| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#132
July 3rd 04, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: The idiot keeps trying to engage me. Apparently he doesn't know what persona non grata is. :-) If it wasn't written up in QST it doesn't exist. Then QST needs to run a series on Pariah Hams. QST over-emphasizes the ham involvement of MARS and under-emphasizes the fact that the U.S. Army started it in 1925 and now all three major military service branches are involved in that Military Affiliate Radio System as a self-standing radio system which MIGHT, but hardly ever does for a fact, serve the long-existing regular military communications facilities. "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio." Hi, hi! [did QST every write up anything on the Grecial Firebolt exercises? I don't think so but then I don't read enough ham-only "technical" material] My last QST lays there unread. Didn't renew membership. Now, in this thread, there's much "learned" palaver on the wrongs and wrongs of U.S. spaceflight efforts between the two participants who haven't gotten much beyond the Popular Science write-ups. The Cassini-Huygens probes are considered another outstanding success but the critics are highly critical. [maybe because ham radio isn't essential to such efforts?] The world passes them by and they just shake their fists. Meanwhile, BPL is the spectre on the ham horizon but nobody seems very concerned. Either they can't think beyond their personal fantasies or they think that "CW will get through?" They'll switch to MCW on all HF. Don't care about noise floor. Some folks in here are so into the personal attack mode that all they can do is carp and bark and toss snit at Cart Stevenson for a mild rebuke against UPLC, a group that was arrogantly snitting on amateur radio. They hate Carl. He had a rational argument concerning the retention of code testing, and it found favor within the FCC. He doesn't worship at the Altar of St. Hiram, so he's the antichrist to them. If it were within their power, Carl would be tied to a stake and burned. Luckily only one PCTA thinks he can get a government bureaucrat to do his dirtywork. And he's nuts. This is one weird group of licensed amateur extra regulars! They care more about their "honor" in telling fibs of their exploits then get totally pished at others who have had truthful experience beyond the limitations of Part 97. Fantasyland at times! :-) BPL-PLC will mean an END to low-level signal reception on HF and low VHF in urban areas but the licensed amateur extras in here just want to FIGHT with anyone who challenges their mighty words. They won't DO anything against the already-here problem of HF pollution but they want to destroy anyone not believeing in their fantasies of the religion of St. Hiram and the League-ionaires. Even more bizarre is the on-going "discussion" between two extras who have NO experience in space travel talking all about Big Issues in Space...none of which concerns amateur radio policy! :-) Well, time to celebrate the 4th coming up...and to worship at the Church of St. Hiram who invented radio and the vacuum tube, etc. :-) Len |
|
#133
July 4th 04, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: Mike Coslo Date: 7/2/2004 8:14 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/1/2004 6:32 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon? There was anembarrassing moment when a '60s era astronaut swore he'd never drink the stuff ever again because of its GI tract effects on him. Trouble was he forgot he was on VOX... I couldn't blame him...I thought (think) the stuff sucks. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. So we'd have to rebuild the tooling and supply systems in order to build the rockets. Which could take longer than it did the first time. I'd certainly hope that engineering skills and contruction methodology hadn't REGRESSED in the last four decades! =) Who's running this thing, anyway? Ex-Army radio clerks ? The problem isn't regression, the problem is that there are parts on the engine that simply aren't made any more. One small example is that when I was on tour down at the cape, we could look inside one of the monsters. I don't even know if lacing cable is made any more. That's just one thing, There are a lot of other parts that just aren't made any more. So while we could in principle make the things again, and the engineering drawings exist, it just ain't that simple. More the pity. The Saturn's were beautiful, muscular brutes, all the more impressive that they were made around 40 years ago. We haven't matched them yet. Quick Q. THe fuel and oxidizer combo on the Saturns was a bit different from the typical. What was it? Hmmmmm....I am not sure what you're getting at, Mike....The F1-s on the 1st stage burned kero and LOX. The subsequent stages were liquid hydrogen and LOX, as I recall.... You're correct It was just a question, an aside. There were American "missionaries" trying to impose thier religion and moral values on people supposedly too poor to eat or even buy a Bible...