|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
From Fred J. McCall:
Stuf4 wrote: From Fred J. McCall: Stuf4 wrote: From Fred J. McCall: David Spain wrote: Rick Jones wrote: David Spain wrote: Rick Jones wrote: Sputnik was a hollowed-out nuclear weapon??? rick jones Well it had the proper geometry... A sphere was/is the proper geometry for the warhead on an ICBM? Tisk, tisk; you said nuclear weapon, you did not say warhead... ;-) And he certainly didn't say RV, which is something else again. Seeing how spheres *were* used by the Soviet Union, I'd say that it is a totally feasible geometry for the weapon, the warhead AND the RV. I take it they don't let you do engineering or design work... Open-minded thinkers who know what is feasible - instead of just doing things out of habit - make better engineers and designers than those who lack such attributes. There is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head. *You are in the latter state, not the former. You see, you like some control over where an RV comes down. *A sphere is pure ballistic, which means the CEP for a Russian ICBM using a spherical RV would have been even worse than what they managed (which was pretty bad). snip idiocy You see, actually I AM a rocket scientist.... Engineer, actually, but that's a quibble. And you are obviously no sort of engineer or scientist at all. A person trained in science and logic would readily recognize the fallacy of an ad-hominem rebuttal. (...let alone the lack of persuasiveness of argument by insult.) I could be a performance artist who has years of experience on stage entertaining audiences (which I actually do) and that fact would do nothing to refute the validity of any of the points I have presented in this thread. Now failing to recognize the distinction between a scientist versus an engineer - or seeing such difference as "a quibble" is clearly lacking understanding of the fundamental concept behind one, if not both of these fields. An engineer makes things. A scientist learns things. That's as basic as it can be stated. HARDLY a quibble in the difference. The term "rocket scientist" is a total misnomer. The proper term is -rocket engineer-. It might be helpful to achieve a common understanding of the most basic ideas before going into explanations of how easy it would be for an engineer to design a control system for a spherical-geometry RV. Heck, even if the center of mass were not off-center, I could STILL tell you how to control it. Even a kid who is a pitcher on a high school baseball team could explain how to control the trajectory of a sphere moving through the atmosphere. (Note: no engineering degree required! Not even a single day of college.) ~ CT |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
Paul Madarasz wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:25:50 -0500, David Spain wrote, perhaps among other things: Well getting one 1 out of 3 right ain't bad, esp. if you don't particularly care where that weapon comes down.... "That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun." I love Tom Leher.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro Somewhat prophetic that last verse??? Dave |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
From Fred J. McCall:
Stuf4 wrote: I never stated whether or not the Soyuz RV was a sphere. *My point was that a sphere is a perfectly feasible geometry for an RV. Only if you don't care about accuracy at all. We are agreed that it is at least feasible. ~ CT No rebuttals posted (as of yet, at least) have done anything to convince me that a sphere is not a feasible shape for a nuke weapon, warhead as well as an RV. *I remain in my certainty that they are. And the Soviets went a long way to convince me of that. That can only be because ignorant lunatics are beyond being educated. snip bloviation I repeat: *It's obvious that you know nothing at all about engineering or science and nobody sane would allow you to ever design anything. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
From Fred J. McCall:
Stuf4 wrote: An engineer makes things. *A scientist learns things. Wrong. You are certainly free to continue in your expressed belief in the lack of distinction between these two fields. Now if the objection to my statement is that engineers actually design things, and they learn while designing, I could agree with that. I would certainly be open to anyone else's best effort toward encapsulating the essence of science versus engineering. That would be an invitation for constructive discourse. That's as basic as it can be stated. *HARDLY a quibble in the difference. *The term "rocket scientist" is a total misnomer. *The proper term is -rocket engineer-. It might be helpful to achieve a common understanding of the most basic ideas before going into explanations of how easy it would be for an engineer to design a control system for a spherical-geometry RV. Heck, even if the center of mass were not off-center, I could STILL tell you how to control it. *Even a kid who is a pitcher on a high school baseball team could explain how to control the trajectory of a sphere moving through the atmosphere. *(Note: no engineering degree required! *Not even a single day of college.) You should read up on why the Russians didn't go with a spherical reentry vehicle for Soyuz, since you think so much of them. Please show a single ICBM RV that is spherical. *Funny how NOBODY who actually designs and builds the things thinks that's a good idea, isn't it? I myself never suggested it was a good idea. The idea of the ICBM itself, I question the rationality of. And this understanding casts a shadow over how 'good an idea' the entire space race was. It brought humanity to the brink of obliterating ourselves. Of course, with the lack of civility shown in something as simple as communication on a message board, there is an argument that states that humanity is destined for such an end. I myself much prefer the outlook that a critical mass will awaken from the consequences of the damage we have caused on each other as well as our surroundings, and that the future of humanity that we have to look forward to is a harmonious one. Now a great portion of my communications here have been toward exposing fallacies in the 'fairy tale' version of space history that is ubiquitous. An irony is that this standard version shares, or perhaps more accurately, is motivated by a similar desire for a positive future for humanity. Perhaps it matters little whether one version is founded on myth and the other on fact. What may be most important is that the vision is shared. ~ CT |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
On Mar 2, 9:33*am, Stuf4 wrote:
From Fred J. McCall: Stuf4 wrote: An engineer makes things. *A scientist learns things. Wrong. You are certainly free to continue in your expressed belief in the lack of distinction between these two fields. Now if the objection to my statement is that engineers actually design things, and they learn while designing, I could agree with that. *I would certainly be open to anyone else's best effort toward encapsulating the essence of science versus engineering. *That would be an invitation for constructive discourse. That's as basic as it can be stated. *HARDLY a quibble in the difference. *The term "rocket scientist" is a total misnomer. *The proper term is -rocket engineer-. It might be helpful to achieve a common understanding of the most basic ideas before going into explanations of how easy it would be for an engineer to design a control system for a spherical-geometry RV. Heck, even if the center of mass were not off-center, I could STILL tell you how to control it. *Even a kid who is a pitcher on a high school baseball team could explain how to control the trajectory of a sphere moving through the atmosphere. *(Note: no engineering degree required! *Not even a single day of college.) You should read up on why the Russians didn't go with a spherical reentry vehicle for Soyuz, since you think so much of them. Please show a single ICBM RV that is spherical. *Funny how NOBODY who actually designs and builds the things thinks that's a good idea, isn't it? I myself never suggested it was a good idea. The idea of the ICBM itself, I question the rationality of. *And this understanding casts a shadow over how 'good an idea' the entire space race was. *It brought humanity to the brink of obliterating ourselves. *Of course, with the lack of civility shown in something as simple as communication on a message board, there is an argument that states that humanity is destined for such an end. I myself much prefer the outlook that a critical mass will awaken from the consequences of the damage we have caused on each other as well as our surroundings, and that the future of humanity that we have to look forward to is a harmonious one. Now a great portion of my communications here have been toward exposing fallacies in the 'fairy tale' version of space history that is ubiquitous. *An irony is that this standard version shares, or perhaps more accurately, is motivated by a similar desire for a positive future for humanity. *Perhaps it matters little whether one version is founded on myth and the other on fact. What may be most important is that the vision is shared. ~ CT Fred only shares the LLPOF version of modified space history. http://groups.google.com/groups/search http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
From Fred J. McCall:
Stuf4 wrote: From Fred J. McCall: Stuf4 wrote: I never stated whether or not the Soyuz RV was a sphere. *My point was that a sphere is a perfectly feasible geometry for an RV. Only if you don't care about accuracy at all. We are agreed that it is at least feasible. Feasible if you don't give a **** where or how hard it comes down, perhaps. *But sane people care about those things. No rebuttals posted (as of yet, at least) have done anything to convince me that a sphere is not a feasible shape for a nuke weapon, warhead as well as an RV. *I remain in my certainty that they are. And the Soviets went a long way to convince me of that. That can only be because ignorant lunatics are beyond being educated. snip bloviation I repeat: *It's obvious that you know nothing at all about engineering or science and nobody sane would allow you to ever design anything. Still don't see you offering any examples of anyone actually being stupid enough to use a ROUND RV on a missile. No one said anything about whether or not anyone had, or would like to have a round rv. A Venn diagram to illustrate the distinction between the realm of what is *feasible* versus the realm of what is actually done would go a long way toward shedding light on what I said, versus the meaning you persist in wanting to put on my words. "I will fabricate a straw man, and then I will brilliantly reveal how this man is made of straw." ~ CT -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
From Fred J. McCall:
Stuf4 wrote: From Fred J. McCall: Stuf4 wrote: An engineer makes things. *A scientist learns things. Wrong. You are certainly free to continue in your expressed belief in the lack of distinction between these two fields. You don't read any better than you think, do you? *I never said any such thing. (My first draft of that statement actually had the verbatim quote. Then I removed the quote, thinking that I was being overly rigid, and put it into my own words.) Now if the objection to my statement is that engineers actually design things, and they learn while designing, I could agree with that. *I would certainly be open to anyone else's best effort toward encapsulating the essence of science versus engineering. *That would be an invitation for constructive discourse. Define 'trade study' in the engineering sense. I see little point in continuing this communication. You and I have repeatedly failed to agree on the most basic of points. And all of your points here are so far removed from the main points I initiated this thread with. I came to this forum with the intent of improving the state of space history. That was my goal in 2001. That was my goal again here in 2012. If you would like to show how these peripheral avenues you have persisted in focusing on will (or even have the potential to) further the sum total of understanding of space history, I may decide that continuing this discussion would be a worthwhile investment of time. I am very glad to know that there are many places on the internet that did not exist in 2001 that are very productive places to make contributions that help to advance the knowledge - and even wisdom - of human society. I will continue to follow, every so often, this corner of the internet. Even in this decade, I find a morsel shared here that I am interested in. I hope there are others who find the transcript I shared in this thread to be interesting. Maybe more at some future time than at the present. Paradigm shifts such as the one that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is promoting take time. ~ CT further loony bloviation elided -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar *territory." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
