|
|
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: After all that. I would wager my life that there will still be poor, there will still be starving people, there will still be inequality, and the world will not be any better a place than it is today. Sounds pretty fatalistic to me. I say things can be made a lot better, if the will is there to do it. Oh? The United Nations tried in Somalia. And they failed. You're saying that one failure proves there's no point in trying to change anything when it comes to poverty, inequality, or making the world a better place. They were more interested in guerrila warfare. Seems they couldn't find the resources to feed themselves, yet when the resources were brought to them, they resorted to murder and feudalistic warfare. Sure. They valued warfare higher. Doesn't mean everyone does. Take the whole energy issue. Suppose there *were* a serious, longterm, well-funded national program to improve our energy situation. Attack on all fronts - conservation, recycling, new sources, greater efficiency, etc. Do you really think such a program couldn't help improve the lives of almost all Americans? Hmmm? Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession alone that have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down" effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and deep felt. Can you guarantee that those advances would not have happened if the money had been spent on research in the fields directly affected? IOW, why not simply go after a problem directly? In industrialized society's history, major technological advancements have MOSTLY followed (1) war, (2) captialist investment for profit (3) government subsidy to do research in that field (usually the impetus of, again, war). There are certainly exceptions to the rule, radio being one of them. "Radio" was not developed by governmental subsidy, nor was it the product of an 18th century "Motorola" but was the "product" of private inventors. BINGO! The same was mostly true of computers. Oh yes, the first real computer, ENIAC, was built for the Army to compute artillery aiming tables. But it was built on the work of earlier machines like the Atasinoff-Berry Computer. And only one ENIAC was ever built. Its successors came from private industry, for commercial purposes. No, I can't guarantee that those advances would not have occured...but WHEN would they have occured? Nobody knows. Right - who knows. Nobody. Technological advance isn't always predictable. True...there's no linear scale to it. But it's been in a positive trend with STEEP improvements following warfare. Not because of warfare, but because the resources were dedicated to solving the problems. One interesting historic game is to look at what was predicted for the future back 10, 20, 30 years. It's hilarious how many predictions never came true, and how many things that are common today were not foreseen. And how much of it COULD have been done if only the money were applied to them? Some could, others were simply not practical. Point is, nobody seems to be very good at predicting the future of technologies. Even the "experts" and "professionals" get it wrong most of the time. But people don't remember what an awful track record they have... As much as I believe that the Space program was a peaceful spur to technology, in the end, I don't care. I like adventure, I like science, and I like exploring. People *will" go into space, people *will* go to Mars. Will it be us, or will we be known as the Portuguese of space exploration? IOW, you're in it for the Buck Rogers factor. Huh? Don't you remember "Buck Rogers"? Old sci-fi character. The reference means Mike is more interested in the excitement than the hard science or the technological benefits. Recall that the "great nations of Europe in the 16th century" all went exploring for *commercial* and *political* reasons. For the bucks, not Buck Rogers. And did science NOT benefit, Jim? Not really. And the point is they did *not* go exploring for "science" or "because it's there" but for reasons like making money. Did I not say that direct commercial investment was a prime source of scientific advancement? Certainly NOT in the time frame that they have. Why not? The fact is that we've avoided making serious longterm plans to solve some basic technological problems in the USA. That avoidance has cost us dearly, and will cost us more, until we tackle the problems head-on rather than expecting some silver bullet to do it for us. Paying big bucks for the Buck Rogers factor, while ignoring the serious earth-bound issues like energy supply, trade deficit and vulnerability to weather disruption isn't smart...(SNIP) OK... That's the very argument that was bantied around at the end of the Apollo project. Were they wrong or right? So the Space Program got back-burner'd except for robotic explorations, the ISS and and the Shuttle. Also Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, Viking, Galileo, Cassini, the Mars missions.. Hardly "back-burner". How much was NASA's budget in those years? How much is it now? And how much would it have cost to continue lunar missions? Global warming is as bad if not worse than it ever was in the 70's. Think about *why*. It's not because of NASA. It's because, after a few years of gasoline shortages, fossil fuels became cheap and plentiful in the early 1980s. And the problems were largely ignored. Which administration refuses to sign the Kyoto agreement? However spaceborne assets such as the Shuttle, ISS and MIR have been used to document and archive these events as never before possible. I think most of that data collection is done by unmanned weather and geological observation satellites. Poverty is as bad if not worse as it was in the 70's. Think about *why*. Most of Africa is a wasteland. AIDS shot across the continent like a cannon-shot. Think about *why*. The 50's, 60's and into the 70's were periods of great scientific expansion and awareness of not only ourselves, but our "communities" of the world. Sure - for a bunch of reasons, not just space programs. But science is useless unless the knowledge is put to work. Today our kids can't even find Africa on a map. Depends which kids you ask. I know plenty of elementary-school kids who can. It's exactly like the guy who buys season tickets and a new bigscreen plasma TV/home theatre to watch the games using a credit card. While he ignores his rundown, collapsing house, sick children and insecure job situation. Amazing how we arrive at the same point via different paths. (Wanna buy an AK-47...?!?!) The question is *why* that guy wants/needs an AK-47 rather than, say, a better plow or clean water. Is it because he's an aggressor? Is it because he's been attacked so many times that he needs it to defend himself? Is it some other reason? Consider this, Steve: The reason "we" succeeded in going to the moon was that a clear goal was defined, nearly-unlimited resources allocated, and limitations on success were kept to a minimum. If it took a three-man crew, they sent three men - not two and not four. That one of them would go all the way to the moon and back yet never set foot on it did not change the plans. That they built an enormous and expensive rocket, and only got a small capsule back, did not change the plans either. They simply did what was needed to meet the goal and nothing more nor less. Similar methods can be used to solve some (but not all) earth-bound problems. But too often, "we" are unwilling to do what's needed here at home to make it happen. Problems which are not as tough as Apollo (such as modern surface transportation) are considered "too hard" to solve. There's another factor at work, too: short attention span. The moon missions were essentially a crash program - the Rooskies were beating us in space "firsts", and JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. So NASA got a blank check, contractors got cost-plus contracts and things went night and day for almost a decade. But when it was done, there wasn't a long-term plan for after-the-moon. Americans seem to do well in crises but not so well at careful long-term changes and planning. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
