The Moon and Mars...
Jonathan
So, I was told to expect something in last year's State of the Union, and it
was denied to me...
This year, I am being promised again (or at least alluded to...)...
The fact that we haven't been to the moon in 30 years reminds me of Jim
Lovell's quote from Apollo 13, (paraphrasing) "Imagine if no one had
followed in Columbus' footsteps to the new world?"... Well, we need to go
back to the moon, and we can probably do it more cheaply now, because we
don't need to use bleeding-edge technology...
However, my interests in the moon are minor as hell (a permanent base there
would be interesting, but not as cool as the other proposal), I want to see
people walking around on Mars by 2015... And we need to start terraforming
that planet like crazy...
(there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have enough
mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
Jonathan
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>(there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have enough
>mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
You're a reader, right? If so you would enjoy the sci-fi trilogy
"Red/Green/Blue Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson. The first is the best
IMO (the latter two get pretty politics-heavy), but all are chock full
of Martian terraforming with current or near-current techs, and have a
lot of science portrayed in understandable terms. The descriptions of
the Martian landscape are breathtaking.
Available in paperback and probably at your local library.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:jnktvv0hnt9vutv5k...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:37:00 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >(there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have
enough
> >mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
>
> You're a reader, right? If so you would enjoy the sci-fi trilogy
> "Red/Green/Blue Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson.
I have blue mars... But I didn't want to read it first..
> The first is the best
> IMO (the latter two get pretty politics-heavy), but all are chock full
> of Martian terraforming with current or near-current techs, and have a
> lot of science portrayed in understandable terms. The descriptions of
> the Martian landscape are breathtaking.
>
> Available in paperback and probably at your local library.
>
Or as an ebook!
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
David Johnston
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>(there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have enough
>mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
The fact is, the moon has enough mass to maintain an earthlike
atmosphere for a few hundred thousand years. The problem is getting
one there in the first place.
Bill
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV1JJ80.html
>
>
>
> (there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have enough
> mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
Guess what? mass of Mars = 6.4191 × 10(to the 23rd power) kilograms
Type "mass of mars" into Google, and that's what you get.
Does that help? ;)
bill f.
Jonathan
"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3ffeed66...@news.telusplanet.net...
Not hard at all... just crash land one of those CO2 ice blocks that orbit
Saturn (or even water... it would boil in the vacuum and fill the atmo with
something...)
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Bill" <redsox...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eaae0d93.04010...@posting.google.com...
That is half the question...
Now tell me how much mass you need to maintain an atmo...
Jonathan
> bill f.
Transition Zone
>
> So, I was told to expect something in last year's State of the Union, and it
> was denied to me...
>
> This year, I am being promised again (or at least alluded to...)...
Well.
> The fact that we haven't been to the moon in 30 years reminds me of Jim
> Lovell's quote from Apollo 13, (paraphrasing) "Imagine if no one had
> followed in Columbus' footsteps to the new world?"... Well, we need to go
> back to the moon, and we can probably do it more cheaply now, because we
> don't need to use bleeding-edge technology...
>
> However, my interests in the moon are minor as hell (a permanent base there
> would be interesting, but not as cool as the other proposal), I want to see
> people walking around on Mars by 2015... And we need to start terraforming
> that planet like crazy...
>
> (there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have enough
> mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
This Mars and Moon stuff is a pretty scary issue. I don't know what
the hell is going on here.
(see Astronomy) http://www.lsr.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/~fuhr/ig1997.html
Jonathan
"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f224cda.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > (there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have
enough
> > mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
>
> This Mars and Moon stuff is a pretty scary issue. I don't know what
> the hell is going on here.
>
>
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Mars?subselect=Instrument%3AMars+Orbiter+Camera%3A&start=90
>
What are you referring to???
Jonathan
> (see Astronomy) http://www.lsr.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/~fuhr/ig1997.html
David Johnston
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:3ffeed66...@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:37:00 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >(there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have
>enough
>> >mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
>>
>> The fact is, the moon has enough mass to maintain an earthlike
>> atmosphere for a few hundred thousand years. The problem is getting
>> one there in the first place.
>>
>
>Not hard at all... just crash land one of those CO2 ice blocks that orbit
>Saturn
More like ten thousand, and that's a lot of delta V.
Jonathan
Sure it is...
But I am big fan of solving problems on a "what do we want, what do we have,
what do we need..." basis...
What do we want?
We want a One Atmosphere of pressure breathable atmosphere, with an ozone
layer to keep our solar radiation, and to warm the climate for human
habitation (we only need to pump the planet up about 60 degrees on
average...)
Second, what do we have...
A planet with an insanely thing atmo (.05 A), no liquid water, polar ice
caps composed of what is suspected of being water and CO2...
What do we need...
Substantially more CO2, Nitrogen and Oxygen (and some noble gases...)...
Where do we get it?
Well, the rings of Saturn sound like a cool idea... we could also think of
crashing a comet into Mars... We could detonate some underground nukes at
the poles to vaporize the ice blocks...
The way I see it, planting a couple of nukes is probably the best way to
go... we have nothing to lose...
Jonathan
Andre Lieven
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV1JJ80.html
>
> So, I was told to expect something in last year's State of the Union, and
> it was denied to me...
>
> This year, I am being promised again (or at least alluded to...)...
>
>
> The fact that we haven't been to the moon in 30 years reminds me of Jim
> Lovell's quote from Apollo 13, (paraphrasing) "Imagine if no one had
> followed in Columbus' footsteps to the new world?"... Well, we need to go
> back to the moon, and we can probably do it more cheaply now, because we
> don't need to use bleeding-edge technology...
Don't bet the farm on that. We have, in the last thirty years of space
operations, advanced hardly a whit, when it comes to operations beyond
Earth orbit. For that matter, the terrible loss of Columbia shows that
even that isn't a cake walk.
Over on a space history group I read, we have talked at some length about
whats involved in a return to the Moon, and being able to maintain travel
to and from it. The key word is infrastructure, just as cars need roads,
so does a Moon base need an infrastructure of spacecraft that can
relatively routinely operate to and from it.
This does not necessarily mean all reusable craft. An ongoing production
line of expendables can accomplish this, with issues of cost varying
between high relative development costs for reusable craft, v/ lower
such costs, but more production costs, for expendables.
> However, my interests in the moon are minor as hell (a permanent base there
> would be interesting, but not as cool as the other proposal), I want to see
> people walking around on Mars by 2015... And we need to start terraforming
> that planet like crazy...
Again, I'd say that the infrastructure that would allow Mars flights, and
regular access to Mars, will be developed and tested in nearer Earth
conditions. Consider that there were a lot of sailings of 15th Century
ships, before such as Columbus dared to operate them that far out at
sea...
Development emergencies are easier to fix and survive, when they don't
happen months away from any materiel help...
> (there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have enough
> mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
Not really, no. Else, it would have a thicker one.
A thicker one could last for many years. Perhaps a million. Maybe more,
maybe less. Tough to say, we've never done that before. <g>
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Jonathan
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bto3bk$i2g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Jonathan" (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) writes:
> > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV1JJ80.html
> >
> > So, I was told to expect something in last year's State of the Union,
and
> > it was denied to me...
> >
> > This year, I am being promised again (or at least alluded to...)...
> >
> >
> > The fact that we haven't been to the moon in 30 years reminds me of Jim
> > Lovell's quote from Apollo 13, (paraphrasing) "Imagine if no one had
> > followed in Columbus' footsteps to the new world?"... Well, we need to
go
> > back to the moon, and we can probably do it more cheaply now, because we
> > don't need to use bleeding-edge technology...
>
> Don't bet the farm on that. We have, in the last thirty years of space
> operations, advanced hardly a whit, when it comes to operations beyond
> Earth orbit. For that matter, the terrible loss of Columbia shows that
> even that isn't a cake walk.
>
Who said cakewalk?
> Over on a space history group I read, we have talked at some length about
> whats involved in a return to the Moon, and being able to maintain travel
> to and from it. The key word is infrastructure, just as cars need roads,
> so does a Moon base need an infrastructure of spacecraft that can
> relatively routinely operate to and from it.
>
Which is where L-1 comes into play...
> This does not necessarily mean all reusable craft. An ongoing production
> line of expendables can accomplish this, with issues of cost varying
> between high relative development costs for reusable craft, v/ lower
> such costs, but more production costs, for expendables.
>
Well, we can resupply the moon with unmanned vehicles, the trick will be the
lack of a heavy lift vehicle to get a habitat in place...
> > However, my interests in the moon are minor as hell (a permanent base
there
> > would be interesting, but not as cool as the other proposal), I want to
see
> > people walking around on Mars by 2015... And we need to start
terraforming
> > that planet like crazy...
>
> Again, I'd say that the infrastructure that would allow Mars flights, and
> regular access to Mars, will be developed and tested in nearer Earth
> conditions. Consider that there were a lot of sailings of 15th Century
> ships, before such as Columbus dared to operate them that far out at
> sea...
>
We aren't talking routine travel to Mars (yet), but we need to get our feet
dirty on the planet first...
> Development emergencies are easier to fix and survive, when they don't
> happen months away from any materiel help...
>
> > (there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have
enough
> > mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
>
> Not really, no. Else, it would have a thicker one.
>
Not necessarily... if its temperature had dropped significantly enough (by a
loss of CO2), it could have frozen...
Also, I did some checking and their are smaller bodies (Io and Europa) that
have atmospheres and are smaller...
Besides, Venus and Neptune are both smaller than Mars and both have
atmosphere (but the gases are much heavier than O2 and CO2)
> A thicker one could last for many years. Perhaps a million. Maybe more,
> maybe less. Tough to say, we've never done that before. <g>
>
It is time to start doing that...
Jonathan
Transition Zone
> "Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f224cda.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > (there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have
> enough
> > > mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
> >
> > This Mars and Moon stuff is a pretty scary issue. I don't know what
> > the hell is going on here.
> >
> >
> http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Mars?subselect=Instrument%3AMars+Orbiter+Camera%3A&start=90
> >
>
> What are you referring to???
>
Oh, nothing I guess.
> > (see Astronomy) http://www.lsr.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/~fuhr/ig1997.html
Brandons of mass destruction
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> We aren't talking routine travel to Mars (yet), but we need to get our feet
> dirty on the planet first...
from a bruce sterling interview, commenting about Mars:
I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the
same time I see people setting the Gobi Desert.
The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times
as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times
cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever
writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well,
it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's
no good reason to go there and live. It's ugly,
it's inhospitable and there's no way to
make it pay. Mars is just the same, really.
We just romanticize it because it's so hard to reach.
On the other hand, there might really be some
way to make living in the Gobi Desert pay.
And if that were the case, and you really
had communities making a nice cheerful
go of daily life on arid, freezing, barren rock
and sand, then a cultural transfer to Mars
might make a certain sense.
If there were a society with enough technical
power to terraform Mars, they would
certainly do it. On the other hand.
by the time they got around to messing with Mars,
they would have been using all that power
to transform *themselves.* So by the time
they got there and started rebuilding the
Martian atmosphere wholesale, they wouldn't
look or act a whole lot like Hollywood extras.
--
Quarkxpress sucks.
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:bto3bk$i2g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> "Jonathan" (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) writes:
>> > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV1JJ80.html
>> >
>> > So, I was told to expect something in last year's State of the Union,
>> > and it was denied to me...
>> >
>> > This year, I am being promised again (or at least alluded to...)...
>> >
>> > The fact that we haven't been to the moon in 30 years reminds me of Jim
>> > Lovell's quote from Apollo 13, (paraphrasing) "Imagine if no one had
>> > followed in Columbus' footsteps to the new world?"... Well, we need to
> go
>> > back to the moon, and we can probably do it more cheaply now, because
>> > we don't need to use bleeding-edge technology...
