|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 11:43 am, "
wrote: On Mar 11, 5:06 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: wrote: Not an implication but a fact. It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery MOL had nothing whatsoever to do with the Shuttle; it was a manned reconsat that was canceled before the Shuttle program even started. Charlie is hung up on the misconception that prior to Reagan's inauguration, modifications to SLC-6 (originally developed for the MOL) reflected military design of the space shuttle. Hence my mention of "supporting structure," which you apparently overlooked or didn't understand why you should consider, Pat. Hung, up? You are the one who can't get it SLC-6 was modified by the USAF into a shuttle pad to support USAF shuttle mission out of VAFB In dozens of posts now, Charlie has plainly demonstrated no detailed knowledge of any such modifications to SLC-6, at least not any that he cares to post. We are to accept on blind faith that modifications began at SLC-6 in 1979 and 1980, more specifically, modifications that reflected the shuttle's *military* design. Here are the Jan 79 dates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenb...unch_Complex_6 http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...vafb-slc-6.htm http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm It is you that is screwed up. The Shuttle mods for the USAF are independent of VAFB and SLC-6. the conversion of SLC-6 into a shuttle pad was solely done by the USAF for USAF requirement The only work I'm aware of at SLC-6 during the Carter years was the relocation of the tower by several feet. That was done only for the *possibility* that SLC-6 might eventually launch a shuttle, No, the work (the movement of the MST) wasn't done for a "possibility". It was the start of the all the work to convert the pad. There was no "might", it was full intent. *after* a satisfactory military design had been approved for the shuttle and military shuttle development had been funded. Wrong, there was only one type of shuttle, NASA's |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 9:18*pm, wrote:
Here are the Jan 79 dates I found work described for only one specific date: http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm "1979 January 1 - Demolition and construction work began at Space Launch Complex 6 ***in preparation for*** the Space Shuttle ***program***." [Emphasis added.] (Note that this was not for any given shuttle design, specifically.) Everything else you wrote in your last two messages is similarly naive misinterpretation. Air Force back and forth with NASA in the 70s can in no way be construed as formal design and development of a military space shuttle. Only funding specifically authorizing such efforts can get accountable work going. That began with Reagan's inauguration. You can post till you're blue in the face, but you'll never change that fact. Because you refuse to admit this, you have no credibility. JTM |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 1:29 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:53 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: wrote: Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. We've already done that via robotic spacecraft, and at a fairly reasonable overall cost for return in data. Pat I'm sorry, I meant to say exploit our solar system. Exploiting is about all that humanity is good for, especially of these fossil and yellowcake energy sucking days. Too bad we're not even smart enough to be using thorium, much less capable of extracting from the vast amounts of 100% renewable energy that's of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal (not to mention a few off-world alternatives), at least not until we're locked into having to pay $10/gallon and $1/kwhr. .. - Brad Guth |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 13, 9:09 am, "
wrote: On Mar 12, 9:18 pm, wrote: Here are the Jan 79 dates I found work described for only one specific date: http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm "1979 January 1 - Demolition and construction work began at Space Launch Complex 6 ***in preparation for*** the Space Shuttle ***program***." [Emphasis added.] (Note that this was not for any given shuttle design, specifically.) Wrong, There has only been ****THE**** Space Shuttle program and there has been only one program with only one shuttle design developed, Columbia, OV-102 was delivered to KSC in March 1979, only two months later. there was no other shuttle design. See you logic is flawed (in fact all your logic), the USAF was building SLC-6 for "a" shuttle, it was building it for "the" shuttle Everything else you wrote in your last two messages is similarly naive misinterpretation. Air Force back and forth with NASA in the 70s can in no way be construed as formal design and development of a military space shuttle. I never said there was a separate military shuttle. There is the one and only shuttle program and USAF requirements were incorporated into it, specifically the 60 ' by 15' payload bay You are really psychotic, deranged and unbalance and just generally screwed up. You probably were responsible for some incidents for shoddy and unsafe work that were covered up by SPC. I am glad you no longer work on the shuttle program or live in florida. Nothing you post, including your asinine website, can change history or the facts. Your fantasy reality is not shared with the rest of us. So just sit at your little computer and spin your tales and lies but don't think you can pull the rest of the world into your delusions |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 13, 8:38*am, wrote:
