We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

Priorities need to be examined here...

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:32:33 -0700, N2EY wrote:

The Space Shuttle made it back safely this morning. (Collective sigh of
relief).

But it will be a while before any more Space Shuttles fly again. More
problems to fix.

I noted that NASA made a point of referring to this mission as a "test
flight"...

In any event, the Shuttle program is nearing its conclusion. NASA is
already looking to the next generation of people-carrying space
vehicles:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...L&type=science

which is a lot less cumbersome as:

http://tinyurl.com/aevvs

The "new" designs are much closer to the old, one-time-use, pre-Shuttle
rockets. Reusability, gliders and large cargo bays are out, simpler,
one-shot capsules are in.

An interesting look at the Space Shuttle's history, ideology and
lessons hopefully learned can be seen at:

http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_r...ere.htm#school

which is less cumbersome as:

http://tinyurl.com/cws82


---


What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty! For one thing,
ham radio is mentioned in the second article.

But more importantly, there's the whole issue of "new" vs. "old"
technology, fads and fashions, and politics vs. engineering and
science.

The Space Shuttle was promoted as the "next big thing" in space travel
- as a "space truck" that would cut the cost of getting to orbit,
reducing the waste of one-time rockets, etc. We were told of turnaround
times of a few weeks, and missions costing 10 to 20 million dollars
total - none of which has ever come to pass, 30 years after the program
began.

What wasn't promoted nearly so heavily was its planned role as a Cold
War DoD resource, for doing things like snatching Soviet satellites
from polar orbit, and setting up SDI platforms. Nor the
predicted failure rate of about 1 in 100.

Most of all, the amazingly complex technology of the Space Shuttle
hasn't been adequate to prevent two complete losses of vehicle and
crew.

Now some may scoff at these words from a non-rocket-scientist. But it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the
Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. It doesn't take a Von
Braun to see that if your mission-vital systems like the reentry heat
shield are exposed to being hit at hypersonic speeds by anything from a
bird to ice to foam, there's a good chance of damage on the way up that
will result in big trouble on the way down.

None of this is meant to belittle the accomplishments of NASA or the
bravery of the Space Shuttle crews. It does seem odd, though, that such
bravery should even be needed after 30 years and billions of dollars
spent on the Space Shuttle program.


Perhaps the most important legacy of the Space Shuttle will be the
lessons learned from its problems...

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: John Smith on Aug 9, 10:53 am

We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

Priorities need to be examined here...

For an alternate way to reach terrestrial orbit, one possibility
is shown in the August 2005 issue of the IEEE SPECTRUM. It is the
cover story. In the same issue (beginning page 12) is a story
where Europe is joining Russia in building the "next" space shuttle.

SPECTRUM is viewable on the IEEE website, www.ieee.org.

Len:

SPECTRUM? My gawd that just sounds impressive, I don't think I can even
look, must be a project of "God Awful Proportions!"

Hey, they didn't get that idea from an old bond movie did they?

Isn't that what goldfinger was working on?

(I am partial to the "space elevator" constructed from carbon nano-tubes...)

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:32:04 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: John Smith on Aug 9, 10:53 am

We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

Priorities need to be examined here...

For an alternate way to reach terrestrial orbit, one possibility
is shown in the August 2005 issue of the IEEE SPECTRUM. It is the
cover story. In the same issue (beginning page 12) is a story
where Europe is joining Russia in building the "next" space shuttle.

SPECTRUM is viewable on the IEEE website, www.ieee.org.

wrote:
From: John Smith on Aug 9, 10:53 am

Priorities need to be examined here...

For an alternate way to reach terrestrial orbit, one possibility
is shown in the August 2005 issue of the IEEE SPECTRUM. It is the
cover story. In the same issue (beginning page 12) is a story
where Europe is joining Russia in building the "next" space shuttle.

SPECTRUM is viewable on the IEEE website, www.ieee.org.

From that site:

QUOTE

We need something better, and that something is a space elevator-a
superstrong, lightweight cable stretching 100 000 kilometers from
Earth's surface to a counterweight in space.

UNQUOTE

I kept looking for the link to Todd's "Inventions" page but
couldn't find it.

Maybe we could anchor this "cable" at the center of one of Todd's
cryogenically cooled storage capacitors, using the resulting explosion
to force the "elevator" into orbit...?!?!

In all seriousness...I wonder if the resulting oscillations in the
cable from it hitting an object in space (or something hitting it...)
will be adequately dampened by the time it get's to the cable's
antipode...?!?!

Now we don't only have to worry about an aquatic earthquate
casuing a tsunami, we have to worry about The Cable falling.

And for the "counterweight" to remain in one place relative to
Earth's surface, it would have to be of considerable mass, sped-up to
phenominal speeds in order to reach station-keeping over the desired
target.

Now the eggheads at IEEE suggest we can orbit a counterweight to
support a 100K Km cable capable of supporting trans-orbital flight
loads...?!?!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ:

Don't forget the fact that cable will be traveling at over 1,000 miles
per hour, the centrifical force is going to add some force to "pull" it
out from the earth, also, it will be spinning in magnetic fields--you know
what happens when you spin a conductor around in a magnetic
field--however, most physicists say it looks very doable.

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:59:54 -0700, K4YZ wrote:


wrote:
From: John Smith on Aug 9, 10:53 am

Priorities need to be examined here...

For an alternate way to reach terrestrial orbit, one possibility
is shown in the August 2005 issue of the IEEE SPECTRUM. It is the
cover story. In the same issue (beginning page 12) is a story
where Europe is joining Russia in building the "next" space shuttle.

SPECTRUM is viewable on the IEEE website, www.ieee.org.

From that site:

QUOTE

We need something better, and that something is a space elevator-a
superstrong, lightweight cable stretching 100 000 kilometers from
Earth's surface to a counterweight in space.

UNQUOTE

I kept looking for the link to Todd's "Inventions" page but
couldn't find it.

Maybe we could anchor this "cable" at the center of one of Todd's
cryogenically cooled storage capacitors, using the resulting explosion
to force the "elevator" into orbit...?!?!

In all seriousness...I wonder if the resulting oscillations in the
cable from it hitting an object in space (or something hitting it...)
will be adequately dampened by the time it get's to the cable's
antipode...?!?!

Now we don't only have to worry about an aquatic earthquate
casuing a tsunami, we have to worry about The Cable falling.

And for the "counterweight" to remain in one place relative to
Earth's surface, it would have to be of considerable mass, sped-up to
phenominal speeds in order to reach station-keeping over the desired
target.

Now the eggheads at IEEE suggest we can orbit a counterweight to
support a 100K Km cable capable of supporting trans-orbital flight
loads...?!?!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Steve, K4YZ

John Smith wrote:
We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space,

But, but, but....

We had to break a Treaty to attempt that. The no-servers don't like
that plan.

if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

and terrorist induced disruptions.

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

The time for that was 1973 (1st oil embargo), 1977 (second oil
embargo), 1991 (first Gulf War), 2001 (WTC/Pentagon attacks), and 2003
(2nd Gulf War). In that time frame, we've only succeeded in developing
an -interruptable- power supply. ;^)

I support alternative fuel development from a national security
standpoint, not a global warming view.

Priorities need to be examined here...

Ooops. Congress just re-examined those priorities and decided to
"Spring Forward." Huge effort, that, making people change their
clocks.

What would it have taken for the environmentalists Clinton/Gore to have
merely extended the EPA Fleet Mileage requirements for and additional
10 years??? What would it have taken for Clinton/Gore to tighten up
the standards and lessen our dependence on foreign oil???

Answer:

A $00.25 Bic pen.

Instead, there is no longer an EPA Fleet Mileage requirement. None.
Nada. Zip.

