Von Braun and Suzanne.

On Nov 22, 3:18*pm, heekster wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:16*am, heekster wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:23:24 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

wrote:
On Nov 21, 11:04*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
I wanted to do so, in the hope that the ssh participation could
provide the evidence/argument that would nail this isue.

It's not like I did this with a CT type...

If the writer means did WvB work on any American ICBM designs, not that
I'm aware of...which is kind of surprising when you think about it, but
he was working for the Army, and it was decided that the Army's missiles
were not going to include ICBMs, so his missile work ended with the
Jupiter IRBM.
But if the writer is going to include all ICBMs, then he did indeed work
on the A9/A10, and that was a serious ICBM proposal that got to the
design if not construction phase.
As to whether it would have worked or not is a very open question, but
the Peenemunde team did figure out things like the interior structure of
the A10 and two different ways to make its engine.

The point that seems to me to rule that concept out is that, no post
war ICBM project used a design even remotely similar to the A9/A10.

To suggest that doing any concept work on the A9/A10 translates to
any specific expertise with 1950s and/or 1960s ICBMs would be similar
to a suggestion that a Concorde engineer's work counts as working on
777s....

Apples and oranges.

Concorde was British-French SST.

777 is Boeing commercial subsonic transport.

The analogy is invalid on oh, so many levels.

In a word, bull****. The differences between those two planes are
similar to the differences between the A9/A10 and any actually
built ICBMs of the 50s and 60s.

Just the gross difference in the staging procedure of an A9/A10
and, say, a Titan 1/2 makes that point abundently clear.

You are comparing aircraft to multistage missiles.

No, to anyone who is not illiterate, I am comparing two different
kinds
of aircraft to each other, just as you tried to compare two different
kinds
of missiles to each other.

Having worked on ICBMs, the 777, and the British Airways Concorde,
I'm interested in what you think you know about them.

When I get to see your name, resume, and qualifications, I shall
be happy to discuss this.

So produce these differences, and show similarity.

Once you produce the specific differences and similarities between
any actual missiles that VB worked on, and ICBMs.

Andre

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:51:33 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
wrote:

On Nov 22, 3:18*pm, heekster wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:16*am, heekster wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:23:24 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

wrote:
On Nov 21, 11:04*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
I wanted to do so, in the hope that the ssh participation could
provide the evidence/argument that would nail this isue.

It's not like I did this with a CT type...

If the writer means did WvB work on any American ICBM designs, not that
I'm aware of...which is kind of surprising when you think about it, but
he was working for the Army, and it was decided that the Army's missiles
were not going to include ICBMs, so his missile work ended with the
Jupiter IRBM.
But if the writer is going to include all ICBMs, then he did indeed work
on the A9/A10, and that was a serious ICBM proposal that got to the
design if not construction phase.
As to whether it would have worked or not is a very open question, but
the Peenemunde team did figure out things like the interior structure of
the A10 and two different ways to make its engine.

The point that seems to me to rule that concept out is that, no post
war ICBM project used a design even remotely similar to the A9/A10.

To suggest that doing any concept work on the A9/A10 translates to
any specific expertise with 1950s and/or 1960s ICBMs would be similar
to a suggestion that a Concorde engineer's work counts as working on
777s....

Apples and oranges.

Concorde was British-French SST.

777 is Boeing commercial subsonic transport.

The analogy is invalid on oh, so many levels.

In a word, bull****. The differences between those two planes are
similar to the differences between the A9/A10 and any actually
built ICBMs of the 50s and 60s.

Just the gross difference in the staging procedure of an A9/A10
and, say, a Titan 1/2 makes that point abundently clear.

You are comparing aircraft to multistage missiles.

No, to anyone who is not illiterate, I am comparing two different
kinds
of aircraft to each other, just as you tried to compare two different
kinds
of missiles to each other.

Having worked on ICBMs, the 777, and the British Airways Concorde,
I'm interested in what you think you know about them.

When I get to see your name, resume, and qualifications, I shall
be happy to discuss this.

This is usenet, kid, not a job interview, get over yourself.

Your inability to respond reasonably to a civil request is duly noted.

So produce these differences, and show similarity.

Once you produce the specific differences and similarities between
any actual missiles that VB worked on, and ICBMs.

IOW, you can't.

On Nov 22, 7:40*pm, heekster slobbered:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:51:33 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

wrote:
On Nov 22, 3:18*pm, heekster wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:16*am, heekster wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:23:24 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

wrote:
On Nov 21, 11:04*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
I wanted to do so, in the hope that the ssh participation could
provide the evidence/argument that would nail this isue.

It's not like I did this with a CT type...

If the writer means did WvB work on any American ICBM designs, not that
I'm aware of...which is kind of surprising when you think about it, but
he was working for the Army, and it was decided that the Army's missiles
were not going to include ICBMs, so his missile work ended with the
Jupiter IRBM.
But if the writer is going to include all ICBMs, then he did indeed work
on the A9/A10, and that was a serious ICBM proposal that got to the
design if not construction phase.
As to whether it would have worked or not is a very open question, but
the Peenemunde team did figure out things like the interior structure of
the A10 and two different ways to make its engine.

The point that seems to me to rule that concept out is that, no post
war ICBM project used a design even remotely similar to the A9/A10..

To suggest that doing any concept work on the A9/A10 translates to
any specific expertise with 1950s and/or 1960s ICBMs would be similar
to a suggestion that a Concorde engineer's work counts as working on
777s....

Apples and oranges.

Concorde was British-French SST.

777 is Boeing commercial subsonic transport.

The analogy is invalid on oh, so many levels.

In a word, bull****. The differences between those two planes are
similar to the differences between the A9/A10 and any actually
built ICBMs of the 50s and 60s.

Just the gross difference in the staging procedure of an A9/A10
and, say, a Titan 1/2 makes that point abundently clear.

You are comparing aircraft to multistage missiles.

No, to anyone who is not illiterate, I am comparing two different
kinds
of aircraft to each other, just as you tried to compare two different
kinds of missiles to each other.

Having worked on ICBMs, the 777, and the British Airways Concorde,
I'm interested in what you think you know about them.

When I get to see your name, resume, and qualifications, I shall
be happy to discuss this.

This is usenet, kid, not a job interview, get over yourself.

Projection

Your inability to respond reasonably to a civil request is duly noted.

Projection

So produce these differences, and show similarity.

Once you produce the specific differences and similarities between
any actual missiles that VB worked on, and ICBMs.

IOW, you can't.

Projection

You're an idiot. HTH.

Andre

Andre Lieven wrote:
OM wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
OM wrote:

....Did you *have* to bring him here, Andre?
It's not as if we don't have enough of them of
our own fracking up the place.

I wanted to do so, in the hope that the ssh
participation could provide the
evidence/argument that would nail this isue.

Funny how that worked out.

....I know you and I have had our differences
over the years, but be totally fracking honest
with me now: has this *ever* worked? Have we ever
converted any of the whackos and CT nutters?

The thing is that the person whose views I had
hoped to shift by means of more evidence from well
informed people *isn't* a whacko or CT nutter.

Talk about being damned with faint praise.

Of course, Paul Harvey would be sure to add the rest
of the story,

When Andre claims to be trying to change my mind, he
has no stake in the effort.

He isn't going to see the results.

Having been repeatedly called on his numerous lies,
Andre, coward to the end, chose to shoot the
messenger, with a killfile placement, and ran off
tail between his legs hoping to be helped by people
not part of the discussion, but whom he suspected
knew whereof they spoke, not a burden Andre takes
willingly on himself.

Thus, I cannot accept the analogy.

Andre cannot accept a lot of things, like reality.

It does happen that otherwise reasonable people
can, and do, often enough, get the wrong idea
because of all sorts of things, like "This is how
I remember it", and they *can* be moved towards
the actual facts, *if* a sufficient amount of
evidence that shows that the facts do not line up
with what they recall.

I'm serious, sir. Name. Me. One.

I pay so little attention to any group's actual
nutters, that even if one did rejoin the sane, it
is not likely that I would see it.

I find it hilarious that having run for shelter to
sci.space.history, Andre has promptly gotten his
head handed to him from multiple directions.

He has learned that the facts which he had been so
adamantly denying

in an attempt to disparage the lifework of
Werner von Braun, apparently a carryover from
his dislike of von Braun's also well documented
use of slave labor

and replacing with his agenda-plagued invented lies,
were in the case exactly correct.

Life is good.

Thanks for all the help, ssh folks.

Not that Andre will in any way change his habits of
invincible ignorance and blatant lying

this is not the first time he's pulled this
garbage in talk.origins, with me off and on as
his opponent, and I seem to recall him
killfiling me last time, too, must have had an
expiration attached somehow

but thanks for trying.

xanthian.