The Urge to Explore

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

The fact is that on exploration missions like Apollo, people did far more
exploration and sample return than all of the unmanned missions combined.

Which handwaves away the inconvenient fact that there isn't a real,
organized, focused unmanned program to actually honestly compare
Apollo to. At least on the American side of the house, the unmanned
side existed almost solely as a support function of the manned
program, any science produced was incidental and distinctly secondary.

If unmanned vehicles really are cheaper and more capable, why don't we see
the US Navy building unmanned submarines to replace existing submarines?

A meaningless question in this context - as we are examining your
comparison between past unmanned lunar mission and past manned lunar
missions as if there were two analogous programs to directly compare.

But rather than examining that question, you attempt to divert
attention away from it.

That being said; the submarine force has been building unmanned
submarines for over a century - since the invention of the Whitehead
torpedo.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:ecire.7$yW.5@fed1read02...
Jeff Findley wrote:

Because of the chain of responsibility involved in handling
nuclear materials like reactors and bombs. That's why military
pilots are always officers.

When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

Ummm... no. Those reactors and engines won't come anywhere near an
inhabited place, or even be in Earth's biosphere at all.

Unfortunately the blank check funding for the US manned space program
stopped a few years before the first moon landing and has never returned.

No, it's *fortunate*, because it meant an end to flags 'n footprints
missions.

Unfortunately, NASA has never seemed to realize that they must make due with
less. Griffin seems to be making the same mistake. His vision for the US
space program isn't going to be sustainable without large increases in
funding, which I doubt NASA will ever get.

An unsupported assumption.

The biggest problem facing NASA today isn't lack of "vision", it's the high
cost of putting a pound of anything into LEO. NASA specific, shuttle
derived, heavy lift launch vehicles aren't going to solve that problem
anymore than the shuttle itself.

NASA isn't *supposed* to have vision. NASA exists to carry out the
policies of the administration, not fuel the wet dreams of
masturbating fanboys.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In sci.space.policy John Schilling wrote:
In article uDsre.218$yW.172@fed1read02, Mark Fergerson says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:ecire.7$yW.5@fed1read02...

Jeff Findley wrote:

If unmanned vehicles really are cheaper and more capable, why don't we
see the US Navy building unmanned submarines to replace existing submarines?

Because of the chain of responsibility involved in handling
nuclear materials like reactors and bombs. That's why military
pilots are always officers.

When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

No we won't, Greenpeace will see to it that we never launch
another gram or radioactive material. The *******s.


Greenpeace has conspicuously failed to stop the launch of spacecraft
carrying many grams of radioactive material in the past. Greenpeace
has never, to the best of my knowledge, succeeded in stopping the
launch of a spacecraft containing radioactive material. What is the
basis for your belief that Greenpeace will in the future become 100%
effective in this area, where their track record to date is 0% and
the relevant legal precedents are already set?

Greenpeace will see to it that we have to drive around a small band
of whining protesters to get to the site from which we will launch
vehicles with big nuclear reactors and/or nuclear rocket engines.


In time Greenpeace will probably simply make sure theres a spaceship
-or several - carrying protsesters intersecting whichever orbit you
want to launch on.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

horseshoe7 wrote:

Eric Chomko wrote:
horseshoe7 ) wrote:

: The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
: GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
: off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
: update/retrofit old inefficient designs.

Right, which makes the rightests correct about the environment in every
regard...

Hey, think about it - EVERYBODY cares about the environment... the
trick is not to over do it with hysteria.

Global warming is just another overhyped/underscienced STATE OF FEAR.

Are you an expert on atmospheric physics? If so, perhaps you could
explain why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will not
cause an increase in the greenhouse effect. And the Earth's atmosphere
is undeniably warming.

: And, with Yucca Mountain looking more and more like a reality:

: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

: We may soon see a resurgence in new Nuclear Power Plant activities.

In your backyard, right?

