Sputnik and AC

[RedBean]

[ 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?

[pvn]

[ 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?

[pvn]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[RedBean]

[ 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.

[RedBean]

[ 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]

[RedBean]

[ 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.

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[Richard Tanner]

[ 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

[RedBean]

[ 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.

[iron81]

This thread sucks.