From Fred J. McCall:
Stuf4 wrote: And all of your points here are so far removed from the main points I initiated this thread with. *I came to this forum with the intent of improving the state of space history. *That was my goal in 2001. *That was my goal again here in 2012. If you would like to show how these peripheral avenues you have persisted in focusing on will (or even have the potential to) further the sum total of understanding of space history, I may decide that continuing this discussion would be a worthwhile investment of time. I am very glad to know that there are many places on the internet that did not exist in 2001 that are very productive places to make contributions that help to advance the knowledge - and even wisdom - of human society. I will continue to follow, every so often, this corner of the internet. *Even in this decade, I find a morsel shared here that I am interested in. *I hope there are others who find the transcript I shared in this thread to be interesting. *Maybe more at some future time than at the present. *Paradigm shifts such as the one that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is promoting take time. Wow, you are just SO far up yourself.... I am open to the possibility that the source of the discord has been on my side of the equation. It is clear that the best course of action for me is to step back and examine that. ~ CT -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
On Mar 2, 8:06*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote: On Mar 1, 10:54*am, Stuf4 wrote: From Fred J. McCall: Stuf4 wrote: From Fred J. McCall: David Spain wrote: Rick Jones wrote: David Spain wrote: Rick Jones wrote: Sputnik was a hollowed-out nuclear weapon??? rick jones Well it had the proper geometry... A sphere was/is the proper geometry for the warhead on an ICBM? Tisk, tisk; you said nuclear weapon, you did not say warhead... ;-) And he certainly didn't say RV, which is something else again. Seeing how spheres *were* used by the Soviet Union, I'd say that it is a totally feasible geometry for the weapon, the warhead AND the RV. I take it they don't let you do engineering or design work... Open-minded thinkers who know what is feasible - instead of just doing things out of habit - make better engineers and designers than those who lack such attributes. Of course, as is repeatedly demonstrated on this forum, there are many who will not hold such a view. *It is FAR more comfortable to keep one's thought processes so restrained as to remain well within the confines of the perceived 'box'. ...and if anyone comes along to challenge limited thinking, do not so much as peek outside your box, for therein lies the discomfort. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the *truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson (Well said, TJ.) ~ CT Fred is master of his cozy box. Fred wants all of us to fit into the exact same mainstream status-quo box. However, a large hollow sphere of plutonium is relatively harmless, unless it contained a few tonnes of weaponized VX or something other that's biologically lethal. And this from the same man who raves about the dangers of MOX? -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine Perhaps Brad would care to rub his hands over a plutonium sphere and see if it has any ill effects on him. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding
On Mar 5, 1:09*pm, Dean wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:06*am, Fred J. McCall wrote: Brad Guth wrote: On Mar 1, 10:54*am, Stuf4 wrote: From Fred J. McCall: Stuf4 wrote: From Fred J. McCall: David Spain wrote: Rick Jones wrote: David Spain wrote: Rick Jones wrote: Sputnik was a hollowed-out nuclear weapon??? rick jones Well it had the proper geometry... A sphere was/is the proper geometry for the warhead on an ICBM? Tisk, tisk; you said nuclear weapon, you did not say warhead.... ;-) And he certainly didn't say RV, which is something else again. Seeing how spheres *were* used by the Soviet Union, I'd say that it is a totally feasible geometry for the weapon, the warhead AND the RV. I take it they don't let you do engineering or design work... Open-minded thinkers who know what is feasible - instead of just doing things out of habit - make better engineers and designers than those who lack such attributes. Of course, as is repeatedly demonstrated on this forum, there are many who will not hold such a view. *It is FAR more comfortable to keep one's thought processes so restrained as to remain well within the confines of the perceived 'box'. ...and if anyone comes along to challenge limited thinking, do not so much as peek outside your box, for therein lies the discomfort. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the *truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson (Well said, TJ.) ~ CT Fred is master of his cozy box. Fred wants all of us to fit into the exact same mainstream status-quo box. However, a large hollow sphere of plutonium is relatively harmless, unless it contained a few tonnes of weaponized VX or something other that's biologically lethal. And this from the same man who raves about the dangers of MOX? -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine Perhaps Brad would care to rub his hands over a plutonium sphere and see if it has any ill effects on him. A brief exposure isn't lethal or even all that problematic, as long as you don't ingest any of it. It sure as hell isn't going to explode, although it could be warm or even hot to the touch if there's enough product density and mass to work with. For example, use as a hollow but otherwise regulation mass (7.2 kg) bowling ball would be doable, though I sure as hell wouldn't care to sleep with it. http://groups.google.com/groups/search http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Meteor threat: Obama: 'A credible terrorist threat against our country' | Warhol[_1_] | Misc | 12 | November 1st 10 12:16 PM |
Race and the Space Race | David Lesher | History | 1 | February 21st 10 08:27 AM |
Key to understanding universe is understanding our brains | GatherNoMoss | Policy | 8 | October 3rd 06 01:27 PM |
Electricity In Space? Score - Mainstream: 0, New Astrophysics: 1 | Mad Scientist | Misc | 1 | September 7th 04 02:38 PM |
Free ideas Deemed "Radical and a Threat" to Mainstream Science | Greg Neill | Misc | 1 | July 24th 04 08:00 AM |