I suppose, in a way - I go to Indian Springs sometimes... but, the fact
is, it really isn't in ANYBODY'S back yard. It is perfect - so quit
your complaining. Or do you prefer the current in situ "casking"
method? The bottom of the Mariana Trench? Blast it to outer space?
Better make up your mind, though - we are going to be having a LOT more
nuclear waste to deal with in the near future

If y'all would quit bitching about new Nuclear Power Plant designs and
implementations, we could switch over to better technology that would
significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste being generated by
Nuclear Power Plants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

- Stewart

Richard Morris wrote:
horseshoe7 wrote:


Global warming is just another overhyped/underscienced STATE OF FEAR.

Are you an expert on atmospheric physics? If so, perhaps you could
explain why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will not
cause an increase in the greenhouse effect.

CO2 makes up about .01% of the atmosphere... NEGLIGIBLE!

And the Earth's atmosphere is undeniably warming.

There is no certain proof. Even if it is warming, there is no certain
proof it is being caused by increases in "Greenhouse gases". There
have been many periods in Earth's history where the Earth was much
warmer than right now, and everything has turned out just fine... the
bottom line is that you have really got to stop getting your news and
scientific opinions from an unscientific and hysterical press/TV corps.
I suggest you do your own research (not take these bozos opinions).

Read Michael Chricton's STATE OF FEAR... it is fairly entertaining, and
certainly eye-opening in regards to the press and general public's
buying into the Global Warming HYSTERIA.

- Stewart

horseshoe7 wrote:

Are you an expert on atmospheric physics? If so, perhaps you could
explain why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will not
cause an increase in the greenhouse effect.

CO2 makes up about .01% of the atmosphere... NEGLIGIBLE!

You display your ignorance, sir.

It's about 350 ppm right now, actually. But this does not mean
it is negligible. Trace gases can and do have profound effects
on radiation transport, if they have absorption features
in parts of the spectrum the other, more abundant gases are
transparent. Even gases with much lower abundances than
CO2 can have significant effects.

The primary components of the atmosphere - nitrogen, oxygen,
and argon -- are symmetrical diatomic molecules or single atoms.
As a result, they absorb only weakly in the far infrared.

There is also the matter that the opacity of a gas at
the peak of an absorption band can be very high. CO2 is already
well past the point where the peaks of the main absorption
features are saturated. Increases in overall absorption for
that gas are occuring out on the tails of these spectral features.

Paul

"horseshoe7" writes:

Richard Morris wrote:
horseshoe7 wrote:


Global warming is just another overhyped/underscienced STATE OF FEAR.

Are you an expert on atmospheric physics? If so, perhaps you could
explain why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will not
cause an increase in the greenhouse effect.

CO2 makes up about .01% of the atmosphere... NEGLIGIBLE!

This bids fair to be the most idiotic comment in the history
of the global warming debate.

What the heck do equations matter? You have A SHIFT KEY!


--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

horseshoe7 ) wrote:


: Eric Chomko wrote:
: horseshoe7 ) wrote:
:
: : The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
: : GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
: : off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
: : update/retrofit old inefficient designs.
:
: Right, which makes the rightests correct about the environment in every
: regard...

: Hey, think about it - EVERYBODY cares about the environment... the
: trick is not to over do it with hysteria.

Agreed, but who is doing something and who is complaining? You might not
like what they do, but they are doing something. If you don't like it,
then create your own plan rather than criticize theirs.

: Global warming is just another overhyped/underscienced STATE OF FEAR.

So we should simply stop monitoring the earth since you have the answer?
Hell, why do any science given that the Bible has all the answers? THAT is
what you are saying WRT Global Warming, or more correctly termed Global
Climate Change. You know so why bother.

: : And, with Yucca Mountain looking more and more like a reality:
:
: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
:
: : We may soon see a resurgence in new Nuclear Power Plant activities.
:
: In your backyard, right?

: I suppose, in a way - I go to Indian Springs sometimes... but, the fact
: is, it really isn't in ANYBODY'S back yard. It is perfect - so quit
: your complaining.

Who's complaining? That would be YOU!

