OT: Save the Hubble Telescope

[Tom Del Rosso]

In Jim Thompson typed:

I'm not sure how much I can remember now. Most of my remembrances at
Sperry/Honeywell concern a 4000 pound satellite spun from a gantry in
a laboratory, driven by my spin/launch drivers (MOSFETS). I was so
scared I stood behind a building column in case the thing came loose
;-)

Especially dangerous if the guys in the next work area borrowed some
bolts from the platform.

 

[Jim Thompson]

In Jim Thompson typed:

So I guess the data is transmitted optically?

Trying to remember now, but IIRC it *also* was by split pot cores, but
in this data case inefficiency wasn't a concern.

...Jim Thompson

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith R. Williams

Mars is no more of a "hard" problem.

Jupiter is the really hard problem, but Arthur C Clarke has already told
us how to do it.

 

[Mac]

Get real dude. This manned Mars stuff is completely daft, with current
technology. Its a one way trip for the astronauts. The mass of Mars is
about 8 times that of the moon.

Mass has little to do with it. I mean, yeah, it will be slightly more
difficult to escape Mars's gravity than it was the moon's, but it is still
much easier than escaping Earth's gravity. And there are a lot of
experienced space engineers who think a manned Mars mission is possible
within the next few decades.

The astronauts are more than willing to take the risk, and they do
understand the level of risk.

The idea of spending 400 billion dollars for something of obvious
dubious merit is absolutely insane.

I love the idea of manned Mars exploration. For me, that is a worthwhile
return on my tax dollars. I accept that you feel differently.

We don't have effect technology yet. Its all spin doctoring to keep
profits up for a few companies and to generate visible political
profiles.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I'm certainly not
spin-doctoring anything. Maybe you are talking about US president Bush? My
opinions pre-date Bush's first public mention of Mars.

Just think what that money could do if it was given to a few 10,000
companies to come up with technology that could really benefit us, now.

The US budget is large enough to do both. Besides, much of the money WILL
go to companies. NASA doesn't make all that much stuff. Instead, they have
private companies do it for them under contract.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk

Mac

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

In John Woodgate typed:

Jupiter is the really hard problem, but Arthur C Clarke has already
told us how to do it.

Which book are you thinking of? In 2010 he said "the core of Jupiter
was a diamond as big as the Earth."

How 'bout a space elevator like in The Fountains of Paradise?

This new plan to use the moon as a staging area is nuts IMO. Why not
use an orbiting staging area, maybe at a Lagrange point, but it could be
in any kind of high orbit.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Tom Del Rosso
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>) about 'OT: Save the Hubble Telescope', on
Sun, 8 Feb 2004:

In John Woodgate typed:

Which book are you thinking of? In 2010 he said "the core of Jupiter
was a diamond as big as the Earth."

The later chapters of 'A Meeting with Medusa'.

How 'bout a space elevator like in The Fountains of Paradise?

We don't yet have strong enough string.

This new plan to use the moon as a staging area is nuts IMO. Why not
use an orbiting staging area, maybe at a Lagrange point, but it could be
in any kind of high orbit.

You have to ship *everything* to a space station. Some of that stuff
will be needed in 100 ton lots. There seems to be a distinct possibility
of extracting oxygen and perhaps hydrogen from Moon materials, apart
from metals. If a Moon colony is to be viable long-term, it will be
essential to use local resources, so the development of the necessary
techniques is a priority.

 

[Zak]

You have to ship *everything* to a space station. Some of that stuff
will be needed in 100 ton lots. There seems to be a distinct possibility
of extracting oxygen and perhaps hydrogen from Moon materials, apart
from metals. If a Moon colony is to be viable long-term, it will be
essential to use local resources, so the development of the necessary
techniques is a priority.

You still need an energy source up there. Nuclear fission or solar? In
any case it is a lot of energy that needs to be generated there... which
will either take a very long time or rather big equipment.


Thomas

 

[John Woodgate]

You still need an energy source up there. Nuclear fission or solar? In
any case it is a lot of energy that needs to be generated there... which
will either take a very long time or rather big equipment.

Solar, preferably. Shipping nuclear to the Moon is both dangerous and
requires heavy lift. Solar stuff is much lighter, and there's plenty of
solar energy; too much, in fact.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:14:38 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:


Mass has little to do with it.

Of course it does.

I mean, yeah, it will be slightly more
difficult to escape Mars's gravity than it was the moon's, but it is
still much easier than escaping Earth's gravity. And there are a lot
of experienced space engineers who think a manned Mars mission is
possible within the next few decades.

Thats not the point. So what if its possible? Who cares?

The astronauts are more than willing to take the risk, and they do
understand the level of risk.

Again, not the point. I am not arguing on the risk, I am arguing on the
return on investment for the people who pay for it. Carl Sagan use to
make a strong point that it made much more sense to go after spin offs
directly, than to try an justify a huge expense on an unrelated of the
of chance that a spin off will result. You simply can't justify Teflon
frying pans on the expense of the space program. Of course, I agree that
the space program has achieved what would have been impossible
otherwise, e.g satellite communications, but this is beside the point.
One success dose not a case make.

