Time to Reconsider the Entire Purpose of Nasa
jonathan
Ground the Shuttle forever!
As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
I would say most people would agree that such a vision is
well...nice. It'd be 'neat and all' they'd say.
But this lofty goal doesn't show the public much
tangible return for the enormous time and effort.
So it doesn't inspire and move the American people
since the idea is limited only to pure exploration, and
not balanced with real world needs.
I suggest an entirely different vision for Nasa.
The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
elephant in the room.
Space Solar Power
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
But if the 'dream' were instead to turn America into the next
'Saudi Arabia' for the rest of this century, the public
would be galvanized. As such a goal would provide
clear benefits, it would be certain to immediately 'dazzle the eye'
of almost everyone. And this goal would be balanced with hope
and discovery as unlimited energy would dramatically
improve billions of lives, most yet to be born.
Nasa needs a reliable transportation system.
Nasa needs a large platform in space
.
Nasa needs to be able to build large structures in space.
So that solar power could ...RAIN DOWN...
from the sky as our tv signals do now.
Everything else Nasa does...everything... must be
considered a luxury only afforded after our future
has been secured. Colonizing Mars does NOT
secure our future. Even a child could tell you so.
I'd be content if this is the last shuttle flight so that
a replacement would become urgent. And so Nasa
has the time to think about something other than
...loose ground wires....
Jonathan
s
Darkwing (Official Disinformation Agent of Usenet)
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QtXFe.10154$h.4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> Ground the Shuttle forever!
That's a heartbreaking line.
---------------------------------------------
DW
jonathan
"Darkwing (Official Disinformation Agent of Usenet)" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:6pqdne2R_vG...@giganews.com...
>
> "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:QtXFe.10154$h.4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > Ground the Shuttle forever!
>
>
> That's a heartbreaking line.
Sorry~
But I think Nasa's aspirations and infrastructure are drifting away
from it. All the way 'round Nasa seems....Lost in Space!
Sorry again~
Incremental change cannot go on forever. Nasa needs a new goal.
A ..single... goal that is a balance between awe ..and... tangible rewards.
Any goal that is limited to only one of those extremes is not
only unwise but doomed.
Jonathan
s
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> DW
>
>
Robb McLeod
wrote:
>Ground the Shuttle forever!
>
>As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
>elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
>
>I would say most people would agree that such a vision is
>well...nice. It'd be 'neat and all' they'd say.
>But this lofty goal doesn't show the public much
>tangible return for the enormous time and effort.
>So it doesn't inspire and move the American people
>since the idea is limited only to pure exploration, and
>not balanced with real world needs.
>
>I suggest an entirely different vision for Nasa.
>
>The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
>and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
>elephant in the room.
>
>Space Solar Power
>http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
Don't believe the NASA hype machine. It gave us the Shuttle, and
NASP, and VentureStar, and ...
You want solar power? It's far cheaper to do on the ground.
Frankly, they should strongly consider dismantling the human
spaceflight program. I don't see what purpose the government has
running one. If private enterprise can make money on space tourism,
great, but don't subsidize it with tax dollars.
--
Robb McLeod (rmc...@pacificcoast.net)
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops.
On my desk I have a work station...
Dr. P. Quackenbush
"Darkwing (Official Disinformation Agent of Usenet)"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6pqdne2R_vG...@giganews.com...
>
> news:QtXFe.10154$h.4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > Ground the Shuttle forever!
>
>
> That's a heartbreaking line.
More like 'brainbroken'.
Pat Flannery
Darkwing (Official Disinformation Agent of Usenet) wrote:
>
>
>>Ground the Shuttle forever!
>>
>>
>
>
>That's a heartbreaking line.
>
>
>
>
We might have gotten lucky here- we just got a big warning that it still
isn't safe despite our fixes, but we didn't (although I'll be happier
when they are back on the ground, safe and sound) lose a crew in the
process.
NASA was already discussing cutting the total flights to fifteen, and
retiring one orbiter in 2007- this could speed that slow retirement up,
but again it's preferable to ending up with another Columbia-type
incident on our hands, which would mean the quick exit of Griffin, and
complete chaos for any future manned flight plans- that could have
nailed the whole future space initiative in one fell swoop.
We've been looking for a polite way to get out of the ISS debacle, and
now we have the perfect excuse to do that while saving face.
If the Shuttle gets grounded permanently, we free up 14 flights worth of
NASA funds (and at around $600 million per flight, that's over eight
billion dollars), and can immediately start redesigning the pads for the
unmanned SDV cargo carrier and the Stick/SEV. We can use all the
existing SSMEs for the SDV and downsize the labor force at NASA since we
don't have to do the between-flight inspection and refurbishment of the
orbiters anymore- which will save money both in the short and long term.
Other than the fact we now almost certainly lose Hubble, this actually
could be a very good thing to happen for future space exploration.
The Shuttle had a great "gee-whizz" factor about it, but it's never been
anywhere as safe as it was intended to be, had a hard time launching on
schedule, and wasn't at all effective in the pound-to-LEO cost
competition against other unmanned systems.
It was an interesting experiment, and a marvel of engineering...like the
rigid passenger airship.
Let's start building some Ford Trimotors.
Pat
Dale
>We've been looking for a polite way to get out of the ISS debacle, and
>now we have the perfect excuse to do that while saving face.
Wow, we've come a long way since Sputnik. Giving up, rather than
meeting engineering challenges, is now a way of "saving face".
>If the Shuttle gets grounded permanently, we free up 14 flights worth of
>NASA funds (and at around $600 million per flight, that's over eight
>billion dollars), and can immediately start redesigning the pads for the
>unmanned SDV cargo carrier and the Stick/SEV.
Can you design pads for vehicles while they're still pretty much in the
concept phase?
Dale
mma...@my-deja.com
> You want solar power? It's far cheaper to do on the ground.
But there's far more of it in space, and it's far more reliable: it
doesn't go out at night, just to give one obvious example.
The benefits are significant: unfortunately, so are the costs.
Mark
genedi...@hotmail.com
Zeppelin. While I don't think that winged spacecraft are an
evolutionary dead end, the current iteration of the space shuttle is.
I like the idea of canceling the shuttle and getting right to work on
the CEV/SDV right now instead of waiting for 5 years. We all know that
the next gen vehicle will fall behind schedule and over budget, so why
not give it a 5 year head start? Making lemonade from lemons.
Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.
Joe Strout
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
> elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
No it's not. Dare I add, don't be ridiculous.
> The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
> and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
> elephant in the room.
I agree with you there.
> Space Solar Power
> http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
I agree with the importance of this too. But your whole essay got off
on the wrong foot by the ridiculous strawman at the beginning.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Robb McLeod
>Robb McLeod wrote:
>> You want solar power? It's far cheaper to do on the ground.
>
>But there's far more of it in space, and it's far more reliable: it
>doesn't go out at night, just to give one obvious example.
So? It still costs orders of magnitude more. And you have to
actually get it to the ground, which absolutely annhilates your
insolation advantage.
Solar as a peaking power generator is well correlated with peak
demand. Even so, there are plenty of ways to store electricity on the
ground. E.g. pump hydro, CAES (compressed air/thermal), flow
batteries, solid oxide batteries, flywheels, electrolytic cells. Many
of these have energy return rates of around 80 %. Hell, even with a
hydrogen/fuel cell cycle you'll still beat space solar by miles and
miles economically.
>The benefits are significant: unfortunately, so are the costs.
Space solar power is just another pipe dream invented by space
scientists to try to justify their jobs.
Alex Terrell
Robb McLeod wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2005 04:05:18 -0700, mma...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Robb McLeod wrote:
> >> You want solar power? It's far cheaper to do on the ground.
> >
> >But there's far more of it in space, and it's far more reliable: it
> >doesn't go out at night, just to give one obvious example.
>
> So? It still costs orders of magnitude more. And you have to
> actually get it to the ground, which absolutely annhilates your
> insolation advantage.
>
Not at all. For every MW delivered to the plug, SSP would waste about
100KW in heat. A nuclear or coal station would waste about 2MW as heat.
> Solar as a peaking power generator is well correlated with peak
> demand. Even so, there are plenty of ways to store electricity on the
> ground.
Not here it isn't. Wrong time of day and wrong season.
E.g. pump hydro, CAES (compressed air/thermal), flow
> batteries, solid oxide batteries, flywheels, electrolytic cells. Many
> of these have energy return rates of around 80 %. Hell, even with a
> hydrogen/fuel cell cycle you'll still beat space solar by miles and
> miles economically.
>
Fly wheels would work brilliantly in space. They seem to have trouble
here.
> >The benefits are significant: unfortunately, so are the costs.
>
> Space solar power is just another pipe dream invented by space
> scientists to try to justify their jobs.
>
NASA has never pushed it that hard - its too creative. But if you want
to create 5TW of relatively clean electrical capacity over the next 50
years, space solar power is probably the cheapest, and perhaps the only
way. And you'd have a space faring capability as a side effect.
This is updated to take account of Constellation -
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/Constellation/entering_space.htm
or http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/Constellation/Constellation.pdf
if you want the pdf directly.
Alex
Eric Chomko
: On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:30:07 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net>
: wrote:
: >Ground the Shuttle forever!
: >
: >As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
: >elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
: >
: >I would say most people would agree that such a vision is
: >well...nice. It'd be 'neat and all' they'd say.
: >But this lofty goal doesn't show the public much
: >tangible return for the enormous time and effort.
: >So it doesn't inspire and move the American people
: >since the idea is limited only to pure exploration, and
: >not balanced with real world needs.
: >
: >I suggest an entirely different vision for Nasa.
: >
: >The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
: >and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
: >elephant in the room.
: >
: >Space Solar Power
: >http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
: Don't believe the NASA hype machine. It gave us the Shuttle, and
: NASP, and VentureStar, and ...
: You want solar power? It's far cheaper to do on the ground.
: Frankly, they should strongly consider dismantling the human
: spaceflight program. I don't see what purpose the government has
: running one. If private enterprise can make money on space tourism,
: great, but don't subsidize it with tax dollars.
Funny that's what I say about the war in Iraq. If private enterprise can
make money nation building in Iraq, great, but don't subsidize it with tax
dollars.
Eric
: --
Joe Strout
Robb McLeod <rmc...@me.uvic.ca> wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2005 04:05:18 -0700, mma...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Robb McLeod wrote:
> >> You want solar power? It's far cheaper to do on the ground.
> >
> >But there's far more of it in space, and it's far more reliable: it
> >doesn't go out at night, just to give one obvious example.
>
> So? It still costs orders of magnitude more. And you have to
> actually get it to the ground, which absolutely annhilates your
> insolation advantage.
No, it doesn't.
> Space solar power is just another pipe dream invented by space
> scientists to try to justify their jobs.
Not so; when a largish panel of energy & climate experts got together to
write a review paper for Science [1], they found "...75 to 100 W_e could
be available at Earth's surface per m^2 of PV array in space, <= 1/4 the
area of surface PV arrays of comparable power... Potentially important
for CO2 emission reduction is a demonstration proposed... to beam solar
energy to developing nations a few degrees from the equator from a
satellite in low equatorial orbit."
It's not a panacea, but if you compare their comments about this
possibility with their comments about all other possibilities, including
terrestrial PV and fusion, it becomes clear that SSP is one of the
better options worth pursuing. For example:
"[Terrestrial PV and wind energy] are intermittent dispersed sources
unsuited to baseload without transmission, storage, and power
conditioning... Meeting local demand with PV arrays today requires
pumped-storage or battery-electric backup systems of comparable or
greater capacity." Moreover: "Even if PV and wind turbine manufacturing
rates increased as required, existing grids could nrot manage the loads.
