| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
October 8th 05, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#2
October 8th 05, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
October 10th 05, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
October 10th 05, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#5
October 10th 05, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#6
October 10th 05, 11:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
October 10th 05, 11:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: K=D8HB wrote: 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 th= ing 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 o= f the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and dra= nk 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. bull**** Jim every movie or account of those days mentions it and that the Jupiters were obsolete and scheduled for withdraw and the Kendy had ordered their withdraw several time 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. =20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#8
October 11th 05, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"an old friend" wrote bull**** Jim every movie or account of those days ........... I don't know what they taught you as a Colonel in the Chemical Corps, but I was there on the blockade line (didn't watch some sensational movie version) and Jim speaks truly. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
|
#9
October 11th 05, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
an old friend wrote: wrote: K=D8HB wrote: wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobo= dy values warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some = thing 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 d= rank 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. bull**** Jim Which part of what I wrote is not true, Mark? Perhaps you mean my reference to the Jupiter-Cs as "IRBMs" (Intermediate-Range-Ballistic-Missiles) which are elsewhere called "MRBMs" (Medium-Range-Ballistic-Missiles). every movie or account of those days mentions it Even if true, so what? Those movies and accounts were done long after the crisis. What I wrote is true: some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. That they were scheduled to be removed, were obsolete, and were already replaced by more-effective submarine-launched missiles and ICBMs is inconsequential. The point is that the Soviets backed down publicly and visibly, while *at the time*, the removal of the missiles in Turkey was kept quiet until long after it was an accomplished fact. and that the Jupiters were obsolete and scheduled for withdraw and the Kendy had ordered their withdraw several time Inconsequential - they were operational in October 1962 and were a big reason for the Soviets' actions in Cuba. Moscow figured that if the USA could have missiles so close to Soviet cities, then the USSR should have similar missiles at similar distances from US cities. That the Jupiters were actually meant to defend all of NATO, not just the USA, was lost on the Soviets. You also missed the point of the whole discussion: JFK pushed the "space race" in general, and the man-on-the-moon-before-this-decade-is-out, as a way to divert attention from the Soviets' early space successes, and Kennedy administration embarrassments like the Bay of Pigs. Space was a way to go mano-a-mano with the Rooskies *without* fighting, and while they had a head start, getting to the moon was far enough away that the USA had a good chance of getting there first. IOW, it *wasn't* about science, or exploration, or "the final frontier", new technologies, etc. Those things were side benefits - the main game was beating the Russians at something. But after July 1969, there wasn't another clear goal nor obvious opponent. In July 1975 the US and USSR did the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission, which would have been all but unimaginable ten years earlier. Just look at a partial list of early Soviet space "firsts": 1957 - Sputnik 1, first artificial earth satellite 1957 - Sputnik 2, first animal in space (Laika the dog) 1959 - Luna 2 impacts moon (intentionally!) 1961 - Vostok 1 - Yuri Gagarin is first human in space and first to orbit the earth 1962 - Mars 1 - First flyby of Mars 1964 - Voskhod 1 - First multiperson mission (three cosmonauts) 1965 - Voskhod 2 - Alexei Leonov makes first space walk 1966 - Luna 9 soft lands on the Moon and returns TV pictures 1966 - Venera 3 is first spacecraft to enter atmosphere of another planet (Venus) 1966 - Luna 10 orbits Moon (first spacecraft to orbit another world) Also the first woman in space, first pictures of the far side of the moon, and much more. 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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Beware of hams planting dis-information... | CB | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| Open Letter to K1MAN | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
