Sputnik and AC
 

Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Synopsis of future responses in white:

<font color="white">If it was beneficial, then the market would have accomplished the same thing cheaper. Genuflect genuflect genuflect </font>

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Synopsis of future responses in white:

<font color="white">If it was beneficial, then the market would have accomplished the same thing cheaper. Genuflect genuflect genuflect </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I will agree however with those responses that the market would have achieved them much cheaper (though much later). I can't imagine how much $$$ was wasted in the midst of that brute force push to get on the moon.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

Opportunity costs

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians. Furthermore, there's good reason to believe that the focus on getting to the moon in 8 year time frame pushed us away from more rational development of space. Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost certainly true. Consider that the driving motivation behind the space race, both on the US and USSR sides, was to develop delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads.


[ QUOTE ]
The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're only looking at one factor, the benefits. You haven't mentioned anything about the costs, or the alternative uses of that money. We got Tang, it must have been worth the $1,000,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation)!

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Opportunity costs

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

One mafia gang dick waving at another mafia gang isn't a good use of my resources.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians.

[/ QUOTE ]

WAY WRONG. Primarily, radically improved ICBM design. Yay space program benefits!

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, there's good reason to believe that the focus on getting to the moon in 8 year time frame pushed us away from more rational development of space. Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because that's what was needed to get popular support behind the project. If you just came out and said "we want to spend $1,000,000,000,000 to design better systems for killing billions of people in a matter of minutes" there probably wouldn't have been as much "fan support".

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you just came out and said "we want to spend $1,000,000,000,000 to design better systems for killing billions of people in a matter of minutes" there probably wouldn't have been as much "fan support"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't that a key part of Kennedy's platform, phrased in basically that way?

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apollo produced excellent technology for space stations; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

Can you tell which of these is carrying human beings and which is carrying nuclear warheads?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...color_silo.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...7px-Titan2.jpg

Hint, the lift vehicle is EXACTLY THE SAME! Coincidence?

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apollo produced excellent technology for space stations; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab

[/ QUOTE ]

That article actually goes into some detail about how space station plans had to be pared down because so many resources were being diverted to lunar missions. My quote probably does overstate the distinction, but I think an Apollo-less world would be much better than the one we have.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hint, the lift vehicle is EXACTLY THE SAME! Coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are pics of a Titan II, and the majority of Apollo missions used the Saturn V rocket as it's launch vehicle.

The Saturn V rocket was one of the first rockets specifically NOT developed for use as an ICBM, but instead solely as a space launch vehicle.

The Saturn V and Titan II aren't "exactly the same"....

The Saturn V had three stages, was 3 times taller, 3x in diameter, and nearly TWENTY TIMES the mass of the Titan II.

Not to mention the Saturn V had nearly 30 times the payload capacity of the Titan II, nor that the Titan II was not capable of delivering any meaningful payload to lunar orbit.

There were only 15 Saturn V rockets deployed, and they were never designed, intended, or implemented as ICBM's, nor as a weapon delivery system.

(ICBM's had been deployed almost 5 years prior to the moon landing, and before the bulk of the Apollo missions...)

The Titan II , however, was originally developed as an ICBM and deployed as such, and only afterwards was it converted as a space launch system for the Gemini program....not the Apollo program.

The interesting thing being, it was an ICBM first, then used for the space program, not vice-versa.

Like I said, minor nit for the purpose of this thread, but a rather large point of contention depending on who you talk too and what their background is.....in short, one is a rocket, the other is a missile, and there actually is a big difference.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians.

[/ QUOTE ]

WAY WRONG. Primarily, radically improved ICBM design. Yay space program benefits!


[/ QUOTE ]

The Apollo program had very little to do with ICBM design.

In fact, as stated in my post above, the lift vehicle for Apollo was one of the first delivery systems *NOT* specifically designed to be an ICBM.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians.