Present hub-and-spoke networks were designed for central power plants,
ones that are close to users."
Not that those problems are insurmountable either, of course. But it's
not at all clear that surmounting them would be cheaper or better than
developing SSP.
[1] Hoffert et al., "Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate
Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet," Science 298:981-987 (2002).
Eric Chomko
: Darkwing (Official Disinformation Agent of Usenet) wrote:
: >
: >
: >>Ground the Shuttle forever!
: >>
: >>
: >
: >
: >That's a heartbreaking line.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: We might have gotten lucky here- we just got a big warning that it still
: isn't safe despite our fixes, but we didn't (although I'll be happier
: when they are back on the ground, safe and sound) lose a crew in the
: process.
: NASA was already discussing cutting the total flights to fifteen, and
: retiring one orbiter in 2007- this could speed that slow retirement up,
: but again it's preferable to ending up with another Columbia-type
: incident on our hands, which would mean the quick exit of Griffin, and
: complete chaos for any future manned flight plans- that could have
: nailed the whole future space initiative in one fell swoop.
: We've been looking for a polite way to get out of the ISS debacle, and
: now we have the perfect excuse to do that while saving face.
: If the Shuttle gets grounded permanently, we free up 14 flights worth of
: NASA funds (and at around $600 million per flight, that's over eight
: billion dollars), and can immediately start redesigning the pads for the
: unmanned SDV cargo carrier and the Stick/SEV. We can use all the
: existing SSMEs for the SDV and downsize the labor force at NASA since we
: don't have to do the between-flight inspection and refurbishment of the
: orbiters anymore- which will save money both in the short and long term.
And lose all that experience.
: Other than the fact we now almost certainly lose Hubble, this actually
: could be a very good thing to happen for future space exploration.
Right it will allow other nations like China and India to catch up to us
and nothing better than competition to get us Americans excited again.
: The Shuttle had a great "gee-whizz" factor about it, but it's never been
: anywhere as safe as it was intended to be, had a hard time launching on
: schedule, and wasn't at all effective in the pound-to-LEO cost
: competition against other unmanned systems.
: It was an interesting experiment, and a marvel of engineering...like the
: rigid passenger airship.
: Let's start building some Ford Trimotors.
Does this administration actually believe in R&D?
Eric
: Pat
Eric Chomko
: I think you're right on calling the shuttle the equivalent of the
Whenever going from first generation to second generation, be it a space
telescope or a resuable manned spacecraft, what you shouldn't do is have a
gap. That said JWST should be launched before HST is decommissioned. On
the same token, CEV should be flying before the shuttle is retired. It
makes sense to keep the operations crew and have them transition from 1st
gen to 2nd gen so as not to lose that knowledge. The biggest waste
and cost is sending out to pasture a good group of ops folks that have
nothing to work on and then try and hire a bunch of newbies to perform
miracles when your new craft is operational after a gap.
We learned that going from WWI to WWII. So if we are to be committed to
space as we are to our military, then we need to fund it accordingly.
Did you know that the DOD gets in 2 weeks (a single pay period), what NASA
gets in a year, budget-wise?
Eric
: Gene DiGennaro
: Baltimore, Md.
genedi...@hotmail.com
development runs behind schedule. I am willing to bet it will.
Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.
Derek Lyons
>If the Shuttle gets grounded permanently, we free up 14 flights worth of
>NASA funds (and at around $600 million per flight, that's over eight
>billion dollars),
All of which promptly gets shifted to pork and/or social programs.
NASA will never see a dime of said money.
Idiot.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Pat Flannery
Dale wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:56:06 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>We've been looking for a polite way to get out of the ISS debacle, and
>>now we have the perfect excuse to do that while saving face.
>>
>>
>
>Wow, we've come a long way since Sputnik. Giving up, rather than
>meeting engineering challenges, is now a way of "saving face".
>
>
Do you really want to sink some more billions into fixing a defective
launch system that is to be used to build a flying tourist trap for Russia?
I think it's a waste of time and money.
>>If the Shuttle gets grounded permanently, we free up 14 flights worth of
>>NASA funds (and at around $600 million per flight, that's over eight
>>billion dollars), and can immediately start redesigning the pads for the
>>unmanned SDV cargo carrier and the Stick/SEV.
>>
>>
>
>Can you design pads for vehicles while they're still pretty much in the
>concept phase?
>
They were already talking about doing that to one of the pads prior to
this launch, as it's presently getting ready to undergo refurbishment
and Griffin thought that as long as they are working on it they could
change it into the new design.
Pat
Pat Flannery
genedi...@hotmail.com wrote:
That's exactly what I think; if we know we are going to ditch the
Shuttle and move on anyway- then the sooner the better.
By splitting the Shuttle's mission into two separate vehicles we end up
with a a manned spacecraft that can be launched economically and has a
usable emergency abort system and a unmanned cargo carrier that doesn't
require the huge between-flight upkeep of the orbiter- while at the same
time carrying far more cargo by weight and volume than the Shuttle on
each flight.
Pat
BC
in gear and bring back some of that "failure
is not an option" thinking. If they can't do
it in-house, then they should find someone who
can. 2 1/2 years and billion dollars later
and they still have flying friggen foam!?! As
a point of national pride and for bringing
back some of the best and the brightest into
the space program, they need to finish this
right.
-BC
Pat Flannery
Eric Chomko wrote:
>We can use all the
>: existing SSMEs for the SDV and downsize the labor force at NASA since we
>: don't have to do the between-flight inspection and refurbishment of the
>: orbiters anymore- which will save money both in the short and long term.
>
>And lose all that experience.
>
>
We won't need all that experience for CEV.
>: Other than the fact we now almost certainly lose Hubble, this actually
>: could be a very good thing to happen for future space exploration.
>
>Right it will allow other nations like China and India to catch up to us
>and nothing better than competition to get us Americans excited again.
>
>
India hasn't launched anyone into space yet; China's Shenzhou program
moves forward at a snail's pace.
>
>: Let's start building some Ford Trimotors.
>
>Does this administration actually believe in R&D?
>
>
Yes, the administration firmly believes in Revenge and Destruction. ;-)
Pat
genedi...@hotmail.com
I do think there is an element of truth in what you have just siad.
Look at the end of Apollo and the runaway rise in entitlements and
social programs. Mind you that these entitlements and programs have
consumed much much more than the cost of space projects.
Let's hope you're not right.
Gene
Robb McLeod
(Eric Chomko) wrote:
>Robb McLeod (rmc...@me.uvic.ca) wrote:
>
>: Frankly, they should strongly consider dismantling the human
>: spaceflight program. I don't see what purpose the government has
>: running one. If private enterprise can make money on space tourism,
>: great, but don't subsidize it with tax dollars.
>
>Funny that's what I say about the war in Iraq. If private enterprise can
>make money nation building in Iraq, great, but don't subsidize it with tax
>dollars.
Nice non-sequiter. You equate space tourism with war.
Robb McLeod
>In article <8u0ie1hik4j3a18ah...@4ax.com>,
> Robb McLeod <rmc...@me.uvic.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jul 2005 04:05:18 -0700, mma...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >Robb McLeod wrote:
>> >> You want solar power? It's far cheaper to do on the ground.
>> >
>> >But there's far more of it in space, and it's far more reliable: it
>> >doesn't go out at night, just to give one obvious example.
>>
>> So? It still costs orders of magnitude more. And you have to
>> actually get it to the ground, which absolutely annhilates your
>> insolation advantage.
>
>No, it doesn't.
Beamed power is around 25 % efficient, being generous.
>> Space solar power is just another pipe dream invented by space
>> scientists to try to justify their jobs.
>
>Not so; when a largish panel of energy & climate experts got together to
>write a review paper for Science [1], they found "...75 to 100 W_e could
>be available at Earth's surface per m^2 of PV array in space, <= 1/4 the
>area of surface PV arrays of comparable power... Potentially important
>for CO2 emission reduction is a demonstration proposed... to beam solar
>energy to developing nations a few degrees from the equator from a
>satellite in low equatorial orbit."
I read your reference. It doesn't exactly fall all over itself in the
support of any technology, it just lays down some very basic
statements.
Space solar power (SSP) (Fig. 3, A and B)
exploits the unique attributes of space to
power Earth (44, 45). Solar flux is ~8 times
higher in space than the long-term surface
average on spinning, cloudy Earth. If theoretical
microwave transmission efficiencies (50
to 60%) can be realized, 75 to 100 We could
be available at Earth’s surface per m2 of PV
array in space, <= 1/4 the area of surface PV
arrays of comparable power.
And so what? How does the size of the rectanna matter? Theoretical
tramission efficiencies? Like maybe I can build a Carnot heat engine
or something. Those quoted efficiencies cannot be met.
Giving space a 8 times insolation advantage over the surface is
excessive. No one is going to build big solar plants at northern
latitudes. In regions with high clearness index, close to the
equator, the advantage is less than 4:1, and like I said, transmission
losses eat that up. DC transmission lines suffer about 0.6 % losses
per 100 km. North Africa can supply Europe rather easily.
Ah, let's look at their concluding remarks on Space Solar Power:
With adequate research investments,
SSP could perhaps be demonstrated in 15 to
20 years and deliver electricity to global markets
by the latter half of the century (53, 54).
Not exactly what I call overwhelming support. "Perhaps" and "latter
half of the century"? Do we want another ITER?
>It's not a panacea, but if you compare their comments about this
>possibility with their comments about all other possibilities, including
>terrestrial PV and fusion, it becomes clear that SSP is one of the
>better options worth pursuing. For example:
>
>"[Terrestrial PV and wind energy] are intermittent dispersed sources
>unsuited to baseload without transmission, storage, and power
>conditioning... Meeting local demand with PV arrays today requires
>pumped-storage or battery-electric backup systems of comparable or
>greater capacity." Moreover: "Even if PV and wind turbine manufacturing
>rates increased as required, existing grids could nrot manage the loads.
>Present hub-and-spoke networks were designed for central power plants,
>ones that are close to users."
You are trimming the quote. It doesn't support SPS. It basically is
in support of a hydrogen economy and superconducting grids, neither of
which are really necessary.
Yes, we need greater grid interconnectivity and ancillary services.
But that's a given.
>Not that those problems are insurmountable either, of course. But it's
>not at all clear that surmounting them would be cheaper or better than
>developing SSP.
The Energy Return on Energy Investment (ERORI) for photovoltaic is
already low enough. Factor in the energy cost to launch PV into
geosynchronous orbit and the associated support and you seem to be
putting it negative.
>[1] Hoffert et al., "Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate
>Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet," Science 298:981-987 (2002).
Find something in Power Engineering or Energy Policy that's supports
space solar.
Eric Chomko
: I think we are going to lose the ops experience anyway if the CEV/ SDV
: development runs behind schedule. I am willing to bet it will.
Then they'll milk the shuttle for more launches until its ready.
Eric Chomko
: No -- it's time for NASA to get its ass back
Maybe Homeland Security pays more?
: -BC
jonathan
"Joe Strout" <j...@strout.net> wrote in message
news:joe-36CAD0.0...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <QtXFe.10154$h.4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
> > elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
>
> No it's not. Dare I add, don't be ridiculous.
It's not! Don't you read the papers? Pres Bush has set the
long range goal as to the Moon then Mars. But the point is that
Nasa needs a goal that will inspire the taxpayers and
Congress. It's important to apply scientific methods to
setting goals, not just accomplishing them.
If a goal is all about one extreme in character, say all
about greed, then it's weak and lacks emotional appeal.
