Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:



"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.



My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge Neon. The
2 liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall but I
have 4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the roof of
the car.

Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if we
*do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's use
theirs before we use ours".


Well, if that is our game plan, we better have enough reserves to
fight most of the world off. Otherwise it is dangerous brinkmanship.

The countries which produce oil are interested in selling it. We're
interested in buying it. I don't see any danger in that at all.

Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?



Well, we aren't going to be driving electrics because of limited
range. The hybrids are quite expensive. The hydrogen-powered car
won't be viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply.


I really doubt that H is going to ever be a valid fuel.

I used to think that but I heard a recent radio story which might change
my mind. The South Africans are developing a "pellet bed" small nuclear
reactor. Tennis ball-sized spheres of graphite and ceramic are packed
with yellow cake. Core temps can never get hot enough for meltdown but
are high enough to produce hydrogen and to desalinate sea water.

What kind of leadership would you like to see?


I would like to see some leadership realizing that driving single
digit fuel millage SUV's is an unpatriotic act, that building under
insulated McMansions that take immense amounts of energy to heat is an
unpatriotic act.

Naaaah. Those who drive the SUVs are being bitten in the wallet. I
know a number of pickup truck owners hereabouts, who are buying small
cars. Nobody is building underinsulated anything these days. My pal
W8RHM built his dream home three years ago. It is large and it has
geothermal heating. The heating system was supposed to pay for itself
within ten years or so. With the energy hikes of the past few years,
it'll be paid off much sooner. 'RHM is now paying winter heating bills
of 45-65 bucks. Those who have big, old homes will sell 'em to someone
who can afford to heat them.

The way we are with oil and gas in recent times reminds
me of the legendary lighting of cigars with 100 dollar bills. In yo'
face consumption...

You may feel free to paint me with that brush. My lease agreement with
Columbia Gas provides me with 300,000 cubic feet of gas yearly. I'm
barely using more than half.

I'm heating a glassed-in side porch and a workshop in the barn. As soon
as I get around to it, I'm adding a greenhouse lean to on the back of
the barn. I've a gas conversion kit for a gasoline generator. In
short, I'm going to very conspicuously use right up to that 300,000
cubic feet and I'm not going to feel any guilt over it at all.

I think that one critical lesson that should be gleaned from these
two hurricanes this summer is that we are incredibly vulnerable in a few
important areas. under the right circumstances, losing that much oil and
gas production could be a near fatal blow.

That's right. We need to drill in more places. ANWAR should be
hurricane proof.

Nobody wants to discuss one of the real solutions to sufficient energy:
more nuke reactors.

I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.



Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?



Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare that NOLA
won't be rebuilt?


Nope. New Orleans will be rebuilt, and will be rebuilt again, and
perhaps a third or forth time, until it slips beneath the waves for good.

Yep and people are free to build where they choose. Without the freedom
to make choices, America wouldn't be America. I won't be rushing to buy
a home in New Orleans but most of those folks wouldn't live on a hilltop
in rural West Virginia. That suits their needs...and mine.

Dave K8MN

nobodys old friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys old friend wrote:

did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as
failures

Funny...no one else is saying that.

BUZZ wrong again wildy reported on Foxnews that the head of NASA said
that shuttle and ISS are failure
cut

"cut" = KB9RQZ censorship

Once again you demonstrate your lack of English comprehension
skills, Mark.

You (allegedly) cited ONE person. I said "Funny...no one else
is saying that."

Try again.

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.



My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge Neon. The
2 liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall but I
have 4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the roof of
the car.

Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if we
*do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's use
theirs before we use ours".


Well, if that is our game plan, we better have enough reserves to
fight most of the world off. Otherwise it is dangerous brinkmanship.

The countries which produce oil are interested in selling it. We're
interested in buying it. I don't see any danger in that at all.

The danger is what happens if they decide not to sell it. Or jack up
the price. Or require all sorts of conditions.

Most of all, there's what they do with the money. Buying anyhting from
anyone empowers that person to do things, some of which you may not
like.

Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?

Well, we aren't going to be driving electrics because of limited
range. The hybrids are quite expensive. The hydrogen-powered car
won't be viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply.


I really doubt that H is going to ever be a valid fuel.

I used to think that but I heard a recent radio story which might change
my mind. The South Africans are developing a "pellet bed" small nuclear
reactor. Tennis ball-sized spheres of graphite and ceramic are packed
with yellow cake. Core temps can never get hot enough for meltdown but
are high enough to produce hydrogen and to desalinate sea water.

At what cost per btu of hydrogen produced?

What kind of leadership would you like to see?


I would like to see some leadership realizing that driving single
digit fuel millage SUV's is an unpatriotic act, that building under
insulated McMansions that take immense amounts of energy to heat is an
unpatriotic act.

Naaaah. Those who drive the SUVs are being bitten in the wallet. I
know a number of pickup truck owners hereabouts, who are buying small
cars. Nobody is building underinsulated anything these days.

The problem is that we have an enormous existing stock of cars, trucks
and houses, and it won't turn over so fast.

We've been this way before, too. You'd think we'd have learned.


My pal
W8RHM built his dream home three years ago. It is large and it has
geothermal heating. The heating system was supposed to pay for itself
within ten years or so. With the energy hikes of the past few years,
it'll be paid off much sooner. 'RHM is now paying winter heating bills
of 45-65 bucks.

Most of which is electricity to run the pumps.

Those who have big, old homes will sell 'em to someone
who can afford to heat them.

If they can.

The way we are with oil and gas in recent times reminds
me of the legendary lighting of cigars with 100 dollar bills. In yo'
face consumption...

You may feel free to paint me with that brush. My lease agreement with
Columbia Gas provides me with 300,000 cubic feet of gas yearly. I'm
barely using more than half.

Not everyone can live atop a gas well.

I'm heating a glassed-in side porch and a workshop in the barn. As soon
as I get around to it, I'm adding a greenhouse lean to on the back of
the barn. I've a gas conversion kit for a gasoline generator. In
short, I'm going to very conspicuously use right up to that 300,000
cubic feet and I'm not going to feel any guilt over it at all.

I think that one critical lesson that should be gleaned from these
two hurricanes this summer is that we are incredibly vulnerable in a few
important areas. under the right circumstances, losing that much oil and
gas production could be a near fatal blow.

That's right. We need to drill in more places. ANWAR should be
hurricane proof.

But not blizzard-proof. Nor drunken-oil-tanker-captain-proof.

Nor can it provide near enough oil to solve the problem.

Nobody wants to discuss one of the real solutions to sufficient energy:
more nuke reactors.

Are they a real solution?

How much does it cost to extract the fuel to run them?
How much to build and operate them?
How much to decomission after they are worn out?
How much to deal with the waste?

A lot of those costs have been hidden from the utility customer.

I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.



Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?



Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare that NOLA
won't be rebuilt?


Nope. New Orleans will be rebuilt, and will be rebuilt again, and
perhaps a third or forth time, until it slips beneath the waves for good.

Yep and people are free to build where they choose.

Not really.

Without the freedom
to make choices, America wouldn't be America. I won't be
rushing to buy
a home in New Orleans but most of those folks wouldn't live on a hilltop
in rural West Virginia. That suits their needs...and mine.

The problem isn't the choice. It's the fact that we are expected to
fund and support other people's bad choices.

The factor that is forgotten here is that almost all construction
requires permits, insurance and financing. Government gives the
permits, and has an influence on the insurance and financing.

How many people will choose to rebuild in NO if the govt says that the
whole thing is a bad idea and they're not going to fix the levees, nor
provide new flood insurance for below-sea-level construction?

Suppose I were to build a house whose roof could not stand the snow
loads encountered here in EPA in a bad winter.

And suppose a bad winter came along and the roof collapsed.

Should I expect the govt. to pay to rebuild my roof?

Worse - should I expect that they would allow me to build it the same
way again?

Of course the above isn't likely to happen because I'd never get a
permit nor pass inspection to put up such an inadequate structure. But
the principle is the same as building below sea level in a flood zone.

One thing's for su We'll not see leadership on this issue from the
current administration.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

MY biggest disappointment is that we are as close to Mars
as we've
been in centuries, but we don't have a manned mission there yet.

???

Not sure what you mean, Steve.

I MEAN that my biggest disappointment is that we are as close to
Mars as we've been in centuries, but we don't have a manned mission
there yet. How was that confusing?

Going to Mars is at least 100 times more difficult than going to the
moon. Mars never gets closer than 30 million miles - more than 100
times farther away than the moon. A Mars mission would be years long
rather than a week or two. Martian gravity and atmosphere make the
problems even worse.

Yep...But...

It's been over 30 years since we've walked on the moon. We got
there in a bit over 9 years from President Kennedy's challenge to do
so. We've squandered those intervening years on LEO manned missions.

Astronomers and scientists knew then when Mars would be in an
Earth-Mars-Earth (In this thread if I refer to EME, this is what I
mean...Not EME as in "moonbounce")-transit favorable trajectory.

There have been hundreds of plans put forth using AVAILABLE
technology and resources to get there...All we had to do was pick one
and get started.

Just ONE plan that seemed practical enough (or at least made the
most sense) to me was one to send the necessary resources for life
support in a series of UN-manned "pre-missions" while the manned vessel
was prepared in Earth orbit. Resources would be pre-positioned both on
Mars and along the way. Not one man had to spend a day in orbit until
the "package" was in place.

If it costs $100-200 billion or more to go to the moon, what would Mars
cost?

Who cares?

The PRESENT Space program has already generated TRILLIONS of
dollars in new technology and incentives since July, 1969.. Imagine
where we COULD have been...?!?!

Maybe we would have had our CURRENT level of technology 15 or 20
years ago?

Just think...If we'd pared only $10B from each YEAR'S defense
budget since 1970, we'd have "only" spent $360B now, which is about 1
1/2 years military budget over THIRTY-SIX years...And wudda had an
American flag and American footprints on TWO astronomical bodies by
now.

If we're going to have a tit-for-tat about the bottom-line
practicality of going, Jim, I'm not up for it. Anyone can
"successfully" argue that it's going to "cost" time, money and
resources to go. Even lives. But EVERY expedition of exploration in
man's time has cost money up front and lives along the way. The REAL
bottom line is that we could have done this a LONG time ago if we'd
only said "Let's Do It."

Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession alone that
have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we
pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down"
effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and
deep felt.

Can you guarantee that those advances would not have happened if the
money had been spent on research in the fields directly affected? IOW,
why not simply go after a problem directly?

In industrialized society's history, major technological
advancements have MOSTLY followed (1) war, (2) captialist investment for profit (3) government subsidy to do research in that field (usually the impetus of, again, war). There are certainly exceptions to the rule, radio being one of them. "Radio" was not developed by governmental subsidy, nor was it the product of an 18th century "Motorola" but was the "product" of private inventors.

No, I can't guarantee that those advances would not have
occured...but WHEN would they have occured? Certainly NOT in the time
frame that they have.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:




"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.




My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge Neon.
The 2 liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall
but I have 4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the
roof of the car.

Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if we
*do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's use
theirs before we use ours".



Well, if that is our game plan, we better have enough reserves to
fight most of the world off. Otherwise it is dangerous brinkmanship.


The countries which produce oil are interested in selling it. We're
interested in buying it. I don't see any danger in that at all.

There is another market these days which would be more than happy to
buy the oil we purchase. We aren't the only game in town any more.


Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?




Well, we aren't going to be driving electrics because of limited
range. The hybrids are quite expensive. The hydrogen-powered car
won't be viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply.



I really doubt that H is going to ever be a valid fuel.


I used to think that but I heard a recent radio story which might change
my mind. The South Africans are developing a "pellet bed" small nuclear
reactor. Tennis ball-sized spheres of graphite and ceramic are packed
with yellow cake. Core temps can never get hot enough for meltdown but
are high enough to produce hydrogen and to desalinate sea water.