[/ QUOTE ]

WAY WRONG. Primarily, radically improved ICBM design. Yay space program benefits!


[/ QUOTE ]

The Apollo program had very little to do with ICBM design.

In fact, as stated in my post above, the lift vehicle for Apollo was one of the first delivery systems *NOT* specifically designed to be an ICBM.

[/ QUOTE ]

A NASCAR race car is NOT specifically designed for use on highways, yet one of the primary purposes of racing R&amp;D from manufacturer perspectives is to develop technolgy for use in consumer vehicles.

Of course, in this case, such R&amp;D is funded through voluntary measures.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hint, the lift vehicle is EXACTLY THE SAME! Coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are pics of a Titan II, and the majority of Apollo missions used the Saturn V rocket as it's launch vehicle.

The Saturn V rocket was one of the first rockets specifically NOT developed for use as an ICBM, but instead solely as a space launch vehicle.

The Saturn V and Titan II aren't "exactly the same"....

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, for someone who talks about reading comprehension, you sure didn't read my post. The two rockets that I posted images two ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, just like I said. One has a human capsule payload, and the other has a (dummy in this case) warhead paylod.

And note that I haven't said that all space program activity was *directly* researching ICBMs, but it's pretty clear how building heavy lift systems generates all sorts of useful information for military uses.

Do you think the Saturn V technology was of zero use to the development of other weapons transport systems?

[ QUOTE ]
The Saturn V had three stages, was 3 times taller, 3x in diameter, and nearly TWENTY TIMES the mass of the Titan II.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the Saturn V had nearly 30 times the payload capacity of the Titan II, nor that the Titan II was not capable of delivering any meaningful payload to lunar orbit.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
There were only 15 Saturn V rockets deployed, and they were never designed, intended, or implemented as ICBM's, nor as a weapon delivery system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
(ICBM's had been deployed almost 5 years prior to the moon landing, and before the bulk of the Apollo missions...)

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
The Titan II , however, was originally developed as an ICBM and deployed as such, and only afterwards was it converted as a space launch system for the Gemini program....not the Apollo program.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

I haven't been directly speaking ONLY of the apollo program.

[ QUOTE ]
The interesting thing being, it was an ICBM first, then used for the space program, not vice-versa.

Like I said, minor nit for the purpose of this thread, but a rather large point of contention depending on who you talk too and what their background is.....in short, one is a rocket, the other is a missile, and there actually is a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except your "nit" doesn't dispute any points I made.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
A NASCAR race car is NOT specifically designed for use on highways, yet one of the primary purposes of racing R&amp;D from manufacturer perspectives is to develop technolgy for use in consumer vehicles.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good to know, but it isn't what we were discussing in this topic. Instead of referring to analogies that have some similarities, but just as many differences, let's stay on topic.

You asserted the rockets used in the Apollo program were the "exact same" as those ICBM's used to deliver weapons, and that is absolutely incorrect.

The Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo program were developed independently of parallel military programs to develop ICBM's, and their purpose was specifically as a space launch and heavy payload delivery system for lunar orbit.

The Saturn V had absolute no use as an ICBM, and played little to no role in the R&amp;D of ICBM's.

In fact, the first Saturn V launched in 1967, and was developed by NASA primarily at Huntsville, and it was concieved AFTER the Minuteman program that had already produced operational ICBM's.

The Minuteman program deployed the first operational ICBM's in 1962, developed by the DOD and they were active up until 1997, and the current stock of land-based ICBM's in operation were first deployed in 1969 based on the earlier models, and are projected to be active until 2040.

ICBM's in their current form exist exactly as they do now, independent of any R&amp;D from the Apollo program.

The Saturn V is a liqued fuel rocket that was developed by NASA for the singular purpose of devlivering a heavy payload to lunar orbit.

The Minuteman is a solid fuel missile that was developed by DoD for the singular purpose of delivering weapons payload.

