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

Peter Stickney wrote:
I want information on the E type vehicle, and by hook or by crook I'm
going to get it. :-)


That was a Lotus 7, Number 6.


By my apartment number, I'm number _5_. :-)
You know, AFAIK, Google Earth still doesn't have high detail images of
Portmeirion up.
Which is a pity, as I'd love to download one and stick "The Mountains",
"The Sea", and "Your Village" on it, and use it as wallpaper.
Boy, but that was a _great_ series.
I ****in' kneel.

Pat

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
A 640 (Franklin) class - USS Henry L Stimson, SSBN-655.


You used to have a webpage on your sub; what ever happened to that?

Pat

Dennis wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:


That's very interesting! I've read stuff by Dr. Herbert Benson of
Harvard, who does research on mind/body medicine. He told a story of how
he observed Tibetan monks in the Himalayas.

One night they went out onto a high ridge. There was no wind, but
the temperature was zero or sub-zero Fahrenheit, and a very light snow was
falling. The Tibetan monks were wearing only light cotton robes. Around
midnight, they knelt, reclined forward, and didn't move until morning, when
they got up as though nothing had happened.

Benson said that medical science doesn't know how the body could
release enough heat for someone to survive that. He suggested a mechanism
of releasing heat from "brown fat." He did not mention shutting down
circulation.


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.


Pat

In sci.space.history message 9f17d8a4-bf69-4867-89a7-f348b7dcabec@s1g20
00prg.googlegroups.com, Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:25:53, Jack Linthicum
posted:
On Jan 28, 1:03*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
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

--
*(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. *Turnpike
v6.05 *MIME.
*Web *URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms
& links;
* Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
*No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't
Mail News.

Er, you, and the rest of South Africa, do know that "Baikonur" is
about 450 miles over desert from the Caspian Sea. The Caspian does not
have any submarines at present, IIRC. Is someone selling SA a bill of
goods or is the submarine someplace else, like the Barents Sea?

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

I did not know, and I doubt whether many in SA know, that the distance
to the nearest sea is about 450 miles; many SA's probably are not even
sure how big a mile is, being metric.

But I do know that Baikonur is in a fairly arid area; though it is only
about 125 miles from what's left of the Aral Sea and the town is on what
appears to be the Syr Darya.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 4:25 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
William Black wrote:

Why bother?

It looks like an expensive and noisy way to do stuff ordinary military
submarines can do anyway.

Whole different "Q-Ship" approach to stealth.
A thing that looks like a beaten up fishing trawler shows up just
outside of the territorial waters of a troublesome nation (say Iran for
instance). Night falls, and the "fishing trawler" now submerges and
heads into the territorial waters via creep motors to perform its
mission. Daybreak comes and it's back on the surface again just outside
the territorial waters and sailing peacefully and inconspicuously away
from the hotspot. This would allow you to carry more troops and
equipment than a SDV, while keeping the nuclear sub the SDV would
normally be deployed from out of shallow waters.
The Persian Gulf has two problems for standard sub/commando operations:
1.) The water is fairly shallow and clear, so a sub could be seen from
the air (there were cases in WW II of submerged submarines being seen
from the air in the Mediterranean while they were 200+ feet
underwater... in fact IIRC, one was sighted at a depth of 500 feet or
more.)
2.) There are a _lot_ of sharks in the Persian Gulf, so the less time
divers have to spend in the water the better.
This Q-Ship concept would allow you to get them within a few hundred
feet of the shore before they deployed from the sub/fishing trawler as
it rested on the bottom.

Pat

Watch: "Sir, target 245 (the trawler) has just gone sinker"
OOD: "Report position and time to patrol"
Watch: "Aye, ate sir"

-------------------------

Or even better.

"We are the Republican Guard of the Islamic State of Iran, you are in our
territorial waters, you will be boarded for search for contraband"

"We are simple fishermen and are outside your territorial waters, our GPS
says so"

"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...

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...

--
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.

On Jan 29, 10:31*am, "William Black"
wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...
On Jan 28, 4:25 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:



William Black wrote:

Why bother?

It looks like an expensive and noisy way to do stuff ordinary military
submarines can do anyway.

Whole different "Q-Ship" approach to stealth.
A thing that looks like a beaten up fishing trawler shows up just
outside of the territorial waters of a troublesome nation (say Iran for
instance). Night falls, and the "fishing trawler" now submerges and
heads into the territorial waters via creep motors to perform its
mission. Daybreak comes and it's back on the surface again just outside
the territorial waters and sailing peacefully and inconspicuously away
from the hotspot. This would allow you to carry more troops and
equipment than a SDV, while keeping the nuclear sub the SDV would
normally be deployed from out of shallow waters.
The Persian Gulf has two problems for standard sub/commando operations:
1.) The water is fairly shallow and clear, so a sub could be seen from
the air (there were cases in WW II of submerged submarines being seen
from the air in the Mediterranean while they were 200+ feet
underwater... in fact IIRC, one was sighted at a depth of 500 feet or
more.)
2.) There are a _lot_ of sharks in the Persian Gulf, so the less time
divers have to spend in the water the better.
This Q-Ship concept would allow you to get them within a few hundred
feet of the shore before they deployed from the sub/fishing trawler as
it rested on the bottom.

Pat

Watch: "Sir, target 245 (the trawler) has just gone sinker"
OOD: "Report position and time to patrol"
Watch: "Aye, ate sir"

-------------------------

Or even better.

"We are the Republican Guard of the Islamic State of Iran, *you are in our
territorial waters, *you will be boarded for search for contraband"

"We are simple fishermen and are outside your territorial waters, *our GPS
says so"

"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...

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...

--
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.

I left out, because our informant seems a bit low on naval stuff,
where the Watch, says "5,4,3,2,1 there they go, sir, shall I alert the
beach?"

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:28:32 -0800, in a place far, far away, Dave
Michelson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Saturn production ended because Lyndon Johnson decided to end
production, and it had nothing to do with Richard Nixon.

That's a tad misleading. Johnson capped production but left NASA with
enough Saturns in the pipeline for four or five years and a time-limited
option to re-start production, i.e., as long as Saturns were being
built, the tooling and staff were still available.

If Nixon is not well regarded, it's because his administration chose not
to exercise that option when the time came because they were
fundamentally opposed to the notion. Moreover, his office cut funds to
fly Saturns that had already been built, just to emphasize the point.

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?

I've never heard of that "Republican ideology." If that was the
"Republican ideology," then why did Nixon approve the Shuttle program?
And why did he send Agnew out to announce the (aborted) lunar base and
Mars plans?

On Jan 29, 7:16*am, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.history message 9f17d8a4-bf69-4867-89a7-f348b7dcabec@s1g20
00prg.googlegroups.com, Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:25:53, Jack Linthicum
posted:



On Jan 28, 1:03*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
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

--
*(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. *Turnpike
v6.05 *MIME.
*Web *URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms
& links;
* Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
*No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't
Mail News.

Er, you, and the rest of South Africa, do know that "Baikonur" is
about 450 miles over desert from the Caspian Sea. The Caspian does not
have any submarines at present, IIRC. Is someone selling SA a bill of
goods or is the submarine someplace else, like the Barents Sea?

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

I did not know, and I doubt whether many in SA know, that the distance
to the nearest sea is about 450 miles; many SA's probably are not even
sure how big a mile is, being metric.

But I do know that Baikonur is in a fairly arid area; though it is only
about 125 miles from what's left of the Aral Sea and the town is on what
appears to be the Syr Darya.

--
*(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. * Turnpike v6.05 * MIME.
*Web *URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
*Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
*Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

The place is actually called Tyuratam and is about 217 kilometers from
the place called Baikonur. The Soviets thought they could fool the
satellite and U-2 people. Fat chance.

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

Pat Flannery wrote:

Mark Borgerson wrote:
It's interesting to note that the SS-N-8 of the early 70s was about
the same size and weight as the Poseidon C-3, yet it had a range of
7800km versus the 5280km of the Poseidon. Was the difference due
to higher energy in the liquid fuels of the SS-N-8?

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.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
A 640 (Franklin) class - USS Henry L Stimson, SSBN-655.

You used to have a webpage on your sub; what ever happened to that?

Long story having to do with boneheadness and politics within the
reunion group.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL