A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 21st 13, 09:51 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 529
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

Hola. It's clear that there has been a solid shift toward understanding that the Space Race was driven by the nuclear threat, and this view is now established in the mainstream. The latest video I'm aware of is this PBS Digital Studio spot that answers the question,

"Why Do We Go to Space?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TES491F2e6c&t=26s

Quote: "Our first rockets were weapons ...we rode to space on the tip of giant missiles. We were driven by war. ... We rode those rockets to the Moon."


The person who has brought this view into the mainstream, as I have spoken of previously here, is Neil deGrasse Tyson. Here's his speech from last year where he explains his book "Space Chronicles", a book which he says he wanted it to title it:

"Failure to Launch: The Dreams and Delusions of Space Enthusiasts"

This is a very long speech he gives, but this link is cued up to a section where in a couple of minutes he explains JFK's 1961 speech as persuading that it is...

"...the War Driver that led to the Check Writing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErZq2ZQQTrs&t=42m50s

Huge kudos to NdT.

~ CT
Ads
  #2  
Old October 21st 13, 12:59 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

In article ,
says...
Neil deGrasse Tyson


I have mixed feelings about this guy. On one hand, he presents
information to the "mainstream" in an easy to understand fashion. On
the other hand, he often spouts views that seem unsupported, likely
because he's reluctant to delve too far into the details, lest he
"lose" his mainstream audience.

Also, he's an astrophysicist, so I often find his views on aerospace
engineering to be, at best, lacking. But the main "thrust" of this book
seems to be what motivated the space program in the '60's and what
should motivate it in the present and future.

I find it curious that you provided the old title to his book "Failure
to Launch: The Dreams and Delusions of Space Enthusiasts", when the book
title is actually: "Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier" by
Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I've not read the book, but from the reviews I've read, the first part
is a restating of "the space race" as we all know it. Fueled by the
Cold War, the Space Race, was nothing more than a *&^# waving contest
between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was a contest, an alternative
to nuclear war, to "prove" which country (and ideology) was superior.
The Soviet Union was clearly in the lead, until the U.S. decided to put
a man on the moon with a "waste anything but time" mantra.

Oddly enough, the U.S. took a socialistic approach of a single program
led by few people at the very top. The Soviet Union had a few competing
camps in both the launch vehicle (missile) and spacecraft arenas. In
other words, a more "competitive" approach which was much closer to
capitalism than the U.S. approach. It's therefore somewhat ironic that
the U.S. claims that it "won" the Space Race by putting a man on the
moon in 1969.

Only now, with the budgetary necessity of the "commercial cargo" and
"commercial crew" initiatives is the U.S. starting to approach space
travel in a more capitalistic manner. Oddly enough, the budgetary
crisis is being caused by the gigantic, socialistic, congressionally
mandated, SLS/Orion program. SLS/Orion is so huge, from a budgetary
perspective, that there is little to no money for any actual payloads!
So, on one hand Congress mandates yet another huge, socialistic, mega-
program (SLS/Orion) with one set of winners picked by NASA, but the day
to day manned space program (ISS) is being run on a shoestring budget in
a capitalistic, competitive, manner.

The good news is that the "commercial" programs are showing much more
progress, with far less money spent, than the mega-project. Hopefully
this means that people will begin to realize that "the emperor has no
clothes".

So, goof-ball proposals like "unmanned asteroid retrieval" with
SLS/Orion visiting the asteroid only when it is brought back to the
earth/moon system are being floated by NASA. I personally think this is
the dumbest idea ever. Why use an *unmanned* mission to bring an
asteroid close to earth to study when SLS/Orion was intended to fly far
beyond LEO.

Very strange times, to say the least.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #3  
Old October 21st 13, 05:53 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,177
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:51:11 AM UTC-7, Stuf4 wrote:
Hola. It's clear that there has been a solid shift toward understanding that the Space Race was driven by the nuclear threat, and this view is now established in the mainstream. The latest video I'm aware of is this PBS Digital Studio spot that answers the question,



"Why Do We Go to Space?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TES491F2e6c&t=26s



Quote: "Our first rockets were weapons ...we rode to space on the tip of giant missiles. We were driven by war. ... We rode those rockets to the Moon."





The person who has brought this view into the mainstream, as I have spoken of previously here, is Neil deGrasse Tyson. Here's his speech from last year where he explains his book "Space Chronicles", a book which he says he wanted it to title it:



"Failure to Launch: The Dreams and Delusions of Space Enthusiasts"



This is a very long speech he gives, but this link is cued up to a section where in a couple of minutes he explains JFK's 1961 speech as persuading that it is...



"...the War Driver that led to the Check Writing."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErZq2ZQQTrs&t=42m50s


Huge kudos to NdT.


~ CT


Except Russia never had intentions or having taken aggressive actions as representing any real threat to America. Virtually all the fears and any notions of a national threat from Russia was perpetrated and/or exploited by those of our MIC.

  #4  
Old October 21st 13, 06:03 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,177
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:59:07 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

Neil deGrasse Tyson




I have mixed feelings about this guy. On one hand, he presents

information to the "mainstream" in an easy to understand fashion. On

the other hand, he often spouts views that seem unsupported, likely

because he's reluctant to delve too far into the details, lest he

"lose" his mainstream audience.



Also, he's an astrophysicist, so I often find his views on aerospace

engineering to be, at best, lacking. But the main "thrust" of this book

seems to be what motivated the space program in the '60's and what

should motivate it in the present and future.



I find it curious that you provided the old title to his book "Failure

to Launch: The Dreams and Delusions of Space Enthusiasts", when the book

title is actually: "Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier" by

Neil deGrasse Tyson.



I've not read the book, but from the reviews I've read, the first part

is a restating of "the space race" as we all know it. Fueled by the

Cold War, the Space Race, was nothing more than a *&^# waving contest

between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was a contest, an alternative

to nuclear war, to "prove" which country (and ideology) was superior.

The Soviet Union was clearly in the lead, until the U.S. decided to put

a man on the moon with a "waste anything but time" mantra.



Oddly enough, the U.S. took a socialistic approach of a single program

led by few people at the very top. The Soviet Union had a few competing

camps in both the launch vehicle (missile) and spacecraft arenas. In

other words, a more "competitive" approach which was much closer to

capitalism than the U.S. approach. It's therefore somewhat ironic that

the U.S. claims that it "won" the Space Race by putting a man on the

moon in 1969.



Only now, with the budgetary necessity of the "commercial cargo" and

"commercial crew" initiatives is the U.S. starting to approach space

travel in a more capitalistic manner. Oddly enough, the budgetary

crisis is being caused by the gigantic, socialistic, congressionally

mandated, SLS/Orion program. SLS/Orion is so huge, from a budgetary

perspective, that there is little to no money for any actual payloads!

So, on one hand Congress mandates yet another huge, socialistic, mega-

program (SLS/Orion) with one set of winners picked by NASA, but the day

to day manned space program (ISS) is being run on a shoestring budget in

a capitalistic, competitive, manner.



The good news is that the "commercial" programs are showing much more

progress, with far less money spent, than the mega-project. Hopefully

this means that people will begin to realize that "the emperor has no

clothes".



So, goof-ball proposals like "unmanned asteroid retrieval" with

SLS/Orion visiting the asteroid only when it is brought back to the

earth/moon system are being floated by NASA. I personally think this is

the dumbest idea ever. Why use an *unmanned* mission to bring an

asteroid close to earth to study when SLS/Orion was intended to fly far

beyond LEO.



Very strange times, to say the least.



Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


It's just another mainstream status-quo game that the oligarchs and Bilderbergs get to play in order to get the rest of us hooked on paying for everything multiple times over. The very last thing they really want is to see any private exploitation of our moon or Venus, although a little frozen to death planet of a relatively worthless Mars seems perfectly good to go after..

  #5  
Old October 22nd 13, 04:54 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 529
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

From Jeff Findley:

I have mixed feelings about this guy. On one hand, he presents
information to the "mainstream" in an easy to understand fashion. On
the other hand, he often spouts views that seem unsupported, likely
because he's reluctant to delve too far into the details, lest he
"lose" his mainstream audience.

Also, he's an astrophysicist, so I often find his views on aerospace
engineering to be, at best, lacking. But the main "thrust" of this book
seems to be what motivated the space program in the '60's and what
should motivate it in the present and future.


A delicious example of his limitations in aerospace engineering is right there in that speech where at one point he tries to pronounce the company name Martin Marietta, but what comes out of his mouth is:

"Martin Marionetta".

Hahah! Good ole Ike would have gotten a kick out of that one, imagining the industry side of the military-industrial complex as having puppet strings to so easily pull on!

I find it curious that you provided the old title to his book "Failure
to Launch: The Dreams and Delusions of Space Enthusiasts", when the book
title is actually: "Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier" by
Neil deGrasse Tyson.


I say that because his preferred title fits exactly with the message he is delivering. And he even explicitly shares this story in the speech, he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErZq2ZQQTrs&t=49m48s

He states in no uncertain terms that the 'Delusions' title is the one that he had submitted to the publisher, but they had a cow over that. The title got switched to something far more palatable to the general public.

~ CT



I've not read the book, but from the reviews I've read, the first part
is a restating of "the space race" as we all know it. Fueled by the
Cold War, the Space Race, was nothing more than a *&^# waving contest
between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was a contest, an alternative
to nuclear war, to "prove" which country (and ideology) was superior.
The Soviet Union was clearly in the lead, until the U.S. decided to put
a man on the moon with a "waste anything but time" mantra.

Oddly enough, the U.S. took a socialistic approach of a single program
led by few people at the very top. The Soviet Union had a few competing
camps in both the launch vehicle (missile) and spacecraft arenas. In
other words, a more "competitive" approach which was much closer to
capitalism than the U.S. approach. It's therefore somewhat ironic that
the U.S. claims that it "won" the Space Race by putting a man on the
moon in 1969.

Only now, with the budgetary necessity of the "commercial cargo" and
"commercial crew" initiatives is the U.S. starting to approach space
travel in a more capitalistic manner. Oddly enough, the budgetary
crisis is being caused by the gigantic, socialistic, congressionally
mandated, SLS/Orion program. SLS/Orion is so huge, from a budgetary
perspective, that there is little to no money for any actual payloads!
So, on one hand Congress mandates yet another huge, socialistic, mega-
program (SLS/Orion) with one set of winners picked by NASA, but the day
to day manned space program (ISS) is being run on a shoestring budget in
a capitalistic, competitive, manner.

The good news is that the "commercial" programs are showing much more
progress, with far less money spent, than the mega-project. Hopefully
this means that people will begin to realize that "the emperor has no
clothes".

So, goof-ball proposals like "unmanned asteroid retrieval" with
SLS/Orion visiting the asteroid only when it is brought back to the
earth/moon system are being floated by NASA. I personally think this is
the dumbest idea ever. Why use an *unmanned* mission to bring an
asteroid close to earth to study when SLS/Orion was intended to fly far
beyond LEO.

Very strange times, to say the least.

  #6  
Old October 22nd 13, 05:28 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 529
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

From Brad Guth:
On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:51:11 AM UTC-7, Stuf4 wrote:

Hola. It's clear that there has been a solid shift toward understanding
that the Space Race was driven by the nuclear threat, and this view is now
established in the mainstream. The latest video I'm aware of is this PBS
Digital Studio spot that answers the question,

snip
~ CT


Except Russia never had intentions or having taken aggressive actions as
representing any real threat to America. Virtually all the fears and any
notions of a national threat from Russia was perpetrated and/or exploited by
those of our MIC.


I *totally* disagree with that.

The USSR certainly had the option to stay put on the other side of the globe without presenting a threat to the USA. But on August 29, 1949, they made the deliberate choice to punch their card as the second member of the nuclear club. That is not a club you join *without* fully knowing that you will instantly become a serious threat to all who see you to be their enemy.

And then eight years later, on August 21, 1957, they cranked up the intensity of the threat they presented by demonstrating their ability to deliver nuclear warheads at the speed of Domino's Pizza.

"Guaranteed to destroy your city in 30 minutes or less, or your next warhead is free."

The R-7 was a huge game changer. A country that is not trying to threaten others does not develop an entirely new class of weapons such as the ICBM.

Now the point that I would say regarding the Soviet role in the Cold War is that they were not the aggressors. They developed nukes and even the R-7 in *response* to the huge threat that the USofA posed to them.

....but then we could back that up a step and say that the US developed nukes in *response* to the huge threat posed by the Third Reich.

....and we can back that up a step further to say that the Third Reich was acting in *response* to the huge threat they lived under as a result of the WWI outcome.

....and the most thorough historian would trace this entire chain back to pre-history, where it could then be handed over to anthropologists who would tell us that this cycle of violence traces back to the very dawn of hominids.

....and the most thorough anthropologist would hand this off to the evolutionary biologists who would tell us that this cycle of violence existed in the animal kingdom long before humans and proto-humans existed. And they'd show the evidence that this type of behavior happened even before the Animal kingdom arose from the Plant kingdom.

Violence is so ingrained in the natural order of things in this world that I see it to be a mistake to draw arbitrary lines of separation and to say that "this group was innocent of threats and aggression whereas this group was guilty".

If we are to ever evolve beyond this cycle of violence, we must first own up to our collective complicity.

~ CT
  #7  
Old October 24th 13, 03:05 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,177
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:28:51 PM UTC-7, Stuf4 wrote:
From Brad Guth:

On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:51:11 AM UTC-7, Stuf4 wrote:




Hola. It's clear that there has been a solid shift toward understanding


that the Space Race was driven by the nuclear threat, and this view is now


established in the mainstream. The latest video I'm aware of is this PBS


Digital Studio spot that answers the question,


snip

~ CT




Except Russia never had intentions or having taken aggressive actions as


representing any real threat to America. Virtually all the fears and any


notions of a national threat from Russia was perpetrated and/or exploited by


those of our MIC.




I *totally* disagree with that.



The USSR certainly had the option to stay put on the other side of the globe without presenting a threat to the USA. But on August 29, 1949, they made the deliberate choice to punch their card as the second member of the nuclear club. That is not a club you join *without* fully knowing that you will instantly become a serious threat to all who see you to be their enemy..



And then eight years later, on August 21, 1957, they cranked up the intensity of the threat they presented by demonstrating their ability to deliver nuclear warheads at the speed of Domino's Pizza.



"Guaranteed to destroy your city in 30 minutes or less, or your next warhead is free."



The R-7 was a huge game changer. A country that is not trying to threaten others does not develop an entirely new class of weapons such as the ICBM..



Now the point that I would say regarding the Soviet role in the Cold War is that they were not the aggressors. They developed nukes and even the R-7 in *response* to the huge threat that the USofA posed to them.



...but then we could back that up a step and say that the US developed nukes in *response* to the huge threat posed by the Third Reich.



...and we can back that up a step further to say that the Third Reich was acting in *response* to the huge threat they lived under as a result of the WWI outcome.



...and the most thorough historian would trace this entire chain back to pre-history, where it could then be handed over to anthropologists who would tell us that this cycle of violence traces back to the very dawn of hominids.



...and the most thorough anthropologist would hand this off to the evolutionary biologists who would tell us that this cycle of violence existed in the animal kingdom long before humans and proto-humans existed. And they'd show the evidence that this type of behavior happened even before the Animal kingdom arose from the Plant kingdom.



Violence is so ingrained in the natural order of things in this world that I see it to be a mistake to draw arbitrary lines of separation and to say that "this group was innocent of threats and aggression whereas this group was guilty".



If we are to ever evolve beyond this cycle of violence, we must first own up to our collective complicity.


~ CT


The mutually perpetrated cold-war era was always intended to benefit and promote each of the respective MICs. Russia was never a direct or even an indirect threat to honest hard working Americans. Russia and the US basically created North Korea. Obviously you've never been an honest hard working American, so there's always going to be a problem no matters what the evidence of insiders and their skulduggery has to say.

Are you actually suggesting that our government and its dozens of agencies have always told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

  #8  
Old October 27th 13, 12:17 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 529
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

From Brad Guth:
snip
: The mutually perpetrated cold-war era was always intended to benefit and
: promote each of the respective MICs. Russia was never a direct or even an
: indirect threat to honest hard working Americans. Russia and the US basically
: created North Korea. Obviously you've never been an honest hard working
: American, so there's always going to be a problem no matters what the
: evidence of insiders and their skulduggery has to say. Are you actually
: suggesting that our government and its dozens of agencies have always told us
: the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

In our current age of Wikileaks and such, I don't think there is anyone around who would maintain that our government has a sterling record of honesty.

~ CT
  #9  
Old October 27th 13, 08:07 PM posted to sci.space.history
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

In article ,
Stuf4 wrote:

From Brad Guth:
snip
: The mutually perpetrated cold-war era was always intended to benefit and
: promote each of the respective MICs. Russia was never a direct or even an
: indirect threat to honest hard working Americans. Russia and the US
: basically
: created North Korea. Obviously you've never been an honest hard working
: American, so there's always going to be a problem no matters what the
: evidence of insiders and their skulduggery has to say. Are you actually
: suggesting that our government and its dozens of agencies have always told
: us
: the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

In our current age of Wikileaks and such, I don't think there is anyone
around who would maintain that our government has a sterling record of
honesty.

~ CT


.... nor any other government, for that matter. This fact is a major
paradox for those who believe that more government is desirable.
  #10  
Old October 28th 13, 07:11 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,177
Default Space Race Driven By Nuclear Threat - Shift Toward Understanding

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:17:06 AM UTC-7, Stuf4 wrote:
From Brad Guth:

snip

: The mutually perpetrated cold-war era was always intended to benefit and

: promote each of the respective MICs. Russia was never a direct or even an

: indirect threat to honest hard working Americans. Russia and the US basically

: created North Korea. Obviously you've never been an honest hard working

: American, so there's always going to be a problem no matters what the

: evidence of insiders and their skulduggery has to say. Are you actually

: suggesting that our government and its dozens of agencies have always told us

: the whole truth and nothing but the truth?



In our current age of Wikileaks and such, I don't think there is anyone around who would maintain that our government has a sterling record of honesty.


~ CT


It never was sterling from the very get-go. However as of more lately it's getting totally out of control. The mutually perpetrated cold-war era that nearly started WW3 was even better off.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space Race Driven By The Nuclear Threat - Now A Mainstream Understanding Stuf4 History 47 March 8th 12 02:31 PM
Meteor threat: Obama: 'A credible terrorist threat against our country' Warhol[_1_] Misc 12 November 1st 10 01:16 PM
Race and the Space Race David Lesher History 1 February 21st 10 09:27 AM
Understanding Killer Electrons in Space (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 July 17th 07 08:08 PM
Key to understanding universe is understanding our brains GatherNoMoss Policy 8 October 3rd 06 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.