Oil cap

On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable.

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

Apparently capping, securing or replacing a deep-sea dysfunctional BOP
is more complex than any fly-by-rocket expertise. Besides that, all
the smart ZNRs that made our ARPA and NASA are either dead or missing,
like BP they kept no as-built records, and their science is??????????

Our public K-12 parrots are now officially dysfunctionals.

BP and Dick Cheney are each too big to fail

~ BG

On Jun 15, 9:47*am, LSMFT wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In , says...

Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable.

Stupid isn't the problem. *Lack of political support (i.e. money) is the
biggest roadblock. *That said, the Ares I/Ares V launch architecture
chosen by Mike Griffin was the dumbest decision ever. *Ares I
development as eaten up billions of dollars, to the point where the
Obama Administration wants to cancel it.

Jeff

That's what I said. Stupid politicians, stupid electorate, stupid country..

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

You forgot that 99.9% of this global Usenet/newsgroup is also stupid.

~ BG

On 6/15/2010 8:47 AM, LSMFT wrote:


That's what I said. Stupid politicians, stupid electorate, stupid country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhvDMhrws1o

Pat

In article 0bbdb441-eddb-4e01-a276-78a4c6282104
@g1g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable.

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

Apparently capping, securing or replacing a deep-sea dysfunctional BOP
is more complex than any fly-by-rocket expertise. Besides that, all
the smart ZNRs that made our ARPA and NASA are either dead or missing,
like BP they kept no as-built records, and their science is??????????

NASA plans for things like EVA's and RMS/SSRMS (robotics) operations
literally years in advance.

It's obvious by now that BP is "winging it". Their contingency plans
have been shown to be a joke. Government oversight was asleep at the
wheel because they were being wined and dined by the oil companies.

Is it any surprise that BP is failing miserably?

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

In article bf50f76d-f282-4eee-8ad2-f674243e5034
@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 15, 9:47*am, LSMFT wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In , says...

Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable.

Stupid isn't the problem. *Lack of political support (i.e. money) is the
biggest roadblock. *That said, the Ares I/Ares V launch architecture
chosen by Mike Griffin was the dumbest decision ever. *Ares I
development as eaten up billions of dollars, to the point where the
Obama Administration wants to cancel it.

Jeff

That's what I said. Stupid politicians, stupid electorate, stupid country.

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

You forgot that 99.9% of this global Usenet/newsgroup is also stupid.

Pot, kettle, black.

The biggest problem with NASA is that the bad administrators keep
clinging to the belief that the "next big project" will energize the
public (and the politicians) resulting in big increases in NASA funding
in the future. It's never going to happen. Apollo was the exception,
not the rule. We won that race, so the necessity for sky high NASA
budgets is gone. NASA needs to plan their projects around a flat budget
(maybe with increases to account for inflation) extending off into
infinity.

The biggest reason that NASA can't return to the moon is the money
simply was never there to do so. Griffin picked the most expensive
launch architecture possible and it ate up so much of the budget that
the money to build and fly actual lunar landers wouldn't have fit in the
future budgets without massive NASA budget increases. Never going to
happen. NASA really does need to rethink their plans around how much
it's going to cost.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Jun 16, 6:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 0bbdb441-eddb-4e01-a276-78a4c6282104
@g1g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...





On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable..

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

Apparently capping, securing or replacing a deep-sea dysfunctional BOP
is more complex than any fly-by-rocket expertise. *Besides that, all
the smart ZNRs that made our ARPA and NASA are either dead or missing,
like BP they kept no as-built records, and their science is??????????

NASA plans for things like EVA's and RMS/SSRMS (robotics) operations
literally years in advance. *

It's obvious by now that BP is "winging it". *Their contingency plans
have been shown to be a joke. *Government oversight was asleep at the
wheel because they were being wined and dined by the oil companies.

Is it any surprise that BP is failing miserably? *

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

If BP is what those Rothschilds and other Semites want to see, it's
what we get.

~ BG

On Jun 16, 6:41*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bf50f76d-f282-4eee-8ad2-f674243e5034
@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...





On Jun 15, 9:47 am, LSMFT wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In , says...

Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable.

Stupid isn't the problem. Lack of political support (i.e. money) is the
biggest roadblock. That said, the Ares I/Ares V launch architecture
chosen by Mike Griffin was the dumbest decision ever. Ares I
development as eaten up billions of dollars, to the point where the
Obama Administration wants to cancel it.

Jeff

That's what I said. Stupid politicians, stupid electorate, stupid country.

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

You forgot that 99.9% of this global Usenet/newsgroup is also stupid.

Pot, kettle, black.

The biggest problem with NASA is that the bad administrators keep
clinging to the belief that the "next big project" will energize the
public (and the politicians) resulting in big increases in NASA funding
in the future. *It's never going to happen.
That's only because the planet Venus remains as taboo/nondisclosure as
is our moon.


*Apollo was the exception,
not the rule. *We won that race, so the necessity for sky high NASA
budgets is gone. *NASA needs to plan their projects around a flat budget
(maybe with increases to account for inflation) extending off into
infinity.
The mutually perpetrated cold-war is very much alive and kicking, and
we're all losers at that game.


The biggest reason that NASA can't return to the moon is the money
simply was never there to do so. *Griffin picked the most expensive
launch architecture possible and it ate up so much of the budget that
the money to build and fly actual lunar landers wouldn't have fit in the
future budgets without massive NASA budget increases. *Never going to
happen. *NASA really does need to rethink their plans around how much
it's going to cost.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

Japan has demonstrated that it can do whatever's NASA for 10% the
cost, and India can outperform Japan for 10% of that much.

Most everything else American is outsourced, so why not NASA?

~ BG

In article b2b7ea63-e7a8-497a-8a5e-
, says...

On Jun 16, 6:41*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
The biggest problem with NASA is that the bad administrators keep
clinging to the belief that the "next big project" will energize the
public (and the politicians) resulting in big increases in NASA funding
in the future. *It's never going to happen.
That's only because the planet Venus remains as taboo/nondisclosure as
is our moon.

Pressures may be in the same ballpark, but Venus is far worse than deep
water offshore drilling due to the extremely high temperatures. At
least at the bottom of the ocean you don't have to worry about things
like your electronics melting off the circuit boards to which they're
attached. Because of the harsh surface conditions, I see no reason that
our manned space program should ever be interested in Venus.

That said, I see plenty of opportunity for the right sort of robotics
missions to take place on Venus (or at least floating in the atmosphere
of Venus like a weather balloon). Eventually we ought to be able to
come up with electronics which can survive on the surface of Venus for
more than a few minutes.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Jun 15, 4:28*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
this mess might be the breakthrough moment when we decide
that maybe ten million windmills in the US and electric-powered cars
really isn't that bad of an idea. ;-)

I'm not that optimistic. But I think that people would put up with
nuclear power plants more easily than ten million windmills.

As for electric cars, that will take work. If cars like the Zenn, that
don't try to compete head-on with gasoline-powered road hogs, could be
safely put on the road, then it would be doable with current
technology.

John Savard

In article 9cc64ba0-04aa-44d7-acf4-ad2eaaf88e4c@
42g2000prb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 16, 12:18*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b2b7ea63-e7a8-497a-8a5e-
, says...



On Jun 16, 6:41*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
The biggest problem with NASA is that the bad administrators keep
clinging to the belief that the "next big project" will energize the
public (and the politicians) resulting in big increases in NASA funding
in the future. *It's never going to happen.
That's only because the planet Venus remains as taboo/nondisclosure as
is our moon.

Pressures may be in the same ballpark, but Venus is far worse than deep
water offshore drilling due to the extremely high temperatures. *At
least at the bottom of the ocean you don't have to worry about things
like your electronics melting off the circuit boards to which they're
attached. *Because of the harsh surface conditions, I see no reason that
our manned space program should ever be interested in Venus. *

That said, I see plenty of opportunity for the right sort of robotics
missions to take place on Venus (or at least floating in the atmosphere
of Venus like a weather balloon). *Eventually we ought to be able to
come up with electronics which can survive on the surface of Venus for
more than a few minutes.

Jeff

Robotics are of course perfectly fine. However, human DNA and cells
don't care about pressure.

Irrelevant. Humans can't operate at the sort of pressures *and*
temperatures found on the surface of Venus. It's hot enough to melt
lead. Human DNA would literally cook.

99% H2 and 1% O2 is good to breath (way better than N2/O2).

If this were true, we'd have people on the sea floor dealing with the
current disaster in the Gulf. At best, you're talking about something
that's not been perfected yet. At worst, you're talking science
fiction.

Existing technology can easily deal with temperature.

B.S. Where do you get the power? And before you say Venus is hot,
we'll use the energy from the heat, you've got to remember your
thermodynamics. You can only get energy out of heat if there is a
significant temperature gradient. Where are you going to find that on
Venus? The fracking atmosphere is so dense temperatures don't vary much
on the surface.

Thermal insulation of R-1024/meter isn't hard to accomplish.

The temperature gradient from the outside to the inside would be so high
that it will find paths to leak heat. This is similar to trying to keep
LH2 cold in LEO. We're close, but in that case we've got a convenient
hard vacuum that makes MLI work very well. Absent that hard vacuum, MLI
doesn't work worth squat when the temperature gradient is high.

Only incompetent or stupid electronics and/or dumbfounded
electromechanical stuff melts. Why would anyone want to take WalMart
(made in China) crap to Venus?

You might as well be talking how many fairies you can stick on the head
of a pin. No one has yet to design and build an entire ship which will
work on Venus and keep the inside of it at pressures and temperatures
which won't kill a human. It's the *systems engineering* that's the
hard thing here.

A composite rigid airship can easily accommodate as many thousand
tonnes of payload as you like, plus haul and accommodate as much crew
as space permits .

Venus offers unlimited renewable energy, as well as unlimited elements
and even water (500+ teratonnes in them acidic clouds). In other
words, what is Venus missing?

Again, I call b.s. on this. How are you going to generate the enormous
amounts of electricity on Venus that would allow you to run the enormous
refrigeration systems you're going to need?

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?