|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... Johnson was eligible for reelection in 1968 (he had served less than two years of JFK's term) but chose not to run. See http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am22 Yes, he chose not to run because he knew he couldn't win. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message ... The idea and some of the concepts may have been formulated earlier but the Project consists of the full task list. The PERT chart. No PERT Chart, no project. You call wishful thinking and mental masturbation a project. You are wrong. No project unless the plans in all their details have been formulated and the money made available to realized the plans. You're still missing the point. We are concerned only with the initiation of the Apollo program here. It is a historical fact that that ocurred prior to the Kennedy presidency. Nothing can change that. I suspect you have very little experience in how real large scale projects, both governmental and corporate are carried out. Day dreaming about rockets to the moon doth not a project make. That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that the Apollo project was initiated before JFK was even president-elect. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
"Cranny Dane" wrote in message ... Hey Steve, Know the difference between rape and rapture ? Yes. Do you know the difference between initiation and commitment? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... "Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President." President Lyndon B. Johnson - March 31, 1968 http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/lbj-decision.htm Let's play a little Jeopardy Answer: March 31, 1968 Question: By what date did LBJ realize he couldn't possibly be reelected? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
Robert Juliano wrote:
Robert J. Kolker wrote: Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... Then who do you fantasize did? I don't know, but I do know that NASA announced Project Apollo on July 28, 1960, when Senator JFK was busily running for president. Not announced. Proposed. It took JFK and Congress to come up with the money. Twentfour billion 1960s dollars to leave a foot print on the Moon. Not a very good deal, was it? Bob Kolker Mr. Kolker, It wasn't JUST "leaving footprints on the moon." we managed to get a few more benefits than JUST landing on the moon... like: bio telemetry Existed before Apollo. Every major hospital had some kind of automated telemetry system to keep track of patients in the ICUs. You don't have to go to the moon to do that, and private companies developed it because it is profitable. alloys Alloy work was already done in the development of the SR-71. A legitimate defense expenditure. We did not have to go to the moon for that one. Mach 3 and Mach 4 aircraft need durable metal hulls made of stuff like titanium. large scale systems engineering PERT and PEP charts existed well before the Apollo project. satellite monitoring Launching satellites (which was done before and after Apollo) does not need a man rated system. It can be done cheaply as an unmanned project. fuel cells High quality items that nearly destroyed Apollo 13. Way to go NASA! power management That would have occurred without a moon program. After the debacle of 1965 with the power gone out over most of the East coast power managament was a required item. We don't need NASA for that. more alloys better weather prediction How did going to the Moon result in better weather models. Is puzzlement. We already had weather satellites up before the Moon shot. A Moon shot was not necessary for that. Each and all of these things separately could have been developed for less money by private firms. When the government does something it does it badly (like the first capsule design that killed the three astronauts in the Apollo 1 static test). What really gripes me is once we got there why didn't we set up habitats for further research and build observertories on the dark side. We came, we saw, we left. It makes no sense except as a dick measuring competation between the U.S. and the (then) U.S.S.R. We spent and spent then ****ed it away. And for what? A footprint on the Moon that said made in the U.S.A.. Bob Kolker |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:57:37 -0500, in a place far, far away, Robert
Juliano made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: It wasn't JUST "leaving footprints on the moon." we managed to get a few more benefits than JUST landing on the moon... like: bio telemetry alloys large scale systems engineering satellite monitoring fuel cells power management more alloys better weather prediction Most of these we would have gotten in the absence of Apollo, and some of them Apollo contributed to not at all. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message ... The idea and some of the concepts may have been formulated earlier but the Project consists of the full task list. The PERT chart. No PERT Chart, no project. You call wishful thinking and mental masturbation a project. You are wrong. No project unless the plans in all their details have been formulated and the money made available to realized the plans. You're still missing the point. We are concerned only with the initiation of the Apollo program here. It is a historical fact that that ocurred prior to the Kennedy presidency. Nothing can change that. Going by your logic, we should give Bush I credit for the new moon/mars initiative, since he proposed it back in the 80's. At this point, I'm not even willing to give Bush II credit for it, or the CEV, until it's more than computer graphics images... David Erbas-White |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:18:32 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote: What really gripes me is once we got there why didn't we set up habitats for further research and build observertories on the dark side. SDI then ISS took precedence. -- "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." --Ronald Reagan |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:20:05 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote: Not by anyone in a position to make it happen. Werner von Braun was. Not without Congress footing the bill. Indeed. And it was not JFK who made Congress fund NASA. He was just a political puppet of the special interests who ran NASA. The Military-Industrial Complex calls the shots for NASA. There was even a time when the USAF made an attempt to take over NASA but inter-agency rivalry killed it. -- "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." --Ronald Reagan |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:57:37 -0500, Robert Juliano
wrote: we managed to get a few more benefits than JUST landing on the moon... like: bio telemetry alloys large scale systems engineering satellite monitoring fuel cells power management more alloys better weather prediction to name just a few... You left out the entire microelectronics revolution and the computer. Then there's communications - satellites, etc. New Technology - Military Applications - Spin Off - Civilian Sector -- "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." --Ronald Reagan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |