About Us

July 1st 04, 01:13 AM

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

That's
the root reason we decry the space program..."Let's spend the money on
Earth!"

But we're not doing it.

Then if we're not spending the money now with no more than we're doing in
space, how could this make it any worse?

Because it diverts money, people, and attention away from solving those
problems. Which gets priority - space or surface transportation?

The move forward in industry and technology would be perpetuating in and
of itself...

Well...I never DID see where Mickey D's was on orbit yet, so where ELSE
is the money being spent...?!?!

What's needed is to spend the money fixing Earth's problems.

I've heard that same argument used to finish off Apollo.

By Nixon...

We KO'd Apollo, yet schools are (in your estimation) no better off.

That's not what I wrote.

I asked why we couldn't have the best educational systems in the world. Is
there any reason other than lack of will and resources?

Why is that?

If you want, we can trash all of that, go back to pencil, paper and
slide rules, and "Movietone" newsreels for "audio visuals" at school...?!?!

Many schools are at about that level today because the commitment is not
there
to fund them adequately. Heck, some schools don't have enough books!

And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and
stealing the money from them?

No, but the Feds hand out unfunded mandates that the schools must meet. How
about this: Any Federal mandate must also carry with it funds to make them
happen?

Why can't the USA have the best educational systems in the world? The
best surface transportation systems? The best energy systems? Energy
independence?

Money.

Exactly. It gets spent on giving congresscritters joyrides and in replacing
destroyed orbiters.

We'll spend more money trying to defeat gay marriage than what replacing
Columbia and Challenger would cost.

I don't think so. Besides, why should defeating gay marriage cost taxpayers any
money at all? Indeed, why should it be defeated - if gay people can get
'married' (in the legal sense), they'll pay more taxes because of the income
tax marriage penalty, thereby raising tax revenues.

Say, there's the money for your expanded space program!

Besides...we HAVEN'T replaced them...Challenger splashed 18 years ago
now.
Where's IT'S replacement...?!?!?

No new orbiters have been built since 1986?

We could have done all of those things 30 or more years ago (or at least
been positioned to be there by now...) but everything was "fine" then, so
why spend the money...?!?!

Everything wasn't fine then.

I agree.

That's why I put it in " " brackets.

It WAS a problem then. It's a worse one now.

Yep. Because four presidents since then did not make it a priority.

Things are NOT so fine now, but not yet to disaster proportions, but
that
light at the end of the tunnel is NOT salvation! It's the on-coming train!

What *are* you talking about?

Drought.

Where?

Declining oil reserves.

Yep.

Internal security of our own borders.

That's because we play the game at both ends. On the one hand, we say we want
security. On the other hand, we want the cheap immigrant labor and the money
tourists and students spend here.

Here's a quick one...Desalination. Plants were designed in the 60's
for
SoCal that would have used solar heating to help desalt seawater for LA,
SFO and SDG.

Sounds like a good idea.

Now the news on several internet sites is that the LA reserves are down
by 5 to 7 million acre-feet of water.

Were the plants built?

Nope.

They "cost" too much.

I wonder what they'd cost today to build? I wonder what the cost of the
decaying cities will be when those cities can no longer sustain thier
populations, and the people go elsewhere to live?

Perhaps the bigger question is this: Why are so many people living in arid
areas? Why do they expect to live as if they are not in a desert?

We will force the building of NEW infrastructure wherever these people
wind up, and the old cities will have to be refurbished somehow.

That's because people do not connect their lifestyles with the environmental
and resource costs.

Ultimately I think they will have to still build the plants that should
ahve started in the 70's, and it will cost even more then.

And who will pay?

Sure it will....Some idiot did it to TBN (not that they didn't NEED
jamming.....) and the guy responsible was collared in a day.

How did they find him? Was he in the USA? Did he do it continually?

As I understand it he was found using the satellite itself to narrow him
down. He was then found by the "usual" terran techniques. No, he didn't do
it continually.

So the next time, use several sites and better aiming.

And I bet with some simple programming we can defeat jamming of our
commercial satellites...

Not against RF overload.

That would take a system capable of putting a massive amount of RF
across
an extremely wide range of frequencies for a significant amount of time, Jim.

Like from 400MHZ to over 5GHZ.

Enough RF on a single frquency desenses the front end. That's all it takes.

When's the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car in the USA
exploded and killed people? How many of them do you think are in use
in the continental USA in the course of a year?

Oh...NOW you add the modifier "and killed people"... ! ! !

Yes. That's what the shuttle did when it blew up. Level the playing field.

Ahhhhhhhh....I see......

When was the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car exploded at all?

Well, I still see the Manned Space Program as beiong over forty years
old,
and only 17 Americans have died in direct space flight operations or
preparations.

Out of how many that have flown?

The boosters for the Shuttle exploded once, we fixed that problem.