K=D8HB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote I'm not talking about overall economics, Hans. I'm talking about the US importing a large percentage of its oil needs. We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and fin= ished goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing.= And, yes, even oil. Yup. Some of that isn't a good idea. We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food (wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education. Medicine. And again - some of that isn't a good idea. Example: During the 1930s, the USA exported all sorts of things to Japan, both raw materials and manufactured goods. Like oil and vacuum tubes, neither of which Japan could produce in large quantities on their own. US industry liked the hard currency that Japan paid with. It was obvious early on that much of those exports were being used to build up Japan's military, and *not* for defense of Japan. But by the time the USA acted to stop it, Japan had become a serious adversary. If you had to choose between fuel for some Escalade luvvin momma, and t= he fuel for say our military to train with, who would ya choose? I could ask a corresponding patronizing question about any of the other g= oods I mentioned. The point is that individuals here don't make that choice about oil any m= ore than a citizen of Japan makes that choice about lumber when they want to = build a new home. Oh yes they do! Individuals here have at least some control over how much oil they use. They have some control in the short term (how much they drive, how they drive, how they set their thermostats), more control in the longer term (what car they drive, how efficient their homes are) and still more in the very long term (alternative energy sources, alternative technologies). If the cost of oil goes too high, then Escalades will fall from favor and be replaced by and Vegas and Pintos. If the price of lumber gets too= high, Japanese homes will be built from compressed rice straw or some other mat= erial. Sure. But that's not the only factor. Has nothing to do with patriotism. Has to do with simple economics. Long-term outlook. Sustainable technologies. Political and social ramifications of "economic" decisions. Lots more than simple economics. Look at the big picture. I do. One thing I hear from folks who have been to Europe and Japan is how great their transit systems are. How they make it possible for most people to live without a car, or with only one car per family, because it's easy, safe and cheap to go places by transit. Some say the US isn't like those countries in that our population is more spread out and the whole country is bigger. Which is true in some cases. But consider this: - Before WW2, much of the USA was crisscrossed by electric trolley and interurban lines. Many small towns had frequent, inexpensive, fast trolley service, which usually interconnected with other lines. These systems were so extensive that about 100 years ago, a traveler documented a trip from New York City to Chicago that used trolley lines for more than 90% of the distance. - The Los Angeles area used to have the Pacific Electric system, which was systematically dismantled after WW2 by a conglomerate of oil, rubber and automakers. Now LA has the "Blue Line", which was predicted to be a failure, because 'Los Angelenos won't get out of their cars', yet it has been well-used since the day it opened. - In Europe and Japan, transit isn't expected to make a profit or even pay its own way. It is systematically subsidized by taxes on motor fuels. Typical subsidy is about 50% of *operating* costs. For capital costs, consider that the Paris Metro has been almost constantly expanded since its opening over 100 years ago. =20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and finished goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing. And, yes, even oil. Yup. Some of that isn't a good idea. Which part is a "not good" idea? Why? We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food (wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education. Medicine. And again - some of that isn't a good idea. Whic part is a "not good" idea? Why? .... These systems were so extensive that about 100 years ago, a traveler documented a trip from New York City to Chicago that used trolley lines for more than 90% of the distance. I can still ride a train from New York to Chicago. I'd rather fly. (I doubt the " 90% trolley line" story is true.) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody values warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some thing or some result of value. JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics of the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and drank lots of vodka. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: wrote We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and finished goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing. And, yes, even oil. Yup. Some of that isn't a good idea. Which part is a "not good" idea? Why? When we become too dependent on imports of things that are not easily replaced, so that disruptions in the import process cause major upheavals in our economy. When the importing causes us to transfer large amounts of hard currency to people who may then use it against us. Example: The USA imported large amounts of oil from Iraq back in the 1980s. Which gave the dictator of that country the ability to buy lots of weapons and build up a large military. Said dictator then used said military to invade and devastate a neighboring country from which we also imported large amounts of oil. A war was then fought to stop the dictator's expansion. Said dictator also perpetrated a long string of human rights violations against his own people and his neighbors. Was it a good idea for the USA to import oil from that country back in the 1980s? We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food (wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education. Medicine. And again - some of that isn't a good idea. Whic part is a "not good" idea? Why? When the exporting causes us to empower people who may then use our exports against us. The example of the USA exporting raw materials and finished goods to Japan in the 1930s is one example. Another is how the USA supported extremists in Afghanistan during the 1980s because they opposed the existing regime, which was closely allied to the Soviet Union. Those extremists were called "freedom fighters" at the time. But when the Soviets left and the existing regime fell, the "freedom fighters" established a regime that was even more repressive (by our standards, anyway). That regime made the country a training ground for extremists who went on to attack the USA. Was it a good idea for the USA to export technology, training and weapons to Afghanistan back in the 1980s? .... These systems were so extensive that about 100 years ago, a traveler documented a trip from New York City to Chicago that used trolley lines for more than 90% of the distance. I can still ride a train from New York to Chicago. But you need a car for shorter trips. And that's not the point, anyway. The point is that there was once an extensive system of trolley and interurban lines in the USA, much of which is long gone. At its peak in 1915, there were more than 15,000 miles of such lines in the USA. I'd rather fly. (I doubt the " 90% trolley line" story is true.) It's true. The trip was made in 1909 by J.S. Moulton of New York City. It is documented in "Railway Quarterly", winter issue, 1982. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody v= alues warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some thin= g or some result of value. Well said! JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics of = the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and drank= lots of vodka. Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first place. IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow's objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop, compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles. So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cuba. Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwarted. But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. And a "hot-line" was installed between Washington and Moscow so that things could be discussed more directly by the leaders of the two countries, and their representatives. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: K=D8HB wrote: wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody= values warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some th= ing or some result of value. Well said! JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics o= f the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and dra= nk lots of vodka. Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first place. IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow's objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop, compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles. So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cuba. Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwarted. But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. bull**** Jim every movie or account of those days mentions it and that the Jupiters were obsolete and scheduled for withdraw and the Kendy had ordered their withdraw several time And a "hot-line" was installed between Washington and Moscow so that things could be discussed more directly by the leaders of the two countries, and their representatives. =20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"an old friend" wrote bull**** Jim every movie or account of those days ........... I don't know what they taught you as a Colonel in the Chemical Corps, but I was there on the blockade line (didn't watch some sensational movie version) and Jim speaks truly. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
|
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote bull**** Jim every movie or account of those days ........... I don't know what they taught you as a Colonel in the Chemical Corps, but= I was there on the blockade line (didn't watch some sensational movie version) = and Jim speaks truly. no he doesn't all the accounts of the matter make clear that we traded without appearing to trade the obselete jupiter bases Try "Missles of Oct" or "13 days" but I have never seen any historical or fictionalized account of those days that does not deal with that trade and assuming you were on the blockade line (I don't know but will give you the benifit of the doubt) that would be the last place to learn of such things it was kept quiet for a time ( a few years) but I have known of the Jupiters and their trade off since I was 4 or 5 years old or put another way Under president Nixon in effect the next presidental term to follow JFK, the event happened before I was born but I learn ed of the crisis and the trade off at the same time in my youth USA Chemical corps never mentions the misslis of OCT or the cuban missle crisis at all in training =20 Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
"an old friend" wrote and assuming you were on the blockade line (I don't know but will give you the benifit of the doubt) that would be the last place to learn of such things I don't need any "benifit" of your doubt, especially since you weren't even a gleam in your daddy's eye yet. I was a Navy Radioman on the communications staff of the admiral in command of the blockade. In direct communications with Office of POTUS we knew, almost minute-by-minute, what was happening and the rationale behind it. None of the movie-makers were there, though. Whatever you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a faint and distorted image of real life. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote and assuming you were on the blockade line (I don't know but will give you the benifit of the doubt) that would be the last place to learn of such things I don't need any "benifit" of your doubt, especially since you weren't ev= en a gleam in your daddy's eye yet. I was a Navy Radioman on the communicatio= ns staff of the admiral in command of the blockade. In direct communication= s with Office of POTUS we knew, almost minute-by-minute, what was happening and = the rationale behind it. None of the movie-makers were there, though. Whate= ver you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a faint and distorted image of real life. not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening that is simple fact indeed it is is only now that one would expect to know the truth about those days, with the last of the security holds pretty much expired. "History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact" Dr Cutler professor of History as the preface to most of his articles Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind or his intent, as he was out of the the real discison making loop as can be clearly seen from the notes and of the various parties, POTUS did not trust any of the chiefs esp Curtis Lemay, indeed I don't think he was trusting the word judegement or descretion of anyone with a star in his rank insignia None of the chiefs were remotely in turn with the wishes of POTUS, assuming you knew what the Admiral had in mind, you can't have known what POTUS had in mind. the movie makers had access to files and recolections of the people calling the shots, and none of them but McNamarra spent any time in the funny five sided building indeed you were just going on about how no one knew at the time about the jupiter trade. I am quite certain Adm Anderson knew nothing about it meaning that were not stating the turth when you said "In direct communications with Office of POTUS we knew, almost minute-by-minute, what was happening and the rationale" behind it." a reasonable person can't expect to have both ways (but the word reasonable let out most of the newsgroup of course) but we in the world learned pretty quick perhaps 7 years later awfully fast for a "secert" in those days =20 Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
"an old friend" wrote not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening .... ....History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact What a humorous crock of ****! It isn't history when it's happening. It's real life. Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind ... Admiral Anderson wasn't in charge of the quarantine. Admiral Alfred "Corky" Ward was. What you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a legend in your own distorted mind. End of conversation. I do not abide fools, even fools who served as draftee-Colonels in the non-existent "USA Chemical Corps", another figment of your "4 or 5 years old" mind. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote I'm not talking about overall economics, Hans. I'm talking about the US importing a large percentage of its oil needs. We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and finished goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing. And, yes, even oil. We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food (wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education. Medicine. If you had to choose between fuel for some Escalade luvvin momma, and the fuel for say our military to train with, who would ya choose? I could ask a corresponding patronizing question about any of the other goods I mentioned. Beats answering the question, eh? The point is that individuals here don't make that choice about oil any more than a citizen of Japan makes that choice about lumber when they want to build a new home. If the cost of oil goes too high, then Escalades will fall from favor and be replaced by and Vegas and Pintos. If the price of lumber gets too high, Japanese homes will be built from compressed rice straw or some other material. Has nothing to do with patriotism. Has to do with simple economics. Look at the big picture. I do. Feerd not. I'm talking about national defense, and you're talking about the Japanese importing lumber. If you equate what I'm talking about with that, well, have at it! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
wrote We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and finished goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing. And, yes, even oil. Yup. Some of that isn't a good idea. Which part is a "not good" idea? Why? We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food (wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education. Medicine. And again - some of that isn't a good idea. Whic part is a "not good" idea? Why? The part where the countries we import from may become our enemies. Hopefully in the next war, our enemies will sell us the gas, our uniforms, and if we wait long enough, they might build our tanks and planes for us! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
nobodys old friend wrote: K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote bull@@@@ Jim every movie or account of those days ........... I don't know what they taught you as a Colonel in the Chemical Corps, b= ut I was there on the blockade line (didn't watch some sensational movie version= ) and Jim speaks truly. no he doesn't Yes, he does. all the accounts of the matter make clear that we traded without appearing to trade the obselete jupiter bases It was HARDLY a "trade". We agreed to remove missles that were already obsolete and unservicible in return for the Russians dismantallying bases for "state-of-the-art" nuclear arms only 90 from home. Try "Missles of Oct" or "13 days" but I have never seen any historical or fictionalized account of those days that does not deal with that trade and assuming you were on the blockade line (I don't know but will give you the benifit of the doubt) that would be the last place to learn of such things "benefit" The benefit is not yours to give. it was kept quiet for a time ( a few years) but I have known of the Jupiters and their trade off since I was 4 or 5 years old or put another way Under president Nixon in effect the next presidental term to follow JFK, the event happened before I was born but I learn ed of the crisis and the trade off at the same time in my youth Hey Mr Rocket Scientist... The Nixon Presidency was NOT the next administration for follow JFK. And nice try about the "...but I have known..." line. Cute...Not true, but cute! USA Chemical corps never mentions the misslis of OCT or the cuban missle crisis at all in training "missles" "Cuban" Perhaps because you were never in the "USA Chemical corps", Mr Pathological Liar. Or have they "reactivated" your "commission" so you can justify lying in public again...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |
K=D8HB wrote: "nobodys old friend" wrote not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening .... ....History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact What a humorous crock of ****! It isn't history when it's happening. It= 's real life. Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind ... Admiral Anderson wasn't in charge of the quarantine. Admiral Alfred "Cor= ky" Ward was. What you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a legend in your own distorted mind. End of conversation. I do not abide fools, even fools who served as draftee-Colonels in the non-existent "USA Chemical Corps", another figmen= t of your "4 or 5 years old" mind. No doubt the "Colonel" was thinking of his CURRENT commander, "rear" Admiral Leonard "Lennie" H. (Hornblower?) Anderson, C-In-C of 1st NGLIEOFTENLIEBIG. The "Colonel" just forgot his place for a moment, Hans, that's all. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures Funny...no one else is saying that. I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said. Me too. I did a web search, and didn't find anything. Mark, can you give us a source? Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did not reach every goal set for them. The shuttle is our attempt to do a job with 1970's (and some earlier) technology. As such, it was a huge task that we were barely able to produce to do some of the goals that were set. Well, if you go back to the original design of next generation of space vehicles at the time, you will find that they said that the shuttle could not fullfill its duty in any economic way or physical reality! The good news is that we were able to get it off the ground and into space. The bad news (and I don't really consider it that) is that it is an expensive and finicky bitch. Would we produce it that way today? Not even. Time moved on, technology advanced, and I have no doubt that that a machine produced with 2000's technology would be much safer, less expensive to produce and maintain, and much more capable. But to call it a failure is absolutely wrong, and misses the whole point. We DID make several machines that DID ride to orbit, DID perform their missions, Yes! The exploding Water Baloon in space is worth many billions of dollars: http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/balloon/blob.htm#cool DID return to earth, Some at terrific speeds! and DID outfit for many return trips to space. It is interesting that the failures in the system that led to the loss of two of the orbiters were due to peripheral systems that failed largely to human error. Some failure. Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come. Not too many, though... Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it. You really think so? I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle, esentially 1970's technology, should be updated... Agreed! Just like the automakers bring out new model years. More like the automakers rethink the basic design. Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s, and radial tires. No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned space program. Yes, they did. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of the shuttle system and other design features (like having the heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its success and performance. I thing there is some confusion here, Jim. I doubt that the shuttle was designed to be the last "space truck" we ever designed! It's just time to go on to bigger and better. I'd say "smaller and smarter". I dunno. I think that we might be at the point of vehicle specialization now. I can envision a heavy lift vehicle that is just that- a minimalist vehicle that provides basic life support and maneuvering, then returns to earth after delivering its cargo. It could be a reusable vehicle. Wouldn't be quite like the shuttle in that it wouldn't have that expensive main engine on it. Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion. Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model" If people are *not* going to be in space, I support a NASA budget of $0.00 dollars. I support great sums of money going to them if people are going to go to space. And there are plenty of people that feel the same as I do. All the scientists who make the claims about how space science is so much cheaper and safer just don't get it. Their work is cool and all, but they are the tail of the dog.... I agree = 0.00 dollars for Space Exploration! Stop All Space Exploration Now: http://wolfbat359.com/space.htm Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities effectively here on earth. I wouldn't, because the two things aren't related. Reminds me of the old "We can put a man on the moon, so why can't we cure the common cold" questions that used to make the rounds. The failures of the latest hurricane disaster responses are the logical end game of placing people in charge more because of their political connections, and less because of their competency. - Mike KB3EIA - Much like putting a Missile Defense Man in Charge of NASA!: http://tinyurl.com/8skkz |