So let's buy behemoth V-8 and V-10 vehicles, raise the speed limit to
70mph, and roll them down the highway at 85mph on underinflated tires.
Talk about a highway to hell.

John Smith wrote:
We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

Why can't we have both?

And what constitutes military superiority in space?

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

What's needed is a long-term path to energy independence that's not run
by
a large bureaucratic organization, nor that is politically beholden to
so many groups.

Which pretty much leaves government out of the picture.

--

The problem is bigger than fuel - it's all about how Americans live and
what they
expect life to be like. Also their isolation from cause-and-effect.

For example, it's easy to say the solution is to require better gas
mileage from
new cars. Right now the price of gasoline focuses attention on
gas-guzzling SUVs
and the like.

But if the price of gasoline drops to, say, under $2/gallon, too many
people
forget all about the problem, and buy themselves a Hummer.

Gasoline may seem expensive today, as the price nears $3/gal in some
places. But when you
adjust for inflation, the price isn't that high, compared to, say, the
late 1970s.

The problems go way beyond gasoline. The big question is whether
Americans will change
the way they live in order to achieve energy independence. From what
I've seen in the
past 20-25 years, the answer is pretty much "no". Or rather, "HELL NO!"

What's more, the solutions are complex. A 20 mpg minivan isn't the most
efficient vehicle in the world - unless you have, say, six people
aboard, who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. One 20 mpg van
with six passengers is more energy-efficient than six 100 mpg
supereconoboxes.

But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind
farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable
towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip
requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their
consumption of energy to balance the equation?

That's the real challenge. Much tougher problems than space flight,
because if the solutions can't survive in the real-world marketplace,
they'll disappear.

25 years ago I bought a new car that got 40 mpg city, 50 mpg highway,
and met all the pollution and safety regs. The descendants of such cars
still exist today. But how many are sold?

There *are* new processes out there, like TDP. Might be snake oil,
might be the real thing. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff,
and get the good systems working?

Priorities need to be examined here...

Agreed. But do you think the current administration will deal with it
in any way that will
result in energy self-sufficiency? Heck, Shrub thinks "intelligent
design" (which is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo") is real science
- but that global warming isn't.

How much are *you* willing to change, spend, and give up for energy
independence?

N2EY:

Well, if you know a way to force some private corp or corps into starting
now, go for it, I don't--but we can, as american citizens, fund
development of alternative energy sources and hire employees to do it for
us.

"Military superiority?" Simple, that is the ability to win any conflict
another nation or nations may engage us in--or, if that fails, to totally
destroy their country so that if there are any survivors here, we may at
least begin to try to put things together again with out a evil foreign
powers control.

Perhaps you have an alternative energy source you are working on in your
garage, if so, step forward man, all I see are a bunch of kooks with "free
energy devices", and while a free energy device may indeed be possible,
all I have seen are scams!

John

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:56:44 -0700, N2EY wrote:

John Smith wrote:
We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

Why can't we have both?

And what constitutes military superiority in space?

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

What's needed is a long-term path to energy independence that's not run
by
a large bureaucratic organization, nor that is politically beholden to
so many groups.

Which pretty much leaves government out of the picture.

--

The problem is bigger than fuel - it's all about how Americans live and
what they
expect life to be like. Also their isolation from cause-and-effect.

For example, it's easy to say the solution is to require better gas
mileage from
new cars. Right now the price of gasoline focuses attention on
gas-guzzling SUVs
and the like.

But if the price of gasoline drops to, say, under $2/gallon, too many
people
forget all about the problem, and buy themselves a Hummer.

Gasoline may seem expensive today, as the price nears $3/gal in some
places. But when you
adjust for inflation, the price isn't that high, compared to, say, the
late 1970s.

The problems go way beyond gasoline. The big question is whether
Americans will change
the way they live in order to achieve energy independence. From what
I've seen in the
past 20-25 years, the answer is pretty much "no". Or rather, "HELL NO!"

What's more, the solutions are complex. A 20 mpg minivan isn't the most
efficient vehicle in the world - unless you have, say, six people
aboard, who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. One 20 mpg van
with six passengers is more energy-efficient than six 100 mpg
supereconoboxes.

But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind
farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable
towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip
requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their
consumption of energy to balance the equation?

That's the real challenge. Much tougher problems than space flight,
because if the solutions can't survive in the real-world marketplace,
they'll disappear.

25 years ago I bought a new car that got 40 mpg city, 50 mpg highway,
and met all the pollution and safety regs. The descendants of such cars
still exist today. But how many are sold?

There *are* new processes out there, like TDP. Might be snake oil,
might be the real thing. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff,
and get the good systems working?

Priorities need to be examined here...

Agreed. But do you think the current administration will deal with it
in any way that will
result in energy self-sufficiency? Heck, Shrub thinks "intelligent
design" (which is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo") is real science
- but that global warming isn't.

How much are *you* willing to change, spend, and give up for energy
independence?

wrote


But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind
farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable
towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip
requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their
consumption of energy to balance the equation?


I just love you east-coast liberals with your "feel-good conservation village"
notions. Such societies exist (in Europe primarily) --- if you want to live in
one, move there.

Personally, I prefer my fuel-inefficient 6.0L 32-valve turbocharged engine to
your "50mpg highway" wimp-mobile. Since I'm willing to pay the price to run it,
and enjoy the freedom it gives me, your "walkable towns" have zero appeal to me.
Sooner or later, of course, the democrats will again ascend to power and attemp
to social-engineer such crapola into the law of the land, rather than
inconvenience a few reindeer with drilling rigs in the neighborhood.

beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind
farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable
towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip
requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their
consumption of energy to balance the equation?


I just love you east-coast liberals with your "feel-good
conservation village" notions.

Minnesota is one of the most "liberal" places in the nation,
Hans.

Such societies exist (in Europe primarily) --- if you want to
live in one, move there.

I see. You get to determine what America should be like,
not me. Why is that?

Personally, I prefer my fuel-inefficient 6.0L 32-valve
turbocharged engine to your "50mpg highway" wimp-mobile.

"Any....fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage -
to move in the opposite direction". (*)

"Wimp-mobile", huh? Is your masculinity and maturity measured
in horsepower, cubic inches displaced, and foot-pounds, Hans?

Mine isn't.

Since I'm willing to pay the price to run it,
and enjoy the freedom it gives me, your "walkable towns" have
zero appeal to me.

*You* don't pay all of the price, Hans. All of us do. We pay it in
pollution, we pay it in the trade deficit, and we pay it in
having to deal with the folks who sell us the oil, and what they
do with the oil money.

Most of all, we pay for it in being dependent. Freedom? How much
freedom exists when a nation's economy is at the mercy of imports?

Nobody is saying that *you* would be forced to live in a "walkable
town".

Sometime back you bemoaned the lack of the community that you
used to see in the radio store/club meeting/etc.

I submit to you that the lack of community problem isn't limited to
amateur radio, but has become a part of American life, and is driven in
part by the detachment of people from the places they live, work, shop,
etc. And that detachment is driven in part by overdependence on
automotive transportation as opposed to walking, running, biking, etc.

Sooner or later, of course, the democrats will again ascend to power an=
d attemp
to social-engineer such crapola into the law of the land,
rather than
inconvenience a few reindeer with drilling rigs in the
neighborhood.

Alaska doesn't have enough oil to end imports, Hans.

It would be interesting to see your reaction if they wanted to drill
for oil under one of your favorite Minnesota lakes. Or build a nuke
plant on one, using the lake water for cooling.
Or something similar.

I seem to recall a quote from Vonnegut about "they were too damn cheap"
or some such. Cheapness involves more than not spending money.

73 de Jim, N2EY


(*) - attributed to Albert Einstein