In article <8qZRf.7829$GN1.5470@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com 
says...

In news:1142428000.906632.37910@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,
ianparker2@gmail.com <ianparker2@gmail.com> typed:

We have the technology - so why aren't the current generation of
children encouraged to go lunar lander surfing via the Internet,
controlling

Actually I was listening to a Nasa podcast last night and one point they
mentioned is it's actually quite difficult to use conventional consumer
computer chips in space because of the radiation issue. So I guess this
explains why the technology they can send into space which has to have
special circuits (I dare say they may even use valves) is actually quite
primitive and large, when compared to consumer electronics on earth. Like we
are talking less than 1/5th the power of the average home computer which
these days would mean most of the computers Nasa have been able to send into
space are at best no more powerful than a Pentium 1 or 2 and even then we
are taking multi-processor units. The other problem they mentioned was
bandwidth apparently many of the computers they have in space have no more
available communication bandwidth than a relatively primitive dial-up modem,
so faster processors have not been a priority

One has to be aware of what time period you are talking about, and how
that period relates to the computer technology of that time.
Computers used in the military, and that of the space environment do 
require them to be very robust and reliable - if they used the latest 
available
at that time? They don't wish to find out at a critical moment, an
unexpected and unforseen error/fault which would jeopardize the mission,
etc.
To use the very latest would not be practical for them.
And then they have to design it for use with their requirements in mind -
which takes time (X years?) in doing so.
One would then guess, they'll end up using older technology because it
has been tried and tested (and therefore unlikely to develop new faults
in space).
They of course, wouldn't be using computers 10 years old - there would be
no logic to that.

Actually though the commentator said NASA are working on ways of adapting
consumer market chips for use in space particularly for less essential
applications, (obviously they couldn't use them for things like navigation
at this stage). But if they can find ways of adapting these chips for Space
it should improve the speed of the computers they can send up by a factor of
5 and cut costs enormously because they could use relatively inexpensive
consumer chips that are considerably more powerful than anything NASA can at
present send into space.

So I guess this explains why there aren't millions of little robo-cams
walking about the moon, since a 2 ghtz computer that would work on the moon
would have to be quite large and heavy

With robotics involved, we're talking about non-human environment for the
hardware to work in, which is more hostile than a human environment.
One would guess they still require shielding, of course, but how much
shielding is adequate for it?

a robotic camera on the moon? To get them interested in science and
technology, so that their generation can land on Mars within their
generation?

I think it shows more - that the Moon is offlimits to humans (for
whatever reason, mainly one of conspiracy - to keep humans grounded
here) and that NASA is being very very slow towards any advances in
space travel, etc. etc. It's almost as if NASA's mission is slow
mankind's advances into
space travel and associated technology.
And that the Apollo moon landings were just a one-off never to
happen again...

I agree that NASA is slowing down space exploration but not for the
resons you suggest. I do not believe there is a great conspiracy,
simply that NASA scientists and engineers are not really competent.

Up to a point that's probably true. We are talking cutting edge new
technology and most scientists and engineers are not of that calibre and if
they are, are probably working in the private sector. Though in all fairness
there are radiation issues in space so I dare say NASA scientists are doing
their best to overcome those issues

One would think that NASA would be using the latest technology, that is
of interest/use to them, that they can use without compromising on
the effectiveness on the mission.

The key enabling technology for large scale space exploration is the
Von Neumann machine, the self replicating robotic system. Not ISS, not
manned luinar landings. Any set of half cometant scientists keen on
grandiose space projects would be developing such a machine as the No
1 priority.

Well one would think as home consumer electronics are continually increasing
in power and shrinking in size the more inches of Lead one could conceivably
wrap them in in order to adapt them for space whilst keeping the size and
weight feasible for launching :)
-- 
Amanda

I don't think I've written clearly about the timeline of events,
regarding the criticism of the Billy Meier photographs.
I can't say that I can quote it exactly as such, but I think I know
the sequence of events regarding this.
In that when the first Billy Meier photographs appeared - they appeared to
be too good to be true - and so the first criticisms against the photographs
were made, without doing any basic research into the matter.
And when someone did go to the time and trouble - to research properly
as to how the photographs were taken (ie. Wendelle Stevens) - the public
media has already been saturated with the hasty negative criticisms (in
which the claims against Meier were not accurate, because they didn't do
any basic research). People are reluctant to admit to their mistakes -
ie. they will not own up to them in public.
I am not that well versed with the Billy Meier information, to know whether
he still has original negatives available or not. I would guess he still has,
because he took other photographs, before those ones he is world renown
for, and he took literally rolls of films - but how many he lost (never
got returned) or stolen (from his home) - I wouldn't know.
I am all for exposing Billy Meier, if he has indeed faked his UFO photographs.
And note - if string was used, then this should evident in not just one of the
photographs, but also others as well. Remember there was a specially large
format book, published of his photographs in that early time period - referred 
to as a coffee table book. So, I would guess, that all those photographs
could be rescanned, and any string present, could be made visible -
via photoshop? It need only be shown that one photograph has the tell tale
sign of a string going right up to the edge of the frame, to be convincing
enough, and not merely a very small segment, where it could be merely
part of the ship design.

The stuff that appeared at the time of his breakup with his wife - may have
been just 'her' way of getting back at Billy. That it may be a disgruntled
ex-wife's comments and actions.

I don't know too much about the Gulf Breeze UFO photographs. Whether those
photographs are genuine or not? It is the same sort of situation as
Billy Meier. How do you know if they are genuine or not?
You have one expert saying something, and another expert saying something
different altogether - the opposite.
And someone could plant a 'model' on the photographer's property - which
will give rise to the idea, that he used that model all along.
Very much like 9-11, where a flight instruction manual of some kind,
is found conveniently in a car parked, left at the airport. It would have
been more logical, that the manual should have been taken with them?
And not so conveniently left to be found, after the event.

I say you have to collect up as much information as you can, and
enough information will weigh up as to what is more clearer than the other.
The one with less inconsistancies, is closer to the truth.

Harvey