But what Nasa seems to miss is an understanding that
the opposite extreme, pure science and discovery, is
equally as weak by itself.
But a combination of equal measures of both extremes in
possibilities, when one can't tell which-is-which, is the
ideal. The emotional stage is stretched to it's limit drawing
in the most possible.
Would the typical taxpayer have much admiration for the
tangible rewards they've received from the space program???
I would bet most would chuckle at being asked.
That is the flaw in Nasa's long range goals, it's one extreme only.
They need to reinvigorate it by reversing their perspective
on goals. Instead of beginning with pure exploration and science
and hoping tangible benefits will somehow...someday...flow.
They should begin with a goal that is strictly designed to produce
the greatest possible economic benefits, then allowing the
wonder and awe to flow from that.
If Nasa were to claim as a goal placing countless solar power
stations in space and microwaving energy to /anyplace/ on earth
...as if it were cable tv. The average citizen would fall out of
their chairs thinking of how that could transform our economy
and the future for the better.
Until Nasa finds that balance they'll remain a luxury item and
a curiosity as they are now.
Nasa could be so much more.
>
> > The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
> > and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
> > elephant in the room.
>
> I agree with you there.
>
> > Space Solar Power
> > http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
>
> I agree with the importance of this too. But your whole essay got off
> on the wrong foot by the ridiculous strawman at the beginning.
It's just a title, sheez. I do that mostly to see who bothers
to read past the first sentence or two, so I know not to
respond. The point is that Nasa should make this an urgent issue
with Congress to increase funding for a replacement.
jonathan
This debate is music to my ears.
"Robb McLeod" <rmc...@me.uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:58die1drrcafut3gi...@4ax.com...
Roy Smith
>If Nasa were to claim as a goal placing countless solar power
>stations in space and microwaving energy to /anyplace/ on earth
>...as if it were cable tv. The average citizen would fall out of
>their chairs thinking of how that could transform our economy
>and the future for the better.
I guess I'm not the average citizen. I would fall out of my chair
thinking of how that would turn me into a bar-b-qued chicken if the
guidance system got out of alignment.
jonathan
<genedi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122577343.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Next week or so Congress will be giving some 18 Billion in tax
relief to guess who? The energy industry!
To relieve this industry of it's recent burdens. In other
words to clean up after, instead of repairing the underlying
problems for the future.
If one program is cancelled without a very worthwhile
program to shift the funds to, then yes, the money would be
gobbled up elsewhere.
Nasa needs to stop waiting for the politicians to tell them what
to do, and begin leading them in a sensible direction.
If Nasa builds a goal that provide real world returns, they will
get support from both sides of the aisle in Congress.
It's easy to become cynical about our political processes, but
these days public opinion...the people...are more important
than ever to politicians. Nasa must appeal to and convince
the people that their programs will provide for them, and
the future.
>
> Gene
>
genedi...@hotmail.com
these days public opinion...the people...are more important
than ever to politicians. Nasa must appeal to and convince
the people that their programs will provide for them, and
the future. "
NASA must reach the public and I agree that they must convince John and
Mary Q. America that space spending will enhance their lives. I think
we need to move very quickly though.
The United States is slowly losing her aerospace technical expertise.
Airbus has surpassed Boeing in the airliner market. The new
Presidential helicopter will be an EADS design. China's aerospace
industry is growing by leaps and bounds. The USA was several
generations ahead of her aerospace competitors in airframes,
powerplants and avionics. That gap has narrowed and in some cases,
disappeared.
Of course John and Mary America don't realise that we are slipping,
nor do they care. They are much more interested in Ben Affleck and
Jennifer Lopez and other pop culture issues. Thier only interest in
scientific matters is in the field of environmental science or food
additives. Of course then they never listen to scientists, but rather
rely on "expert" commentary from Hollywood movie stars, Oprah Winfrey,
or news anchors.
I've said it in other posts, NASA is in a pickle.
Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.
Alex Terrell
back, seems it's possible, though I can't see a good commercial payback
on the moon. (I could on NEOs). They key advantage of SSP is that if
you want 5TW of electricity capacity, SSP is probably the cheapest way,
and certainly the cleanest way of getting it.
Here is how I think it could be done.
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/Constellation/entering_space.htm
Of course, a side effect of building the infrastructure needed for SSP
is that we could then colonise Mars properly, and at low cost.
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
>All of which promptly gets shifted to pork and/or social programs.
>
>NASA will never see a dime of said money.
>
>Idiot.
>
>
The nice thing about this approach is that NASA gets to say "we can get
the new stuff flying, without any big expenditures by using money that
was already going to be put toward the Shuttle in the next five years,
and move the whole thing forward in its time frame while simultaneously
reducing the overall cost.
Congress loves to hear stuff like that.
Peckerhead.
Pat
>D.
>
>
Dale
>Dale wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:56:06 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>>>We've been looking for a polite way to get out of the ISS debacle, and
>>>now we have the perfect excuse to do that while saving face.
>
>>Wow, we've come a long way since Sputnik. Giving up, rather than
>>meeting engineering challenges, is now a way of "saving face".
>
>Do you really want to sink some more billions into fixing a defective
>launch system that is to be used to build a flying tourist trap for Russia?
>I think it's a waste of time and money.
>
No, I don't really want to do that either. I just don't think this is a happy
way for it to end. Not "face-saving"- more like sadly embarrassing.
But as someone else said, "turning lemons into lemonade" at this point
might be the best we can do.
Dale
Pat Flannery
BC wrote:
It could be that the whole foam concept is basically flawed and unfixable.
It would be like finessing the Hindenburg with better fire detection
equipment and improvements to make its gas bags less prone to
damage...it will make it safer but you are still dealing with a pretty
fragile an inflammable means of transport.
The annoying thing is that the two problems- foam shedding and TPS
damage- are only critical due to the position of the Orbiter on the
side, rather than the top, of the launch stack. If we hadn't wanted to
use SSME's that had such expense and performance that we couldn't throw
them away, we could have made a smaller orbiter that would have ridden
atop the ET, with motors on the bottom.
But the need for the reusable motors and the huge cargo bay that would
been a lot more rational idea.
Pat
Paul F. Dietz
> Beamed power is around 25 % efficient, being generous.
Please stop lying, Robb. Demonstrated efficiency in
crude experiments is over twice this, and attainable
efficiency is higher still.
Paul
Jan Vorbrüggen
> thinking of how that would turn me into a bar-b-qued chicken if the
> guidance system got out of alignment.
The needs of diffractive optics dictate a rather large receiving antenna.
Also, one would select a frequency that is _not_ strongly absorbed by
water - you don't want to heat the clouds, do you? Henry has once quoted
an experiment where power was transmitted across the lecture room and the
people within it.
This is not a problem.
Jan
Joe Strout
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Joe Strout" <j...@strout.net> wrote in message
> news:joe-36CAD0.0...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <QtXFe.10154$h.4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> > "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
> > > elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
> >
> > No it's not. Dare I add, don't be ridiculous.
>
> It's not! Don't you read the papers? Pres Bush has set the
> long range goal as to the Moon then Mars.
No, I don't read the papers; I watch the press conference live, and read
the follow-up announcements posted directly by NASA. Bush set the goal
of an extended human presence on the Moon, with a timeline of 15 years
or so. He mentioned, briefly and in passing, and with no timeline,
"Mars and other destinations."
That's not a goal; that's a minor bone thrown to the Mars fans.
> Would the typical taxpayer have much admiration for the
> tangible rewards they've received from the space program???
> I would bet most would chuckle at being asked.
>
> That is the flaw in Nasa's long range goals, it's one extreme only.
That, and the fact that far too many people see science as being NASA's
job. IMHO, this was their chief mistake: after spanking the Russians in
the space race, they then realized they needed some reason to keep
going... and latched onto science. They have now become a de facto
science agency, even though the "S" in NASA does not stand for science.
They should have stuck to aerospace engineering R&D only, and told the
scientists to get their funding elsewhere.
But now, whenever NASA tries to cut science to get some aerospace R&D
done, people wail and gnash their teeth and they end up having to cut
the R&D instead... which of course means that the science will continue
to be hideously expensive. Very short-sighted of the wailers and
gnashers, but there it is anyway.
> If Nasa were to claim as a goal placing countless solar power
> stations in space and microwaving energy to /anyplace/ on earth
> ...as if it were cable tv. The average citizen would fall out of
> their chairs thinking of how that could transform our economy
> and the future for the better.
Perhaps. There certainly would be their share of nay-sayers, but I
think those could be silenced if only a small but decent fraction of the
money poured into fusion research, were put into SSP development instead.
> Until Nasa finds that balance they'll remain a luxury item and
> a curiosity as they are now.
>
> Nasa could be so much more.
They could, in principle, but it seems unlikely. Fortunately, I'm not
sure it matters much any more. The commercial space race is on, there's
gold in them thar hills, and I think we'll see more progress in the next
20 years than in the last 40, quite without NASA's help.
Joe Strout
wrote:
Fortunately, ignorance is curable.
BC
that tile add-on in particular, and I had thought
they should have at the least bought or adapted
some Energias from Russia a long time ago for
general workhorse heavy lifting, but still, the
Shuttles are what we have for the time being. The
foam problem is a tech problem, and in the great
hierarchy of problems, that's generally the most
fixable. You need X amount of Hydrogen fuel that
needs be kept at Y temperature for a Z amount of
time. The constraints are size and weight and
various hook-ups. It's almost a Monster Garage
project.
I am tempted to say, "This isn't rocket science,"
but I guess it sort of is...
But in any case, where's there even a shadow of
that old can-do, "The Right Stuff" attitude?
-BC
Robb McLeod
wrote:
Using what as a source, exactly? Over what distances? We talking
microwaves or short wavelengths now?
If we're talking about ~12 cm waves transmitted over 36000 km, you
have to be transmitting plane waves, and they'll still spread out a
ton. The diffraction limit really hurts here.
I'd also like to point out that Mr. Strout attacked ground based
systems on the basis that they are too far from urban centers, and
would put excessive strain on transmission. If we are going back to
the old hackneyed uberrectanna concept, I want my money back.
That idea is so much easier to destroy from an economic perspective.
Eric Chomko
: On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:34:20 +0000 (UTC), echom...@polaris.umuc.edu
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: >Robb McLeod (rmc...@me.uvic.ca) wrote:
: >
: >: Frankly, they should strongly consider dismantling the human
: >: spaceflight program. I don't see what purpose the government has
: >: running one. If private enterprise can make money on space tourism,
: >: great, but don't subsidize it with tax dollars.
: >
: >Funny that's what I say about the war in Iraq. If private enterprise can
: >make money nation building in Iraq, great, but don't subsidize it with tax
: >dollars.
: Nice non-sequiter. You equate space tourism with war.
No, space tourism with using mercenaries as opposed to astronauts and
troops. It follows and much better than your .sig.
Eric
: --
Eric Chomko
: BC wrote:
: >No -- it's time for NASA to get its ass back
: >in gear and bring back some of that "failure
: >is not an option" thinking. If they can't do
: >it in-house, then they should find someone who
: >can. 2 1/2 years and billion dollars later
: >and they still have flying friggen foam!?! As
: >a point of national pride and for bringing
: >back some of the best and the brightest into
: >the space program, they need to finish this
: >right.
: >
: >
: It could be that the whole foam concept is basically flawed and unfixable.
: It would be like finessing the Hindenburg with better fire detection
: equipment and improvements to make its gas bags less prone to
: damage...it will make it safer but you are still dealing with a pretty
: fragile an inflammable means of transport.
I just did a quick research of the Hindenburg and zeppelins in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
http://www.ciderpresspottery.com/ZLA/greatzeps/german/Hindenburg.html
Despite the disaster zeppelins had a pretty good track record up until
that time. Surely they were a disater waiting to happen, but until I read
up on them I was under the impression that they were a failure from the
very start. That isn't really the case. In fact, blimps, though much
smaller, are used to this very day. Perhaps the zeppelin-like shuttle
needs a blimp-like replacement for a spacecraft analogy?
: The annoying thing is that the two problems- foam shedding and TPS
: damage- are only critical due to the position of the Orbiter on the
: side, rather than the top, of the launch stack. If we hadn't wanted to
: use SSME's that had such expense and performance that we couldn't throw
: them away, we could have made a smaller orbiter that would have ridden
: atop the ET, with motors on the bottom.
: But the need for the reusable motors and the huge cargo bay that would
: been a lot more rational idea.
Well if we can use ISS for things that used to be on the shuttle (i.e.
Spacelab), then prehaps having a huge cargo bay is no longer needed?
Eric
: Pat
Richard Kaszeta
> I just did a quick research of the Hindenburg and zeppelins in general:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
> http://www.ciderpresspottery.com/ZLA/greatzeps/german/Hindenburg.html
>
> Despite the disaster zeppelins had a pretty good track record up until
> that time.
I'm not sure I'd call it "pretty good", there wre a lot of other rigid
airship accidents well before the Hindenburg:
* Zeppelin's own LZ4 caught fire and burnt up in 1908
* Accidents did in almost as many of the WWI Zeppelins as enemy fire
* The USS Shenandoah crashing in 1925
* ZR-2 crashing in 1928
* The R101 distaster in 1931 (killed more people than the Hindenburg)
* The USS Akron in 1933 (Also a bigger crash than the Hindeberg, and
for some time the worst aviation disastor)
* The USS Macon in 1935 (only 2 killed in this one, though)
Note that 3 of the 4 US Navy airships crashed...
--
Richard W Kaszeta
ri...@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Joe Strout
echom...@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote:
> I just did a quick research of the Hindenburg and zeppelins in general:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
> http://www.ciderpresspottery.com/ZLA/greatzeps/german/Hindenburg.html
>
> Despite the disaster zeppelins had a pretty good track record up until
> that time. Surely they were a disater waiting to happen, but until I read
> up on them I was under the impression that they were a failure from the
> very start. That isn't really the case.
Not at all; they were hugely successful, both as warships in WWI, and as
commercial craft (including both cargo and passenger types).
And note, the only reason the German zeppelins were filled with
hydrogen, is that we (the U.S.) controlled all major sources of helium,
and we weren't inclined to share with the Germans, precisely *because*
we didn't want it used for warships.
> In fact, blimps, though much
> smaller, are used to this very day. Perhaps the zeppelin-like shuttle
> needs a blimp-like replacement for a spacecraft analogy?
No, zeppelins (i.e. dirigibles) really are better than blimps in almost
every respect. Obviously you'd prefer to fill them with a nonflammable
gas, and paint their skins with something other than solid rocket fuel.
But the basic design and concept is quite sound.
Though there are still companies trying to make a go at reviving
airships for various purposes -- with varying degrees of success -- I
think they just couldn't compete with airplanes once those became cheap
enough. I find this regrettable, as I think airships are cool, but you
can't argue with economics.
Alex Terrell
Joe Strout wrote:
>
> Though there are still companies trying to make a go at reviving
> airships for various purposes -- with varying degrees of success -- I
> think they just couldn't compete with airplanes once those became cheap
> enough. I find this regrettable, as I think airships are cool, but you
> can't argue with economics.
especially in Germany.
Cargo Lifter AG was trying to develop a 160 ton cargo lifter. The main
market was to to be airbus, to ship the A380 fueslages from Hamburg to
Toulouse. Unfortunately Airbus decided to use boat, barge and lorry,
including demolishing a few motorway bridges, and I assume planning to
shut the motorway for every delivery.
The other one is Zeppelin NT, which does expensive tourist rides over
Lake Constance in southern Germany. Looks good, but at present its just
a gimmick.
Seems these are the only relaistic market. Cargo seems like a good idea
- the ability to place 160 tons anywhere (near sea level), anysize
seems good.
Paul F. Dietz
> Using what as a source, exactly? Over what distances? We talking
> microwaves or short wavelengths now?
Microwaves, and a distance of several miles, IIRC.
> If we're talking about ~12 cm waves transmitted over 36000 km, you
> have to be transmitting plane waves, and they'll still spread out a
> ton. The diffraction limit really hurts here.
Are you claiming the diffraction limit is the cause of this
putative 25% efficiency limit?
I've got news for you, Robb: the people who designed SPS systems
do understand basic undergraduate electromagnetics. The diffraction
effects cause the systems to be large, but they do not cause the
systems to be inefficient.
> I'd also like to point out that Mr. Strout attacked ground based
> systems on the basis that they are too far from urban centers, and
> would put excessive strain on transmission. If we are going back to
> the old hackneyed uberrectanna concept, I want my money back.
> That idea is so much easier to destroy from an economic perspective.
Ah, so you're abandoning the 25% efficiency number and resorting
to a different argument. Gotcha.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> Note that 3 of the 4 US Navy airships crashed...
Actually, I think it was 4 of 5; one crashed while
being delivered.
Paul
Joann Evans
>
> genedi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >I think you're right on calling the shuttle the equivalent of the
> >Zeppelin. While I don't think that winged spacecraft are an
> >evolutionary dead end, the current iteration of the space shuttle is.
> >I like the idea of canceling the shuttle and getting right to work on
> >the CEV/SDV right now instead of waiting for 5 years. We all know that
> >the next gen vehicle will fall behind schedule and over budget, so why
> >not give it a 5 year head start? Making lemonade from lemons.
> >
> >
>
> That's exactly what I think; if we know we are going to ditch the
> Shuttle and move on anyway- then the sooner the better.
> By splitting the Shuttle's mission into two separate vehicles we end up
> with a a manned spacecraft that can be launched economically and has a
> usable emergency abort system and a unmanned cargo carrier that doesn't
> require the huge between-flight upkeep of the orbiter- while at the same
> time carrying far more cargo by weight and volume than the Shuttle on
> each flight.
A re-useable 'cargo carrier's' between-flight upkeep has little or
nothing to do with wether it can carry people. You still want the same
reliability. Ask anyone who's got a very expensive payload on it.
Espically if you only have a couple of these ships, and expect frequent
flights from them. You can no more afford to lose the ship, than a crew.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Joann Evans
> Nasa needs a reliable transportation system.
As do many others...
> Nasa needs a large platform in space
Maybe. As might some others...
> Nasa needs to be able to build large structures in space.
See above...
> So that solar power could ...RAIN DOWN...
> from the sky as our tv signals do now.
But generating commercial power is not and should not be a NASA
responsibility.
> Everything else Nasa does...everything... must be
> considered a luxury only afforded after our future
> has been secured. Colonizing Mars does NOT
> secure our future. Even a child could tell you so.
Name one that has.
> I'd be content if this is the last shuttle flight so that
> a replacement would become urgent. And so Nasa
> has the time to think about something other than
> ...loose ground wires....
And the new ships to launch this 'future security' will never have
problems?
Joann Evans
> The average citizen would fall out of
> their chairs thinking of how that could transform our economy
> and the future for the better.
???
Crank down the hype. I'm for practical SPS, but just as with nukes, I
suspect my electric bill will be the same...
Pat Flannery
Eric Chomko wrote:
>
>Despite the disaster zeppelins had a pretty good track record up until
>that time.
>
Not really, our Navy had four rigid airships (or five if you want to
include the ZMC-1 as a rigid) and lost three of them, despite using
helium for safety's sake.
> Surely they were a disater waiting to happen, but until I read
>up on them I was under the impression that they were a failure from the
>very start.
>
It was fairly rare to see one (a rigid airship) retire after a long
successful career; only the Germans had any real luck with them, and
they succeeded by treating them with kid gloves and making sure
everything was done exactly by the book 24/7.
>That isn't really the case. In fact, blimps, though much
>smaller, are used to this very day. Perhaps the zeppelin-like shuttle
>needs a blimp-like replacement for a spacecraft analogy?
>
>
That would probably be a pretty good analogy- I really like the
Stick/CEV idea because it has an escape system, and uses a first stage
booster of high proven reliability. it's closer to a blimp than to a
zeppelin as far as complexity and reliability goes.
>: The annoying thing is that the two problems- foam shedding and TPS
>: damage- are only critical due to the position of the Orbiter on the
>: side, rather than the top, of the launch stack. If we hadn't wanted to
>: use SSME's that had such expense and performance that we couldn't throw
>: them away, we could have made a smaller orbiter that would have ridden
>: atop the ET, with motors on the bottom.
>: But the need for the reusable motors and the huge cargo bay that would
>: been a lot more rational idea.
>
>Well if we can use ISS for things that used to be on the shuttle (i.e.
>Spacelab), then prehaps having a huge cargo bay is no longer needed?
>
>
If it hadn't been for the military getting its little hands on the
Shuttle and wanting to use it for their giant reconsats, it might have
had a cargo bay of around half to two-thirds that size. Other than the
HST, we probably have done most of the things we wanted to do with a
considerably smaller cargo bay.
It's strange to remember that when the Shuttle that we got was designed,
building a space station wasn't a high priority of its design. It was to
be happily lugging commercial satellites, military reconnaissance
satellites, and science satellites and interplanetary probes up a few
times a month- with only ESA's Spacelab being designed for manned
orbital research- more of a cargo plane than an airliner.
Pat
Dale
>Eric Chomko wrote:
>>That isn't really the case. In fact, blimps, though much
>>smaller, are used to this very day. Perhaps the zeppelin-like shuttle
>>needs a blimp-like replacement for a spacecraft analogy?
>
>That would probably be a pretty good analogy- I really like the
>Stick/CEV idea because it has an escape system, and uses a first stage
>booster of high proven reliability. it's closer to a blimp than to a
>zeppelin as far as complexity and reliability goes.
But geez, give up the grand piano and the smoking lounge?
What are we, barbarians??
Dale
Pat Flannery
Richard Kaszeta wrote:
>* Zeppelin's own LZ4 caught fire and burnt up in 1908
>* Accidents did in almost as many of the WWI Zeppelins as enemy fire
>* The USS Shenandoah crashing in 1925
>* ZR-2 crashing in 1928
>* The R101 distaster in 1931 (killed more people than the Hindenburg)
>* The USS Akron in 1933 (Also a bigger crash than the Hindeberg, and
> for some time the worst aviation disastor)
>* The USS Macon in 1935 (only 2 killed in this one, though)
>
>
Don't forget the Army's "Roma" semirigid airship that we bought from
Italy and filled with hydrogen; thirty-three of her forty-four crew
perished when it struck powerlines in 1922.
Then there was the French "Dixmude" which vanished over the
Mediterranean with fifty crew on board in 1923. They still aren't
exactly sure about what happened to it (it may have been hit by
lightning), but the body of its commander and some burnt debris were
later found at sea off Sicily.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>
> Actually, I think it was 4 of 5; one crashed while
> being delivered.
That was the R-38, which we were buying from Britain- it broke up one
it's last test flight before being delivered.
It would have become ZR-2 if it had been delivered.
This thing is strange enough to have a gander at- behold the flying
equivalent of the ET- the ZMC-2 (Zeppelin, Metal-Clad, #2, ... and I got
it wrong... I called it the ZMC-1; I have not a clue if there ever was a
ZMC-1): http://nasgi.org/zmc2.htm
A rigid airship with a difference... and _what_ a difference!
