A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 16th 16, 07:35 PM posted to sci.space.history
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,459
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

On 12/15/2016 10:03 AM, Stuf4 wrote:
From David Spain:
On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:31:27 AM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:

Nuclear ICBMs are the only fielded weapon that has NEVER undergone an end-to-end test.


Well technically for a "ballistic missile" that is correct. However
historically for a non-ballistic missile or non-ballistic rocket, of
intermediate range (Thor) not true.


I specifically stated INTER-CONTINENTAL ballistic missiles, and you come back with (paraphrase) "That's not true, there were cases of INTERMEDIATE RANGE..."

Hello? I was operating under the assumption that we were speaking the same language. Maybe I should try putting your reply into Google Translate.



Please don't paraphrase when the exact wording is available to you.
I said "technically for a "ballistic missile"" and left unsaid "of
INTER-CONTINENTAL range" since that was what you were describing and I
said you were correct. No disagreement. I did NOT say "That's not
true.... blah", I said "However..." and described a different scenario
where that was not the case. Please don't put words in my mouth I did
not use.

I would not think translation would be necessary.


Prior to the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban treaty there were a few
documented tests of nuclear devices detonated in space via rocket by the
USAF & Los Alamos in the early 1960's. See the "Starfish Prime" test series:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime


Yes, I remember my surprise decades ago when I first learned about those tests.

Good we are in agreement then.


On 12/12/2016 10:00 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
How would any other country know that it had a nuclear warhead when it was launched?


Point taken. There may be historical record of test objects launched as
prototype nuclear warheads that had the mass/design-shape needed for
missilery but without the required nuclear material. I can't document
that fact just now, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact I'm
certain it did, quite a bit...


I do not know the exact protocol, but I would expect that countries be required to register (perhaps with the UN?) any plan to launch any missile or rocket that had the range of impacting other countries.

Or maybe this guess is mistaken, and that instead there is a long tradition of countries unilaterally doing whatever they want. No notice at all.

Your guess is mistaken. And the later is true. A country may, as a
courtesy, inform other countries of a test, but when a test does not
involve their airspace there is no requirement. BTW a country is free to
orbit anything in space regardless of what territory it crosses. When
North Korea does this we can rant, fume, bloviate all we want but they
are not doing anything any other country or private corporation has not
already done.

It seems to me that a spotlight has been shined on a deficient area of space history. One that I myself cannot recall reading about:
How can something like even the Space Shuttle be launched without a country on the other side of the planet not be terrified that the US just launched a nuclear warhead at them?


Countries capable of a response also have national means to identify
whether a rocket trajectory is on a path that would allow something to
fall on their territory or not. The space shuttle would obviously not
qualify as an attack due to its trajectory. And even if subject to a
catastrophic failure it would instead present a debris field that would
obviously not qualify as an attack to anyone experienced in the field of
missile detection.

Countries without the means of detecting such probably don't have the
means to retaliate either and therefore would not be considered a threat
and unlikely to be targeted in the first place.

If a surprise attack was intended, it would be very easy to roll video tape of astronauts being strapped
into the cabin while in fact warhead were there.


It would a particularly unusual method of attack. One that would leave
the perpetrator susceptible to a counter-attack unless other strategic
forces were engaged at the same time. And if not attacking an enemy
capable of retaliation why all the subterfuge? Also it's pretty hard to
disguise the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.

There was even a Star Trek episode from 1967ish that showed the Saturn V as launching a bunch of nuclear warheads at the Soviet Union.


OK I'll concede that this is space history only in the sense that it
involves a Science Fiction TV show episode about space explorers that
aired in the 1960s... And you are not quite recalling that episode
correctly... :-) The rocket was launching an orbiting nuclear warhead
platform not "launching a bunch of nuclear warheads at the Soviet
Union". The TV series was Star Trek and the name of that episode was
"Assignment: Earth" It guest starred Robert Lansing as "Gary Seven" and
Teri Garr as his assistant "Roberta Lincoln".

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Gary_Seven



Have any space historians, the folks who do this as a profession, ever mentioned this a single time? Again, if so, I haven't seen it.

Mentioned what? Countries launching stuff into space unilaterally? Using
astronauts to disguise a secret attack? Or the Start Trek episode?

Dave

Ads
  #12  
Old December 16th 16, 10:28 PM posted to sci.space.history
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,459
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

On 12/16/2016 1:35 PM, David Spain wrote:
Your guess is mistaken. And the later is true. A country may, as a
courtesy, inform other countries of a test, but when a test does not
involve their airspace there is no requirement. BTW a country is free to
orbit anything in space regardless of what territory it crosses. When
North Korea does this we can rant, fume, bloviate all we want but they
are not doing anything any other country or private corporation has not
already done.


A clarification:
Treaty obligations notwithstanding. Obviously a country under treaty
obligations that prevent orbiting a nuclear weapon would not do so.
Not sure North Korea is a signatory to such a treaty. I would have to
check, otherwise what I've written is true. I believe the USA is a
signatory to such a treaty arrangement. And the reason is because there
are far more disadvantages to an orbital nuclear weapon platform than
advantages. Hence nothing important to national security was given up in
agreeing to such a treat, with the distinct advantage that potential
adversaries have agreed to the same treaty.

Dave
  #13  
Old December 17th 16, 09:21 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 529
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

From David Spain:
On 12/15/2016 10:03 AM, Stuf4 wrote:
From David Spain:
On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:31:27 AM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:

Nuclear ICBMs are the only fielded weapon that has NEVER undergone an end-to-end test.

Well technically for a "ballistic missile" that is correct. However
historically for a non-ballistic missile or non-ballistic rocket, of
intermediate range (Thor) not true.


I specifically stated INTER-CONTINENTAL ballistic missiles, and you come back with (paraphrase) "That's not true, there were cases of INTERMEDIATE RANGE..."

Hello? I was operating under the assumption that we were speaking the same language. Maybe I should try putting your reply into Google Translate..


Please don't paraphrase when the exact wording is available to you.
I said "technically for a "ballistic missile"" and left unsaid "of
INTER-CONTINENTAL range" since that was what you were describing and I
said you were correct. No disagreement. I did NOT say "That's not
true.... blah", I said "However..." and described a different scenario
where that was not the case. Please don't put words in my mouth I did
not use.

I would not think translation would be necessary.


It would appear that the disconnect here is that you were trying to *add* information to what I had stated, when the words you picked were presented in a way that gave the appearance of *correcting* what I had stated.

If you see no need to alter your manner of presentation, I would just say that this would be a set up for misunderstanding in future interactions.

As for my own decision to paraphrase, I was attempting to shed light on how your message was being received. For whatever that might be worth to you.

snip
Good we are in agreement then.


I am very glad to have these moments myself.


On 12/12/2016 10:00 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
How would any other country know that it had a nuclear warhead when it was launched?

Point taken. There may be historical record of test objects launched as
prototype nuclear warheads that had the mass/design-shape needed for
missilery but without the required nuclear material. I can't document
that fact just now, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact I'm
certain it did, quite a bit...


I do not know the exact protocol, but I would expect that countries be required to register (perhaps with the UN?) any plan to launch any missile or rocket that had the range of impacting other countries.

Or maybe this guess is mistaken, and that instead there is a long tradition of countries unilaterally doing whatever they want. No notice at all.

Your guess is mistaken. And the later is true. A country may, as a
courtesy, inform other countries of a test, but when a test does not
involve their airspace there is no requirement. BTW a country is free to
orbit anything in space regardless of what territory it crosses. When
North Korea does this we can rant, fume, bloviate all we want but they
are not doing anything any other country or private corporation has not
already done.


And I would submit that this was the exact reason why Eisenhower deliberately lagged in the Space Race. He is blamed for having lost it. But he wanted the USSR to set the precedent of free overflight.

It seems to me that a spotlight has been shined on a deficient area of space history. One that I myself cannot recall reading about:
How can something like even the Space Shuttle be launched without a country on the other side of the planet not be terrified that the US just launched a nuclear warhead at them?


Countries capable of a response also have national means to identify
whether a rocket trajectory is on a path that would allow something to
fall on their territory or not. The space shuttle would obviously not
qualify as an attack due to its trajectory. And even if subject to a
catastrophic failure it would instead present a debris field that would
obviously not qualify as an attack to anyone experienced in the field of
missile detection.

Countries without the means of detecting such probably don't have the
means to retaliate either and therefore would not be considered a threat
and unlikely to be targeted in the first place.


I disagree with you totally here. Specifically, this statement:
"The space shuttle would obviously not qualify as an attack due to its trajectory."

I see this to be a perfect Trojan Horse candidate. No one suspects the shuttle. It overflies all these nations. If the US wanted to initiate a nuclear attack, a very easy way to do that would be by launching the shuttle with a nuke warhead FOBS-type platform in the payload bay. You've just achieved the element of surprise.

I'm very glad this didn't happen. And I'm glad that no one talked about it during the Cold War. But if it ever came to light that the Pentagon actually had a plan worked up as an option, I would not be too surprised.

There was probably a section inside the Pentagon, or more likely at SAC headquarters in Offut, where they dreamt up scenarios where the US could do things to achieve maximum surprise in initiating WWIII. Sneak warhead into the USSR by truck, or whatever. Then coordinate the detonation. Shuttle or some other space platform could have been part of such a plan.


If a surprise attack was intended, it would be very easy to roll video tape of astronauts being strapped
into the cabin while in fact warhead were there.


It would a particularly unusual method of attack. One that would leave
the perpetrator susceptible to a counter-attack unless other strategic
forces were engaged at the same time. And if not attacking an enemy
capable of retaliation why all the subterfuge? Also it's pretty hard to
disguise the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.


Yes, what I was talking about was only the initial detonations of a massive strategic strike involving the entirety of SAC Bombers, ICBMs and also SLBMs. "Win" WWIII before they ever knew what hit them.

You can detect Minuteman launches. Bombardment by Space Shuttle would have a much greater element of surprise.

There was even a Star Trek episode from 1967ish that showed the Saturn V as launching a bunch of nuclear warheads at the Soviet Union.


OK I'll concede that this is space history only in the sense that it
involves a Science Fiction TV show episode about space explorers that
aired in the 1960s... And you are not quite recalling that episode
correctly... :-) The rocket was launching an orbiting nuclear warhead
platform not "launching a bunch of nuclear warheads at the Soviet
Union". The TV series was Star Trek and the name of that episode was
"Assignment: Earth" It guest starred Robert Lansing as "Gary Seven" and
Teri Garr as his assistant "Roberta Lincoln".

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Gary_Seven


I was not trying to say that Star Trek was making space history. Clearly the tv show was fiction.

As for the actual plot of this episode, my description was perfectly accurate.

Your description was accurate too.

Now here's how both descriptions fit: The US intended to do what you're saying. After the sabotoge, what actually happened is what I stated.

Have any space historians, the folks who do this as a profession, ever mentioned this a single time? Again, if so, I haven't seen it.

Mentioned what? Countries launching stuff into space unilaterally? Using
astronauts to disguise a secret attack? Or the Start Trek episode?


The Trek thing.

If I was a space historian writing about how the Space Race tied in to the nuclear arms race, I would mention this Gary Seven episode. Actually an entire book could, and should, be written on how the Saturn V fit in perfectly with the deterrence strategy of the United States nuclear arsenal.

The Cold War posturing was far more than just the Triad. Key aspects included systematic the nuclear warhead detonations that are ubiquitously referred to as "testing", when conducting experiments was not the primary purpose for many of those. Or rather, it should be asserted, *MOST* of those. They were detonating proven technology. The primary purpose was intimidation..

So there's the Triad + Nevada etc "testing". And on top of all that was NASA's "peaceful" stuff. Here the ubiquitous justification was stated to be "science" and "exploration", when that too was not at all the primary purpose.

All of it was about nuclear intimidation. Power projection.

~ CT
  #14  
Old December 17th 16, 10:37 PM posted to sci.space.history
Scott M. Kozel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:21:24 PM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:
From David Spain:

I disagree with you totally here. Specifically, this statement:
"The space shuttle would obviously not qualify as an attack due to its trajectory."

I see this to be a perfect Trojan Horse candidate. No one suspects the shuttle. It overflies all these nations. If the US wanted to initiate a nuclear attack, a very easy way to do that would be by launching the shuttle with a nuke warhead FOBS-type platform in the payload bay. You've just achieved the element of surprise.


No way that would be feasible. One craft even with multiple warheads could execute only a very limited attack. A strategic nuclear attack would have involved at least a thousand warheads well distributed around the USSR and Warsaw Pact.
  #15  
Old December 19th 16, 12:53 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 529
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

From Scott M. Kozel:
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:21:24 PM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:

snip
I disagree with you totally here. Specifically, this statement:
"The space shuttle would obviously not qualify as an attack due to its trajectory."

I see this to be a perfect Trojan Horse candidate. No one suspects the
shuttle. It overflies all these nations. If the US wanted to initiate
a nuclear attack, a very easy way to do that would be by launching the
shuttle with a nuke warhead FOBS-type platform in the payload bay.
You've just achieved the element of surprise.


No way that would be feasible. One craft even with multiple warheads
could execute only a very limited attack. A strategic nuclear attack
would have involved at least a thousand warheads well distributed around
the USSR and Warsaw Pact.


Perhaps I did not communicate clearly.
The scenario I was trying to describe was where the Space Shuttle is used as the First Strike of a First Strike.

USSR is poised to launch on warning (LOW).
To do this, there is a hair-trigger to retaliate based on observing the known launch sites in the US. SAC bomber bases are monitored. ICBM silos are monitored. Oceans are monitored for subs. But no one suspects the Space Shuttle as the means of initiating the attack.

You could claim to be having some kind of emergency, and you could divert the trajectory straight into the USSR and it is easy to imagine that you would be given the benefit of doubt.

You'd get this first strike for free. No launch on warning retaliation.
And then, at some point with the Shuttle thing going on, you'd do the standard massive strike of launching everything you've got.

If there was some sick twisted plan to win WWIII within the first couple hours of it starting, this would have been one way to do it.


I thoroughly expect that there were many plans brewed up along these lines. As mentioned previously, there would be other avenues toward sneaking warhead behind enemy lines as part of the initial attack. Suitcase bombs, truck bombs, etc, etc. Of course if any one of those elements gets busted, you are in a world of hurt as the entire plan unravels.

Perhaps there are fiction authors who have written stories about the Shuttle being used as a nuclear warhead delivery vehicle. The other stuff, I would definitely expect stories to have been written on that.

And some decades from now, we can expect the actual plans that SAC had to be declassified. And then we will all get to see how sick and twisted the Cold War really was.

Nuking the Moon would be seen as the lesser of the weird stuff.

~ CT
  #16  
Old December 20th 16, 12:10 AM posted to sci.space.history
Scott M. Kozel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 6:53:06 AM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:
From Scott M. Kozel:
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:21:24 PM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:

snip
I disagree with you totally here. Specifically, this statement:
"The space shuttle would obviously not qualify as an attack due to its trajectory."

I see this to be a perfect Trojan Horse candidate. No one suspects the
shuttle. It overflies all these nations. If the US wanted to initiate
a nuclear attack, a very easy way to do that would be by launching the
shuttle with a nuke warhead FOBS-type platform in the payload bay.
You've just achieved the element of surprise.


No way that would be feasible. One craft even with multiple warheads
could execute only a very limited attack. A strategic nuclear attack
would have involved at least a thousand warheads well distributed around
the USSR and Warsaw Pact.


Perhaps I did not communicate clearly.
The scenario I was trying to describe was where the Space Shuttle is used as the First Strike of a First Strike.

USSR is poised to launch on warning (LOW).
To do this, there is a hair-trigger to retaliate based on observing the known launch sites in the US. SAC bomber bases are monitored. ICBM silos are monitored. Oceans are monitored for subs. But no one suspects the Space Shuttle as the means of initiating the attack.

You could claim to be having some kind of emergency, and you could divert the trajectory straight into the USSR and it is easy to imagine that you would be given the benefit of doubt.

You'd get this first strike for free. No launch on warning retaliation.
And then, at some point with the Shuttle thing going on, you'd do the standard massive strike of launching everything you've got.


No you would not. The shuttle would provide only a very limited first strike that would impact a very limited area, leaving about 99% of the Soviet first strike assets intact, whereby in about 30 minutes they would be impacting all over the U.S. Not a feasible idea, IMHO.
  #17  
Old December 20th 16, 03:45 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 6:56:54 AM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:
I've been explaining this for the better part of two decades here on this forum. Well in the wake of John Glenn's death, Miles O'Brien was on PBS News Hour and explains:

"You know, when you think of NASA and what the space program is all about, it was, you know, kind of a Cold War projection of soft power of the United States." - Miles O'Brien

PBS NewsHour full episode Dec. 8, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSA7B-owfw8&t=49m28s


So he hasn't come fully on board, because for whatever reason he felt the need to invent this term "soft power", which I've never heard when referring to nuclear ICBM boosters.


After the many years of continual incredulity here on this forum, it is quite satisfying to see these corrections to history becoming mainstream. Now if we can only convince OK GO to stop using the term "zero gravity"!
One of John Glenn's classic quotes was "Zero-g, and I feel fine."


I expect that even after hearing Miles O'Brien explaining what the Space Race was about, they will still choose to reject this info. So for anyone not wanting to hear about it from a reporter, you can hear John Glenn himself explain it:

"...people forget what much of the impetus was for the astronaut program back in those days..." - John Glenn

That quote is from he
Remembering John Glenn - WCMH, Central Ohio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTT1AmnCnnk&t=2m52s


The bizarre thing is to know that the group of people who vehemently reject this plainly clear understanding include some of the most highly reputed space historians, like Mike Cassutt. In the times that I have met authors Andrew Chaikin, Sy Liebergot and Jim Oberg face-to-face, I have tried to persuade them to this understanding, to no avail. I did not tell them how they know me from this forum, because of the standards maintained here are so low. But in one speech I attended, I was quite surprised to hear him tell the audience about me, and how he rejected my points on his most famous mission.

It appears that it will take a fresh new generation of authors before these gross errors of understanding will finally be corrected. As it is said with the progress in the field of science, it is clear that it also holds true in the field of space history that advancements are made one funeral at a time.

...and I'm not talking about funerals of people like John Glenn. He had a solid understanding of what he was doing and why. Frank Borman is another astronaut who has a clear understanding of history. The brutal irony is to know that if either of these veteran astronauts had come to this forum and posted under a pseudonym, they would have been responded to with waves of vehemently abusive members here.

Well those members, the most negative of the lot, have been dying off as well. Perhaps there is hope for this forum? Who knows what the future of Usenet will become. It sure seems to be on life support in its current state.

But Phoenixes have been known to rise. And that is what Wally wanted as his Apollo callsign. So in that spirit, I will sign off here with the hope that the level of wisdom amongst space historians will rise as well in the coming decades. There have been many signs in recent years that this indeed has been happening. Miles O'Brien's statement is the latest example.

~ CT


well our military forced nasa to design the shuttle with a very large cross range ability
  #18  
Old December 20th 16, 05:13 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 9:45:01 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 6:56:54 AM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:
I've been explaining this for the better part of two decades here on this forum. Well in the wake of John Glenn's death, Miles O'Brien was on PBS News Hour and explains:

"You know, when you think of NASA and what the space program is all about, it was, you know, kind of a Cold War projection of soft power of the United States." - Miles O'Brien

PBS NewsHour full episode Dec. 8, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSA7B-owfw8&t=49m28s


So he hasn't come fully on board, because for whatever reason he felt the need to invent this term "soft power", which I've never heard when referring to nuclear ICBM boosters.


After the many years of continual incredulity here on this forum, it is quite satisfying to see these corrections to history becoming mainstream. Now if we can only convince OK GO to stop using the term "zero gravity"!
One of John Glenn's classic quotes was "Zero-g, and I feel fine."


I expect that even after hearing Miles O'Brien explaining what the Space Race was about, they will still choose to reject this info. So for anyone not wanting to hear about it from a reporter, you can hear John Glenn himself explain it:

"...people forget what much of the impetus was for the astronaut program back in those days..." - John Glenn

That quote is from he
Remembering John Glenn - WCMH, Central Ohio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTT1AmnCnnk&t=2m52s


The bizarre thing is to know that the group of people who vehemently reject this plainly clear understanding include some of the most highly reputed space historians, like Mike Cassutt. In the times that I have met authors Andrew Chaikin, Sy Liebergot and Jim Oberg face-to-face, I have tried to persuade them to this understanding, to no avail. I did not tell them how they know me from this forum, because of the standards maintained here are so low. But in one speech I attended, I was quite surprised to hear him tell the audience about me, and how he rejected my points on his most famous mission.

It appears that it will take a fresh new generation of authors before these gross errors of understanding will finally be corrected. As it is said with the progress in the field of science, it is clear that it also holds true in the field of space history that advancements are made one funeral at a time.

...and I'm not talking about funerals of people like John Glenn. He had a solid understanding of what he was doing and why. Frank Borman is another astronaut who has a clear understanding of history. The brutal irony is to know that if either of these veteran astronauts had come to this forum and posted under a pseudonym, they would have been responded to with waves of vehemently abusive members here.

Well those members, the most negative of the lot, have been dying off as well. Perhaps there is hope for this forum? Who knows what the future of Usenet will become. It sure seems to be on life support in its current state.

But Phoenixes have been known to rise. And that is what Wally wanted as his Apollo callsign. So in that spirit, I will sign off here with the hope that the level of wisdom amongst space historians will rise as well in the coming decades. There have been many signs in recent years that this indeed has been happening. Miles O'Brien's statement is the latest example.

~ CT


well our military forced nasa to design the shuttle with a very large cross range ability


Yes and that was for reconnaisance, not dropping nukes.
  #19  
Old December 20th 16, 10:41 PM posted to sci.space.history
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,422
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

bob haller wrote:


well our military forced nasa to design the shuttle with a very large cross range ability


Nobody 'forced' them. They wanted the military's money to develop the
thing so they had to meet military requirements. They could have NOT
taken the military's money and elected to go back to Congress for more
funds so they could finish.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
  #20  
Old December 21st 16, 09:05 AM posted to sci.space.history
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,142
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

Stuf4 submitted this gripping article, maybe on Monday:
On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 1:02:04 AM UTC-6,
wrote:
On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 5:56:54 AM UTC-6, Stuf4 wrote: snip
Miles O'Brien's statement is the latest example.

~ CT


My view is that the space race was an example of a single combat warrior,
sort of like David and Goliath. The idea is that instead of having the two
countries duke it out on the battlefield, their representatives, David and
Goliath in ancient times and astronauts and cosmonauts in modern times,
would vie for superiority. Russia won the first round, by getting a man into
orbit before the U.S. did, but the U.S. raised the stakes, making a man on
the moon the new goal, and in this arena, the American warriors were
superior.


That's an excellent analogy! I must say that is compelling. Thanks for
sharing that.

As for people like Jeff who four decades+ on, who refuse to recognize the
direct nuclear ICBM driver behind putting humans atop these boosters, here is
the most recent quote by Frank Borman:

“The space program was essentially a battle in the Cold War. Vietnam — we
lost. Korea — we tied. And the space business — we won,” Borman said.

We hadn't lost in Vietnam until after the moon landings. In 1969, we
may have still been thinking we could win in Vietnam.

/dps


--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Miles O'Brien has arm amputated after accident Jeff Findley[_4_] Policy 2 February 27th 14 12:19 AM
CNN's Miles O'Brien was oh-so-close to being the first U.S. newsmanin space. Terrell Miller History 0 May 28th 05 06:05 PM
CNN's Miles O'Brien was oh-so-close to being the first U.S. newsmanin space. Terrell Miller Policy 0 May 28th 05 06:05 PM
CNN's Miles O'Brien was oh-so-close to being the first U.S. newsmanin space. Terrell Miller Space Shuttle 0 May 28th 05 06:05 PM
Miles O'Brien (of CNN) is soooo suave AldoNova History 1 January 5th 04 08:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.