Home Menu

Menu


RadioBanter » rec.radio.amateur » Policy > BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
Reply
Page 9 of 22 « First 2345678 9 1011121314151619 Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #86   Report Post  
Old June 27th 04, 08:48 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/26/2004 1:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nursie work in aerospace? Or just spaced out?

Nursie looney? [looney rhyme w/Clooney, ER hero...]

Nursie disconnect dots, tell tales of coincidence of time nursie
got first car? Nursie not happy?

Nurise automotive expert? Nursie are radio god, superior to all
inferiors (those not in hum radio)?

Nursie be maverick gremlin? Have a pint'o at happy hour? Need
trip Vegas to tell all about radio? Must be. Nursie know all, hate
many. Not good. Vein ready for pop. Vroom, vroom.

Shush, nursie, shush. Nursie not have mind neutralized, go into
parasitic oscillation, not good for final. Final at any time, vein
ready to pop.

Temper fry...

The following post was published by an allegedly college educated
"professional" engineer.

One who claims to have worked "in the aerospace industry".

No wonder NASA is down two shuttles.

Nursie have new personality! Weiner von Brawn.

Nursie big name aerospace, be purchasing agent at set-top box
maker less than half year. Very important. Knows all about
electronic engineering. Good job, Weiner!

Nursie got lots hate, angers, repeat lines often. Obsession by
nursie. Nursie can't do field day, must be on-line to hate, hate,
hate "enemy." Bad nursie, bad. Tsk.

Nursie not speak of BPL. BPL not aerospace where he
Dock-torr. (physics pun)

Nursie hate, hate, hate. Nursie angry. All posts must kill all
enemies. Destroy enemies. Way of hero hostile action ham.

Not good PR for ham radio.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #87   Report Post  
Old June 28th 04, 03:36 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 9:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:


So...there's NO technology that exisits today that would allow us to land a
man on the moon in say...two years...if we really wanted to...?!?!

Probably not. Not in two years, anyway.

Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the
Shuttle bay.

That could work. I had the same idea years ago.

The Shuttle carries it to the Moon,

Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit,
let
alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay
*empty*.

(sheeeesh)

So we can't configue an auxiliary fuel system?

I doubt it can be done in two years. Do you really think a lunar
lander that will fit in the Shuttle cargo bay and be compatible with
its systems could be designed, built, tested, integrated and ready for
launch to the Moon in less than two years? Including all the other
facilities that would be needed to support it? I don't.

They didn't start designing the LEM in 1967.

Now about the auxiliary fuel system:

It would have to be installed in the cargo bay, reducing the space and
weight available for the lander. It would have to carry enough fuel to
enable the shuttle and lander to leave earth orbit, enter lunar orbit,
leave lunar orbit and then configure for reeentry. That's a lot of
fuel and oxidizer.

It will take an extra 30 years to figure out how to install the fuel tanks
necessary to do it?

It may not be possible at all even if the entire cargo bay is used for
the tanks.

Look at the design of a Saturn V. Note how much of it is fuel tank and
how little is CSM and LEM. Note how much it weighs at launch, how much
of it goes to the moon, how much comes back from the moon and how much
is left for reentry.

Those numbers are determined by the basic physics of how much energy
it takes to escape the earth's and the moon's gravity.

The shuttle's liquid fuel engines are not radically more efficient
than those in a Saturn V. Their biggest claim to fame is that they are
more controllable and last longer.

I'll bet you a nickle to a C-Note that Burt Rutan could rough out a
workable method on a napkin in a Mojave restaurant and have itr working in that
two years.

You would lose.

If it could be done, NASA would have done it already.

Oh?

Yes.

Why?

Because it would be a great way to push the shuttle program. That's
what the "teacher in space" fiasco was about. Also the reason
Congresscritters have taken shuttle rides.

Just because?

The physics of the problem is the key to all of it.

They've had to fight Congress and ignorant laymen for 30 years just to
stay in LEO.

So has every other program.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no
more.
Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the
LM/CSM
combo is so small.

Again, We can't figure out a piggyback fuel tank?

Go ahead. Show me the numbers. How much does a shuttle weigh? How
small and light can a lander be made? How much fuel is needed to do
the jobs?

We can't park "re-supply" ships along the way or in lunar orbit?

Do you know what a Lagrange point is?

The only practical point would be lunar orbit. Now, how would you get
a supply container there?

We've already proven that on-orbit rendevous, docking and EVA construction
is a no-brainer.

Not a no-brainer at all. What has been shown is that it can be done.
In low earth orbit.

So again...WHAT new technology do we ahve to develop to go back to the
Moon?

- New lunar lander
- New heavy lift rockets
- New systems to get to lunar orbit and back

that's a short list.

Or we could just build more Saturn Vs.