A metal hulled dirigible... which sounds crazy- but not only worked, but
proved amazingly trouble-free in its service life.
Far better than when David Schwarz took a crack at it in 1897:
http://www.fsb.hr/zmts/kmv/nastava/zrakoplovstvo/jedrilice_i_zmajevi/00-01/seminari_2001/01_povijest_jedrilica/image008.jpg
http://www.fsb.hr/zmts/kmv/nastava/zrakoplovstvo/jedrilice_i_zmajevi/00-01/seminari_2001/01_povijest_jedrilica/image010.jpg
...as you can read up on the enthralling "History Of Croatian Science"
webpage, which will show you that all the _really_ important scientific
discoveries were made by Croatians, and certainly not by those thieving
Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, or Macedonians! BY GOD, COUNT ZEPPELIN
STOLE HIS IDEA FROM DAVID SCHWARZ!: http://www.hr/darko/etf/et22.html :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Joann Evans wrote:
>
> A re-useable 'cargo carrier's' between-flight upkeep has little or
>nothing to do with wether it can carry people.
>
Since the favored SDV won't be reusable (except for the SRBs and
possibly the SSMEs/RS-68s) there won't be any between flight upkeep on it.
> You still want the same
>reliability. Ask anyone who's got a very expensive payload on it.
>Espically if you only have a couple of these ships, and expect frequent
>flights from them. You can no more afford to lose the ship, than a crew.
>
>
Again, I'm referring to the planned unmanned SDV vehicle, using either
side or top stacking of the cargo.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Dale wrote:
>But geez, give up the grand piano and the smoking lounge?
>What are we, barbarians??
>
>
The R-101 and Hindenburg gave the term "Smoking Room" a whole new meaning.
"I say, may I smoke?"
"Yes, I think it is very likely you will, sir." =-O
Pat
geraldk...@hotmail.com
jonathan wrote:
> Ground the Shuttle forever!
>
>
> As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
> elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
>
> well...nice. It'd be 'neat and all' they'd say.
> But this lofty goal doesn't show the public much
> tangible return for the enormous time and effort.
> So it doesn't inspire and move the American people
> since the idea is limited only to pure exploration, and
> not balanced with real world needs.
>
> I suggest an entirely different vision for Nasa.
>
> The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
> and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
> elephant in the room.
>
> Space Solar Power
> http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
>
It would really be nice if Nasa began with the correct astronomical
attribution for cyclical seasonal climate changes -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
Climate imbalance is a serious issue but it extremely difficult to take
scientists seriously when they attribute a non existent variable axial
tilt component to the Earth against the Sun or orbital plane as a
factor in cyclical seasonal climatic variations.
The inappropriate maneuvering of 18th century celestial cataloguers was
bound to surface at some time and perhaps Nasa may be the only
institution with enough influence to do an audit on how the motions and
orientations of the Earth are used indepedently of each other rather
than the homogenised cartoon version inherited that has its origins in
John Flamsteed's endeavors.
Time for Nasa to come home for a while !.
> But if the 'dream' were instead to turn America into the next
> 'Saudi Arabia' for the rest of this century, the public
> would be galvanized. As such a goal would provide
> clear benefits, it would be certain to immediately 'dazzle the eye'
> of almost everyone. And this goal would be balanced with hope
> and discovery as unlimited energy would dramatically
> improve billions of lives, most yet to be born.
>
> Nasa needs a reliable transportation system.
>
> Nasa needs a large platform in space
> .
> Nasa needs to be able to build large structures in space.
>
> So that solar power could ...RAIN DOWN...
> from the sky as our tv signals do now.
>
> Everything else Nasa does...everything... must be
> considered a luxury only afforded after our future
> has been secured. Colonizing Mars does NOT
> secure our future. Even a child could tell you so.
>
> I'd be content if this is the last shuttle flight so that
> a replacement would become urgent. And so Nasa
> has the time to think about something other than
> ...loose ground wires....
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> s
George Dishman
<geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122718041.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> jonathan wrote:
>> Ground the Shuttle forever!
>>
>>
>> As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
>> elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
>>
>> I would say most people would agree that such a vision is
>> well...nice. It'd be 'neat and all' they'd say.
>> But this lofty goal doesn't show the public much
>> tangible return for the enormous time and effort.
>> So it doesn't inspire and move the American people
>> since the idea is limited only to pure exploration, and
>> not balanced with real world needs.
>>
>> I suggest an entirely different vision for Nasa.
>>
>> The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
>> and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
>> elephant in the room.
>>
>> Space Solar Power
>> http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
>>
>
> It would really be nice if Nasa began with the correct astronomical
> attribution for cyclical seasonal climate changes -
It would be really nice if you stopped telling
lies.
> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
You quoted the wrong page again, it should be
this one:
http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/earth/seasons/EarthSeasons.asp
> Climate imbalance is a serious issue but it extremely difficult to take
> scientists seriously when they attribute a non existent variable ...
The same old lie, the tilt is constant as you
have been told repeatedly. The axis of the
Earth's rotation points at Polaris while the
axis of its orbit lies in Draconis. The tilt
is of constant magnitude and, other than a
very slow precession [1], also in a constant
direction.
> axial tilt component to the Earth against the Sun or orbital plane as a
> factor in cyclical seasonal climatic variations.
Why should anyone listen to you when you are
incapable of explaining why it is currently
winter in Australia? That fact proves you
wrong. The fixed tilt explains it easily:
http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/earth/seasons/EarthSeasons.asp
Listen and learn Gerald, listen and learn.
George
[1]
http://www.tcnj.edu/~pfeiffer/AST261Prec.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/precession-1
Carl Anderson
and see what happens
"Jan Vorbrüggen" <jvorbrue...@mediasec.de> wrote in message
news:3ku949F...@individual.net...
Jim Davis
> This thing is strange enough to have a gander at- behold the
> flying equivalent of the ET- the ZMC-2 (Zeppelin, Metal-Clad,
> #2, ... and I got it wrong... I called it the ZMC-1; I have not
> a clue if there ever was a ZMC-1)
Not quite. The "2" in the designation ZMC-2 refers to the capacity
(200,000 ft3).
> A rigid airship with a difference... and _what_ a difference!
> A metal hulled dirigible... which sounds crazy- but not only
> worked, but proved amazingly trouble-free in its service life.
The ZMC-2 was *not* a rigid airship despite the metal envelope. It
was a nonrigid or pressure airship (ie, blimp) which needed to be
inflated to hold its shape.
Jim Davis
Richard Morris
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> jonathan <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >If Nasa were to claim as a goal placing countless solar power
> >stations in space and microwaving energy to /anyplace/ on earth
> >...as if it were cable tv. The average citizen would fall out of
> >their chairs thinking of how that could transform our economy
> >and the future for the better.
>
> I guess I'm not the average citizen. I would fall out of my chair
> thinking of how that would turn me into a bar-b-qued chicken if the
> guidance system got out of alignment.
Even if you were standing in the center of an SPS beam you would only
feel somewhat warmer. The energy density of the beam would be too low
to do any real harm. The beam also cannot wander from it's target. The
transmitting antenna would be a phased array which would use a pilot
beam in the center of the rectenna as it's phase reference. If you lose
the pilot beam, the power beam becomes defocused and no longer delivers
significant power to any given point.
Pat Flannery
Jim Davis wrote:
>Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>
>
>>This thing is strange enough to have a gander at- behold the
>>flying equivalent of the ET- the ZMC-2 (Zeppelin, Metal-Clad,
>>#2, ... and I got it wrong... I called it the ZMC-1; I have not
>>a clue if there ever was a ZMC-1)
>>
>>
>
>Not quite. The "2" in the designation ZMC-2 refers to the capacity
>(200,000 ft3).
>
>
That's what I get for not reading my cited webpages completely. ;-)
That was a fairly peculiar designation for the Navy to use compared to
their standard airship designation system.
>
>
>>A rigid airship with a difference... and _what_ a difference!
>>A metal hulled dirigible... which sounds crazy- but not only
>>worked, but proved amazingly trouble-free in its service life.
>>
>>
>
>The ZMC-2 was *not* a rigid airship despite the metal envelope. It
>was a nonrigid or pressure airship (ie, blimp) which needed to be
>inflated to hold its shape.
>
>
They built it vertically like some sort of a huge eggshell in two pieces:
http://nasgi.org/zmc01.jpg
As to the need for inflation- this photo shows it under construction
with people working inside of it while it's on its side:
http://nasgi.org/zmc04.jpg
If you look at the view of the hanger where it was built:
http://nasgi.org/zmc05.jpg
It doesn't look high enough to join the stern and bow sections together
while they are vertical- which suggests they were joined in a horizontal
position, as does the photo of the workers inside the hull, and the
framework rings that are visible inside the hull in that shot.
So, did they take the hull support rings out after it was finished and
filled with helium? Or did the construction crew have to enter the
inside of the airship through some sort of airlock that held the hull
rigid via compressed air while they worked?
There's an interesting photo of the airship here; that shows some sort
of half-ring going over the top midsection of the hull and a peculiar
pole going into the underside near the bow:
http://www3.uakron.edu/archival/arnstein/zmc2.gif
Pat
geraldk...@hotmail.com
It is simple common sense that the Earth has no variation in axial tilt
to the Sun or orbital plane -
http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/astrophoto/images/0001-08a.jpeg
Therefore speaking of a variation of the axial tilt of the Earth
towards and away from the Sun as explaining the seasons is a chronic
symptom of that 18th century cataloguing fudge in introducing an
analemmatic tilt component to the Earth.
First things first,explaining cyclical seasonal variations from a
single global perspective is really not for kids as the reasoning comes
directly from the exquisite reasoning of the early heliocentrists who
resolved retrograde motion through isolating the Earth's orbital motion
against the other planets.
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/05.motion_planets/jupiter_saturn_retro.gif
The early heliocentrists infered heliocentricity through the Earth's
orbital motion thus the change in orbital orientation to the Sun
passing through a fixed axial orientation causes cyclical seasonal
changes from a single global perspective.
It also means that people at Nasa,relying on erroneous and
inappropriate maneuvering of 18th century cataloguers,have yet to do an
audit on the influences of axial and orbital motions and orientations
as they exist within a Copernican/Keplerian system rather than the
later erroneous and inappropriate maneuvering of 18th century
cataloguers.
> > Climate imbalance is a serious issue but it extremely difficult to take
> > scientists seriously when they attribute a non existent variable ...
>
> The same old lie, the tilt is constant as you
> have been told repeatedly. The axis of the
> Earth's rotation points at Polaris while the
> axis of its orbit lies in Draconis. The tilt
> is of constant magnitude and, other than a
> very slow precession [1], also in a constant
> direction.
>
It must seem strange to those who care that seasonal changes are framed
as variations in axial tilt and therefore variations in equatorial
orientation to the Sun even as they know that the Earth has no
variation in axial/Equatorial orientation over the course of an annual
orbit. -
http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/pictures/05changing-sun-sm.gif
The resolution is back at the reasoning of the early heliocentrists
insofar as there is little to remark on axial orientation except that
it is more or less fixed and rework cyclical seasonal changes as a
changes in orbital orientation and refer nothing off the Earth's
Equator or axis.
Present descriptions for seasonal changes are little better than
epicycles were for resolving retrograde motion.
> > axial tilt component to the Earth against the Sun or orbital plane as a
> > factor in cyclical seasonal climatic variations.
>
> Why should anyone listen to you when you are
> incapable of explaining why it is currently
> winter in Australia? That fact proves you
> wrong. The fixed tilt explains it easily:
>
> http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/earth/seasons/EarthSeasons.asp
>
> Listen and learn Gerald, listen and learn.