What kind of leadership would you like to see?



I would like to see some leadership realizing that driving single
digit fuel millage SUV's is an unpatriotic act, that building under
insulated McMansions that take immense amounts of energy to heat is an
unpatriotic act.


Naaaah. Those who drive the SUVs are being bitten in the wallet.

Sure. But they are also using up a critical strategic resource,
contributing to the imbalance of trade, and other things like that. Some
patriots.

I
know a number of pickup truck owners hereabouts, who are buying small
cars. Nobody is building underinsulated anything these days.

Hmm, I suggest you come up to my area after a snowstorm. On most of the
McMansions, the snow is gone a few hours after the storm. The same snow
on my roof would be there for a week or so.

There is a wierd thing going on in my area, and I guess others as well.
Conserving activities are seen as a liberal thing, and seems to be a
litmus test. I knew a woman on campus that refused to recycle because
"it just encourages the liberals". So we get the same thing with
automobiles and house insulation. But we definitely have a lot of big
houses that appear to have no insulation (or very little) in the house.



My pal
W8RHM built his dream home three years ago. It is large and it has
geothermal heating. The heating system was supposed to pay for itself
within ten years or so. With the energy hikes of the past few years,
it'll be paid off much sooner. 'RHM is now paying winter heating bills
of 45-65 bucks. Those who have big, old homes will sell 'em to someone
who can afford to heat them.

As long as there are people who can afford to heat 'em. My prediction
is that they will become white elephants.



The way we are with oil and gas in recent times reminds me of the
legendary lighting of cigars with 100 dollar bills. In yo' face
consumption...


You may feel free to paint me with that brush.

Fiesty, Dave? I apologize if you think I was painting you as anything.
I doubt most Neon drivers are profligate energy wasters.


My lease agreement with
Columbia Gas provides me with 300,000 cubic feet of gas yearly. I'm
barely using more than half.

I'm heating a glassed-in side porch and a workshop in the barn. As soon
as I get around to it, I'm adding a greenhouse lean to on the back of
the barn. I've a gas conversion kit for a gasoline generator. In
short, I'm going to very conspicuously use right up to that 300,000
cubic feet and I'm not going to feel any guilt over it at all.

I think that one critical lesson that should be gleaned from these
two hurricanes this summer is that we are incredibly vulnerable in a
few important areas. under the right circumstances, losing that much
oil and gas production could be a near fatal blow.


That's right. We need to drill in more places. ANWAR should be
hurricane proof.

Nobody wants to discuss one of the real solutions to sufficient energy:
more nuke reactors.

The way I see it, in the not too distant future, we will make a choice:

1. Rely on Nuclear power and build a lot more plants.

2. Go back to the middle ages.

It's just about that simple. While people can conserve energy, I doubt
that they can conserve enough. The US has around 300 million people
right now. We will be at 400 million around 35 years from now. Can all
of us cut back 25 percent in energy usage? And that would be to just
tread water. Not to mention finding fossil fuels that will allow us to
continue our present "burn rate". Pun intended.

I support the alternative energy production modes. But we have to be
realistic. They are a localized phenomenon, and won't likely be a major
solution

I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.




Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?




Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare that NOLA
won't be rebuilt?



Nope. New Orleans will be rebuilt, and will be rebuilt again, and
perhaps a third or forth time, until it slips beneath the waves for good.


Yep and people are free to build where they choose. Without the freedom
to make choices, America wouldn't be America. I won't be rushing to buy
a home in New Orleans but most of those folks wouldn't live on a hilltop
in rural West Virginia. That suits their needs...and mine.


I have no problem in principle with a person building their house on
the lava dome of Mt St Helens if they are so inclined. However, I do
have a problem if he wants me to buy his insurance or build him a new
house when the present one burns up because of it's location. Same goes
for building that wonderful vacation retreat on a barrier island or 50
feet from the ocean. That land is transient, and IMO so is any human
structure built on it

Do you support paying for these peoples stupidity? (The stupidity is in
my opinion - but a pretty good case can be made for it being stupid)

- Mike KB3EIA -

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
MY biggest disappointment is that we are as close to Mars
as we've
been in centuries, but we don't have a manned mission there yet.

???

Not sure what you mean, Steve.

I MEAN that my biggest disappointment is that we are as close to
Mars as we've been in centuries, but we don't have a manned
mission
there yet. How was that confusing?

The distance from Earth to Mars varies from when the two planets are
right next to each other in their orbits (about 35 million miles) to
when they are opposite each other, with the Sun in between (well over
210 million miles).

The minimum distance varies with each orbit - is that what you meant?

Going to Mars is at least 100 times more difficult than going to the
moon. Mars never gets closer than 30 million miles - more
than 100
times farther away than the moon. A Mars mission would be
years long
rather than a week or two. Martian gravity and atmosphere
make the
problems even worse.

Yep...But...

It's been over 30 years since we've walked on the moon. We got
there in a bit over 9 years from President Kennedy's
challenge to do
so.

Yep. Think about *why* the USA was able to do it.

And if it took 9 years to get to the moon, and Mars is 100 times
harder, that works out to 900 years!

We've squandered those intervening years on LEO manned
missions.

I'd hardly say they were "squandered". Other things took precedence.

Astronomers and scientists knew then when Mars would be in an
Earth-Mars-Earth (In this thread if I refer to EME, this is
what I
mean...Not EME as in "moonbounce")-transit favorable trajectory.

And they know all the problems. One of them is that with any known
practical rocket technology, a mission to Mars will take *years*. With
no hope of rescue from Earth if anything serious goes wrong.

There have been hundreds of plans put forth using AVAILABLE
technology and resources to get there...All we had to do was
pick one and get started.

The plans are only basic outlines. They require lots of development to
become reality.

Just ONE plan that seemed practical enough (or at least made the
most sense) to me was one to send the necessary resources for
life
support in a series of UN-manned "pre-missions" while the
manned vessel
was prepared in Earth orbit.

Of course. The first missions would be one-way supply ships that would
orbit Mars for years, waiting for people to show up. They could go at
very slow speeds to maximize the usable payload.

Resources would be pre-positioned both on
Mars and along the way.

Pre-positioning "along the way" isn't practical. The only really
practical place to put a supply cache is in Martian orbit.

Not one man had to spend a day in orbit until
the "package" was in place.

More like "packages", so that the mission would not depend on any
single component.

Now consider how much payload would have to be sent ahead. We're
talking *tons* of supplies and equipment, all of which would have to be
still usable after *years* in space. Sure it can be done, but it's not
easy, fast or inexpensive.

If it costs $100-200 billion or more to go to the moon, what would Mars cost?

Who cares?

Those of us who have to pay the bills!

The PRESENT Space program has already generated TRILLIONS of
dollars in new technology and incentives since July, 1969..

Like what?

And can you guarantee that the money would not have been better
spent on direct problem solving?

Imagine
where we COULD have been...?!?!

Do you remember the 1970s? I do.

All through the 1950s and 1960s, "aerospace" was the big deal.
Incredible resources were poured into the space programs and "defense".
We were told our future would be like that shown on "The Jetsons".

But when the supply of cheap oil disappeared in the early 1970s, we
found ourselves unable to produce a decent "economy" car. "Aerospace"
didn't help the folks in the gas lines.

Meanwhile the Japanese and Europeans already had lots of good economy
cars. It's taken the US auto industry decades to catch up.

Now we're set to repeat that history.

Maybe we would have had our CURRENT level of technology 15 or 20
years ago?

How? And current level of which technology?

Just think...If we'd pared only $10B from each YEAR'S defense
budget since 1970, we'd have "only" spent $360B now, which is
about 1
1/2 years military budget over THIRTY-SIX years...And wudda had an
American flag and American footprints on TWO astronomical
bodies by
now.

Imagine if that money had gone into energy independence instead.

If we're going to have a tit-for-tat about the bottom-line
practicality of going, Jim, I'm not up for it.

I am. That's what engineering is all about - dealing with *real*
problems.

It's easy to blue-sky what coulda-woulda-shoulda been done. It's a lot
tougher to actually do the things. If you don't want to take a long
serious look at just how difficult and expensive a manned Mars trip
would be, please don't lecture us about what
should have been done.

Anyone can
"successfully" argue that it's going to "cost" time, money and
resources to go. Even lives. But EVERY expedition of
exploration in
man's time has cost money up front and lives along the way.

Of course. And some times it was worth it. Other times it wasn't.

The REAL
bottom line is that we could have done this a LONG time ago if we'd only said "Let's Do It."

But "we" didn't, because "we" didn't think it was worth the costs.

And I think "we" made the right decision.

Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession
alone that
have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we
pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down"
effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and
deep felt.

Can you guarantee that those advances would not have
happened if the
money had been spent on research in the fields
directly affected? IOW,
why not simply go after a problem directly?

In industrialized society's history, major technological
advancements have MOSTLY followed (1) war, (2) captialist investment for profit (3) government subsidy to do research in that field (usually the impetus of, again, war).
There are certainly exceptions to the rule, radio being one of them.
"Radio" was not developed by governmental subsidy, nor was it the
product of an 18th century "Motorola" but was the "product" of private
inventors.

BINGO!

The same was mostly true of computers. Oh yes, the first real computer,
ENIAC, was built for the Army to compute artillery aiming tables. But
it was built on the work of earlier machines like the Atasinoff-Berry
Computer. And only one ENIAC was ever built. Its successors came from
private industry, for commercial purposes.

No, I can't guarantee that those advances would not have
occured...but WHEN would they have occured?

Nobody knows.

Certainly NOT in the time
frame that they have.

Why not?

The fact is that we've avoided making serious longterm plans to solve
some basic technological problems in the USA. That avoidance has cost
us dearly, and will cost us more, until we
tackle the problems head-on rather than expecting some silver bullet to
do it for us.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

MY biggest disappointment is that we are as close to Mars
as we've
been in centuries, but we don't have a manned mission there yet.

???

Not sure what you mean, Steve.

I MEAN that my biggest disappointment is that we are as close to
Mars as we've been in centuries, but we don't have a manned
mission
there yet. How was that confusing?


The distance from Earth to Mars varies from when the two planets are
right next to each other in their orbits (about 35 million miles) to
when they are opposite each other, with the Sun in between (well over
210 million miles).

The minimum distance varies with each orbit - is that what you meant?


Going to Mars is at least 100 times more difficult than going to the
moon. Mars never gets closer than 30 million miles - more
than 100
times farther away than the moon. A Mars mission would be
years long
rather than a week or two. Martian gravity and atmosphere
make the
problems even worse.

Yep...But...

It's been over 30 years since we've walked on the moon. We got
there in a bit over 9 years from President Kennedy's
challenge to do
so.


Yep. Think about *why* the USA was able to do it.

And if it took 9 years to get to the moon, and Mars is 100 times
harder, that works out to 900 years!


We've squandered those intervening years on LEO manned
missions.


I'd hardly say they were "squandered". Other things took precedence.

Astronomers and scientists knew then when Mars would be in an
Earth-Mars-Earth (In this thread if I refer to EME, this is
what I
mean...Not EME as in "moonbounce")-transit favorable trajectory.


And they know all the problems. One of them is that with any known
practical rocket technology, a mission to Mars will take *years*. With
no hope of rescue from Earth if anything serious goes wrong.


There have been hundreds of plans put forth using AVAILABLE
technology and resources to get there...All we had to do was
pick one and get started.


The plans are only basic outlines. They require lots of development to
become reality.


Just ONE plan that seemed practical enough (or at least made the
most sense) to me was one to send the necessary resources for
life
support in a series of UN-manned "pre-missions" while the
manned vessel
was prepared in Earth orbit.


Of course. The first missions would be one-way supply ships that would
orbit Mars for years, waiting for people to show up. They could go at
very slow speeds to maximize the usable payload.


Resources would be pre-positioned both on
Mars and along the way.


Pre-positioning "along the way" isn't practical. The only really
practical place to put a supply cache is in Martian orbit.


