| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
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 |
|
#3
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 |
|
#4
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 |
|
#5
June 29th 04, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/28/2004 7:47 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: And tommorow an orbiter scanning FOR "X" shows up, Jim... What is X that we need so bad that it would be worth mining the moon? (The F22's been in the works for a decade already and is just now about readu to start manufacture). And it has cost how much? Each copy will cost how much? And it can't even get to orbit... What do we not already know about fuel line connections that we don't already know? What other magic is there to getting a fuel from one tank into another? The Russians were doing it for over a decade with MIR. With rocket fuel? Some of them are cryogenic, others highly corrosive. And you're talking about a system that would be retrofit to the shuttle. Anything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do the work. (like getting an Extra license out of the box, I suppose). That was the best way to go THEN. Sure. And the shuttle's cost, complexity and failures have shown that it may still be the way. I recall that when the shuttle was being proposed and developed it was supposed to be a "space truck" that would be *less expensive* than one-time rockets, and would be *cost competitive* for putting unmanned satellites up. Hasn't happened - the Ariane is the price leader for that job. Yep. But you need at least one new technology, and at least two carefully-timed launches. Can be done but it's harder and more costly. We know exactly where the moon's going to be for the next 2000 years. We can, with a handheld science calculator, do almost the same thing for earth launches. It IS "rocket science", but one that's been thoroughly developed and proven. I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it's harder and more costly. "Engineering is doing for a shilling what any fool can do for a pound." It's a wheel that doesn't require re-invention. You could say that about the Saturn V approach. The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big problem. How many civilians have walked on the moon, Jim? What did it say on the side of the LM, Steve? "NASA", not "USAF". And remember the words on the plaque: "We came in peace, for all mankind" Not as warriors. Not just for the USA. "In peace, for all mankind" You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics. I am not ignoring any physics, Jim. Yes, you are. Right - after decades of continuous development and upgrades, the range has been increased. And by eliminating features and making seats smaller, more people have been crammed aboard. Yes, seats can be made smaller... But the aircraft is 40% larger today than it was in 1969. Sure - it's undergone 35 years of continuous development and improvement, funded not by government but (mostly) by civilian sales to airlines. Better engines are one big reason. Those engines weren't a result of the space or military programs. They were the result of companies like GE working to sell civilian aircraft engines. If they could show enough fuel saving with a new design, the airlines would buy the new engines. Hmmmmmmm.... "...compnies like GE..." Yep. Now..I WONDER who it was that made (or were major contractors on) the engines that presently put the shuttle in orbit, as well as about every other rocket or aeronautical project since the 30's...?!?! The shuttle doesn't have any jet engines. Ya think they learned anything in the process...?!?! I certainly do. I think they learned how to make better jet engines by making jet engines, not by making rocket engines. Which do you think would be the most effective way to learn how to make a better ham rig - by building stereos or by building ham rigs? And that's only from actually building the things...The engineering could be done now in CAD with a minimum of expense. Not true. CADD helps but you still need to build the thing. Eventually, but not like we used to. The F-22 and the Boeing 777 were both aircraft that were CAD'd right into a first flying prototype. I know a bit about CADD, Steve. It's a great tool - I have over 21 years experience with it. But it does not do the thinking and creating for you. You're forgetting the physics again. No. I'm not. I know it takes a lot of fuel to get on-orbit. I know it takes even more to get that magical 17,500+MPH to break orbit. It also takes fuel to slow them down once they get there. And I know it costs money to get them there. How much of your own are you willing to pony up? As for your repeated reminders about "physics", Jim, I'll point out that ALL of the deep space flights were NOT launched on Saturn 5's...They went up on Atlas-Centaurs, Arrianes, ot Titan-3C's. Sure - one-use rockets. And they were relatively small packages that were not coming back. Many of them spend *years* in transit