>>
>> Don't bet the farm on that. We have, in the last thirty years of space
>> operations, advanced hardly a whit, when it comes to operations beyond
>> Earth orbit. For that matter, the terrible loss of Columbia shows that
>> even that isn't a cake walk.
>
> Who said cakewalk?
Routine operations, in the sense of we can do this many times over, need
to be somewhat cakewalky. Its one thing to hang it all over the edge during
test phase, its another thing to ask that every operational flight do that.
>> Over on a space history group I read, we have talked at some length about
>> whats involved in a return to the Moon, and being able to maintain travel
>> to and from it. The key word is infrastructure, just as cars need roads,
>> so does a Moon base need an infrastructure of spacecraft that can
>> relatively routinely operate to and from it.
>
> Which is where L-1 comes into play...
Thats a place. Without a regular way to get to and from there, it
stays... empty.
>> This does not necessarily mean all reusable craft. An ongoing production
>> line of expendables can accomplish this, with issues of cost varying
>> between high relative development costs for reusable craft, v/ lower
>> such costs, but more production costs, for expendables.
>
> Well, we can resupply the moon with unmanned vehicles, the trick will be
> the lack of a heavy lift vehicle to get a habitat in place...
Heavy lift, as we now define the term, is a part of the infrastructure
I was speaking about.
>> > However, my interests in the moon are minor as hell (a permanent base
> there
>> > would be interesting, but not as cool as the other proposal), I want
>> > to see people walking around on Mars by 2015... And we need to start
>> > terraforming that planet like crazy...
>>
>> Again, I'd say that the infrastructure that would allow Mars flights, and
>> regular access to Mars, will be developed and tested in nearer Earth
>> conditions. Consider that there were a lot of sailings of 15th Century
>> ships, before such as Columbus dared to operate them that far out at
>> sea...
>
> We aren't talking routine travel to Mars (yet), but we need to get our feet
> dirty on the planet first...
Non sequitur. We did that with the moon, with Apollo, and where did it
get us ? Thirty one years of... nowhere.
That suggests that Apollo style " flags and footprint " programs are
*not* the path to *sustainable* flight operations.
>> Development emergencies are easier to fix and survive, when they don't
>> happen months away from any materiel help...
>>
>> > (there is a question I need answering first though... Does Mars have
>> > enough mass to sustain a thicker atmosphere?)
>>
>> Not really, no. Else, it would have a thicker one.
>
> Not necessarily... if its temperature had dropped significantly enough
> (by a loss of CO2), it could have frozen...
Indeed. The point is, how much more could it hold, and is that amount
sufficient to have a 1 bar ground pressure.
A positive answer to the first point, is not automatically, a positive
answer to the second point.
> Also, I did some checking and their are smaller bodies (Io and Europa)
> that have atmospheres and are smaller...
Involving very not-Mars conditions. No Jovian planet is squeezing Mars'
body, to make it's volcanoes spew out mass amounts of ejecta.
> Besides, Venus and Neptune are both smaller than Mars and both have
> atmosphere (but the gases are much heavier than O2 and CO2)
Wrong. Neptune is a *gas giant* planet, at least 27,000 miles in
diameter. Venus is Earth sized, 7,600 miles in diameter.
Mars, OTOH, is but 4,200 miles in diameter.
Looking up such *basic and elementary facts* would help one avoid
gross howlers of error.
>> A thicker one could last for many years. Perhaps a million. Maybe more,
>> maybe less. Tough to say, we've never done that before. <g>
>
> It is time to start doing that...
Just as in 1492, it was time to build the Empire State Building ?
We're centuries away from anything as massive as terraforming. Lets
not get so many carts ahead of the pony...
Andre Lieven
> On 10 Jan 2004 05:42:12 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> at this point is the enormous cost of boosting stuff up out of earth's
> gravity well. Creating an infrastructure which minimizes that expense
> would seem to be the next step.
Indeed.
> I seem to recall reading somewhere about a plan, feasible with today's
> technology, to build a massive, ramped railgun-type device on a mountain,
> as close to the equator as possible, that could boost payloads into low
> orbit by means of electromagnetic propulsion, thereby savings huge
> amounts of money, and, presumably, allowing far more 'launches' than are
> capable with today's rocket powered systems. (Bear in mind, I'm speaking
> with less than adequate knowledge on the subject - this concept could
> very well have just been part of a science fiction story I read)
While rail launchers are a nifty way to save on launch costs and
complexity, they relaly only work on locations where, when the payload
leaves the rail launcher, said payload is *out of any athmosphere that
can reduce said payload's velocity*.
IOW, its great for installation on the Moon. Deimos, and Phobos, and
so on. But, not on Mars, even as it is now, and definitely not on
Earth, unless said rail launcher is but the first stage of a system.
Think, Fireball XL-5...
> With such delivery capability, it would be a lot easier to support a
> permanent presence on the moon, which, in turn, would become the
> stepping-off point we need to send manned missions to Mars and the other
> planets.
It would help a Moonbase, yes. Not anyone on Earth going up, though.
Jonathan
> > Besides, Venus and Neptune are both smaller than Mars and both have
> > atmosphere (but the gases are much heavier than O2 and CO2)
>
> Wrong. Neptune is a *gas giant* planet, at least 27,000 miles in
> diameter. Venus is Earth sized, 7,600 miles in diameter.
>
I meant Mercury and typed Neptune... apologies...
> Mars, OTOH, is but 4,200 miles in diameter.
>
> Looking up such *basic and elementary facts* would help one avoid
> gross howlers of error.
>
And being a little considerate to minor mistakes would make one look less
like a dick...
You knew I meant Mercury...
> >> A thicker one could last for many years. Perhaps a million. Maybe more,
> >> maybe less. Tough to say, we've never done that before. <g>
> >
> > It is time to start doing that...
>
> Just as in 1492, it was time to build the Empire State Building ?
>
> We're centuries away from anything as massive as terraforming. Lets
> not get so many carts ahead of the pony...
>
I am curious why the people who say "we aren't ready to do that yet" propose
continuing what we have been doing... nothing.
Fine, so we send a few hundred more rovers around... and in 2250, we still
haven't set foot on Mars...
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Enigman O'Maly" <No...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:r86vvv8lkm13e4f6v...@4ax.com...
> It seems like the most restrictive obstacle for further space exploration
> at this point is the enormous cost of boosting stuff up out of earth's
> gravity well. Creating an infrastructure which minimizes that expense
> would seem to be the next step.
>
Well, there are a few interesting ideas on that one... the most intriguing
is an orbital elevator...
Another theory, that is probably about 500 years away from implementation,
is to build a ring around the Earth supported by towers from the planet...
The ring could be used for docking, construction, etc...
> I seem to recall reading somewhere about a plan, feasible with today's
> technology, to build a massive, ramped railgun-type device on a mountain,
> as close to the equator as possible, that could boost payloads into low
> orbit by means of electromagnetic propulsion, thereby savings huge
> amounts of money, and, presumably, allowing far more 'launches' than are
> capable with today's rocket powered systems. (Bear in mind, I'm speaking
> with less than adequate knowledge on the subject - this concept could
> very well have just been part of a science fiction story I read)
>
The SuperGun... originally financed by the Navy to launch satellites into
orbit...
They couldn't get around the ridiculous shock on electronics...
> With such delivery capability, it would be a lot easier to support a
> permanent presence on the moon, which, in turn, would become the
> stepping-off point we need to send manned missions to Mars and the other
> planets.
>
Then you have to concern yourself with escaping the Moon's gravity well... A
serious space station makes far more sense (and not something wimpy like the
ISS)... I think something along the lines of McKinley station from Star Trek
III...
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Enigman O'Maly" <No...@Home.com> wrote in message
> essentially an artillery piece, wasn't it?
Yep, with big-ass barrel.
Of course, an electromagnetic launch system would just fry the electronics
out of hand...
> But no matter, Andre pointed
> out the railgun idea won't work in earth's atmosphere - it was probably
> just a device in a scifi story I read, not a reality-based proposal.
>
> But there must be some other do-able ideas for getting an abundant number
> of decent sized payloads into space in a more economically viable
> fashion. You mention an 'orbital elevator'; is that something that could
> be built today, or does it require future science/technology/materials?
>
Theoretically, you just need to build a tower that is 220 miles high... and
then run a car up it...
Another alternative, which I thought was psychotic, was to bring an asteroid
into earth orbit, attach a big cable from it to the Earth, and just use the
asteroid as a space station...
Jonathan
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:btp8os$8km$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> > Besides, Venus and Neptune are both smaller than Mars and both have
>> > atmosphere (but the gases are much heavier than O2 and CO2)
>>
>> Wrong. Neptune is a *gas giant* planet, at least 27,000 miles in
>> diameter. Venus is Earth sized, 7,600 miles in diameter.
>
> I meant Mercury and typed Neptune... apologies...
And, your explanation for mistakenly claiming that Venus is smaller
than Mars is... ?
>> Mars, OTOH, is but 4,200 miles in diameter.
>>
>> Looking up such *basic and elementary facts* would help one avoid
>> gross howlers of error.
>
> And being a little considerate to minor mistakes would make one look less
> like a dick...
You misspelled " someone who knows the material "...
> You knew I meant Mercury...
No, I didn't. I don't claim any amount of ESP.
>> >> A thicker one could last for many years. Perhaps a million. Maybe more,
>> >> maybe less. Tough to say, we've never done that before. <g>
>> >
>> > It is time to start doing that...
>>
>> Just as in 1492, it was time to build the Empire State Building ?
>>
>> We're centuries away from anything as massive as terraforming. Lets
>> not get so many carts ahead of the pony...
>
> I am curious why the people who say "we aren't ready to do that yet"
> propose continuing what we have been doing... nothing.
Because, we understand that there is more than one technological step
between the Wright Flyer, and the Concorde...
> Fine, so we send a few hundred more rovers around... and in 2250, we
> still haven't set foot on Mars...
We sent flags and footprint missions to the Moon. Yet, for thirty one
years, no one's been there. So, your suggestion could easily lead to
A mission to Mars... followed by thirty one years of... doing nothing.
I would prefer to see a system that creates a *useable* infrastructure
that doesn't *allow* a rational choice to do nothing.
Paucle
(Bear in mind, I'm speaking
>> with less than adequate knowledge on the subject - this concept could
>> very well have just been part of a science fiction story I read)
>>
It's a significant plot element of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," which I
consider Heinlein's best work.
J Alex
"Paucle" <leger...@aol.commonality> wrote in message
news:20040111045028...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Transition Zone
> "Jonathan" (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) writes:
> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:btp8os$8km$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >> > Besides, Venus and Neptune are both smaller than Mars and both have
> >> > atmosphere (but the gases are much heavier than O2 and CO2)
> >>
> >> Wrong. Neptune is a *gas giant* planet, at least 27,000 miles in
> >> diameter. Venus is Earth sized, 7,600 miles in diameter.
> >
> > I meant Mercury and typed Neptune... apologies...
>
> And, your explanation for mistakenly claiming that Venus is smaller
> than Mars is... ?
Andre, a lot of people on the TWW board would rather you just "go with
the flow" of what is posted regardless its of the level of accuracy
(go figure).
> >> Mars, OTOH, is but 4,200 miles in diameter.
> >>
> >> Looking up such *basic and elementary facts* would help one avoid
> >> gross howlers of error.
> >
> > And being a little considerate to minor mistakes would make one look less
> > like a dick...
>
> You misspelled " someone who knows the material "...
Jonathan (like others) just doesn't get it. Its not what you look like
or what people think of you (whether a dick or an ass), its just about
what you write.
> > You knew I meant Mercury...
>
> No, I didn't. I don't claim any amount of ESP.
Again Ladies and Gents, that's probably the only requirement one needs
to be a Dean or Bush worshipper.
(Knowin' what I mean, right Vern ??)
> >> >> A thicker one could last for many years. Perhaps a million. Maybe more,
> >> >> maybe less. Tough to say, we've never done that before. <g>
> >> >
> >> > It is time to start doing that...
> >>
> >> Just as in 1492, it was time to build the Empire State Building ?
> >>
> >> We're centuries away from anything as massive as terraforming. Lets
> >> not get so many carts ahead of the pony...
> >
> > I am curious why the people who say "we aren't ready to do that yet"
> > propose continuing what we have been doing... nothing.
>
> Because, we understand that there is more than one technological step
> between the Wright Flyer, and the Concorde...
>
> > Fine, so we send a few hundred more rovers around... and in 2250, we
> > still haven't set foot on Mars...
>
> We sent flags and footprint missions to the Moon. Yet, for thirty one
> years, no one's been there. So, your suggestion could easily lead to
> A mission to Mars... followed by thirty one years of... doing nothing.
>
> I would prefer to see a system that creates a *useable* infrastructure
> that doesn't *allow* a rational choice to do nothing.
And each away-from-Earth mission should have a self sustaining budget
(instead of being handout-dependent).
Jonathan
"J Alex" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:CSbMb.10936$ei6....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
None of those hold even the slightest candle to "Starship Troopers"...
Jonathan
>
Andre Lieven
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<btqs3r$3se$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> "Jonathan" (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) writes:
>> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> > news:btp8os$8km$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> >> > Besides, Venus and Neptune are both smaller than Mars and both have
>> >> > atmosphere (but the gases are much heavier than O2 and CO2)
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. Neptune is a *gas giant* planet, at least 27,000 miles in
>> >> diameter. Venus is Earth sized, 7,600 miles in diameter.
>> >
>> > I meant Mercury and typed Neptune... apologies...
>>
>> And, your explanation for mistakenly claiming that Venus is smaller
>> than Mars is... ?
>
> Andre, a lot of people on the TWW board would rather you just "go with
> the flow" of what is posted regardless its of the level of accuracy
> (go figure).
Well, thats not my style. When someone, in response to me, makes such a
howler, I will point it out, and correct it.
Isn't it a good point of the show, that people high up need *accurate*
information, so as to be able to make useful decisions ?
>> >> Mars, OTOH, is but 4,200 miles in diameter.
>> >>
>> >> Looking up such *basic and elementary facts* would help one avoid
>> >> gross howlers of error.
>> >
>> > And being a little considerate to minor mistakes would make one look less
>> > like a dick...
>>
>> You misspelled " someone who knows the material "...
>
> Jonathan (like others) just doesn't get it. Its not what you look like
> or what people think of you (whether a dick or an ass), its just about
> what you write.
Indeed. Ad homs, suggest to me that a person is failing in their
argument. Thats not my problem.
>> > You knew I meant Mercury...
>>
>> No, I didn't. I don't claim any amount of ESP.
>
> Again Ladies and Gents, that's probably the only requirement one needs
> to be a Dean or Bush worshipper.
>
> (Knowin' what I mean, right Vern ??)
Hey, I'm a Canadian. I'm *so* not getting into that area. <g>
>> >> >> A thicker one could last for many years. Perhaps a million. Maybe
>> >> >> more, maybe less. Tough to say, we've never done that before. <g>
>> >> >
>> >> > It is time to start doing that...
>> >>
>> >> Just as in 1492, it was time to build the Empire State Building ?
>> >>
>> >> We're centuries away from anything as massive as terraforming. Lets
>> >> not get so many carts ahead of the pony...
>> >
>> > I am curious why the people who say "we aren't ready to do that yet"
>> > propose continuing what we have been doing... nothing.
>>
>> Because, we understand that there is more than one technological step
>> between the Wright Flyer, and the Concorde...
>>
>> > Fine, so we send a few hundred more rovers around... and in 2250, we
>> > still haven't set foot on Mars...
>>
>> We sent flags and footprint missions to the Moon. Yet, for thirty one
>> years, no one's been there. So, your suggestion could easily lead to
>> A mission to Mars... followed by thirty one years of... doing nothing.
>>
>> I would prefer to see a system that creates a *useable* infrastructure
>> that doesn't *allow* a rational choice to do nothing.
>
> And each away-from-Earth mission should have a self sustaining budget
> (instead of being handout-dependent).
Would that be fiscally possible, given the powers of the purse of
Congress ?
Sure, in the very long run, space flight will have to become fiscally
vaible as a part of it's own infrastructure. But, during the lengthy
development period to get to there, subsidies will be needed, in one
form or another. Consider the use of air mail subsidies that helped
to advance US avaition, during the 20s and 30s.
Now, take that up to an area where the difficulties and time lines
are more difficult and longer.
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have blue mars... But I didn't want to read it first..
It would make no sense at all. It's really one long novel, and has a
VERY convoluted plot. OTOH, you can read "Red" by itself and have a
very satisfying experience.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Auzerais310
>What do we need...
>Substantially more CO2, Nitrogen and Oxygen
> (and some noble gases...)... Where do we get
> it?
>Well, the rings of Saturn sound like a cool
> idea... we could also think of crashing a
> comet into Mars... We could detonate some
> underground nukes at the poles to vaporize
> the ice blocks...
>The way I see it, planting a couple of nukes is
> probably the best way to go... we have
> nothing to lose...
You will just lose the atmosphere again, Jonathan.
I'm afraid you all seem to be missing a most important and vital item
here.
THE biggest problem with any attempt at so-called "Terraforming Mars"
[or any other planet for that matter] is NOT getting an atmosphere to
the surface,[that's relatively easy]
but the far greater problem is simply KEEPING IT THERE.
The reason Mars no longer has a substantial atmosphere is because Mars
"died" billions of years ago.
No, not the surface, but its all important INTERNAL molten core engine
and the vital MAGNETOSPHERE.it generates
Once Mars' core cooled billions of years ago, Mars lost its most
important factor for maintaining any substantial atmosphere, ie the
tectonic regeneration of the surface, active volcanoes etc.
But even that is not fundamental enough for maintaining and keeping a
viable atmosphere [esp for a planet the size of Mars].
When the molten core of Mars cooled and finally died, Mars lost whatever
magnetosphere it had had which protected any atmosphere from the massive
cosmic radiation constantly bombarding the planet's surface.and thus
began the process of an inevitable loss of the Martian atmosphere
[And you cannot simply 'replace' a magnetosphere either.]
It is worth noting the fact that Earth has maintained its magnetosphere
and is what shields us from all that deadly and destructive cosmic
radiation [that also destroys ozone etc]
and along with our continually vibrant ongoing planetary tectonics
making more volcanoes, etc plus having a large 'sister planet' [ie the
Moon],
This all pretty much 'ensures' life on Earth which btw has had ample
occasions from all sorts of disasters [comets, asteroids and nearby
novas] to wipe all life from the planet time and time again.
So--Mars presently has no atmosphere-saving magnetosphere simply
--because it no longer has any tectonic activity --because it no longer
has a molten core,
[and perhaps, just as importantly,]
---because Mars has no real moon [besides a couple of captured
insignificant asteroids].to help keep the core churning and "alive" and
actively producing a strong magnetosphere.and tectonics, and volcanoes,
etc.......
And Nothing Man can do is ever going to change that.
I'll start eating natural foods
when people stop dying from natural causes.
Jonathan
"Auzerais310" <Auze...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23664-40...@storefull-3175.bay.webtv.net...
> Jonathan wrote:
> >What do we need...
> >Substantially more CO2, Nitrogen and Oxygen
> > (and some noble gases...)... Where do we get
> > it?
> >Well, the rings of Saturn sound like a cool
> > idea... we could also think of crashing a
> > comet into Mars... We could detonate some
> > underground nukes at the poles to vaporize
> > the ice blocks...
> >The way I see it, planting a couple of nukes is
> > probably the best way to go... we have
> > nothing to lose...
>
> You will just lose the atmosphere again, Jonathan.
> I'm afraid you all seem to be missing a most important and vital item
> here.
>
> THE biggest problem with any attempt at so-called "Terraforming Mars"
> [or any other planet for that matter] is NOT getting an atmosphere to
> the surface,[that's relatively easy]
> but the far greater problem is simply KEEPING IT THERE.
>
> The reason Mars no longer has a substantial atmosphere is because Mars
> "died" billions of years ago.
> No, not the surface, but its all important INTERNAL molten core engine
> and the vital MAGNETOSPHERE.it generates
>
Sure... the most important thing to the survival of life on Earth is the
fact that we have a molten iron core spining...
> Once Mars' core cooled billions of years ago, Mars lost its most
> important factor for maintaining any substantial atmosphere, ie the
> tectonic regeneration of the surface, active volcanoes etc.
> But even that is not fundamental enough for maintaining and keeping a
> viable atmosphere [esp for a planet the size of Mars].
>
> When the molten core of Mars cooled and finally died, Mars lost whatever
> magnetosphere it had had which protected any atmosphere from the massive
> cosmic radiation constantly bombarding the planet's surface.and thus
> began the process of an inevitable loss of the Martian atmosphere
> [And you cannot simply 'replace' a magnetosphere either.]
>
Understood...
I guess the question is:
Do we, for sure, know that Mars' core is dead...
http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Seems to indicate that Mars is not completely dead (just mostly dead... like
in the Princess Bride...)
Also, this http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_lava_lead_000720.html
seems to indicate that Mars is also geologically active (sort of... It has
been awhile since the last volcanism has occurred there...)
> It is worth noting the fact that Earth has maintained its magnetosphere
> and is what shields us from all that deadly and destructive cosmic
> radiation [that also destroys ozone etc]
> and along with our continually vibrant ongoing planetary tectonics
> making more volcanoes, etc plus having a large 'sister planet' [ie the
> Moon],
>
> This all pretty much 'ensures' life on Earth which btw has had ample
> occasions from all sorts of disasters [comets, asteroids and nearby
> novas] to wipe all life from the planet time and time again.
>
> So--Mars presently has no atmosphere-saving magnetosphere simply
> --because it no longer has any tectonic activity --because it no longer
> has a molten core,
> [and perhaps, just as importantly,]
> ---because Mars has no real moon [besides a couple of captured
> insignificant asteroids].to help keep the core churning and "alive" and
> actively producing a strong magnetosphere.and tectonics, and volcanoes,
> etc.......
>
> And Nothing Man can do is ever going to change that.
>
Not necessarily... whatever method was used to get the Earth's core
spinning, could also be used someday to get Mars'... It could be as simple
as dragging a larger body into Martian orbit... or detonating underground
nukes... Who knows? I am not a geologist (nor do I pretend to be)...
The alternative is to create domes on Mars... but that still leaves a
serious problem... No colony can exist unless it is self sustaining...
Jonathan
Transition Zone
Is that all you all can think of ?? Nuke nuke nuke ?? If you want an
atmosphere, find a way to run comets and meteors into the planet. An
atmosphere might form then.
Transition Zone
> Transition Zone (mog...@hotmail.com) writes:
> > dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<btqs3r$3se$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> >> "Jonathan" (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) writes:
> >> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> > news:btp8os$8km$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >> >> > Besides, Venus and Neptune are both smaller than Mars and both have
> >> >> > atmosphere (but the gases are much heavier than O2 and CO2)
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong. Neptune is a *gas giant* planet, at least 27,000 miles in
> >> >> diameter. Venus is Earth sized, 7,600 miles in diameter.
> >> >
> >> > I meant Mercury and typed Neptune... apologies...
> >>
> >> And, your explanation for mistakenly claiming that Venus is smaller
> >> than Mars is... ?
> >
> > Andre, a lot of people on the TWW board would rather you just "go with
> > the flow" of what is posted regardless its of the level of accuracy
> > (go figure).
