YOU can come up with a better way to the Moon.

Robert Mosley III of Austin Texas, USA wrote:

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:57:23 -0500, kT wrote:

Point us to your science and technology policy white papers.

We know where you keep yours. Which surprises everyone in the fact
that an inbred like you knows what toilet paper is and how to use it.

Just goes to show you that you can train a monkey to do simple
tricks...

Robert Mosley III of Austin Texas, USA

Usenet Archive Bump.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Monte Davis wrote:
And as I've noted before, Ron Davies of the Smithsonian (formerly an
economist and route analyst for airlines) makes a compelling case that
2- to 4- hour trans-oceanic flights are a poor fit for typical
business hours at one or both ends of most busy routes... and a really
lousy fit for passengers' jet lag.

Much as some would like to believe we don't have fleets of SSTs solely
because of "enviro nutters," the main reason -- sonic booms aside --
is that supersonic drag/aerodynamics/heating sends development costs,
maufacturing costs, and eventually fuel costs through the roof, and so
far not enough passengers have wanted to save a few hours badly enough
to pay for it.

A (in hindsight) pretty hilarious article about how the Concorde was
going to allow people to commute to their jobs on another continent:
http://www.concordesst.com/history/eh6.html

Paraphrasing = "What th subsonic jets did for the transatlantic run, the
Concorde will do for the transpacific run".
Well - that is, if a 707 would fly halfway out and then ditch.
Concorde was barely capable of London/Paris to NYC/Dulles.
It wasn't going to be transpacific anything.

--
Pete Stickney
The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck.

Peter Stickney wrote:
A (in hindsight) pretty hilarious article about how the Concorde was
going to allow people to commute to their jobs on another continent:
http://www.concordesst.com/history/eh6.html

Paraphrasing = "What th subsonic jets did for the transatlantic run, the
Concorde will do for the transpacific run".

I assume there's a stop at Hawaii on the way from LA to Japan; as to
where the stop is on the way to Australia is anyone's guess.
either that...or...CONCORDE AERIAL REFUELING!
Yes, British Airways Victor tankers will refuel the Concorde on the way
to its Pacific stops until the new Concorde Tanker Variant enters
service, allowing refueling at Mach 2!
Why refuel at Mach 2?
Because supersonic refueling is _better_ refueling. ;-)

Pat

On Aug 23, 7:38*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Presidential panel presents Obama with major NASA dilemma.
posted by Orlando Sentinel on Aug 14, 2009 6:12:43 PM
By Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block
"WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama named a panel to review
NASA’s manned-space program, his aides said privately they were hoping
the group would recommend scrapping NASA’s troubled Ares I rocket
program and finding another, cheaper way to get humans back to the
moon.
But the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee came to a
troubling conclusion this week: NASA’s current budget offers no hope
of sending humans past the international space station for 20 years or
more."
...
"But Obama officials were reluctant to kill the Constellation program
by decree. They preferred that an independent panel come to what they
saw as the only logical conclusion: that Ares I was, as one put it,
“infeasible.”
"But they didn’t expect that NASA’s budget would leave no room for
another rocket capable of flying beyond the space station.
"Even the panel members themselves were surprised.
"Norm Augustine, the retired Lockheed Martin CEO who leads the 10-
member panel, said he was shocked at its inability to find an option
that would fit within NASA’s current manned-space budget that the
committee put at roughly $100 billion through 2020."http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/08/pre...

*It's that last part that irritates me greatly. You mean for $100
billion dollars specifically for *manned* missions we can't come up
with a way to get to the Moon in 10 years?
*According to this page the entire cost of Project Apollo with 6
successful Moon landings cost $135 billion in inflation adjusted
dollars:

Apollo program.
7 Program costs and cancellation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...ts_and_cancell...

*You mean in 40 years we haven't figured out a way to do better than
that?
*Remember when the first President Bush back in 1989 proposed manned
missions to Mars at a cost of $500 billion? The huge cost estimates
led people like Robert Zubrin to come up with ways to do it at roughly
1/10th that amount.
We need new people otuside NASA to accomplish the same for Moon
missions.




DATE:02/10/09
SOURCE:Flight International
NASA design reviews should not have been approved says report.
By Rob Coppinger
"The US Government Accountability Office says NASA should not have
completed preliminary design reviews for its Constellation programme's
vehicles because it did not have the data to allow it to meet planned
delivery dates with confidence.
"Neither the Orion crew exploration vehicle nor its Ares I crew launch
vehicle should have progressed, says the GAO. In its September report
on Constellation the GAO highlights NASA's decision to delay Orion's
PDR from mid-2008 to third quarter 2009 and the fact that it closed
the Ares I review, while deferring resolution of the launcher's thrust
oscillation issue until the Constellation programme design milestone
in March 2010."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...oved-says.html

On the other hand:

Obama voices support for space funding, leadership.
BY CRAIG COVAULT
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: October 7, 2009
"Obama said that to remain competitive it is critical for the U.S. to
increase federally funded research and development projects and that
he wants to significantly boost funding for such programs to a
sustained level of 3% of Gross National Product (GDP). The current
level is about 2.4% according to the Congressional Budget Office."
....
"White House comment on the new NASA options are expected soon after
the Administration officially receives the report by late October. But
it has already received a detailed summary of Augustine's options.
Science Advisor Holdren has also already held unofficial sessions with
the Augustine team to gain a detailed understanding of the report.
Sources tell Spaceflight Now that Holdren has received those options
favorably and expressed optimism that the White House can help with
funding shortfalls toward modification of the Bush plan."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/07obama/

The Augustine Commission has said NASA would need an additional $3
billion dollars per year to enable the planned manned missions to the
Moon:

Mars and Moon Are Out of NASA's Reach for Now, Review Panel Says.
By Joel Achenbach, Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"Although taking a dim view of the status quo at NASA, the Augustine
committee clearly endorsed the goal of a robust human spaceflight
program and all but pleaded on behalf of the agency, which runs on an
annual budget of about $18 billion. A space exploration program "that
will be a source of pride for the nation" will require roughly an
additional $3 billion a year, the committee found."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090802464.html

This represents a 16% increase over NASA's current funding levels. If
the Obama administration really means an across the board increase in
science funding from 2.4% of GDP to 3%, then presumably this would
also apply to NASA. The extra .6% represents a 25% increase over
current levels. That would be enough to fund the Moon missions
assuming most of the increase went to fund manned missions.