>
It is winter in Australia because or the Earth's orbital orientation to
the Sun while the Earth's axis remains fixed to Polaris,in roughly 6
months the Earth's axial orientation will still remain fixed while the
Earth's orbital orientation having travelled through 180 degrees around
the Sun will have changed.
Without the correct attribution for cyclical seasonal changes from a
single global perspective,humanity can forget climate imbalances and to
find out how much is owed to natural variations and what is owed to
human endeavors.This is not a tiny hairsplitting point but a large
difference between the exquisite reasoning of the early heliocentric
astronomers and the erroneous maneuvering of 18th century celestial
cataloguers.
George Dishman
<geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122800342.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1122718041.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
>> > It would really be nice if Nasa began with the correct astronomical
>> > attribution for cyclical seasonal climate changes -
>>
>> It would be really nice if you stopped telling
>> lies.
...
> It must seem strange to those who care that seasonal changes are framed
> as variations in axial tilt
Same lie again.
> and therefore variations in equatorial
> orientation to the Sun even as they know that the Earth has no
> variation in axial/Equatorial orientation over the course of an annual
> orbit. -
So you even admit we all say the tilt is
constant. Why then do you keep repeating the
lie, that the seasons are based on variation
of the tilt?
>> Why should anyone listen to you when you are
>> incapable of explaining why it is currently
>> winter in Australia? That fact proves you
>> wrong. The fixed tilt explains it easily:
>>
>> http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/earth/seasons/EarthSeasons.asp
>>
>> Listen and learn Gerald, listen and learn.
>>
>
> It is winter in Australia because or the Earth's orbital orientation to
> the Sun while the Earth's axis remains fixed to Polaris,in roughly 6
> months the Earth's axial orientation will still remain fixed while the
> Earth's orbital orientation having travelled through 180 degrees around
> the Sun will have changed.
That is almost correct, but on its own that
orbital movement of 180 degrees in 6 months
could only produce a climatic effect that
would be the same in both hemispheres. It is
summer in the northern hemisphere while it
is winter in the southern so your explanation
remains inadequate.
It is the effect of the _fixed_ tilt combined
with the variation of 180 degrees due to
orbital motion that produces the seasons.
Neither is adequate on its own. Listen to the
NASA explanation again.
At least it is good to see you finally admit
that the Earth 'travels ... around the Sun'
so I guess some progress has been made.
George
Jim Davis
> So, did they take the hull support rings out after it was
> finished and filled with helium? Or did the construction crew
> have to enter the inside of the airship through some sort of
> airlock that held the hull rigid via compressed air while they
> worked?
Nothing so crude. The frames and longitudinals were made of ice. The
entire construction hanger was one big freezer. After inflation they
simply turned the refrigeration off and the framework melted and was
drained off. :-)
Seriously, frames and longitudinals do not a rigid make. The ZMC-2
could not take aerodynamic loads unless the envelope was pressurized
(by balloonets, just like other blimps). If memory serves 4" H2O was
typically maintained while cruising.
Jim Davis
geraldk...@hotmail.com
The two great effects of the Earth's motions are daylight/darkness as a
consequence of a location rotating into and out of the Earth's orbital
shadow and the cyclical seasonal climate changes as the Earth's orbital
orientation passes through a fixed axial orientation.
The reason a variable axial tilt was introduced was because the
cataloguers found it necessary to tie the celestial sphere to
terrestial longitudes at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec hence the mangling of
the Equation of Time which designates axial rotation at 24 hours/360
degrees.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
The real cause of seasonal variations is isolated orbital motion
passing through fixed axial rotation or roughly at 90 degrees to where
contemporaries have it insofar as it is not the changing hemispherical
axial/equatorial tilt to the orbital plane but a global change in the
orbital orientation of the Earth to a fixed orientation.
Without the correct attributions for cyclical seasonal changes it is
impossible to take Nasa pronouncements seriously on climate imbalance
for without the correct attribution for the annual cyclical variation
based on orientations and motions there would be no benchmark for
designating imbalances.
The seasonal variations from a global perspective are second only to
the effect of day and night ,that Nasa and scientists remain stuck with
castaloguing explanations based on variable hemispherical axial tilt
can evoke but one response from this Christian
God help humanity.
Odysseus
>
<snip>
>
> The reason a variable axial tilt was introduced was because the
> cataloguers found it necessary to tie the celestial sphere to
> terrestial longitudes at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec hence the mangling of
> the Equation of Time which designates axial rotation at 24 hours/360
> degrees.
>
> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
>
You can kick that strawman around the groups all day, but it won't
change the fact that no astronomer -- or educated layman -- believes
in "variable axial tilt" (beyond such slow or slight oscillations as
precession or nutation, which have negligible effects, if any at all,
on the seasons or the equation of time). The page cited above doesn't
suggest anything to the contrary; no-one doubts that what varies is
the three-dimensional orientation of that (more or less) fixed
inclination WRT the revolving Earth-Sun direction -- if that's a
correct interpretation of your rather illucid arguments.
--
Odysseus
Terrell Miller
>>Though there are still companies trying to make a go at reviving
>>airships for various purposes -- with varying degrees of success -- I
>>think they just couldn't compete with airplanes once those became cheap
>>enough. I find this regrettable, as I think airships are cool, but you
>>can't argue with economics.
> The other one is Zeppelin NT, which does expensive tourist rides over
> Lake Constance in southern Germany. Looks good, but at present its just
> a gimmick.
zigackly
a Zeppelin flight would be thrilling for about five hours (during which
time you've gone maybe 120 miles), then it would get real old real fast.
Especially if you took the kids with you. And *most* especially if the
people in the next row have theirs with them...
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again".
-Entertainment Weekly
Terrell Miller
> jonathan wrote:
>>I suggest an entirely different vision for Nasa.
>>
>>The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
>>and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
>>elephant in the room.
>>
>>Space Solar Power
>>http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
some vital stats on solar powersats:
* a typical industrial-scale version (not prototypes) would capture
about 2.5 gigawatts of power
* A 2.5 gigawatt power source is enough for one good-sized city, that's all
* Each 2.5GW powersat would require several thousand tons of material
* Unless you have space-based mining/manufacturing already, those
thousands of tons of material all have to come uphill from Earth
* The total primary power load of the human race is something like 10
*terawatts*
* Thus to replace coal/nuclear/fossil fuel energy sources on Earth, you
would need roughly *four thousand* SPS receivers on orbit at any one
time. That's four thousand fully assembled and fully operational, mind.
* The upper limit of conventional chemical rocket boosters is well under
50 tons into LEO, less than that into GEO.
* Assuming a 50-ton-to-GEO booster, you would need *160,000* of them to
assemble your SPS flotilla. That's not counting spares, repair parts,
the infrastructure to do the assembly, etc. etc.
* This doesn't even take into account ineffeciencies of transmission
and/or reception and/or transmission
* Oh, and what are you going to build all the rectenna farms with?
Material mined from the Earth, using energy sources from Earth, of
course. That just adds to the power load and the desctuction of natural
resources.
* What happens to all 160,000 spent rocket boosters? That's right, they
all fall into the ocean, doing irreperable damage to the fragile marine
ecosystem ;)
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
Build a solar powersat, kill a whale.
Henk Boonsma
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QtXFe.10154$h.4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> Ground the Shuttle forever!
>
>
> As of now the 'Nasa Dream', as envisioned by our
> elected leaders, is a grand plan for colonizing Mars.
>
> I would say most people would agree that such a vision is
> well...nice. It'd be 'neat and all' they'd say.
> But this lofty goal doesn't show the public much
> tangible return for the enormous time and effort.
> So it doesn't inspire and move the American people
> since the idea is limited only to pure exploration, and
> not balanced with real world needs.
>
>
> The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
> and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
> elephant in the room.
>
> Space Solar Power
> http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
>
> 'Saudi Arabia' for the rest of this century, the public
> would be galvanized. As such a goal would provide
> clear benefits, it would be certain to immediately 'dazzle the eye'
> of almost everyone. And this goal would be balanced with hope
> and discovery as unlimited energy would dramatically
> improve billions of lives, most yet to be born.
>
> Nasa needs a reliable transportation system.
>
> Nasa needs a large platform in space
> .
> Nasa needs to be able to build large structures in space.
>
> So that solar power could ...RAIN DOWN...
> from the sky as our tv signals do now.
>
> Everything else Nasa does...everything... must be
> considered a luxury only afforded after our future
> has been secured. Colonizing Mars does NOT
> secure our future. Even a child could tell you so.
>
> I'd be content if this is the last shuttle flight so that
> a replacement would become urgent. And so Nasa
> has the time to think about something other than
> ...loose ground wires....
Hey wait a minute: isn't this a chapter from O'Neill's book on space
colonies?
Give me one reason why such solar-collectors would need to be in space? Why
can't they just be stationed on Earth? It would be a lot cheaper to maintain
and service. Also, the huge amounts of microwave radiation 'raining' down on
Earth can't be beneficial to the biological life-forms living there, I'm
pretty sure.
geraldk...@hotmail.com
Odysseus wrote:
> geraldk...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > The reason a variable axial tilt was introduced was because the
> > cataloguers found it necessary to tie the celestial sphere to
> > terrestial longitudes at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec hence the mangling of
> > the Equation of Time which designates axial rotation at 24 hours/360
> > degrees.
> >
> > http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
> >
>
> You can kick that strawman around the groups all day, but it won't
> change the fact that no astronomer -- or educated layman -- believes
> in "variable axial tilt" (beyond such slow or slight oscillations as
> precession or nutation, which have negligible effects, if any at all,
> on the seasons or the equation of time).
Every explanation on the Equation of Time contains a silly variable
axial tilt to the Sun component and it represents where all the damage
was done to the exquisite principles of the early heliocentrists by
Flamsteed and Newton.
The page cited above doesn't
> suggest anything to the contrary; no-one doubts that what varies is
> the three-dimensional orientation of that (more or less) fixed
> inclination WRT the revolving Earth-Sun direction -- if that's a
> correct interpretation of your rather illucid arguments.
>
Three dimensional orientation indeed !,next thing you know you will be
telling me of the astronomical alignment at dawn and dusk on the
Equinox as orbital orientation runs parallel with axial longitudes and
the consequences that follow from that alignment.
Because climate imbalance is important,please inform the contemporary
numbskulls to scrap references to axial orientation altogether (except
that it is fixed) and alter their perspective by about 90 degrees to
facilitate the chance in orbital orientation due to the planet's
orbital motion.
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
Tell them not to have the Earth's axial and orbital motion share a
common axis as is required by the erroneous 18th century sidereal
justifiication for axial and orbital motion.
There are a few other major points but for goodness sake you sound
idiotic in the presence of a real astronomer who knows that most of the
material is common sense and does not require that pretensious jargon.
> --
> Odysseus
There is an enormous amount of material lost for your utterly stupid
Newtonian agenda never mind the later exotic nonsense.
The second you re-introduce the principles of the early heliocentrists
to designate the correct attribution for cyclical seasonal changes due
to change in orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation then
and only then can climate imbalance off a cyclical mean be worked on.
I would love to should you a website that uses the change in orbital
orientation against fixed axial orientation but none exist.Anyone who
cares will get only hemispherical explanations and variable tilt to the
Sun ( e.g. high on the horizon summer and low on the horizon in winter)
but this is the price people pay for following Newtonian
quasi-geocentricity.
Who knows if there are enough responsible and decent people to work
through the mess that passes for astronomical perspectives on seasonal
changes but so far,I have yet to see a single person who is capable of
recognising the astronomical cause for seasonal change which is only
second to what causes day and night.
