The problem is a mixing science with politics. Most Americans don't want to be forced to do something. The problem lies with scientists that want to use politicians to force their view on others. It would be much wiser and more efficient to use voluntary means to educate people to change their own behavior. Take smoking for example. Instead of scientists pushing politicians to directly enforce smoking bans and taxes before people were willing to accept that it's dangerous they spend decades showing that it was dangerous until there was a majority of voters that wanted these bans enacted. It should have been the same way with these other subjects. And if the technical community is unable to convince the voting public than it shouldn't try to bypass them and have it enforced from on high.
This is similar example of the gamblers fallacy. This is when you have a really random event such as gender of a child. Knowledge you have of the past or existing events have no effect on future or unknown events. So a balanced die will come up 1 1/6th of the time. If you roll it and 1 comes up 5 times in a row it doesn't mean anything for the next roll the probability of the next roll coming up 1 is 1/6. Now if before you started you asked what are the odds that the die will come up 1 6 times in a row it is 1/46656. The main thing is asking if the event is random.
I know this because I worked as a manufacturing engineer and used statistical process control. The basis for this is that you don't have to measure every part if your process is in control and all variations are random. You can then randomly select parts and measure them to prove the rest of the parts are good with a high level (6 sigma) of probability. The critical assumption is that the process is in control and there are tests that are used to determine if you are in control (The variations are random).
I explained this to my boss once to try to teach him not to bother me. I said my Brain is a computer and when I am working on something that requires a lot of thought my RAM is full of information related to the task at hand. Any interruption like email, telephone, or you coming to my desk to chat cause a core dump of my RAM to my tape backup system. So even though you may only bother me for "a sec" it takes me 15 minutes to load everything back off the tape to get back where I was. So unless it's important enough to waste 15 minutes of my time please put it in an e-mail which I will get to after lunch and before the end of the day.
I would still like to get rid of the 17th Amendment. Having the state governments representatives in Congress acts as another check against tyranny. One of the big problems states have right now is unfunded mandates coming down from on high. That might be prevented or at least curtailed.
I would imagine given a state and the location of all of the people in that state you could design an algorithm to solve for district boundaries that minimized total perimeter and minimized standard deviation in the number of people in each district. Then you if you could pass such a law you could use that system to automate the creation of district boundaries and it would completely non-partisan.
The reason things move slow and are expensive at NASA is because there are a lot of reviews. It isn't a government vs commercial thing at all. There are very few actual NASA employees. Most are contractors. NASA employees are there to write the contracts and provide a unbroken link of institutional knowledge. For example 3 employees of Scaled Composites died during a test where an engine exploded. If that test was going to be done at a NASA facility someone in NASA safety would have calculated the potential energy in the rocket test and established a radius where spectators had to be behind. Why? Because many years ago someone was either hurt, killed or had a close call. That institutional knowledge is passed on and maintained which causes development to go slow because there is someone that did something similar that has a warning for you. Some call that the bureaucracy that slows down innovation. SpaceX right now I'm sure has very little of this. So far their luck has held and I hope it continues. But someday they will have a close call or an accident. Then they will have to slow down and grow their own bureaucracy. Or most likely come ask the greybeards at NASA what went wrong and someone will have a story about the same thing happening in 1964.
It is very similar to the BP disaster. I'm sure all of the oil companies operate this way BP's luck just ran out. So they will most likely go bankrupt eventually paying for this because they will have so many eyes on them that they won't be competitive. Then their competitors with a little more luck and maybe a bit smarted will continue until the next accident.
You have to know how to get around the laws. Just have these types of tests in Washington or Oregon. Say they are assisted suicides by injection of something that might kill you. If you live and are cured it was just a happy accident.
Same thing for prostitution. Just have the whore sign a modeling contract and let a Flip Video Camera role. Now it's not prostitution it's acting!!!
Agreed. There should be an FDA but it should be like UL or the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. That way if you want to inject buffalo stem cells into your lips go ahead it just won't be FDA approved.
I'm a libertarian but I tell my friends that when such a machine is invented we will have communism. The good kind not the kind that marches millions off to their deaths. Because at this point there is no reason to have capital. Capital is someone saving their wealth to build something that makes them more productive. But this machine would be able to create anything including itself which means this is the last piece of capital equipment. Now people would still design things for fun like better replicators but it will only be for fun since all of your needs will be met anyway.
