news flash.......mosley bleeds from O-ring.

From Scott Hedrick:
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
You write really well

You don't, dumbass, because if you did, you would have *trimmed your
quotes*.

For someone who knows "all about the Internet" you sure as hell don't show
it.

You yourself said that it's necessary to follow protocol, you flame NASA for
not following it. If it was bad for NASA to not follow protocol, why isn't
it bad for you to do likewise?

A difference between protocol and etiquette is that protocol is
precisely defined by established authority. Etiquette, on the other
hand, is whatever we say it is.

For the specific case of Usenet, one its the biggest criticisms is
that unmoderated forums lack *any authority* to establish, let alone
enforce, rules of protocol.

Notice how words like "dumbass" and "sure as hell" go completely
unchecked.

If we are to have any semblance of etiquette on Usenet, it must come
from our collective sense of *self*control.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
From Scott Hedrick:
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
You write really well

You don't, dumbass, because if you did, you would have *trimmed your
quotes*.

For someone who knows "all about the Internet" you sure as hell don't show
it.

You yourself said that it's necessary to follow protocol, you flame NASA for
not following it. If it was bad for NASA to not follow protocol, why isn't
it bad for you to do likewise?

A difference between protocol and etiquette is that protocol is
precisely defined by established authority. Etiquette, on the other
hand, is whatever we say it is.

For the specific case of Usenet, one its the biggest criticisms is
that unmoderated forums lack *any authority* to establish, let alone
enforce, rules of protocol.

Notice how words like "dumbass" and "sure as hell" go completely
unchecked.

If we are to have any semblance of etiquette on Usenet, it must come
from our collective sense of *self*control.


~ CT

Collective sense of WHAT??? :-) LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
(Stuf4) wrote in message
. com...
If we are to have any semblance of etiquette on Usenet, it must come
from our collective sense of *self*control.

Collective sense of WHAT???

Ah, that explains it! LaToya doesn't understand the concept of
"self-control".

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
(Stuf4) wrote in message
. com...
If we are to have any semblance of etiquette on Usenet, it must come
from our collective sense of *self*control.

Collective sense of WHAT???

Ah, that explains it! LaToya doesn't understand the concept of
"self-control".

It seems, neither do you. Now just killfile the troll like a good boy.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:46:15 -0500, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:15:22 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

Or you can look in the Dryden technical paper archive for my paper on
in-flight simulation at Dryden.

...And one day hope to get you to autograph a copy, too :-)

E-mail me, will you, OM? I seem to have lost your address somehow.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...

It seems, neither do you. Now just killfile the troll like a good boy.

I'm just waiting to call the law enforcement officers that she said she
spoke with in order to verify her claim.

Gotta wonder why it's taking her so much time to recall something that would
be so central to a decade plus long investigation.

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
E-mail me, will you, OM? I seem to have lost your address somehow.


This is a bad thing because...?

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Ami:
"Stuf4" wrote
But were they otherwise qualified, and was there the capacity to screen
for
them? Remember, the selection process as actually implemented started
with
screening a known and bounded set of records (service pilots) versus a
civil
service application.

I see no reason why it would have been overly difficult to screen
civilians.

If you wanted to prescreen them before inviting them into the program, it
probably would have been difficult to screen a large group of civilians.
Heck, it would probably be so even today, but back in 1958 I'm sure that
trying to comb through and find a list of all/most of the civilian
high-performance pilots with clearances would be non-trivial. Still, I
regret that they didn't think of asking the handful who were easy to find.

Power project does not mean technology demonstration. Besides, many of
the
pilots had wartime experience, or had served in active fighter wings,
including some with nukes. It probably didn't bother them.

Power projection means flexing your muscles. And if those muscles
happen to be new technological muscles, then yes, it does encompass
technology demonstration. What do you think Sputnik was? As far as
the pilot's views, I agree that these aspects didn't bother them. I
expect that they were all extremely proud of the part they were
playing as Cold Warriors.

Power projection may mean that to you. To me, flexing muscles may be
deterence, it may be sabre rattling, it may be technology demonstration,
but, to my mind, in this context, is the projection of military power to a
geographical region. (Which is a paraphrase of a standard definition in the
DoD which I've used before.)

From the DoD Dictionary of Military terms
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/

Power Projection -- The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its
elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or
military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from
multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to
deterrence, and to enhance regional stability. See also elements of national
power.

Elements of National Power -- (DOD) All the means that are available for
employment in the pursuit of national objectives.

Force -- (DOD) 1. An aggregation of military personnel, weapon systems,
equipment, and necessary support, or combination thereof.

NASA is a part of the Elements of National Power, but it is incapable of, in
operation, and always was incapable of, in operation, power projection as
defined above (except in the most trivial and pathetic sense -- I suppose
they could always try to land a Gemini on top of the Kremlin.)

But how does Apollo, divorced from Gemini and Mercury, have anything to
do
with nuclear warheads? Not all of the cold war was about nukes. A lot
was
about showing how your superpower was a worker's paradise, or that your
country had the best technology, so you should buy our
tanks/fighterplanes/political ideology. I think that the later part of
the
space race, especially the lunar programs, was more general. Both sides
had
already demonstrated the theoretical ability to place nukes anywhere
they
wanted. They were playing the moon race not for each other to see, but
for
the rest of the world.

I disagree.

Ability to nuke was only the ante for the game. Once the cards were
dealt, both sides had to play their cards in a skillful way that
convinced the other that they were overpowered and outclassed. It was
not enough to have a good hand. You had to communicate that you had a
*better* hand. The nuclear ante started with Hiroshima. The Soviets
matched. The stakes were raised up to H-bombs. Matched again. The
USSR raises with Sputnik. Ike sees the Sputnik and raises a Mercury.
Up and up the nuclear pot grows. JFK cranks it all the way up to the
Moon. The Kremlin hesitates. Will they fold? Will they call?

It's an unusual play. They don't match 1-for-1 the huge raise that
JFK made. Instead, they slide a space station into the pot and make
the claim that it is worth the same as a Saturn V.

The game cools off for a bit as the players argue their cases. The US
decides to throw in a shuttle along with the Moon rockets. USSR
matches once again. And then comes the decisive moment. Reagan
decides to not only match their station...

Instead of piddling around, he decides to go ALL IN!

Star Wars.

The biggest bluff in human history. But it worked. The Kremlin
worked up an intense sweat, but in the end they decided to fold.


Yes, the rest of the world was intently watching this game. But they
were on the sidelines the whole time. There were only two players at
the level of this game.

Aha, here is where we have the major disagreement. To me the moves in the
game were the successive generations of ICBM, hardened silos, Thors in
Turkey, Soviet missles in Cuba, MIRVS, ABM and the ABM treaty, launch
monitoring, the Backfire and the B1 etc. In terms of the nuclear balance
game, the entire Apollo Program doesn't match up to basing an extra squadron
of B-58s somewhere, or pushing ahead with the B-70.

I agree with you with regards to Star Wars, but, in terms of super-power
operations, it was major weapon systems all the way, combined with basing
rights, and the lower-level cold war jockeying for position. (The cold war
was not just about nukes. Nukes were the tool that a loser could use to
threaten the winner so the winner wouldn't take all.)

The rest of the world didn't have access to the information that the
principles had. (Actually, the principles only had good information about
their own side.) To the rest of the world, by 1962 both sides had proved
that they could reduce the other to glowing rubble. The question for the
rest of the world was which side to lean toward. In that context, the US is
pushing into the pot tokens of technical superiority (space program), using
information dissemination (Voice of America), showing concern for social
issues overseas (Peace Corps) etc. The Soviet Union is doing the same. Some
actions are only for consumption by ones allies. For example, the Soviets
continually tried to show that they were a valid source for consumer
products, and forced their allies to "buy Soviet".

I think we fundamentally disagree here about the role of the public aspects
of the US space program in the Cold War.

"Ami Silberman" wrote:
I agree with you with regards to Star Wars, but, in terms of super-power
operations, it was major weapon systems all the way, combined with basing
rights, and the lower-level cold war jockeying for position. (The cold war
was not just about nukes. Nukes were the tool that a loser could use to
threaten the winner so the winner wouldn't take all.)

One of the major tenets you must keep in mind while studying strategic
nuclear issues is this; Nuclear weapons are as much, if not more,
instruments of statecraft as they weapons. The credible ability and
intent to use them is often more important than total capability.

(Prime example: In today's world (lacking BMD), a nation with a
single proven ICBM with a single proven warhead atop it can deter the
actions of the United States to an alarming degree.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:29:09 GMT, ospam (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

(Prime example: In today's world (lacking BMD), a nation with a
single proven ICBM with a single proven warhead atop it can deter the
actions of the United States to an alarming degree.)

....Which, at the risk of sounding like a CT Nutter, is one of the more
popular theories as to why, after the fall of the Evil Soviet Empire,
we haven't launched massive airstrikes and sent 100,000 troops to
Gitmo to launch a major
kick-the-living-****-out-of-Castro-and-his-thugs operation. Diplomacy
and the shelf life of tritium aside, there are those who believe the
real reason we haven't done so is that Castro kept at least one nuke
in storage "just in case".

[Views do not necessarily reflect those of the poster disclaimer
applies here, kids...]

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr