| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
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 |
|
#3
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 |
|
#4
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 |
|
#6
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 |
|
#7
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 |
|
#8
July 6th 04, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/5/2004 6:57 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/30/2004 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. Sure there is. It's just a matter of priorities. 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. That's what I said, Jim...Joe Average doesn't want to give up his/her SUV. To do so would be to take some responsibility for participating in helping the enviroment. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#9
July 7th 04, 01:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
July 7th 04, 02:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Not enough money. Sure there is. It's just a matter of priorities. And everybody's got different ones. If the majority of Americans would rather have better transit than put a man on Mars, whose priority should be followed? Sad to think that the spirit of exploration is just about dead. Sad to think that a bunch of nerds sitting around in a room guiding robots are what pass for adventurers these days. Even if the Elser-Mathes Cup stays unclaimed.... 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. That's what I said, Jim...Joe Average doesn't want to give up his/her SUV. To do so would be to take some responsibility for participating in helping the enviroment. That's cured by education. And it doesn't stop at the SUV-as-a-commuting-vehicle - there are lots of other opportunities to reduce consumption, resulting in eventual energy independence. What do you think of the energy density of hydrogen and it's effect on trying to convert to hydrogen vehicles? btw, did you see who the Democrats are running for VP? I was kind of hoping for Wes Clark - Mike KB3EIA - |
Hybrid Mode