Bob Clark

On Oct 8, 11:51*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:

:
:Obama voices support for space funding, leadership.
:BY CRAIG COVAULT
:SPACEFLIGHT NOW
:Posted: October 7, 2009
:"Obama said that to remain competitive it is critical for the U.S. to
:increase federally funded research and development projects and that
:he wants to significantly boost funding for such programs to a
:sustained level of 3% of Gross National Product (GDP). The current
:level is about 2.4% according to the Congressional Budget Office."
:...

The question is just WHICH R&D he wants to fund. *Aerospace and
Defense don't seem to be it. *He's talking about 'green energy' and
such.

--


I don't believe so. Not when the science advisor John Holdren talks
specifically about shortfalls in the Bush plan:

"Sources tell Spaceflight Now that Holdren has received those options
favorably and expressed optimism that the White House can help with
funding shortfalls toward modification of the Bush plan."

Bob Clark

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Robert Clark wrote:

:On Oct 8, 11:51Â*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Robert Clark wrote:
:
: :
: :Obama voices support for space funding, leadership.
: :BY CRAIG COVAULT
: :SPACEFLIGHT NOW
: :Posted: October 7, 2009
: :"Obama said that to remain competitive it is critical for the U.S. to
: :increase federally funded research and development projects and that
: :he wants to significantly boost funding for such programs to a
: :sustained level of 3% of Gross National Product (GDP). The current
: :level is about 2.4% according to the Congressional Budget Office."
: :...
:
: The question is just WHICH R&D he wants to fund. Â*Aerospace and
: Defense don't seem to be it. Â*He's talking about 'green energy' and
: such.
:
: --
:
:
: I don't believe so. Not when the science advisor John Holdren talks
:specifically about shortfalls in the Bush plan:
:
:"Sources tell Spaceflight Now that Holdren has received those options
:favorably and expressed optimism that the White House can help with
:funding shortfalls toward modification of the Bush plan."
:

Yes. He wants to 'modify it' into an Earth Science plan. No Moon. No
Mars. Global Warming and Ozone Hole, anyone? That's the space
program we're going to get.


Which will require no Research, and damned little Development.
Keep watching - the argument _will_ be made that we can defer exploration -
set it aside and pick it up later. That argument is arrant nonsense
In all my studies of the History of technology, I've yet to see any case
whare efforts that were deliberately abandoned were ever restarted.
It just won't happen.
What will happen is that other nations, or entities with similar resources,
will see the resulting gap as an opportunity, and strive to fill it, or
portions of it, themselves. (This is what happened with expendable launch
vehicles in the 1980s and 1990s)


--
Pete Stickney
The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck.

On Aug 30, 2:59*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Aug 27, 6:41 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

For Friday I'll be watching two new ones. ABK and OSK.
See which one settles back a bit and shows a lull in volume
tomorrow late. The look for a second run up early next week.
At least that's the plan.

ABKhttp://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=abk&s...

OSKhttp://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=osk&s...
It's still a gamble, not any sure bet.

Well, let's see about that. Two in a row is luck maybe.
How many in a row would it take to show otherwise?

Today I bought OSK late. Looking for a similar result early
next week sometime. A lull followed by a second step up.http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/qui...asp?symb=osk&s...

Robo-investing is perhaps what's giving you that signal. *Big offshore
robo-investors are still in the process of milking the market for all
it's worth, and for the moment they let a few fish take a small bite.

There's a huge heard of day traders, of all sizes, that follow the
good and bad news around. It's a big rumor mill, the good rumors
travel fast and the volume of a stock can explode in minutes.
There's billions of dollars just floating around out there waiting for
something to pounce on.

So every possible level of disturbance from minor, to the
breaking point, can be seen on a daily basis. Ten thousand
tickers, and dozens a day get driven /far from equilibrium/ by
a sudden disturbance or change in volume. Complexity science
is the study of far from equilibrium systems. Or chaos theory
and their cyclic attractors that emerge at certain levels of stress.

When a complex system is pushed far from equilibriun, to the point
of changing state, like from liquid to ice or failure to success, it will
display only one of /two possible/ behaviors, called pre-images.
Only two patterns can happen near the breaking point. Once they're
identified they serve as short term templates that are very reliable.
Although, like all things the pre images evolve too, and must
be constantly updated.

Either a single spike, or an accelerating slope. The two pre images.

The second one likes a double top. It's that simple.The other one
falls back some 30% to 40% before trying for a double top.
Either way, they're very predictable provided nothing comes along
to create a new pattern. But since both of these universal patterns
limited to the length of the transient, the length of time existing far from
equilibrium,

Like a brewing storm, they build and suddenly dissipate.

Betting against these two patterns playing out as expected, once they've
shown themselves, *is like betting against a brewing storm producig
lightning and rain in the near future. Given half a chance they pattern
will play out just as likely.

So, again, how many in a row would elimate luck as the source of
prediction?

Proving this pattern is universal?

Swarm intelligence can work either way, and your pattern could be
viable as long as there's not insider intent to defraud taking place.
Most investments are insider manipulated, and our kosher approved SEC
is a joke.

~ BG