Don't Get Sore ...

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <c49q6g$1hk2$1@bigboote.WPI.EDU>,
Stacy <haponik+pleasenospam@wpi.edu> writes:

[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
   >>>I also view websites critically. A website can be hosted very
   >>>economically, websites can present information advancing hidden
   >>>agendas, website information is easily changed with no archival
   >>>audit trail, and there is no independent review of website content
   >>>or website information quality.
  >>
[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>"... hidden agendas ..."? How can (correct?) information advance
  >>hidden agendas? I'd argue that the context in which information
  >>is presented modifies the information content. The same information
  >>presented in two radically different contexts can lead readers to
  >>two radically different conclusions.
  >>
  >>IMO context is everything.
 >
 >Are you saying that even accurate information can not be used in a
 >debate because the sources of that information may be biased in one
 >direction or another? Is this why you provide no cites, because you
 >fear
 >the site you cite may be biased?
 >
 >Or do you actually mean to say that the sites provided as cites
 >should
 >be carefully evaluated to ensure that the site's bias is minimal?
 >
 >Please note that both sites I provided as cites are hosted by
 >reputable
 >universities and posted by faculty members who teach topics in the
 >medical areas. Since these are teaching sites, I believe bias is
 >negligible.
 >
 >I believe cites are still useful, even on the web. They just have
 >to be
 >from reputable sources.

Information also must be interpreted correctly.

Neither of your two cites mentioned the word enamel.
And in a different message you admitted that dentin
(the subject of discussion in your citations) did not
equate to enamel.

You interpreted two citations incorrectly prove a point about enamel.
MISINTERPRETATIONS:
In article <c49hpi$1d08$1@bigboote.WPI.EDU>,
Stacy <haponik+pleasenospam@wpi.edu> writes:

 >According to Anne LeMaistre, M.D. of the University of Texas (
<RB snipped URL>
 >
 > "Dentin, the bulk of the tooth and the first mineralized
 >component
 > of the tooth to be deposited, is a calcified tissue similar
 >to bone
 > but harder because of its higher calcium salts content.... The
 > organic matrix of dentin is secreted by odontoblasts. The
 >cell body
 > of odontoblasts (which are polarized, slender cells) line the
 > internal surface of the tooth separating it from the pulp
 >cavity.
 > Long cytoplasmic extensions, the odontoblastic processes,
 >much like
 > osteoblast processes in bone, are embedded in the matrix they
 > secrete, in a space called the dentinal tubule through the full
 > thickness of the dentin in parallel rows. **Deposition of
 >dentin
 > continues in adult life with the dentin slowly encroaching on
 >the
 > pulp cavity. New dentin can be laid down to compensate for
 >tooth
 > damage.**"
 >
 >And according to Dr. Allen Enders' lecture notes on Human
 >Microscopic
 >Anatomy, available here:
<RB snipped URL>
 >
 > "Cells that break down calcified cartilage, chondroclasts, and
 >*cells
 > that break down dentin, odontoclasts,* have the same
 >appearance and
 > apparent origin as do osteoclasts and should be considered
 >different
 > populations of this cell type."
 >
 >So apparently, Dentin is constantly being broken down by
 >odontoclasts,

Dentin does _not_ equate to enamel, and the word ENAMEL
appears nowhere in these two citations.

CORROBORATION:
In article <c49ii3$1dbg$1@bigboote.WPI.EDU>,
Stacy <haponik+pleasenospam@wpi.edu> writes:

 >Yes, dentin's not enamel, but it's a major portion of the tooth. ...

COMMON SENSE:
Broken bones heal -- broken enamel does not heal.
This is a significant and obvious difference that does
_not_ require Internet citations and research to understand.

I am not interested in further discussing
dentistry or your research qualifications.
Feel free to killfile me.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

Richard Ballard wrote:

 > The Space Shuttle is (and Skylab was) spacious enough that
 > astronauts could get up and walk around. The spaciousness
 > made sanitary functions easier.
 >
 > The Apollo trips to the moon utilized (relatively) small capsules
 > where the astronauts reclined in pressure suits. There was
 > little room to move around. I believe the books "The Right Stuff"
 > and "Apollo 13" contain some discussion about the male
 > astronauts sanitary concerns while in pressure suits. The
 > journey to the moon does not take tens of days in each direction.
 >
 > A human journey to Mars will be of relatively long duration in
 > each direction, and I assume the use of small capsules with
 > astronauts continuously reclining in pressure suits. I know that
 > hospitals and nursing homes have procedures to ensure that
 > bedridden patients do not develop bedsores (which can range
 > from minor irritations to ulcerating infections).
 >
 > Has anybody discussed how an astronaut forced to continually
 > wear a pressure suit and recline within a small space capsule
 > for tens of days will avoid developing bedsores?

Richard, why do you ask this question?

--
-blj-<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[Comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <opr5n3u7ap0v1caabrianlj.TakeThisOut@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
"Brian L Johnson" <no.email.TakeThisOut@address.invalid> writes:

 >Richard Ballard wrote:
 >
  >>Has anybody discussed how an astronaut forced to continually
  >>wear a pressure suit and recline within a small space capsule
  >>for tens of days will avoid developing bedsores?
 >
 >Richard, why do you ask this question?

I originally asked this question because IMO economics will
force tight quarters on a hu/manned Martian mission. My
initial impression is/was that public opinion believes we will
build the USS Enterprise to go to Mars. IMO the implementation
will resemble Apollo more than it resembles $tar Trek.

Lvpokerplayer.TakeThisOut@aol.com (among others) has since provided
specific technical details of proposed lunar launches supporting
the Martian mission -- technical realism. IMO launch from
Earth orbit might be equally feasible and less expensive, but
I am not qualified (and do not have the time) to work the details.
IMO the infrastructure required for an Earth orbit launch might
have greater reuse potential -- an important selling point for the
taxpayers and for Congress.

Ironically, MSEE can denote Master of Science in Electrical
Engineering (that's me), or it can denote the NASA position
designation Mission Specialist Environmental Engineering --
that is, an ergonomics (human factors) specialist. IMO
current public discussion of the Mars mission is _not_
emphasizing ergonomic reality. The human body did _not_ evolve
in near zero gravity cramped quarters and this environment
impacts human physique adversely -- important both to
successful mission completion and also to astronaut health
and safety.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040329192946.05579.00000305 DeleteThis @mb-m25.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

 >One possible design for the manned is a wheel, and another is a
 >cylinder. I
 >think our mass might be used more efficiently with a wheel, hub
 >and spokes
 >design. Even though we have advantages, we still want to look
 >for an efficient
 >design. What I envision would be a central hub, perhaps three
 >spokes coming
 >off of it, and the rim, which will pretty much contain everything
 >from living
 >quarters to most of our cargo and supplies. I'm not sure what
 >gravity we want
 >to simulate, but it will almost certainly be less than a full g.
 >
 >We don't try to take along enough consumables for the mission.
 >We recycle the
 >water, and use hydroponics for air and food.

I am sure that you are familiar with the wonderful space film
"Silent Running" starring Bruce Dern.

Your ideas sound spacious and expensive. How would you
market these ideas to the taxpayers and Congress?

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[Comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

This is the second time you have asked me this question
today. That must be equivalent to delays returning
to a critical post due to Coriolis effect messes occuring
during urination.

In article <opr5n3pdpw0v1caabrianlj.RemoveThis@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
"Brian L Johnson" <no.email.RemoveThis@address.invalid> writes:

 >Richard Ballard wrote:
 >
  >>Has anybody discussed how an astronaut forced to continually
  >>wear a pressure suit and recline within a small space capsule
  >>for tens of days will avoid developing bedsores?
 >
 >Richard, why do you ask this question?

I originally asked this question because IMO economics will
force tight quarters on a hu/manned Martian mission. My
initial impression is/was that public opinion believes we will
build the USS Enterprise to go to Mars. IMO the implementation
will resemble Apollo more than it resembles $tar Trek.

Lvpokerplayer.RemoveThis@aol.com (among others) has since provided
specific technical details of proposed lunar launches supporting
the Martian mission -- technical realism. IMO launch from
Earth orbit might be equally feasible and less expensive, but
I am not qualified (and do not have the time) to work the details.
IMO the infrastructure required for an Earth orbit launch might
have greater reuse potential -- an important selling point for the
taxpayers and for Congress.

Ironically, MSEE can denote Master of Science in Electrical
Engineering (that's me), or it can denote the NASA position
designation Mission Specialist Environmental Engineering --
that is, an ergonomics (human factors) specialist. IMO
current public discussion of the Mars mission is _not_
emphasizing ergonomic reality. The human body did _not_ evolve
in near zero gravity cramped quarters and this environment
impacts human physique adversely -- important both to
successful mission completion and also to astronaut health
and safety.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

In article <opr5od69fh0v1caabrianlj.TakeThisOut@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
"Brian L Johnson" <no.email.TakeThisOut@address.invalid> writes:

  >>I worry more about delays returning to critical duty posts
  >>caused by Coriolis effect messes occuring during urination.
 >
 ><chkl> Well illustrated, and precisely my point. The effect's
 >direction
 >would depend on which way the crew-member faced and whether the
 >vessel was
 >accelerating or not. Facing forwards, backwards, spinwards or
 >anti-spinwards could each produce a different effect, and would
 >it be
 >possible for humans to adapt in sufficent time so as not to make
 >for a
 >very smelly environment in a very short time?