Science, Engineering, and Medical are fields where you better love the work because it is a lousy way to make a living. You have to follow the money to find out why. The problem as I see it is with the fiat money system. Government and the financial sector are where the money is these days because they actually create the money. Go ask a kid how a bank works. Usually you will get an answer like someone puts money in the bank to save it and they are paid a little interest. Someone then borrows the money and pays more interest and the bank makes the money on the difference. Only if it were so. Do a little research and you will find that Banks actually create money. When you take out a $30k loan it's not like the bank actually has that $30k. They create it out of thin air and put it in your account and then charge you interest on it. The first thing a smart person would say is "How do I get in on that?" . So while scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, welders, plumbers, factory workers actually have to create things of value to their fellow man Finance types don't worry about creating real wealth they just create money and cut out all of that hard work. What is even more amazing is these stupid fuckers on Wall Street manage to lose money on money they created. Then they manage to get bailed out by their friends who just happen to work in government. I was cheering for the collapse of the financial system in 2008. You don't need credit. The world would work perfectly fine on a cash system. You would just have to wait to buy the things you wanted and then those finance fuckers would have to get a real job.
Or if you have enough saved quit right now. I've never been fired. I quit 4 jobs in my career and every time during my exit interview they asked why I was leaving and I told them it was because of money. Of course it was a bunch of the usual things like everyone here complains about but in fact it's always money. If they offered me a million bucks I would have put up with their crap. Then they always ask if there is anything they could do to keep me. I told them no. They would always ask what the offer was and I would be honest and tell them. They always said they would match it and some said they could beat it. I told them no because I didn't have to threaten the new employer with leaving just to get a raise and obviously you think I'm worth the new offer which means you know you were underpaying me to begin with and I don't want to work for a company like that.
The point is you have to leave. If you threaten to leave just to get a raise you will be labeled as a troublemaker and someone to get rid of at the first opportunity. Also you now know what kind of people they are and how could you work for them?
I been using the following strategy for the last 5 years or so and it saved my nest egg during the last few crazy years. It is based on a book by Harry Browne. The idea is to preserve the purchasing power of your money that you worked hard to make.
There are 4 conditions the economy will be in. Prosperity, Recession, Inflation, or Deflation. The idea is to build a portfolio that can survive any of these situations.
There are only 4 investments you need to CYA in any of these situations.
Stocks do great during prosperity and not so well during inflation, deflation, and recession.
Bonds do OK in prosperity but also do well during a deflation. They do poorly during inflation and recession.
Gold does extremely well during inflation but poorly the rest of the time.
Cash is important during a recession and actually does well during a deflation. It is neutral during prosperity and does poor during inflation.
The basic idea is to put 25% of your portfolio into each of these. Stocks should be a large S&P 500 fund, Bonds in 25-30 year Treasury Bonds, Gold in Bullion Coins, and Cash in a Money market investing in short term Treasuries. Then as you get money to invest just add it to your cash portion. Monitor the portfolio and if any of the categories is out of balance by 10% (below 15% or above 35%) of the total portfolio rebalance the whole thing.
It might seem like you won't get anywhere but in reality it lets a small part of your portfolio go along for the ride of any particular run. The limits make sure you cash in and buy some of the other things that are depressed at the time. The best thing is you don't have to time the market or worry when things get bad. During the crash of 2008 I was OK because gold and bonds went up and I actually had to sell some to buy stocks because they went below 15% of the portfolio. Overall I ended 2008 up 3% which wasn't too bad.
You are correct. In mechanical engineering we use Factor of Safety. This means how many times stronger did you design something than your analysis showed it needs to be. For most stuff I build we use a factor of 2-3 because it stays on the ground and the use of extra material is cheaper than taking time to make it light weight. Cars use around the same numbers. Buildings can go as low as 1.67. Aircraft are around 1.5-2.0. Human rated spacecraft are around 1.4 and some unmanned launchers are as low as 1.2. What this means is the lower the number the more analysis and testing you have to do to make sure you know your loads are right. Also not all material of the same specification is the same strength. If you try to break 10 different samples of aluminum you will get a normal distribution of how strong they are. If you are using a FS of 3 who cares. But if you are at 1.2 then you have to send every batch of material out for testing to make sure it is as strong as you designed for.
The building of skyscrapers is a great tool to predict real estate bubbles. When interest rates are artificially low people are able to buy things on credit much cheaper than if the interest rate was at it's natural level. Since most people buy housing based on monthly payment vs what would rent cost the lower rates cause prices to rise quickly. When that happens it looks like land is becoming more expensive so economic calculations can justify building a skyscraper which is a way to pack more area into less land.
Recessions/Depressions seem to follow record setting skyscrapers.
Empire State/ Chrysler building finished in the 1930's.
World Trade Center/Sears tower 1970's
Dubai's many towers/ Shanghai Towers 2000's.
http://mises.org/daily/3038
I like to use Star Trek as an example of almost unlimited productivity. When you build one replicator you have effectively put all farming and manufacturing out of business. But would this be a bad thing? I don't think so. One thing that productivity does is drop the price of goods to the point where even the poor can survive off of the waste of others. This may sound a bit strange but a homeless person in NYC today lives better than most of the people 1000 years ago. That is because people in New York have so much stuff they can afford to throw out things that Kings in the middle ages or Presidents in the 1800's couldn't have. When someone eventually builds a replicator people will no longer need to work for sustenance. Anything you physical want you can have. So is this a bad thing since everyone will be unemployed? No it just means we will have unlimited leisure time. Those that are interested in creative activities or research would still do it. If I didn't need to work for material things I would still do my current job because I love it. Those that wanted to do nothing could do nothing.
The mid-deck is pretty big and the seats stow away anyway. It wouldn't be hard to get an extra seat in there. The flight deck is a different matter. That place is cramped especially if you are on the ground. I am told in zero-G it's not that bad but I wasn't smart or lucky enough to fly in one.
In the old days entire rockets could not self support their own weight unless they were pressurized. I might be wrong but I think SpaceX Falcon Rockets are the same. They are just strong enough to self support their weight for ground handling but they are not designed to self support during launch. They require pressure in the fuel tanks to keep the skin from buckling during flight loads.
I think you might be mistaken about the wire. In 2005 we had a problem with some Kapton insulation so at that time the wiring that could be reached was fully inspected visually. The high wear areas were protected with Teflon and Kapon Tape. We were developing instruments that could detect insulation breaks but that was canceled when the program was scheduled to end in 2010. So now it's just visual inspection of places that we know to be potentially high wear areas.
I just watched Atlantis return home today and I realized that after 2 more flights it is likely I will never see a winged vehicle return from orbit in my lifetime. It is unreal to watch live. Even though it's a glider you can hear it as it rips through the air on approach.
One thing to remember is the shuttle program has been treated like it's 5 years from cancellation for the last 15 years. If after building Endeavour we built a new orbiter with upgrades every 5 years we would be on a 4th generation already. All of those lessons learned would have been built into each new one and the older ones could have been retired. All of the things that cost so much to maintain could have been eliminated.
It's hard for people who have never seen a shuttle up close to understand how amazing they are. The payload bay could launch a bus into orbit. You could lift 2 Soyuz into orbit in the payload bay. The capabilities will never be matched in 50 years.
The hydraulic fluid was static but then again we only needed a couple of liters of LN2 to do the job.
If BP is telling the truth here the flow rate of 5000 barrels a day you have about 150 gpm of oil.
Crude is specific heat is about.44 Btu/lbm-F and has a SG of.085. Water is 8.3 lbm/gal.
So you need about 1 hp of cooling per degree F if you want to change the temperature of the whole flow.
I don't know the design of the BOP. I assume you don't need to cool the whole thing down but find an isolated piece of pipe. I don't know the temperature down there but even if you had to drop the temperature 100 degrees F that is do able. Also it sounds like the mixture is mostly gas so that can help by allowing the oil to freeze to the wall and build up. Similar to the way your arteries build up plaque until it is shut off.
No problem pumping LN2 to that depth. 5000 ft is about 2500 psi. That can easily be done. Or you could just sink the dewar and let it boil off to pressure feed the LN2. LN2 has a heat of vaporization of 85 Btu/lbm.
At NASA we had to change out a sensor in a hydraulic line under pressure of the Orbiter while it was at the pad. We ran tubes around the hydraulic lines and pumped Liquid Nitrogen around it to freeze the hydraulic fluid. Then we changed out the sensor and let the fluid warm up. Then we bled the system and it was as good as new.
I would think you could do the same thing here. Wrap the blowout preventer with refrigerant lines and freeze the oil into a plug. Then you could cap the thing off eventually and turn off the refrigerators.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is a mixing science with politics. Most Americans don't want to be forced to do something. The problem lies with scientists that want to use politicians to force their view on others. It would be much wiser and more efficient to use voluntary means to educate people to change their own behavior. Take smoking for example. Instead of scientists pushing politicians to directly enforce smoking bans and taxes before people were willing to accept that it's dangerous they spend decades showing that it was dangerous until there was a majority of voters that wanted these bans enacted. It should have been the same way with these other subjects. And if the technical community is unable to convince the voting public than it shouldn't try to bypass them and have it enforced from on high.
This is similar example of the gamblers fallacy. This is when you have a really random event such as gender of a child. Knowledge you have of the past or existing events have no effect on future or unknown events. So a balanced die will come up 1 1/6th of the time. If you roll it and 1 comes up 5 times in a row it doesn't mean anything for the next roll the probability of the next roll coming up 1 is 1/6. Now if before you started you asked what are the odds that the die will come up 1 6 times in a row it is 1/46656. The main thing is asking if the event is random.
I know this because I worked as a manufacturing engineer and used statistical process control. The basis for this is that you don't have to measure every part if your process is in control and all variations are random. You can then randomly select parts and measure them to prove the rest of the parts are good with a high level (6 sigma) of probability. The critical assumption is that the process is in control and there are tests that are used to determine if you are in control (The variations are random).
I explained this to my boss once to try to teach him not to bother me. I said my Brain is a computer and when I am working on something that requires a lot of thought my RAM is full of information related to the task at hand. Any interruption like email, telephone, or you coming to my desk to chat cause a core dump of my RAM to my tape backup system. So even though you may only bother me for "a sec" it takes me 15 minutes to load everything back off the tape to get back where I was. So unless it's important enough to waste 15 minutes of my time please put it in an e-mail which I will get to after lunch and before the end of the day.
I would still like to get rid of the 17th Amendment. Having the state governments representatives in Congress acts as another check against tyranny. One of the big problems states have right now is unfunded mandates coming down from on high. That might be prevented or at least curtailed.
I would imagine given a state and the location of all of the people in that state you could design an algorithm to solve for district boundaries that minimized total perimeter and minimized standard deviation in the number of people in each district. Then you if you could pass such a law you could use that system to automate the creation of district boundaries and it would completely non-partisan.
The reason things move slow and are expensive at NASA is because there are a lot of reviews. It isn't a government vs commercial thing at all. There are very few actual NASA employees. Most are contractors. NASA employees are there to write the contracts and provide a unbroken link of institutional knowledge. For example 3 employees of Scaled Composites died during a test where an engine exploded. If that test was going to be done at a NASA facility someone in NASA safety would have calculated the potential energy in the rocket test and established a radius where spectators had to be behind. Why? Because many years ago someone was either hurt, killed or had a close call. That institutional knowledge is passed on and maintained which causes development to go slow because there is someone that did something similar that has a warning for you. Some call that the bureaucracy that slows down innovation. SpaceX right now I'm sure has very little of this. So far their luck has held and I hope it continues. But someday they will have a close call or an accident. Then they will have to slow down and grow their own bureaucracy. Or most likely come ask the greybeards at NASA what went wrong and someone will have a story about the same thing happening in 1964.
It is very similar to the BP disaster. I'm sure all of the oil companies operate this way BP's luck just ran out. So they will most likely go bankrupt eventually paying for this because they will have so many eyes on them that they won't be competitive. Then their competitors with a little more luck and maybe a bit smarted will continue until the next accident.
You have to know how to get around the laws. Just have these types of tests in Washington or Oregon. Say they are assisted suicides by injection of something that might kill you. If you live and are cured it was just a happy accident. Same thing for prostitution. Just have the whore sign a modeling contract and let a Flip Video Camera role. Now it's not prostitution it's acting!!!
And that system was so super successful this woman had to fly to Thailand.
Agreed. There should be an FDA but it should be like UL or the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. That way if you want to inject buffalo stem cells into your lips go ahead it just won't be FDA approved.
I'm a libertarian but I tell my friends that when such a machine is invented we will have communism. The good kind not the kind that marches millions off to their deaths. Because at this point there is no reason to have capital. Capital is someone saving their wealth to build something that makes them more productive. But this machine would be able to create anything including itself which means this is the last piece of capital equipment. Now people would still design things for fun like better replicators but it will only be for fun since all of your needs will be met anyway.
Science, Engineering, and Medical are fields where you better love the work because it is a lousy way to make a living. You have to follow the money to find out why. The problem as I see it is with the fiat money system. Government and the financial sector are where the money is these days because they actually create the money. Go ask a kid how a bank works. Usually you will get an answer like someone puts money in the bank to save it and they are paid a little interest. Someone then borrows the money and pays more interest and the bank makes the money on the difference. Only if it were so. Do a little research and you will find that Banks actually create money. When you take out a $30k loan it's not like the bank actually has that $30k. They create it out of thin air and put it in your account and then charge you interest on it. The first thing a smart person would say is "How do I get in on that?" . So while scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, welders, plumbers, factory workers actually have to create things of value to their fellow man Finance types don't worry about creating real wealth they just create money and cut out all of that hard work. What is even more amazing is these stupid fuckers on Wall Street manage to lose money on money they created. Then they manage to get bailed out by their friends who just happen to work in government. I was cheering for the collapse of the financial system in 2008. You don't need credit. The world would work perfectly fine on a cash system. You would just have to wait to buy the things you wanted and then those finance fuckers would have to get a real job.
Or if you have enough saved quit right now. I've never been fired. I quit 4 jobs in my career and every time during my exit interview they asked why I was leaving and I told them it was because of money. Of course it was a bunch of the usual things like everyone here complains about but in fact it's always money. If they offered me a million bucks I would have put up with their crap. Then they always ask if there is anything they could do to keep me. I told them no. They would always ask what the offer was and I would be honest and tell them. They always said they would match it and some said they could beat it. I told them no because I didn't have to threaten the new employer with leaving just to get a raise and obviously you think I'm worth the new offer which means you know you were underpaying me to begin with and I don't want to work for a company like that.
The point is you have to leave. If you threaten to leave just to get a raise you will be labeled as a troublemaker and someone to get rid of at the first opportunity. Also you now know what kind of people they are and how could you work for them?
I been using the following strategy for the last 5 years or so and it saved my nest egg during the last few crazy years. It is based on a book by Harry Browne. The idea is to preserve the purchasing power of your money that you worked hard to make. There are 4 conditions the economy will be in. Prosperity, Recession, Inflation, or Deflation. The idea is to build a portfolio that can survive any of these situations.
There are only 4 investments you need to CYA in any of these situations.
Stocks do great during prosperity and not so well during inflation, deflation, and recession.
Bonds do OK in prosperity but also do well during a deflation. They do poorly during inflation and recession.
Gold does extremely well during inflation but poorly the rest of the time.
Cash is important during a recession and actually does well during a deflation. It is neutral during prosperity and does poor during inflation.
The basic idea is to put 25% of your portfolio into each of these. Stocks should be a large S&P 500 fund, Bonds in 25-30 year Treasury Bonds, Gold in Bullion Coins, and Cash in a Money market investing in short term Treasuries. Then as you get money to invest just add it to your cash portion. Monitor the portfolio and if any of the categories is out of balance by 10% (below 15% or above 35%) of the total portfolio rebalance the whole thing.
It might seem like you won't get anywhere but in reality it lets a small part of your portfolio go along for the ride of any particular run. The limits make sure you cash in and buy some of the other things that are depressed at the time. The best thing is you don't have to time the market or worry when things get bad. During the crash of 2008 I was OK because gold and bonds went up and I actually had to sell some to buy stocks because they went below 15% of the portfolio. Overall I ended 2008 up 3% which wasn't too bad.
You are correct. In mechanical engineering we use Factor of Safety. This means how many times stronger did you design something than your analysis showed it needs to be. For most stuff I build we use a factor of 2-3 because it stays on the ground and the use of extra material is cheaper than taking time to make it light weight. Cars use around the same numbers. Buildings can go as low as 1.67. Aircraft are around 1.5-2.0. Human rated spacecraft are around 1.4 and some unmanned launchers are as low as 1.2. What this means is the lower the number the more analysis and testing you have to do to make sure you know your loads are right. Also not all material of the same specification is the same strength. If you try to break 10 different samples of aluminum you will get a normal distribution of how strong they are. If you are using a FS of 3 who cares. But if you are at 1.2 then you have to send every batch of material out for testing to make sure it is as strong as you designed for.
This is a really interesting read about an alternate theory on how the universe works by some EE types. Pretty neat stuff. http://www.holoscience.com/
The building of skyscrapers is a great tool to predict real estate bubbles. When interest rates are artificially low people are able to buy things on credit much cheaper than if the interest rate was at it's natural level. Since most people buy housing based on monthly payment vs what would rent cost the lower rates cause prices to rise quickly. When that happens it looks like land is becoming more expensive so economic calculations can justify building a skyscraper which is a way to pack more area into less land. Recessions/Depressions seem to follow record setting skyscrapers. Empire State/ Chrysler building finished in the 1930's. World Trade Center/Sears tower 1970's Dubai's many towers/ Shanghai Towers 2000's. http://mises.org/daily/3038
I like to use Star Trek as an example of almost unlimited productivity. When you build one replicator you have effectively put all farming and manufacturing out of business. But would this be a bad thing? I don't think so. One thing that productivity does is drop the price of goods to the point where even the poor can survive off of the waste of others. This may sound a bit strange but a homeless person in NYC today lives better than most of the people 1000 years ago. That is because people in New York have so much stuff they can afford to throw out things that Kings in the middle ages or Presidents in the 1800's couldn't have. When someone eventually builds a replicator people will no longer need to work for sustenance. Anything you physical want you can have. So is this a bad thing since everyone will be unemployed? No it just means we will have unlimited leisure time. Those that are interested in creative activities or research would still do it. If I didn't need to work for material things I would still do my current job because I love it. Those that wanted to do nothing could do nothing.
Sorry. I for one think controlled crashing astronauts in the ocean or desert is a BIG step back.
The mid-deck is pretty big and the seats stow away anyway. It wouldn't be hard to get an extra seat in there. The flight deck is a different matter. That place is cramped especially if you are on the ground. I am told in zero-G it's not that bad but I wasn't smart or lucky enough to fly in one.
In the old days entire rockets could not self support their own weight unless they were pressurized. I might be wrong but I think SpaceX Falcon Rockets are the same. They are just strong enough to self support their weight for ground handling but they are not designed to self support during launch. They require pressure in the fuel tanks to keep the skin from buckling during flight loads.
I think you might be mistaken about the wire. In 2005 we had a problem with some Kapton insulation so at that time the wiring that could be reached was fully inspected visually. The high wear areas were protected with Teflon and Kapon Tape. We were developing instruments that could detect insulation breaks but that was canceled when the program was scheduled to end in 2010. So now it's just visual inspection of places that we know to be potentially high wear areas.
I just watched Atlantis return home today and I realized that after 2 more flights it is likely I will never see a winged vehicle return from orbit in my lifetime. It is unreal to watch live. Even though it's a glider you can hear it as it rips through the air on approach. One thing to remember is the shuttle program has been treated like it's 5 years from cancellation for the last 15 years. If after building Endeavour we built a new orbiter with upgrades every 5 years we would be on a 4th generation already. All of those lessons learned would have been built into each new one and the older ones could have been retired. All of the things that cost so much to maintain could have been eliminated. It's hard for people who have never seen a shuttle up close to understand how amazing they are. The payload bay could launch a bus into orbit. You could lift 2 Soyuz into orbit in the payload bay. The capabilities will never be matched in 50 years.
The hydraulic fluid was static but then again we only needed a couple of liters of LN2 to do the job. If BP is telling the truth here the flow rate of 5000 barrels a day you have about 150 gpm of oil. Crude is specific heat is about .44 Btu/lbm-F and has a SG of .085. Water is 8.3 lbm/gal.
So you need about 1 hp of cooling per degree F if you want to change the temperature of the whole flow.
I don't know the design of the BOP. I assume you don't need to cool the whole thing down but find an isolated piece of pipe. I don't know the temperature down there but even if you had to drop the temperature 100 degrees F that is do able. Also it sounds like the mixture is mostly gas so that can help by allowing the oil to freeze to the wall and build up. Similar to the way your arteries build up plaque until it is shut off.
No problem pumping LN2 to that depth. 5000 ft is about 2500 psi. That can easily be done. Or you could just sink the dewar and let it boil off to pressure feed the LN2. LN2 has a heat of vaporization of 85 Btu/lbm.
Forgot to include a link. http://www.cob-industries.com/accufreeze.aspx
At NASA we had to change out a sensor in a hydraulic line under pressure of the Orbiter while it was at the pad. We ran tubes around the hydraulic lines and pumped Liquid Nitrogen around it to freeze the hydraulic fluid. Then we changed out the sensor and let the fluid warm up. Then we bled the system and it was as good as new. I would think you could do the same thing here. Wrap the blowout preventer with refrigerant lines and freeze the oil into a plug. Then you could cap the thing off eventually and turn off the refrigerators.