|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself
On Oct 28, 6:06 pm, Neil Gerace wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:42 am, Paul Foley wrote: I can see why India might like to send astronauts to the moon. For them, it would be a big deal to demonstrate that they are as technologically advanced as the US was 30 years ago. 30 years ago, in 1977, the US would have found it utterly impossible :-) That's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (utterly impossible, even as of today it is not human DNA friendly, nor do we have a viable lander) - Brad Guth - |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) RepeatingItself
Joe Strout wrote: It's a bit sad to see, because you weren't always like this. Brad Guth, as far as I've been aware of him, has always been a nutball. But you were a reasonable newbie a couple years ago, with a simple passion for space solar power, which in itself is not unreasonable. But now you've gone off the deep end, alas. When he first arrived he stated that he did drugs, and that he intended to post things he really didn't really belive in to see how people reacted to them. In short, he looks upon himself as the researcher and the people in the newsgroups he posts to as something like mice running around in his maze. Pat |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:11:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote: "robert casey" wrote in message ... The Moon's a lousy place to park your nuke bomb missiles. It's a lot quicker, cheaper and more convenient to use submarines as nuke launching platforms. Submarines are easily hidden, and they rarely break radio silence, and they can be ordered (the subs receive only) to sail to the enemy's coastal areas and take out a few cities or mil targets. You can buy a lot of submarines for the cost of a few Moon missions. From Space Command Stategic Statememt for '07 "Americans have come to rely on the unhindered use of space-they will demand no less in the future. To protect the space domain and deliver effects, Air Force Space Command is pursuing investments in an array of capabilities. The United States is committed to supporting the peaceful use of space by all; however, prudence demands we ensure our Nation, Allies and coalition partners have unobstructed access to space capabilities." "We know we will be challenged in the future-both by those who wish to do us harm and by our own resource limitations. It no longer takes a sophisticated adversary to impact space and ground systems..." "We have a duty to secure the entire space domain.not just for our own military.but for our Nation and for the benefit of the free world. To do this, we must focus our efforts on two objectives - improved space situational awareness and enhanced command and control. First, we must achieve true space situational awareness.the ability to not only track and catalog any object, but also to determine its capabilities, purpose and intent. Only when we've obtained a clear picture of the entire space environment will we fully realize our second objective - enhanced command and control over space assets. http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media...070412-128.pdf Conspicuously absent from your citation, is any mention whatsoever of the Moon. -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:23:24 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote: "Frank Glover" wrote in message .. . Yes. A case might be made for some kinds of backup communications relays (in the event that most other near-Earth milsatcoms are taken out)there,at the Moon is a not-easily destroyed platform. But only if you already had the infrastructure for other reasons. It's not justifiable by itself. And since the Chinese asat test showed just about anything in orbit is vulnerable, how does that change the equation? If we're denied orbital assets, where else could we place such intelligence gathering capabilities? It's obvious the moon is not only a much more secure than orbit but it defines the 'high ground' too. Yes, but Jupiter is far more secure, and "higher", than the Moon. Obviously, we must put all our space assets, particularly the missile defense stuff, on Jupiter. -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself
"John Schilling" wrote in message ... Yes, but Jupiter is far more secure, and "higher", than the Moon. Obviously, we must put all our space assets, particularly the missile defense stuff, on Jupiter. A very weak response. I expected better. If a head of state, Putin, publicly states that they intend to discuss with the US future arrangements for a missile defense base on the moon, that is perfectly good evidence of our intentions. Combine that with our very aggressive stated policy on space, and my conclusion is rather well founded. Yours is based on what...exactly? That the moon is really really far away? -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself
"John Schilling" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:11:04 -0500, "Jonathan" wrote: Conspicuously absent from your citation, is any mention whatsoever of the Moon. If our priority is better observation and tracking, and the Chinese asat test shows earth orbit is not a very safe place, as the statement indicated with " It no longer takes a sophisticated adversary to impact space and ground systems..." Then what is the alternative to "space and ground"? The moon is the logical alternative. You know I'm right. -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) RepeatingItself
If our priority is better observation and tracking, and the Chinese asat test shows earth orbit is not a very safe place, as the statement indicated with " It no longer takes a sophisticated adversary to impact space and ground systems..." Then what is the alternative to "space and ground"? The moon is the logical alternative. Yes, the Moon would be hard to take out with an ASAT, but it's rather too far away... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself
"robert casey" wrote in message ... If our priority is better observation and tracking, and the Chinese asat test shows earth orbit is not a very safe place, as the statement indicated with " It no longer takes a sophisticated adversary to impact space and ground systems..." Then what is the alternative to "space and ground"? The moon is the logical alternative. Yes, the Moon would be hard to take out with an ASAT, but it's rather too far away... Putin mentioned possible missile defense bases on the moon. Here's a quote by the NY Times from a couple of years ago. "Last March, Luan Enjie, director of the China National Aerospace Administration, described the Moon as ''the focal point wherein future aerospace powers contend for strategic resources.'' Do I need to explain what stategic means? And these quotes were from before the Chinese asat test. When we still thought we could defend our orbital assets. ''The Moon is a beachhead,'' said Alice Slater, director of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, a private group in New York. ''It's the high ground from which they want to control space'' she said of the Bush administration." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629C8B 63 And if you think I'm equally nuts for claiming we intend to militarize space, read this quote from the horses mouth...and this was before Bush. Before 9/11 and before the Chinese asat test and before our new aggresive space policy. "As General Joseph Ashy, then commander in chief of the US Space Command, put it in 1996: 'It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but -- absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. ' Ashy spoke of 'space control,' the US military's term for controlling space, and space force application,' its definition for dominating Earth from space. Said General Ashy: 'We'll expand into these two missions because they will become increasingly important. We will engage terrestrial targets someday -- ships, airplanes, land targets -- from space. We will engage targets in space, from space.'" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._71634855/pg_5 What do you guys need, a picture of a room full of generals pointing to a picture of the moon? With the caption reading.....place military base here? This is not a hard case to make. s |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:23:06 -0700, John Schilling
wrote: And since the Chinese asat test showed just about anything in orbit is vulnerable, how does that change the equation? If we're denied orbital assets, where else could we place such intelligence gathering capabilities? It's obvious the moon is not only a much more secure than orbit but it defines the 'high ground' too. Yes, but Jupiter is far more secure, and "higher", than the Moon. Obviously, we must put all our space assets, particularly the missile defense stuff, on Jupiter. It's all a ruse, I tell you! We're not going back to the Moon at all, that's just a smokescreen for... OUR SECRET PRISON ON MARS! We're going to round up all those innocent Muslim jihadists and send them on big LockMart spaceships that will take them to the LockMart-run prison at Olympus Mons. China and India know what we're up to, so they're sending their own spy satellites to Mars (you don't really think all this money is being spent just to go BACK to the MOON do you?) to get better intel. Yes! It's obviously TRUE! What's wrong with all of you that you just can't see THE TRUTH? All your arguments that prisons on Earth are a lot cheaper are just BALONEY! Here's are links that prove it... "http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-08-31-nasa-lockheed-moon_x.htm" "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5918-2004Dec16.html" Brian :-) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself
On Oct 29, 6:19 pm, robert casey wrote:
If our priority is better observation and tracking, and the Chinese asat test shows earth orbit is not a very safe place, as the statement indicated with " It no longer takes a sophisticated adversary to impact space and ground systems..." Then what is the alternative to "space and ground"? The moon is the logical alternative. Yes, the Moon would be hard to take out with an ASAT, but it's rather too far away... China has infact proven pin-point impactors are entirely doable, and there's nothing stopping an impactor from including that nifty H-Bomb, or something worse. Perhaps we ott to be nicer to China, or else. - Brad Guth - |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race | Gareth Slee | History | 0 | September 21st 05 03:53 PM |
History Channel: Apollo: The Race Against Time | Damon Hill | History | 9 | August 16th 05 01:51 AM |
History Channel: Apollo: The Race Against Time | Damon Hill | Space Shuttle | 4 | August 16th 05 01:51 AM |
History Channel: Apollo: The Race Against Time | Brad Guth | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 16th 05 01:31 AM |