| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 29th 04, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology. (to send people to the moon) We barely had the technology to get to the moon in the 70s. Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there about a decade earlier. History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society happen in the wake of war. Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most". In many cases those "jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in peacetime. Or they're the result of government programs that are done to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy. In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides based on the Apollo program alone. Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA. Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon? No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have to be reinvented. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. I wouldn't say reinvented, but it would need to be re-done. I suspect that a new moon mission would be much much different. I would guess in-orbit assembly for the propulsion system, possibly the ship. For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask WHERE in space are you going to spend that money? We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people here. And address problems long-term. Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^) A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of technical advencement. Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!" As opposed to the "Don't tax but spend like a drunken sailor" other types? Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of government spending". It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place. Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece. Literally. We found out we could make more money selling our hats to each other.... for a little while anyhoo. All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure. The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown verifies the reliability analysis. The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them. They were essentially done to compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit, first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them. I know I'm in my post field day weird move, but I wonder which country posted the first bowel movement in space? Today there is no such need or competition. Just wait 5 years. The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it. They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when the launch facility is in Florida?) Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to go to Germany and Japan for them. I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way. As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years ago with the X-15. But that X-15 took a monumental effort and support structure. That is the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the Rutan effort is almost easy. Did you see the pix of the technicians working on the plane? Jeans, T-Shirts and sneakers, and done in a workshop, not a humongous facility with cleanrooms and scary nasty chemicals sitting around. then they push it out of the "garage" hook it up to the White Knight and off they go. Despite the goal, I don't see the real lesson as getting to space, but the way they are doing it. And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded basis. So why not Mars? Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and how completely on their own they would be? Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed completely. Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars.... What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be had any other way? Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to put people somewhere - I don't support it. AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are giving them now. The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime. At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle, packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time. Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical imaging. We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to. Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it. My how we have changed. We aren't inspired. We demand that our explorers have the same safety factor as our automobiles. We are now pussies. If they told me that a servicing or retrieval mission to the shuttle wouldn't take place unless I was on board, I'd be on my way down there right now. And how much all of it would cost? I think there is a psychological and social cost to *not* do it. Why not research stations on the Moon? How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such until the bills for it show up. Unless you want to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon" conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it? Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper, faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on earth. Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems. Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly inefficient means of progress. None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs. Ahh, but whose balance, Jim? I think that humankind badly NEEDS the sense of exploration and adventure and the frontier effect of space. My price tag of balance is a lot higher than yours, which is in turn a lot higher than a lot of other people's If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us there some day. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#2
June 30th 04, 01:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology. (to send people to the moon) We barely had the technology to get to the moon in the 70s. Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there about a decade earlier. History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society happen in the wake of war. Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most". In many cases those "jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in peacetime. Or they're the result of government programs that are done to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy. In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides based on the Apollo program alone. Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA. Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon? Heh heh heh. Kind of slides right off the taste buds, don't it? No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have to be reinvented. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. Configuration Management still has the drawings. "Tooling" is largely jigs and fixtures which aren't on the scale of Jo-blocks. Test data still exists. The VAB and Mover still exist at the Cape, now modified for STS. "We can unmodify it...we have the technology..." :-) I wouldn't say reinvented, but it would need to be re-done. I suspect that a new moon mission would be much much different. I would guess in-orbit assembly for the propulsion system, possibly the ship. Not as logical as the sci-fi writers think. There's a large fuel cost in leaving the gravity well of Earth for an orbit. Easier to make it as a whole and have all parts go up together. For in-orbit assembly one needs to put the assemblers in-orbit first. For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask WHERE in space are you going to spend that money? We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people here. And address problems long-term. Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^) Put the money into investment trusts to promote McDonalds or KFC? A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of technical advencement. Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!" As opposed to the "Don't tax but spend like a drunken sailor" other types? Please, no insults at the USN, the super chief is monitoring... Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of government spending". It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place. Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece. Literally. We found out we could make more money selling our hats to each other.... for a little while anyhoo. Not quite. The "hats" are largely the backwards baseball caps of the last decade. My hat is off to you for making that comment, though... :-) But, siriusly, the politicians cut the tail off of Apollo during Nixon's first term. An appeasement of the Republicans was the exchange of the last flights of Apollo for the prototype space station called Skylab (1973-1974) and the first try at an "international" thing with Apollo-Soyuz of 1975. Much publicity and NASA supplied school information on Apollo-Soyuz here but the Cold War was still on and the USSR was going their own way. [I was at MSFC in 1974, just before Easter...the control room was modifying a few things for the Apollo-Soyuz link even then, Skylab ending] 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. Quite true but there was a large hiatus (at least four years) of manned spaceflight before any serious money went to shuttle. Any significant amounts spent were done by prospective contractors, eventually won by Rockwell...and then for the air- drop-only Enterprise (never space-fitted) shuttle vehicle. The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them. They were essentially done to compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit, first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them. I know I'm in my post field day weird move, but I wonder which country posted the first bowel movement in space? The one with the icy BM, of course... :-) Today there is no such need or competition. Just wait 5 years. For what? The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it. They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when the launch facility is in Florida?) The weather being better? :-) Actually, as a CONTROL center for anything that orbits people, the MSFC would ideally be in the midwest or mountain regions as getting the communications relay connections. Of the late 1960s, that is. That it went to Texas IS a favor to LBJ at the time. Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to go to Germany and Japan for them. I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way. As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years ago with the X-15. But that X-15 took a monumental effort and support structure. Nope. Nowhere on the scale of say, Mercury. The X-15 development was done by North American Aviation (later to be bought by Rockwell). X-15 was and is an AIR vehicle flying out of Edwards. That is the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the Rutan effort is almost easy. Did you see the pix of the technicians working on the plane? Jeans, T-Shirts and sneakers, and done in a workshop, not a humongous facility with cleanrooms and scary nasty chemicals sitting around. then they push it out of the "garage" hook it up to the White Knight and off they go. Sorry, but that's exaggeration. The first dozen-plus flights of the X-15 were done from half a hangar at Edwards with some testing at a nearby engine test stand...lifted by a modified B-52 (which later lifted lots and lots of odd aircraft, especially the "lifting bodies" that were prototype re-entry vehicles). B-52 was handy and available, already had a big hard point for hanging air-drop things. "High-tech-space" it was NOT in appearance. SpaceShipOne can no more reach space than the X-15 or the X-1 before it. It MUST have an airborne launch vehicle. Since few B-52s are sold surplus to prize contesters, Scaled Composites at Kern County Airport #7 designed and built their own. [that's called "Mojave" as a familiar name, is a common place for avionics flight testing by many for decades, located just north of Edwards AFB] [some call it "Mojave International" for fun but it is really a "surplus" WW2 air training base and does have long runways which look good for auto commercials on TV] Despite the goal, I don't see the real lesson as getting to space, but the way they are doing it. "Getting into space" via either X-15 or SSOne is barely making it. Topping the stratosphere isn't in the low-earth-orbit category and way away from geosynchronous orbit. Edwards was into many different "X" planes from during WW2 on through now, a very long time doing many different things, only a few of which were "space" related. Edwards had some rocket- assisted F-104s, too, for astronaut training in rocket-thruster control almost to space, but there isn't much PR on that. NAA made sure it got PR for the X-15 to gain visibility for future aircraft contracts, etc. All the aircraft makers were, those that are left still do. Edwards had a couple B-52s for various air-drop projects (one still remains, maybe) and there's no problem on getting crews for that support or the tracking and guidance and telemetry. But, man-rated NASA spaceflight clean-room humongous working areas it no had like you said. Open-hangar environment for ground work beginning shortly after Oh-dark-thirty, lift off ground at crack of doom and get up there before the desert air gets too bumpy from heat. Few air tests go past 10 AM. Gotta be "morning person" to sustain work at Edwards Flight Test Center. Those in the hangar are mostly civilians in common airport work clothes, few company insignia. Scaled Composites, I think at the NE corner of "Mojave," has about the same size facilities as Edwards had during X-15 times. Since they are also in the high desert, air flights are for early morning. A half-century of time hasn't changed much and the "used airplane lot" somewhat close to SSOne's home is still there, still as large. The civilian flight test companies gather at the SW corner of "Mojave," all in "hangar environments" to do avionics systems flight testing...chaff dispensers were big customers when I was there, using the south-of-Edwards China Lake Research Center as radar checker. Most of the upper desert is Restricted Airspace, so it is a good area for these "X" things of unknown safety. And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded basis. So why not Mars? Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and how completely on their own they would be? Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed completely. Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars.... What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be had any other way? Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to put people somewhere - I don't support it. Okay, so do your "DXpeditions" and re-pioneer radio until 2050. :-) The "basic purpose" of exploring the New World back in the 1400s was to GET GOLD, GET GOODIES...for the folks back in Yurp. That included what would eventually become the USA. GPSS is expressly designed for "putting people somewhere" but is very unmanned. A whole two dozen obiters, in fact. You support? They don't take people...people have to take themselves. AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are giving them now. I not see much Earth photos from Hubble space telescope. Plenty other sats to photo Earth. First Hubble was big screw-up in main scope optics, courtesy ground test crew. Hubble not there to "put people anyplace." The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime. At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle, packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time. ? Why not be "mailgeek" and support Hubble through congress- person? Would do more. Mike support Access BPL by not saying anything against BPL to FCC? Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical imaging. Should have been "beautiful swan" first time around. Wasn't. Big screw-up on ground by optical people on calibration. Tsk. We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to. DESIGNED INTO Hubble from word go on contract. Nobody knew what effects space would have on all the different imaging systems in Hubble...had to plan ahead. Service missions NOT any kind of afterthought. Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it. My how we have changed. We aren't inspired. We demand that our explorers have the same safety factor as our automobiles. We are now pussies. Mike send Weiner von Brawn to rescue. He fix! :-) If they told me that a servicing or retrieval mission to the shuttle wouldn't take place unless I was on board, I'd be on my way down there right now. Mike have mega-dollar insurance premium check? :-) Ride in space not ride in park. And how much all of it would cost? I think there is a psychological and social cost to *not* do it. Why not research stations on the Moon? How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such until the bills for it show up. Unless you want to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon" conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it? Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper, faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on earth. Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems. Give up? No solution? Say not so! Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly inefficient means of progress. None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs. Ahh, but whose balance, Jim? I think that humankind badly NEEDS the sense of exploration and adventure and the frontier effect of space. My price tag of balance is a lot higher than yours, which is in turn a lot higher than a lot of other people's If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us there some day. Okay, Mike, you watch TV. I go to contract work someplace on REAL space stuff, report back. :-) Those not be spaced-out brag tawks others have. Thirty. |
|
#3
July 2nd 04, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology. (to send people to the moon) We barely had the technology to get to the moon in the 70s. Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there about a decade earlier. History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society happen in the wake of war. Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most". In many cases those "jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in peacetime. Or they're the result of government programs that are done to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy. In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides based on the Apollo program alone. Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA. Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon? There was anembarrassing moment when a '60s era astronaut swore he'd never drink the stuff ever again because of its GI tract effects on him. Trouble was he forgot he was on VOX... No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have to be reinvented. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. So we'd have to rebuild the tooling and supply systems in order to build the rockets. Which could take longer than it did the first time. I wouldn't say reinvented, but it would need to be re-done. I suspect that a new moon mission would be much much different. I would guess in-orbit assembly for the propulsion system, possibly the ship. That was considered for Apollo, but it turns out the total rocket power needed is greater than sending an all-in-one mission. As enormous as Saturn Vs were, they were just adequate for the job. That's a good thing. For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask WHERE in space are you going to spend that money? We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people here. And address problems long-term. Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^) Or the money could be spent teaching the world's poor how not to be poor. The old "give a man a fish" thing. A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of technical advencement. Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!" As opposed to the "Don't tax but spend like a drunken sailor" other types? Yep. Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of government spending". It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place. Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece. Literally. We found out we could make more money selling our hats to each other.... for a little while anyhoo. Meanwhile the hats were made elsewhere. And it wll worked up until people stopped wearing hats because nobody could afford them anymore. All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure. The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown verifies the reliability analysis. The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them. They were essentially done to compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit, first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them. I know I'm in my post field day weird move, but I wonder which country posted the first bowel movement in space? Do you know about Alan Shepard's Mercury flight? Today there is no such need or competition. Just wait 5 years. More like 20 The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it. They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when the launch facility is in Florida?) Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to go to Germany and Japan for them. I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way. As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years ago with the X-15. But that X-15 took a monumental effort and support structure. Not nearly so much as even the Mercury program. hat is the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the Rutan effort is almost easy. I would not say "easy". And the SS1 effort has decades of experience and data behind it. X-15 did not. Did you see the pix of the technicians working on the plane? Jeans, T-Shirts and sneakers, and done in a workshop, not a humongous facility with cleanrooms and scary nasty chemicals sitting around. then they push it out of the "garage" hook it up to the White Knight and off they go. It's a bit more complicated than that... But if you read about the X-1, there are a lot of parallels. Despite the goal, I don't see the real lesson as getting to space, but the way they are doing it. So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should we spend billions of tax dollars on it? And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded basis. So why not Mars? Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and how completely on their own they would be? Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed completely. Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars.... What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be had any other way? Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to put people somewhere - I don't support it. Why not? The machines can do things humans cannot. The cost is less. The machines can stay for a long time and don;t have to come back. AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are giving them now. Because the money isn't there. The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime. At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle, packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time. It could also serve as a testbed for the effects of space on the hardware - all of it. How many meteorite holes, how much radiation damage, etc? Simulation is fine but imagine being able to study, in detail, something that spent years in space. Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. Even though it was known that the optics were defective. It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical imaging. They *knew* the lense wasn't right. Why it was launched is a classic case of "not my job". That lesson is a valuable one. We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to. Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it. Answer: Robots. My how we have changed. We aren't inspired. We demand that our explorers have the same safety factor as our automobiles. We are now pussies. I disagree. Yiur care is many orders of magnitude safer. More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human error. People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired, etc. By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that the crew could do nothing about. If they told me that a servicing or retrieval mission to the shuttle wouldn't take place unless I was on board, I'd be on my way down there right now. Me too but that's not going to happen. And how much all of it would cost? I think there is a psychological and social cost to *not* do it. Such as? Is it worse than becoming more and more dependent on imports? Why not research stations on the Moon? How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such until the bills for it show up. Unless you want to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon" conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it? Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper, faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on earth. Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems. The ones on earth? I disagree! I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done. There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be enslaved, either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those jobs. That problem was solved There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be allowed to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to bve a problem. There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children to read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and factories. Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly inefficient means of progress. None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs. Ahh, but whose balance, Jim? Mine. ;-) I think that humankind badly NEEDS the sense of exploration and adventure and the frontier effect of space. My price tag of balance is a lot higher than yours, which is in turn a lot higher than a lot of other people's Of course. But when space exploration is used as a way of distracting people from solvable earth problems, that's not a good thing. If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us there some day. What's all the rush? Space has been there for a lot longer than we have, and will be there long after we are gone. We can take our time and do it in a planned way, or rush headlong and wastefully, and accomplish little. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#4
July 2nd 04, 09:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/1/2004 6:32 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon? There was anembarrassing moment when a '60s era astronaut swore he'd never drink the stuff ever again because of its GI tract effects on him. Trouble was he forgot he was on VOX... I couldn't blame him...I thought (think) the stuff sucks. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. So we'd have to rebuild the tooling and supply systems in order to build the rockets. Which could take longer than it did the first time. I'd certainly hope that engineering skills and contruction methodology hadn't REGRESSED in the last four decades! =) Who's running this thing, anyway? Ex-Army radio clerks ? As enormous as Saturn Vs were, they were just adequate for the job. That's a good thing. If you get even one pound more of thrust MORE than what you "need", then that's ALL you Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^) Or the money could be spent teaching the world's poor how not to be poor. The old "give a man a fish" thing. That ain't a happening thng. You know what I was so "impressed" with while overseas doing the things Lennie says I didn't do...?!?! There were American "missionaries" trying to impose thier religion and moral values on people supposedly too poor to eat or even buy a Bible...(you see thier kids on "Feed The Children" commercials... BUT...They always seemed to have money to buy AK47's and ammunition. Go figure... Today there is no such need or competition. Just wait 5 years. More like 20 The last years of the Soviet system were examples of what happens to a society wherein competion and individual initiative are stripped from people. The Russians found out the hard way. The Chinese learned, but they also learned how to keep people repressed and doing what they want them to do. That is the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the Rutan effort is almost easy. I would not say "easy". And the SS1 effort has decades of experience and data behind it. X-15 did not. Exactly. And "composites"...And computing power 1000 fold greater than what Apollo had... So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should we spend billions of tax dollars on it? "SpaceShip" 1 barely went suborbital. It will take a LOT more investment capital before we see any of Burt's stuff on orbit! Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to put people somewhere - I don't support it. Why not? The machines can do things humans cannot. The cost is less. The machines can stay for a long time and don;t have to come back. The machines can't fix them selves enroute or on-site. I am willing to bet that the Brit's "Beagle 2" mission burnt up on entering the Martian atmosphere. Maybe had it been a manned mission, the 1/10th of a degree attitude adjustment necessary to PREVENT it could have been made. AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are giving them now. Because the money isn't there. The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime. At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle, packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time. It could also serve as a testbed for the effects of space on the hardware - all of it. How many meteorite holes, how much radiation damage, etc? Simulation is fine but imagine being able to study, in detail, something that spent years in space. How many other massive spaceborne telescopes have we had on orbit? These things also serve as testbeds. We tend to think of the space program as being "old" since were in our 3rd generation with it. It's not. It's still well within "infancy" I think we are so confused between our fantasy perception of space travel (ie: Star Trek et al, Babylon 5, etc) and the reality (barely crawling at this point) that we have these grossly overinflated ideas of how these systems OUGHT to "last" or "work". Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. Even though it was known that the optics were defective. But they were able to compensate for that. It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical imaging. They *knew* the lense wasn't right. Why it was launched is a classic case of "not my job". That lesson is a valuable one. We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to. Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it. Answer: Robots. How does man learn to do these things in space if we send machines to try and do it? And how do we "teach" a machine to do something if we ourselves don't already know how it should be done? More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human error. People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired, etc. By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that the crew could do nothing about. Oh? They were engineering errors if we patently accept the investigation's reports. The errors were due to a failure of the people making the decisons. Thiokol said "go" after being coerced by NASA people to let Challenger fly. Coerced by men...not robots. Boom. There had been issues raised over the foam on the external tank being able to come loose, but again cooler heads didn't get a chance to prevail. One "suggestion" that had been laid out years ago was that a "once-over" EVA be done to the Shuttle prior to re-entry in order to make sure no external damage was done. It was suggested that thios would place the crew at too much risk. The idea of a small "ROV" be built for the same purpose was made.. "Too much time and money". I'll bet a bunch of MIT kids could have designed the thing as a class project for less than a mil...Compare that against the loss we suffered. Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems. The ones on earth? I disagree! Me too. I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just solutions awaiting implementation! I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done. Yep. I believe we will one day find outr how to go light speed or better. It's just a matter of time, money and effort. There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be enslaved, either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those jobs. That problem was solved. Yep..We just look the other way at the border once in a while! =) There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be allowed to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to be a problem. That's a matter of opinion. Several political pundits have said that a lot of the "vote" that went to Bill Clinton did so because some segment of women voters thought he was more handsome than President Bush, and thought that his rhetoric on women's "issues" was "sweet". There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children to read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and factories. Obviously it's still true. A very large part of our imports from India and Pakistan are made by kids. If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us there some day. What's all the rush? Space has been there for a lot longer than we have, and will be there long after we are gone. We can take our time and do it in a planned way, or rush headlong and wastefully, and accomplish little. Yes...it will still be there...but I for one am very disappointed that after four decades of manned space travel, we still haven't done a darned thing to REALLY start exploring "space"...! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#6
July 3rd 04, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/1/2004 6:32 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: I couldn't blame him...I thought (think) the stuff sucks. It has one use, in my book: If a dishwasher gets stains from hard water, just fill the soap dispenser with Tang and run it with no dishes inside. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. So we'd have to rebuild the tooling and supply systems in order to build the rockets. Which could take longer than it did the first time. I'd certainly hope that engineering skills and contruction methodology hadn't REGRESSED in the last four decades! =) Who's running this thing, anyway? Ex-Army radio clerks ? It's not about regression; it's about not keeping facilities that aren't being used. As enormous as Saturn Vs were, they were just adequate for the job. That's a good thing. If you get even one pound more of thrust MORE than what you "need", then that's ALL you all you what? Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^) Or the money could be spent teaching the world's poor how not to be poor. The old "give a man a fish" thing. That ain't a happening thng. You know what I was so "impressed" with while overseas doing the things Lennie says I didn't do...?!?! There were American "missionaries" trying to impose thier religion and moral values on people supposedly too poor to eat or even buy a Bible...(you see thier kids on "Feed The Children" commercials... BUT...They always seemed to have money to buy AK47's and ammunition. Go figure... Those people don't want help. There are plenty of other people who do. Today there is no such need or competition. Just wait 5 years. More like 20 The last years of the Soviet system were examples of what happens to a society wherein competion and individual initiative are stripped from people. Nope. It's about rewards. The basic flaw in any collectivist system is that people are expected to work hard and take risks but are not rewarded for successfully doing so. The old saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is true but incomplete. Here's the complete version: "In a society where rewards are distributed by the rule 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', the end result will be very little ability and an enormous amount of need." The Russians found out the hard way. The Chinese learned, but they also learned how to keep people repressed and doing what they want them to do. It is interesting to note that when many Chinese speak of "freedom" and "democracy", what those words mean to them are economic freedom and a free market system. That is the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the Rutan effort is almost easy. I would not say "easy". And the SS1 effort has decades of experience and data behind it. X-15 did not. Exactly. And "composites"...And computing power 1000 fold greater than what Apollo had... More like a million fold... So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should we spend billions of tax dollars on it? "SpaceShip" 1 barely went suborbital. That's as high as X-15 ever went. It will take a LOT more investment capital before we see any of Burt's stuff on orbit! How much more? Not as much as some may think. The engines work, the ship works, if in need of some design mods. A good deal more "oomph" is needed to get something into orbit, as well as a likely ship redesign. But it'll happen. Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to put people somewhere - I don't support it. Why not? The machines can do things humans cannot. The cost is less. The machines can stay for a long time and don;t have to come back. The machines can't fix them selves enroute or on-site. So you build more reliable machines. Learning how to do that is an earthbound benefit of a space program! Many human ills cannot be self-repaired, either. Look at Cassini-Huygens - more than 7 years in space and performing perfectly. An example of "old time NASA technology", definitely not "faster better, cheaper" One key to reliability is simplicity. A manned probe needs additional layers of complexity because it has to include life support and systems to return home. Yep, that's true you know what I'm gonna say next................. So what? I am willing to bet that the Brit's "Beagle 2" mission burnt up on entering the Martian atmosphere. Why? What data supports that? Maybe had it been a manned mission, the 1/10th of a degree attitude adjustment necessary to PREVENT it could have been made. Doubtful. The machines are faster and more accurate at such tasks than humans. But the humans can see something askew that teh computer may not. I suspect that a human on board that one doomed Mars lander might have seen that one set of instructions was in metric, and the other was not. I work with computers every day. They really aren't that smart. They will execute disastarous commands at accuracies far to several insignificant digits AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are giving them now. Because the money isn't there. The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime. At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle, packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time. It could also serve as a testbed for the effects of space on the hardware - all of it. How many meteorite holes, how much radiation damage, etc? Simulation is fine but imagine being able to study, in detail, something that spent years in space. How many other massive spaceborne telescopes have we had on orbit? There are some smaller ones but none like Hubble. ahem.... These things also serve as testbeds. We tend to think of the space program as being "old" since were in our 3rd generation with it. It's not. It's still well within "infancy" That's why I say that if it's useful life is over, go get it, bring it back to earth and study it. See what failed and figure out why. I think we are so confused between our fantasy perception of space travel (ie: Star Trek et al, Babylon 5, etc) and the reality (barely crawling at this point) that we have these grossly overinflated ideas of how these systems OUGHT to "last" or "work". I'm not confused at all. Some folks, however, think that because humans went from Kitty Hawk to supersonic flight in less than half a century, and from there to the Sea of Tranquility in another quarter century, that such progres would continue on a linear path. It doesn't. And waht we are embarking on now is not doing anything like that AT ALL. We are going to become the Portugal of space, because we are too darn precious. Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. Even though it was known that the optics were defective. But they were able to compensate for that. Why not do it right the first time? It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical imaging. They *knew* the lense wasn't right. Why it was launched is a classic case of "not my job". That lesson is a valuable one. We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to. Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it. Answer: Robots. How does man learn to do these things in space if we send machines to try and do it? Why should humans take unreasonable risks to do what can be done by machines? Boring.... It's related to whay I still play ice hockey at 50 years old, while most of the people I know think I'm nuts for doing it. Too many people are so afraid of dying that their lives are diminished by the effort to stay safe. They refuse to take risks. "It's too dangerous", "I have to buy a 6000 pound SUV because if I run into someone, *I'll win*" Aren't you afraid of breaking something?" It's too dangeraous to send people to space". It's too dangerous to do anything". "Yada Yada Yada." And how do we "teach" a machine to do something if we ourselves don't already know how it should be done? It's done all the time. Look at the newest fly-by-wire military aircraft like the joint services fighter. Its aerodynamically characteristics are such that a human pilot cannot fly it directly - takes too many corrections in too little time. But a computer can fly it directly. The human pilot tells the computer what he/she wants the plane to do and the computer figures out how to move the control surfaces to make that happen. More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human error. People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired, etc. By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that the crew could do nothing about. Oh? Yep. Could the Columbia crew have gone EVA and fixed the busted shuttle tiles with what was onboard that last mission? They were engineering errors if we patently accept the investigation's reports. The errors were due to a failure of the people making the decisons. In the case of Challenger, yes. Thiokol said "go" after being coerced by NASA people to let Challenger fly. Coerced by men...not robots. Yep. Men from Reagan;s White House.... Boom. There had been issues raised over the foam on the external tank being able to come loose, but again cooler heads didn't get a chance to prevail. One "suggestion" that had been laid out years ago was that a "once-over" EVA be done to the Shuttle prior to re-entry in order to make sure no external damage was done. It was suggested that thios would place the crew at too much risk. There's also the fact that a lot of flaws could not be fixed. If the Columbia crew had lnown there was a problem with foam damage, could they have fixed it? The idea of a small "ROV" be built for the same purpose was made.. "Too much time and money". I'll bet a bunch of MIT kids could have designed the thing as a class project for less than a mil... Designed, maybe. Built, tested and certified for manned space flight? No. Compare that against the loss we suffered. Exactly. The humans made a wrong decision. Even though they were professionals, they messed up. But part of the problem is the basic design of the STS itself. The people-carrying orbiter sits alongside the fuel tank and SRBs, not atop the rocket as was done in Apollo and its predecessors. There's no "escape tower", as was done in those earlier systems. And the reentry heat shield is exposed to the elements from long before the flight to the very end, where in previous systems (particularly Apollo) it was protected by other modules until reentry. (Of course there's a downside - once assembled to the SM, the Apollo CM heatshield could not be inspected.) Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems. The ones on earth? I disagree! Me too. I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just solutions awaiting implementation! Standard HR BS. The facts a Some problems have no solution. ("What is the exact value of pi expressed as the ratio of two integers?). Some problems have a theoretical solution but it cannot be found in practice (Traveling salesman problem) Some problems have realizable solutions. I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done. Yep. I believe we will one day find outr how to go light speed or better. It's just a matter of time, money and effort. No, it isn't. At this point we do not know if such travel is possible. It may be that there are as-yet-undiscovered principles of physics that would make such travel possible. It also may be that the very nature of the universe makes such travel by humans completely impossible. As it stands right now, our knowledge of physics says it cannot be done. Not a matter of better rockets or materials - it's the very nature of the universe that is the limit. Of course that knowledge could change! But at the present time, human travel at or beyond the speed of light is *not* a matter of money or effort; it's a matter of physical reality. Basic relativity physics, IOW. And as Hans says so well: "Reality does not care what you believe" There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be enslaved, either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those jobs. That problem was solved. Yep..We just look the other way at the border once in a while! =) By saying that, even humorosly, you're saying you believe some people have to be enslaved economically. There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be allowed to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to be a problem. That's a matter of opinion. Several political pundits have said that a lot of the "vote" that went to Bill Clinton did so because some segment of women voters thought he was more handsome than President Bush, and thought that his rhetoric on women's "issues" was "sweet". And who are these "pundits"? What is their data? Most of all, even if their claim is true, how is it any different from: Men who won't vote for a black person? Men who won't vote for a Roman Catholic? Or a Jew? Men who won't vote for a person from a certain place or region? Men who won't vote for someone because they "feel" he "cannot be trusted"? There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children to read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and factories. Obviously it's still true. No, it isn't. A very large part of our imports from India and Pakistan are made by kids. That may be - but we don't have to import those things. There was a time when the USA was, for all intents and purposes, self-sufficient in all or at least most necessary industries. That could be true again if we wanted it to be. If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us there some day. What's all the rush? Space has been there for a lot longer than we have, and will be there long after we are gone. We can take our time and do it in a planned way, or rush headlong and wastefully, and accomplish little. Yes...it will still be there...but I for one am very disappointed that after four decades of manned space travel, we still haven't done a darned thing to REALLY start exploring "space"...! We haven't? I say we have! It seems some people are confused between their fantasy perception of space travel (ie: Star Trek et al, Babylon 5, etc) and the reality to the point that they have grossly overinflated ideas of how these systems ought work. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#7
July 3rd 04, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/2/2004 5:40 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: If you get even one pound more of thrust MORE than what you "need", then that's ALL you all you what? Oooooops! "need"! Sorry. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#8
July 3rd 04, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/2/2004 5:40 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Exactly. And "composites"...And computing power 1000 fold greater than what Apollo had... More like a million fold... So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should we spend billions of tax dollars on it? "SpaceShip" 1 barely went suborbital. That's as high as X-15 ever went. But other than to use it to demonstrate the VERY basic theories of rudimentary manuevering in a near-vacuum, what did it do? What can a sub-orbital ship hope to offer that aircraft operating at lower altitudes don't alread offfer? The machines can't fix them selves enroute or on-site. So you build more reliable machines. Learning how to do that is an earthbound benefit of a space program! And if you're not "thre" to witness the failure and know what failed, how do you fix it? I am reminded of pilots returning and trying to relate thier perceptions of problems, and how to fix them. The communications gear was a no-brainer. AFCS (Automatic Flight COntrol System) in the CH53 was very dynamic, even for the antiquated systems in the older A models...Nothing substituted for getting on the bird and experiencing the abnormal behaviour first had. Many human ills cannot be self-repaired, either. Any your point is...?!?! Look at Cassini-Huygens - more than 7 years in space and performing perfectly. Uh huh...Against how many that never left the pad, or failed enroute? Those "robot" I am willing to bet that the Brit's "Beagle 2" mission burnt up on entering the Martian atmosphere. Why? What data supports that? "................................................. .." (sound of signal from probe after "re-entry") Maybe had it been a manned mission, the 1/10th of a degree attitude adjustment necessary to PREVENT it could have been made. Doubtful. The machines are faster and more accurate at such tasks than humans. Not always. Know why I carry my stethoscope at all times in the ER despite a plethora of "non-invasive diagnostic devices"...?!?! Because those "machines" are NOT always faster and more accurate than a human. Nor do those machines have the ability to "filter out" the audible ectopics that the human brain has. How many other massive spaceborne telescopes have we had on orbit? There are some smaller ones but none like Hubble. I reiterate the adjective "massive"...! ! ! ! ! I'm not confused at all. Some folks, however, think that because humans went from Kitty Hawk to supersonic flight in less than half a century, and from there to the Sea of Tranquility in another quarter century, that such progres would continue on a linear path. It doesn't. Not linear, but certainly with a certain degree of advancement. I for one don't see it happening. The Cassini mission is great, but what new technology or methodolgy are we using? Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. Even though it was known that the optics were defective. But they were able to compensate for that. Why not do it right the first time? How does anyone know what's "right" the first time until somenthing HAS been tried, and either found to work "as advertised", or return to the drawing board? How does man learn to do these things in space if we send machines to try and do it? Why should humans take unreasonable risks to do what can be done by machines? What's "unreasonable"...?!?! I MIGHT contract hepatitis or HIV in my profession, despite "religious" use of PPE and "Universal Precautions"... So...Considering that, do Nurses and Physicians just thrown up their arms and say "unreasonable risk" and quit? I'd hope not. And I'd hope we'd move manned space flight forward from LEO. And how do we "teach" a machine to do something if we ourselves don't already know how it should be done? It's done all the time. Look at the newest fly-by-wire military aircraft like the joint services fighter. Its aerodynamically characteristics are such that a human pilot cannot fly it directly - takes too many corrections in too little time. But a computer can fly it directly. Uh huh. And how does the computer "know" what's an "unusual attitude" and correct it? How does the computer know the difference between that same "unusual attitude" as a result of loss-of-control (needs to be corrected) or a desired input (the pilot deems it necessary to be in that "unusual attitude")...?!?! The human pilot tells the computer what he/she wants the plane to do and the computer figures out how to move the control surfaces to make that happen. Uh huh. And what if the computer refuses to let the pilot do it? And how does that computer "know" what to do? My point in the last couple of paragraphs is that persons who KNOW how to fly teach (program, in this case) the computer what it meeds ot know. No machine to date, and to the best of my knowledge, has taken it upon itself to "learn" somehting it wasn't programmed with. (Shades of "COLOSSUS: The Forbin Project") More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human error. People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired, etc. By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that the crew could do nothing about. Oh? Yep. Could the Columbia crew have gone EVA and fixed the busted shuttle tiles with what was onboard that last mission? No, they couldn't. But we could have put emergency stores on an unmanned flight to send to them, or they may have been able to "lifeboat" at ISS. Those scenarios have been the subject of public discussion before. "Human Risk" and cost are the only two reasons they've not done it in the past. It cost us dearly with Columbia. Imagine if we had just put one MMP on board each shuttle for one 30-60 minute pre-reentry EVA for Columbia (obviously it wasn't an issue with They were engineering errors if we patently accept the investigation's reports. The errors were due to a failure of the people making the decisons. In the case of Challenger, yes. Thiokol said "go" after being coerced by NASA people to let Challenger fly. Coerced by men...not robots. Yep. Men from Reagan;s White House.... Nope...Men from NASA. It was suggested that thios would place the crew at too much risk. There's also the fact that a lot of flaws could not be fixed. If the Columbia crew had lnown there was a problem with foam damage, could they have fixed it? Probably not. But in the long run they more than likely might have survived the mission. Again, we could have put extra stores on an unmanned loft or got them to ISS until another shuttle could get to them... The idea of a small "ROV" be built for the same purpose was made.. "Too much time and money". I'll bet a bunch of MIT kids could have designed the thing as a class project for less than a mil... Designed, maybe. Built, tested and certified for manned space flight? No. Why? They couldn't put a package together that NASA could adopt and incorporate? From where are current NASA "rocket scientists" gleaned anyway? Compare that against the loss we suffered. Exactly. The humans made a wrong decision. Even though they were professionals, they messed up. Oooops. And any one of them or all of them could have stepped off a curb into on-coming traffic. I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just solutions awaiting implementation! Standard HR BS. Jiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmm........ The facts a Some problems have no solution. ("What is the exact value of pi expressed as the ratio of two integers?). And in what PRACTICAL applications of formulas using "pi" have we NOT been able to incorporate it to effective use? Some problems have a theoretical solution but it cannot be found in practice (Traveling salesman problem) Where to find a clean bed, cheap meal and female company? NO PROBLEM! Some problems have realizable solutions. Time and effort. That's all it takes. Many problems are great and no EASY solution is at hand. (ie: curing the cold, cancer, HIV, getting Lennie and Brain to act like adults...etc etc etc) I believe we'll find cures. I believe man will travel at "warp speeds". Not today...Not even tomorrow...but one day... I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done. Yep. I believe we will one day find outr how to go light speed or better. It's just a matter of time, money and effort. No, it isn't. At this point we do not know if such travel is possible...(SNIP TO...) As it stands right now, our knowledge of physics says it cannot be done. Fifty years ago our knowledge of physics said that the sound barrier was a tuffy... Ten years before that our knowledge of physics suggested the detonation of a nuclear device would cause the whole world to explode at once. Even after the Wright Brothers submitted evidence that they had "flown", reputable scientists of the age were saying manned flight, and certainly PRACTICAL manned flight would never happen. Not a matter of better rockets or materials - it's the very nature of the universe that is the limit. Of course that knowledge could change! But at the present time, human travel at or beyond the speed of light is *not* a matter of money or effort; it's a matter of physical reality. Basic relativity physics, IOW. And as Hans says so well: "Reality does not care what you believe" So far, I'd say that the human imagination, when properly interfaced with human ingenuity and dedication, has done a pretty good job of making things "happen". I'd sure like to google-up these comments 50 years from now and see just how far we progressed, and then either see if they exceeded expectation, or if not, why not. There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be enslaved, either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those jobs. That problem was solved. Yep..We just look the other way at the border once in a while! =) By saying that, even humorosly, you're saying you believe some people have to be enslaved economically. They don't HAVE to, Jim. Most of those people coming across the border certainly see it as a step up... Would you KNOWINGLY put your self at risk to do what THEY do to get here if you thought you were going to be enslaved? Those people are desperate and determined to make a better life for themselves and thier families. If they peceived themselves as being "enslaved", they'd not voluntarily submit them selves to it by the hundreds-of-thousands every year. There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be allowed to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to be a problem. That's a matter of opinion. Several political pundits have said that a lot of the "vote" that went to Bill Clinton did so because some segment of women voters thought he was more handsome than President Bush, and thought that his rhetoric on women's "issues" was "sweet". And who are these "pundits"? Take your pick. Wanna start at the top with ABC's anchors and work your way down to UPN? It was the regular topic of the news "magazines" back in 92, 96 and 2000. What is their data? Who knows? Who cares? There were women willing to be on-camera and acknowledge that they voted, in part, based upon looks and perception of Clinton as "pro-woman". Too bad they didn't know "pro-woman" just meant he wasn't gay. Most of all, even if their claim is true, how is it any different from: Men who won't vote for a black person? Men who won't vote for a Roman Catholic? Or a Jew? Men who won't vote for a person from a certain place or region? Men who won't vote for someone because they "feel" he "cannot be trusted"? None at all. Too bad that there isn't a test to determine voter competency, huh...?!?! There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children to read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and factories. Obviously it's still true. No, it isn't. Sure it is. Not as much in the United States, anymore, but certainly in a great many OTHER nations of the world. A very large part of our imports from India and Pakistan are made by kids. That may be - but we don't have to import those things. You're right...we don't "have" to... But we do... Yes...it will still be there...but I for one am very disappointed that after four decades of manned space travel, we still haven't done a darned thing to REALLY start exploring "space"...! We haven't? I say we have! To the degree we we COULD be exploring it? I say no. We COULD have been walking on Mars this past summer during the Earth/Mars approach. It would have been the ideal time, we had more than enough time to plan for it, and we had the inertia to get there. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#9
