|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:10:45 -0400, Scottso wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:19:15 GMT, Dave Michelson wrote: Only to you, I'm afraid. Destiny simply implies long term inevitability. Fate might be a useful synonym. No need to invoke "higher powers." ....And, for that matter, how are we to know what the powers-that-be are smoking to get them high? All I know is that after this morning's final bout with the dentist, I want some. Nothing is inevitable except death: Fate is just an excuse for an apathetic personality/mentality. ....Actually, it's more of an excuse for bad luck than anything else. Good luck is what you make of it. 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 |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... The Dyna-Soar abort tests used one of the Douglas F5D Skylancers. I've seen this plane in person. It's sitting outside the Neil Armstrong Air & Space Museum (NAASM), which is he http://www.bigear.org/odisplays/naasm/naasm.htm Other links: http://www.air-navy.com/f5d-1.htm http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Pho.../EC62-128.html http://www.collectaire.com/modelpages/f5d/f5d.html Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss is a LIAR!!!" wrote in message ... LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! So, can you or can you not provide verifiable references that will state whether or not her pants were on fire? |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"Stuf4" wrote in message om... From Ami Silberman: "Stuf4" wrote We are in total agreement on that fact. The apparent disagreement is on the *nature* of NASA as a civilian agency. Perhaps it would help if we take a look at some other civilian agencies... The CIA was created as a civilian agency. Its nature was national defense. The CIA got involved in lots of combat operations. They owned and operated combat aircraft over hostile foreign countries. The AEC was created as a civilian agency. Its nature was national defense. They owned and detonated lots of nuclear warheads. National Defense does not equal military. Now back to NASA... NASA was created as a civilian agency. Its nature was national defense. They owned and operated lots of ICBM boosters. There are hundreds of indicators that have been presented to this forum. The single most direct that I know of is from the private words of JFK where he stated point blank that the sole justification for funding Apollo was because of the "defense implications". For whatever reason you snipped that reference without comment. It was irrelevent. The federal highway system was originally funded for its defense implications, but that doesn't make it a military road, nor toll-collectors on toll portions of it military personel. And NASA did not own or operate a single ICBM booster. They owned and operated boosters which had been developed as boosters for ICBMs, but were modified for manned and unmanned space missions. I'm sure that civilian agencies used plenty of Jeeps, which were originally military vehicles. That doesn't mean that those agencies were militarized. NASA was an important part of the cold war, which, broadly speaking, was about defending the American way of life. Not everything involved in doing so was military. NASA utilized experienced military personel, rented space from the Air Force, and used equipment developed originally for the military. They did not, however, participate in deterence, force projection, nor (until the shuttle) military development. They even handed off development of MOL to the Air Force. The military role of NASA (as opposed to the role of the military in NASA) was primarily as a technology demonstrator. It showed that the US had the technological superiority over the Soviet Union, and did so in an open manner. It had the military implications that if space were to become directly militarized, the US would be in a better position than the Soviets to do so. Whereas the AEC was popping off nudets and the CIA was waging covert combat, I see NASA as being *more military* than both of those agencies combined. That is because NASA was populated with hundreds of active duty military personnel, and they were in the most visible roles. Though they were not participating in direct military activities, nor in uniform. Take a look at those pictures of astronauts standing on the Moon saluting the flag. They are doing so out of habit, because they are active duty military personnel. (http://images.google.com/images?sour...e=UTF-8&q=apol lo+salute) This is never mentioned in the Apollo Surface Journal. Do you have a citation for anyone stating that the salute was done out of habit? IIRC, at least one astronaut said that he did so because it seemed the correct thing to do. Remember, this was a time when patriotism was expressed quite openly. I have never seen a single photo of any non-military astronaut saluting the flag on the Moon. I am guessing that they considered it improper for a civilian to do that. Well, the civilians could hardly hold their hats over their hearts, could they... I think that deciding whether to salute the flag or not was a personal decision. I'm waiting for Fox to release the Apollo 17 DVD, when I get it I'll figure out if Schmidt saluted the flag. Tonight I'll check to see if Armstrong did. I'm even having difficulty figuring out whether all (or most) of the military astronauts saluted the flag, or just paused to look at it respectfully (like Aldrin appears to have done, although he did salute President Nixon). * Anyone who maintains that NASA is non-military has completely missed the very essence of NASA. * It was about national defense in 1958. It is still about national defense today. Eisenhower created it to consolidate key military space programs. JFK hammers the point that it was funded as a defense program. Reagan repeats that theme in his 1982 space policy. Anything more recent? It was about national defense (satellite recon) in the late 50s. It was about technology demonstration and possible