news flash.......mosley bleeds from O-ring.

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

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:37:00 GMT, (Derek
"If I'd killfile OM, I'd probably killfile my mom, too." Lyons) wrote:

(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.

....You forgot one quantifier, D: that should read as:

"When one deliberately spouts something that they know is utterly and
completely at odds with facts well documented, one is a liar."

....On the other hand, if they do so with humor and/or satire in mind,
it's called telling big fish stories. Not that this variant applies to
LaDeceiver, but I include it along the lines of one of those Saturday
Morning Kidvid "between commercials" InfoPSA's.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm taking off this Pussycats outfit because
it's too ****ing tight. Next time, I'll play Timer and Pat can play
"In the Know"...

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

(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

(Stuf4) wrote in message om...
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!)


~ CT

I've NEVER asked anyone to see eye-to-eye with me on everything; that
would make the other person a clone. In fact, it is healthy to have
INTELLIGENT disagreements on issues; people can and do develop tunnel
vision and that exchange of different takes on a given idea often
helps find the balance.
However, that being said, so far I don't take exception with anything
you have to say. :-)
LaDonna

(Stuf4) wrote in message om...
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!)


~ CT

P.S. Thank you for the compliment "You have come as a breath of
fresh air for me." I'm happy I was able to return the favor.
LaDonna

"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.