July 5th 04, 02:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/2/2004 5:40 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should we spend billions of tax dollars on it? "SpaceShip" 1 barely went suborbital. That's as high as X-15 ever went. But other than to use it to demonstrate the VERY basic theories of rudimentary manuevering in a near-vacuum, what did it do? SpaceShipOne or X-15? What can a sub-orbital ship hope to offer that aircraft operating at lower altitudes don't alread offfer? Not much on their own. But such ships are the first step to low-cost manned orbital missions. An X-15 flight cost far less than any Mercury mission, for example. The machines can't fix them selves enroute or on-site. So you build more reliable machines. Learning how to do that is an earthbound benefit of a space program! And if you're not "thre" to witness the failure and know what failed, how do you fix it? Depends on the failure. Many failures give warnings via telemetry. Others show up in simulation. For example, one of the Voyager scan platforms froze up, yet was remotely fixed by analysis of an earthbound simulator. I am reminded of pilots returning and trying to relate thier perceptions of problems, and how to fix them. Remember also pilots who never got back. The communications gear was a no-brainer. AFCS (Automatic Flight COntrol System) in the CH53 was very dynamic, even for the antiquated systems in the older A models...Nothing substituted for getting on the bird and experiencing the abnormal behaviour first had. But the CH53 was intended to be a human-piloted aircraft, used in a variety of roles. Many human ills cannot be self-repaired, either. Any your point is...?!?! That the risk must be balanced against the benefits. Look at Cassini-Huygens - more than 7 years in space and performing perfectly. Uh huh...Against how many that never left the pad, or failed enroute? Such as? Would you rather humans not explore Mars, Venus or the outer gas-giant planets at all until manned missions can be sent? Those "robot" Robot what? I am willing to bet that the Brit's "Beagle 2" mission burnt up on entering the Martian atmosphere. Why? What data supports that? "................................................. .." (sound of signal from probe after "re-entry") Burning up is only one of many explanations. The silence could also be caused by: - Some part of the reentry system failed that did *not* result in burn-up (parachute didn't open, hard landing damage, etc. - Some part of communications system failed - Landing site anomalies Maybe had it been a manned mission, the 1/10th of a degree attitude adjustment necessary to PREVENT it could have been made. Doubtful. The machines are faster and more accurate at such tasks than humans. Not always. Can you think of an example? Know why I carry my stethoscope at all times in the ER despite a plethora of "non-invasive diagnostic devices"...?!?! Because those "machines" are NOT always faster and more accurate than a human. Nor do those machines have the ability to "filter out" the audible ectopics that the human brain has. That's good but the problem of reentry is completely different. Can you estimate a 1/10th degree angle error better an faster than an automatic system designed for the job? Particularly in 3 axes at spacecraft speeds? How many other massive spaceborne telescopes have we had on orbit? There are some smaller ones but none like Hubble. I reiterate the adjective "massive"...! ! ! ! ! Hubble is unmanned. One of those robots. Its aiming accuracy is considerably better than 1/10 of a degree, I think. I'm not confused at all. Some folks, however, think that because humans went from Kitty Hawk to supersonic flight in less than half a century, and from there to the Sea of Tranquility in another quarter century, that such progress would continue on a linear path. It doesn't. Not linear, but certainly with a certain degree of advancement. And we have lots of advancement. I for one don't see it happening. I do. The Cassini mission is great, but what new technology or methodolgy are we using? Several: - Cassini carries with it the probe Huygens. - Cassini used gravitational boosts from other planets to get to Saturn years faster than with rocket power alone. - Cassini has smarter computers, better sensors, etc. Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. Even though it was known that the optics were defective. But they were able to compensate for that. Why not do it right the first time? How does anyone know what's "right" the first time until somenthing HAS been tried, and either found to work "as advertised", or return to the drawing board? That's what engineering is all about. How does man learn to do these things in space if we send machines to try and do it? Why should humans take unreasonable risks to do what can be done by machines? What's "unreasonable"...?!?! 1 in 75 chance of total loss of mission crew and equipment, I think. I MIGHT contract hepatitis or HIV in my profession, despite "religious" use of PPE and "Universal Precautions"... Do you the chances of that are 1 in 75? So...Considering that, do Nurses and Physicians just thrown up their arms and say "unreasonable risk" and quit? I'd hope not. No - but what they have done is to increase the precautions taken - with *all* patients. This costs more money and time, and reduces "productivity". But it's necessary. And the risks are far less than 1 in 75. And I'd hope we'd move manned space flight forward from LEO. Me too. And how do we "teach" a machine to do something if we ourselves don't already know how it should be done? It's done all the time. Look at the newest fly-by-wire military aircraft like the joint services fighter. Its aerodynamically characteristics are such that a human pilot cannot fly it directly - takes too many corrections in too little time. But a computer can fly it directly. Uh huh. Absolutely true. And how does the computer "know" what's an "unusual attitude" and correct it? How does the computer know the difference between that same "unusual attitude" as a result of loss-of-control (needs to be corrected) or a desired input (the pilot deems it necessary to be in that "unusual attitude")...?!?! You misunderstand how those systems work. Their job is to figure out how to get the plane to fly the way the human pilot wants it to. The human pilot tells the computer what he/she wants the plane to do and the computer figures out how to move the control surfaces to make that happen. Uh huh. Yep. Look it up. And what if the computer refuses to let the pilot do it? It doesn't happen. If the computers fail badly enough, the pilot has to eject. There's no direct mechanical link from the control stick and foot pedals to the aircraft control surfaces. That's what fly-by-wire means. And how does that computer "know" what to do? Programming. My point in the last couple of paragraphs is that persons who KNOW how to fly teach (program, in this case) the computer what it meeds ot know. And my point is that the computer does things the humans cannot. It makes an unflyable plane flyable. No machine to date, and to the best of my knowledge, has taken it upon itself to "learn" somehting it wasn't programmed with. (Shades of "COLOSSUS: The Forbin Project") Not the point. More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human error. People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired, etc. By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that the crew could do nothing about. Oh? Yep. Could the Columbia crew have gone EVA and fixed the busted shuttle tiles with what was onboard that last mission? No, they couldn't. But we could have put emergency stores on an unmanned flight to send to them, or they may have been able to "lifeboat" at ISS. Perhaps an unmanned supply mission could have been sent - that would be a job for robots! But the orbits of Columbia and ISS were simply too different. Those scenarios have been the subject of public discussion before. "Human Risk" and cost are the only two reasons they've not done it in the past. It cost us dearly with Columbia. Imagine if we had just put one MMP on board each shuttle for one 30-60 minute pre-reentry EVA for Columbia (obviously it wasn't an issue with With what? Again, if the crew had done an EVA and seen the damage, they could not fix it anyway. They were engineering errors if we patently accept the investigation's reports. The errors were due to a failure of the people making the decisons. In the case of Challenger, yes. Thiokol said "go" after being coerced by NASA people to let Challenger fly. Coerced by men...not robots. Yep. Men from Reagan;s White House.... Nope...Men from NASA. Who were pressured by Reagan's White House. Documented fact - the White House wanted the "teacher in space" program to go. It had already been delayed. The whole shuttle program was way behind schedule. But rather than admit that the schedule was simply unrealistic. and should be revised, pressure to launch was fed down the chain of command. Try to remember what the mindset was back then. NASA had *never* lost *anyone* in space before Challenger. The Apollo 1 fire, horrible as it was, did not result from a rocket or reentry system failure. Apollo 13 got back safely. At least some folks thought NASA was "overcautious". It was suggested that thios would place the crew at too much risk. There's also the fact that a lot of flaws could not be fixed. If the Columbia crew had lnown there was a problem with foam damage, could they have fixed it? Probably not. But in the long run they more than likely might have survived the mission. How? Again, we could have put extra stores on an unmanned loft or got them to ISS until another shuttle could get to them... See above. The idea of a small "ROV" be built for the same purpose was made.. "Too much time and money". I'll bet a bunch of MIT kids could have designed the thing as a class project for less than a mil... Designed, maybe. Built, tested and certified for manned space flight? No. Why? Because there's a lot of work to getting something actually built, tested, and certified as safe to take into space. Particularly something new. They couldn't put a package together that NASA could adopt and incorporate? Still has to meet the requirements. For example, if a component in the package - *any* component - decides to outgas certain chemicals, all kinds of problems can happen. So the components used all need to be certified and tested. And the manufacturing and assembly processes need to be certified and tested. Look at how long it takes to build and launch an OSCAR.. From where are current NASA "rocket scientists" gleaned anyway? Lots of places. Compare that against the loss we suffered. Exactly. The humans made a wrong decision. Even though they were professionals, they messed up. Oooops. Happens. And any one of them or all of them could have stepped off a curb into on-coming traffic. But that would not have put other people's lives at risk - only their own. I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just solutions awaiting implementation! Standard HR BS. Jiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmm........ It's standard HR BS. That's a plain, simple fact. Nothing is ever difficult for the person who doesn't have to do the work. The facts a Some problems have no solution. ("What is the exact value of pi expressed as the ratio of two integers?). And in what PRACTICAL applications of formulas using "pi" have we NOT been able to incorporate it to effective use? Not the point. All values of pi used by humans in real-world problems are approximations. Some problems have a theoretical solution but it cannot be found in practice (Traveling salesman problem) Where to find a clean bed, cheap meal and female company? NO PROBLEM! You don't know what the traveling salesman problem is, do you? I'll explain it in another post. Some problems have realizable solutions. Time and effort. That's all it takes. Many problems are great and no EASY solution is at hand. (ie: curing the cold, cancer, HIV, These problems may or may not have complete solutions. For example, there may be types of cancer that simply cannot be cured - but they may be preventable. getting Lennie and Brain to act like adults...etc etc etc) I repeat: Some problems have no solution. Some problems have a theoretical solution but it cannot be found in practice I believe we'll find cures. I do too. Or preventatives, which are even better. (I don;t think a true cure for, say, polio was ever developed. But vaccines were)/ I believe man will travel at "warp speeds". Perhaps humans will. But it may be simply impossible. Not today...Not even tomorrow...but one day... Only if it is possible. Reality does not care what you believe. I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done. Yep. I believe we will one day find outr how to go light speed or better. It's just a matter of time, money and effort. No, it isn't. At this point we do not know if such travel is possible...(SNIP TO...) As it stands right now, our knowledge of physics says it cannot be done. Fifty years ago our knowledge of physics said that the sound barrier was a tuffy... No, it did not. Fifty years ago (1954) it had been broken many times. Ten years before that our knowledge of physics suggested the detonation of a nuclear device would cause the whole world to explode at once. Not true. Even after the Wright Brothers submitted evidence that they had "flown", reputable scientists of the age were saying manned flight, and certainly PRACTICAL manned flight would never happen. Has anyone submitted evidence of humans traveling faster than light? Not a matter of better rockets or materials - it's the very nature of the universe that is the limit. Of course that knowledge could change! But at the present time, human travel at or beyond the speed of light is *not* a matter of money or effort; it's a matter of physical reality. Basic relativity physics, IOW. And as Hans says so well: "Reality does not care what you believe" So far, I'd say that the human imagination, when properly interfaced with human ingenuity and dedication, has done a pretty good job of making things "happen". Only things that are possible. Bullets and V2 rockets broke the "sound barrier" before the X-1 did. The question was not "could something go faster than sound" but "how do you make an airplane that can do it?" Nothing goes at light speed except light (in the broadest sense). Nothing with a nonzero rest mass has been accelerated to or beyond light speed. Basic relativity physics. I'd sure like to google-up these comments 50 years from now and see just how far we progressed, and then either see if they exceeded expectation, or if not, why not. You don't seem to understand the difference between knowing something is possible and not knowing how to do it, and not knowing if something is possible at all. Specifically, the current knowledge of physics says that "warp speed" is simply not possible because the universe isn't built to allow it. There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be enslaved, either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those jobs. That problem was solved. Yep..We just look the other way at the border once in a while! =) By saying that, even humorosly, you're saying you believe some people have to be enslaved economically. They don't HAVE to, Jim. I know it. Do you? Most of those people coming across the border certainly see it as a step up... Doesn't mean it's right. Would you KNOWINGLY put your self at risk to do what THEY do to get here if you thought you were going to be enslaved? Doesn't mean it's right. Those people are desperate and determined to make a better life for themselves and thier families. If they peceived themselves as being "enslaved", they'd not voluntarily submit them selves to it by the hundreds-of-thousands every year. All sorts of people took all sorts of risks to get to the USA. There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be allowed to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to be a problem. That's a matter of opinion. Several political pundits have said that a lot of the "vote" that went to Bill Clinton did so because some segment of women voters thought he was more handsome than President Bush, and thought that his rhetoric on women's "issues" was "sweet". And who are these "pundits"? Take your pick. Wanna start at the top with ABC's anchors and work your way down to UPN? It was the regular topic of the news "magazines" back in 92, 96 and 2000. Show us. What is their data? Who knows? Who cares? I do. There were women willing to be on-camera and acknowledge that they voted, in part, based upon looks and perception of Clinton as "pro-woman". How many? Too bad they didn't know "pro-woman" just meant he wasn't gay. Means a lot more than that. Most of all, even if their claim is true, how is it any different from: Men who won't vote for a black person? Men who won't vote for a Roman Catholic? Or a Jew? Men who won't vote for a person from a certain place or region? Men who won't vote for someone because they "feel" he "cannot be trusted"? None at all. Exactly. Too bad that there isn't a test to determine voter competency, huh...?!?! There is. But it only applies to naturalized citizens. There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children to read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and factories. Obviously it's still true. No, it isn't. Sure it is. Not as much in the United States, anymore, but certainly in a great many OTHER nations of the world. Only because they believe it to be true. A very large part of our imports from India and Pakistan are made by kids. That may be - but we don't have to import those things. You're right...we don't "have" to... But we do... Because too many people place low price above other considerations. Yes...it will still be there...but I for one am very disappointed that after four decades of manned space travel, we still haven't done a darned thing to REALLY start exploring "space"...! We haven't? I say we have! To the degree we we COULD be exploring it? How much more of your money are you willing to spend? I say no. We COULD have been walking on Mars this past summer during the Earth/Mars approach. How do you know? It would have been the ideal time, If you say that, you don't understand much about how such missions actually work. Particularly the orbital mechanics of getting from here to there and back. we had more than enough time to plan for it, and we had the inertia to get there. Easy to say if you don't have to actually do it. Tell us how big a manned Mars mission ship would have to be in order to get to Mars and back, carrying all the supplies, spares and equipment needed. Or give us an alternative scenario, such as sending supply ships on ahead to Martian orbit - *with details*. Tell us how long the trip would be, and what the relative planetary positions would be at the start, Martian landing, and return. Tell us how those who land on Mars would deal with the cold, wind, and dust. Most of all tell us what it would all cost, and what we would do that could not be done by robots. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Hybrid Mode
