| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#9
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 |
Threaded Mode