Not one man had to spend a day in orbit until
the "package" was in place.


More like "packages", so that the mission would not depend on any
single component.

Now consider how much payload would have to be sent ahead. We're
talking *tons* of supplies and equipment, all of which would have to be
still usable after *years* in space. Sure it can be done, but it's not
easy, fast or inexpensive.


If it costs $100-200 billion or more to go to the moon, what would Mars cost?

Who cares?


Those of us who have to pay the bills!


The PRESENT Space program has already generated TRILLIONS of
dollars in new technology and incentives since July, 1969..


Like what?

And can you guarantee that the money would not have been better
spent on direct problem solving?


Imagine
where we COULD have been...?!?!


Do you remember the 1970s? I do.

All through the 1950s and 1960s, "aerospace" was the big deal.
Incredible resources were poured into the space programs and "defense".
We were told our future would be like that shown on "The Jetsons".

But when the supply of cheap oil disappeared in the early 1970s, we
found ourselves unable to produce a decent "economy" car. "Aerospace"
didn't help the folks in the gas lines.

Meanwhile the Japanese and Europeans already had lots of good economy
cars. It's taken the US auto industry decades to catch up.

Now we're set to repeat that history.


Maybe we would have had our CURRENT level of technology 15 or 20
years ago?


How? And current level of which technology?


Just think...If we'd pared only $10B from each YEAR'S defense
budget since 1970, we'd have "only" spent $360B now, which is
about 1
1/2 years military budget over THIRTY-SIX years...And wudda had an
American flag and American footprints on TWO astronomical
bodies by
now.


Imagine if that money had gone into energy independence instead.


If we're going to have a tit-for-tat about the bottom-line
practicality of going, Jim, I'm not up for it.


I am. That's what engineering is all about - dealing with *real*
problems.

It's easy to blue-sky what coulda-woulda-shoulda been done. It's a lot
tougher to actually do the things. If you don't want to take a long
serious look at just how difficult and expensive a manned Mars trip
would be, please don't lecture us about what
should have been done.


Anyone can
"successfully" argue that it's going to "cost" time, money and
resources to go. Even lives. But EVERY expedition of
exploration in
man's time has cost money up front and lives along the way.


Of course. And some times it was worth it. Other times it wasn't.


The REAL
bottom line is that we could have done this a LONG time ago if we'd only said "Let's Do It."


But "we" didn't, because "we" didn't think it was worth the costs.

"We" are busy selling our hats to each other at the moment. "We" don't
have a national will to do great things any more.

And I think "we" made the right decision.

Lessay we concentrate all our resources into feeding the poor, fixing
all the social inequalities, and making the world a better place for our
children and our childrens children.

After all that. I would wager my life that there will still be poor,
there will still be starving people, there will still be inequality, and
the world will not be any better a place than it is today.




Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession
alone that
have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we
pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down"
effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and
deep felt.

Can you guarantee that those advances would not have
happened if the
money had been spent on research in the fields
directly affected? IOW,
why not simply go after a problem directly?

In industrialized society's history, major technological

advancements have MOSTLY followed (1) war, (2) captialist investment for profit (3) government subsidy to do research in that field (usually the impetus of, again, war).

There are certainly exceptions to the rule, radio being one of them.
"Radio" was not developed by governmental subsidy, nor was it the
product of an 18th century "Motorola" but was the "product" of private
inventors.

BINGO!

The same was mostly true of computers. Oh yes, the first real computer,
ENIAC, was built for the Army to compute artillery aiming tables. But
it was built on the work of earlier machines like the Atasinoff-Berry
Computer. And only one ENIAC was ever built. Its successors came from
private industry, for commercial purposes.


No, I can't guarantee that those advances would not have
occured...but WHEN would they have occured?


Nobody knows.

Right - who knows.

As much as I believe that the Space program was a peaceful spur to
technology, in the end, I don't care.

I like adventure, I like science, and I like exploring. People *will"
go into space, people *will* go to Mars. Will it be us, or will we be
known as the Portuguese of space exploration?

Certainly NOT in the time
frame that they have.


Why not?

The fact is that we've avoided making serious longterm plans to solve
some basic technological problems in the USA. That avoidance has cost
us dearly, and will cost us more, until we
tackle the problems head-on rather than expecting some silver bullet to
do it for us.

Wanna buy a hat???

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
MY biggest disappointment is that we are as close to Mars
as we've
been in centuries, but we don't have a manned mission there yet.

???

Not sure what you mean, Steve.

I MEAN that my biggest disappointment is that we are as close to
Mars as we've been in centuries, but we don't have a manned
mission
there yet. How was that confusing?

The distance from Earth to Mars varies from when the two planets are
right next to each other in their orbits (about 35 million miles) to
when they are opposite each other, with the Sun in between (well over
210 million miles).

The minimum distance varies with each orbit - is that what you meant?

No...

(This IS Jim Miccolis, right...?!?!)

I MEAN that my biggest disappointment is that we don't have a
manned mission on Mars yet.

Yes, I know it would be dangerous.

Yes, I know it would be expensive.

Yes, I know there are thousands of technological hurdles to
overcome. "T'aint nuttin' new"

Going to Mars is at least 100 times more difficult than going to the
moon. Mars never gets closer than 30 million miles - more
than 100
times farther away than the moon. A Mars mission would be
years long
rather than a week or two. Martian gravity and atmosphere
make the
problems even worse.

Yep...But...

It's been over 30 years since we've walked on the moon. We got
there in a bit over 9 years from President Kennedy's
challenge to do
so.

Yep. Think about *why* the USA was able to do it.

I know why, Jim...Money and govenmental subsidies witha bit of
technological application.

And if it took 9 years to get to the moon, and Mars is 100 times
harder, that works out to 900 years!

You're being facetious.

We've squandered those intervening years on LEO manned
missions.

I'd hardly say they were "squandered". Other things took precedence.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh....TIVO and HBO.

Astronomers and scientists knew then when Mars would be in an
Earth-Mars-Earth (In this thread if I refer to EME, this is
what I
mean...Not EME as in "moonbounce")-transit favorable trajectory.

And they know all the problems. One of them is that with any known
practical rocket technology, a mission to Mars will take *years*. With
no hope of rescue from Earth if anything serious goes wrong.

I discussed that below.

Also...there was no hope of rescue when Cloumbus shoved off...So
again, what's new?

There have been hundreds of plans put forth using AVAILABLE
technology and resources to get there...All we had to do was
pick one and get started.

The plans are only basic outlines. They require lots of development to
become reality.

Uh huh. And what did I say?

Pick one and get busy.

Just ONE plan that seemed practical enough (or at least made the
most sense) to me was one to send the necessary resources for
life
support in a series of UN-manned "pre-missions" while the
manned vessel
was prepared in Earth orbit.

Of course. The first missions would be one-way supply ships that would
orbit Mars for years, waiting for people to show up. They could go at
very slow speeds to maximize the usable payload.

Resources would be pre-positioned both on
Mars and along the way.

Pre-positioning "along the way" isn't practical. The only really
practical place to put a supply cache is in Martian orbit.

Placing a satellite into a known, predictable orbit isn't
practical?

Since when?

Not one man had to spend a day in orbit until
the "package" was in place.

More like "packages", so that the mission would not depend on any
single component.

In military parlance, when the entire mission is ready to go, THAT
is "the package".

Sorry to confuse you even more.

Now consider how much payload would have to be sent ahead. We're
talking *tons* of supplies and equipment, all of which would have to be
still usable after *years* in space. Sure it can be done, but it's not
easy, fast or inexpensive.

There's not one word from me saying it is. However water doesn't
decay into anything else, and we have pretty reliable technologies when
it comes to preserving our foodstuffs. An we've already proven we can
work in space to "fix stuff".

If it costs $100-200 billion or more to go to the moon, what would Mars cost?

Who cares?

Those of us who have to pay the bills!

I've already shown where those "investments" come home.

The PRESENT Space program has already generated TRILLIONS of
dollars in new technology and incentives since July, 1969..

Like what?

Start off with the PC, iPod, new textiles, and communications
technologies.

And can you guarantee that the money would not have been better
spent on direct problem solving?

Can you show me where direct problem solving is doing as well?

Everyone is hoo-yah'ing over the Rutan/X-Prize flights and
ballyhooing the emerging commercial space market, but while admirable,
they are ony re-inventing the wheel.

Imagine
where we COULD have been...?!?!

Do you remember the 1970s? I do.

Uh huh...And I didn't have a PC or iPod then.

All through the 1950s and 1960s, "aerospace" was the big deal.
Incredible resources were poured into the space programs and "defense".
We were told our future would be like that shown on "The Jetsons".

But when the supply of cheap oil disappeared in the early 1970s, we
found ourselves unable to produce a decent "economy" car. "Aerospace"
didn't help the folks in the gas lines.

Was it supposed to? Where are the claims? Who said that?

Meanwhile the Japanese and Europeans already had lots of good economy
cars. It's taken the US auto industry decades to catch up.

Japanese and Europeans were used to living on streets narrow
enough to tll what the guy next door had for breakfast without parting
the shades. Americans were use to having "the wide open spaces" and
cheap gas.

So...where was the incentive to make itty-bitty gas sippers? That
wasn't what the American market wanted. Even now more and more SUV's
are rolling off the lines...even Honda and Suzuki have gotten on the
band wagon.

Now we're set to repeat that history.

Probably. And Americans STILL can't be told to start spending
money on trains and subways.

Maybe we would have had our CURRENT level of technology 15 or 20
years ago?

How? And current level of which technology?

Now you're treating me like an idiot, Jim.

Just think...If we'd pared only $10B from each YEAR'S defense
budget since 1970, we'd have "only" spent $360B now, which is
about 1
1/2 years military budget over THIRTY-SIX years...And wudda had an
American flag and American footprints on TWO astronomical
bodies by
now.

Imagine if that money had gone into energy independence instead.

But wait! You've previously suggested such is the realm of the
commercial entities. So why aren't THEY doing it?

If we're going to have a tit-for-tat about the bottom-line
practicality of going, Jim, I'm not up for it.

I am. That's what engineering is all about - dealing with *real*
problems.

Obviously not in this case (travel to Mars).

It's easy to blue-sky what coulda-woulda-shoulda been done. It's a lot
tougher to actually do the things.

No kidding?

Seems to me that a certain, since deceased, President of the
United States said we were going to to the moon not because it was
easy, but because it WAS hard.

If you don't want to take a long
serious look at just how difficult and expensive a manned Mars trip
would be, please don't lecture us about what
should have been done.

Jim, you're wanting to explain away why we languished for 36 years
on what would have been the feat of TWO millenium...OK...But the FACTS
are we did absolutely NOTHING to facilitate this mission.

Nothing.

Anyone can
"successfully" argue that it's going to "cost" time, money and
resources to go. Even lives. But EVERY expedition of
exploration in
man's time has cost money up front and lives along the way.

Of course. And some times it was worth it. Other times it wasn't.

So...Which ones were worth it, and on the UNsuccessful ones, do
you think the participants thought that thier lives were worth it?

The REAL
bottom line is that we could have done this a LONG time ago if we'd only said "Let's Do It."

But "we" didn't, because "we" didn't think it was worth the costs.

"We" didn't do it becasue we had just come out of Viet Nam and
already landed 12 men on the moon...thier attention span was short and
ready to move on.

So...If we're to accept your apparent suggestion that
short-sightedness is an excuse for not pursuing research and
exploration, let's just go ahead and kill the ENTIRE space program,
Jim...I mean, afterall, MOST folks shrug thier shoulders and dismiss it
as science fiction...UNTIL you start pointing out the in-their-face
examples of what seemingly non-porductive research does to better thier
daily lives.

And I think "we" made the right decision.

I don't.

I thinnk that it's humiliating to have had it at our discretion to
do this thing and have not done it. It's like Jonas Salk looking
through his microscope, then saying, whelp, that was fun...

Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession
alone that
have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we
pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down"
effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and
deep felt.

Can you guarantee that those advances would not have
happened if the
money had been spent on research in the fields
directly affected? IOW,
why not simply go after a problem directly?

In industrialized society's history, major technological
advancements have MOSTLY followed (1) war, (2) captialist investment for profit (3) government subsidy to do research in that field (usually the impetus of, again, war).
There are certainly exceptions to the rule, radio being one of them.
"Radio" was not developed by governmental subsidy, nor was it the
product of an 18th century "Motorola" but was the "product" of private
inventors.

BINGO!

Thank-you for agreeing with me.

The same was mostly true of computers. Oh yes, the first real computer,
ENIAC, was built for the Army to compute artillery aiming tables. But
it was built on the work of earlier machines like the Atasinoff-Berry
Computer. And only one ENIAC was ever built. Its successors came from
private industry, for commercial purposes.

Uh huh...and had the government NOT poured millions of dollars
into this, providing untold collateral research opportunities, how much
longer until commercial systems filled in the holes?

As a matter of fact, considering the times, if you take away the
military and space programs, what WAS the incentive for such computing
systems?

No, I can't guarantee that those advances would not have
occured...but WHEN would they have occured?

Nobody knows.

Certainly NOT in the time
frame that they have.

Why not?

Because they haven't yet, and even Associate degree sociology
programs show the direct link between the advancement of technology and
warfare. There was a parallel rise during the "space race".

The fact is that we've avoided making serious longterm plans to solve
some basic technological problems in the USA. That avoidance has cost
us dearly, and will cost us more, until we
tackle the problems head-on rather than expecting some silver bullet to
do it for us.

I agree...Mass transit...universal healthcare...housing and
feeding the poor.

Now imagine spending the monies I suggested on a new "space race",
this time one shared with other nations...Not all of that money goes
into "research"...There are salaries to be paid, goods to be bought and
sold, and new means of transportation and communications to be
installed.

Collateral good instead of collateral damage.

THAT would be amazing.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Going to Mars is at least 100 times more difficult than going to the
moon. Mars never gets closer than 30 million miles - more
than 100
times farther away than the moon. A Mars mission would be
years long
rather than a week or two. Martian gravity and atmosphere
make the
problems even worse.

Yep...But...

It's been over 30 years since we've walked on the moon. We got
there in a bit over 9 years from President Kennedy's
challenge to do
so.


Yep. Think about *why* the USA was able to do it.

And if it took 9 years to get to the moon, and Mars is 100 times
harder, that works out to 900 years!


We've squandered those intervening years on LEO manned
missions.


I'd hardly say they were "squandered". Other things took precedence.

Astronomers and scientists knew then when Mars would be in an
Earth-Mars-Earth (In this thread if I refer to EME, this is
what I
mean...Not EME as in "moonbounce")-transit favorable trajectory.


And they know all the problems. One of them is that with any known
practical rocket technology, a mission to Mars will take *years*. With
no hope of rescue from Earth if anything serious goes wrong.


There have been hundreds of plans put forth using AVAILABLE
technology and resources to get there...All we had to do was
pick one and get started.


The plans are only basic outlines. They require lots of development to
become reality.


Just ONE plan that seemed practical enough (or at least made the
most sense) to me was one to send the necessary resources for
life
support in a series of UN-manned "pre-missions" while the
manned vessel
was prepared in Earth orbit.


Of course. The first missions would be one-way supply ships that would
orbit Mars for years, waiting for people to show up. They could go at
very slow speeds to maximize the usable payload.


Resources would be pre-positioned both on
Mars and along the way.


Pre-positioning "along the way" isn't practical. The only really
practical place to put a supply cache is in Martian orbit.


Not one man had to spend a day in orbit until
the "package" was in place.


More like "packages", so that the mission would not depend on any
single component.

Now consider how much payload would have to be sent ahead. We're
talking *tons* of supplies and equipment, all of which would have to be
still usable after *years* in space. Sure it can be done, but it's not
easy, fast or inexpensive.


If it costs $100-200 billion or more to go to the moon, what would Mars cost?

Who cares?


Those of us who have to pay the bills!


The PRESENT Space program has already generated TRILLIONS of
dollars in new technology and incentives since July, 1969..


Like what?

And can you guarantee that the money would not have been better
spent on direct problem solving?


Imagine
where we COULD have been...?!?!


Do you remember the 1970s? I do.

All through the 1950s and 1960s, "aerospace" was the big deal.
Incredible resources were poured into the space programs and "defense".
We were told our future would be like that shown on "The Jetsons".

But when the supply of cheap oil disappeared in the early 1970s, we
found ourselves unable to produce a decent "economy" car. "Aerospace"
didn't help the folks in the gas lines.

Meanwhile the Japanese and Europeans already had lots of good economy
cars. It's taken the US auto industry decades to catch up.

Now we're set to repeat that history.


Maybe we would have had our CURRENT level of technology 15 or 20
years ago?


How? And current level of which technology?


Just think...If we'd pared only $10B from each YEAR'S defense
budget since 1970, we'd have "only" spent $360B now, which is
about 1
1/2 years military budget over THIRTY-SIX years...And wudda had an
American flag and American footprints on TWO astronomical
bodies by
now.


Imagine if that money had gone into energy independence instead.


If we're going to have a tit-for-tat about the bottom-line
practicality of going, Jim, I'm not up for it.


I am. That's what engineering is all about - dealing with *real*
problems.

It's easy to blue-sky what coulda-woulda-shoulda been done. It's a lot
tougher to actually do the things. If you don't want to take a long
serious look at just how difficult and expensive a manned Mars trip
would be, please don't lecture us about what
should have been done.


Anyone can
"successfully" argue that it's going to "cost" time, money and
resources to go. Even lives. But EVERY expedition of
exploration in
man's time has cost money up front and lives along the way.


Of course. And some times it was worth it. Other times it wasn't.


The REAL
bottom line is that we could have done this a LONG time ago if we'd only said "Let's Do It."


But "we" didn't, because "we" didn't think it was worth the costs.

"We" are busy selling our hats to each other at the
moment. "We" don't
have a national will to do great things any more.

"We" had the national will to fight a couple of wars in the Persian
Gulf. Plus Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc. Whether those qualify as "great
things" is another issue. They sure were expensive things, though.

And I think "we" made the right decision.

Lessay we concentrate all our resources into feeding
the poor, fixing
all the social inequalities, and making the world a better
place for our
children and our childrens children.

Wrong goals.

The goal is not to "feed the poor" but to make it possible for "the
poor" to feed themselves. Big difference. Same about the other stuff.

After all that. I would wager my life that there will still be poor,
there will still be starving people, there will still be
inequality, and
the world will not be any better a place than it is today.

Sounds pretty fatalistic to me.

I say things can be made a lot better, if the will is there to do it.

Take the whole energy issue. Suppose there *were* a serious, longterm,
well-funded national program to improve our energy situation. Attack on
all fronts - conservation, recycling, new sources, greater efficiency,
etc. Do you really think such a program couldn't help improve the lives
of almost all Americans?

Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession
alone that
have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we
pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down"
effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and
deep felt.

Can you guarantee that those advances would not have
happened if the
money had been spent on research in the fields
directly affected? IOW,
why not simply go after a problem directly?

In industrialized society's history, major technological

advancements have MOSTLY followed (1) war, (2) captialist investment for profit (3) government subsidy to do research in that field (usually the impetus of, again, war).

There are certainly exceptions to the rule, radio being one of them.
"Radio" was not developed by governmental subsidy, nor was it the
product of an 18th century "Motorola" but was the "product" of private
inventors.

BINGO!

The same was mostly true of computers. Oh yes, the first real computer,
ENIAC, was built for the Army to compute artillery aiming tables. But
it was built on the work of earlier machines like the Atasinoff-Berry
Computer. And only one ENIAC was ever built. Its successors came from
private industry, for commercial purposes.


No, I can't guarantee that those advances would not have
occured...but WHEN would they have occured?


Nobody knows.

Right - who knows.

Nobody. Technological advance isn't always predictable.

One interesting historic game is to look at what was predicted for the
future back 10, 20, 30 years. It's hilarious how many predictions never
came true, and how many things that are common today were not foreseen.


As much as I believe that the Space program was a
peaceful spur to
technology, in the end, I don't care.

I like adventure, I like science, and I like exploring. People *will"
go into space, people *will* go to Mars. Will it be us, or will we be
known as the Portuguese of space exploration?

IOW, you're in it for the Buck Rogers factor.

Recall that the "great nations of Europe in the 16th century" all went
exploring for *commercial* and *political* reasons. For the bucks, not
Buck Rogers.

Certainly NOT in the time
frame that they have.

Why not?

The fact is that we've avoided making serious longterm plans to solve
some basic technological problems in the USA. That avoidance has cost
us dearly, and will cost us more, until we
tackle the problems head-on rather than expecting some silver bullet to
do it for us.

Paying big bucks for the Buck Rogers factor, while ignoring the serious
earth-bound issues like energy supply, trade deficit and vulnerability
to weather disruption isn't smart. It's exactly like the guy who buys
season tickets and a new bigscreen plasma TV/home theatre to watch the
games using a credit card. While he ignores his rundown, collapsing
house, sick children and insecure job situation.

Wanna buy a hat???

Exactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

"We" are busy selling our hats to each other at the
moment. "We" don't
have a national will to do great things any more.


"We" had the national will to fight a couple of wars in the Persian
Gulf. Plus Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc. Whether those qualify as "great
things" is another issue. They sure were expensive things, though.

If it has been possible for us to keep people from killing each other in
the name of religion or ethnicity, I believe it to be worth every penny.
If we can prevent others, regardless of religion or ethnicity, from
attacking us, I don't believe there is a price too high.

And I think "we" made the right decision.

Lessay we concentrate all our resources into feeding
the poor, fixing
all the social inequalities, and making the world a better
place for our
children and our childrens children.


Wrong goals.

The goal is not to "feed the poor" but to make it possible for "the
poor" to feed themselves. Big difference. Same about the other stuff.

Then we've failed massively. We continue to feed the poor but we've
made little progress in teaching folks how to feed themselves. To
paraphrase the late Sam Kinnison, "This is sand. Nothing grows here.
Nothing is ever going to grow here. Let's stop sending food and send
them U-Hauls and suitcases and bring them to where the food is."

After all that. I would wager my life that there will still be poor,
there will still be starving people, there will still be
inequality, and
the world will not be any better a place than it is today.


Sounds pretty fatalistic to me.

It sounds pretty realistic to me. Those who are too stupid to learn and
those who are smart enough to learn but too stupid to pay attention will
always be with us and will always be a burden to the rest of society.
Ditto those who, for whatever reason, are prevented from obtaining an
education.

The Japanese government donated some hefty electrical generating plants
to Sierra Leone around 1991. As the plants sat on the docks, thieves
stole the cast aluminum heads and melted them down into cooking pots.
They made money in the short term but still sat around in the dark.

I say things can be made a lot better, if the will is there to do it.

Our will does not necessarily trump the will of the stupid, the greedy
or any who wish to thwart our will.

Take the whole energy issue. Suppose there *were* a serious, longterm,
well-funded national program to improve our energy situation. Attack on
all fronts - conservation, recycling, new sources, greater efficiency,
etc. Do you really think such a program couldn't help improve the lives
of almost all Americans?

I really think that it might not improve the lives of almost all
Americans. There would be those who have no desire to cooperate, those
who haven't the mental capacity to cooperate and those who cannot afford
to cooperate. There are 96% efficient, gas furnaces. That's super for
those who can afford them. If you have three kids, a car with 120k
miles, own a mobile home on a rented lot and you drive 50 miles per day
to and from a job which pays $7.00 per hour, you're not likely to have a
lot left over toward that new efficient furnace or an efficient
refrigerator.

Dave K8MN