defense applications in JFKs day (but it was not funded by the DoD.) Reagan was pushing the shuttle as a vital carrier for military payloads, including SDI. It was never the essence of the planetary science portion of NASA, and it is very arguable whether the manned program was more than part-time dedicated to defense needs. As an artifact of history (the cold war), NASA was originally staffed with many active duty defense people, and people who had worked for the services, because they had the experience, and the security clearances. (Just because something is civilian doesn't mean that it doesn't require security.) If you want to know why today NASA is dying, it is because it is no longer needed in this defense role. The threat has changed. As Ike melded the NACA with DoD to meet the threat in 1958, we may see Bush decide to meld the FAA with DoD to meet the threats of today. That's what the Department of Homeland Security reorg was all about. It is "today's NASA". 9-11 is "today's Sputnik". NACA became part of the DoD? That's news to me. There are a lot of agreements between the DoD and NASA, but that doesn't mean NASA is part of the DoD. Where in http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/...ok/Pdf/DoD.PDF, which is the organization of the DoD, is NASA? It's not a command, an agency, anywhere. The vocal majority of this forum seems to want to place NASA's civilian status right up there with the National Endowment for the Arts. No, there was a role for it in national defense, it just wasn't part of the DoD. Nor was the CIA, the Voice of America, or the Peace Corps, all of which were part of the cold war. Is anyone still confused? I'll defer to LaDonna's excellent statement that this whole subthread sprouted off of: "...surely with the news coverage of the past week you have heard of the "Cold War?" What do you think the race to the Moon was all about?" That still doesn't make everything involved with the Cold War part of the defense establishment, the military, or the DoD. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
"Stuf4" wrote in message
m... From LaDonna Wyss: **inhaling deeply, enjoying this EXCITING and RARE breath of fresh air** Thank you, CT. **smiling** LaDonna De nada. I call it like I see it. I've stood alone on this forum over many threads. I know what you are going through, diligently responding to dozens of members posting as though you had a band of clones to help you out with attending to each and every one of them. You have come as a breath of fresh air for me. (Although I'm sure we don't see eye-to-eye on *everything*. Ha!) Such as trimming quotes and replying point by point (as opposed to one massive . Thank you for doing both of these, and serving as good example. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote: WHERE do you get the BRASS to call me a liar when you haven't the first clue what you are talking about????? When one spouts something that is utterly and completely at odds with facts well documented, one is a liar. These men had NO IDEA why they were being summoned. NONE. Something I've never debated. But they were not summoned to the astronaut corps, they were summoned to a briefing on the space program and given the oppurtunity to apply to join the corps. Which makes your statement ('There were no applications in the initial groups.') a lie. We also have in several astronaut biographies covering the initial groups statements that they applied to the program after being notified that is was available. Which makes your statement ('There were no applications in the initial groups.') a lie. Get your facts straight, or shut up. Whichever you do, do NOT call me a liar again--ESPECIALLY when you have NOT done your homework. LaDonna I have my facts straight. You are a liar, and a cheat, and a fraud. D. You people need to learn how to argue correctly (no wonder Rush Limbaugh makes a fortune!) Follow the conversation: This started when someone claimed these guys "applied" for their jobs as NASA. I countered by saying they were summoned without knowing why. This person argued. That's how the conversation went. I never said no one EVER filled out a piece of paper; but it is wrong to say they "applied" like the job was posted on a bulletin board and everybody sent in their applications. They were selected without knowing what they were selected to DO. Once they arrived, then obviously tests were conducted, screening was done, etc; otherwise, they simply would have summoned seven pilots and that would have been it! SO, not only am I NOT a liar, but where the he** did "cheat" come in? Did someone spot me stacking the deck of cards at the poker table last night? LaDonna |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... "Ami Silberman" wrote in message ... "LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Hey, folks--I wasn't sure where to post this one because there's been so much blathering, but how about this for a question: You do realize the first three groups of astronauts were recruited from within the military, and by that I mean they received orders to show up at such-and-so place at such-and-so time with absolutely no clue why they were there? I thought that they had to apply first, and then the candidates received the orders. I'll ignore Scott Hedrick's "Shhh" comment. You are incorrect, AMI. You are right, I am incorrect, they were summoned first for briefing and then given an opportunity to apply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Mar 19 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | March 20th 04 03:20 AM |
Good news and bad about Mars rover... | Steven James Forsberg | Policy | 2 | January 26th 04 11:12 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Jan 9 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | January 10th 04 02:34 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Sep 12 | Stuart Goldman | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 13th 03 02:45 AM |
news flash! Rutan drops the shapceship! | Rand Simberg | Policy | 3 | August 8th 03 11:14 PM |