In short, the intent nor outcome of the Apollo program had next to nothing to do with the advancement of ICBM technology. It doesn't change the fact that the Apollo program may have been a colossal waste of money, but it is incorrect to assert it's purpose was to advance the development of ICBM's, as that was an entirely seperate, military program.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
The two rockets that I posted images two ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, just like I said. One has a human capsule payload, and the other has a (dummy in this case) warhead paylod.


[/ QUOTE ]

And it's not the vehicle that was used in the Apollo Program, which is what you were replying too.

The simple fact is that the Apollo program had little to do with the advancement of ICBM design.


[ QUOTE ]
And note that I haven't said that all space program activity was *directly* researching ICBMs, but it's pretty clear how building heavy lift systems generates all sorts of useful information for military uses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough, regarding the image you posted, it is the other way around...lol....the Titan II was first developed by the military and deployed as a ICBM, and only later was it adapted for use by NASA in the Gemini program as a space launch vehicle.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think the Saturn V technology was of zero use to the development of other weapons transport systems?


[/ QUOTE ]

In simple terms...pretty much.

Consider that the current land based ICBM systems in use today resulted from the Minuteman program, which was operational prior to Saturn V.

The Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman programs were the overwhelming contributors to ICBM development and weapons delivery, developed by the military....while the Saturn V played virtually no role in the advancement of ICBM design, and was solely a NASA project whose purpose was lunar payload.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Saturn V had three stages, was 3 times taller, 3x in diameter, and nearly TWENTY TIMES the mass of the Titan II.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be honest here, in your reply to the other poster in regards to the Apollo program, you insinuated by posting an image of the wrong vehicle that the rockets used in the Apollo program were the exact same as those used to deliver weapons, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

At best, you were just misinformed about the images you posted, misattributing them as part of the Apollo program.

At worst, you were being purposefully disingenious and misleading to further your misguided belief that the Apollo program had anything to do with the furtherance of ICBM's.

I'd normally give someone the benefit of the doubt, but considering your an enormous douchebag with a penchant for distorting facts, there is a good chance you did this on purpose. If not, no harm no foul.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were only 15 Saturn V rockets deployed, and they were never designed, intended, or implemented as ICBM's, nor as a weapon delivery system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering you were asserting the lift vehicle used in the Apollo program was for the purpose of delivering weapons, it's a point to show that in reality it wasn't. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(ICBM's had been deployed almost 5 years prior to the moon landing, and before the bulk of the Apollo missions...)

[/ QUOTE ]

So?


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute....I see what you're doing. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just act dismissive and reply with "So?" to every factual point that shows you were mistaken.

Sweet.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been directly speaking ONLY of the apollo program.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what you were speaking to in this reply.

And it was unintentional comedy gold when you arrogantly said "WAY WRONG", and then proceeded to make statements that were completely wrong to support it. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Except your "nit" doesn't dispute any points I made.

[/ QUOTE ]

You asserted the primary benefit from the Apollo program was "radical improvements" in ICBM design, and you are amazingly incorrect, and apparently incapable of admitting as much.

If you want to hedge your bets, now might be the time to change your assertion and pretend that you actually meant some other space program other than Apollo..... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

But keep in mind the first ICBM was developed, made operational, launched, and deployed PRIOR to the formation of NASA. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

If anything, it would have REALLY been a waste of money on a space program to develop ICBM technology that already existed and to further technology that an entirely seperate program was already doing..... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
You asserted the rockets used in the Apollo program were the "exact same" as those ICBM's used to deliver weapons, and that is absolutely incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite please.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's be honest here, in your reply to the other poster in regards to the Apollo program, you insinuated by posting an image of the wrong vehicle that the rockets used in the Apollo program were the exact same as those used to deliver weapons, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I showed two Titan IIs. I said they are the EXACT SAME launch vehicle in each picture. I said NOTHING about saturn Vs.

Are those two pictures showing different launch vehicles? Yes or no please.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's be honest here, in your reply to the other poster in regards to the Apollo program, you insinuated by posting an image of the wrong vehicle that the rockets used in the Apollo program were the exact same as those used to deliver weapons, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I showed two Titan IIs. I said they are the EXACT SAME launch vehicle in each picture. I said NOTHING about saturn Vs.

Are those two pictures showing different launch vehicles? Yes or no please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha in one thread you lecture him for "not bringing any useful/new info to the thread" and in this one you apparently are doing just that. Either you're posting useless pictures (they are the same by the way, if that helps) or you're posting them to make a point that Red has already covered.

Here's hoping I'm missing it and the big reveal is coming soon.

Cody

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]

No, I showed two Titan IIs. I said they are the EXACT SAME launch vehicle in each picture. I said NOTHING about saturn Vs.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...you're something else....

You replied to the poster about the Apollo program, and you asserted that the primary benefit of the program was "radical improvements in ICBM design".

Of course, that is incorrect.

And you even went so far as to say he was "WAY WRONG"...which was pretty ironic considering your claim... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

You then followed it up by posting the two Titans, which weren't a part of the Apollo program that you were replying about.....as if it somehow supported your incorrect assertion about the Apollo program and ICBM's.

Like I said, you were either ignorant to the fact that the images you posted weren't a part of the Apollo program, or you misrepresented them as such in order to support your incorrect assertion.

Which is it?

And now you are saying that even though you were replying about the Apollo program and making faulty assertions regarding it.....you somehow shifted gears to the Gemini program when you posted images to support it.

Sweet.

Something tells me you didn't have a clue about the images you posted, and you legitimately thought them to be a part of the Apollo program, and you made a simple mistake trying to prove your original incorrect assertion.

(See that? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't trying to purposefully be disingenious.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

Either way, I think we can all agree that your initial assertion about the primary benefit of the Apollo program being the "radical improvement" of ICBM''s to be bogus.

Or in your preferred terminology...."WAY WRONG"... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Hace a nice day, bro....and seriously, it's okay to admit you were wrong, especially when it's painfully obvious, and even moreso when you were wrong when arrogantly trying to ridicule the other poster for being 'wrong', when it was actually *you*.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's be honest here, in your reply to the other poster in regards to the Apollo program, you insinuated by posting an image of the wrong vehicle that the rockets used in the Apollo program were the exact same as those used to deliver weapons, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I showed two Titan IIs. I said they are the EXACT SAME launch vehicle in each picture. I said NOTHING about saturn Vs.

Are those two pictures showing different launch vehicles? Yes or no please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on getting completely owned. Maybe it's time for another clumsy analogy?

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's hoping I'm missing it and the big reveal is coming soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

20 bucks says he just can't simply admit he was wrong and he completely ignores addressing the fact that he was incorrect in his assertions of the Apollo program.

Another 20 bucks says he focuses on the fact that he posted 2 Titans.....despite them being from a different program and not being relevant to the discussion of Apollo or the point he was trying to originally assert.

PM me if you want in....action closes on his next post. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Haha in one thread you lecture him for "not bringing any useful/new info to the thread" and in this one you apparently are doing just that. Either you're posting useless pictures (they are the same by the way, if that helps) or you're posting them to make a point that Red has already covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted them before RedBean posted anything in this thread. How could I be making a point he already covered?

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted them before RedBean posted anything in this thread. How could I be making a point he already covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, you weren't making a point I already covered.

You were making a point about your faulty assertion regarding the Apollo program, which I then corrected. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

PS...action is closed all bets are in. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, I showed two Titan IIs. I said they are the EXACT SAME launch vehicle in each picture. I said NOTHING about saturn Vs.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...you're something else....

You replied to the poster about the Apollo program

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about the post where I showed two Titan IIs? I replied using quick reply. I had no response to the guy who happened to post right before me.

[ QUOTE ]
and you asserted that the primary benefit of the program was "radical improvements in ICBM design".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the *SPACE* program.

[ QUOTE ]
And you even went so far as to say he was "WAY WRONG"...which was pretty ironic considering your claim... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, that? Jesus. You've never used a little tounge-in-cheek hyperbole?

[ QUOTE ]
You then followed it up by posting the two Titans, which weren't a part of the Apollo program that you were replying about.....as if it somehow supported your incorrect assertion about the Apollo program and ICBM's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I didn't have anything to do with the reply about the apollo program. I said "here are two vehicles, one carrying a person, the other carrying munitions. Can you tell the difference?" It had zero to do with apollo. Zilch. Why do you keep trying so hard to make a connection that isn't there? I posted twice in the thread, both my posts must be trying to make the same point?

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, you were either ignorant to the fact that the images you posted weren't a part of the Apollo program, or you misrepresented them as such in order to support your incorrect assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, neither.

[ QUOTE ]
And now you are saying that even though you were replying about the Apollo program and making faulty assertions regarding it.....you somehow shifted gears to the Gemini program when you posted images to support it.

Sweet.

Something tells me you didn't have a clue about the images you posted, and you legitimately thought them to be a part of the Apollo program, and you made a simple mistake trying to prove your original incorrect assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Why do you assume I thought it had anything to do with Apollo?

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, I think we can all agree that your initial assertion about the primary benefit of the Apollo program being the "radical improvement" of ICBM''s to be bogus.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, going back... I see. I did read bobman's post as "space program" instead of apollo program. But there's still no reason to assume that the post showing the two titan IIs had any connection to THAT post. It just showed that "space race" tech IS ICBM tech, and vice versa.

But since we're on that topic, what do *you* think the "primary benefit" of the Apollo program was?

[ QUOTE ]
Hace a nice day, bro....and seriously, it's okay to admit you were wrong, especially when it's painfully obvious, and even moreso when you were wrong when arrogantly trying to ridicule the other poster for being 'wrong', when it was actually *you*.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Except, I wasn't trying to ridicule bobman. We have history.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more cynical take on NASA...

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another 20 bucks says he focuses on the fact that he posted 2 Titans.....despite them being from a different program and not being relevant to the discussion of Apollo or the point he was trying to originally assert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please cite your basis for thinking the post with the pictures was in direct reference to the apollo program.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
You were making a point about your faulty assertion regarding the Apollo program, which I then corrected. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep saying it.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and you asserted that the primary benefit of the program was "radical improvements in ICBM design".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the *SPACE* program.


[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

Sweet....

In this post, Bobman referred to the Apollo program specifically, and listed what he thought it's primary benefit was......

You replied and asserted he was "WAY WRONG", and asserted the primary benefit to be "radically imrpoved ICBM design."

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

And even though he was specifically referring to the Apollo program....you're only NOW saying your reply was not on the same topic of Apollo, but the overall space program 'in general'?

Hmm....so was he "WAY WRONG" on Apollo, or not?

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and you asserted that the primary benefit of the program was "radical improvements in ICBM design".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the *SPACE* program.


[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

Sweet....

In this post, Bobman referred to the Apollo program specifically, and listed what he thought it's primary benefit was......

You replied and asserted he was "WAY WRONG", and asserted the primary benefit to be "radically imrpoved ICBM design."

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

And even though he was specifically referring to the Apollo program....you're only NOW saying your reply was not on the same topic of Apollo, but the overall space program 'in general'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what I just said. I misread something. And I re-iterated the point I *had already made* earlier in the thread, so this shouldnt' be too hard to understand.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm....so was he "WAY WRONG" on Apollo, or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he was still wrong. Even if my point wasn't bulletproof. DUCY?

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please cite your basis for thinking the post with the pictures was in direct reference to the apollo program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except I didn't have anything to do with the reply about the apollo program.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well then this guy must be using the exact same username to post as you.

Same avatar, too. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
"here are two vehicles, one carrying a person, the other carrying munitions. Can you tell the difference?" It had zero to do with apollo. Zilch.


[/ QUOTE ]

Retroactively, I bet you do wish it had zilch to do with Apollo, only that it followed your assertion in reply to Bobman that the Apollo program "radically improved ICBM design".




[ QUOTE ]
Why do you assume I thought it had anything to do with Apollo?


[/ QUOTE ]

Um...I'll take "Because you asserted that Apollo's primary benefit was radically improved ICBM design" for $500, Alex.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, going back... I see. I did read bobman's post as "space program" instead of apollo program. But there's still no reason to assume that the post showing the two titan IIs had any connection to THAT post.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...does this count as an admittance for the purposes of the side action I booked?

I think it does.

Luckily, no one put their money on you.

Alternatively, however, and a possible segway into another topic.....would you like to discuss your assertions regarding the Titan II rocket and it's dual use as a SLV and ICBM?

Because it wasn't developed into an ICBM as a result of it's use in the space program....in fact, it was the exact opposite.

It was developed as a military weapon from the outset, and deployed as an ICBM, and then only later were some of them modified for use in the space program in an effort to use off-the-shelf existing hardware to minimize costs for NASA and their burdgeoning program.

Many people still ponder the chicken or the egg, but I can assure you that the ICBM came before NASA. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]

But since we're on that topic, what do *you* think the "primary benefit" of the Apollo program was?


[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on who you ask, obviously, but from my perspective it was to mask the underlying parallel programs such as Minuteman that were being worked by the USAF, as well as provide morale, psychological, and motivational boosts to the public and more importantly the deciding congrressmen to continue to funnel money into the space program, so that a good portion of it could be siphoned off and re-appropriated for military space programs, many of which were classified at the time, and weren't public knowledge.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please cite your basis for thinking the post with the pictures was in direct reference to the apollo program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christ almighty, you would think I already beat the dead horse to a second death.

If you really are that emphatic that your posting the images weren't in regards to the Apollo program, then please tell me what your assertions are regarding the Titan II, specifically the Gemini program.

I'd be more than willing to discuss it rather than Apollo....but let's figure out which one you "really mean" this time in advance... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he was still wrong. Even if my point wasn't bulletproof. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um....you were wrong too.

That's what made it so unintentionally funny. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

And to be fair to him, he was a lot closer to right than you were. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Apollo had absolutely no intent or purpose for the advancement of ICBM design. It *did* have the stated goal and intent of "beating the Russians" to the moon.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he was still wrong. Even if my point wasn't bulletproof. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um....you were wrong too.

That's what made it so unintentionally funny. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

And to be fair to him, he was a lot closer to right than you were. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Apollo had absolutely no intent or purpose for the advancement of ICBM design. It *did* have the stated goal and intent of "beating the Russians" to the moon.

[/ QUOTE ]

now you now why i have pvn on ignore. Responding to his posts is a total waste of time. His concept of intellectual honesty is "Im right, and if Im wrong, I'll scream 'Im right' till im blue in face and you get tired of hearing it".

Must be a liberal.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haha in one thread you lecture him for "not bringing any useful/new info to the thread" and in this one you apparently are doing just that. Either you're posting useless pictures (they are the same by the way, if that helps) or you're posting them to make a point that Red has already covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted them before RedBean posted anything in this thread. How could I be making a point he already covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

A point he'd since covered (already at the time of MY post) not something he'd covered before your post. Bad word choice on my part maybe.

Cody

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
His concept of intellectual honesty is "Im right, and if Im wrong, I'll scream 'Im right' till im blue in face and you get tired of hearing it".

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can save me some time and PM me a list of other douchebags with similar MO's, because it really does nothing more than stifle geniune debate, and sidetrack otherwise potential useful discussion with unnecessarily silly circus shows.

Re: Sputnik and AC
 

This thread sucks.