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening .... ....History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact What a humorous crock of ****! It isn't history when it's happening. It= 's real life. but the truth about current events is never known Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind ... Admiral Anderson wasn't in charge of the quarantine. Admiral Alfred "Cor= ky" Ward was. What you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a legend in your own distorted mind. Aderson certainly was in charge unless ward went off and founded his own navy I was again giving you the benift of the doubt Ward was further out of the loop than Anderson End of conversation. promises pormises I do not abide fools, even fools who served as draftee-Colonels in the non-existent "USA Chemical Corps", another figmen= t of your "4 or 5 years old" mind. =20 Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote bull@@@@ Jim every movie or account of those days ........... I don't know what they taught you as a Colonel in the Chemical Corps,= but I was there on the blockade line (didn't watch some sensational movie versi= on) and Jim speaks truly. no he doesn't Yes, he does. not realy all the accounts of the matter make clear that we traded without appearing to trade the obselete jupiter bases It was HARDLY a "trade". We agreed to remove missles that were already obsolete and unservicible in return for the Russians dismantallying bases for "state-of-the-art" nuclear arms only 90 from home. it was not a fair trade but at the point it was made it served as a Fig leaf for the Soveit leader (whose name I not going to try speling on my own and I am not looking it up) but made in the face of what could have easily blown apart everything both sides though was valueble it likely looked pretty to K at the time Try "Missles of Oct" or "13 days" but I have never seen any historical or fictionalized account of those days that does not deal with that trade and assuming you were on the blockade line (I don't know but will give you the benifit of the doubt) that would be the last place to learn of such things "benefit" The benefit is not yours to give. sure is but then you don't respect any view but your own it was kept quiet for a time ( a few years) but I have known of the Jupiters and their trade off since I was 4 or 5 years old or put another way Under president Nixon in effect the next presidental term to follow JFK, the event happened before I was born but I learn ed of the crisis and the trade off at the same time in my youth Hey Mr Rocket Scientist... The Nixon Presidency was NOT the next administration for follow JFK. it was the next eletced one the next presidential TERM as I said And nice try about the "...but I have known..." line. Cute...Not true, but cute! entirely true USA Chemical corps never mentions the misslis of OCT or the cuban missle crisis at all in training "missles" "Cuban" Perhaps because you were never in the "USA Chemical corps", Mr Pathological Liar. Or have they "reactivated" your "commission" so you can justify lying in public again...?!?! neither stevie but such is not needed =20 Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: K=D8HB wrote: "nobodys old friend" wrote not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening .... ....History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact What a humorous crock of ****! It isn't history when it's happening. = It's real life. Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind ... Admiral Anderson wasn't in charge of the quarantine. Admiral Alfred "C= orky" Ward was. What you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a legend in your o= wn distorted mind. End of conversation. I do not abide fools, even fools who served as draftee-Colonels in the non-existent "USA Chemical Corps", another figm= ent of your "4 or 5 years old" mind. No doubt the "Colonel" was thinking of his CURRENT commander, "rear" Admiral Leonard "Lennie" H. (Hornblower?) Anderson, C-In-C of 1st NGLIEOFTENLIEBIG. The "Colonel" just forgot his place for a moment, Hans, that's all. you are obseesed with fake conspriascies little boy =20 73 =20 Steve, K4YZ |
an old friend wrote: wrote: K=D8HB wrote: wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobo= dy values warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some = thing or some result of value. Well said! JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics= of the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and d= rank lots of vodka. Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first place. IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow's objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop, compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles. So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cuba. Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwarted. But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. bull**** Jim Which part of what I wrote is not true, Mark? Perhaps you mean my reference to the Jupiter-Cs as "IRBMs" (Intermediate-Range-Ballistic-Missiles) which are elsewhere called "MRBMs" (Medium-Range-Ballistic-Missiles). every movie or account of those days mentions it Even if true, so what? Those movies and accounts were done long after the crisis. What I wrote is true: some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. That they were scheduled to be removed, were obsolete, and were already replaced by more-effective submarine-launched missiles and ICBMs is inconsequential. The point is that the Soviets backed down publicly and visibly, while *at the time*, the removal of the missiles in Turkey was kept quiet until long after it was an accomplished fact. and that the Jupiters were obsolete and scheduled for withdraw and the Kendy had ordered their withdraw several time Inconsequential - they were operational in October 1962 and were a big reason for the Soviets' actions in Cuba. Moscow figured that if the USA could have missiles so close to Soviet cities, then the USSR should have similar missiles at similar distances from US cities. That the Jupiters were actually meant to defend all of NATO, not just the USA, was lost on the Soviets. You also missed the point of the whole discussion: JFK pushed the "space race" in general, and the man-on-the-moon-before-this-decade-is-out, as a way to divert attention from the Soviets' early space successes, and Kennedy administration embarrassments like the Bay of Pigs. Space was a way to go mano-a-mano with the Rooskies *without* fighting, and while they had a head start, getting to the moon was far enough away that the USA had a good chance of getting there first. IOW, it *wasn't* about science, or exploration, or "the final frontier", new technologies, etc. Those things were side benefits - the main game was beating the Russians at something. But after July 1969, there wasn't another clear goal nor obvious opponent. In July 1975 the US and USSR did the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission, which would have been all but unimaginable ten years earlier. Just look at a partial list of early Soviet space "firsts": 1957 - Sputnik 1, first artificial earth satellite 1957 - Sputnik 2, first animal in space (Laika the dog) 1959 - Luna 2 impacts moon (intentionally!) 1961 - Vostok 1 - Yuri Gagarin is first human in space and first to orbit the earth 1962 - Mars 1 - First flyby of Mars 1964 - Voskhod 1 - First multiperson mission (three cosmonauts) 1965 - Voskhod 2 - Alexei Leonov makes first space walk 1966 - Luna 9 soft lands on the Moon and returns TV pictures 1966 - Venera 3 is first spacecraft to enter atmosphere of another planet (Venus) 1966 - Luna 10 orbits Moon (first spacecraft to orbit another world) Also the first woman in space, first pictures of the far side of the moon, and much more. And a "hot-line" was installed between Washington and Moscow so that things could be discussed more directly by the leaders of the two countries, and their representatives. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: No doubt the "Colonel" was thinking of his CURRENT commander, "rear" Admiral Leonard "Lennie" H. (Hornblower?) Anderson, C-In-C of 1st NGLIEOFTENLIEBIG. The "Colonel" just forgot his place for a moment, Hans, that's all. you are obseesed with fake conspriascies little boy "obsessed" "conspiracies" What conspiracy? I didn't address any "conspiracy", Mark. More delusions on your part. Steve, K4YZ |