I will allow a grace period in order for these institutions to jettison
the ugly premises based on hemispherical variable axial tilt for both
the Equation of Time and for seasonal changes otherwise God help
humanity.
Derek Lyons
>Alex Terrell wrote:
>
>>>Though there are still companies trying to make a go at reviving
>>>airships for various purposes -- with varying degrees of success -- I
>>>think they just couldn't compete with airplanes once those became cheap
>>>enough. I find this regrettable, as I think airships are cool, but you
>>>can't argue with economics.
>
>> The other one is Zeppelin NT, which does expensive tourist rides over
>> Lake Constance in southern Germany. Looks good, but at present its just
>> a gimmick.
>
>zigackly
>
>a Zeppelin flight would be thrilling for about five hours (during which
>time you've gone maybe 120 miles), then it would get real old real fast.
Which says more about the attention spans of modern humanity than
anything else. Reading the personal accounts of those who flew on the
Graf Zepplin indicate that the views didn't pale - not for days.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Joe Strout
"Henk Boonsma" <hboo...@teranet.news> wrote:
> Give me one reason why such solar-collectors would need to be in space? Why
> can't they just be stationed on Earth?
Just one? That's hard. Will you be content with several instead?
- Continuous sunshine, 24/7
- Much higher power density (i.e. solar collectors directly face the
sun, and there is no atmospheric filtering in the way)
- Power can be delivered in concentrated form to specific points on
Earth, fitting our existing power infrastructure
> It would be a lot cheaper to maintain and service.
By assertion? I don't think I agree. If you cost out just ONE solar
power satellite, then yes, the equivalent terrestrial solar power
station might be cheaper. But if your goal is to supply a large
fraction of the world's energy needs in 2050, then you're talking about
a large number of power stations. That brings down the cost of the
orbital ones, and doesn't do too much to the cost of the terrestrial
ones. (Yes, you get some economies of scale, but you also start running
into serious real estate problems -- you'd need to cover an area almost
the size of California with ground-based solar cells.)
> Also, the huge amounts of microwave radiation 'raining' down on
> Earth can't be beneficial to the biological life-forms living there, I'm
> pretty sure.
Pretty sure or not, you're Just Plain Wrong about that. Maybe you
should do some research before deciding you're sure about something.
Covering an area the size of California with PV cells, on the other
hand, is sure to ruin quite a few species' day, anywhere on Earth.
Best,
- Joe
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Greg Hennessy
<geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You can kick that strawman around the groups all day, but it won't
> > change the fact that no astronomer -- or educated layman -- believes
> > in "variable axial tilt" (beyond such slow or slight oscillations as
> > precession or nutation, which have negligible effects, if any at all,
> > on the seasons or the equation of time).
>
> Every explanation on the Equation of Time contains a silly variable
> axial tilt to the Sun component and it represents where all the damage
> was done to the exquisite principles of the early heliocentrists by
> Flamsteed and Newton.
A program to calculate the Equation of Time is locate at
http://astro.isi.edu/games/analemma.c. You can examine the source code
yourself to discover that the value for the axial tilt is a constant,
not a variable.
Terrell Miller
> - Continuous sunshine, 24/7
um no, for a certain percentage of the time any powersat would be in
Earth's shadow.
> - Much higher power density (i.e. solar collectors directly face the
> sun, and there is no atmospheric filtering in the way)
which is great unless you want to beam the power down through Earth's
atmosphere to ground stations, which you kind of would. Then you get
into the same kinds of waste scenarios that you do with terrestrial
power sources, including solar receivers.
> - Power can be delivered in concentrated form to specific points on
> Earth, fitting our existing power infrastructure
but said infrastructure totally lacks the capability for massive
rectenna farms to be easily tied into the existing grid, so you pretty
much have to develop a totally new grid anyway
>>It would be a lot cheaper to maintain and service.
>
>
> By assertion? I don't think I agree. If you cost out just ONE solar
> power satellite, then yes, the equivalent terrestrial solar power
> station might be cheaper.
actually, if you cost out solar powersats, under best-case scenarios and
factoring in the experience curve, any given powersat *might* wind up
with a base kWH cost just over twice that of a conventional power plant.
Solar power satellites are a wonderful idea on many levels, but there's
no way that they would ever remotely pay for themselves given the launch
technology available to us today or in the foreseeable future.
> But if your goal is to supply a large
> fraction of the world's energy needs in 2050, then you're talking about
> a large number of power stations. That brings down the cost of the
> orbital ones, and doesn't do too much to the cost of the terrestrial
> ones. (Yes, you get some economies of scale, but you also start running
> into serious real estate problems -- you'd need to cover an area almost
> the size of California with ground-based solar cells.)
I'd hope that the goal is to *economically* supply a large fraction of....
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again".
-Entertainment Weekly
Pat Flannery
Terrell Miller wrote:
>
>
> a Zeppelin flight would be thrilling for about five hours (during
> which time you've gone maybe 120 miles), then it would get real old
> real fast.
>
> Especially if you took the kids with you. And *most* especially if the
> people in the next row have theirs with them...
One of the advantages of airship flight is that you can fly low and slow
enough to talk to people on the ground as you fly over. I'll bet a
sightseeing trip over Germany in a small airship would enthrall the kids
for quite some time.
Particularly the simulated bombing run over the Belgian frontier for old
time's sake.
(Cut to image of kids leaning out the windows with
"Wasserballoonbomben".) ;-)
Pat
John Horner
> geraldk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> jonathan wrote:
>
>
>>> I suggest an entirely different vision for Nasa.
>>>
>>> The greatest threats to humanity in this century is energy, pollution
>>> and climate change. Dependence on fossil fuels is the
>>> elephant in the room.
>>>
>>> Space Solar Power
>>> http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
What a load of nonsense that proposal is. The sun gets to the surface
of the earth just fine. Sure there is attenuation through the
atmosphere, so the solar cells themselves would be more efficient in
space. However, once the photons have been converted into electrons,
you have the storage and distribution problems to deal with. Those
problems are so much more easily handled on terra firma that it isn't
funny. I wonder how many eons it would take to beam enough energy back
to earth to replace the energy used in creating all of the hardware and
launching it into orbit.
Now if someone want to say that we should be using NASA's budget to
build solar arrays in the Nevada dessert then there is at least an
argument to make. That said, the Space Solar Power proposal is a
boondoggle of the size only government agencies have the cajones to put
forward.
John
Jorge R. Frank
news:lYyHe.1212$0p....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
> Joe Strout wrote:
>
>> - Continuous sunshine, 24/7
>
> um no, for a certain percentage of the time any powersat would be in
> Earth's shadow.
For an SPS in GSO, only for a few days around the equinoxes, and then only
for an hour or so at a time, and then only around local midnight, when
demand is low.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Pat Flannery
John Horner wrote:
>
>
> Now if someone want to say that we should be using NASA's budget to
> build solar arrays in the Nevada dessert then there is at least an
> argument to make.
A Google image search revealed a photo of the Nevada dessert where such
a solar array could be built:
http://www.christyhill.com/tahoe/graphics/clients/379/dessert1.jpg ;-)
Pat
Alex Terrell
Joe Strout wrote:
> In article <1122930463.c6b835b06268a1bb4a29105b8e94938c@teranews>,
> "Henk Boonsma" <hboo...@teranet.news> wrote:
>
> > Give me one reason why such solar-collectors would need to be in space? Why
> > can't they just be stationed on Earth?
>
> Just one? That's hard. Will you be content with several instead?
>
> - Continuous sunshine, 24/7
> - Much higher power density (i.e. solar collectors directly face the
> sun, and there is no atmospheric filtering in the way)
> - Power can be delivered in concentrated form to specific points on
> Earth, fitting our existing power infrastructure
>
(0.01mm) solar arrays 1km across and any length, and to be able to
transport them without worrying they'll be blown away,
> > It would be a lot cheaper to maintain and service.
>
and without worry that they'll be eroded by sand etc
> By assertion? I don't think I agree. If you cost out just ONE solar
> power satellite, then yes, the equivalent terrestrial solar power
> station might be cheaper. But if your goal is to supply a large
> fraction of the world's energy needs in 2050, then you're talking about
> a large number of power stations. That brings down the cost of the
> orbital ones, and doesn't do too much to the cost of the terrestrial
> ones. (Yes, you get some economies of scale, but you also start running
> into serious real estate problems -- you'd need to cover an area almost
> the size of California with ground-based solar cells.)
>
I think for 5 TW of capacity, Space Solar Power would be cheaper than
any exisitng large scale technology.
Joe Strout
"Alex Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Regarding advantages of SSP]
> > - Continuous sunshine, 24/7
> > - Much higher power density (i.e. solar collectors directly face the
> > sun, and there is no atmospheric filtering in the way)
> > - Power can be delivered in concentrated form to specific points on
> > Earth, fitting our existing power infrastructure
> >
> Perhaps even more important, the ability to "print" ultra thin sheets
> (0.01mm) solar arrays 1km across and any length, and to be able to
> transport them without worrying they'll be blown away,
>
> > > It would be a lot cheaper to maintain and service.
> >
> and without worry that they'll be eroded by sand etc
That's a good point. Nor do they get coated with dust in a matter of
days, etc. In most ways, space is a far more benign environment for
solar cells and optics.
> I think for 5 TW of capacity, Space Solar Power would be cheaper than
> any exisitng large scale technology.
I agree. And our current world consumption is almost 15 TW. By 2050,
it will be more like 45 TW. There are darn few technologies which are
up to the scale of that challenge. SSP may well be one of them (and
possibly, the ONLY one, at least until/unless practical fusion is
developed).
Eric Chomko
: echom...@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) writes:
: > I just did a quick research of the Hindenburg and zeppelins in general:
: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
: > http://www.ciderpresspottery.com/ZLA/greatzeps/german/Hindenburg.html
: >
: > Despite the disaster zeppelins had a pretty good track record up until
: > that time.
: I'm not sure I'd call it "pretty good", there wre a lot of other rigid
: airship accidents well before the Hindenburg:
: * Zeppelin's own LZ4 caught fire and burnt up in 1908
: * Accidents did in almost as many of the WWI Zeppelins as enemy fire
: * The USS Shenandoah crashing in 1925
: * ZR-2 crashing in 1928
: * The R101 distaster in 1931 (killed more people than the Hindenburg)
: * The USS Akron in 1933 (Also a bigger crash than the Hindeberg, and
: for some time the worst aviation disastor)
: * The USS Macon in 1935 (only 2 killed in this one, though)
: Note that 3 of the 4 US Navy airships crashed...
Yet today we still have blimps. How safe are they? Perhaps the lesson is
to have a smaller, safer ships?
Eric
: --
: Richard W Kaszeta
: ri...@kaszeta.org
: http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Eric Chomko
: On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:44:16 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
: >Eric Chomko wrote:
: >>That isn't really the case. In fact, blimps, though much
: >>smaller, are used to this very day. Perhaps the zeppelin-like shuttle
: >>needs a blimp-like replacement for a spacecraft analogy?
: >
: >That would probably be a pretty good analogy- I really like the
: >Stick/CEV idea because it has an escape system, and uses a first stage
: >booster of high proven reliability. it's closer to a blimp than to a
: >zeppelin as far as complexity and reliability goes.
: But geez, give up the grand piano and the smoking lounge?
: What are we, barbarians??
Look at Southwest Airlines success. Do they have a smoking lounge or
piano, 1st class or even use a 747?
Frugal is the word.
