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

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

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

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

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

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 no=
body values
warfare except arms vendors.

Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN som=
e 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 criti=
cs 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?

that the Jupiter links with the cuban misle cris were unknown at the
time

the NY Times and Washington post had stories out within day of their
withdraw

it was comon knowledge with a few years

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

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

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. 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

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


and that the Jupiters were obsolete and scheduled for withdraw

and the Kendy had ordered their withdraw several time

cut the waste of BW