(you see thier kids on "Feed The Children" commercials... BUT...They always seemed to have money to buy AK47's and ammunition. Go figure... Praise the ammunition and pass the Lord? 8^) Exactly. Lot's of hungry little brown people toting Mr. Kalishnakov's pride and joy. The Russians found out the hard way. The Chinese learned, but they also learned how to keep people repressed and doing what they want them to do. Allowing people to accumulate wealth while suppressing their political freedoms is an interesting trick. Sure is...I guess if they are fat, dumb and up-to-thier necks in cheap, pirated US goods, theya re content to leave well enough alone ! ! ! BTW, China has just surpassed the US as an investment target. While we still have people that rail on about an Ex president. Point is, get the priorities straight, folks. You're asking a nation full of people who not only elected, but RE-elected a known liar and womanizer to "..get the priorities straight..", Mike..?!?! The people that elected him twice aren't the ones complaining about him. It's the people in power now. And last time I checked, while they hold a substantial majority in the House, a majority in the senate, and the Executive branch also, what I hear from most of the genre is whining about him, Democrats and the Evil Liberal. *That* is a tacit admission of incompetence. Yet they don't even realize it. They are too busy blaming. You're an even bigger optomist than I, my Friend! =) Heh, I knew someone would eventually see that part of me!! ;^) And how do we "teach" a machine to do something if we ourselves don't already know how it should be done? Robots my rosy red! I Wanna go there! ta-DAAAAAAAAH! HUMAN SPIRIT OF EXPLORATION! ! ! ! ! ! Yup. That's what it is all about AFAIAC. I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just solutions awaiting implementation! So exactly how do we cure hunger, disease, poverty, and the fact that there is a significant number of people that don't think any of the above are a problem? It's not that it's NOT a problem for me, Mike...but rather that it's not bad enough for those people to take the tools given them and dig their way out. The "answer", in too many of these places is to shoot whoever they perceive as being responsible for them being that way. Then the guy who got shot seeks revenge...Then the other guys wants to get back at him for having dared to retaliate for what was "clearly" a valid attack in the first place.... Etc Etc Etc............... The whole problem in the middle east was probably caused by someone taking a dump in his neighbor's olive grove! ;^) I'm in a rush, and that is enough for me. That's one of the few "benefits" of working the late shift...My "time off" is during hours that I usually don't get disturbed! - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#134
July 5th 04, 03:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/2/2004 5:40 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should we spend billions of tax dollars on it? "SpaceShip" 1 barely went suborbital. That's as high as X-15 ever went. But other than to use it to demonstrate the VERY basic theories of rudimentary manuevering in a near-vacuum, what did it do? SpaceShipOne or X-15? What can a sub-orbital ship hope to offer that aircraft operating at lower altitudes don't alread offfer? Not much on their own. But such ships are the first step to low-cost manned orbital missions. An X-15 flight cost far less than any Mercury mission, for example. The machines can't fix them selves enroute or on-site. So you build more reliable machines. Learning how to do that is an earthbound benefit of a space program! And if you're not "thre" to witness the failure and know what failed, how do you fix it? Depends on the failure. Many failures give warnings via telemetry. Others show up in simulation. For example, one of the Voyager scan platforms froze up, yet was remotely fixed by analysis of an earthbound simulator. I am reminded of pilots returning and trying to relate thier perceptions of problems, and how to fix them. Remember also pilots who never got back. The communications gear was a no-brainer. AFCS (Automatic Flight COntrol System) in the CH53 was very dynamic, even for the antiquated systems in the older A models...Nothing substituted for getting on the bird and experiencing the abnormal behaviour first had. But the CH53 was intended to be a human-piloted aircraft, used in a variety of roles. Many human ills cannot be self-repaired, either. Any your point is...?!?! That the risk must be balanced against the benefits. Look at Cassini-Huygens - more than 7 years in space and performing perfectly. Uh huh...Against how many that never left the pad, or failed enroute? Such as? Would you rather humans not explore Mars, Venus or the outer gas-giant planets at all until manned missions can be sent? Those "robot" Robot what? I am willing to bet that the Brit's "Beagle 2" mission burnt up on entering the Martian atmosphere. Why? What data supports that? "................................................. .." (sound of signal from probe after "re-entry") Burning up is only one of many explanations. The silence could also be caused by: - Some part of the reentry system failed that did *not* result in burn-up (parachute didn't open, hard landing damage, etc. - Some part of communications system failed - Landing site anomalies Maybe had it been a manned mission, the 1/10th of a degree attitude adjustment necessary to PREVENT it could have been made. Doubtful. The machines are faster and more accurate at such tasks than humans. Not always. Can you think of an example? Know why I carry my stethoscope at all times in the ER despite a plethora of "non-invasive diagnostic devices"...?!?! Because those "machines" are NOT always faster and more accurate than a human. Nor do those machines have the ability to "filter out" the audible ectopics that the human brain has. That's good but the problem of reentry is completely different. Can you estimate a 1/10th degree angle error better an faster than an automatic system designed for the job? Particularly in 3 axes at spacecraft speeds? How many other massive spaceborne telescopes have we had on orbit? There are some smaller ones but none like Hubble. I reiterate the adjective "massive"...! ! ! ! ! Hubble is unmanned. One of those robots. Its aiming accuracy is considerably better than 1/10 of a degree, I think. I'm not confused at all. Some folks, however, think that because humans went from Kitty Hawk to supersonic flight in less than half a century, and from there to the Sea of Tranquility in another quarter century, that such progress would continue on a linear path. It doesn't. Not linear, but certainly with a certain degree of advancement. And we have lots of advancement. I for one don't see it happening. I do. The Cassini mission is great, but what new technology or methodolgy are we using? Several: - Cassini carries with it the probe Huygens. - Cassini used gravitational boosts from other planets to get to Saturn years faster than with rocket power alone. - Cassini has smarter computers, better sensors, etc. Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. Even though it was known that the optics were defective. But they were able to compensate for that. Why not do it right the first time? How does anyone know what's "right" the first time until somenthing HAS been tried, and either found to work "as advertised", or return to the drawing board? That's what engineering is all about. How does man learn to do these things in space if we send machines to try and do it? Why should humans take unreasonable risks to do what can be done by machines? What's "unreasonable"...?!?! 1 in 75 chance of total loss of mission crew and equipment, I think. I MIGHT contract hepatitis or HIV in my profession, despite "religious" use of PPE and "Universal Precautions"... Do you the chances of that are 1 in 75? So...Considering that, do Nurses and Physicians just thrown up their arms and say "unreasonable risk" and quit? I'd hope not. No - but what they have done is to increase the precautions taken - with *all* patients. This costs more money and time, and reduces "productivity". But it's necessary. And the risks are far less than 1 in 75. And I'd hope we'd move manned space flight forward from LEO. Me too. And how do we "teach" a machine to do something if we ourselves don't already know how it should be done? It's done all the time. Look at the newest fly-by-wire military aircraft like the joint services fighter. Its aerodynamically characteristics are such that a human pilot cannot fly it directly - takes too many corrections in too little time. But a computer can fly it directly. Uh huh. Absolutely true. And how does the computer "know" what's an "unusual attitude" and correct it? How does the computer know the difference between that same "unusual attitude" as a result of loss-of-control (needs to be corrected) or a desired input (the pilot deems it necessary to be in that "unusual attitude")...?!?! You misunderstand how those systems work. Their job is to figure out how to get the plane to fly the way the human pilot wants it to. The human pilot tells the computer what he/she wants the plane to do and the computer figures out how to move the control surfaces to make that happen. Uh huh. Yep. Look it up. And what if the computer refuses to let the pilot do it? It doesn't happen. If the computers fail badly enough, the pilot has to eject. There's no direct mechanical link from the control stick and foot pedals to the aircraft control surfaces. That's what fly-by-wire means. And how does that computer "know" what to do? Programming. My point in the last couple of paragraphs is that persons who KNOW how to fly teach (program, in this case) the computer what it meeds ot know. And my point is that the computer does things the humans cannot. It makes an unflyable plane flyable. No machine to date, and to the best of my knowledge, has taken it upon itself to "learn" somehting it wasn't programmed with. (Shades of "COLOSSUS: The Forbin Project") Not the point. More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human error. People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired, etc. By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that the crew could do nothing about. Oh? Yep. Could the Columbia crew have gone EVA and fixed the busted shuttle tiles with what was onboard that last mission? No, they couldn't. But we could have put emergency stores on an unmanned flight to send to them, or they may have been able to "lifeboat" at ISS. Perhaps an unmanned supply mission could have been sent - that would be a job for robots! But the orbits of Columbia and ISS were simply too different. Those scenarios have been the subject of public discussion before. "Human Risk" and cost are the only two reasons they've not done it in the past. It cost us dearly with Columbia. Imagine if we had just put one MMP on board each shuttle for one 30-60 minute pre-reentry EVA for Columbia (obviously it wasn't an issue with With what? Again, if the crew had done an EVA and seen the damage, they could not fix it anyway. They were engineering errors if we patently accept the investigation's reports. The errors were due to a failure of the people making the decisons. In the case of Challenger, yes. Thiokol said "go" after being coerced by NASA people to let Challenger fly. Coerced by men...not robots. Yep. Men from Reagan;s White House.... Nope...Men from NASA. Who were pressured by Reagan's White House. Documented fact - the White House wanted the "teacher in space" program to go. It had already been delayed. The whole shuttle program was way behind schedule. But rather than admit that the schedule was simply unrealistic. and should be revised, pressure to launch was fed down the chain of command. Try to remember what the mindset was back then. NASA had *never* lost *anyone* in space before Challenger. The Apollo 1 fire, horrible as it was, did not result from a rocket or reentry system failure. Apollo 13 got back safely. At least some folks thought NASA was "overcautious". It was suggested that thios would place the crew at too much risk. There's also the fact that a lot of flaws could not be fixed. If the Columbia crew had lnown there was a problem with foam damage, could they have fixed it? Probably not. But in the long run they more than likely might have survived the mission. How? Again, we could have put extra stores on an unmanned loft or got them to ISS until another shuttle could get to them... See above. The idea of a small "ROV" be built for the same purpose was made.. "Too much time and money". I'll bet a bunch of MIT kids could have designed the thing as a class project for less than a mil... Designed, maybe. Built, tested and certified for manned space flight? No. Why? Because there's a lot of work to getting something actually built, tested, and certified as safe to take into space. Particularly something new. They couldn't put a package together that NASA could adopt and incorporate? Still has to meet the requirements. For example, if a component in the package - *any* component - decides to outgas certain chemicals, all kinds of problems can happen. So the components used all need to be certified and tested. And the manufacturing and assembly processes need to be certified and tested. Look at how long it takes to build and launch an OSCAR.. From where are current NASA "rocket scientists" gleaned anyway? Lots of places. Compare that against the loss we suffered. Exactly. The humans made a wrong decision. Even though they were professionals, they messed up. Oooops. Happens. And any one of them or all of them could have stepped off a curb into on-coming traffic. But that would not have put other people's lives at risk - only their own. I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just solutions awaiting implementation! Standard HR BS. Jiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmm........ It's standard HR BS. That's a plain, simple fact. Nothing is ever difficult for the person who doesn't have to do the work. The facts a Some problems have no solution. ("What is the exact value of pi expressed as the ratio of two integers?). And in what PRACTICAL applications of formulas using "pi" have we NOT been able to incorporate it to effective use? Not the point. All values of pi used by humans in real-world problems are approximations. Some problems have a theoretical solution but it cannot be found in practice (Traveling salesman problem) Where to find a clean bed, cheap meal and female company? NO PROBLEM! You don't know what the traveling salesman problem is, do you? I'll explain it in another post. Some problems have realizable solutions. Time and effort. That's all it takes. Many problems are great and no EASY solution is at hand. (ie: curing the cold, cancer, HIV, These problems may or may not have complete solutions. For example, there may be types of cancer that simply cannot be cured - but they may be preventable. getting Lennie and Brain to act like adults...etc etc etc) I repeat: Some problems have no solution. Some problems have a theoretical solution but it cannot be found in practice I believe we'll find cures. I do too. Or preventatives, which are even better. (I don;t think a true cure for, say, polio was ever developed. But vaccines were)/ I believe man will travel at "warp speeds". Perhaps humans will. But it may be simply impossible. Not today...Not even tomorrow...but one day... Only if it is possible. Reality does not care what you believe. I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done. Yep. I believe we will one day find outr how to go light speed or better. It's just a matter of time, money and effort. No, it isn't. At this point we do not know if such travel is possible...(SNIP TO...) As it stands right now, our knowledge of physics says it cannot be done. Fifty years ago our knowledge of physics said that the sound barrier was a tuffy... No, it did not. Fifty years ago (1954) it had been broken many times. Ten years before that our knowledge of physics suggested the detonation of a nuclear device would cause the whole world to explode at once. Not true. Even after the Wright Brothers submitted evidence that they had "flown", reputable scientists of the age were saying manned flight, and certainly PRACTICAL manned flight would never happen. Has anyone submitted evidence of humans traveling faster than light? Not a matter of better rockets or materials - it's the very nature of the universe that is the limit. Of course that knowledge could change! But at the present time, human travel at or beyond the speed of light is *not* a matter of money or effort; it's a matter of physical reality. Basic relativity physics, IOW. And as Hans says so well: "Reality does not care what you believe" So far, I'd say that the human imagination, when properly interfaced with human ingenuity and dedication, has done a pretty good job of making things "happen". Only things that are possible. Bullets and V2 rockets broke the "sound barrier" before the X-1 did. The question was not "could something go faster than sound" but "how do you make an airplane that can do it?" Nothing goes at light speed except light (in the broadest sense). Nothing with a nonzero rest mass has been accelerated to or beyond light speed. Basic relativity physics. I'd sure like to google-up these comments 50 years from now and see just how far we progressed, and then either see if they exceeded expectation, or if not, why not. You don't seem to understand the difference between knowing something is possible and not knowing how to do it, and not knowing if something is possible at all. Specifically, the current knowledge of physics says that "warp speed" is simply not possible because the universe isn't built to allow it. There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be enslaved, either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those jobs. That problem was solved. Yep..We just look the other way at the border once in a while! =) By saying that, even humorosly, you're saying you believe some people have to be enslaved economically. They don't HAVE to, Jim. I know it. Do you? Most of those people coming across the border certainly see it as a step up... Doesn't mean it's right. Would you KNOWINGLY put your self at risk to do what THEY do to get here if you thought you were going to be enslaved? Doesn't mean it's right. Those people are desperate and determined to make a better life for themselves and thier families. If they peceived themselves as being "enslaved", they'd not voluntarily submit them selves to it by the hundreds-of-thousands every year. All sorts of people took all sorts of risks to get to the USA. There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be allowed to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to be a problem. That's a matter of opinion. Several political pundits have said that a lot of the "vote" that went to Bill Clinton did so because some segment of women voters thought he was more handsome than President Bush, and thought that his rhetoric on women's "issues" was "sweet". And who are these "pundits"? Take your pick. Wanna start at the top with ABC's anchors and work your way down to UPN? It was the regular topic of the news "magazines" back in 92, 96 and 2000. Show us. What is their data? Who knows? Who cares? I do. There were women willing to be on-camera and acknowledge that they voted, in part, based upon looks and perception of Clinton as "pro-woman". How many? Too bad they didn't know "pro-woman" just meant he wasn't gay. Means a lot more than that. Most of all, even if their claim is true, how is it any different from: Men who won't vote for a black person? Men who won't vote for a Roman Catholic? Or a Jew? Men who won't vote for a person from a certain place or region? Men who won't vote for someone because they "feel" he "cannot be trusted"? None at all. Exactly. Too bad that there isn't a test to determine voter competency, huh...?!?! There is. But it only applies to naturalized citizens. There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children to read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and factories. Obviously it's still true. No, it isn't. Sure it is. Not as much in the United States, anymore, but certainly in a great many OTHER nations of the world. Only because they believe it to be true. A very large part of our imports from India and Pakistan are made by kids. That may be - but we don't have to import those things. You're right...we don't "have" to... But we do... Because too many people place low price above other considerations. Yes...it will still be there...but I for one am very disappointed that after four decades of manned space travel, we still haven't done a darned thing to REALLY start exploring "space"...! We haven't? I say we have! To the degree we we COULD be exploring it? How much more of your money are you willing to spend? I say no. We COULD have been walking on Mars this past summer during the Earth/Mars approach. How do you know? It would have been the ideal time, If you say that, you don't understand much about how such missions actually work. Particularly the orbital mechanics of getting from here to there and back. we had more than enough time to plan for it, and we had the inertia to get there. Easy to say if you don't have to actually do it. Tell us how big a manned Mars mission ship would have to be in order to get to Mars and back, carrying all the supplies, spares and equipment needed. Or give us an alternative scenario, such as sending supply ships on ahead to Martian orbit - *with details*. Tell us how long the trip would be, and what the relative planetary positions would be at the start, Martian landing, and return. Tell us how those who land on Mars would deal with the cold, wind, and dust. Most of all tell us what it would all cost, and what we would do that could not be done by robots. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#135
July 5th 04, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/30/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Then if we're not spending the money now with no more than we're doing in space, how could this make it any worse? Because it diverts money, people, and attention away from solving those problems. Which gets priority - space or surface transportation? Why not both? Not enough money. The only difference here is that you're asking Joe Average to be ready to give up his/her SUV (or at least keep it garaged a lot more) and they don't want to do it. No, what I'm asking is for a lot more - responsibility. I've heard that same argument used to finish off Apollo. By Nixon... By COngress who pushed him to cancel it. And he did it. We KO'd Apollo, yet schools are (in your estimation) no better off. That's not what I wrote. Not in those exact words, but that's what you have been saying. Not at all. Do you think are schools are the best in the world? And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and stealing the money from them? No, but the Feds hand out unfunded mandates that the schools must meet. How about this: Any Federal mandate must also carry with it funds to make them happen? Yes, they should carry the funds. That's a start. But "unfunded federal mandates" are not what are causing the problems in ANY of the school districts around here. Are you sure? If the feds require something that costs $$, the locals have to pay for it. Takes money from other things. I don't think so. Besides, why should defeating gay marriage cost taxpayers any money at all? Indeed, why should it be defeated - if gay people can get 'married' (in the legal sense), they'll pay more taxes because of the income tax marriage penalty, thereby raising tax revenues. Why, indeed. Say, there's the money for your expanded space program! Uh huh. Why not? It WAS a problem then. It's a worse one now. Yep. Because four presidents since then did not make it a priority. Because they weren't the one's without water to drink or bathe in, nor will the Predident's be without transportation. There you go. Things are NOT so fine now, but not yet to disaster proportions, but that light at the end of the tunnel is NOT salvation! It's the on-coming train! What *are* you talking about? Drought. Where? You have GOT to be KIDDING me, Jim...?!?! No. How about just about everything west of Little Rock and south of Seattle? Too many people using too much water, that's all. Declining oil reserves. Yep. Internal security of our own borders. That's because we play the game at both ends. On the one hand, we say we want security. On the other hand, we want the cheap immigrant labor and the money tourists and students spend here. We can still have tighter security and keep those cotton-pickers and panty raiders coming, Jim... Really? How do we separate the real students? I wonder what they'd cost today to build? I wonder what the cost of the decaying cities will be when those cities can no longer sustain thier populations, and the people go elsewhere to live? Perhaps the bigger question is this: Why are so many people living in arid areas? Why do they expect to live as if they are not in a desert? Southern California wasn't that "arid" 50 years ago. Yes, it was. What made Southern California possible - LA in particular - were enormous irrigation projects. Most of them were at least partly federally funded. Heck, the Colorado river no longer reaches the ocean - *all* of its water is diverted. The truth is that Southern California could not support its population if the water wasn't brought from many miles away. We will force the building of NEW infrastructure wherever these people wind up, and the old cities will have to be refurbished somehow. That's because people do not connect their lifestyles with the environmental and resource costs. Yet "they" blame it on "them" (the government) for not "doing something" about it. Because they think it's their "right", without considering their responsibility. Ultimately I think they will have to still build the plants that should ahve started in the 70's, and it will cost even more then. And who will pay? Who do you THINK will pay, Jim? You drink water? I live east of the Mississippi. I pay for the water systems here. Why should I pay for SoCal's water too? Like from 400MHZ to over 5GHZ. Enough RF on a single frquency desenses the front end. That's all it takes. I doubt that the military satellites are controlled on ONE discreet frequency, Jim. Doesn't matter. Say there's a broadband amplifier on the sat covering 400 to 2000 MHz. A strong-enough signal anywhere in that range will overload it and none of the signals will get through. When was the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car exploded at all? Hmm? Well, I still see the Manned Space Program as beiong over forty years old, and only 17 Americans have died in direct space flight operations or preparations. Out of how many that have flown? Hmmmmmm..... Six Mercury Flights: 6 Ten Gemini Flights: 20 (12 flights...Only 10 were manned) 17 Apollo flights: 51 Apollo Soyuz: 3 Skylab (3 msns) 9 Shuttle Missions: 560 (112 missions, average 5 persons per mission) _____ 649 (give or take a couple) Of course if you want to get REAL nit-picky, we can discount folks like Storey Musgrave and others who have flown more than one, so we'll just give you the benefit of the doubt here and say 640. That's less than 3 percent of the American manned space effort to date. That means that over 97 percent of all American manned space missions are successful. That's not very good at all. Particularly given the enormous cost of a mission. 3 percent loss rate is about 1 in 33 - that's even worse than the 1 in 75 I quoted. And that doesn't take into account the crews shuttled to and from MIR. The boosters for the Shuttle exploded once, we fixed that problem. Then another problem surfaced. Is it really fixed? This time it was FOD to the leading edges of the wings. Not the same...certainly not "over and over". Dead is dead. Two orbiters and their crews a total loss. Yes. Dead is dead. They were tragedies, and we learned from them. I do not consider thier sacrifices as a "total loss". "Total loss" meaning "no survivors and all equipment destroyed" NOT a total loss as in "lesson learned and not repeated". Has the problem which caused the Columbia loss really been fixed? Do you know if we employed this pattern of "completely stop and re-engieer the problem" to the automobile, we wouldn't have over 50,000 a YEAR dead on our highwyas...And most of them weren't doing a THING worthy of thier deaths, Jim. I know. I see a lot of them. Compute the highway death rate compared to trips taken, miles driven, etc. It's a lot lower than 1 in 75. And *most* accidents are caused by driver error, not mechanical failure. Just one example: How many accident victims do you see who would have lived, or been significantly less injured, if they had used seat belts? They never got there because they quit. They spent thier money elsewhere. It wasn't that they couldn't. They couldn't do it in time. And they STILL could have done it. I don;t think so. Only money and "priorities" stopped them. Too bad. Why? If you're right, maybe they could have got there first. If they land ONE man on the Moon in the next decade, that will be one more than WE have done in the last forty years ! ! ! So? The moon isn't ours. The Gulf of Siddra isn't "ours" either yet we patrol it with a Carrier Battle Group regularly. You might ask why that is necessary. I may ask why it ISN'T important to advance manned space technology after all it's contributed to modern science. The differene with the Moon is that anyone who can get there can make use of what ever resources they find there. If it isn't us, it will be someone else. I would rather it BE us. Me too but until there is some resource worth getting, there are better things to spend the money and resources on. How do you know the resources aren't there until we get there and REALLY explore? So far all we did was a "pit stop", got a few trinkets and baubels and moved on. Analysis of what was found showed nothing of commercial value in the rocks. Then instead of tellingus what "can't" be done because of a lack of funding, tell us what CAN be done WITH adequate funding...And money spent SMARTLY, not just thrown into the pot and done with as you will..... I'm telling you what is practical and what isn't. Blank-check spending isn't practical. If we don't even explore the OPTIONS, Jim, how will we ever know what's practical? How much more of your own money are you willing to spend? Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them. Engieneers do them when adequately funded! How much has SpaceShipOne cost? How far would SpaceShipOne have gotten if it wasn't bankrolled with $25M...?!?! Wasn't tax money, though. If a billionaire wants to bankroll a space mission, no problem! How far DID it get? High altitude research balloons do the same thing a lot cheaper AND since the 1930's or 40's. Your point? DaVinci dreamed of a great many things that have only been made practical in the last 100 years...Because we spent the money on research to develop the materials to let the enginees make it happen! DaVinci sketched vague ideas. It took a lot of time, work and development to make real machines. Uh huh. Yep. The "Voyager" was a vague idea on a napkin. Then the engineers made it reality. DaVinci's "vague ideas" were pretty detailed for the era. Imagine what he could ahve done had he had the materials with which to really do them. His ideas were mostly junk. He didn't have the resources, period. Those who actually did the things he sletched didn't need him;, they got to those ideas on their own. I am not "avoiding" anything Jim. You're avoiding saying how many more tax dollars you're willing to pay. That's the bottom line. People are all for all sorts of things until it comes time to pay for them. Then they scream bloody murder about being ripped off. I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers. Then understand that you can't have everything you want for free. Who said free? You did. I am willing to see my taxes spent on a practical space program! Are you willing to see your taxes raised to pay for it? I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward today. I disagree. The Mars rover missions are a great step forward. Cassini/Huygens is reaching Saturn - be prepared for a summer of wonders from the ringed planet. Pictures from a robot. Yep. Great stuff. Advances modern science. The same information that we've gained on prior fly-by's and with terrestrial methods. Not at all. Density waves in the rings - nobody saw that before. The recent deployments only bear that out. They prove the technology is no damn good. It's a spectrum polluter. It's just plain stupid. They proved that THIS method is a spectrum polluter. The *concept* is just plain stupid. Did you see my post about the stormwater ditch? That's what BPL is electrically equivalent to. Can there NEVER be a development that might work? Depends what you mean by "work". The systems do "work" in the sense that they transmit data from A to B. The problem is that they leak RF all over the place because the power lines are simply leaky at RF frequencies. They radiate. It's basic physics. Wires with RF in them radiate, and long unshileded wires way up in the air with HF in them radiate really well. Various forms of coding and such simply don't fix the basic problem. Now if someone wants to install shielded power lines and equipment, a BPL system can work without interference. But such a system would cost more to build than simply running new coax or fiber. Yes, it will. So the end result is that it's simply a bad idea in the first place. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#136
July 5th 04, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#137
July 6th 04, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/5/2004 6:57 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/30/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Then if we're not spending the money now with no more than we're doing in space, how could this make it any worse? Because it diverts money, people, and attention away from solving those problems. Which gets priority - space or surface transportation? Why not both? Not enough money. Sure there is. It's just a matter of priorities. The only difference here is that you're asking Joe Average to be ready to give up his/her SUV (or at least keep it garaged a lot more) and they don't want to do it. No, what I'm asking is for a lot more - responsibility. That's what I said, Jim...Joe Average doesn't want to give up his/her SUV. To do so would be to take some responsibility for participating in helping the enviroment. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#138
July 6th 04, 11:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (William) Date: 7/5/2004 4:57 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... This is one weird group of licensed amateur extra regulars! To say the least. Did you pick up on the new thread where someone asked if a person works in the industry and has a commercial license, would he be welcomed at a ham radio club meeting? If that message isn't a troll, I'd like to know what is. "...radio brother"....?!?! Must be a DJ at an ethnic radio station. They care more about their "honor" in telling fibs of their exploits then get totally pished at others who have had truthful experience beyond the limitations of Part 97. Fantasyland at times! :-) It's all just a matter of ego. He was talking about you, Brain..."...fibs of thier exploits" sums you up very nicely. BPL-PLC will mean an END to low-level signal reception on HF and low VHF in urban areas but the licensed amateur extras in here just want to FIGHT with anyone who challenges their mighty words. Not to worry. Morse always gets thru. It get's through if you know how to use it. They won't DO anything against the already-here problem of HF pollution but they want to destroy anyone not believeing in their fantasies of the religion of St. Hiram and the League-ionaires. Just notice who's remaining in this sorry group. ROTMFFLMMFAO! LOOK WHO'S TALKING ABOUT WHO'S "REMAINING" IN THIS "SORRY" GROUP ! ! ! ! ! Brain..it's people like you and the Left Coast Scumbag who MAKE it sorry! Even more bizarre is the on-going "discussion" between two extras who have NO experience in space travel talking all about Big Issues in Space...none of which concerns amateur radio policy! :-) They've managed to combine "Missiles of October," and "October Sky." Maybe one day they'll launch an Estes rocket and attain the altitude of 1,200' AGL. Been there. Done that. Before I reached puberty. Well, time to celebrate the 4th coming up...and to worship at the Church of St. Hiram who invented radio and the vacuum tube, etc. Never knew the man, but he is legend. "Legend"...?!?! As in "T5/N0IMD"...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |
|
#139
July 6th 04, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... This is one weird group of licensed amateur extra regulars! To say the least. Did you pick up on the new thread where someone asked if a person works in the industry and has a commercial license, would he be welcomed at a ham radio club meeting? Yes. What wasn't mentioned was the demand that non-amateur radio hobbyists MUST drink from different fountains and use the "special" restrooms. :-) They care more about their "honor" in telling fibs of their exploits then get totally pished at others who have had truthful experience beyond the limitations of Part 97. Fantasyland at times! :-) It's all just a matter of ego. NO!? Say it isn't so... :-) BPL-PLC will mean an END to low-level signal reception on HF and low VHF in urban areas but the licensed amateur extras in here just want to FIGHT with anyone who challenges their mighty words. Not to worry. Morse always gets thru. Right! That's why all the other radio services rely on morse! :-) They won't DO anything against the already-here problem of HF pollution but they want to destroy anyone not believeing in their fantasies of the religion of St. Hiram and the League-ionaires. Just notice who's remaining in this sorry group. Yes. Weiner von Brawn and his sidekick in PA. :-) Isn't all so much fun to have a private "ham" chat room to talk all about the space program, national economics, traveling salesmen, the educational system, and other assorted "ham interest" items? Even more bizarre is the on-going "discussion" between two extras who have NO experience in space travel talking all about Big Issues in Space...none of which concerns amateur radio policy! :-) They've managed to combine "Missiles of October," and "October Sky." Maybe one day they'll launch an Estes rocket and attain the altitude of 1,200' AGL. If either one cancels their Popular Science subscription, we won't know the answers to all those profound questions of "ham interest" policy problems. Well, time to celebrate the 4th coming up...and to worship at the Church of St. Hiram who invented radio and the vacuum tube, etc. :-) Len Never knew the man, but he is legend. ...celebrated in song and story forever, the founder of the Service. A real firecracker that put sparklers in the eyes of all worshippers. [shipping extra cost] :-) |
|
#140
July 6th 04, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
