....How Obama Could Become the Next Kennedy!

Joe wrote:
Yeah, I keep wondering about those comparisons to Kennedy. Do we
really want another oversexed drug addict who gets his head blown off
for messing with the Mob?


Would take Kennedy any day over Dumbya Bush.


Kennedy? I thought he was talking about a combo between Bill O'Reilly
and Rush Limbaugh. :-D

Pat

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:22:26 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:
Patriot Games wrote:
Your 90% figure is WAY OFF. And that's WHY electric cars have not
been popular in America. Americans REQUIRE a car that will hold two
adults, two or three children, luggage for FIVE, keep up with traffic
on the Interstate FOR HOUR AFTER HOUR as they take their semi-annual
vacation or go visit Grandma.
Do you have any idea how much a powerpack capable of holding that amount
of electrical energy is going to weigh?

I have no idea what it would weigh... But you could subtract the
weight of the engine and probably not be too much heavier than current
vehicles.

It's not going to be something that you can just pull out of the vehicle
and drop a new one into it like a standard car battery

We'll need a powered hand-cart type of deal. I'm thinking the
power-pack would be underneath forward or in-between the rear wheels.
The hand-cart would slide under from the rear, drop the powe-pac on
two 'forks' then the guy rags it out, stacks it, gets a fresh one and
re-installs it. Not a big deal really.

You are talking several hundred pounds here unless you want to be
changing batteries every half hour on your trip.
For a range of 220 miles, the Tesla Roadster uses a lithium ion battery
pack weighing between 900 and 1,000 pounds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster
Extrapolate that out to your vehicle's size and capacity and you are
talking about somewhere between 1,500 - 2,000 pounds of batteries.

Yep, maybe a ton...

Here's one that can move 7 tons:
http://www.handlingandstoragesolutio...oads_up_to_7t/

but God help you if someone struck you from the rear, as the
battery may short and catch fire. Or it may slide right out of your car
and straight into the passenger compartment of the car that struck you,
or in the case of a front-mounted one come right into your passenger
compartment.

We're going to need a new design for the basic under-carriage of a
car. But we would anyway if we pull the heavy engine out of the
front. And with a heavy battery we'd want to center and lower that
dead weight.

I'm sure the fleet-like basic design of new electric minivans and cars
will be as safe as we have now, maybe safer, but I doubt that safety
will be number one on the list...

There's also the charge time problem... assuming the battery could be
charged in a half hour without overheating (like a new laptop battery)
at the battery exchange station, then you are going to need one charging
for every vehicle you expect to arrive in that time period. Start
extrapolating that to the amount of energy stored in each battery, and
you are going to have one hell of a lot of wattage going into that station.

I'm thinking a power-pac something like 4 or 5 feet wide, in different
lengths for different sized vehicles, and maybe 1 foot thick. They
could be stacked or slotted in racks to recharge. Two employees per
station could change out 4 per hour (15 minutes each). If it takes an
hour to throw an 80% charge on the battery (and another hour to finish
it) then you could get by with a dozen batteries in stock. Heck,
that's a stack smaller than the stack of soft drinks they usually have
sitting outside!

Sure, we'd need more power to the stations. But, again, its not
rocket science...

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:21:41 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:
It clear to everyone that auto batteries need a breakthrough, but what
if one came? The way things are now, that would only shift fossil fuel
use from autos to power plants.

We already figured that out. We call them Nuclear Power Plants.

You must think farther ahead then that. I've seen NASA concepts
using laser transmission from space where the rectenna could be
as small as a few meters.

That's a century away. I agree that's where we'll end up but as they
say You Can't Get There From Here...

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:36:12 -0700 (PDT), HughJorgan
wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:20*pm, Patriot Games wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:37:24 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:
Patriot Games wrote:
2) We're gonna refit gasoline stations to charge and store the
power-pacs for your new electric cars. *Replacing your low power-pac
will be quicker and cost 90% less than gassing up your car does now.
It would be a lot simpler just to plug the car in at night. I can see
the replaceable power pack idea for long trips, but around 90% of the
time you could simply recharge it at home.
Your 90% figure is WAY OFF. *And that's WHY electric cars have not
been popular in America. *Americans REQUIRE a car that will hold two
adults, two or three children, luggage for FIVE, keep up with traffic
on the Interstate FOR HOUR AFTER HOUR as they take their semi-annual
vacation or go visit Grandma.
This is entirely doable technology. *If the basic American
requirements are met Americans will buy the **** out of electric
minivans and cars. *
We might have to run some more power to each 'gas' station but we'd
eliminate ALL fuel delivery to each gas station. *
Americans HATE being told what to do, especially by a Democrat, and
Americans HATE having to sacrifice when they see NOTHING in it for
anyone (especially themselves).
The average American family has TWO vehicles. *A crap-mobile that Dad
drives to and from work. *It only has to get there and back each day
and be cheap. *And they have a much better and more expensive minivan
or SUV that they REQUIRE so Mom can do her part-time job, deal with
all the kids needs, and pack everybody in on the weekends. *
Yes, 90% of COMMUTING is probably one or two people and one hour at
most each way and THAT car can be plugged in overnight. *
What we really should be looking into is large scale fast and
comfortable electric passenger train transport.
It would cost a lot to lay new tracks all over the US, but the
technology to do this is already in existence, so it could be done in a
fairly short period of time if you threw a lot of money and effort at it.
I don't hate that idea but recognise that its got problems that puts
it a century away. *The biggest problem is that taxpayers would have
to pay for it.
The other problem is what do people do after they get wisked from
Dallas to Chicago? *They still need local transpo...
If we go nuclear-power-electric-cars its consumers and not taxpayers
who will pay for it. *
Can I pull my 6,000 lb. horse trailer with it?

Nope. Not gonna happen.

Can I pull my 36 foot travel trailer with it?

Nope. Not gonna happen.

Can I load 6 people in it and drive the 600
miles from Houston to El Paso to visit granny?

Yes, but you'll have to stop once to change power-pacs (twice if
you're hauling too many fat people).

If not I don't have any use for them.

If the Socialist Democrats take over and bring their Nazi-like
mentality then they'll outlaw horse trailers, travel trailers, fat
people, NASCAR, you name it.

If normal, patriotic conservative Republicans take over we'll allow
for the occasional exceptions. And since you're probably gonna be
fueling it exclusively with gasoline from domestic oil it'll cost ya
less!

On Jul 25, 1:42*am, Joe wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:36*am, Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Jul 23, 6:58*pm, "Pappy" wrote:


....How Obama Could Become the Next Kennedy!

By getting shot in the head?

Yeah, I keep wondering about those comparisons to Kennedy. Do we
really want another oversexed drug addict who gets his head blown off
for messing with the Mob?

Would take Kennedy any day over Dumbya Bush.



Well, yeah, but I'd take Robert Mugabe over Bush. He's got a lot more
brains.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:56:03 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:
"Patriot Games" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:36:44 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
If you want to repeat Apollo, do it right
Henry Spencer, computer programmer, spacecraft engineer and amateur space
historian
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/spa...llo-do-it.html
Apollo was a success because the goal was so /inspiring/ and /world-changing/
that...everyone...immediately realized it was worth doing, and right now.
That's not why it was a success. The goal was inspiring and
world-changing because beating the Soviets was inspiring and
potentially world-changing.
Isn't that what I just said?

Perhaps it was.

I don't disagree that Space Solar Power is where we will eventually
end up. But its HUGE compared to Apollo.
That's right. But the idea is for NASA to improve and demonstrate the
technology to the point the commercial sector can take over
and run with it. NASA wouldn't be building the entire network.
But much like the US Mail jump-started commercial aviation, SSP
would be the govt paid cargo that could jump start commercial
launch services. Space Solar Power above all means lots and
lots of launches. Once low cost to orbit is accomplished, not only SSP
but just about anything else we care to do in space becomes
a possibility.

It would be nice if we had politicians that could think in terms of
50-year projects...


That's the way you win the war with radical Islam.
Well, no, it just gives them something else to blow up. (You win the
war with radical Islam by killing the radical Islamists.)
Oil is the only effective weapon the Middle Eastern countries have
over us.

Ok, almost. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and Iran is a
year or two from joining them.

And dependence on foreign oil is America's biggest
weakness.

Yep.

But its important to not lose sight of the bigger picture. They don't
just hate America, they hate everything non-Islamic, and they are on a
crusade to dominate the planet.

The correct approach is to lay out a rather specific PLAN. Tell the
American people the PLAN is:
1) We're gonna put huge solar collectors in space and beam pure energy
back to Earth. You electric bill will be slashed by 90%.
2) We're gonna refit gasoline stations to charge and store the
power-pacs for your new electric cars. Replacing your low power-pac
will be quicker and cost 90% less than gassing up your car does now.
3) We'll have 6-passenger minivans with actual acceleration that can
run at 60mph on the highway for at least 4 hours.
It's not possible to predict the future with that kind of accuracy.
Kennedy didn't try to predict what the Saturn V would look like.
He just stated a specific accomplishment by a specific date.
SSP would do much the same.
To replace fossil fuels before climate change becomes irreversible.

Most people haven't fallen for the "before climate change becomes
irreversible" con-game. Like I said, we've matured as a nation.