Eric
: Dale
geraldk...@hotmail.com
The analemma is the 18th century catloguing fudge that has absolutely
nothing to do with the Equation of Time,nothing,never had and never
will.
You all have spent your lives believing that the Earth tilts towards
the Sun in summer and tilts away from it in winter thereby generating
variations in daylight/darkness asymettry and cyclical seasonal
variations by variations in hemispherical axial tilt.
The Equation of Time is the principles which reduces the variable total
lenght of day from one noon to the next to an equable 24 hour day.The
early heliocentrists adapted the equable 24 hour day to the newly
discovered principle of indepedent and constant axial rotation at 15
degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total.
The same guys who determine that the Earth has a fixed rotation to the
celestial sphere at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec are the same guys who term
seasonal cyclical changes using hemispherical axial tilt instead of the
proper variation which falls longitudinally in variations in orbital
orientation.
Cataloguers who associate the Equation of Time with the 18th century
analemmatic fudge have no sense of scale nor a feel for what is moving
and what is not.The Sun is a enormous celestial object and to see men
give it a wandering motion against axial/Equatorial tilt is no better
of worse than retrograde motion explained by epicycles and totally
silly.
http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html
It amounts to climatologists and meteorologists not doing their jobs in
this matter for retreating to hemispherical variable axial tilt as an
explanation makes it impossible to render an accurate mean to work off
in respect to long term climate imbalance.
There are no explanations working off orbital orientation passing
through fixed axial orientation,as soon as that is corrected it becomes
possible to consider climate imbalance from a proper astronomical point
of view.
After what causes the cylical nature of daylight/darkness,seasonal
variations as a consequence of astronomical motions are next and
probably more important.It is just plain embarrassing and harmful to
describe seasonal changes using hemispherical axial tilt and the day
somebody decent asks me what compromises to make will be a productive
day's work for that person or group.
In all the years nobody ever has.
Jan Panteltje
echom...@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote in
<dcojhu$29fp$9...@news.ums.edu>:
Look, you want an escape system.
Long time ago I was on a flight Amsterdam to Paris (KLM).
That is 100% over land.
After they demonstated the swimming vests, I asked where the parachute was.
Consternation with passengers next to me....
So why should astronauts be treated any different then normal airline
passengers?
Escape system in illusion.
Cardman
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Look, you want an escape system.
>Long time ago I was on a flight Amsterdam to Paris (KLM).
>That is 100% over land.
>After they demonstated the swimming vests, I asked where the parachute was.
>Consternation with passengers next to me....
>So why should astronauts be treated any different then normal airline
>passengers?
>Escape system in illusion.
Had you been concerned about a real plane crash, then take along your
own parachute. When it is going down demand that they open the door to
let you out.
Hell someone could establish a parachute loan business outside
airports. Then airlines could establish a policy so that these
"loaners" could form a line and jump, while every other person's final
thoughts are "I wish I had not been so cheap".
Have you ever noticed that airline passengers do not bring along their
own parachutes? Seems that they have faith in their transport. Too bad
that NASA's astronauts cannot do likewise.
An escape system is better expressed as an "escape procedure". When
that rocket goes wrong, then they will want off there at some point.
Cardman.
Alex Terrell
could be provided by 5,000 nuclear reactors, or about one per 1.5
million people, meaning Iran will need about 30 nuclear reactors. What
a nice thought.
IIRC 12 TW is total primary energy consumption. Of this, 6 TW is used
to make 2 TW of electricity. The other 6 TW is used for heating and
locomotion.
With effective space access, SSP should provide energy for electricity
and locomotion. Not sure about heating.
Joe Strout
"Alex Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> With effective space access, SSP should provide energy for electricity
> and locomotion. Not sure about heating.
If it's cheap enough, it can be used for heating too. But that requires
another order of magnitude or so cost reduction above what would be
required to compete with conventional sources of electricity. (Or, of
course, for other sources of heating to go up in price by the same
factor.)
- Joe
George William Herbert
>: Note that 3 of the 4 US Navy airships crashed...
>
>Yet today we still have blimps. How safe are they? Perhaps the lesson is
>to have a smaller, safer ships?
...which are not found far from their operations base,
routinely land if threatened with inclement weather,
and are not capable of long term independent operations
at long range.
Airships are in an ugly corner of the parameter space
for surviving weather conditions. If they can't land,
they can't fly fast enough to avoid some of the
weather, and can't fly over it either.
Fleeing in front of the front is possible in most cases,
but that reduces them to battered around at the whim of
the major weather systems. It makes for hard operational
constraints and limited utility.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Jim Logajan
> Eric Chomko <echom...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
>>: Note that 3 of the 4 US Navy airships crashed...
>>
>>Yet today we still have blimps. How safe are they? Perhaps the lesson is
>>to have a smaller, safer ships?
>
> ...which are not found far from their operations base,
Due to lack of ground infrastructure, not through any inherent limitation
of airships per se.
> routinely land if threatened with inclement weather,
As do sail planes and many private general aviation single engine aircraft.
> and are not capable of long term independent operations
> at long range.
Again, due to lack of infrastructure on the ground.
> Airships are in an ugly corner of the parameter space
> for surviving weather conditions. If they can't land,
> they can't fly fast enough to avoid some of the
> weather, and can't fly over it either.
>
> Fleeing in front of the front is possible in most cases,
> but that reduces them to battered around at the whim of
> the major weather systems. It makes for hard operational
> constraints and limited utility.
I believe your objections are a tiny bit over stated, since the operational
parameters of airships are comparable to that of most private general
aviation single engine aircraft.
Paul Blay
> Hell someone could establish a parachute loan business outside
> airports. Then airlines could establish a policy so that these
> "loaners" could form a line and jump, while every other person's final
> thoughts are "I wish I had not been so cheap".
I think the last thoughts of every other person are likely to be "At least
we didn't let that bastard with the parachute get out alive."
kert
> Joe Strout wrote:
> >>It would be a lot cheaper to maintain and service.
> >
> >
> > By assertion? I don't think I agree. If you cost out just ONE solar
> > power satellite, then yes, the equivalent terrestrial solar power
> > station might be cheaper.
>
> actually, if you cost out solar powersats, under best-case scenarios and
> factoring in the experience curve, any given powersat *might* wind up
> with a base kWH cost just over twice that of a conventional power plant.
>
> Solar power satellites are a wonderful idea on many levels, but there's
> no way that they would ever remotely pay for themselves given the launch
> technology available to us today or in the foreseeable future.
Would you please point to a specific spot in this whitepaper and tell
us where they go wrong ? Because according to this, Powersats, coal and
gas are only types of powerplants that can actually break even.
http://www.powersat.com/PSU-1%20Economic.pdf
-kert
Sander Vesik
Or "why didn't the damn fools make a larger parachute for the plane".
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Eric Chomko
: George Dishman wrote:
: > <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:1122800342.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: > >
: > > George Dishman wrote:
: > >> <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > >> news:1122718041.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > ...
: >
: > >> > It would really be nice if Nasa began with the correct astronomical
: > >> > attribution for cyclical seasonal climate changes -
: > >>
: > >> It would be really nice if you stopped telling
: > >> lies.
: >
: > ...
: >
: > > It must seem strange to those who care that seasonal changes are framed
: > > as variations in axial tilt
: >
: > Same lie again.
: >
: > > and therefore variations in equatorial
: > > orientation to the Sun even as they know that the Earth has no
: > > variation in axial/Equatorial orientation over the course of an annual
: > > orbit. -
: >
: > So you even admit we all say the tilt is
: > constant. Why then do you keep repeating the
: > lie, that the seasons are based on variation
: > of the tilt?
: >
: > >> Why should anyone listen to you when you are
: > >> incapable of explaining why it is currently
: > >> winter in Australia? That fact proves you
: > >> wrong. The fixed tilt explains it easily:
: > >>
: > >> http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/earth/seasons/EarthSeasons.asp
: > >>
: > >> Listen and learn Gerald, listen and learn.
: > >>
: > >
: > > It is winter in Australia because or the Earth's orbital orientation to
: > > the Sun while the Earth's axis remains fixed to Polaris,in roughly 6
: > > months the Earth's axial orientation will still remain fixed while the
: > > Earth's orbital orientation having travelled through 180 degrees around
: > > the Sun will have changed.
: >
: > That is almost correct, but on its own that
: > orbital movement of 180 degrees in 6 months
: > could only produce a climatic effect that
: > would be the same in both hemispheres. It is
: > summer in the northern hemisphere while it
: > is winter in the southern so your explanation
: > remains inadequate.
: >
: > It is the effect of the _fixed_ tilt combined
: > with the variation of 180 degrees due to
: > orbital motion that produces the seasons.
: > Neither is adequate on its own. Listen to the
: > NASA explanation again.
: >
: > At least it is good to see you finally admit
: > that the Earth 'travels ... around the Sun'
: > so I guess some progress has been made.
: >
: > George
: The two great effects of the Earth's motions are daylight/darkness as a
: consequence of a location rotating into and out of the Earth's orbital
: shadow and the cyclical seasonal climate changes as the Earth's orbital
: orientation passes through a fixed axial orientation.
: The reason a variable axial tilt was introduced was because the
: cataloguers found it necessary to tie the celestial sphere to
: terrestial longitudes at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec hence the mangling of
: the Equation of Time which designates axial rotation at 24 hours/360
: degrees.
: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980116c.html
: The real cause of seasonal variations is isolated orbital motion
: passing through fixed axial rotation or roughly at 90 degrees to where
: contemporaries have it insofar as it is not the changing hemispherical
: axial/equatorial tilt to the orbital plane but a global change in the
: orbital orientation of the Earth to a fixed orientation.
: Without the correct attributions for cyclical seasonal changes it is
: impossible to take Nasa pronouncements seriously on climate imbalance
: for without the correct attribution for the annual cyclical variation
: based on orientations and motions there would be no benchmark for
: designating imbalances.
So the NASA website above is your reference, yet you claim that NASA can't
be taken seriously. Which is it?
: The seasonal variations from a global perspective are second only to
: the effect of day and night ,that Nasa and scientists remain stuck with
: castaloguing explanations based on variable hemispherical axial tilt
: can evoke but one response from this Christian
: God help humanity.
Start with yourself!
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Alex Terrell wrote:
: >>Though there are still companies trying to make a go at reviving
: >>airships for various purposes -- with varying degrees of success -- I
: >>think they just couldn't compete with airplanes once those became cheap
: >>enough. I find this regrettable, as I think airships are cool, but you
: >>can't argue with economics.
: > The other one is Zeppelin NT, which does expensive tourist rides over
: > Lake Constance in southern Germany. Looks good, but at present its just
: > a gimmick.
: zigackly
: a Zeppelin flight would be thrilling for about five hours (during which
: time you've gone maybe 120 miles), then it would get real old real fast.
: Especially if you took the kids with you. And *most* especially if the
: people in the next row have theirs with them...
Sounds almost like Letterman, "...phone the neighbors and wake the
kids...".
: --
Eric Chomko
: John Horner wrote:
That's the problem with us Americans, too many desserters. It would
explain the waistline bulge...
Eric
: Pat
John Horner
> Would you please point to a specific spot in this whitepaper and tell
> us where they go wrong ? Because according to this, Powersats, coal and
> gas are only types of powerplants that can actually break even.
> http://www.powersat.com/PSU-1%20Economic.pdf
>
> -kert
>
Isn't that like referring to a Proctor & Gamble "analysis" to show that
"Only Tide Detergent Cleans Well".
John
Eric Chomko
One wonders how the zeppelins in Germany were so succesful given the
weather constraints?
: -george william herbert
: gher...@retro.com