>
> Well, thats not my style. When someone, in response to me, makes such a
> howler, I will point it out, and correct it.
Well. I warned you. As a matter of fact, in the words of one regular
here you "won't win friends".
> Isn't it a good point of the show, that people high up need *accurate*
> information, so as to be able to make useful decisions ?
Hmmm, you know. I thought I was the only one here who thought that.
> >> >> Mars, OTOH, is but 4,200 miles in diameter.
> >> >>
> >> >> Looking up such *basic and elementary facts* would help one avoid
> >> >> gross howlers of error.
> >> >
> >> > And being a little considerate to minor mistakes would make one look less
> >> > like a dick...
> >>
> >> You misspelled " someone who knows the material "...
> >
> > Jonathan (like others) just doesn't get it. Its not what you look like
> > or what people think of you (whether a dick or an ass), its just about
> > what you write.
>
> Indeed. Ad homs, suggest to me that a person is failing in their
> argument. Thats not my problem.
I mean, there are places for ad hominem talk (like alt.slack).
Merlin Dorfman
: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV1JJ80.html
: So, I was told to expect something in last year's State of the Union, and it
: was denied to me...
: This year, I am being promised again (or at least alluded to...)...
: The fact that we haven't been to the moon in 30 years reminds me of Jim
: Lovell's quote from Apollo 13, (paraphrasing) "Imagine if no one had
: followed in Columbus' footsteps to the new world?"... Well, we need to go
: back to the moon, and we can probably do it more cheaply now, because we
: don't need to use bleeding-edge technology...
Au contraire, it would cost more to get to the moon today than
it cost in the 60s, because we have lost the technology. (Just as it
would cost more to build a battleship today than it did in the 40s.)
Jonathan
"Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:btt9jn$oiq$1...@blue.rahul.net...
How so?
The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved... the guns
have not changed in the slightest (it is hard to make them be more accurate
than they are...)...
I think you could build a Saturn V with off-the-shelf components now (back
in the 1960s, everything had to be designed, fabricated and tested from
scratch...)...
Are you really saying that all of that data has somehow been lost?
Jonathan
E.R.
> "Enigman O'Maly" <No...@Home.com> wrote in message
> news:is71001knm2o80s9r...@4ax.com...
> > of decent sized payloads into space in a more economically viable
> > fashion. You mention an 'orbital elevator'; is that something that could
> > be built today, or does it require future science/technology/materials?
> >
>
> Theoretically, you just need to build a tower that is 220 miles high... and
> then run a car up it...
>
> Another alternative, which I thought was psychotic, was to bring an asteroid
> into earth orbit, attach a big cable from it to the Earth, and just use the
> asteroid as a space station...
There are serious alternatives for building a 'space elevator' that
require neither a towwer nor asteroid. Use CNT material for the
cable, then extend that past GEO (way, way past GEO) for the
counterbalance.
It _can_ be built today, all but the ribbon material. While that is a
big leap, the material is being made in the lab that is very close to
the strength needed.
See the information at ISR's space elevator page for more info
~brian
Georgiana Gates
the NASA complex was the largest computer complex in the world. That
was probably the equivalent of four or five PCs today.
Jonathan
"E.R." <economic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a11b144e.04011...@posting.google.com...
That is really cool...
What would you make the cable out of?... I guess that is the $64,000
question...
You could then build on the existing platform (of used booster rockets), and
build a construction facility/space station for deploying craft...
Jonathan
>
> ~brian
Jonathan
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:40022C...@hal-pc.org...
Try two, max...
In all likelihood, you have more computing power on your desk than existed
on planet Earth in 1960... and if you have a digital watch, you have more
computing power than existed on Earth before 1950...
The Apollo 11 guidance computer weighed 70 lbs, had 20 instructions, 16 bit
words, 36K ROM words, 2K of RAM and ran at 2 Mhz...
Your palm pilot would blow it away...
Jonathan
Andre Lieven
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bts01r$mla$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> Transition Zone (mog...@hotmail.com) writes:
>> > dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<btqs3r$3se$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> >> "Jonathan" (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) writes:
>> >> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> >> > news:btp8os$8km$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> >> >> > Besides, Venus and Neptune are both smaller than Mars and both have
>> >> >> > atmosphere (but the gases are much heavier than O2 and CO2)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wrong. Neptune is a *gas giant* planet, at least 27,000 miles in
>> >> >> diameter. Venus is Earth sized, 7,600 miles in diameter.
>> >> >
>> >> > I meant Mercury and typed Neptune... apologies...
>> >>
>> >> And, your explanation for mistakenly claiming that Venus is smaller
>> >> than Mars is... ?
>> >
>> > Andre, a lot of people on the TWW board would rather you just "go with
>> > the flow" of what is posted regardless its of the level of accuracy
>> > (go figure).
>>
>> Well, thats not my style. When someone, in response to me, makes such a
>> howler, I will point it out, and correct it.
>
> Well. I warned you. As a matter of fact, in the words of one regular
> here you "won't win friends".
Well, if I'm given a choice between popularity and honesty, my life
has clearly taught me that honesty should win out, every time.
" If you never mean what you say, you can never say what you mean. "
>> Isn't it a good point of the show, that people high up need *accurate*
>> information, so as to be able to make useful decisions ?
>
> Hmmm, you know. I thought I was the only one here who thought that.
<g> Its a lonely thing, to be a fan...
>> >> >> Mars, OTOH, is but 4,200 miles in diameter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Looking up such *basic and elementary facts* would help one avoid
>> >> >> gross howlers of error.
>> >> >
>> >> > And being a little considerate to minor mistakes would make one look less
>> >> > like a dick...
>> >>
>> >> You misspelled " someone who knows the material "...
>> >
>> > Jonathan (like others) just doesn't get it. Its not what you look like
>> > or what people think of you (whether a dick or an ass), its just about
>> > what you write.
>>
>> Indeed. Ad homs, suggest to me that a person is failing in their
>> argument. Thats not my problem.
>
> I mean, there are places for ad hominem talk (like alt.slack).
Well, OK. I was referring to newsgroups with more specific topics.
Like here, for instance.
Andre Lieven
> "Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@rahul.net> wrote in message
> news:btt9jn$oiq$1...@blue.rahul.net...
>> Jonathan (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) wrote:
>> : http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV1JJ80.html
>>
>> : So, I was told to expect something in last year's State of the Union,
>> : and it was denied to me...
>>
>> : This year, I am being promised again (or at least alluded to...)...
>>
>> : The fact that we haven't been to the moon in 30 years reminds me of Jim
>> : Lovell's quote from Apollo 13, (paraphrasing) "Imagine if no one had
>> : followed in Columbus' footsteps to the new world?"... Well, we need to
>> : go back to the moon, and we can probably do it more cheaply now,
>> : because we don't need to use bleeding-edge technology...
>>
>> Au contraire, it would cost more to get to the moon today than
>> it cost in the 60s, because we have lost the technology. (Just as it
>> would cost more to build a battleship today than it did in the 40s.)
>
> How so?
Merlin is exactly correct. And, I say that as both a student of things
space historical, as well as naval history.
> The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved... the guns
> have not changed in the slightest (it is hard to make them be more accurate
> than they are...)...
LOL ! Do read up on some battleship bombardments, from, say, D Day, and
the support of the troops there, over several months thereafter, all the
way to such as the USS New Jersey off of Lebanon, in, what, 1983.
Most shells were *way* off target. Heck, in most WW2 invasions, it
was found that cruiser and especially destroyer fire, from closer to
shore ( Logical, as battleships drew more water, so most often
*couldn't* stand in anywhere near as close as smaller warships )
was far more accurate, and of far more actual support to the troops
ashore.
> I think you could build a Saturn V with off-the-shelf components now (back
> in the 1960s, everything had to be designed, fabricated and tested from
> scratch...)...
Wrong, and right, respectively. The vast majority of the bottle neck
technologies of a rocket like Saturn V simply *do not exist at all*
in the west today.
> Are you really saying that all of that data has somehow been lost?
Worse. The factories, tooling, and trained workforce all do not
exist.
Newport News Shipbuilding can build you a Nimitz class supercarrier.
Sign the contract, pay about $5 billion, and wait seven years. But,
if you came to them asking for an Iowa class battleship, they'd look
at you funny, and afer laughing as to what you want one for, would
tell you that the technology to build one doesn't exist anywhere, and
surely not there.
No one builds 16 inch armour plate anymore. So, the tooling, and
people to make it, don't exist anymore. Reconstituting such
complex and long gone technologies, is a non trivial matter.
Including in time and money.
Its exactly the same with Saturn V class rockets.
Auzerais310
global worries.
At present even the Earth is possibly preparing to undergo a dramatic
shift in its Global Magnetic Field.
The strength of the GMF on Earth has been decreasing steadily for at
least the last 300yrs and is probably ready to flip [that's where the
North Magnetic Pole becomes the South MP, something that has been
happening every 2-300,000 yrs [but was last 'seen' in rocks of 700,000
yrs ago..
There may even be centuries to come when there are not 2 poles but even
4 or 5 randomly placed and moving across the Earth's surface delighing
populations all across the globe nightly with spectacular aurora
borealises.
But with the decreased and randomized GMF will come increased solar and
galactic radiation and a marked increase of cancer rates.
viz http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/about.html
[of course we can naturally expect Dean and Moveon.org to blame all this
entirely on the Bush Administration :) ]
Transition Zone
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0z1Mb.5210377$Id.8...@news.easynews.com>...
>
> > into earth orbit, attach a big cable from it to the Earth, and just use the
> > asteroid as a space station...
>
> There are serious alternatives for building a 'space elevator' that
> require neither a towwer nor asteroid. Use CNT material for the
> cable, then extend that past GEO (way, way past GEO) for the
> counterbalance.
How far out would it extend ??
Transition Zone
> Getting to Mars or even to the Moon again may be the least of our coming
> global worries.
>
> At present even the Earth is possibly preparing to undergo a dramatic
> shift in its Global Magnetic Field.
Have any government or academic proof ??
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved...
There are no foundries in the US capable of making the turret
exteriors. We've lost a lot of steel-making capabilities since the
1940s. It's not that big a part of the economy any longer.
the guns
>have not changed in the slightest (it is hard to make them be more accurate
>than they are...)...
They weren't very accurate at all compared to GPS-driven munitions.
We used to have lots of spare barrels , but I think they were finally
cut up when the BBs were decommed for the last time. Ammunition would
also be in very short supply and need new production facilities.
Besides all that, battleships have no mission.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Annie Keitz
>The proof is out there as I've seen various specialists discussing the
>archaeological records they've found. Scientists say the shift tends
>to occur every 3-5 hundred thousand years and the last one appears to
>have been over 700,000 years ago. So it does appear to be overdue,
>but no scientist claims to know when one might occur. They do say that
>the shift seems to go back and forth and may take hundreds of years to
>settle down.
I remember studying this issue in my Paleotonology course at VA Tech
-- they were fretting about this back in the mid-1980's too.
Merlin Dorfman
: "Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@rahul.net> wrote in message
: How so?
Andre has answered this just about perfectly. It's the knowledge
that has been lost--how to build big guns, how to build armor plate,
how to design shells (e.g., armor-piercing), how to build the shell
transport and loading mechanisms. The biggest guns the Navy has today
are 5", and I don't believe any bigger than that have been built in 50
years. Big guns are a whole different animal than those 5" pea
shooters--they have to withstand order-of-magnitude larger forces and
are built completely differently.
Now you might be better off designing a battleship completely
differently today--rocket boosted, GPS-guided ammunition, composite
armor, gas turbine or nuclear propulsion, etc.--but either way, you
need to develop the technology (and/or adapt it to new uses) and do
a complete design from scratch, as well as train people to produce
and maintain it. And either way it would cost you a lot more than
it did 60 years ago.
Likewise going to the moon. You either have to reconstitute a
lot of knowlege that was in the heads of people long moved on, or
retired, or dead; or you have to re-invent from scratch. Yes we have
much better computers but the software to do guidance and control of
a lunar flight does not exist for those computers, it has to be
developed from scratch (requirements, design, coding, many levels of
testing) and space-qualified. Andre discussed rocket propulsion.
Whether you re-create the Apollo vehicles or use the better
technology that is available today, it's a huge job and will cost more
than the Apollo program cost.
E.R.
"pretty damn far"
No, seriously, read the source documents - you don't need a math
degree to understand them, I promise.
http://www.isr.us/SEDownloads.asp?m=4
The Space Elevator Final report to NIAC
The NIAC Phase I Report: The technical result of the initial 6 month
study for NASA.
html version
http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/contents.html
~er
E.R.
> >
> > There are serious alternatives for building a 'space elevator' that
> > require neither a towwer nor asteroid. Use CNT material for the
> > cable, then extend that past GEO (way, way past GEO) for the
> > counterbalance.
> >
> > It _can_ be built today, all but the ribbon material. While that is a
> > big leap, the material is being made in the lab that is very close to
> > the strength needed.
> >
> > See the information at ISR's space elevator page for more info
> >
> > http://www.isr.us/SEHome.asp
>
> That is really cool...
>
> What would you make the cable out of?... I guess that is the $64,000
> question...
Carbon Nano-Tubes. And it's more like the $64,000,000 question.
> You could then build on the existing platform (of used booster rockets), and
> build a construction facility/space station for deploying craft...
You've got the idea. It will be dirt cheap (compared to Shuttle) to
send material 'up' the ribbon for assembly at GEO. As the man said
"once you're in orbit you're half-way to anywhere in the solar
system".
~er
Jonathan
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:h1d500df5bkorlnq2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:03:48 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved...
>
> There are no foundries in the US capable of making the turret
> exteriors.
Sure there are...
If you can build armor plate for Aircraft Carriers, you can build the turret
assemblies...
> We've lost a lot of steel-making capabilities since the
> 1940s. It's not that big a part of the economy any longer.
>
We have...
But Norway hasn't... and many other countries that produce most of the
world's shipping...
> the guns
> >have not changed in the slightest (it is hard to make them be more
accurate
> >than they are...)...
>
> They weren't very accurate at all compared to GPS-driven munitions.
>
What about Gulf War I? The accuracy was pretty frightening to me...
(however, they were using RPVs to adjust fire...)
> We used to have lots of spare barrels , but I think they were finally
> cut up when the BBs were decommed for the last time.
Check out the Missouri... a museum being kept in battle ready shape...
supposedly, provisions have been made for the ship, in case of recall...
> Ammunition would
> also be in very short supply and need new production facilities.
>
> Besides all that, battleships have no mission.
>
No, they don't... but they sure as hell are pretty...
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:h1d500df5bkorlnq2...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:03:48 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved...
>>
>> There are no foundries in the US capable of making the turret
>> exteriors.
>
>Sure there are...
Nope.
>If you can build armor plate for Aircraft Carriers, you can build the turret
>assemblies...
ACs aren't armored. Just normal thickness hull plating. Turrets were
cast; they weren't built-up. There's no foundry with a bed big enough.
The Navy looked at it after the USS Iowa accident.
>But Norway hasn't... and many other countries that produce most of the
>world's shipping...
We build ships too. We don't build any with 16 inch armor.
>> They weren't very accurate at all compared to GPS-driven munitions.
>>
>What about Gulf War I? The accuracy was pretty frightening to me...
>(however, they were using RPVs to adjust fire...)
Compared to 5 inch guns, or smart bombs, they're inaccurate.
>Check out the Missouri... a museum being kept in battle ready shape...
>supposedly, provisions have been made for the ship, in case of recall...
A nice PR effort, but not really. Theoretically, yes, reality, no.
Theoretically you could recommission a lot of ships, but economically
it would make no sense.
>> Ammunition would
>> also be in very short supply and need new production facilities.
>>
>> Besides all that, battleships have no mission.
>>
>
>No, they don't... but they sure as hell are pretty...
In the sense a Model-T is I suppose. I think a Burke-class heading to
sea with a bone in her teeth is far prettier since she has a mission.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
> In the sense a Model-T is I suppose. I think a Burke-class heading to
> sea with a bone in her teeth is far prettier since she has a mission.
>
So, what do you think of that idiotic missile platform thingie they are
planning?
http://www.cdi.org/issues/naval/arsenal.html
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Andre Lieven
> "Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:h1d500df5bkorlnq2...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:03:48 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved...
>>
>> There are no foundries in the US capable of making the turret
>> exteriors.
>
> Sure there are...
Wrong.
> If you can build armor plate for Aircraft Carriers, you can build the
> turret assemblies...
Wrong. The specifics of making each, are not trivially different.
>> We've lost a lot of steel-making capabilities since the
>> 1940s. It's not that big a part of the economy any longer.
>
> We have...
>
> But Norway hasn't... and many other countries that produce most of the
> world's shipping...
None of which carries 16 inch armour or guns...
>> the guns
>> >have not changed in the slightest (it is hard to make them be more
>> > accurate than they are...)...
>>
>> They weren't very accurate at all compared to GPS-driven munitions.
>
> What about Gulf War I? The accuracy was pretty frightening to me...
I would suggest that you read such works as Desert Storm at Sea;
What The Navy Really Did, by Martin Pokrant ( Second volume,
after Desert Shield at Sea ), you would see that they fired few
rounds, as most of the targets for them, were out of range. Consider
the resources involved in clearing mines, so that the battleships
could get near to the shore, and that modern destroyer guns can
outrange the 60 year old 16 inchers.
> (however, they were using RPVs to adjust fire...)
Indeed.
>> We used to have lots of spare barrels , but I think they were finally
>> cut up when the BBs were decommed for the last time.
>
> Check out the Missouri... a museum being kept in battle ready shape...
Wrong. Only Iowa and Wisconsin even remain on the lists. Missouri is
a museum in Hawaii, and new Jersey, the same, in Canden.
> supposedly, provisions have been made for the ship, in case of recall...
Wrong. You're on a roll here...
>> Ammunition would
>> also be in very short supply and need new production facilities.
>>
>> Besides all that, battleships have no mission.
>
> No, they don't... but they sure as hell are pretty...
Well, theres a compelling reason to tie up thousands of expensive
crewmen and billions of dollars...
<sarcasm mode off>
Andre Lieven
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:31:02 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>news:h1d500df5bkorlnq2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:03:48 GMT, "Jonathan"
>>> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved...
>>>
>>> There are no foundries in the US capable of making the turret
>>> exteriors.
>>
>>Sure there are...
>
> Nope.
>
>>If you can build armor plate for Aircraft Carriers, you can build the
>>turret assemblies...
>
> ACs
The US Navy designations for aircraft carriers start with CV, with
letters added on for specific types. So, a nuclear powered carrier
is a CVN. And, so on.
The term AC, in USN terminology, is an archaic one for Armoured
Cruiser, a ship type that ended by the end of the 1920s.
> aren't armored.
Well, there is some Kevlar...
> Just normal thickness hull plating. Turrets were
> cast; they weren't built-up. There's no foundry with a bed big enough.
> The Navy looked at it after the USS Iowa accident.
>
>>But Norway hasn't... and many other countries that produce most of the
>>world's shipping...
>
> We build ships too. We don't build any with 16 inch armor.
Indeed. No one does, because, against modern anti ship weapons,
passive armour on ships is near to useless, as, for one, it makes
the ships brittle, and easier to break apart, with a torpedo under
the keel shot.
>>> They weren't very accurate at all compared to GPS-driven munitions.
>>>
>>What about Gulf War I? The accuracy was pretty frightening to me...
>>(however, they were using RPVs to adjust fire...)
>
> Compared to 5 inch guns, or smart bombs, they're inaccurate.
Yep.
>>Check out the Missouri... a museum being kept in battle ready shape...
>>supposedly, provisions have been made for the ship, in case of recall...
>
> A nice PR effort, but not really. Theoretically, yes, reality, no.
> Theoretically you could recommission a lot of ships, but economically
> it would make no sense.
Never mind that, as the USN continues to become a nearly all gas
turbine propulsion navy ( Aside from nuclear subs, and carriers ),
the experience base, both in the department, and in crewing, to
manage old steam plants, is nearly all gone.
>>> Ammunition would
>>> also be in very short supply and need new production facilities.
>>>
>>> Besides all that, battleships have no mission.
>>
>>No, they don't... but they sure as hell are pretty...
>
> In the sense a Model-T is I suppose. I think a Burke-class heading to
> sea with a bone in her teeth is far prettier since she has a mission.
And, a capability with which to perform that mission...
Andre Lieven
> "Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:shc600t50f4250m76...@4ax.com...
>> In the sense a Model-T is I suppose. I think a Burke-class heading to
>> sea with a bone in her teeth is far prettier since she has a mission.
>
> So, what do you think of that idiotic missile platform thingie they are
> planning?
>
> http://www.cdi.org/issues/naval/arsenal.html
The Arsenal Ship was cancelled four years ago.
Do try to keep up with the millenium...
Georgiana Gates
>
> "Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
> news:40022C...@hal-pc.org...
> > the NASA complex was the largest computer complex in the world. That
> > was probably the equivalent of four or five PCs today.
>
> Try two, max...
>
> In all likelihood, you have more computing power on your desk than existed
> on planet Earth in 1960... and if you have a digital watch, you have more
> computing power than existed on Earth before 1950...
>
> The Apollo 11 guidance computer weighed 70 lbs, had 20 instructions, 16 bit
> words, 36K ROM words, 2K of RAM and ran at 2 Mhz...
>
> Your palm pilot would blow it away...
>
> Jonathan
high-tech, but was considered extremely miniaturized.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>> ACs
>
>The US Navy designations for aircraft carriers start with CV, with
>letters added on for specific types. So, a nuclear powered carrier
>is a CVN. And, so on.
Yes, I know. I didn't know if J. knew that. I was simply abbreviating
his line in my reply, not discussing CVNs, or even CVSes, CVAs, CVLs,
CVEs, or CVBs.
>> aren't armored.
>
>Well, there is some Kevlar...
Not the length of the hull plating.
>Never mind that, as the USN continues to become a nearly all gas
>turbine propulsion navy ( Aside from nuclear subs, and carriers ),
Which constitute about 25% of combatants. The seven Wasp-class LHDs
and the five Tarawa-class LHAs are also steam.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Andre Lieven
> On 13 Jan 2004 00:11:09 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>> ACs
>>
>>The US Navy designations for aircraft carriers start with CV, with
>>letters added on for specific types. So, a nuclear powered carrier
>>is a CVN. And, so on.
>
> Yes, I know. I didn't know if J. knew that. I was simply abbreviating
> his line in my reply, not discussing CVNs, or even CVSes, CVAs, CVLs,
> CVEs, or CVBs.
OK.
>>> aren't armored.
>>
>>Well, there is some Kevlar...
>
> Not the length of the hull plating.
The same could be said of most battleships...
>>Never mind that, as the USN continues to become a nearly all gas
>>turbine propulsion navy ( Aside from nuclear subs, and carriers ),
>
> Which constitute about 25% of combatants.
Do you mean the nukes ? If you include the nukes and the gas
turbines, then you have no actual combattants with other
propulsion systems.
> The seven Wasp-class LHDs
> and the five Tarawa-class LHAs are also steam.
Rather more modern systems than in the 60+ year old Iowas...
And, the Tarawas aren't long for the world...
Transition Zone
> "Jonathan" (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) writes:
> > "Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
> > news:h1d500df5bkorlnq2...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:03:48 GMT, "Jonathan"
> >> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved...
> >>
> >> There are no foundries in the US capable of making the turret
> >> exteriors.
> >
> > Sure there are...
>
> Wrong.
I think you mean to say that its how you mold turret exteriors that
would make it currently not timely available. Not just a simple
apparent mold.
> > If you can build armor plate for Aircraft Carriers, you can build the
> > turret assemblies...
>
> Wrong. The specifics of making each, are not trivially different.
More specifically, tests to ensure that the assemblies are actually
armor effective. Because if they aren't, there won't be a contract.
> >> We've lost a lot of steel-making capabilities since the
> >> 1940s. It's not that big a part of the economy any longer.
> >
> > We have...
> >
> > But Norway hasn't... and many other countries that produce most of the
> > world's shipping...
>
> None of which carries 16 inch armour or guns...
>
> >> the guns
> >> >have not changed in the slightest (it is hard to make them be more
> >> > accurate than they are...)...
> >>
> >> They weren't very accurate at all compared to GPS-driven munitions.
> >
> > What about Gulf War I? The accuracy was pretty frightening to me...
>
> I would suggest that you read such works as Desert Storm at Sea;
> What The Navy Really Did, by Martin Pokrant ( Second volume,
> after Desert Shield at Sea ), you would see that they fired few
> rounds, as most of the targets for them, were out of range. Consider
> the resources involved in clearing mines, so that the battleships
> could get near to the shore, and that modern destroyer guns can
> outrange the 60 year old 16 inchers.
Also consider that other weapons would be used before such guns.
> > (however, they were using RPVs to adjust fire...)
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> We used to have lots of spare barrels , but I think they were finally
> >> cut up when the BBs were decommed for the last time.
> >
> > Check out the Missouri... a museum being kept in battle ready shape...
>
> Wrong. Only Iowa and Wisconsin even remain on the lists. Missouri is
> a museum in Hawaii, and new Jersey, the same, in Canden.
Try apparent battle-ready shape.
> > supposedly, provisions have been made for the ship, in case of recall...
>
> Wrong. You're on a roll here...
Uphill or back downhill ??
> >> Ammunition would
> >> also be in very short supply and need new production facilities.
> >>
> >> Besides all that, battleships have no mission.
> >
> > No, they don't... but they sure as hell are pretty...
>
> Well, theres a compelling reason to tie up thousands of expensive
> crewmen and billions of dollars...
Just not a compelling reason among democrats. But with all this talk
of Dean support, I wonder if that won't change.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>>>Never mind that, as the USN continues to become a nearly all gas
>>>turbine propulsion navy ( Aside from nuclear subs, and carriers ),
>>
>> Which constitute about 25% of combatants.
>
>Do you mean the nukes ? If you include the nukes and the gas
>turbines, then you have no actual combattants with other
>propulsion systems.
No, I mean about 25% of the combatants are steam-powered, and will
continue to be. There's no important difference between an oil-fired
steam plant and a nuke except how they make steam.
>> The seven Wasp-class LHDs
>> and the five Tarawa-class LHAs are also steam.
>
>Rather more modern systems than in the 60+ year old Iowas...
Not really in any important way. Better materials and safety devices.
But a boiler is a boiler.
>And, the Tarawas aren't long for the world...
We'll see. I think our coming forward strategy with the Army splitting
up into lots of little bases and abandoning Germany will put more
pressure on the Corps to be more places.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Andre Lieven
> On 13 Jan 2004 05:28:15 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>>>Never mind that, as the USN continues to become a nearly all gas
>>>>turbine propulsion navy ( Aside from nuclear subs, and carriers ),
>>>
>>> Which constitute about 25% of combatants.
>>
>>Do you mean the nukes ? If you include the nukes and the gas
>>turbines, then you have no actual combattants with other
>>propulsion systems.
>
> No, I mean about 25% of the combatants are steam-powered, and will
> continue to be. There's no important difference between an oil-fired
> steam plant and a nuke except how they make steam.
In *theory*, no. In practice, theres a world of difference between
a modern and nearly new nuke plant, and a 65 year old steam plant,
which needs a larger Black Gang than the whole crew of a 688 boat.
>>> The seven Wasp-class LHDs
>>> and the five Tarawa-class LHAs are also steam.
>>
>>Rather more modern systems than in the 60+ year old Iowas...
>
> Not really in any important way. Better materials and safety devices.
> But a boiler is a boiler.
Again, indeed. Now, use a new tea pot, and a WW2 veteran...
Not quite the same thing...
>>And, the Tarawas aren't long for the world...
>
> We'll see. I think our coming forward strategy with the Army splitting
> up into lots of little bases and abandoning Germany will put more
> pressure on the Corps to be more places.
Thats why more Wasp class ships are on order, and projected. The
Tarawas are approaching 30 years of age, and thats near to the
effective age limit of such ships being cost effective and
maintainable to use.
Andre Lieven
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<btvcoj$2s$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> "Jonathan" (jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com) writes:
>> > "Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
>> > news:h1d500df5bkorlnq2...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:03:48 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> >> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The basic steelworking has, if anything, been vastly improved...
>> >>
>> >> There are no foundries in the US capable of making the turret
>> >> exteriors.
>> >
>> > Sure there are...
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> I think you mean to say that its how you mold turret exteriors that
> would make it currently not timely available. Not just a simple
> apparent mold.
Well, no US factory is able to make turrets for battleships, either.
The same for the thick armour...
>> > If you can build armor plate for Aircraft Carriers, you can build the
>> > turret assemblies...
>>
>> Wrong. The specifics of making each, are not trivially different.
>
> More specifically, tests to ensure that the assemblies are actually
> armor effective. Because if they aren't, there won't be a contract.
Indeed.
>> >> We've lost a lot of steel-making capabilities since the
>> >> 1940s. It's not that big a part of the economy any longer.
>> >
>> > We have...
>> >
>> > But Norway hasn't... and many other countries that produce most of the
>> > world's shipping...
>>
>> None of which carries 16 inch armour or guns...
>>
>> >> the guns
>> >> >have not changed in the slightest (it is hard to make them be more
>> >> > accurate than they are...)...
>> >>
>> >> They weren't very accurate at all compared to GPS-driven munitions.
>> >
>> > What about Gulf War I? The accuracy was pretty frightening to me...
>>
>> I would suggest that you read such works as Desert Storm at Sea;
>> What The Navy Really Did, by Martin Pokrant ( Second volume,
>> after Desert Shield at Sea ), you would see that they fired few
>> rounds, as most of the targets for them, were out of range. Consider
>> the resources involved in clearing mines, so that the battleships
>> could get near to the shore, and that modern destroyer guns can
>> outrange the 60 year old 16 inchers.
>
> Also consider that other weapons would be used before such guns.
Indeed. Burke and Ticonderoga class destroyers and cruisers already
provide such far more useful weapons, and are available *in sufficient
numbers, while being numerically affordable*, that they can be in far
more places than any quartet of " super ships ".
>> > (however, they were using RPVs to adjust fire...)
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> >> We used to have lots of spare barrels , but I think they were finally
>> >> cut up when the BBs were decommed for the last time.
>> >
>> > Check out the Missouri... a museum being kept in battle ready shape...
>>
>> Wrong. Only Iowa and Wisconsin even remain on the lists. Missouri is
>> a museum in Hawaii, and new Jersey, the same, in Canden.
>
> Try apparent battle-ready shape.
Appearances can be very decieving... None of those ships would be battle
ready in under a year, and tens of millions of dollars.
>> > supposedly, provisions have been made for the ship, in case of recall...
>>
>> Wrong. You're on a roll here...
>
> Uphill or back downhill ??
Down... to Error land...
>> >> Ammunition would
>> >> also be in very short supply and need new production facilities.
>> >>
>> >> Besides all that, battleships have no mission.
>> >
>> > No, they don't... but they sure as hell are pretty...
>>
>> Well, theres a compelling reason to tie up thousands of expensive
>> crewmen and billions of dollars...
>
> Just not a compelling reason among democrats. But with all this talk
> of Dean support, I wonder if that won't change.
Party politics doesn't enter into it. Those ships are simply...
obsolete. In every way.
Fred the Red Shirt
> > it cost in the 60s, because we have lost the technology. (Just as it
> > would cost more to build a battleship today than it did in the 40s.)
> >
>
> How so?
>
> have not changed in the slightest (it is hard to make them be more accurate
> than they are...)...
Regardless, there is no reason to build a Battleship today.
>
> I think you could build a Saturn V with off-the-shelf components now (back
> in the 1960s, everything had to be designed, fabricated and tested from
> scratch...)...
There are virtually no off-the-shelf components for Saturn V's today as
they would be pretty much obsolete. Building a Saturn V today would
be like building a replica of a Brewster Buffalo, only a lot more
expensive, though with better plans. The drawings for the Saturn V
were microfilmed and archived, the originals were destroyed to save
space. Too bad, NASA could have sold original drawings as souvenirs
to raise money.
While the second stage fo the Saturn V was itself very efficient the
STS main engines are the most efficient rocket engines ever built and
would be the obvious jumping off point for another heavy launch vehicle.
The STS main engines with two or four more strapon boosters could serve
as the basis for a new moon rocket. But it won't happen.
--
FF
Jonathan
"Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ef427f7c.04011...@posting.google.com...
> The STS main engines with two or four more strapon boosters could serve
> as the basis for a new moon rocket. But it won't happen.
>
I actually don't think redoing what we did is the answer here...
But after hearing the cold reaction this is getting from Congress, this
seems remarkably unlikely...
Jonathan
> --
>
> FF
Transition Zone
I can see how this could happen if a meteor or comet hits; knocking it
out
of orbit or proper rotation. I do not welcome, but often wonder when
our next due date is.
"Earth is bombarded by 500,000 visible meteors-and three to four
10-pound meteors-every day. A five-ton meteor hits the Earth's
atmosphere each month, a 50-ton meteor hits every 30 years, a 250-ton
meteor every 150 years, and a 50,000-ton one every 100,000 years. "
Auzerais310
> getting from Congress, this seems
> remarkably unlikely...
If those rabid Bush-haters at Salon are to be figured in, it's going to
be f-king hopeless. LOL
[from today's 01/13 WSJ.com/Best--]
Salon's Joe Conason, meanwhile, offers the nutty theory that President
Bush's idea of a manned mission to Mars is--we're not making this
up--about oil, and specifically that Halliburton is eager to drill on
Mars. We wouldn't be surprised if Clark picks this up in the next week
or two.
viz http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/01/12/mars/index_np.html
Oil.....on Mars?!
So wha' happened to the martian dinosaurs, Joe? Wes? Another Bush
cabal plot?
Jonathan
"Auzerais310" <Auze...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19630-40...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
Actually oil is from decayed plants, not animals... (IIRC)...
However, the idea that this is about oil is a bit preposterous to me...
I think it is about optimism... about not being satisfied with the current
minimalistic space program we have now... about reaching for something
more...
Why Mars?
Because it is what's next.
Jonathan
David Johnston
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oil.....on Mars?!
>> So wha' happened to the martian dinosaurs, Joe? Wes? Another Bush
>> cabal plot?
>>
>
>Actually oil is from decayed plants, not animals... (IIRC)...
>
>However, the idea that this is about oil is a bit preposterous to me...
Sounds like a joke to me .
Brent McKee
"Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ef427f7c.04011...@posting.google.com...
Of course the big question is whether the Saturn V was ever the most
efficient way to go to the Moon. Certainly it is possible to argue
that for what is being proposed by President Bush it is impossibly
_inefficient_. The Apollo program threw away a great deal to get a
(comparatively) small cargo into orbit, and that doesn't even mention
getting that cargo to the Moon. I don't think that you could take
more people and equipment to the Moon for longer stays with a program
that uses the Launch -- Orbit Earth -- Transit to the Moon -- Orbit
the Moon -- land with a disposable LEM -- Return to Earth system.
Something like Launch to Earth orbit -- Transfer to a single
permanently orbiting Earth-Moon Transport vehicle -- Transit to the
Moon -- Land with a reusable LEM -- Return to Earth orbit -- Transfer
to a landing vehicle system might be (and have been) the better
alternative.
--
Brent McKee
To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from
the email address
"If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly,
in one which is infinitely worse."
- Margaret Atwood
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more
constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of
openness to novelty. "
- Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>In *theory*, no. In practice, theres a world of difference between
>a modern and nearly new nuke plant, and a 65 year old steam plant,
>which needs a larger Black Gang than the whole crew of a 688 boat.
>
Except the BBs plants aren't 65-YO. They were modernized in a very
extensive way in the 80s. Go over to s.m.n. There's at least one guy
who worked on them.
And I'm again not talking about the steam-makers, but rather the
engine rooms. I've been in submarine ERs and I've been in 1960s era
600-lb oil ERs. I've also been in subs designed in the late 50s and
688 ERs. Almost no difference except layout. Subs and BBs are very
similar in most respects except size. The concepts are the same. A
lube oil pump is a lube oil pump.
>Thats why more Wasp class ships are on order, and projected. The
>Tarawas are approaching 30 years of age, and thats near to the
>effective age limit of such ships being cost effective and
>maintainable to use.
The limit on warship life is hull condition. SLEPs take care of
everything else. CVs are 40-years plus now. The Tarawas may not be
SLEPed, but for money, not because it's impossible.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Andre Lieven
> On 13 Jan 2004 20:18:04 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>In *theory*, no. In practice, theres a world of difference between
>>a modern and nearly new nuke plant, and a 65 year old steam plant,
>>which needs a larger Black Gang than the whole crew of a 688 boat.
>>
> Except the BBs plants aren't 65-YO. They were modernized in a very
> extensive way in the 80s. Go over to s.m.n. There's at least one guy
> who worked on them.
And yet, they are still the only such plants in the fleet, of that
vintage, meaning, among other things, that a modern plant is more
efficient, and requires a smaller Black Gang.
At a time when manpower is crucial, and one spec for DD(X) is/was
a crew of under 100, this is a non trivial point.
And, the modernisations are now themselves up to 20 years old.
> And I'm again not talking about the steam-makers, but rather the
> engine rooms. I've been in submarine ERs and I've been in 1960s era
> 600-lb oil ERs. I've also been in subs designed in the late 50s and
> 688 ERs. Almost no difference except layout. Subs and BBs are very
> similar in most respects except size. The concepts are the same. A
> lube oil pump is a lube oil pump.
Yet, a BB ER still requires more people than the whole crew of a
688 boat...
>>Thats why more Wasp class ships are on order, and projected. The
>>Tarawas are approaching 30 years of age, and thats near to the
>>effective age limit of such ships being cost effective and
>>maintainable to use.
>
> The limit on warship life is hull condition. SLEPs take care of
> everything else. CVs are 40-years plus now. The Tarawas may not be
> SLEPed, but for money, not because it's impossible.
What I've heard on smn is that the Tarawas are approaching the end of
their effective lives, not only in machinery.
Annie Keitz
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think it is about optimism... about not being satisfied with the current
>minimalistic space program we have now... about reaching for something
>more...
>
>Why Mars?
>
>Because it is what's next.
I think it's more about gaining votes on Florida's Space Coast next
fall....
Fred the Red Shirt
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:ef427f7c.04011...@posting.google.com...
>
> I don't [Are you sure you meant to write 'don't here?]
> think that you could take
> more people and equipment to the Moon for longer stays with a program
> that uses the Launch -- Orbit Earth -- Transit to the Moon -- Orbit
> the Moon -- land with a disposable LEM -- Return to Earth system.
> Something like Launch to Earth orbit -- Transfer to a single
> permanently orbiting Earth-Moon Transport vehicle -- Transit to the
> Moon -- Land with a reusable LEM -- Return to Earth orbit -- Transfer
> to a landing vehicle system might be (and have been) the better
> alternative.
>
I've read that Von Braun's vision for a NASA called for a permanently
manned space station followed by lunar exploration followed by lunar
colonization. JFK rejected that long-term plan in favor of what
became the Apollo program. Some argue that this decision set NASA
back by ten years, it seems that maybe it was more like 30.
I'm not in a position to elaborate on the specifics but my recollection
is that immediate reenty upon return to the Earth from the Moon requires
a lot less energy than parking in a stable Earth Orbit upon return
so that a re-usable Earth-orbit to Moon-orbit shuttle is very inefficient
from an energy (and therfor fuel) standpoint.
--
FF
Merlin Dorfman
...
: > We used to have lots of spare barrels , but I think they were finally
: > cut up when the BBs were decommed for the last time.
: Check out the Missouri... a museum being kept in battle ready shape...
: supposedly, provisions have been made for the ship, in case of recall...
No, that's the Wisconsin. The Missouri has been demilitarized.
Andre Lieven
Indeed. The point should also be made, that no weapons systems aboard the
BBs are in use on any other USN ships.
The closest system would be the Phalanx CIWS mounts, with the BBs
cacrrying older models, which have been superceeded in USN service
by updated versions.
But, the armoured box launchers for the TLAMs aboard the BBs are
obsolete, and not in any naval service anywhere. The same for both
the main and secondary guns aboard the battleships.
So, an attempt to bring them back into service would involve
trying to re-introduce weapons that the USN doesn't use anymore,
back in.
Not likely.
BSchorr
> What The Navy Really Did, by Martin Pokrant ( Second volume,
> after Desert Shield at Sea ), you would see that they fired few
> rounds, as most of the targets for them, were out of range. Consider
> the resources involved in clearing mines, so that the battleships
> could get near to the shore, and that modern destroyer guns can
> outrange the 60 year old 16 inchers.
Two comments:
1. I guess it depends upon your definition of "few". <a
href=http://home.hawaii.rr.com/schorr/Politics/MightyMoFAQ.htm>USS
Missouri </a>fired a bit over 750 rounds of 16" ammunition, plus 28
Tomahawk missiles in Desert Storm.
2. USS Missouri carred an explosives team on board for clearing mines
and cleared 10 herself. I don't know what percentage of the total
mine count that represents.
I'm not familiar with USS Wisconsin's contribution in Desert Storm but
I'd be surprised if it wasn't roughly comparable.
Andre Lieven
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<btvcoj$2s$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> I would suggest that you read such works as Desert Storm at Sea;
>> What The Navy Really Did, by Martin Pokrant ( Second volume,
>> after Desert Shield at Sea ), you would see that they fired few
>> rounds, as most of the targets for them, were out of range. Consider
>> the resources involved in clearing mines, so that the battleships
>> could get near to the shore, and that modern destroyer guns can
>> outrange the 60 year old 16 inchers.
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1. I guess it depends upon your definition of "few". <a
> href=http://home.hawaii.rr.com/schorr/Politics/MightyMoFAQ.htm>USS
> Missouri </a>fired a bit over 750 rounds of 16" ammunition, plus 28
> Tomahawk missiles in Desert Storm.
Well, the book lists major shoots where under 20 shells were fired...
> 2. USS Missouri carred an explosives team on board for clearing mines
> and cleared 10 herself. I don't know what percentage of the total
> mine count that represents.
Low.
> I'm not familiar with USS Wisconsin's contribution in Desert Storm but
> I'd be surprised if it wasn't roughly comparable.
Why ? Is it not possoble that the two ships might have been used in
non identical manners ?
HMS Exeter shot down a Silkworm, during DS. Does that mean that all
RN Type 42 DDGs also had to have done so ?
Point remains, the BBs were moderately useful, *then*, because back
in 1991, relatively few USN warships had Mk 41 VLS systems, from
which to fire cruise missiles ( T-LAMs ).
These days, most USN warships have Mk 41, and can easily carry,
in a more economical ship to operate ( Fuel, crew, etc. ) *more*
missiles than the BBs used to carry.
A Burke class DDG can load out 90 T-LAMs. A BB only was able to
carry 32. I can figure out from that which I'd rather have.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>And yet, they are still the only such plants in the fleet, of that
>vintage, meaning, among other things, that a modern plant is more
>efficient, and requires a smaller Black Gang.
One--nobody in the USN calls them the Black Gang. They're snipes.
Two--the issue was whether we could operate them. We could. Could we
do it as efficiently as some other classes? No. But the BBs are not so
different as you seem to think. They have steam-powered auxiliary
systems. So do CVs. They have lots of local readings rather than
remote. So do CVs.
Most of the personnel in the Engineering Department don't work on
propulsion either. They work on aux. systems, electrical systems,
internal comms, and damage control. BBs take a lot of bodies because
they're big, not because they're more complex. The Engineering
Department of a CVN is on the order of 800 men and women not because
of propulsion but because they have extensive damage control,
electric, and auxiliary (A/C, air, hydraulics, arresting gear, food
service, plumbing) systems that need a lot of hands-on. Main
propulsion crews haven't changed a whole lot since WWII. With CVN21
they will, but mostly in RC Division. What's gained in fewer steam
auxiliaries will be lost in the need for more electricians.
>At a time when manpower is crucial, and one spec for DD(X) is/was
>a crew of under 100, this is a non trivial point.
And that spec is highly suspect and not expected to actually work by
lots of people who've actually gone to sea. Regardless, you'll never
get that kind of scaled reduction with any steam plant.
>Yet, a BB ER still requires more people than the whole crew of a
>688 boat...
Because of size, not complexity. A 688 has one screw, one reactor, and
two main engines. Of course it takes fewer people. Compare BB needs
to carriers if you want a fair comparison.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Andre Lieven
> On 14 Jan 2004 15:01:22 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>And yet, they are still the only such plants in the fleet, of that
>>vintage, meaning, among other things, that a modern plant is more
>>efficient, and requires a smaller Black Gang.
>
> One--nobody in the USN calls them the Black Gang. They're snipes.
So I used not exclusively USN terms. Sue me.
> Two--the issue was whether we could operate them.
Wrong. The actual topic was, *can the US ( Or, anyone ) currently
*build them*...
And, the answer to that is... no.
> We could. Could we
> do it as efficiently as some other classes? No. But the BBs are not so
> different as you seem to think. They have steam-powered auxiliary
> systems. So do CVs. They have lots of local readings rather than
> remote. So do CVs.
Which CV/CVN has sixty five year old machinery ?
> Most of the personnel in the Engineering Department don't work on
> propulsion either. They work on aux. systems, electrical systems,
> internal comms, and damage control. BBs take a lot of bodies because
> they're big, not because they're more complex.
I never said, or intimated that they're complex. Quite the opposite,
in fact. Their archaic technology requires far more manning than
is standard with more modern ships.
> The Engineering
> Department of a CVN is on the order of 800 men and women not because
> of propulsion but because they have extensive damage control,
> electric, and auxiliary (A/C, air, hydraulics, arresting gear, food
> service, plumbing) systems that need a lot of hands-on. Main
> propulsion crews haven't changed a whole lot since WWII. With CVN21
> they will, but mostly in RC Division. What's gained in fewer steam
> auxiliaries will be lost in the need for more electricians.
And, the requirements of looking after a modern nuke plant do
differ from maintaining a 65 year old non-nuke steam plant...
>>At a time when manpower is crucial, and one spec for DD(X) is/was
>>a crew of under 100, this is a non trivial point.
>
> And that spec is highly suspect and not expected to actually work by
> lots of people who've actually gone to sea. Regardless, you'll never
> get that kind of scaled reduction with any steam plant.
Note that I wrote " *one* spec *was* ".
I didn't say that it was going to met, in production ships. I
merely used it to show that the USN considers manning to be a
crucial issue.