because of the limited rocket power that launched them. No, I don't have "the numbers"...But I know we (yes, Lennie...The "Royal We") can do it if we wanted to. Only if the resources are allocated. Which means $$ out of everyone's pockets. We can't park "re-supply" ships along the way or in lunar orbit? Do you know what a Lagrange point is? Sure I do. Then you should know that you can't "park" ships along the way to the moon. No, but you CAN park them in Earth orbit or you can park them in lunar orbit. Sure - but you said "park them along the way". The only practical point would be lunar orbit. Now, how would you get a supply container there? The same way we got RANGER, "Lunar Orbiter", Apollo and who knows how manyn other lunar exploration packages there. Big one-use rockets. Atlas was a "big one-use rocket"...?!?! You ever see one reused after it boosted something to orbit? How much can an Atlas get to LEO, anyway? How much could it get to the moon? Anybody who was in their 30s when Apollo was active is now retirement age. Or dead. What? NASA didn't keep any archives? These guys "learned" all that stuff then kept it to themselves? A lot of stuff gets thrown out over time, or given away to museums. And merely having a set of plans doesn't mean you know how to make something, or use it. Only because the money is imported from elsewhere. Uh huh. And why is that money "imported" fro "elsewhere", Jim? Taxes. The government takes money from everyone and sends it to certain places. You're the one complaining about getting ripped off every April 15. How much of *your* money... Of "MY" money, we just spent over $100B invading another country that was of dubious danger to us (certainly less than the old USSR was at one time), and will continue to spend billions on for another decade. Exactly. Yet we were told it had to be done by the same leader who says BPL is needed and we need to go to Mars. Now...If that $100B were allocated to a new lunar colony project...?!?! How much did Apollo cost in 2004 dollars? 1) We describe the problem to be solved. Example: Energy independence. We define what it means and what has to change. 2) We gather pertinent data. Look at how much is being imported, where it comes from, how it is used, and how it could be reduced or replaced. 3) We set up adequately funded and properly run programs to make it happen. Won't happen overnight but it can be done. Sure it can be done. It COULD have been done 30+ years ago but "we" were too cheap to open our wallets then to avoid the costs today. BINGO! And it wasn't just "cheap". It was a lack of long-term commitment. For example, reducing oil consumption by 50% in 2 years would cause major problems. But if we'd done just 2% a year starting 30 years ago.... Recall that the president who tried to make progress in the area ("the moral equivalent of war") was not reelected. Well...today is here, and now it's going to be a quantum more expensive to do the things we need to do, but STILL haven't done. Again...it's the wallet problem...not the space problem that keeps us from these things. I say it's the long-term commitment problem. Then create the impetus. How about tax credits for installing energy-saving hardware? We had that under Carter - and Reagan tossed it away. But wait, Jim! Weren't you the same one decrying that certain persons get tax breaks that you and I don't get...?!?! Not me. And almost everyone could get those energy tax breaks - back before Reagan "got the government off our backs" by throwing them away. Aren't those "tax credits" that encourage the Forbes 500 folks to USE those billions to keep industry going...?!?! Not to solve basic problems. And if they're OK for the Forbes 500, why not for me? What we HAD under Carter were stifling inflation. Not because of anything he did. Science and industry MOVED under Reagan. Not a boast on my part...archived historical facts. And the programs were started when? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
June 29th 04, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY) Date: 6/29/2004 12:24 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message What do we not already know about fuel line connections that we don't already know? What other magic is there to getting a fuel from one tank into another? The Russians were doing it for over a decade with MIR. With rocket fuel? Some of them are cryogenic, others highly corrosive. And you're talking about a system that would be retrofit to the shuttle. Yes...That's how they had adequate fuel for the attitude control rockets to reposition the station. Anything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do the work. I never said it was easy! (like getting an Extra license out of the box, I suppose). Yep! The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big problem. How many civilians have walked on the moon, Jim? What did it say on the side of the LM, Steve? "NASA", not "USAF". And remember the words on the plaque: "We came in peace, for all mankind" Not as warriors. Not just