Satellite in orbit in 1956?

neopeius wrote:
Oh, I like that. :-D
People forget that space law was a very hypothetical thing prior to the
launch of Sputnik, and that it set the precedent by being allowed to fly
over the U.S. without complaint...in that satellites were considered to
be similar to ships at sea in international waters from that moment on.
We already knew that Corona was in the future, and we'd learn a lot more
about the Soviet Union via reconsats than they'd ever learn about us via
their Zenits.

Pat


Yeah, I'm not sure what "Not True" is all about. It's not a secret.
It was a calculated move by the President, and not a bad one in
foresight or hindsight.


There's a whole book devoted to the political aspects of the early space
age; "The Heavens And The Earth".
One of Eisenhower's big dreams was the "Open Skies" concept, that would
allow both the USSR and the United States to overfly each other's
territory in unarmed aircraft anytime they felt like it, so that no
secrete weapons build-up could occur.
This was a incredibly naive idea when it came to the Soviets, as the
Germans had engaged in reconnaissance overflights of their territory in
the weeks leading up to the invasion of Russia.
By letting the Sputniks fly over the U.S. unchallenged, the precedent
was set for the new "Open Skies" concept; that as long as satellites
did not engage in overtly military actions, space was pretty much
neutral territory - like Antarctica.
In retrospect the Soviets may have screwed up by launching a satellite
before us. They had a lot more to hide than we did, starting with the
fact that the missile gap and bomber gap didn't really exist.
Once we got all the bugs worked out, our Coronas became a very good way
of gathering intelligence at a fairly knock-down launch cost due to
using Thor boosters. Korolev may not have gotten funding for Vostok if
it hadn't been for the fact that its primary use was the Zenit
reconnaissance satellite version of the design.

Pat

On Oct 8, 9:39 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
neopeius wrote:
Oh, I like that. :-D
People forget that space law was a very hypothetical thing prior to the
launch of Sputnik, and that it set the precedent by being allowed to fly
over the U.S. without complaint...in that satellites were considered to
be similar to ships at sea in international waters from that moment on.
We already knew that Corona was in the future, and we'd learn a lot more
about the Soviet Union via reconsats than they'd ever learn about us via
their Zenits.

Pat

Yeah, I'm not sure what "Not True" is all about. It's not a secret.
It was a calculated move by the President, and not a bad one in
foresight or hindsight.

There's a whole book devoted to the political aspects of the early space
age; "The Heavens And The Earth".
One of Eisenhower's big dreams was the "Open Skies" concept, that would
allow both the USSR and the United States to overfly each other's
territory in unarmed aircraft anytime they felt like it, so that no
secrete weapons build-up could occur.
This was a incredibly naive idea when it came to the Soviets, as the
Germans had engaged in reconnaissance overflights of their territory in
the weeks leading up to the invasion of Russia.
By letting the Sputniks fly over the U.S. unchallenged, the precedent
was set for the new "Open Skies" concept; that as long as satellites
did not engage in overtly military actions, space was pretty much
neutral territory - like Antarctica.
In retrospect the Soviets may have screwed up by launching a satellite
before us. They had a lot more to hide than we did, starting with the
fact that the missile gap and bomber gap didn't really exist.
Once we got all the bugs worked out, our Coronas became a very good way
of gathering intelligence at a fairly knock-down launch cost due to
using Thor boosters. Korolev may not have gotten funding for Vostok if
it hadn't been for the fact that its primary use was the Zenit
reconnaissance satellite version of the design.

Pat

What you said. Thanks, Pat.

"neopeius" wrote in message
ups.com...
There's a reason it only took 90 says to dust off the Jupiter-C to
launch Explorer 1.

von Braun's team was *ordered* to destroy their work, and they complied.
However, the order did not include instructions on how to destroy it, so von
Braun & Co. chose to let them age to destruction. It's not von Braun's fault
that the stuff ordered destroyed was needed before time did it's work, so it
still happened to be viable... :P

Scott Hedrick kirjoitti:
However, the order did not include instructions on how to destroy it, so
von Braun & Co. chose to let them age to destruction. It's not von Braun's

Coffee warnings please. My old IBM-"Clicky"-M is a valuable
piece of antiquity.


JanneT
--
http://jannetuukkanen.net/

On Oct 8, 3:42 pm, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:51:38 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

At the *very* least, Eisenhower wanted the IGY probe to be at least
ostensibly civilian. There was no place for ABMA in that scheme of
things.

This is correct. There's no evidence however though that Eisenhower did
not
want the American's to be first though.

The administration certainly didn't mind letting the Soviet Union
establish the overflight precedent.

I'd forgotten about this issue. There was some fear that the Soviet Union
would object to overflights of its country by US satellites, which could
have made proposed military satellites problematic.

This all now seems quite plausible from where I sat
at the National Academy of Sciences IGY Earth
Satellite Office. Our main focus was the Vanguard
approach and a "strictly scientific" approach to
IGY. However, we were also quite aware of the
military implications of satellites and space access.
Moreover, some of the same key people (Porter,
Van Allen, and Pickering) were quite involved on
both sides of this Vanguard/Jupiter C question.

On the strictly scientific side, many of us were
also keenly aware of the sensitivity of the military
implications. These included unrestricted overflight at
orbital altitudes, size and shape of the Earth,
intercontinental distances, etc.

In retrospect, I can see the wisdom in "allowing"
the USSR to go--if this were really the case--although
many of us were quite driven by the desire to be first
ourselves.

Len


Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:07:14 +0300, Janne Tuukkanen
wrote:

Coffee warnings please. My old IBM-"Clicky"-M is a valuable
piece of antiquity.

....Are we referring, perchance, to the 84-key version with the really
*LOUD* clicks, and the 8 F-Keys positioned on the left, where
God/Yahweh/Roddenberry intended them to be? I had one that I used for
fifteen years, from 1985 to 2000, and the only reason I finally gave
that one up was that I needed the F11 anf F12 keys for several apps
taht wouldn't allow KB remapping.

....The other nice thing about those beauties is that, except for the
cable, they were damn near indestructable. If it got dirty, you simply
ran it through the washer a couple of times and let it air dry. The
damn things wouldn't rust! And as far as toughness goes, there's
actually *two* cases on record where someone's killed a co-worker by
bashing them on the head with one! One of them lost only two keys,
while the other didn't lose any! IBM made those keyboards to last!


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

"Janne Tuukkanen" wrote in message
news
Coffee warnings please. My old IBM-"Clicky"-M is a valuable
piece of antiquity.

That certainly brings back memories. Sounds like you have long nails no
matter how softly you touch the keys.

"OM" wrote in message
...
IBM made those keyboards to last!

Hence IBM is out of the personal computer business.

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:07:14 +0300, Janne Tuukkanen
wrote:

Coffee warnings please. My old IBM-"Clicky"-M is a valuable
piece of antiquity.

...Are we referring, perchance, to the 84-key version with the really
*LOUD* clicks, and the 8 F-Keys positioned on the left, where
God/Yahweh/Roddenberry intended them to be? I had one that I used for
fifteen years, from 1985 to 2000, and the only reason I finally gave
that one up was that I needed the F11 anf F12 keys for several apps
taht wouldn't allow KB remapping.

And pray tell where were F9 and F10? :-)



...The other nice thing about those beauties is that, except for the
cable, they were damn near indestructable. If it got dirty, you simply
ran it through the washer a couple of times and let it air dry. The
damn things wouldn't rust! And as far as toughness goes, there's
actually *two* cases on record where someone's killed a co-worker by
bashing them on the head with one! One of them lost only two keys,
while the other didn't lose any! IBM made those keyboards to last!


Dang tooting. My blind-housemate had one. Loved the thing.



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

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:44:00 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:


"OM" wrote in message
.. .
IBM made those keyboards to last!

Hence IBM is out of the personal computer business.

....That had damn near AbZero to do with it. 99.9% of the reason IBM is
no longer making PCs - no, wait...make that *blame* - has to do with
the mentalities running Big Blue. They're still hopelessly locked into
the belief that PCs are a "toy", and that no self-respecting business
wants anything but a large monstrous mainframe with dumb terminals and
centralized storage controlled by BFOHs. They share the same dream
that Larry "Caveman" Ellison over at Oracle has - that one day all PCs
will be banned from the workplace, and everyone will go back to simple
workstations. To that sort of backwards thinking, a system with as
much power as a mainframe, with localized storage, is incomprehensible
for business usage.

....More than Radio Shack, Sinclair, (cr)Apple, Atari and even
Commode-Door, IBM created the PC market. They took it out of the hands
of the garage kits and game boxes and put a serious, professional face
on the personal computer. They made it respectable even when the game
boxes still could run rings around them. By the time the 286 was out,
the writing was on the wall for every other competitor system save for
the Macs that were just around the corner. And yet, by the time the
386 came out, it was becoming apparent that IBM wasn't realy
comfortable with being the leader in the PC market. They weren't
willing to market their systems competitively, preferring to keep the
prices artificially high to "protect" the perceived value of the IBM
brand name, while at the same time sabotaging their own sales by
keeping the system performance specs lower than the competitors, while
at the same time creating proprietary technology that kept consumers
locked into buying parts and upgrades only from IBM - PCjr and PS/2,
anyone? By the time the homebrew and small computer shops came into
their own, and the big companies like Dell, Compaq, HP, CompuAdd,
Austin and Gateway finally started getting their **** together with
their clones, IBM had already internally admitted to themselves that
they considered the PC the "black sheep *and* ******* child" of their
family, and was looking for any reason whatsoever to get rid of it.

Which they did. And mark my words, kids - the fact that they sold
their PC division not to Dell as originally planned, but to a company
funded by the Chinese Communists, will one day come back and rebrand
Big Blue as Big Red. They had the PC world in the palm of their hands,
and they threw it away...

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