JFK's greatest achievements/Apollo (Was: Deep Apologies to everyone....)

On Jan 29, 2:01*pm, OM wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:16:31 +0000, Dr J R Stockton

wrote:
Don't quote sigs. *Evidently you are one on whom subtlety is wasted.

...He's a known troll. Everyone here who has a clue has killfiled him
already, Doc. We advise you to do the same.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *OM

--

* ]=====================================[
* ] * OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld* [
* ] * * * *Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* * * * * [
* ] * * * * *an obnoxious opinion in your day! * * * * * [
* ]=====================================[

I suggest you refrain from your volunteer smearing of me on the
sci.military.naval group. I don't care what you say to your little
clique on sci.space.history as they are an intrusion on a smn thread,
but please do not make statements you cannot back up on smn.

William Black wrote:

"Your infidel tricks cannot fool us you evil Yankee dogs, we know you
are spying for the Zionist entity, you will be boarded or we will
open fire..."

You may make this story conclude in any way you wish, but a sudden
submerging of the fishing trawler is likely to raise some suspicion...

Trawler: "We will have nothing to do with with your filthy Persian ways!
I am a Sunni, and will sink this ship before I see my catch fall into
the hands of Shiites!" (Panic party jumps overboard as trawler
submerges). ;-)


The emergence of a load of guys in the full black gear and a series of
loud banging noises isn't going to do a lot of good for anyone either...

I'm willing to bet that some of the fishing boats out in the Persian
Gulf at the moment aren't real fishing boats, but rather
intelligence-gathering platforms operated by countries in the region,
like the Russians used to use against us.

Pat

On Jan 29, 4:55*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
William Black wrote:

"Your infidel tricks cannot fool us you evil Yankee dogs, *we know you
are spying for the Zionist entity, *you will be boarded or we will
open fire..."

You may make this story conclude in any way you wish, *but a sudden
submerging of the fishing trawler is likely to raise some suspicion...

Trawler: "We will have nothing to do with with your filthy Persian ways!
I am a Sunni, and will sink this ship before I see my *catch fall into
the hands of Shiites!" (Panic party jumps overboard as trawler
submerges). ;-)



The emergence of a load of guys in the full black gear and a series of
loud banging noises isn't going to do a lot of good for anyone either....

I'm willing to bet that some of the fishing boats out in the Persian
Gulf at the moment aren't real fishing boats, but rather
intelligence-gathering platforms operated by countries in the region,
like the Russians used to use against us.

Pat

Remember the Banner, and oh, yes, the Pueblo

Derek Lyons wrote:
It could have something to do with that, but remember Poseidon could
carry up to _14_ nuclear warheads.


They were pretty small though, both physically and in yield - only
50k.


That's still over twice the yield of the ones we dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, so "pretty small" takes on a new meaning when you are
discussing nuclear weapons. ;-)
You can work out what various yield weapons would do from this
interactive website by the FAS:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nuke...effctcalc.html

Pat

On Jan 29, 4:11*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
It could have something to do with that, but remember Poseidon could
carry up to _14_ nuclear warheads.

They were pretty small though, both physically and in yield - only
50k.

That's still over twice the yield of the ones we dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, so "pretty small" takes on a new meaning when you are
discussing nuclear weapons. ;-)
You can work out what various yield weapons would do from this
interactive website by the FAS:http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nuke...effctcalc.html

Pat

Still most operational stuff was 100 - 300 kt depending on the target,
way smaller than what we were building and carrying in the 50s, but
enough to ruin your day. Start carrying a dozen or so per aircraft and
you've got the beginnings of a humdinger of a glass factory somewhere.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Considering that one of the key aspects of Zen Buddhist mysticism is
being able to control your own heartbeat rate right down to the point
of stopping and restarting it, that might make sense - by moving the
whole body down into a semi-hibernetic state by decreasing overall
blood flow and blood pressure to the extremities via a slow heartbeat
rate.

Yes! I've read that some Hinud yogins can stop their hearts. I saw
a video called "Biofeedback: Yoga of the West," which had, among much
else, a yogin who visited the Menninger Clinic. He said he could stop his
heart. He said that since he hadn't been fasting, it would be dangerous to
do it all the way, but he would do it briefly. So he did it while
connected to an EKG. They saw a blip in his heartbeat. A heart doctor
looked at it and said his heart *had* stopped briefly.

I've also seen videos of Buddhist monks who can wrap themselves in a
wet sheet and dry it with their body heat. You see the vapor in the room;
they see who can do it fastest.

I myself learned to warm my own extremities - my hands and sometimes
my feet - to help with severe chronic daily headaches. It took me several
months, and I had a kind of hand thermometer as a guide; of course, I had
all the motivation in the world! The magic number I remember is to get to
96 deg F in the hands in 5 minutes. I could do it fairly consistently.

However, I never tried the reverse - to draw blood from the
extremities. I'm sure you could do it, and have some idea how.

Dennis

In article
,
Jack Linthicum wrote:

On Jan 28, 1:34*pm, "William Black"
wrote:
"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in
erlyn.invalid...

In sci.space.history message ,
Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:38:40, Derek Lyons posted:

D.

As a self-confessed submarine expert, you might like to know that some
South Africans are expecting their science satellite SumbandilaSat to be
launched on 25 March from a submarine at Baikonur.

http://www.buanews.gov.za/news/09/09012312451005

Do they...

Erm...

Have a handy lake to float the thing in?

Maybe someone's got a nice big swimming pool...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, *like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Ask Alan he's been there.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur.html


In fact, Baikonur (there are now two Baikonurs, the original one whose
name was used as a bit of maskirovka, and "Baikonur City" which has
grown up on the edge of the Tyuratam site) does have a rather pleasant
lake. Not many pleasant places in Khazakstan. But I doubt if you could
get a submarine into it. Loch Ness might be a better idea. Hmmmm.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun

If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:59:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, Dave
Michelson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


The real question: How much of the anti-Apollo-Saturn feeling within the
Nixon administration was due to Nixon and his dislike for Kennedy and
how much was just Republican ideology (space = military + LEO) that
would continue into the Reagan years?

This is a false choice, akin to "have you stopped beating your wife, or
are you still doing it?" This kind of sniveling cowardly tactic should
be beneath you.

That's a bit harsh. I was suggesting that while the cuts took place
under the Nixon Administraton, others within the Administration and the
Republican party may have been pushing harder than Nixon himself to rein
in NASA's ambitions.

You have still failed to make the case that "Republican ideology" is
"space = military + LEO."

By far the biggest opponents of NASA and manned spaceflight over the
years, and particularly over those years, have been Democrats (e.g.,
Proxmire and Mondale).

On Jan 30, 8:18*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:59:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, Dave
Michelson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The real question: How much of the anti-Apollo-Saturn feeling within the
Nixon administration was due to Nixon and his dislike for Kennedy and
how much was just Republican ideology (space = military + LEO) that
would continue into the Reagan years?

This is a false choice, akin to "have you stopped beating your wife, or
are you still doing it?" This kind of sniveling cowardly tactic should
be beneath you.

That's a bit harsh. I was suggesting that while the cuts took place
under the Nixon Administraton, others within the Administration and the
Republican party may have been pushing harder than Nixon himself to rein
in NASA's ambitions.

You have still failed to make the case that "Republican ideology" is
"space = military + LEO."

By far the biggest opponents of NASA and manned spaceflight over the
years, and particularly over those years, have been Democrats (e.g.,
Proxmire and Mondale).

Proxmire was against everything.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:45:17 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Jack Linthicum made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

By far the biggest opponents of NASA and manned spaceflight over the
years, and particularly over those years, have been Democrats (e.g.,
Proxmire and Mondale).

Proxmire was against everything.

No, he was all for dairy subsidies.