"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 7 May 2009 10:57:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Oh well. It was nice having a backup system to GPS, but it looks like
it's
dead.
I think it was Clinton who tried to dump it before but it was retained due
to an overwhelming protest by the military, commercial transportation
operations and the general boating/aviation public.

GPS can be jammed. LORAN is much more difficult to jam. I've used both
and although GPS is very good, I always liked the reliability of LORAN.

I agree. It's a mistake.

In my opinion, instead of the minor "savings" by eliminating it, they
should upgrade it and promote it as a backup system to the extremely
vunerable GPS system.

And after watching "The One" in his "cost savings announcement", I'd
just like to say that it's much like telling your wife that your going
out to buy a $100,000 Mercedes and coming home with a $20,000 Toyota.
You "saved" $80,000. :)

This administration is brain dead.


I don't think they are thinking it though. Virtually every commercial
fisherman in my area and a large percentage of charter boat captains still
use and prefer LORAN to GPS.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 7 May 2009 10:57:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Oh well. It was nice having a backup system to GPS, but it looks
like it's
dead.
I think it was Clinton who tried to dump it before but it was
retained due
to an overwhelming protest by the military, commercial transportation
operations and the general boating/aviation public.

GPS can be jammed. LORAN is much more difficult to jam. I've used
both
and although GPS is very good, I always liked the reliability of LORAN.

I agree. It's a mistake.

In my opinion, instead of the minor "savings" by eliminating it, they
should upgrade it and promote it as a backup system to the extremely
vunerable GPS system.

And after watching "The One" in his "cost savings announcement", I'd
just like to say that it's much like telling your wife that your going
out to buy a $100,000 Mercedes and coming home with a $20,000 Toyota.
You "saved" $80,000. :)

This administration is brain dead.


I don't think they are thinking it though. Virtually every commercial
fisherman in my area and a large percentage of charter boat captains
still use and prefer LORAN to GPS.

Eisboch

They are going to have to learn new tricks. Some of them, I'll bet, are
still using loran A, trying to steer to then stay on a TD line until it
crosses another particular TD line.

"jim78565" wrote in message
...


They are going to have to learn new tricks. Some of them, I'll bet, are
still using loran A, trying to steer to then stay on a TD line until it
crosses another particular TD line.


Well that's part of the resistance to GPS among the fishing crowd. They
have "TD" points saved for all their secret spots and at least the early GPS
systems couldn't directly transfer a TD to a waypoint.
I haven't checked but the newer units probably can do it.

Most of the systems I saw (and had) were LORAN-C. The Grand Banks had a
LORAN system (as well as GPS). The previous owner had travelled all over
in it, from Maine to South America and even through the Panama Canal. All
his navigational points were in the LORAN and not the GPS.

You remember Stanley and his brother Rob on "Polar Bear"? He isn't going
to take too kindly to the demise of LORAN.

Eisboch

On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:40:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 7 May 2009 10:57:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Oh well. It was nice having a backup system to GPS, but it looks like
it's
dead.
I think it was Clinton who tried to dump it before but it was retained due
to an overwhelming protest by the military, commercial transportation
operations and the general boating/aviation public.

GPS can be jammed. LORAN is much more difficult to jam. I've used both
and although GPS is very good, I always liked the reliability of LORAN.

I agree. It's a mistake.

In my opinion, instead of the minor "savings" by eliminating it, they
should upgrade it and promote it as a backup system to the extremely
vunerable GPS system.

And after watching "The One" in his "cost savings announcement", I'd
just like to say that it's much like telling your wife that your going
out to buy a $100,000 Mercedes and coming home with a $20,000 Toyota.
You "saved" $80,000. :)

This administration is brain dead.

I don't think they are thinking it though. Virtually every commercial
fisherman in my area and a large percentage of charter boat captains still
use and prefer LORAN to GPS.

Of course they haven't thought it through. The cost savings for a back
up navigation system is so minor in comparison to what "The One" is
proposing it's ridiculous.

17 billion dollars off a whopping 3.4 trillion dollar budget proposal.

3.4 trillion dollars.

But we're saving 17 billion!!!

3.4Trillion - that's illion with a T.

We're all screwed anyway, so I guess losing LORAN isn't a big deal in
the scheme of things.

..5% budget cut from 3.4 Trillion.

Brain dead doesn't even begin to adequately describe these bozos.

On Thu, 07 May 2009 12:26:10 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 7 May 2009 10:57:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Oh well. It was nice having a backup system to GPS, but it looks like it's
dead.
I think it was Clinton who tried to dump it before but it was retained due
to an overwhelming protest by the military, commercial transportation
operations and the general boating/aviation public.

GPS can be jammed. LORAN is much more difficult to jam. I've used both
and although GPS is very good, I always liked the reliability of LORAN.

I agree. It's a mistake.

In my opinion, instead of the minor "savings" by eliminating it, they
should upgrade it and promote it as a backup system to the extremely
vunerable GPS system.

And after watching "The One" in his "cost savings announcement", I'd
just like to say that it's much like telling your wife that your going
out to buy a $100,000 Mercedes and coming home with a $20,000 Toyota.
You "saved" $80,000. :)

This administration is brain dead.

Wow, you've developed empathy for our 8 years of suffering.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:40:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I don't think they are thinking it though. Virtually every commercial
fisherman in my area and a large percentage of charter boat captains still
use and prefer LORAN to GPS.


Of course they haven't thought it through. The cost savings for a back
up navigation system is so minor in comparison to what "The One" is
proposing it's ridiculous.

17 billion dollars off a whopping 3.4 trillion dollar budget proposal.



Where did you come up with 17 billion?

Here's the "cost savings" to be had by shutting down LORAN:

"On 26 Feb 2009 the The U.S. Office of Management and Budget released the
first blueprint for the Financial Year 2010 budget.[7] This document
identifies the Loran-C system as "outdated" and supports its termination at
an estimated savings of $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over five
years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Chump change.

Eisboch

On Thu, 7 May 2009 15:25:30 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:40:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I don't think they are thinking it though. Virtually every commercial
fisherman in my area and a large percentage of charter boat captains still
use and prefer LORAN to GPS.


Of course they haven't thought it through. The cost savings for a back
up navigation system is so minor in comparison to what "The One" is
proposing it's ridiculous.

17 billion dollars off a whopping 3.4 trillion dollar budget proposal.

Where did you come up with 17 billion?

Here's the "cost savings" to be had by shutting down LORAN:

"On 26 Feb 2009 the The U.S. Office of Management and Budget released the
first blueprint for the Financial Year 2010 budget.[7] This document
identifies the Loran-C system as "outdated" and supports its termination at
an estimated savings of $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over five
years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Chump change.

That's the total package that the $36 million is part of - sorry for
the confusion.

Oh, by the way - the 17 billion? It's not a "cost savings" at all as
it turns out. Just on CNBC - it's being "re-directed" to more Obama
friendly proposals. So it's not a "cost savings" but a redirection of
the funds to other projects.

Like I said - you go out to buy $100,000 Mercedes and come back with a
$20,000 Toyota - you "saved" $80,000.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2009 15:25:30 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:40:09 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:
I don't think they are thinking it though. Virtually every commercial
fisherman in my area and a large percentage of charter boat captains still
use and prefer LORAN to GPS.
Of course they haven't thought it through. The cost savings for a back
up navigation system is so minor in comparison to what "The One" is
proposing it's ridiculous.

17 billion dollars off a whopping 3.4 trillion dollar budget proposal.
Where did you come up with 17 billion?

Here's the "cost savings" to be had by shutting down LORAN:

"On 26 Feb 2009 the The U.S. Office of Management and Budget released the
first blueprint for the Financial Year 2010 budget.[7] This document
identifies the Loran-C system as "outdated" and supports its termination at
an estimated savings of $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over five
years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Chump change.

That's the total package that the $36 million is part of - sorry for
the confusion.

Oh, by the way - the 17 billion? It's not a "cost savings" at all as
it turns out. Just on CNBC - it's being "re-directed" to more Obama
friendly proposals. So it's not a "cost savings" but a redirection of
the funds to other projects.

Like I said - you go out to buy $100,000 Mercedes and come back with a
$20,000 Toyota - you "saved" $80,000.


Well, you went out to buy an outboard motor...and came back with an etec...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Oh, by the way - the 17 billion? It's not a "cost savings" at all as
it turns out. Just on CNBC - it's being "re-directed" to more Obama
friendly proposals. So it's not a "cost savings" but a redirection of
the funds to other projects.

Like I said - you go out to buy $100,000 Mercedes and come back with a
$20,000 Toyota - you "saved" $80,000.


Oh. I get it. Then you give the $80K to Toyota to keep them in business.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Oh, by the way - the 17 billion? It's not a "cost savings" at all as
it turns out. Just on CNBC - it's being "re-directed" to more Obama
friendly proposals. So it's not a "cost savings" but a redirection of
the funds to other projects.

Like I said - you go out to buy $100,000 Mercedes and come back with a
$20,000 Toyota - you "saved" $80,000.


Oh. I get it. Then you give the $80K to Toyota to keep them in business.

Eisboch


No offense, but I'm getting a kick out of reading the posts of wealthy
retirees whining about funding for programs that might help people
without jobs or about to lose their jobs.