Sputnik and AC

[Richard Tanner]

[ 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

[RedBean]

[ 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]

[VayaConDios]

[ 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?

[RedBean]

[ 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]

[pvn]

[ 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?

[RedBean]

[ 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]

[pvn]

[ 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.

[nietzreznor]

[ 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...

[pvn]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.