nobodys old friend wrote: K=D8HB wrote: "nobodys old friend" wrote not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening .... ....History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact What a humorous crock of ####! It isn't history when it's happening. = It's real life. but the truth about current events is never known BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA= HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind ... Admiral Anderson wasn't in charge of the quarantine. Admiral Alfred "C= orky" Ward was. What you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a legend in your o= wn distorted mind. Aderson certainly was in charge unless ward went off and founded his own navy "Anderson" I was again giving you the benift of the doubt Ward was further out of the loop than Anderson "benefit" It wasn't yours to give, Mark. End of conversation. promises pormises What an idiot. Can't even spell the same word right twice even when it's the ONLY word in the "sentence"... ! ! !=20 Steve, K4YZ |
an old friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: KØHB wrote: "an old friend" wrote bull@@@@ Jim every movie or account of those days ........... I don't know what they taught you as a Colonel in the Chemical Corps, but I was there on the blockade line (didn't watch some sensational movie version) and Jim speaks truly. no he doesn't Yes, he does. not realy all the accounts of the matter make clear that we traded without appearing to trade the obselete jupiter bases It was HARDLY a "trade". We agreed to remove missles that were already obsolete and unservicible in return for the Russians dismantallying bases for "state-of-the-art" nuclear arms only 90 from home. it was not a fair trade but at the point it was made it served as a Fig leaf for the Soveit leader (whose name I not going to try speling on my own and I am not looking it up) That would have a been a tough one. How do you think you did with "Soviet", "spelling", "missiles" and "valueable"? but made in the face of what could have easily blown apart everything both sides though was valueble it likely looked pretty to K at the time Try "Missles of Oct" or "13 days" but I have never seen any historical or fictionalized account of those days that does not deal with that trade and assuming you were on the blockade line (I don't know but will give you the benifit of the doubt) that would be the last place to learn of such things "benefit" The benefit is not yours to give. sure is but then you don't respect any view but your own it was kept quiet for a time ( a few years) but I have known of the Jupiters and their trade off since I was 4 or 5 years old or put another way Under president Nixon in effect the next presidental term to follow JFK, the event happened before I was born but I learn ed of the crisis and the trade off at the same time in my youth Hey Mr Rocket Scientist... The Nixon Presidency was NOT the next administration for follow JFK. it was the next eletced one the next presidential TERM as I said I guess the truth wasn't known back in those days--you know, before it all became revealed in history. The rest of us probably had some strange idea that Goldwater ran against Johnson. Ever hear of it? Dave K8MN |
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: No doubt the "Colonel" was thinking of his CURRENT commander, "rear" Admiral Leonard "Lennie" H. (Hornblower?) Anderson, C-In-C of 1st NGLIEOFTENLIEBIG. The "Colonel" just forgot his place for a moment, Hans, that's all. you are obseesed with fake conspriascies little boy "obsessed" "conspiracies" What conspiracy? I didn't address any "conspiracy", Mark. the one you seem to think exist betwen myself Len Brain and maybe frank More delusions on your part. no you are the delusional fellow Steve, K4YZ |
|
KY4Z wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K=D8HB wrote: "nobodys old friend" wrote not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening .... ....History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact What a humorous crock of ####! It isn't history when it's happening.= It's real life. but the truth about current events is never known BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA= HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! simple fact The Comenader at Midway did not know the what all was going one Ceaser's (Otavian) legion comanders did know what was going in the cvil war with Anthony hans can't have known what was going in the white house or at state Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind .= ..=2E Admiral Anderson wasn't in charge of the quarantine. Admiral Alfred = "Corky" Ward was. What you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a legend in your= own distorted mind. Aderson certainly was in charge unless ward went off and founded his own navy "Anderson" I was again giving you the benift of the doubt Ward was further out of the loop than Anderson "benefit" It wasn't yours to give, Mark. it is solely mine to give, on my own behalf End of conversation. promises pormises What an idiot. Can't even spell the same word right twice even when it's the ONLY word in the "sentence"... ! ! ! no I can't some days but you know that, you know why (or you should by now) and yet you show you willing to bash and insult the disabled by going on and on OTOH do go ahead it saves me a lot of work with the targer audeince in showing you, and your side in various deabte your true colors =20 Steve, KY4Z |
wrote in message oups.com... an old friend wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody values warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some thing or some result of value. Well said! JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics of the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and drank lots of vodka. Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first place. IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow's objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop, compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles. So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cuba. Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwarted. But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. bull**** Jim Which part of what I wrote is not true, Mark? Perhaps you mean my reference to the Jupiter-Cs as "IRBMs" (Intermediate-Range-Ballistic-Missiles) which are elsewhere called "MRBMs" (Medium-Range-Ballistic-Missiles). every movie or account of those days mentions it Even if true, so what? Those movies and accounts were done long after the crisis. What I wrote is true: some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. __________________________________________________ ____ End Quote Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for ratings. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: K=D8HB wrote: "nobodys old friend" wrote not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening .... ....History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact What a humorous crock of ####! It isn't history when it's happenin= g=2E It's real life. but the truth about current events is never known BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! simple fact The Comenader at Midway did not know the what all was going one "commander" Was that a sentence? What has the commander at Midway have to do with the Cuban Missle Crisis? Or are you refering to the situation at Midway in 1942? Seems he knew a lot more than his adversary since between him, the COMSEC guys and some sneaky radio ops they figured out what the Japanese were up to. That's why a militarily superior force got whupped by a logistically strapped force. "...what all was going one..." WTF was that? Ceaser's (Otavian) legion comanders did know what was going in the cvil war with Anthony "Octavian" "commanders" "civil" Ya think the lack of spontaneous, simulataneous communications had anything to do with that? hans can't have known what was going in the white house or at state "Hans" "White House" Why couldn't he have? He was certainly in a much better position to know than YOU did at the time! Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind= =2E.. Admiral Anderson wasn't in charge of the quarantine. Admiral Alfre= d "Corky" Ward was. What you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a legend in yo= ur own distorted mind. Aderson certainly was in charge unless ward went off and founded his own navy "Anderson" I was again giving you the benift of the doubt Ward was further out of the loop than Anderson "benefit" It wasn't yours to give, Mark. it is solely mine to give, on my own behalf No, it's not. There was NO doubt in ANYone's mind but yours, and only because you're ill-informed and typically running off at the mouth about topics for which you are ill-prepared. End of conversation. promises pormises What an idiot. Can't even spell the same word right twice even when it's the ONLY word in the "sentence"... ! ! ! no I can't some days What? The moon's gravity pulls your fingers one way or the other? Or you just hit your prescription meds and Jack Daniels a bit too hard the night before? but you know that, you know why (or you should by now) and yet you show you willing to bash and insult the disabled by going on and on I'm not "bashing" anyone. You're an incompetent, lazy punk. That's all. OTOH do go ahead it saves me a lot of work with the targer audeince in showing you, and your side in various deabte your true colors "target" "audience" "debate" T A R G E T...?!?! YOU'RE THREATENING ME! ! ! STALKER! STALKER! My "true colors" are red, white and blue, intertwined with USMC Scarlet and Gold. Yours are just white and yellow. Steve, K4YZ |
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... nobodys old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: KØHB wrote: "nobodys old friend" wrote not at all no one living in the times knows what was happening .... ....History can never be truly known till at al least 50 years after the fact What a humorous crock of ####! It isn't history when it's happening. It's real life. but the truth about current events is never known BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! simple fact The Comenader at Midway did not know the what all was going one "commander" Was that a sentence? What has the commander at Midway have to do with the Cuban Missle Crisis? Or are you refering to the situation at Midway in 1942? Seems he knew a lot more than his adversary since between him, the COMSEC guys and some sneaky radio ops they figured out what the Japanese were up to. That's why a militarily superior force got whupped by a logistically strapped force. "...what all was going one..." WTF was that? Ceaser's (Otavian) legion comanders did know what was going in the cvil war with Anthony "Octavian" "commanders" "civil" Ya think the lack of spontaneous, simulataneous communications had anything to do with that? hans can't have known what was going in the white house or at state "Hans" "White House" Why couldn't he have? He was certainly in a much better position to know than YOU did at the time! Admiral Anderson had no real understanding of the presidents mind ... Admiral Anderson wasn't in charge of the quarantine. Admiral Alfred "Corky" Ward was. What you learned at "4 or 5 years old" is a legend in your own distorted mind. Aderson certainly was in charge unless ward went off and founded his own navy "Anderson" I was again giving you the benift of the doubt Ward was further out of the loop than Anderson "benefit" It wasn't yours to give, Mark. it is solely mine to give, on my own behalf No, it's not. There was NO doubt in ANYone's mind but yours, and only because you're ill-informed and typically running off at the mouth about topics for which you are ill-prepared. End of conversation. promises pormises What an idiot. Can't even spell the same word right twice even when it's the ONLY word in the "sentence"... ! ! ! no I can't some days What? The moon's gravity pulls your fingers one way or the other? Or you just hit your prescription meds and Jack Daniels a bit too hard the night before? but you know that, you know why (or you should by now) and yet you show you willing to bash and insult the disabled by going on and on I'm not "bashing" anyone. You're an incompetent, lazy punk. That's all. OTOH do go ahead it saves me a lot of work with the targer audeince in showing you, and your side in various deabte your true colors "target" "audience" "debate" T A R G E T...?!?! YOU'RE THREATENING ME! ! ! STALKER! STALKER! My "true colors" are red, white and blue, intertwined with USMC Scarlet and Gold. Yours are just white and yellow. Steve, K4YZ Marky just likes to argue Steve. Don't confuse him with the facts. I especially enjoyed the part about the Cuban missle Crisis and the Commander at Midway......well you know. And Dee is correct, at least that is how I remember how it went in 1962. Shortly after the Russians pulled there missles out of Cuba we removed the obsolete Jupiters. No real loss since the Submarine missles and the new Atlas ICBM were coming or were already on line. Not to mention the lighter Hydrogen bombs available for use by the B-52 SAC Bombers. Dan/W4NTI |
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:58:53 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: snip That would have a been a tough one. How do you think you did with "Soviet", "spelling", "missiles" and "valueable"? Actually, the word is spelled "valuable"...... http://www.bartleby.com/61/56/V0015600.html Nice job on the other three, though! snip Dave K8MN 73, Leo |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message Marky just likes to argue Steve. Don't confuse him with the facts. Quite correct. I especially enjoyed the part about the Cuban missle Crisis and the Commander at Midway......well you know. Well...Coming from a "guy" who was "drafted" at age 7 or 8 and forced to remain on active duty despite being an admitted deviant and pathological liar, I don't find ANYthing that comes out of Mark's "mouth" surprising anymore...ESPECIALLY since he's admitted what goes IN his mouth.... And Dee is correct, at least that is how I remember how it went in 1962. Shortly after the Russians pulled there missles out of Cuba we removed the obsolete Jupiters. No real loss since the Submarine missles and the new Atlas ICBM were coming or were already on line. Not to mention the lighter Hydrogen bombs available for use by the B-52 SAC Bombers. The story behind the Jupiter missles was nothing more than a "face saving" exercise for the Soviets. It allowed them to say, "See, we did get something out of the whole deal..." when in fact all we did was change from fixed base missles to seaborne. It's just one more "Markism" we can point at him and laugh about, Dan! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Careful, Marky the stalker will hit you with his purse.