for the USA. "In peace, for all mankind" But the crews (with one exception) WERE all warriors. None laess than a Lieutenant Colonel, as I recall. You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics. I am not ignoring any physics, Jim. Yes, you are. OK...if you say so. But I reiterate the only "physics" being ignored here are the one's involving the movement of the arm to the wallet. Right - after decades of continuous development and upgrades, the range has been increased. And by eliminating features and making seats smaller, more people have been crammed aboard. Yes, seats can be made smaller... But the aircraft is 40% larger today than it was in 1969. Sure - it's undergone 35 years of continuous development and improvement, funded not by government but (mostly) by civilian sales to airlines. The Boeing project was a spin-off of of their entry to what became the C-5 Galaxy. Atlas was a "big one-use rocket"...?!?! You ever see one reused after it boosted something to orbit? But you said "big"... (You've 'set the parameters' on me based on one word, Jim...my turn!) NASA didn't keep any archives? These guys "learned" all that stuff then kept it to themselves? A lot of stuff gets thrown out over time, or given away to museums. And merely having a set of plans doesn't mean you know how to make something, or use it. And I bet that a lot of the technical data is still out there that we wouldn't have to completely re-engineer the wheel again. Now...If that $100B were allocated to a new lunar colony project...?!?! How much did Apollo cost in 2004 dollars? So we wait and see how much it costs in 2014 dollars? Or 2024 dollars? Or 2034 dollars? It COULD have been done 30+ years ago but "we" were too cheap to open our wallets then to avoid the costs today. BINGO! And it wasn't just "cheap". It was a lack of long-term commitment. For example, reducing oil consumption by 50% in 2 years would cause major problems. But if we'd done just 2% a year starting 30 years ago.... Recall that the president who tried to make progress in the area ("the moral equivalent of war") was not reelected. All he had to do is hike the skirt of a woman 20+ years his junior then lie about it, and he would've been re-elected. Science and industry MOVED under Reagan. Not a boast on my part...archived historical facts. And the programs were started when? A LOT of programs were started before the Regan era...AND languished. RR pulled out the stops. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#7
June 29th 04, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Weiner
von Brawn, hero of space) writes: 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... Weiner been reading "X Men" comics again? :-) 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). Tell us all about Weiner's aeronautic work. Easy to do with one word. :-) Weiner spent time at Edwards or Nellis? Go zoom-zoom in sky? Or just go zoom-zoom with imagination? The Harrier has been "operational" for three decades with USMC. Highest flight failure rates of any US military aircraft. But, it does insure a capability of commissioned officer advancement...through pilot attrition. 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. We all know what happened to 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. Weiner on decision board THEN? NOW? Don't think so. 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. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Ritta mistake. Launching requires "insertion" between existing satellites and assorted space junk. Those satellites and junk aren't a constant for very long. Certainly not for a decade let alone millenia. The launch "window" referred to so glibly by TV "science commentators" is governed by a launch trajectory missing all those other objects in orbit. There isn't a pocket calculator built anywhere, not a palm pilot or similar that can hold all that information and then calculate it. The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big problem. How many civilians have walked on the moon, Jim? The very first one was. :-) 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. Weiner, us readers know YOU can't be persuaded anywhichway, not by us, not by DoD, and certainly not by NASA. :-) You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics. I am not ignoring any physics, Jim. You don't mention any...:-) All you have is Will and Idea. 