. 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. 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. 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. Those numbers are determined by the basic physics of how much energy it takes to escape the earth's and the moon's gravity. The shuttle's liquid fuel engines are not radically more efficient than those in a Saturn V. Their biggest claim to fame is that they are more controllable and last longer. 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. If it could be done, NASA would have done it already. Oh? Yes. 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. Just because? The physics of the problem is the key to all of it. 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. The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no more. Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the LM/CSM combo is so small. Again, We can't figure out a piggyback fuel tank? 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? We can't park "re-supply" ships along the way or in lunar orbit? Do you know what a Lagrange point is? The only practical point would be lunar orbit. Now, how would you get a supply container there? 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. 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. Or we could just build more Saturn Vs. 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. 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. 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? If you think in terms of "what can this ONE sortie accomplish", you'd be right. But that's already been addressed by countless suggestions of what we COULD do if we wanted to. With reasonable timelines and a sound program, yes. 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? Yes. NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?! Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how much money it costs to create one NASA job. 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. 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. 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. Let's NOT do something to advance our technologies that will create entirely new classes of jobs, promote our wellness and, hopefully, ultimately develope technologies that might "liberate" us from poverty. 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. And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space program? Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence. Education. Uh huh. 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? Why can't the USA have the best educational systems in the world? The best surface transportation systems? The best energy systems? Energy independence? 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. 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. What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program have been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All unmanned, and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling with the development of fiber optics. Fiber optics = interruptable infrastructure. Fiber optics = what makes the modern communications world tick. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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". Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded. We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups ranging from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts. And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development, transportation, and energy independence. 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. 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. 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. 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#7
June 28th 04, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! Like I said..."If we wanted to..." 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. Betcha we could have a Shuttle-loadable lander in two years. 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. And I would not be surprised if a design isn't setting around in a drawer for just such a project somewhare. They didn't start designing the LEM in 1967. 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? We could use an Arianne to boost the tanks into orbit and the Shuttle could mate with it. Or the extra tanks could be boosted into trans-lunar eliptical orbit as an orbiting tanker. 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. 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. I am not suggesting we do this all in one lift. 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. 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. The shuttle's liquid fuel engines are not radically more efficient than those in a Saturn V. Their biggest claim to fame is that they are more controllable and last longer. 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? If it could be done, NASA would have done it already. Oh? Yes. Why only NASA? And what makes you think that NASA may not have already penciled this mission out? 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. 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! 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? Other than just "not wanting to", what's holding us back? Just because? The physics of the problem is the key to all of it. I don't think physics is the problem. We just need to start issuing "round to-it's" to the folks who make these programs (pardon the pun) fly. 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. And that's only from actually building the things...The engineering could be done now in CAD with a minimum of expense. 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. No, I don't have "the numbers"...But I know we (yes, Lennie...The "Royal We") can do it if we wanted to. 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. 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. 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! 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. 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. 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. 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"... So what would be your assessment on a reasonable timeline? 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...?!?! 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. (1) Define the mission. How's this...A "permanent" manned base on the Moon with a staff of at least four. (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. (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. 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. (Ironic that the fist colony on the Moon would be a trailer park, eh...?!?!) 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. 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. 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) 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. 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? With the exception of recreational technologies and the Internet, almost every "advancement" has been in entertainment and recreation. 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. In the mean time, we "solve" problems by throwing money at them. That's the root reason we decry the space program..."Let's spend the money on Earth!" Well...I never DID see where Mickey D's was on orbit yet, so where ELSE is the money being spent...?!?! 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! And we will NEVER be free of poverty. The Demoncrats thrive on it! And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space program? Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence. Education. Uh huh. 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...If nothing else a lot of that has been IMproved... There's hardly a single aspect of human endeavor outside of Somalia and Ethiopia that ISN'T touched by the space program. 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. 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. 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...?!?! 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. 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...?!?! 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! 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. Now the news on several internet sites is that the LA reserves are down by 5 to 7 million acre-feet of water. 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. Unless they find oil on the Moon, I don't ever see space travel as being able to produce it's own direct 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. 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. And I bet with some simple programming we can defeat jamming of our commercial satellites...and I am willing to bet that c-note to the nickle that the military birds are a bit more sophisticated already! 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"... ! ! ! 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! 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. This time it was FOD to the leading edges of the wings. Not the same...certainly not "over and over". 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 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 ! ! ! 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! 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 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..." I'm about HOW we can do things. 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. 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! 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 recent deployments only bear that out. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#8
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 |
|
#9
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 |
|
#10
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 |
Hybrid Mode