Then another problem surfaced. Is it really fixed?

This time it was FOD to the leading edges of the wings.

Not the same...certainly not "over and over".

Dead is dead. Two orbiters and their crews a total loss.

Yes. Dead is dead. They were tragedies, and we learned from them. I do
not consider thier sacrifices as a "total loss".

"Total loss" meaning "no survivors and all equipment destroyed"

They DO have a Lunar plan in place, according to TIME, Scientific
American
and several other folks commenting on the issue.

So did the Russians. They never got there.

They never got there because they quit. They spent thier money
elsewhere.
It wasn't that they couldn't.

They couldn't do it in time.

If they land ONE man on the Moon in the next decade, that will be one
more
than WE have done in the last forty years ! ! !

So? The moon isn't ours.

The Gulf of Siddra isn't "ours" either yet we patrol it with a Carrier
Battle Group regularly.

You might ask why that is necessary.

The differene with the Moon is that anyone who can get there can make
use
of what ever resources they find there. If it isn't us, it will be someone
else. I would rather it BE us.

Me too but until there is some resource worth getting, there are better things
to spend the money and resources on.

I'd rather not!

You suggested the Ariane earlier.

Lacking a US alternative, I'd spend our monies with ESA before I'd send
any more of it to the Pacific Rim..especially a PacRim controlled by the Red
Chinese.

Yet we are importing more and more manufactured goods from those same Chinese.

Why is it OK to buy consumer goods from China but not rockets?

Because I am not worried about the Red Chinese using the technology used
to make rubber duckies and t-shirts to overwhem us.

They make a lot more than those things. Look inside a new computer, for
example. Look at many other manufactured goods that are far more complex than
rubber duckies and tshirts.

Or ask KB3EIA. Recently, an entire glass plant near him was sold, dismantled
and shipped to Anang Province in China, where it will be reassembled and used
to make glass products. The reason given by those who did the deal was that
American workers' wages and benefits cost too much.

I'm about HOW we can do things.

Me too. I'm an engineer.

Then instead of tellingus what "can't" be done because of a lack of
funding, tell us what CAN be done WITH adequate funding...And money spent
SMARTLY, not just thrown into the pot and done with as you will.....

I'm telling you what is practical and what isn't. Blank-check spending isn't
practical.

Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them.

Engieneers do them when adequately funded!

How much has SpaceShipOne cost?

DaVinci dreamed of a great many things that have only been made
practical
in the last 100 years...Because we spent the money on research to develop the
materials to let the enginees make it happen!

DaVinci sketched vague ideas. It took a lot of time, work and development to
make real machines.

If you believe that "all that money" is
going to no good use and that it's not a benefit in your daily life
today,

well then there's just no use doing it.

I've not said that. What I have said is that the space and military
programs are not the best way to solve our problems here on earth.
Those problems need to be addressed directly. You want a better
mousetrap, study mouse behavior and
trap design.

That's not how I've read it.

Read it again without couching it in "liberal/conservative" or
"democrat/republican" terms.

I see the benefits of our space and technology programs every day. And
as
both an American and as a human with a bit more than average sense of
adventure, I'd like to see us reach out beyond our own celestial home
and
take
advantage of the opportunities "out there".

So would I. But at the same time, I realize how big space is, and how
empty. And the basic physics of the problems inherent in space travel.

Unfortunatley GETTING there will be neither cheap or without risk,
but
I
for one think the benefits will ultimately be enormous.

How much of *your* money are you willing to spend? Because that's what
will fund it.

Better funding American space programs than leasing others!

You're still avoiding that simple question....

I am not "avoiding" anything Jim.

You're avoiding saying how many more tax dollars you're willing to pay. That's
the bottom line. People are all for all sorts of things until it comes time to
pay for them. Then they scream bloody murder about being ripped off.

I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers.

Then understand that you can't have everything you want for free.

I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward
today.

I disagree. The Mars rover missions are a great step forward. Cassini/Huygens
is reaching Saturn - be prepared for a summer of wonders from the ringed
planet.

The recent deployments only bear that out.

They prove the technology is no damn good. It's a spectrum polluter. It's
just plain stupid.

They proved that THIS method is a spectrum polluter.

The *concept* is just plain stupid. Did you see my post about the stormwater
ditch? That's what BPL is electrically equivalent to.

Can there NEVER be a development that might work?

Depends what you mean by "work". The systems do "work" in the sense that they
transmit data from A to B. The problem is that they leak RF all over the place
because the power lines are simply leaky at RF frequencies. They radiate. It's
basic physics. Wires with RF in them radiate, and long unshileded wires way up
in the air with HF in them radiate really well. Various forms of coding and
such simply don't fix the basic problem.

Now if someone wants to install shielded power lines and equipment, a BPL
system can work without interference. But such a system would cost more to
build than simply running new coax or fiber.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us