|
an old friend wrote:
wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: K=D8HB wrote: wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that = nobody values warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN s= ome thing or some result of value. Well said! JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only cri= tics of the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits a= nd drank lots of vodka. Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first plac= e=2E IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow= 's objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop, compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles. So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cub= a=2E Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwart= ed. But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters we= re quietly removed from Turkey. bull**** Jim Which part of what I wrote is not true, Mark? that the Jupiter links with the cuban misle cris were unknown at the time That's the way it was. There were two parts to the resolution of the crisis: First, the Soviets removed their missiles and promised not to put such missiles or similar weapons so close to the USA in the future. This part was made public right away. Second, the USA and NATO removed the Jupiter-C missiles from Turkey some time afterwards. This part was kept secret and *not* publicized until long after the crisis was over. But don't take my word for it. Read the actual documents, many recently unclassified: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/ All sorts of good stuff on that site. For example, the Jupiters in Turkey only became operational in April, 1962. And at that time, the USSR had only about fifty nuclear-capable bombers and missiles that could reach the USA, while the USA had about ten times that many capable of reaching the USSR. the NY Times and Washington post had stories out within day of their withdraw Show us. it was comon knowledge with a few years The point is that *at the time of the crisis* the US agreement to remove the Jupiter-Cs from Turkey was kept very quiet, while the USSR's agreement to remove their missiles from Cuba was all over the front pages of the Western world. Perhaps you mean my reference to the Jupiter-Cs as "IRBMs" (Intermediate-Range-Ballistic-Missiles) which are elsewhere called "MRBMs" (Medium-Range-Ballistic-Missiles). every movie or account of those days mentions it Even if true, so what? that these account all list the withdraw *AFTER* the crises was long past. Not in October/November 1962, when the Soviet concessions were made. Those movies and accounts were done long after the crisis. What I wrote is true: some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. the last is the falsehood the jupiters simply were not front page news Show us. That they were scheduled to be removed, were obsolete, and were already replaced by more-effective submarine-launched missiles and ICBMs is inconsequential. The point is that the Soviets backed down publicly and visibly, while *at the time*, the removal of the missiles in Turkey was kept quiet until long after it was an accomplished fact. deabtable the meaning of "long" by my count it was matter of few months. Then what you're really arguing over is how much time it takes to qualify as "long after". I call that short, indeed id say it was kept queist a shorter than most folks who do learn morse Code take to learn it Most people can learn Morse Code well enough to pass the current test in about 30 days - if they practice the right way. but in any event that was part of the deal the jupiter withdraw was mostly to help K setle matter matter with the politboro, not the public NK was removed from power within about two years (1964), with the handling of that crisis being a big factor. and that the Jupiters were obsolete and scheduled for withdraw and the Kendy had ordered their withdraw several time cut the waste of BW You mean the facts. The Jupiters in Turkey only became operational in April 1962. I suggest you and anyone interested check out the above website for the facts. btw, since K0HB was a USN radio operator involved in the quarantine, it's very possible he knew far more about what was going on - first hand - than you give him credit for. |
Dee Flint wrote: Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for ratings. Well said, Dee! There's also the fact that opinions differ about what is worth reporting and what is not, how much detail to report, how much history to tell, etc. It should also be remembered that before Vietnam and particularly Watergate, the US news media tended to avoid criticizing the current administration. They'd almost always give the president - indeed, almost anyone in the government - the benefit of the doubt, as it were. All that changed after Watergate. The following website: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/ includes a critique of the recent film "Thirteen Days", specifically pointing out how its omissions can leave the viewer with a rather distorted and inaccurate view of what caused the crisis in the first place. That film is recent, too, not 40 years old. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dee Flint wrote: Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for ratings. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, excellent, excellent post. That must be why some in this group constantly quote british comedy as if it were somehow relevant to matters at hand. They get their history from Monty Python. Telling is their admiration for the contribution(s) that the ARS made in WWII. Quitepuzzling, since the ARS was shut down by the US government at the time. |
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com