Never mind the shuttle crash, the real threat is the CAIB report

OM wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:20:04 +0000 (UTC),
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:


You're not rebutting any point that I actually meant to make.


...Boy, if that's not the closest thing to a Maxson-class cop-out or
what?


OM

?? There hasn't been any rebuttal. Successful unmanned Venus missions do
nothing to disprove the difficulty of Martian Missions. And they do
nothing to rebut his larger point that unmanned is better than manned.

At this point I remain undecided on Kuperberg's arguments. However your
rude and (IMO) wrong responses do nothing to weaken them.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

In article ,
says...

snip

I don't think that any of the planetary missions are particularly
unforgiving. I don't see anything about Mars that makes it harder then
other planets. Heck, I think it's easier than most.

I think Mars got a bad rep because it was the target of numerous probes,
especially Soviet probes, that didn't make it back in the '60s and '70's.
Of all the planets to which probes were sent in the early days of space
exploration, Mars got more than its share, and more Mars probes failed
than probes to any other planet.

I think it's just a matter of the number of probes sent there and the
time frame in which they were sent. I don't think there's anything
particularly deadly about the planet itself...

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

From: "Greg Kuperberg"
..... It is also secondary to the initial
point, which is that bombing London was a bad mandate to begin with.
It was an evil business and von Braun was really lucky that they didn't
actually help the Nazi war effort or do any more to destroy London.

How is using V2s different than using B-17s and Lancasters?

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:03:11 GMT, Doug... wrote:

Bombing London was an evil business? It was war. Was bombing London
more evil than bombing Dresden, or Hiroshima? If von Braun is guilty of
evil acts for helping design the V-2, what's your estimation of Curtis
LeMay or Robert Oppenheimer? Or Sergei Korolev?

Why bother to ask? It's obvious he's lacking in the clue department as
it is. As with most peaceniks, he's oblivious as to the difference
between "war" and "atrocity".

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Greg Kuperberg wrote:
This does not necessarily mean that von Braun was guilty of war crimes,
but it is not innocent behavior. It is also secondary to the initial
point, which is that bombing London was a bad mandate to begin with.
It was an evil business and von Braun was really lucky that they didn't
actually help the Nazi war effort or do any more to destroy London.
How is this different from the people who design, built, or flew the
bombers that bombed civilians?

In some ways it wasn't different; many of those operations were also
morally and strategically questionable. At least, that is Freeman
Dyson's view of it, and he has some right to say, since he did physics
for the British bombing campaign. But there was one crucial difference,
namely that von Braun fought for the wrong side. Even if his missile
program hadn't made use of slave labor, visiting Buchenwald should have
given him a clue.

I'm not a Nazi apologist by an stretch of the imagination, and I am just
as appalled by Nazi atrocities as any sane person -- but in a war, the
"wrong side" is pretty well defined by who writes the histories. And the
winners write the histories...

--
Do not meddle in the affair of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |

Doug... wrote:
In article ,
says...

snip
which is that bombing London was a bad mandate to begin with.
It was an evil business and von Braun was really lucky that they didn't
actually help the Nazi war effort or do any more to destroy London.


Bombing London was an evil business? It was war. Was bombing London
more evil than bombing Dresden, or Hiroshima? If von Braun is guilty of
evil acts for helping design the V-2, what's your estimation of Curtis
LeMay or Robert Oppenheimer? Or Sergei Korolev?

So, You don't have a problem if the USA bombs the Arabs back
into the stone age and grabs all the oil? Incinerate the whole
arab state, iran, iraq, the sauds, syria... Your argument is stupid.
Germany and Japan were the invaders, We were too lenient, they
should be buried or living in a agrarian society.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:27:04 -0700, jimmydevice
wrote:

So, You don't have a problem if the USA bombs the Arabs back
into the stone age and grabs all the oil?

That would make for a War that the USA would lose, where it is kind of
evil to even try.

One day it would be interesting if these oil producing countries
simply stopped supplying the U.S. As soon enough this oil dependant
country would soon suffer economic collapse.

The U.S has stored an entire year's worth of oil I hear, in old
abandoned coal mines, but I am starting to suspect that this is
responsible for those ground fires.

Anyway, the U.S is indeed very touchy over the oil, when its whole
society depends on it.

Germany and Japan were the invaders,

Germany did begin with those who wanted to be invaded (Austria, Czech
Rep) and form once more the old empire. Then of course they got
carried away invaded and occupied what is now Slovakia, were warned to
never do that again, then they invaded Poland and WWII started.

Japan on the other hand just did not like the U.S, sided more with
Germany and decided to drop some bombs on Pearl Harbor. What followed
then was just a part of War.

We were too lenient, they should be buried or living in a agrarian
society.

No forgive and forget then?

Remember that leaders start Wars and not the people, even if following
orders is not much of an excuse, where sure enough the victors in this
War are only too happy to try and execute those very leaders.