>>Yet, a BB ER still requires more people than the whole crew of a
>>688 boat...
>
> Because of size, not complexity. A 688 has one screw, one reactor, and
> two main engines. Of course it takes fewer people. Compare BB needs
> to carriers if you want a fair comparison.
That only further goes to show the non utility of a BB, then...
Which can strike targets 100 km inland ?
Uh huh.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>> Two--the issue was whether we could operate them.
>
>Wrong. The actual topic was, *can the US ( Or, anyone ) currently
>*build them*...
I'm speaking of engineering plants here. Yes, we could build a BB
plant. Yes, we could operate it. Yes, we could make an existing plant
work. Yes, we could operate it.
>Which CV/CVN has sixty five year old machinery ?
None. But Kitty Hawk is 1963 I think, designed in the mid-50s.
Preliminary plans for Nimitz were done in the late-50s for that
matter. Incremental advancements have been achieved all through the
Nimitz-class production, and USS Bush is somewhat different than, say,
Stennis, but I think you overestimate how fast naval propulsion
technology changes. Have you ever been in a USN ER, or are you getting
all this from books?
>> Most of the personnel in the Engineering Department don't work on
>> propulsion either. They work on aux. systems, electrical systems,
>> internal comms, and damage control. BBs take a lot of bodies because
>> they're big, not because they're more complex.
>
>I never said, or intimated that they're complex. Quite the opposite,
>in fact. Their archaic technology requires far more manning than
>is standard with more modern ships.
Except, again, it doesn't. It requires more than a GT plant, sure, but
not a lot different than a similar-sized plant in a CV, which I've
been saying all along. The Engineering Department on a CVN is more
than half the size of the total crew of a BB. It's a function of
non-propulsion needs.
>And, the requirements of looking after a modern nuke plant do
>differ from maintaining a 65 year old non-nuke steam plant...
Sigh. Last time. They're not "65-YO." They were totally overhauled in
the 80s. And maintenance is a function of time out of overhaul, not
time since build. A "new" ship eight years from the yards is patched
together to a much greater extent than the BBs were in the mid-80s.
>I didn't say that it was going to met, in production ships. I
>merely used it to show that the USN considers manning to be a
>crucial issue.
Of course it is. We don't have a draft. The CVN21 is supposed to take
manning from 3100 to about 2400, maybe as low as 2100. Some of those
will be engineers, but a lot of them will be cooks and ordnance
handlers. Did you know that about 1 in 10 crew members on a carrier is
a cook? And better design and materials-handling equipment will
severely reduce the need for grunt labor to pull bombs around.
>> Because of size, not complexity. A 688 has one screw, one reactor, and
>> two main engines. Of course it takes fewer people. Compare BB needs
>> to carriers if you want a fair comparison.
>
>That only further goes to show the non utility of a BB, then...
>
>Which can strike targets 100 km inland ?
>
>Uh huh.
I've never said we should reactivate them .This whole exchange was
motivated by your implying their plants were somehow extraordinarily
difficult to operate and maintain.
Steve
Andre Lieven
> On 15 Jan 2004 00:18:38 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>> Two--the issue was whether we could operate them.
>>
>>Wrong. The actual topic was, *can the US ( Or, anyone ) currently
>>*build them*...
>
> I'm speaking of engineering plants here. Yes, we could build a BB
> plant. Yes, we could operate it. Yes, we could make an existing plant
> work. Yes, we could operate it.
Not " off the shelf ". Just as it is with Saturn V...
>>Which CV/CVN has sixty five year old machinery ?
>
> None. But Kitty Hawk is 1963 I think, designed in the mid-50s.
Non sequitur. The Iowas were designed in 1938 ( almost 20 years
prior to Kitty Hawk ), and were all completed by 1944, again nearly
20 years prior to Kitty Hawk.
You keep trying to compare the not comparable...
> Preliminary plans for Nimitz were done in the late-50s for that
> matter.
LOL ! Thats for the eight small reactor Enterprise... The Nimitz
design is post the time of Big E commissioning, which was in 1961.
Nice try, but no cigar...
> Incremental advancements have been achieved all through the
> Nimitz-class production, and USS Bush is somewhat different than, say,
> Stennis, but I think you overestimate how fast naval propulsion
> technology changes. Have you ever been in a USN ER, or are you getting
> all this from books?
And, from people who *build* such ships, over on smn.
>>> Most of the personnel in the Engineering Department don't work on
>>> propulsion either. They work on aux. systems, electrical systems,
>>> internal comms, and damage control. BBs take a lot of bodies because
>>> they're big, not because they're more complex.
>>
>>I never said, or intimated that they're complex. Quite the opposite,
>>in fact. Their archaic technology requires far more manning than
>>is standard with more modern ships.
>
> Except, again, it doesn't. It requires more than a GT plant, sure, but
> not a lot different than a similar-sized plant in a CV, which I've
> been saying all along. The Engineering Department on a CVN is more
> than half the size of the total crew of a BB. It's a function of
> non-propulsion needs.
Again, show me the operational CV whose plant is 65 years old...
>>And, the requirements of looking after a modern nuke plant do
>>differ from maintaining a 65 year old non-nuke steam plant...
>
> Sigh. Last time. They're not "65-YO." They were totally overhauled in
> the 80s. And maintenance is a function of time out of overhaul, not
> time since build. A "new" ship eight years from the yards is patched
> together to a much greater extent than the BBs were in the mid-80s.
LOL ! So thats why the work needed to commission the BBs went into
the hunderds of millions of dollars...
Uh huh.
>>I didn't say that it was going to met, in production ships. I
>>merely used it to show that the USN considers manning to be a
>>crucial issue.
>
> Of course it is. We don't have a draft. The CVN21 is supposed to take
> manning from 3100 to about 2400, maybe as low as 2100. Some of those
> will be engineers, but a lot of them will be cooks and ordnance
> handlers. Did you know that about 1 in 10 crew members on a carrier is
> a cook? And better design and materials-handling equipment will
> severely reduce the need for grunt labor to pull bombs around.
You also left out the air wing's personnel....
>>> Because of size, not complexity. A 688 has one screw, one reactor, and
>>> two main engines. Of course it takes fewer people. Compare BB needs
>>> to carriers if you want a fair comparison.
>>
>>That only further goes to show the non utility of a BB, then...
>>
>>Which can strike targets 100 km inland ?
>>
>>Uh huh.
>
> I've never said we should reactivate them .This whole exchange was
> motivated by your implying their plants were somehow extraordinarily
> difficult to operate and maintain.
Wrong. I stated that they were anachronistic, old, not useful,
and thus, not worth the massive effort it would involve, to get
such marginal ships back out to sea, even if the USN could afford
the fiscal and manpower costs, which they can't.
Nice try to get my point changed to what you wanted it to be...
But, no cigar...
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>>>Which CV/CVN has sixty five year old machinery ?
>>
>> None. But Kitty Hawk is 1963 I think, designed in the mid-50s.
Actually 1961. I looked it up. Laid down in 1956. I'd guess final
plans were in the 1953 time-frame making her essentially a WWII-era
engineering design.
>Non sequitur. The Iowas were designed in 1938 ( almost 20 years
>prior to Kitty Hawk ),
No, see above.
and were all completed by 1944, again nearly
>20 years prior to Kitty Hawk.
And any snipe from USS Iowa could walk into Kitty Hawk's ER and feel
right at home. But that doesn't matter much because both were
extensively modified since their commissioning, a point I've made
several times.
>> Preliminary plans for Nimitz were done in the late-50s for that
>> matter.
>
>LOL ! Thats for the eight small reactor Enterprise... The Nimitz
>design is post the time of Big E commissioning, which was in 1961.
>
>Nice try, but no cigar...
"CVN 21 will reflect the first major changes in carrier design since
work began on the USS Nimitz, almost half a century ago, Dwyer told
reporters. The Nimitz, CVN 68, was deployed in 1975, but work on her
began much earlier, he said.
“Actually, the early design for the Nimitz was done in the late
1950s,” Dwyer said. “If you take the time period between Nimitiz and
CVN-21, it’s the same time period between [the USS] Langley—the first
carrier—and Nimitz.” The Langley, CV 1, was commissioned in 1922.
“You can see the challenge,” Dwyer said. “If anybody’s got to go
design a new carrier, I’m glad I’m the one.”"
Rear Adm. Dennis M. Dwyer, the Navy’s program executive officer for
aircraft carriers.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1109
>And, from people who *build* such ships, over on smn.
Well, I've been participating in s.m.n for ten years, so I know them
too. But I've also been in several classes of ER at sea as well.
>> Except, again, it doesn't. It requires more than a GT plant, sure, but
>> not a lot different than a similar-sized plant in a CV, which I've
>> been saying all along. The Engineering Department on a CVN is more
>> than half the size of the total crew of a BB. It's a function of
>> non-propulsion needs.
>
>Again, show me the operational CV whose plant is 65 years old...
To quote, "non sequitur".
>> Sigh. Last time. They're not "65-YO." They were totally overhauled in
>> the 80s. And maintenance is a function of time out of overhaul, not
>> time since build. A "new" ship eight years from the yards is patched
>> together to a much greater extent than the BBs were in the mid-80s.
>
>LOL ! So thats why the work needed to commission the BBs went into
>the hunderds of millions of dollars...
>
>Uh huh.
Can you read dates? In the mid-80s the BB's plants were like-new.
After those dollars. They were in far better material shape than, say,
USS America, which barely made it to thirty years before being
decommed.
>You also left out the air wing's personnel....
Because they have nothing to do with ship's company. In the future air
wing size will also plummet, but that has no bearing on engineering
staffing.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Ben M. Schorr
news:bu4as4$rsp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >> What The Navy Really Did, by Martin Pokrant ( Second volume,
> >> after Desert Shield at Sea ), you would see that they fired few
> >> rounds, as most of the targets for them, were out of range. Consider
> >> the resources involved in clearing mines, so that the battleships
> >> could get near to the shore, and that modern destroyer guns can
> >> outrange the 60 year old 16 inchers.
> > Two comments:
> >
> > 1. I guess it depends upon your definition of "few". <a
> > href=http://home.hawaii.rr.com/schorr/Politics/MightyMoFAQ.htm>USS
> > Missouri </a>fired a bit over 750 rounds of 16" ammunition, plus 28
> > Tomahawk missiles in Desert Storm.
>
> Well, the book lists major shoots where under 20 shells were fired...
That's fine, but doesn't change the fact that we fired over 750 rounds of
16" ammunition plus 28 Tomahawks (which I believe constituted about 10% of
the total Tomahawks fired)
> > I'm not familiar with USS Wisconsin's contribution in Desert Storm but
> > I'd be surprised if it wasn't roughly comparable.
> Why ? Is it not possoble that the two ships might have been used in
> non identical manners ?
It is possible, but my understanding is that USS Wisconsin undertook roughly
similar missions to ours. In fact a quick check reveals that USS Wisconsin
fired 24 Tomahawks and 528 16" rounds
> HMS Exeter shot down a Silkworm, during DS. Does that mean that all
> RN Type 42 DDGs also had to have done so ?
Actually I believe it was HMS Gloucester who shot down the Silkworm (for
which we were appreciative) and no, of course that doesn't mean all RN ships
did the same.
> These days, most USN warships have Mk 41, and can easily carry,
> in a more economical ship to operate ( Fuel, crew, etc. ) *more*
> missiles than the BBs used to carry.
No argument from me on that, just want to make sure we have the story
straight.
--
Aloha,
-Ben-
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/schorr
The Da Vinci Code:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385504209/benseverythpages
Fred the Red Shirt
It's about drilling on Mars. NOT drilling for OIL on Mars.
One would drill on Mars for water and to sample and possible living
organisms.
--
FF