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 -

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

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

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.

Oh?

The United Nations tried in Somalia.

They were more interested in guerrila warfare. Seems they couldn't
find the resources to feed themselves, yet when the resources were
brought to them, they resorted to murder and feudalistic warfare.

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.

True...there's no linear scale to it. But it's been in a positive
trend with STEEP improvements following warfare.

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.

And how much of it COULD have been done if only the money were
applied to them?

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.

Huh?

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.

And did science NOT benefit, Jim?

Did I not say that direct commercial investment was a prime source
of scientific advancement?

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...(SNIP)

OK...

That's the very argument that was bantied around at the end of the
Apollo project.

So the Space Program got back-burner'd except for robotic
explorations, the ISS and and the Shuttle.

Global warming is as bad if not worse than it ever was in the
70's. However spaceborne assets such as the Shuttle, ISS and MIR have
been used to document and archive these events as never before
possible.

Poverty is as bad if not worse as it was in the 70's. Most of
Africa is a wasteland. AIDS shot across the continent like a
cannon-shot.

The 50's, 60's and into the 70's were periods of great scientific
expansion and awareness of not only ourselves, but our "communities" of
the world.

Today our kids can't even find Africa on a map.

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.

Amazing how we arrive at the same point via different paths.
(Wanna buy an AK-47...?!?!)

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

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.

Oh?

The United Nations tried in Somalia.

And they failed. You're saying that one failure proves there's
no point in trying to change anything when it comes to poverty,
inequality, or making the world a better place.

They were more interested in guerrila warfare. Seems they couldn't
find the resources to feed themselves, yet when the resources were
brought to them, they resorted to murder and feudalistic warfare.

Sure. They valued warfare higher. Doesn't mean everyone does.

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?

Hmmm?

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.

True...there's no linear scale to it. But it's been in a positive
trend with STEEP improvements following warfare.

Not because of warfare, but because the resources were dedicated to
solving the problems.

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.

And how much of it COULD have been done if only the money were
applied to them?

Some could, others were simply not practical. Point is, nobody seems to
be very good at predicting the future of technologies. Even the
"experts"
and "professionals" get it wrong most of the time. But people don't
remember
what an awful track record they have...

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.

Huh?

Don't you remember "Buck Rogers"? Old sci-fi character.

The reference means Mike is more interested in the excitement than the
hard
science or the technological benefits.

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.

And did science NOT benefit, Jim?

Not really.

And the point is they did *not* go exploring for "science" or "because
it's there"
but for reasons like making money.

Did I not say that direct commercial investment was a prime source
of scientific advancement?

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...(SNIP)

OK...

That's the very argument that was bantied around at the end of the
Apollo project.

Were they wrong or right?

So the Space Program got back-burner'd except for robotic
explorations, the ISS and and the Shuttle.

Also Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, Viking, Galileo, Cassini, the Mars
missions..

Hardly "back-burner". How much was NASA's budget in those years? How
much is it now?

And how much would it have cost to continue lunar missions?

Global warming is as bad if not worse than it ever was in the
70's.

Think about *why*. It's not because of NASA.

It's because, after a few years of gasoline shortages, fossil fuels
became
cheap and plentiful in the early 1980s. And the problems were largely
ignored.

Which administration refuses to sign the Kyoto agreement?

However spaceborne assets such as the Shuttle, ISS and MIR have
been used to document and archive these events as never before
possible.

I think most of that data collection is done by unmanned weather and
geological observation satellites.

Poverty is as bad if not worse as it was in the 70's.

Think about *why*.

Most of
Africa is a wasteland. AIDS shot across the continent like a
cannon-shot.

Think about *why*.

The 50's, 60's and into the 70's were periods of great scientific
expansion and awareness of not only ourselves, but our "communities" of
the world.

Sure - for a bunch of reasons, not just space programs. But science is
useless
unless the knowledge is put to work.

Today our kids can't even find Africa on a map.

Depends which kids you ask. I know plenty of elementary-school kids who
can.

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.

Amazing how we arrive at the same point via different paths.
(Wanna buy an AK-47...?!?!)

The question is *why* that guy wants/needs an AK-47 rather than, say, a
better plow or clean water.

Is it because he's an aggressor?
Is it because he's been attacked so many times that he needs it to
defend himself?
Is it some other reason?

Consider this, Steve: The reason "we" succeeded in going to the moon
was that a clear goal
was defined, nearly-unlimited resources allocated, and limitations on
success were kept to a minimum.
If it took a three-man crew, they sent three men - not two and not
four. That one of them would go all the way to the moon and back yet
never set foot on it did not change the plans. That they built an
enormous and expensive
rocket, and only got a small capsule back, did not change the plans
either. They simply did what was needed to meet the goal and nothing
more nor less.

Similar methods can be used to solve some (but not all) earth-bound
problems. But too often, "we" are unwilling to do what's needed here at
home to make it happen. Problems which are not as tough as Apollo (such
as modern surface transportation) are considered "too hard" to solve.

There's another factor at work, too: short attention span. The moon
missions were essentially a crash program - the Rooskies were beating
us in space "firsts", and JFK needed something that looked good to
counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis.
So NASA got a blank check, contractors got cost-plus contracts and
things went night and day for almost a decade. But when it was done,
there wasn't a long-term plan for after-the-moon.

Americans seem to do well in crises but not so well at careful
long-term changes and planning.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote


They valued warfare higher.


As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody values
warfare except arms vendors.

Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some thing or
some result of value.

JFK needed something that looked good to
counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and
the Cuban missile crisis.

"Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics of the
results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and drank lots
of vodka.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

They valued warfare higher.

As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody v=
alues
warfare except arms vendors.

Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some thin=
g or
some result of value.

Well said!

JFK needed something that looked good to
counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and
the Cuban missile crisis.

"Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics of =
the
results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and drank=
lots
of vodka.

Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first place.

IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C
IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow's
objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the
Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop,
compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be
removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were
becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles.

So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cuba.
Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwarted.

But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets
backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were
quietly removed from Turkey.

And a "hot-line" was installed between Washington and Moscow so that
things could be discussed more directly by the leaders of the two
countries, and their representatives.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

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.

A-yup.

Brian ought to be able to at least partially attest to this...I am
sure Somalia bears some resemblence...

While on one of those missions that he and Lennie said I wasn't on,
we were briefed on the poverty of the local community, certain cultural
do's and don'ts and the likelyhood of who/where the "bad guys" would
be.

During the "these are really poor folks" part of the lecture, we
were told about how the average (certain Central American country)
citizen only earned less than the equivilent of USD $1000/yr. And
indeed, when we got there, there were some of those same kids you see
at 3AM, doe-eyed and playing in squalid poverty.

We were only in this community 6 days, and I was initially prone
to dispensing my MREs to the kids...Until I realized that almost
everyone had an AK-47, M-16, or FN-FAL rifle...And each bragged of how
much it cost him to get it...

They will live in putrid, debilitating poverty, but manage to find
the cash for guns and ammunition.

That's where my liberal streak ended.

I am always amazed at the CNN, MSN, and other news shows that have
"on the scene" reporters in countless third-world countries that are
pontificating about poverty while the men in the streets are carrying
assault rifles like my wife carries her purse.

73

Steve, K4YZ

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