HARDWARE, yes...we need new machines. but so far, Jim, your "arguments"
have not swayed me that we could do it if we wanted to...

Of course it could be done. We know that; it was done almost 40 years
ago using rockets designed with slide rules and controlled with
computers that make a pocket calculator look smart.

The question is - could it be done in two years? The answer is no.

the mission drops in, and brings at
least part of the lander home for re-use itself.

Only ways such a system could work is if the Shuttle stayed in earth orbit
and the lunar package went from there.

Why?

Basic physics. The energy required to send the whole shuttle to lunar
orbit and back again is simply too great.

And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the
Apollo missions, not a long term base.

As long as you keep thinking that, then that's all we'll do.

What's your solution, Steve? How many tons of supplies and equipment
are needed to establish a permanent lunar base? How much money to
build everything needed, and to get it to the moon? How many years and
launches to do it?

If you think in terms of "what can this ONE sortie accomplish", you'd be
right. But that's already been addressed by countless suggestions of what we
COULD do if we wanted to.

With reasonable timelines and a sound program, yes.

For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask
WHERE
in space are you going to spend that money?

We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people
here. And address problems long-term.

Oh?

Yes.

NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?!

Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how
much money it costs to create one NASA job.

So...NASA doesn't hire drivers, janitors, security personel, health care
workers, mechanics, etc?

Not nearly so many as they hire highly trained and educated people.

It sounds to me like you are trying to justify a larger manned space
program by pitching it as a jobs program for Ph.Ds.

If we pump up NASA for a new deep space or lunar program, it means that
every
company that contracts with it would be able to

Sure - at a price.

Sheeesh.

You're the one complaining about getting ripped off every April 15.

But why not solve our problems directly?

Sure...Why not.

Let's just go ahead and drop a billion dollars into social welfare
programs to feed and house the poor.

Who said anything about that?

I'm talking about solving problems like education, infrastructure, and
energy independence.

Let's NOT do something to advance our technologies that will create
entirely new classes of jobs, promote our wellness and, hopefully, ultimately
develope technologies that might "liberate" us from poverty.

The space program of the '60s didn't liberate us from poverty. Nor did
it promote our wellness. It created some jobs and some new
technologies but at enormous cost.

And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space
program?

Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence.
Education.

Uh huh.

Yep. Haven't you seen how US education ranks against other countries
in the developed world? Or how much of our oil is imported? Or any of
a host of other things that need fixing?

Why can't the USA have the best educational systems in the world? The
best surface transportation systems? The best energy systems? Energy
independence?

This doesn't mean we shouldn't have a space program - we should. But
it has to stand on its own merits. Going into space is worth doing for
its own sake, not as a jobs program.

A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of
technical advencement.

Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives
those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!"

Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of
government spending".

But we can also defer that with cooperation with business against futures
for mining, technology development, etc. The opportunities are there...We
just need to have the gonads to take them.

What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program
have
been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All
unmanned,
and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling
with
the development of fiber optics.

Fiber optics = interruptable infrastructure.

Fiber optics = what makes the modern communications world tick.

Satellites are interruptible infrastructure too. Heck, it's easy: Just
build a high power ground jammer transmitter with a big dish (designed
for the right frequencies) and point it at the satellite you wish to
interrupt. Jam away. With good design, the jamming signal won't even
be detected on earth.

All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a
marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure.
The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown
verifies the reliability analysis.

Things that are filled with hundreds of tons of volatile combustables
are bound to go boom.

CNG tankers don't. Railroad tank cars don't.

ROTMFFLMMFAO ! ! ! ! ! !

When's the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car in the USA
exploded and killed people? How many of them do you think are in use
in the continental USA in the course of a year?

Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability.

And we'll improve that reliability by just not doing it anymore...?!?!

Not by doing it the same way over and over again.

There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim.

Who is there to compete with for space?

The Red Chinese for one. They just flew a manned mission a year or so
ago, and they certainly have the resources and the wherewithall to exploit it.

Right. They orbited one guy. The Soviets did it first - 43 years ago.

And considering thier track record for flooding markets with cheap
alternatives that have, quite literally, put hundred of thousands if not
millions of Americans out of work, I don't doubt they can do it there, too.

By that logic, we should let them do it, and then buy the rockets from
them.

I'd rather know that bright, fast moving light in the sky was carrying
Americans.

I'd rather that there were more products I could buy that said "Made
in USA".

Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded.
We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies
from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the
outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups
ranging from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts.

And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development,
transportation, and energy independence.

I don't see a whole lot of likelyhood that anything further will be
forthcoming from this exchange, Jim.

Why not? Do you think I'm joking? I'm not.

If you believe that "all that money" is
going to no good use and that it's not a benefit in your daily life today,
well then there's just no use doing it.