: Or do you prefer the current in situ "casking"
: method? The bottom of the Mariana Trench? Blast it to outer space?
: Better make up your mind, though - we are going to be having a LOT more
: nuclear waste to deal with in the near future

Put in the Grand Canyon, I dare you!

: If y'all would quit bitching about new Nuclear Power Plant designs and
: implementations, we could switch over to better technology that would
: significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste being generated by
: Nuclear Power Plants:

No one, including you wacky rightists has the guts to stand up to the oil
companies. Actually, they own the likes of you (actually the politicians
you so willingly vote for), so by proxy you'd never bite the
hand that feeds you. So that leaves us wacky leftists to force a change
unless Mother Nature steps in first. I know you're willing to wait for
the latter because you simply don't believe we can wreck the environment.
But I bet that if push came to shove and we HAD to do something about a
wrecked environment your same blind faith would have you believing that
we could simply fix what we broke, just because. And if we couldn't you
blame the lefties for not being able to do it. That charge led by Rush
Limbaugh himself and supported my the dittohead mania.

Eric

: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

: - Stewart

Richard Morris ) wrote:


: horseshoe7 wrote:
:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: horseshoe7 ) wrote:
:
: : The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
: : GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
: : off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
: : update/retrofit old inefficient designs.
:
: Right, which makes the rightests correct about the environment in every
: regard...
:
: Hey, think about it - EVERYBODY cares about the environment... the
: trick is not to over do it with hysteria.
:
: Global warming is just another overhyped/underscienced STATE OF FEAR.
:
: Are you an expert on atmospheric physics? If so, perhaps you could
: explain why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will not
: cause an increase in the greenhouse effect. And the Earth's atmosphere
: is undeniably warming.

Didn't you know GB is liberal media garbage? Rush Limbaugh said so!

: : And, with Yucca Mountain looking more and more like a reality:
:
: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
:
: : We may soon see a resurgence in new Nuclear Power Plant activities.
:
: In your backyard, right?
:
: I suppose, in a way - I go to Indian Springs sometimes... but, the fact
: is, it really isn't in ANYBODY'S back yard. It is perfect - so quit
: your complaining. Or do you prefer the current in situ "casking"
: method? The bottom of the Mariana Trench? Blast it to outer space?
: Better make up your mind, though - we are going to be having a LOT more
: nuclear waste to deal with in the near future
:
: If y'all would quit bitching about new Nuclear Power Plant designs and
: implementations, we could switch over to better technology that would
: significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste being generated by
: Nuclear Power Plants:
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
:
: - Stewart

Eric Chomko wrote:
horseshoe7 ) wrote:


: Eric Chomko wrote:
: horseshoe7 ) wrote:
:
: : The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
: : GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
: : off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
: : update/retrofit old inefficient designs.
:
: Right, which makes the rightests correct about the environment in every
: regard...

: Hey, think about it - EVERYBODY cares about the environment... the
: trick is not to over do it with hysteria.

Agreed, but who is doing something and who is complaining? You might not
like what they do, but they are doing something. If you don't like it,
then create your own plan rather than criticize theirs.

: Global warming is just another overhyped/underscienced STATE OF FEAR.

So we should simply stop monitoring the earth since you have the answer?

Can't you READ? I said it was UNDERSCIENCED - it needs MORE STUDY...
not MORE HYSTERIA.

Hell, why do any science given that the Bible has all the answers?

The Bible has ZERO answers in regards to this issue, so I have no idea
why you would bring up such nonsense.

There is NO REASON to literally run around shouting that THE SKY IS
FALLING in regards to Global Warming... do more research.

THAT is
what you are saying WRT Global Warming, or more correctly termed Global
Climate Change. You know so why bother.

Bull****. You are simply assuming I have the same position as some
over-the-hill Right Wing Radio Host Parrot's stance on the issue.

I say do more research... don't ASSUME it is true based on a few
SLANTED STUDIES.

Have you read STATE OF FEAR?

- Stewart