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. Strange. I had a flight on a Continental Airlines Boeing 707 in 1958. Had another flight on a 707 around 1992. Didn't notice any aircraft size expansion at all. Seemed the same. Sunnuvagun! Maybe Boeing fed them some kind of aluminum hormone in the last dozen years? Must be... :-) 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...?!?! The F-1 engines (five) on the Apollo mission Saturn first stage were designed and built by Rocketdyne Division of North American Aviation...which, after purchase by Rockwell International, became (on legal paper) Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International. Rocketdyne has since been purchased by Boeing Aircraft Company. The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) is used in a triad on the shuttle itself. SSME is designed and built by Rocketdyne. The SRBs (solid rocket booster) are reuseable only if they don't suffer damage on return to Earth. Rocketdyne doesn't build the SRBs which are only good for about a minute of the seven-plus long launch phase. Sunnuvagun! How about that? :-) Ya think they learned anything in the process...?!?! I certainly do. Did what? Learn something? I doubt that. Weiner go to any rocket test firings? Michoud? Santa Su? Cape? Not likely. Weiner gets his PhuD dissertation from cadging used copies of AW&ST. :-) 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. CADD = Computer Aided Design and DRAFTING. Weiner, you have NEVER "bent tin" (worked with sheet metal) or "laid lead" (did drawings on paper) in any aerospace company. You don't know squat about "configuration management" (the big buzzword for "drawing control" of the last 3 decades). Weiner, you have NEVER checked drawings in any aero company, let alone an electronics one, and have NEVER signed the "approved" block on any paper or mylar drawings. Don't give us this song and dance about "CAD right into the first flying prototype." The CADD is PRINCIPALLY DONE TO REDUCE THE ENORMOUS QUANTITY OF DRAWINGS that pile up to make all the parts. A sidelight is that, by using IT skills, the CADD can be configured to do "fit" tests on major assemblies for the physical assembly of a craft. Boeing proved that with the triple-seven, made it a holy thing in their documentary film for PR purposes. The F-17 Nighthawk, then the B-2, were first modeled with CAD, just the DESIGN part, in order to get the best compromise planform for minimal RF reflection and for minimal IR radiation. CADD entered later when the final planform was solidified. The man-hours cost for the CAD (just the Design part) was staggering because it took a long time to get close to optimum. You're forgetting the physics again. No. I'm not. That may be true. One can't forget what one hasn't learned. :-) 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. Weiner von Brawn, explain "Lagrange Point" to the studio audience. Use only one solar system pair for simplicity, give numbers. Explain "space parking." Synchronous orbit only synchronous in terms of observer on object being orbited...thing in orbit is still going around and around and around...like nursie faking knowledge. 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"...?!?! Absolutely. Convair designed it as an ICBM lifter. A weapons platform first...then a THROWAWAY sat launch vehicle. Atlas had thin skin. Nursie have thin skin. Nursie = Atlas? 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...??? Only basic principles. That's not enough for "all." Get with it. 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? Weiner tell studio audience how that was done? Weiner big guru in space, knowitall, been there, but got no T-shirts. 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. Weiner tell studio audience links to software sites? MSN? Adobe? Which ftp site, Weiner? Give details. No shooting from lip. 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! Weiner show pie chart to studio audience? Explain where costs go? Weiner only make big log as part of icy BM, not do for real... 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? Technologies change with time, acquisition of new data on physics of solar system (mascons, etc.), requirements of manufacturing, trying to push "performance envelope." NASA have plenty archives. Found in "configuration management" warehouses. :-) NASA do many boo-boos in later years. See Challenger and ice, freezing of SRB assembly O-rings, blow-through. See Columbia and plastic foam used to prevent ice build-up, come loose like done before, make hole in wing. O-ring problem, main tank foam fall-off in archives, was ignored. Tsk. 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. Why Weiner von Brawn in Huntsville, AL? Do consulting? On what? Why LPN go to rocket town? Put band-aids on fool tanks? Nursie make big brag. It COULD have been done 30+ years ago but "we" were too cheap to open our wallets then to avoid the costs today. We not have Weiner von Brawn, expert on space, to tell us how. :-) What we HAD under Carter were stifling inflation. Science and industry MOVED under Reagan. Not a boast on my part...archived historical facts. Archived political party SPIN! :-) And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and stealing the money from them? Only under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton...they make "hostile actions" orders for murine corpse do school board fights. :-) 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...?!?!? Endeavor, first flight in 1992. 