I love the idea of manned Mars exploration. For me, that is a
worthwhile return on my tax dollars. I accept that you feel
differently.

Indeed. You've been watching to much star trek, and live in relative
comfort. However, there are millions who don't. How many are homeless in
the US? How many have no medical insurance in the US 40M?.

The US budget is large enough to do both.

Nonsense. That's not how it works. Its always rob Peter to pay Paul.

Besides, much of the money
WILL go to companies. NASA doesn't make all that much stuff. Instead,
they have private companies do it for them under contract.

Irrelevant response. I am not arguing for money to be given to companies
for their own benefit, I am arguing that there are *other* *projects*
much, much, more deserving of the money. Whether or not NASA or joe
bloggs does the work is of no importance whatsoever.

We clearly have a difference of opinion. My view is that there are
millions of better projects to spend that money on. End of story.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

That's the whole point. We don't have the technology. It would
be daft to do something already done,
like sending a man to the
moon for a weekend.

That's not the point. There is no point doing something, at *this* huge
expense, when the returns on investment are so nebulous, and the manner
of achieving the objective is so uncertain.

Yes, there are many things worth doing that we don't yet no how to do,
but going to Mars is not one of them. There are *millions* of better
ones.

What are you worried about, it's not like it's your tax Euro.

It reflects in the whole economy of the world. Secondly I am a
naturalised US citizen. I may go back to the US

The problem is that it usually takes a *difficult* problem to
come up with a brilliant solution.

Irrelevant. We don't need brilliant solutions, we only need solutions
for the million of existing problems. Its not a brownie point game.
Having a solution for a question of no practical importance is
philosophy.

"Giving money to 10,000
companies" and asking for "technology" is like handing money to
10,000,000 welfare mothers and asking that they "get off the
welfare roles". The money is down the rat-hole, never to be
seen.

Daft and pathetic argument, most government projects are more so a
complete waste off money. No one is suggesting that money be given
wilily nullify to any tom, dick and harry. There are many standard and
vetted ways that scientists can apply for research money, unfortunately,
the money isn't there, because its wasted on projects that give
politicians more visibility to get elected.

Like Mars, getting to the moon was a hard problem. Remaining on
the moon is likewise a hard problem. Mars is no more of a
"hard" problem.

Nonsense. It is way, way harder. Actually, its not so much as landing on
the damn thing, its taking off again

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Keith R. Williams wrote...

What are you worried about, it's not like it's your tax Euro.

I'm sure it has more of my money in it than yous, and I object
loudly, as loud as I can.

The problem is that it usually takes a *difficult* problem to
come up with a brilliant solution. "Giving money to 10,000
companies" and asking for "technology" is like handing money to
10,000,000 welfare mothers and asking that they "get off the
welfare roles". The money is down the rat-hole, never to be
seen.

WRONG. In fact the SBIR program does just that and does it very
well indeed, with great benefit to our country and economy over
the last 20 years. So much so that congress has dramatically
increased the mandated amounts to the program year after year.
BTW, the nature of the SBIR spending is such that congressional
regions and special interest groups have no say in where it goes,
so the increases congress mandates are not porkbarrel spending.

Similar programs fund more than 10,000 research groups with great
benefit to our country and economy. Simply put, spreading R & D
money around, rather than putting it into one pot, is what has
made us strong. Following Bush's idiotic approach using borrowed
money from overseas will make us weak.

Such a dramatic and devastating change should be voted on by the
public and not mandated by one man, whose leadership ability is
now seen to be seriously defective.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Keith R. Williams wrote...



I'm sure it has more of my money in it than yous, and I object
loudly, as loud as I can.




WRONG. In fact the SBIR program does just that and does it very
well indeed, with great benefit to our country and economy over
the last 20 years. So much so that congress has dramatically
increased the mandated amounts to the program year after year.
BTW, the nature of the SBIR spending is such that congressional
regions and special interest groups have no say in where it goes,
so the increases congress mandates are not porkbarrel spending.

Similar programs fund more than 10,000 research groups with great
benefit to our country and economy. Simply put, spreading R & D
money around, rather than putting it into one pot, is what has
made us strong. Following Bush's idiotic approach using borrowed
money from overseas will make us weak.

Idiotic is your reasoning- the idea that this or that program is
productive or beneficial because Congress has "mandated" such and such
is asinine! Congress does not have a full tank to begin with and add in
the mix of deceit and fraud by entrenched bureaucratic vermin determined
to "grow" their vile little cesspool kingdoms, and you end up with
massive waste- yet again. SBIR by design is a HANDOUT- and handouts do
not work- what works is steep competition requiring strong vested
interest of the competitors.

 

[Ian Stirling]

Solar, preferably. Shipping nuclear to the Moon is both dangerous and
requires heavy lift. Solar stuff is much lighter, and there's plenty of
solar energy; too much, in fact.

