Sputnik and AC

[pvn]

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





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

[bobman0330]

[ 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.

[RedBean]

[ 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.

[RedBean]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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&D from manufacturer perspectives is to develop technolgy for use in consumer vehicles.

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

[pvn]

[ 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.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
A NASCAR race car is NOT specifically designed for use on highways, yet one of the primary purposes of racing R&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&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&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.

[RedBean]

[ 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]

[pvn]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.