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