Now, you need a battery to work for the two weeks a day that solar doesn't.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ian Stirling

Now, you need a battery to work for the two weeks a day that solar doesn't.

Two solar arrays solves that immediately. One at the north pole might me
sufficient.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
[email protected]> wrote (in <[email protected]
et>) about 'OT: Save the Hubble Telescope', on Sun, 8 Feb 2004:

That's not the point. There is no point doing something, at *this* huge
expense, when the returns on investment are so nebulous, and the manner
of achieving the objective is so uncertain.

Yes, there are many things worth doing that we don't yet no how to do,
but going to Mars is not one of them. There are *millions* of better
ones.

Please supply an abbreviated list, with justifications for each item.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
[email protected]> wrote (in <[email protected]
et>) about 'OT: Save the Hubble Telescope', on Sun, 8 Feb 2004:

Carl Sagan use to
make a strong point that it made much more sense to go after spin offs
directly, than to try an justify a huge expense on an unrelated of the
of chance that a spin off will result. You simply can't justify Teflon
frying pans on the expense of the space program.

History shows that that reasoning is false. While it would indeed be
more efficient to go after spin-offs directly, "you can't get there from
here",. It's by posing very hard problems to clever people that you get
innovative solutions.

Of course, I agree that
the space program has achieved what would have been impossible
otherwise, e.g satellite communications, but this is beside the point.
One success dose not a case make.

Aha, but it often does. Not always, airships and Concorde for example,
but it seems that since 1900 most speculative fundamental innovations
have succeeded.

 

[Keith R. Williams]

Now, you need a battery to work for the two weeks a day that solar doesn't.

Or transmission network 'round the other side. Besides, only TV
writers would colonize the "dark side". ;-)

BTW, I like your "two weeks a day". But shouldn't it be "two
weeks a night"? Or perhaps the "half of four weeks a day"?

 

[Keith R. Williams]

That's not the point. There is no point doing something, at *this* huge
expense, when the returns on investment are so nebulous, and the manner
of achieving the objective is so uncertain.

That is *exactly* the point. It's better than funding "pure"
research, in that it stresses immediately useful technology
rather than pure knowledge. There is knowledge of the universe
gained along the way. We fund a ton of "pure" research that has
an even more uncertain pay-back.

The Apollo program was a *huge* expense. It paid of rather well.

OTOH, I never saw the point in the ISS, we knew how to do that,
it was just a project management exercise.

Yes, there are many things worth doing that we don't yet no how to do,
but going to Mars is not one of them. There are *millions* of better
ones.

According to you. I see it as another huge undertaking that will
force more new materials. (a reason it should take 20-30 years).

It reflects in the whole economy of the world. How so?

Secondly I am a naturalised US citizen. I may go back to the US

Make sure you have your checkbook with you. ;-)

Irrelevant. We don't need brilliant solutions, we only need solutions
for the million of existing problems. Its not a brownie point game.
Having a solution for a question of no practical importance is
philosophy.

I disagree 100%. Solutions to the obvious problems will find
themselves. Solutions to the *difficult* problems need help.
The fallout can solve many small problems, as well. Apollo is a
prime example.

Daft and pathetic argument, most government projects are more so a
complete waste off money. No one is suggesting that money be given
wilily nullify to any tom, dick and harry. There are many standard and
vetted ways that scientists can apply for research money, unfortunately,
the money isn't there, because its wasted on projects that give
politicians more visibility to get elected.

I guess you're not familiar with the way money gets spread
around. Much of the research *is* doled out in absolutely stupid
research grants. ...and to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Government bureaucrats are not good at micro-managing welfare
whales, much less science.

Nonsense. It is way, way harder. Actually, its not so much as landing on
the damn thing, its taking off again

Well, we assume that's part of the excursion plan. ;-)

 

[Ian Stirling]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ian Stirling


Two solar arrays solves that immediately. One at the north pole might me
sufficient.

But the cable is a bitch, and laying it is a big job.
IMO, shipping a small cold reactor isn't particularly dangerous.
Packaging is interesting.
Polar solar is a possibility, but a bit awkward to make.

 

[Bill Sloman]

The problem is that it usually takes a *difficult* problem to
come up with a brilliant solution. "Giving money to 10,000
companies" and asking for "technology" is like handing money to
10,000,000 welfare mothers and asking that they "get off the
welfare roles". The money is down the rat-hole, never to be
seen.

Giving more money than the U.S. does to welfare mothers is probably a
good idea - welfare payments are higher in Europe, and the children of
single-parent families are better fed, better clothed, and do better
in school in consequence, which means that many more of them are
employable when they leave school, and don't end up expensively housed
in prisons as convicted felons.

Short-sighted right-wingers don't see the point in investing in
children, and go around muttering about "bleeding heart liberals" but
this is sheer stupidity. There's gold at the end of that particular
"rat-hole".