Adaptation is not the issue.
Not making messes is the issue.

For example, if you walk around unzipped and exposed
you should not expect others to adapt to your behaviour.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[Comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <opr5od7tmf0v1caabrianlj.RemoveThis@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
"Brian L Johnson" <no.email.RemoveThis@address.invalid> writes:

 >Richard Ballard wrote:
 >
  >>This is the second time you have asked me this question
  >>today.
 >
 >Correct. Once in ABIA and once in ABLN.

With a significant time difference between receipt of the
two messages at my end.

 >Alas, that's one of the effects if msgs are multi-posted (as you
 >are
 >doing) as opposed to being cross-posted. You told me that your AOL
 >software does not allow you to cross-post, but I didn't get a reply
 >when I
 >asked you whether your software would cross-post if following-up
 >to a
 >cross-posted msg. I shall cross-post this reply and hope that you
 >only
 >see this msg once.
 >
<RB snipped URL>
 >
  >>That must be equivalent to delays returning
  >>to a critical post due to Coriolis effect messes occuring
  >>during urination.
 >
 ><chkl> Yes, I saw your other msg.
 >
[RB comment: "Brian L Johnson" <no.email.RemoveThis@address.invalid> wrote:]
   >>>Richard Ballard wrote:
   >>>
   >>>>Has anybody discussed how an astronaut forced to continually
   >>>>wear a pressure suit and recline within a small space capsule
   >>>>for tens of days will avoid developing bedsores?
   >>>
   >>>Richard, why do you ask this question?
  >>
  >>I originally asked this question because IMO economics will
  >>force tight quarters on a hu/manned Martian mission. My
  >>initial impression is/was that public opinion believes we will
  >>build the USS Enterprise to go to Mars. IMO the implementation
  >>will resemble Apollo more than it resembles $tar Trek.
 >
 >But if you believe that such cramped conditions automatically imply
 >bed-sores (or other similar close-confinement issues), does that
 >not rule
 >out an 'Apollo-style' mission?

'Tight quarters' is a relative term, but I believe
economics will make the implementation look more like
Apollo that like the U$$ Enterprise.

IMO an 'Apollo style' Mars mission makes the mission riskier
but less costly. I assume some common sense is included in
the implementation decisionmaking process.

Cost versus risk is a standard trade in systems engineering.
Cost versus benefits achieved also is a standard trade
in systems engineering.
System engineers quantify -- they seldom are responsible for
making the final decisions.

  >>Lvpokerplayer@aol.com (among others) has since provided
  >>specific technical details of proposed lunar launches supporting
  >>the Martian mission -- technical realism. IMO launch from
  >>Earth orbit might be equally feasible and less expensive, but
  >>I am not qualified (and do not have the time) to work the details.
  >>IMO the infrastructure required for an Earth orbit launch might
  >>have greater reuse potential -- an important selling point for the
  >>taxpayers and for Congress.
 >
 >Rather, I would imagine that emphasising potential for rescue
 >missions
 >would be a /negative/ selling point for those engaged in finding
 >funds for
 >a Mars mission. "So you *expect* there to be accidents?" would
 >be the
 >worried thought from the backers.

I did _not_ discuss rescue missions. I discussed (re)use of
the Mars mission logistics infrastructure in other productive
capacities. For example, I might purchase a personal computer
for business use, knowing that I also can catalog my textual library
on that personal computer -- _value added_ that helps justify the
purchase expense.

  >>Ironically, MSEE can denote Master of Science in Electrical
  >>Engineering (that's me), or it can denote the NASA position
  >>designation Mission Specialist Environmental Engineering --
  >>that is, an ergonomics (human factors) specialist. IMO
  >>current public discussion of the Mars mission is _not_
  >>emphasizing ergonomic reality. The human body did _not_ evolve
  >>in near zero gravity cramped quarters and this environment
  >>impacts human physique adversely -- important both to
  >>successful mission completion and also to astronaut health
  >>and safety.
 >
 >Again, if prolonged, cramped, zero-G conditions would prevent an
 >'Apollo-style' mission, does that not automatically rule such a
 >mission
 >out? The mission would therefore have to be a not-prolonged and/or
 >not-cramped and/or non-zero-G one, yes?

Once again, IMO an 'Apollo style' Mars mission makes the mission
riskier but less costly. I assume some common sense is included
in the implementation decisionmaking process.

Cost versus risk is a standard trade in systems engineering.
Cost versus benefits achieved also is a standard trade in
systems engineering.
System engineers quantify -- they seldom are responsible for
making the final decisions.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040330115421.12577.00000346 DeleteThis @mb-m16.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

 >Did you bother reading the last sentence of the post, where I
 >stated that it
 >would be absolutely impossible to build this ship if we launched
 >from Earth?

I discussed the option of assembling and launching the
Mars mission in/from Earth orbit. There also is the
option that the Mars mission final destination once again
is achieving Earth orbit -- no Earth/lunar touchdown. These
options offer potential fuel volume savings (less wasted
mission volume and mass), and IMO the inorbit infrastructure
used for inorbit assembly and retrieval might have
greater _value added_ (re)use.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

Richard Ballard wrote:

 > [Comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]
 >
 > In article <opr5od7tmf0v1caabrianlj DeleteThis @news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
 > "Brian L Johnson" <no.email DeleteThis @address.invalid> writes:
 >
  >> Richard Ballard wrote:
  >>
   >>> This is the second time you have asked me this question today.
  >>
  >> Correct. Once in ABIA and once in ABLN.
 >
 > With a significant time difference between receipt of the two messages
 > at my end.

Indeed. But with cross-posting instead of multi-posting, you wouldn't
have seen the 2nd msg (whichever one it was) because your software would
have noted that it was part of a cross-posted set and marked the 2nd msg
as already read. You see now how this can work for you?

<snip>
 > <RB snipped URL>
  >> But if you believe that such cramped conditions automatically imply
  >> bed-sores (or other similar close-confinement issues), does that
  >> not rule out an 'Apollo-style' mission?
 >
 > 'Tight quarters' is a relative term, but I believe
 > economics will make the implementation look more like
 > Apollo that like the U$$ Enterprise.
 >
 > IMO an 'Apollo style' Mars mission makes the mission riskier
 > but less costly.

Okay, but if that's the case, then you're asking mission backers to accept
a higher risk. As I mentioned, backers don't like risks. In the trade,
it's called a 'negative' selling point.

 > I assume some common sense is included in
 > the implementation decisionmaking process.

That's well worth hoping for, yes. <g>

Seriously, a lot of funding is done on a whim. Provided that the
presentation team have laid out their plan well and emphasised the
positive aspects, it probably doesn't matter very much what the price is.
Ater all, in the eyes of the backers, this is pretty much a one-off
project, so they don't really care about the extra cost in building a
bigger craft if it looks as if it's going to be a success and going to be
seen to be bringing in 'positive returns'[1]

Let's see. You're a well-read chap, aren't you? Do you remember C.
Northcoate Parkinson's book _Parkinson's Law or The Pursuit of Progress_?
Well... the chapter on 'High Finance' is instructive.[2]

 > Cost versus risk is a standard trade in systems engineering.
 > Cost versus benefits achieved also is a standard trade
 > in systems engineering.
 > System engineers quantify -- they seldom are responsible for
 > making the final decisions.

That's very true. But it may not be the downside that it initally seems.

-----Footnote2-----
1. Positive return need not be financial. Goodwill, prestige, etc are all
positive returns in the eyes of fianncial backers.

2. For the benefit of those for whom it may have been some time since they
last read the book, Parkinson points out that the amount of time
committees spend on discussing and *approving* projects costing 10,000,000
(for eg, a new nuclear-powered power station) is less than that spent on
discussing projects costing a few 100's (say, a bicycle shed outside the
power-station) and *substantially* less than that discussing the few 10's
spent on provision of coffee and cakes at the company's annual welfare
meeting.

--
-blj-<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <opr5osgf1m0v1caabrianlj.TakeThisOut@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
"Brian L Johnson" <no.email.TakeThisOut@address.invalid> writes:

[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>Adaptation is not the issue.
  >>Not making messes is the issue.
 >
 >So, you think that making a mess in the bathroom (which can easily
 >be
 >cleaned up) is more important than having crew-members who can't
 >learn to
 >function properly because they can barely stand up in safety.

As I mentioned in a different message, system engineers
enumerate and quantify -- system engineers seldom make
implementation decisions.

That does not mean that system engineers' lives are without
conflict. I can imagine situations where a supervising manager
prematurely visits a system engineer and says "This is the
decision -- justify the decision in writing and sign it."

"... crew-members who can't learn to function properly ..."?
I've never been a crew member, but I am a small businessman.
If a businessperson continually finds him/herself out of their
depth, IMO they are in the wrong business and should change
business lines.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <opr5oxrdii0v1caabrianlj RemoveThis @news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
"Brian L Johnson" <no.email RemoveThis @address.invalid> writes:

 >Seriously, a lot of funding is done on a whim. Provided that the
 >presentation team have laid out their plan well and emphasised the
 >positive aspects, it probably doesn't matter very much what the
 >price is.
 >Ater all, in the eyes of the backers, this is pretty much a one-off
 >project, so they don't really care about the extra cost in building
 >a bigger craft if it looks as if it's going to be a success and
 >going to be
 >seen to be bringing in 'positive returns'[1]

IMO the combination of an (unprecedented) permanent petroleum
shortage that increases business and living costs across the
board, combined with increased overhead due to (nonproductive)
security expenditures, plus long term loss of jobs in the
United States domestic (and European?) economies is changing
the rules permanently. I believe that Government pursestrings
will tighten, and I would not count on 'funding on a whim' for
science projects while there are domestic food, shelter and
energy needs that are _not_ being met. In addition, the
demographics of the 1950's Baby Boom are loading (and will
continue to load) Social Security and Medicare heavily throughout
the next decade -- an expensive financial burden.

Don't get me wrong -- I _like_ pure/applied science and the
potential benefits it brings. But there are only so many
resources and prioritization is _mandatory_.

For example, we are running out of petroleum, and we won't
create more. [My _not_ informed opinion is that a significant
amount of Saudi Arabia's immense oil reserves have been
expended. I do _not_ know how heavily we depleted Iran's
oil reserves during the Shah's rule. I know that Oklahoma
(which once had formidible oil reserves) contributes little
petroleum today. The expense and complexity of deep water
petroleum drilling operations boggles my mind. And the
cost and logistics of developing new South American and
African oil fields and getting the product to the ocean
for shipment are staggering.]

During the Carter Administration we tapped the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to keep the wheels turning domestically.
During the Reagan Administration we put refilling the SPR
'off budget' to obscure the cost of the refill. I do _not_
know how the SPR and its maintenance is handled by President
George W. Bush's Administration, but I know that the SPR
currently is being refilled and that this cost is a campaign
issue. I also know that adding excise taxes to gasoline
(an issue where I have mixed emotions due to excessive
regressive taxation penalties to lower income and rural
populations) is a Presidential campaign issue.

How/when do we fund research for practical affordable
alternate energy sources? To my knowledge this research
effectively ceased after former President Carter's administration.
And to size the funding scope, let me address one issue:
safe nuclear waste storage. In a very reputable engineering
periodical I read that we have studied this problem for twenty
years without coming to an optimal conclusion. ****I also read
that before we complete constructing safe nuclear waste
storage facilities, we will have spent one thousand dollars
for _each household_ in the United States.**** If implemented
that thousand dollars will sit atop your electric bill, Brian.

Alternative energy is a fundamental and crippling problem.
If the lights are out on the ground, the USS Enterprise
ain't goin' nowhere.

Mandatory prioritization eliminates 'funding on a whim', Brian.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <opr5ozlcyl0v1caabrianlj.TakeThisOut@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
"Brian L Johnson" <no.email.TakeThisOut@address.invalid> writes:

 >Jonathan D Gibbons wrote:
 >
  >>There's also the very simple matter that the bathroom problem is
  >>effectively already solved. Simply don't change the lavatory
  >>design we
  >>already use in space. it doesn't spill unless you are extremely
  >>bad at
  >>using it.
 >
 >If you've just cracked your head against the wall for the umpteenth
 >time
 >because you can't turn a corner accurately, using the loo may not
 >be as
 >easy as we think it should be.

Brian, one of my former supervisors had a favorite saying:
"The nice thing about hitting your forehead against the wall
is it feels so good when you stop." I never commented,
but everytime my former supervisor repeated that maxim
I thought "The nice thing about hitting your forehead against
the wall is it teaches you to find doors."

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040330140825.22202.00000373 RemoveThis @mb-m22.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer RemoveThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

 >Then there is food, water and air for the mission. Even if we only
 >send one person, these are going to be non trivial.

Recall that Apollo had a lunar orbiting 'mother ship'
and a downsized 'lunar lander'. Apollo did _not_ land
its entire mass in the Moon's gravity well.

If this strategy was followed in a Martian mission, you
would need at least two people -- one in orbit and one
for the Marswalk.

And as far as the Marswalk goes, in Red Cross lifesaving
they taught us 'the buddy system'. Having an itch you
can't reach because you left your backscratcher at home
is frustrating.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ...