Apollo 11 Lunar landing - 40th aniversary

DRS wrote:

Which is not what I was talking about and you should know it. The
Chernbobyl nuclear power plant used graphite-tipped control rods. When the
core overheated and the water coolant flashed into steam that graphite
*increased* the nuclear reaction rate as the control rods were inserted. As
the core got hotter more water flashed, etc. It was a positive feedback
loop not possible with Western designs.

It is not possible in some western designs. Similar problems are in many of
the reactors that use control rods to slow down neutrons. After the Chalk River
near meltdown (Graphite control rods) in the mid 50's AECL started
designing CANDO reactors that used heavy water to moderate the reactions.
When the water boils or disappears the reaction essentially stops after a
burst of high energy neutrons. The primary reason for heavy water is this fail
safe property.


w..

Bill Graham wrote:

I say again that putting men on the moon back then was a complete
waste of both time and money. (our money)

Yes, it is generally agreed that letting the Soviets win *every*
step of the space race (instead of only most of them) would have
been a grand idea. It's also absolutely sure that nothing good
ever came out of the whole manned space stuff. Inspiration isn't
worth money; triumphs aren't worth money (please close down all of
the commercial sports, they don't give anything of worth. either);
knowledge isn't worth money either. Knowing how our bodies react
to higher gees or micro-gee situations has and had and never will
have any value, just for example.

And there never will be space tourists either, neither really
rich ones on the ISS, nor well off ones on shorter hops with
private space vehicles, not in the past, not in the future.

There also were never any jobs created by putting men on the moon
--- the money was just burned --- a *complete* waste of money.

And it was of course a *complete* waste of time for all involved
and not involved. There was noone proud, noone fulfilled dreams,
noone gained skills --- all these people should just have been
drinking booze instead, it would have been a much more valuable
way to spend time. Or even better, they could have built something
that would be remembered.

-Wolfgang

Bill Graham wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

It isn't clear to me how I have ever profited from manned space exploration
in any way whatsoever to this day.

That's your problem. You haven't done your research, and only
you really know what's relevant to your life.

Obviously you expect something glamourous, when the reality is more
like 'occulation and sanitation' --- something done routinely which
has profound effects ... and isn't even thought about any more.

None of the TV/communication satellites
needed manned space shots......

Fact is that only manned space travel forced manrated rockets.
Manrating rockets will of course cause enormously increased
knowledge about the specific rockets and much of that knowledge can
be transferred to other rockets --- you don't have to start over at
zero each time.

Point: The Saturn V had twice engine failures. Because the same
Saturn V had an advanced computer it could not only compensate the
failures but could do so autonomously, recalculating and adjusting
the trajectory as it went --- and thus all starts were successfull.
This advanced computer had of course impacts on the advancement
of computers in general.

Point: The LEM had a couple computers as well, and their
capabilities were much increased over the lunar landings.
Of course the knowledge gained on building better, smaller
computers was not ignored for satellites.

I have always been more than willing to finance non-manned space
shots, both for exploration, as well as for practical things like
communication. It was only the manned stuff like Apollo that I
objected to, and I am still objecting to these, because we can still
learn 90% as much for 10% of the money with unmanned shots.

Sexual education movies can cover 90% for much less than 10%
what a baby costs --- and will not transmit diseases either.

Yet I've got the feeling the real thing is necessary for the
human race.

There may be some argument for using manned repairmen to service some
of the communications and optical equipment we have in orbit, but
even there, one could argue that it is probably cheaper to just build
another one and orbit it than to attempt to fix it on location.....

Hubble was an experiment designed to also test if repairing and
enhancing in orbit is feasible and worth the money. It turns out
it really needed fixing and taught us much about the processes,
even if it also turns out that replacing currently is often
cheaper.

Certainly this would be true were it not for the fact that the money
has already been spent to develop space suits and livable space
stations and the like, so we might as well use them.

The money for space suits is peanuts, and space station knowledge
will also serve us well when we'll settle on the ocean floors.
Given that the oceans have vast resources (though much much less
than asteroids offer) and that living space is going to be dear
if there will not be a *successfull* global (really *everyone*
involved global) change of the population curve.

-Wolfgang

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
Chris H wrote:
In message 4a7179c1$0$9740$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, DRS writes
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DRS
wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message


[...]

The trouble is that whilst the US is good at making Nuclear
weapons it is not very good at making nuclear power stations. 3
mile island could very easily have been a Chernobyl.

No, it couldn't. No Western reactor uses positive feedback
designs.

A nuclear chain reaction of the kind used in nuclear power stations
is inherently a positive feedback process.

Which is not what I was talking about and you should know it. The
Chernbobyl nuclear power plant used graphite-tipped control rods.
When the core overheated and the water coolant flashed into steam
that graphite *increased* the nuclear reaction rate as the control
rods were inserted. As the core got hotter more water flashed, etc.
It was a positive feedback loop not possible with Western designs.

But different failures are. 3 mile island could have been much worse.
As it was the press blew it up into something worse that it actually
was

It could have been much worse but not because of "positive feedback". Nine
seconds into the incident the rods went in and the fission reaction was shut
down. The major problems were the result of an operator mistakenly turning
off two of the primary coolant pumps an hour or so into the incident.

By the way, a fission reactor only operates on "positive feedback" when it
is run at a level above criticality, below criticality there is no "positive
feedback".

There is always positive feedback. Below criticality the gain is less
than one, past criticality the gain is greater than one.

--
Chris Malcolm

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

It isn't clear to me how I have ever profited from manned space
exploration
in any way whatsoever to this day.

That's your problem. You haven't done your research, and only
you really know what's relevant to your life.

Obviously you expect something glamourous, when the reality is more
like 'occulation and sanitation' --- something done routinely which
has profound effects ... and isn't even thought about any more.

None of the TV/communication satellites
needed manned space shots......

Fact is that only manned space travel forced manrated rockets.
Manrating rockets will of course cause enormously increased
knowledge about the specific rockets and much of that knowledge can
be transferred to other rockets --- you don't have to start over at
zero each time.

Point: The Saturn V had twice engine failures. Because the same
Saturn V had an advanced computer it could not only compensate the
failures but could do so autonomously, recalculating and adjusting
the trajectory as it went --- and thus all starts were successfull.
This advanced computer had of course impacts on the advancement
of computers in general.

So? - You make my point. They didn't neeed men on board.....


Point: The LEM had a couple computers as well, and their
capabilities were much increased over the lunar landings.
Of course the knowledge gained on building better, smaller
computers was not ignored for satellites.


So why have men on board, if computers can do the job fine without them?


I have always been more than willing to finance non-manned space
shots, both for exploration, as well as for practical things like
communication. It was only the manned stuff like Apollo that I
objected to, and I am still objecting to these, because we can still
learn 90% as much for 10% of the money with unmanned shots.

Sexual education movies can cover 90% for much less than 10%
what a baby costs --- and will not transmit diseases either.

Yet I've got the feeling the real thing is necessary for the
human race.

Your "feelings" are costing us billions of dollars.....Perhaps you should
lie down for a while until your feelings go away.....


There may be some argument for using manned repairmen to service some
of the communications and optical equipment we have in orbit, but
even there, one could argue that it is probably cheaper to just build
another one and orbit it than to attempt to fix it on location.....

Hubble was an experiment designed to also test if repairing and
enhancing in orbit is feasible and worth the money. It turns out
it really needed fixing and taught us much about the processes,
even if it also turns out that replacing currently is often
cheaper.

Certainly this would be true were it not for the fact that the money
has already been spent to develop space suits and livable space
stations and the like, so we might as well use them.

The money for space suits is peanuts, and space station knowledge
will also serve us well when we'll settle on the ocean floors.
Given that the oceans have vast resources (though much much less
than asteroids offer) and that living space is going to be dear
if there will not be a *successfull* global (really *everyone*
involved global) change of the population curve.

-Wolfgang

Even with undersea exploration, unmanned robots are certainly the way to
go......Having to protect men from the horrendous pressures that exist 4 or
5 miles deep is ridiculous, when a mechanical photographer can do 90% of the
work for only 10% of the money.....Have you ever taken any courses in
business management?

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
news
Bill Graham wrote:

I say again that putting men on the moon back then was a complete
waste of both time and money. (our money)

Yes, it is generally agreed that letting the Soviets win *every*
step of the space race (instead of only most of them) would have
been a grand idea. It's also absolutely sure that nothing good
ever came out of the whole manned space stuff. Inspiration isn't
worth money; triumphs aren't worth money (please close down all of
the commercial sports, they don't give anything of worth. either);
knowledge isn't worth money either. Knowing how our bodies react
to higher gees or micro-gee situations has and had and never will
have any value, just for example.

And there never will be space tourists either, neither really
rich ones on the ISS, nor well off ones on shorter hops with
private space vehicles, not in the past, not in the future.

There also were never any jobs created by putting men on the moon
--- the money was just burned --- a *complete* waste of money.

And it was of course a *complete* waste of time for all involved
and not involved. There was noone proud, noone fulfilled dreams,
noone gained skills --- all these people should just have been
drinking booze instead, it would have been a much more valuable
way to spend time. Or even better, they could have built something
that would be remembered.

-Wolfgang

Had the money been left where it was already earmarked to go.....With the
universities who were getting ready to explore our solar system, we would
already be miles ahead of where we are today in knowledge......Throwing it
away on protecting men was a terrific waste of resources......

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose
combustion
product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen and
whose
combustion product is mostly water?

The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is
CO2.
Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to

You're not smart enough to be condescending.

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

And yet I still know more than do you.

So how come everything you've said so far about the chemistry of
hydrocarbon combustion has been wrong in very elementary ways?

It hasn't been. You're a dishonest idiot.

I've already explained why each of the few claims you've made so far
has been wrong. If you didn't understand then checking wikipedia for
"hydrocarbon combustion" "Avogadro's Law" and "atomic weight"
should help you out.

In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Not by weight. One carbon atom weighs six times as much as a
hydrogen
atom.

Oh dear. I had no idea your problem was so serious. You are so far

So you're just some stupid asshole.

And the person who claimed that a carbon atom weighs six times as
much as a hydrogen atom isn't stupid? :-)

It's a useful aproximation, moron.

Do you really think 6 is a useful approximation to 11.9, or are you
confusing atomic number with atomic weight? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

I suspect that he was talking about a hydrogen molecule, which contains two
H atoms, since it is a gas.....This would bring him a lot closer to a factor
of 6.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose combustion
product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen and whose
combustion product is mostly water?

The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is CO2.
Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to

You're not smart enough to be condescending.

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

And yet I still know more than do you.

So how come everything you've said so far about the chemistry of
hydrocarbon combustion has been wrong in very elementary ways?

It hasn't been. You're a dishonest idiot.

I've already explained why each of the few claims you've made so far

You've demonstrated that you're a trolling asshole who doesn't even
know what you're arguing about.

--
Ray Fischer

mikey4 wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
mikey4 wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
mikey4 wrote:
" But such disposal, while possible, does not actually exist.

http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/...tion/index.htm

Educate yourself Ray.

You first. That proess doesn't deal with spent nuclear fuel.
In the future it would be good if you actually read the "evidence"
that you provide.

Why? you don't

It seems that you have the abilities of a 12-year-old when it comes to
reasoned debate. So far all of your arguments can be summed up as
"oh yeah?"

Ray you are one to talk with the crap you sling, calling people liars,

Only those people who lie.

You said to me "That proess doesn't deal with spent nuclear fuel. In the
future it would be good if you actually read the "evidence" that you
provide."

And?

The process is used for spent fuel.

In fact the web page that YOU cited makes no mention of fuel at all.
It refers to liquid nuclear waste. Spent nuclear fuel isn't liquid.

And no I am not going to provide you
with the many links to "back up my statement.

Quelle surprise.

--
Ray Fischer

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham wrote:
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:


In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Not by weight. One carbon atom weighs six times as much as a
hydrogen
atom.

Oh dear. I had no idea your problem was so serious. You are so far

So you're just some stupid asshole.

And the person who claimed that a carbon atom weighs six times as
much as a hydrogen atom isn't stupid? :-)

It's a useful aproximation, moron.

Do you really think 6 is a useful approximation to 11.9, or are you
confusing atomic number with atomic weight? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

I suspect that he was talking about a hydrogen molecule, which contains two
H atoms, since it is a gas.....This would bring him a lot closer to a factor
of 6.

That may have been what he was thinking of, but unfortunately it
wasn't what he was talking about. He was talking about the relative
amounts of carbon and hydrogen in a hydrocarbon with respect to their
effects on the relative amount of the combustion products. Hydrogen
gas doesn't feature in the combustion of a hydrocarbon :-)

--
Chris Malcolm