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. We not have Weiner von Brawn as guru 30 years ago. Now we have nursieland spaced-out guru mumbling in ham radio news- grope about spaceflight. :-) 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. Nursie study solar flare characteristics, effects of EMP nuke, get back to us. Nursie then study REAL band space of comm sats and maximum power input values, do math for RF path loss, find narrow beam antenna gain and power needed from terrestrial location. Nursie have little calculator? Slide rule? [can do with slide rule] What nursie come up with? 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. Nursie tawk baby tawk with "rubber duckies" gonna "overwhem" us? :-) Nursie get newer copies of Time, see China now have equivalent astronauts and launch vehicles. In all the papers... Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them. Engieneers do them when adequately funded! "Engieneers?" They use "engien values" in math? :-) 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! Now we be "enginees?" :-) Nursie show us "practical" model of SCREW DRIVE helicopter? DaVinci show drawing of same. We not do dat yet. 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. No? Not all answers? Looks to readers like Weiner have all answers for everything. Just have Republican in White House and solve all problems! :-) I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward today. What "program," nursie? Magellan "nothing?" Nursie and shrink go to JPL and discuss. Get shrink rapped and both go in fruitcake display. 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? Nursie need look at latest ARRL Comment on 04-37. Open-wire electric power line using only ONE phase as distribution line WILL BE A SPECTRUM POLLUTER REGARDLESS OF MODULATION TYPE. Nursie fruitcake with morse nuts. No think. LHA / WMD |
|
#8
July 1st 04, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
July 1st 04, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/30/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: 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? Because it diverts money, people, and attention away from solving those problems. Which gets priority - space or surface transportation? Why not both? The only difference here is that you're asking Joe Average to be ready to give up his/her SUV (or at least keep it garaged a lot more) and they don't want to do it. I've heard that same argument used to finish off Apollo. By Nixon... By COngress who pushed him to cancel it. We KO'd Apollo, yet schools are (in your estimation) no better off. That's not what I wrote. Not in those exact words, but that's what you have been saying. And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and stealing the money from them? No, but the Feds hand out unfunded mandates that the schools must meet. How about this: Any Federal mandate must also carry with it funds to make them happen? Yes, they should carry the funds. But "unfunded federal mandates" are not what are causing the problems in ANY of the school districts around here. I don't think so. Besides, why should defeating gay marriage cost taxpayers any money at all? Indeed, why should it be defeated - if gay people can get 'married' (in the legal sense), they'll pay more taxes because of the income tax marriage penalty, thereby raising tax revenues. Why, indeed. BTW... A Lesbian and a gay man share an apartment...there's an explosion in the nighborhood and the fire department tells them to evacuate. Who get's out first? (Private e-mail for this asnwer, kids...) Say, there's the money for your expanded space program! Uh huh. It WAS a problem then. It's a worse one now. Yep. Because four presidents since then did not make it a priority. Because they weren't the one's without water to drink or bathe in, nor will the Predident's be without transportation. 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. Where? You have GOT to be KIDDING me, Jim...?!?! How about just about everything west of Little Rock and south of Seattle? Declining oil reserves. Yep. Internal security of our own borders. That's because we play the game at both ends. On the one hand, we say we want security. On the other hand, we want the cheap immigrant labor and the money tourists and students spend here. We can still have tighter security and keep those cotton-pickers and panty raiders coming, Jim... 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? Perhaps the bigger question is this: Why are so many people living in arid areas? Why do they expect to live as if they are not in a desert? Southern California wasn't that "arid" 50 years ago. We will force the building of NEW infrastructure wherever these people wind up, and the old cities will have to be refurbished somehow. That's because people do not connect their lifestyles with the environmental and resource costs. Yet "they" blame it on "them" (the government) for not "doing something" about it. 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. And who will pay? Who do you THINK will pay, Jim? You drink water? Like from 400MHZ to over 5GHZ. Enough RF on a single frquency desenses the front end. That's all it takes. I doubt that the military satellites are controlled on ONE discreet frequency, Jim. When was the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car exploded at all? 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. Out of how many that have flown? Hmmmmmm..... Six Mercury Flights: 6 Ten Gemini Flights: 20 (12 flights...Only 10 were manned) 17 Apollo flights: 51 Apollo Soyuz: 3 Skylab (3 msns) 9 Shuttle Missions: 560 (112 missions, average 5 persons per mission) _____ 649 (give or take a couple) Of course if you want to get REAL nit-picky, we can discount folks like Storey Musgrave and others who have flown more than one, so we'll just give you the benefit of the doubt here and say 640. That's less than 3 percent of the American manned space effort to date. That means that over 97 percent of all American manned space missions are successful. And that doesn't take into account the crews shuttled to and from MIR. 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". "Total loss" meaning "no survivors and all equipment destroyed" NOT a total loss as in "lesson learned and not repeated". Do you know if we employed this pattern of "completely stop and re-engieer the problem" to the automobile, we wouldn't have over 50,000 a YEAR dead on our highwyas...And most of them weren't doing a THING worthy of thier deaths, Jim. I know. I see a lot of them. They never got there because they quit. They spent thier money elsewhere. It wasn't that they couldn't. They couldn't do it in time. And they STILL could have done it. Only money and "priorities" stopped them. Too bad. 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. You might ask why that is necessary. I may ask why it ISN'T important to advance manned space technology after all it's contributed to modern science. 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. Me too but until there is some resource worth getting, there are better things to spend the money and resources on. How do you know the resources aren't there until we get there and REALLY explore? So far all we did was a "pit stop", got a few trinkets and baubels and moved on. 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..... I'm telling you what is practical and what isn't. Blank-check spending isn't practical. If we don't even explore the OPTIONS, Jim, how will we ever know what's practical? Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them. Engieneers do them when adequately funded! How much has SpaceShipOne cost? How far would SpaceShipOne have gotten if it wasn't bankrolled with $25M...?!?! How far DID it get? High altitude research balloons do the same thing a lot cheaper AND since the 1930's or 40's. 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! DaVinci sketched vague ideas. It took a lot of time, work and development to make real machines. Uh huh. The "Voyager" was a vague idea on a napkin. DaVinci's "vague ideas" were pretty detailed for the era. Imagine what he could ahve done had he had the materials with which to really do them. I am not "avoiding" anything Jim. You're avoiding saying how many more tax dollars you're willing to pay. That's the bottom line. People are all for all sorts of things until it comes time to pay for them. Then they scream bloody murder about being ripped off. I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers. Then understand that you can't have everything you want for free. Who said free? I am willing to see my taxes spent on a practical space program! I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward today. I disagree. The Mars rover missions are a great step forward. Cassini/Huygens is reaching Saturn - be prepared for a summer of wonders from the ringed planet. Pictures from a robot. The same information that we've gained on prior fly-by's and with terrestrial methods. 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. The *concept* is just plain stupid. Did you see my post about the stormwater ditch? That's what BPL is electrically equivalent to. Can there NEVER be a development that might work? Depends what you mean by "work". The systems do "work" in the sense that they transmit data from A to B. The problem is that they leak RF all over the place because the power lines are simply leaky at RF frequencies. They radiate. It's basic physics. Wires with RF in them radiate, and long unshileded wires way up in the air with HF in them radiate really well. Various forms of coding and such simply don't fix the basic problem. Now if someone wants to install shielded power lines and equipment, a BPL system can work without interference. But such a system would cost more to build than simply running new coax or fiber. Yes, it will. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#10
July 5th 04, 12:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/30/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: 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? Because it diverts money, people, and attention away from solving those problems. Which gets priority - space or surface transportation? Why not both? Not enough money. The only difference here is that you're asking Joe Average to be ready to give up his/her SUV (or at least keep it garaged a lot more) and they don't want to do it. No, what I'm asking is for a lot more - responsibility. I've heard that same argument used to finish off Apollo. By Nixon... By COngress who pushed him to cancel it. And he did it. We KO'd Apollo, yet schools are (in your estimation) no better off. That's not what I wrote. Not in those exact words, but that's what you have been saying. Not at all. Do you think are schools are the best in the world? And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and stealing the money from them? No, but the Feds hand out unfunded mandates that the schools must meet. How about this: Any Federal mandate must also carry with it funds to make them happen? Yes, they should carry the funds. That's a start. But "unfunded federal mandates" are not what are causing the problems in ANY of the school districts around here. Are you sure? If the feds require something that costs $$, the locals have to pay for it. Takes money from other things. I don't think so. Besides, why should defeating gay marriage cost taxpayers any money at all? Indeed, why should it be defeated - if gay people can get 'married' (in the legal sense), they'll pay more taxes because of the income tax marriage penalty, thereby raising tax revenues. Why, indeed. Say, there's the money for your expanded space program! Uh huh. Why not? It WAS a problem then. It's a worse one now. Yep. Because four presidents since then did not make it a priority. Because they weren't the one's without water to drink or bathe in, nor will the Predident's be without transportation. There you go. 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. Where? You have GOT to be KIDDING me, Jim...?!?! No. How about just about everything west of Little Rock and south of Seattle? Too many people using too much water, that's all. Declining oil reserves. Yep. Internal security of our own borders. That's because we play the game at both ends. On the one hand, we say we want security. On the other hand, we want the cheap immigrant labor and the money tourists and students spend here. We can still have tighter security and keep those cotton-pickers and panty raiders coming, Jim... Really? How do we separate the real students? 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? Perhaps the bigger question is this: Why are so many people living in arid areas? Why do they expect to live as if they are not in a desert? Southern California wasn't that "arid" 50 years ago. Yes, it was. What made Southern California possible - LA in particular - were enormous irrigation projects. Most of them were at least partly federally funded. Heck, the Colorado river no longer reaches the ocean - *all* of its water is diverted. The truth is that Southern California could not support its population if the water wasn't brought from many miles away. We will force the building of NEW infrastructure wherever these people wind up, and the old cities will have to be refurbished somehow. That's because people do not connect their lifestyles with the environmental and resource costs. Yet "they" blame it on "them" (the government) for not "doing something" about it. Because they think it's their "right", without considering their responsibility. 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. And who will pay? Who do you THINK will pay, Jim? You drink water? I live east of the Mississippi. I pay for the water systems here. Why should I pay for SoCal's water too? Like from 400MHZ to over 5GHZ. Enough RF on a single frquency desenses the front end. That's all it takes. I doubt that the military satellites are controlled on ONE discreet frequency, Jim. Doesn't matter. Say there's a broadband amplifier on the sat covering 400 to 2000 MHz. A strong-enough signal anywhere in that range will overload it and none of the signals will get through. When was the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car exploded at all? Hmm? 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. Out of how many that have flown? Hmmmmmm..... Six Mercury Flights: 6 Ten Gemini Flights: 20 (12 flights...Only 10 were manned) 17 Apollo flights: 51 Apollo Soyuz: 3 Skylab (3 msns) 9 Shuttle Missions: 560 (112 missions, average 5 persons per mission) _____ 649 (give or take a couple) Of course if you want to get REAL nit-picky, we can discount folks like Storey Musgrave and others who have flown more than one, so we'll just give you the benefit of the doubt here and say 640. That's less than 3 percent of the American manned space effort to date. That means that over 97 percent of all American manned space missions are successful. That's not very good at all. Particularly given the enormous cost of a mission. 3 percent loss rate is about 1 in 33 - that's even worse than the 1 in 75 I quoted. And that doesn't take into account the crews shuttled to and from MIR. 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". "Total loss" meaning "no survivors and all equipment destroyed" NOT a total loss as in "lesson learned and not repeated". Has the problem which caused the Columbia loss really been fixed? Do you know if we employed this pattern of "completely stop and re-engieer the problem" to the automobile, we wouldn't have over 50,000 a YEAR dead on our highwyas...And most of them weren't doing a THING worthy of thier deaths, Jim. I know. I see a lot of them. Compute the highway death rate compared to trips taken, miles driven, etc. It's a lot lower than 1 in 75. And *most* accidents are caused by driver error, not mechanical failure. Just one example: How many accident victims do you see who would have lived, or been significantly less injured, if they had used seat belts? They never got there because they quit. They spent thier money elsewhere. It wasn't that they couldn't. They couldn't do it in time. And they STILL could have done it. I don;t think so. Only money and "priorities" stopped them. Too bad. Why? If you're right, maybe they could have got there first. 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. You might ask why that is necessary. I may ask why it ISN'T important to advance manned space technology after all it's contributed to modern science. 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. Me too but until there is some resource worth getting, there are better things to spend the money and resources on. How do you know the resources aren't there until we get there and REALLY explore? So far all we did was a "pit stop", got a few trinkets and baubels and moved on. Analysis of what was found showed nothing of commercial value in the rocks. 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..... I'm telling you what is practical and what isn't. Blank-check spending isn't practical. If we don't even explore the OPTIONS, Jim, how will we ever know what's practical? How much more of your own money are you willing to spend? Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them. Engieneers do them when adequately funded! How much has SpaceShipOne cost? How far would SpaceShipOne have gotten if it wasn't bankrolled with $25M...?!?! Wasn't tax money, though. If a billionaire wants to bankroll a space mission, no problem! How far DID it get? High altitude research balloons do the same thing a lot cheaper AND since the 1930's or 40's. Your point? 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! DaVinci sketched vague ideas. It took a lot of time, work and development to make real machines. Uh huh. Yep. The "Voyager" was a vague idea on a napkin. Then the engineers made it reality. DaVinci's "vague ideas" were pretty detailed for the era. Imagine what he could ahve done had he had the materials with which to really do them. His ideas were mostly junk. He didn't have the resources, period. Those who actually did the things he sletched didn't need him;, they got to those ideas on their own. I am not "avoiding" anything Jim. You're avoiding saying how many more tax dollars you're willing to pay. That's the bottom line. People are all for all sorts of things until it comes time to pay for them. Then they scream bloody murder about being ripped off. I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers. Then understand that you can't have everything you want for free. Who said free? You did. I am willing to see my taxes spent on a practical space program! Are you willing to see your taxes raised to pay for it? I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward today. I disagree. The Mars rover missions are a great step forward. Cassini/Huygens is reaching Saturn - be prepared for a summer of wonders from the ringed planet. Pictures from a robot. Yep. Great stuff. Advances modern science. The same information that we've gained on prior fly-by's and with terrestrial methods. Not at all. Density waves in the rings - nobody saw that before. 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. The *concept* is just plain stupid. Did you see my post about the stormwater ditch? That's what BPL is electrically equivalent to. Can there NEVER be a development that might work? Depends what you mean by "work". The systems do "work" in the sense that they transmit data from A to B. The problem is that they leak RF all over the place because the power lines are simply leaky at RF frequencies. They radiate. It's basic physics. Wires with RF in them radiate, and long unshileded wires way up in the air with HF in them radiate really well. Various forms of coding and such simply don't fix the basic problem. Now if someone wants to install shielded power lines and equipment, a BPL system can work without interference. But such a system would cost more to build than simply running new coax or fiber. Yes, it will. So the end result is that it's simply a bad idea in the first place. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Hybrid Mode