THAT is exactly how to get MOST of America to ignore you as a Public
Fool. Most Americans do not believe we've lost inspirational
leadership and they will resent that charge.
You're right about that. It would need to be cast in a different way.
Which is why I prefer to highlight the fact such an energy program
could turn America into the next energy "Saudi Arabia".
This would turn our greatest weakness into a huge strength with
a /single/ program. That would open my eyes? In fact I've often
thought an easy cheap shot would be casting opponents of SSP
as unpatriotic. Shots like....Don't you want America
to be independent and prosperous for decades to come?
Don't you want to de-fang the countries that hate us most?
Don't you want our military to win the space-race?

Bwahahahahahhahahaha!!

Most Americans
completely reject the stupid notion that we've lost respect in the
world and will reject YOU for that insult.
Most Americans know that
the childish notion of "turning some of our Swords into Plowshares" is
precisely how 9/11 happened.
I'm as big a fan of the US military as anyone. The military
is moving into space as fast as it can. An SSP program
is ideally suited for military uses. In fact the Pentagon
has become interested in their own SSP program recently.
Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power
Thursday, April 12, 2007
"The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could
meet the desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence
on foreign energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking
for an environmentally friendly source of energy, Kueter said."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265380,00.html
So, SSP could easily be sold to hawks and doves alike.
Left or right. Really, only the oil producers would have an interest
in seeing it go away. Which means an immediate response
to the starting of an SSP program. As the oil producers
would try to undermine it with lower prices before the
program took hold.

Everybody likes lower prices! But, eventually, the argument comes
down to which is gonna last longer? Your oil or the Sun?

Space Solar Power, as an idea, has that potential.
If Obama wants to be the next Kennedy, here's his chance
to step out and above the fray. And change the world like Kennedy did.
Kennedy said trust him and trust your country and we'll rub the
Soviet's nose in our buttcrack. We did, and then we did.
The next Contender needs to say trust him and trust your country and
we'll rub the Arab's nose in our buttcrack. We can.
I think SSP more than anything else would get the attention
of the Middle East. Their one great asset...OIL... would be
directly threatened. But from a constructive positive sum
approach, rather than the very negative sum results of
military force and economic sanctions.
Owning space, and owning the energy source of the future
must be seen as two huge assets for this country.

Yep, no argument whatsoever.

Well, we are forgeting one thing. 50 or 100 years from now we'll be
putting another 3 BILLION Arabs on welfare and food stamps since they
can't feed themselves and nobody's gonna need or want their oil.

I guess we'll just worry about that later...

On 24 Jul 2008 22:12:34 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:
In "jonathan"
wrote:
Apollo was a success because the goal was so /inspiring/ and
/world-changing/ that...everyone...immediately realized it was worth
doing, and right now.
It was a "success" because it was paid for with free government money.

Before 9/11 (and what followed) NASA spent in a whole YEAR what the
DoD spent in FOUR HOURS (of that same year).

I know it sounds ridiculous but its almost impossible to overspend on
NASA, science, pure R&D, etc.

Not counting the wonderfully nostalgic and old-fashioned "Hang Saddam
From a $5 Piece of Rope (until he ****s in his pants)" virtually
everything in the modern world has come from a tiny investment in
Science.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:02:06 -0400, in a place far, far away, Patriot
Games made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On 24 Jul 2008 22:12:34 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:
In "jonathan"
wrote:
Apollo was a success because the goal was so /inspiring/ and
/world-changing/ that...everyone...immediately realized it was worth
doing, and right now.
It was a "success" because it was paid for with free government money.

Before 9/11 (and what followed) NASA spent in a whole YEAR what the
DoD spent in FOUR HOURS (of that same year).

I know it sounds ridiculous but its almost impossible to overspend on
NASA, science, pure R&D, etc.

Of course it is. We're doing it right now (e.g., Ares/Orion).

(Patriot Games) wrote in
:

I know it sounds ridiculous but its almost impossible to overspend
on NASA, science, pure R&D, etc.

It sounds ridiculous because it is.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:26:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, Hans
Metterling made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:41:27 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:15 -0500, in a place far, far away, Hans
Metterling made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


That so, is it? Cool. Let's see a link to this working space based solar
power system you imagine exists. Begin.


You didn't read my sentence correctly.

snip

Yes, I most certainly did, luser. Look up, luser.

Now, luser, let's see this space based solar power system you foolishly
believe to be feasible to deploy, if you're not just another moronic lunatic
luser spouting hilariously asinine pseudo science about that which you know
entirely not ****, that is.

Not to defend "jonathan" who is a loon, but there is no such word in
the English language as "luser."

Hoo, boy...

Wake up, smell the coffee and look around, this time paying a bit of
attention to your surroundings.

------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luser

In Internet slang, a luser (sometimes expanded to local user; also luzer or
luzzer) is a painfully annoying, stupid, or irritating computer user.[1] It
is a portmanteau of "loser" and "user" and is usually pronounced as "loser".

Oh, I see. It's just a useless made-up word. I thought it was bad
enough when people couldn't figure out the difference between "looser"
and "loser" and now we have to deal with this idiocy?