The Germans and the Japanese are generally nice people these days.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote ...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:27:04 -0700, jimmydevice
wrote:

So, You don't have a problem if the USA bombs the Arabs back
into the stone age and grabs all the oil?

That would make for a War that the USA would lose, where it is kind of
evil to even try.

Only 'kind of' ?

One day it would be interesting if these oil producing countries
simply stopped supplying the U.S. As soon enough this oil dependant
country would soon suffer economic collapse.

Though possibly not as soon as the contries selling the oil to the U.S.
collapsed.

The U.S has stored an entire year's worth of oil I hear,

Ah, that good old reliable 'I hear'.

in old
abandoned coal mines, but I am starting to suspect that this is
responsible for those ground fires.

I'm starting to suspect you haven't a clue about ground fire causes.

Anyway, the U.S is indeed very touchy over the oil, when its whole
society depends on it.

Well, that bit's true enough.

Germany and Japan were the invaders,

Japan on the other hand just did not like the U.S, sided more with
Germany and decided to drop some bombs on Pearl Harbor. What followed
then was just a part of War.

*ahem* I have a sneaky suspicion that Japan did their share of invading before
then. It still counts as 'invading' if the countries invaded aren't in Europe - you know.

We were too lenient, they should be buried or living in a agrarian
society.

No forgive and forget then?

Meh, he'd probably recomend genocide as a suitable punishment for the Eurovision
Song Contest.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...

The U.S has stored an entire year's worth of oil I hear, in old
abandoned coal mines, but I am starting to suspect that this is
responsible for those ground fires.

Salt mines. And they have nothing to do with "...those ground fires."


Anyway, the U.S is indeed very touchy over the oil, when its whole
society depends on it.

As is most of Europe and Japan. Any major industrial nation depends greatly
upon oil.


Germany and Japan were the invaders,

Germany did begin with those who wanted to be invaded (Austria, Czech
Rep) and form once more the old empire. Then of course they got
carried away invaded and occupied what is now Slovakia, were warned to
never do that again, then they invaded Poland and WWII started.

"... got carried away." Wow, talk about a euphamism.


Japan on the other hand just did not like the U.S, sided more with
Germany and decided to drop some bombs on Pearl Harbor. What followed
then was just a part of War.

Holy Simple History Batman. You do realize there's a lot more than this to
it. In fact it involves, you guessed it, OIL.

Might want to look into the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the US oil
embargo that resulted.

Cardman.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:50:05 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

The U.S has stored an entire year's worth of oil I hear, in old
abandoned coal mines, but I am starting to suspect that this is
responsible for those ground fires.

Salt mines.

Ah I knew it was somewhere, but have they really got enough salt mines
to store all that oil?

And they have nothing to do with "...those ground fires."

I am still doubtful, when coal is a little hard to get burning on its
own. Add some oil though and you will have your underground fire in no
time.

So you can just imagine the US Army packing thousands of oil drums
into a coal mine, then it is "whoops" some soldier dropped a match.

Anyway, the U.S is indeed very touchy over the oil, when its whole
society depends on it.

As is most of Europe and Japan. Any major industrial nation depends greatly
upon oil.

Yes, but no one depends on it as much as the US does. As you do not
even have sidewalks between your towns, where also everyone drives
just about everywhere including the local shop.

We in the UK have our own oil in the North Sea.

Germany and Japan were the invaders,

Germany did begin with those who wanted to be invaded (Austria, Czech
Rep) and form once more the old empire. Then of course they got
carried away invaded and occupied what is now Slovakia, were warned to
never do that again, then they invaded Poland and WWII started.

"... got carried away." Wow, talk about a euphamism.

Well you have to look at the more global situation at the time, when
the likes of the U.S.S.R did a good job with invasion and occupation,
which is not quite sorted out even these days.

Germany may have got away with it for that reason, but of course after
WWI they were still on probation. After all even occupation is better
than going to War, but the UK simply would not put up with what their
old enemy Germany was doing.

Japan on the other hand just did not like the U.S, sided more with
Germany and decided to drop some bombs on Pearl Harbor. What followed
then was just a part of War.

Holy Simple History Batman. You do realize there's a lot more than this to
it. In fact it involves, you guessed it, OIL.

Naturally. Not long now before this evil stuff runs out. :-]

Might want to look into the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the US oil
embargo that resulted.

Ah well these days you cannot even do an invasion to reclaim a lot of
your own former land without p***ing off some superpower or other.

Ok, so it was a bad idea for Iraq to do that, but you have to wonder
how much Kuwaiti oil played a part. Then these days the U.S has
"freed" the oil in Iraq for the benefit of the people, but no sign of
those weapons of mass destruction yet.

Anyway, the good news is that the Iraqi People can now have a
McDonalds and Pepsi, under the US oil for cheese burger scheme. ;-]

Cardman.