I've not said that. What I have said is that the space and military
programs are not the best way to solve our problems here on earth.
Those problems need to be addressed directly. You want a better
mousetrap, study mouse behavior and
trap design.

I see the benefits of our space and technology programs every day. And as
both an American and as a human with a bit more than average sense of
adventure, I'd like to see us reach out beyond our own celestial home and take
advantage of the opportunities "out there".

So would I. But at the same time, I realize how big space is, and how
empty. And the basic physics of the problems inherent in space travel.

Unfortunatley GETTING there will be neither cheap or without risk, but I
for one think the benefits will ultimately be enormous.

How much of *your* money are you willing to spend? Because that's what
will fund it.

And consider this: President Bush made *another* speech where he
supported BPL and said it was up to NTIA to figure out how to avoid
interference. How come our president and those BPL folks don't know
that BPL is a bad idea from the get-go? Anybody with even a basic
engineering education can see the problems staring you in the face.


73 de Jim, N2EY
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #88   Report Post  
Old June 28th 04, 03:36 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

We were moving away from the Gold Standard
at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted
Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level -
something considered intolerable.


Yep.

And Nixon was a Republican, who you would think would be a staunch
supporter of
a free market and completely opposed to trying to control the economy byu
government fiat.

That was one of the most curious things I can remember in politics. At
the time, I was just out of school, so I didn't think much one way or
the other. But the results got my attention.

It was "smoke and mirros" by a *REPUBLICAN* White House to cover up what was
really going on economically.

The next deveral years were
just about impossible for me to get a job. 18 years old and single made
me almost unenployable for the next several years. The jobs that were
available were going to people with families, vets, etc I was on the
bottom of the list.

Around here that was less true - but the good jobs went to vets, those with
families or experience, and those with education.

We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The
initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that
soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate
dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an
economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an
inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980.

I was there, I remember. Interest rates went up even higher - I recall
friends paying 17% for home mortgages.

They must have had jobs too! 8^)

Yep - in every case I knew, both the husband and wife worked full time and
delayed having kids because of it. This was a time when a major shift in
American society happened, and it's very un-PC to talk about: We went from a
society where millions of women, particularly those with small children, went
from 'wanting to work' to 'having to work'.

Of course back in those days you could deduct *all* consumer interest
payments so there was a silver lining come tax time.

From all I read, it's clear to me that the sudden jump in oil prices was a
major factor driving that inflation.

The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal conservative!

Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake?

Nope.

It was smoke and mirrors. And it didn't work. And it was made necessary by the
fact that the USA in the '60s was preoccupied with other things.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #89   Report Post  
Old June 28th 04, 03:36 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

What percentage say "Made in China"...?!?!
Or go to your local Home Depot or just about any store, and see how many
items you can find that aren't manufactured in China.

What amazes me is how willingly (and some enthusiastically) we approach
this "brave new world".

I'm not part of that "we".

The shift of the US to a "you want fries with that" economy is perhaps
the scariest thing I've ever heard of.

Economically, I agree. We will not prosper by taking in each other's washing.
Economics doesn't work that way.

Lessee, when the US is busy doing whatever it is shifting it's economy
to, and the rest of the world is *making* things, especially One Real
Big part of the rest of the world, (namely China) guess who is gonna be
the boss? Countries with service economies aren't the leaders, they are
ruled by others.

Economically, anyway.

OTOH, the ideology of *some* socialist countries is being affected by exposure
to capitalism and Western-style development. The Soviet Union didn't fall apart
because of SDI or steely-eyed glares across the Berlin Wall. It had more to do
with rock'n'roll, blue jeans and a McDonald's in Red Square. China is slowly
going the same way. Look at Hong Kong.

Remember the student vs. tank episode in Tianamen Square? Look up how long ago
that was. I was shocked by how much time has passed.

Cheap foreign imports are a short-term coverup of real problems. Domestic
industry withers away, and good jobs with it. Then the infrastructure (trained
people as well as facilities) are lost.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #90   Report Post  
Old June 28th 04, 03:36 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 9:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Yup - trying to catch up to the Soviets...

And "nothing" we did had ANYthing to do with science, technology or
research...?!?!

Not much. The manned missions were all about catching up with, and beating,
the Soviet Union.

You are saying we spent those funds and that effort SOLELY to "catch up
with the Soviets"...?!?!

Most of it. The manned missions were the bulk of the spending, and were
primarily (not solely, but primarily) about catching up to the Rooskies and
eventually beating them. We did.

In those years, the question posed to NASA was "can it be done?" not "can it be
done for less than this much money?" NASA effectively had a blank check for
manned missions.

Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in
trauma
medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy.
Photography
becomes popular.

Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part...(SNIP)

Yes, Jim...I think we all know WHY the war was fought.

There's actually a lot of disagreement on that. Some folks like to say it was
about slavery. Others like to say it's about "states rights".

It's interesting that you snipped out the part I wrote about people wanting to
continue to own other people.

HOW did that negate anything I said?

I'm just saying that the price paid for those advances was horrific.

Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded.
Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the
standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying
heavily damaged during the war.
Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The
transatlantic
cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter.
Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war.

So...you are telling me that NONE of the advancements and improvements
occured asa a result of the war.

Nope.

I'm telling you that you are exaggerating the benefits of the war.

World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and
is
ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances
in
the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches).

Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry
leads
to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases
hazards of sea travel.

Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased
demand for those technologies.

And the advancement of submarine technology increased our ability to do
further marine research in the following years.

Not really. Between the world wars, most submarine development was military.

Commercial radio for the masses follows developments of new technology
during the war.

Commercial aviation blossoms after the war.

Sure - because civilians wanted it. Real airline service took about a decade.

World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but
not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet
engine,
further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of
pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology
skyrockets.

Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed,
permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost
and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of
guns.
50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding
and
modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into
much
of Europe.

So what you're telling me is that NONE of the POSITIVE things that came
from this era are valid, and that since a lot of bad things DID occur, we
should shun the good ones too...?!?!

Nope. Not at all.

I'm saying that the advances weren't worth the price paid.

Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation
of
the television. Satellite communications.

Satellite communications? Where?

Jim...

We developed new technologies DURING the conflict.

Not satellites during the fighting in Korea. Yes, I know the "war" in Korea
hasn't officially ended but the fighting stopped before you and I were born.
Satellites came much later.

The increased spending and military build-up incidental to the Korean
Conflict and the ensuing "Cold War" DID spur on "satellite"
communications...Did it not?

No.

Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional
advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian
MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of
helos) IR/NVG technology.

Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian
applications.

Applicaitons that were incidental to military spending and research.

No.

SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices,
especially
into medical field.

In many cases those
"jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive
investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in
peacetime.

Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?!

Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called
engineering. You don't need a war to do it.

No, you don't.

That's my point. You seem to be selling the idea that we must have war and an
enormous space program in order to advance technologically. That's simply not
the case.

Unless human beings learn to evolve beyond armed conflict, they will become
extinct.

It's just that we have developed a pattern of spurts of development
coincidental to military spending or conflict. This is a documented fact.
It happens.

Of course - because during such conflicts, enormous amounts of resources are
poured into technological development. It becomes an emergency response. But
it's enormously inefficient.

I don't think so, Jim.

It's true.

All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments.

Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems?

I agree. Now, what better to way to spur the development of newer
technologies than to advance the space program...?!?!

Simple: Work on those technologies directly. Want better medical imaging
technologies? Work on them - don't say we must fund trillion-dollar manned Mars
missions because we *might* get better medical imaging technology years
afterward.

Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened
after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the
above.

There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another.
Modern
construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others.

Jim...Jim...Jim...

The rapid development of automotive technologies came after WW2...As did
developments in aviation and communications.

No it didn't. Remember the Model T? There were millions of cars before WW2.

You forget that there was enormous demand after WW2 because of the depression
and the war-long diversion of auto production to war production. No new cars
for several years in the early '40s. None!

Or they're the result of government programs that are done
to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy.

Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes.

Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing...

MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't.

Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some?

In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.

Oh?

Yes.

You've not proven it, Jim.

It's an opinion, Steve. I don't think the benefits of the advances were worth
the cost.

We are presently exchanging these comments via a medium that was
developed incidental to yet other military programs.

Only part of it.

The proliferation of the Internet has driven communication costs to all
time lows. Cellular technology, based in part on techniques developed for
secure communications for...you-know-who...have put a telephone on the hip of
almost every American.

Only in part.

All of the basic concepts of the PC you look at (distributed computing,
networking, graphical user interface, even the mouse) were developed at Xerox
Palo Alto in the 1960s and early 1970s. Xerox was looking to the office of the
future, and how computing could be integrated into the office environment. Much
of what they envisioned has come to pass. None of it was powered by the space
progrm or war - it was just plain old civilian capitalism and private money.

The internet would not be of any use to you or me if there weren't affordable
PCs or similar hardware to let us access it. That hardware didn't come from war
or space.

Let me make my position clear, Steve:

I think a manned space program is a good idea. But it must stand on its own
merits and be consistently funded at a sustainable level. It should not be sold
as a jobs program for Ph.Ds that will somehow solve all our Earth problems, or
some sort of emergency that simply has to happen *now*.

I think we need to focus more on long term solutions to problems here on earth
- and solve those problems directly.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply
Page 9 of 22 « First 2345678 9 1011121314151619 Last »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Contact Us RadioBanter forum home Privacy Statement
Copyright © 2017