There has only been *****THE**** Space Shuttle program and there has been only one program with only one shuttle design developed, Never forget how you began your tirade against me: "The shuttle was designed for military launches from the beginning. There is nothing in the military requirements that lead to any of the disasters. And Reagan had nothing to do with it, the plan for DOD use goes back to Nixon/Ford era. Also, it wasn't clandestine program. It was well known that the DOD was going to use the shuttle." Let's review my progress to date. By simply quoting Nixon and Fletcher at the time Nixon announced his shuttle authotization, I proved that "military uses" were only to be "noted," not made forcing factors. Nixon stressed that the program was to be entirely open, not secret. That refuted all the above with the exception of: "There is nothing in the military requirements that lead to any of the disasters. And Reagan had nothing to do with it" For that I referred you to Reagan's NSDDs, which you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge. Until you do so, not only the unwarranted attack you rudely interjected, but you personally, will continue to have no credibility. Columbia, OV-102 was delivered to KSC in March 1979, only two months later. *there was no other shuttle design. No Filament Wound Cases? There is quite obviously more to the shuttle than the orbiter! Even so, Columbia didn't mark the end of orbiter design and development. As just one example, due to Centaur Lockheed shipped Challenger to Marietta for structural cuts not long before the 51-L disaster. Will you never stop being so utterly naive? Nothing you post, including your asinine website, can change history or the facts. Sadly for you and our nation, history speaks for itself. I simply tried to prevent intentionally negligent launch disasters. I succeeded in preventing those at Vandenberg, and I still have the documentation to prove it. Unfortunately, my Senate-requested written warnings for Challenger were ignored, after I had been prematurely returned to Vandenberg because of those Senate requests. My Vandenberg warnings had too much support from others (as well as credibility because of what had happened with Challenger) to go similarly ignored by Senators Sasser and Hollings. Challenger remains today the Senate's disgrace. JTM |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 13, 9:35Â*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:29 pm, wrote: On Mar 12, 1:53 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: wrote: Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. We've already done that via robotic spacecraft, and at a fairly reasonable overall cost for return in data. Pat I'm sorry, I meant to say exploit our solar system. Exploiting is about all that humanity is good for, especially of these fossil and yellowcake energy sucking days. Â*Too bad we're not even smart enough to be using thorium, much less capable of extracting from the vast amounts of 100% renewable energy that's of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal (not to mention a few off-world alternatives), at least not until we're locked into having to pay $10/gallon and $1/kwhr. . - Brad Guth As per usual, you mis-read what I've written and gone off on an inane (if not outright insane) tangent. There are obviously two uses of the word 'exploit' as a transitive verb; they are; Main Entry: ex·ploit Pronunciation: \ik-ËsploÌit, Ëek-Ë\ Function: transitive verb Date: 1838 1 : to make productive use of : utilize exploiting your talents 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage exploiting migrant farm workers I meant the first usage, you implied the second. Humanity, or any species that survives in this world makes productive use of resources in their range. At present humanity's range is limited to the Earth. By expanding our range to encompass the solar system we increase our living standard and improve our chances of long- term survival. Humanity is the only species known on Earth that uses technology to expand its range. That implies making productive use of the environment - which is fairly described as exploting those environments. To rail and rant against humanity for making its way in the world, or beyond it, is unfair and as pointed out above, inane and borderline insane. In short, Brad, you have issues that taint your thinking. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
Stop trying to make it look as though everything you say is always
100% correct, and of everything anyone else has to say is in one way or another 100% incorrect. You are too smart not to have the intellectual ability to properly interpret the technological intent or jest of whatever others are having to share. Much like your other topic of âspace travel or warâ is clearly about the options we have had, and of why weâve so often elected war instead of pursuing science and exploration that could directly benefit the greater good of humanity (not of just improving those rich and powerful) and help salvage our badly failing environment at the same time. Space Travel or War / by William Mook Without a doubt, war it is, unless we can derail the ongoing GW Bush and Dick Cheney fiasco, weâre going to go out of our way in order to nail anyone having more than their fair share of energy, be it fossil or nuclear. As you stipulated before of secret societies and special interest groups or cults (especially of the faith-based kind) have been pulling our strings for quite some time. Internet Archive: John F. Kennedy Speech, April 27, 1961 YouTube - JFK Secret Society Speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs-x0-ffP0Q I donât recall any JFK specific mention of our private Federal Reserve as our global banking cartel, although the highly exclusive history about our Federal Reserve (not an actual part of any government agency), is anything but all that public according to the book âSECRETS OF THE TEMPLEâ by William Greider. According to what little we do know, our Federal Reserve is essentially a private banking cartel thatâs in charge of whatever gets affordably funded and what doesnât of government or private multi-mega ventures, so thereâs not much wonder as to why itâs going to be war and not renewable energy, fusion or even thorium, much less advancements in space travel and explorations instead of war, because thereâs so darn little skimming profits or compounded fees and subsequent tax revenues to behold of renewable energy, and itâs not that much better if we start using thorium as our nuclear fuel in order to easily create a vast surplus of clean grid energy. . â Brad Guth On Mar 13, 7:57 am, wrote: On Mar 13, 9:35 am, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 12, 1:29 pm, wrote: On Mar 12, 1:53 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: wrote: Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. We've already done that via robotic spacecraft, and at a fairly reasonable overall cost for return in data. Pat I'm sorry, I meant to say exploit our solar system. Exploiting is about all that humanity is good for, especially of these fossil and yellowcake energy sucking days. Too bad we're not even smart enough to be using thorium, much less capable of extracting from the vast amounts of 100% renewable energy that's of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal (not to mention a few off-world alternatives), at least not until we're locked into having to pay $10/gallon and $1/kwhr. . - Brad Guth As per usual, you mis-read what I've written and gone off on an inane (if not outright insane) tangent. There are obviously two uses of the word 'exploit' as a transitive verb; they are; Main Entry: ex·ploit Pronunciation: \ik-ËsploÌit, Ëek-Ë\ Function: transitive verb Date: 1838 1 : to make productive use of : utilize exploiting your talents 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage exploiting migrant farm workers I meant the first usage, you implied the second. Humanity, or any species that survives in this world makes productive use of resources in their range. At present humanity's range is limited to the Earth. By expanding our range to encompass the solar system we increase our living standard and improve our chances of long- term survival. Humanity is the only species known on Earth that uses technology to expand its range. That implies making productive use of the environment - which is fairly described as exploting those environments. To rail and rant against humanity for making its way in the world, or beyond it, is unfair and as pointed out above, inane and borderline insane. In short, Brad, you have issues that taint your thinking. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 13, 10:36*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
1.) The work on the SLC-6 launch site was considered to be pretty shoddy, with the large flame duct for the shuttle's exhaust thought to be prone to building up *hydrogen gas venting from the ET prior to lift-off and possibly causing a explosion on launch Unburned hydrogen was being expelled downward from the main engines below the ET, not "vented" from the ET, as it is toward the top of the ET. The USAF insisted on using newly developed Long Throw Igniters to burn it off. They were to be tested first under 61-C. That failed to materialize because of my Senate warnings, which plainly documented that it was too hazardous. The USAF next vowed to test them live under 51-L. I again objected, more loudly this time, within weeks costing me my job. Meanwhile the cold-soaking of Challenger's left booster continued, despite my warnings about Pad B's facility leaks of liquid hydrogen. The rest is history, but obviously not all of it is public knowledge yet. 2.) The AF's annoyance over the seemingly constant flight delays of the early Shuttle flights; they wanted a system that could be pretty much guaranteed to get their payloads up on the day and hour planned, with out system faults or weather interfering with the launch. Vandenberg had its own weather problems, not limited to colder temperatures in the winter. Sixty mph winds wreaked devastation on necessary support structures. As far as system faults, Lockheed and Martin were permitted to contribute plenty of those. If you'd like me to quote from my third report to the Senate, dated January 20, 1986, as requested by Senator Charles Grassley, just let me know and I will be happy to oblige you. He in fact has urged me to do so! If that is not enough, I can furnish lengthy Lockheed supporting documents that I supplied for that report. All the other reports have their own authentic documentary support as well. Don't be bashful about helping me get the truth out there for everyone to look at, Pat. JTM |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 5:26*pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 3:57*pm, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 12, 4:56*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away, Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Mar 12, 12:01*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away, made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote: The Shuttle got funded, but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage, increased operating costs. Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant, The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent years. *Be careful. *If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil. Clearly no different than when you call others "moron" and the like. That's only clear to morons. Yes, I knew you'd bite, and you ARE evil. LOL!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He should get a phd and he could call himself Dr. Evil and his son, brad evil. He would continue to keep Brad in his killfile. LOL! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 81 | March 26th 08 04:15 PM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | Policy | 7 | December 7th 06 03:15 AM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | History | 7 | December 7th 06 03:15 AM |
First Civilian Astronaut | Jo | UK Astronomy | 1 | June 21st 04 07:11 PM |