Orn, Oh, I guess I jumped on any excuse to talk about aerospace/military, no abuse intended to you. It is a shared hobby/career at my house, and I have met so many interesting people in that industry. As you can tell, I am close to the military and have family and friends in most government agencies, and love to discuss them, good and bad. Space propulsion is my favorite.
Remember hearing about Avro Arrow but it was more for manned travel. Geeks that designed it came out of Canada and started working for NASA....yep, 10 years later "walkin on the moon". Nice story:) You would like this book... http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/Avroengineers.html What do you think of the future of space stations? Russia has a stick up its bum right now, so wonder how that will affect collaborations?? On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:17 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > "...The original deployment system for North America..." - orn > > Now I feel confused, used and perhaps abused. I was basing my comment > on what I thought was a documentary film a few years ago as well as > some online research I did at the time. > Now it appears that, even though there remains much misinformation > about the company, planes and cause of demise, the information may > have been a bit of mythomania. Specifically, I am talking about the > Avro Arrow. As I remember it, there were reports, films and > discussions about it's capability to launch satellites into space…now > I can't find the sources. So, will table it for now. > > > On Nov 5, 7:24 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Orn, I was referring to your own passage below in the reference to > satellite > > delivery systems... > > > > <<<The original deployment system for North America was going > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way.>>> > > > > that response I sent was directly pointed to this sentence. The original > > deployment vehicles were always to be rocketry. Big, fast, and ugly. > They > > used rocket delivery instead of aircraft for the obvious reasons, as I am > > sure you know. Mostly, I think, because we could test missile > capabilities > > simultaneously demonstrating how far our reach extended...on both sides > of > > course. Cold War contest. > > > > very important stuff, those satellites. practical uses for military and > > civilians. This tech birthed GPS, which was only used by the military > > until, what, the last 10 years? Not a bad innovation. > > > > Ode to Arthur C. Clarke:) > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "... Flight delivery? ...not practical and not used until after cold > > > war a bit.... " - CB > > > > > I don't know what you are apparently criticizing here, sorry. > > > > > And, when it comes to sputnick, I still remember the headlines. I even > > > bought a Revel model of it. And, in the late 50s, I was most likely > > > one of the very few in Indiana to purchase and read magazines from and > > > about Russian rockets. Everyone else was afraid to be called a 'Red' > > > if they even picked them up, let alone read them. > > > > > On Nov 4, 1:30 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<<You next ask, rhetorically perhaps, about satellite technology. > Again, > > > > even the original satellites (Russian) were developed in academic > > > > settings. The original deployment system for North America was going > > > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way. Of > > > > course, since the vast majority of all satellites in use today are > for > > > > covert military use, your question is almost a tautology>>>> > > > > > > Satellite delivery and deployment at that time was rocket based > mostly > > > > because everyone was worried about missile development and using > rocketry > > > > just made one more workable link in the test system. Flight > delivery? > > > > ...not practical and not used until after cold war a bit.... > > > > > > this was the method similar to Russia's sputnik delivery... > > > > > >http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM, ornamentalmind < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > CB, when I used the term cancer, it was an analogy in response to > your > > > > > (also hyperbolic and comparative as truth) post: > > > > > "…I know this little note is a spoof, but in a global society how > can > > > > > we Not police the planet? that is like letting the guy down the > street > > > > > corner beat the shit out of his wife and kids in his front yard and > > > > > watching without response. Oh, yeah diplomatic > > > > > relations...sanctions...." – CB on 10-28 > > > > > > > Looking at my post in context, I didn't say that I was 'against > > > > > anything military'. In general, I accepted the reality of the > > > > > situation. "I do not deny that today, yesterday, tomorrow, a year > from > > > > > now as well as a hundred years ago there were, are and will be > those > > > > > who wish to do harm to other people including the people currently > in > > > > > the USA. When this 'truth' is 'solved' by becoming State Terrorists > in > > > > > a perpetual war, a greater 'truth' arises and that is that 'we' > > > > > perpetually are attracting an even greater amount of ire. This > 'truth' > > > > > has always been known." – Orn – 10-28 > > > > > > > I do find the Orwelian notion of perpetual war against a method > rather > > > > > than people for political purposes with obvious and well known > results > > > > > to be as close to 'sin' as one who does not embrace the notion of > sin > > > > > can find. > > > > > > > Also, my direct observation about the two methods of: > > > > > 1. Agreement > > > > > 2. Force > > > > > …would seem to be reality based in this context too. > > > > > > > You continue with a list of organizations including Homeland > Security. > > > > > Here, since even many within the organization think it was at the > very > > > > > best ill-conceived, and at the worst an impediment for response, a > > > > > bloated and grossly expensive bureaucracy that in fact does nothing > > > > > better, same people in functions etc. I question why you even > > > > > mentioned it. > > > > > > > The Army Corp of Engineers are well known to emulate beavers. They > > > > > have built bridges for decades, many of which were not necessary, > many > > > > > of which were poorly conceived and implemented. [see: New Orleans > > > > > among a legion of other places] This is all well documented and > > > > > available for all to know. So, at least in this way I am against > this > > > > > group. > > > > > > > I don't know much about the National Guard, other than it is not > only > > > > > being grossly abused and misused, leaving the 'nation' at risk to > > > > > 'homeland' issues from natural disasters to the omnipresent > 'invasion' > > > > > across our boarders. > > > > > > > This leaves the Coast Guard. Again, since it is mainly being used > for > > > > > the 'War on Drugs'….. And, how is that war going? (irony) > > > > > > > Little of the above criticizes the individuals in each > organization. > > > > > More to the point the different group functions, methods, > > > > > administration and leadership as well as how each is directed by > the > > > > > current regime, are more of what should be examined. > > > > > > > When it comes to the Arctic, sadly this area is on the way out. Oh, > do > > > > > you reject global warming? If so, I'll have to support this I > guess. > > > > > When it comes to the Antarctic, see: > > >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1093824/ > > > > > A WONDERFUL and informative movie. The clips alone are worth the > time. > > > > > > > You say that deep-sea mapping wouldn't exist w/o the military. > While I > > > > > don't know for sure, my guess is that either it would be done by > the > > > > > educational system, 'publish or die', scientific community, other > > > > > countries or by the private sector IF it is in fact worthwhile in > any > > > > > objective sense. > > > > > > > You next ask, rhetorically perhaps, about satellite technology. > Again, > > > > > even the original satellites (Russian) were developed in academic > > > > > settings. The original deployment system for North America was > going > > > > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way. Of > > > > > course, since the vast majority of all satellites in use today are > for > > > > > covert military use, your question is almost a tautology. > > > > > > > When one does a review of US history, we did quite well without a > > > > > standing army for quite a while. In fact, it was proposed by > Jefferson > > > > > to explicitly outlaw one in the Constitution. A good overview of > the > > > > > situation and foundational ideas can be found here: > > > > >http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm > > > > > > > Next, you ask the Faustian question of "…Sanctions only work if > they > > > > > are backed up by potential force. Would you privatize all of it?.." > > > > > > > First, we can do an analysis of 'sanctions'. However, since there > are > > > > > thousands of 'em, I won't take the time to do so now. IF you have > > > > > specific ones you are interested in, we can do that. As to > privatizing > > > > > the military, that has already happened. Well, not every last > person, > > > > > but everything from the mess tent to toilet paper, from Blackwater > to > > > > > Haliburton. And, of course, the private sector is always more > > > > > expensive. Articles about the cost of the war are ubiquitous. Here > is > > > > > one from a year or so ago: > > > > >http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/the_cost.html > > > > > > > As I've said, IF I could, I would reinstate the draft. And, for > other > > > > > views about the military industrial complex, I'll assume you are > > > > > familiar with Eisenhower's last speech about it. > > > > > > > Your question, "What would happen to civilian flight all over the > > > > > planet without the constant threat of military airbases strung > > > > > throughout?" perplexes me, so I won't address it now. > > > > > > > Your next question, "The world would be plunged in petty > dictatorships > > > > > and out the window with globalization don't you think?" seems to > > > > > tacitly include many assumptions. Shouldn't we begin with these > first? > > > > > > > When you said "It is more complex that just spending money on "the > > > > > war" in Iraq.", you state the obvious and in no way would/could I > > > > > disagree. > > > > > > > However, "The whole machinery is inextricable from our lives.", > > > > > appears to reject free will or at least a more detailed and > holistic > > > > > analysis and understanding. > > > > > > > And, in this and most situations, I don't look for the dichotomy. > Your > > > > > wish to find 'balance' between two sides reduces most things to > polar > > > > > opposites. As effective as this is in simplifying issues, I find it > > > > > seldom brings about wisdom or knowledge. > > > > > > > "We agree the military was misused in Iraq. What were better > options? > > > > > More sanctions?" - CB > > > > > > > This is an enormous question that can even be traced back to when > the > > > > > Britt stumbled out of his tent drunk one night and said the border > of > > > > > Iraq would be 'there' as he stumbled and fell on the sand in a > > > > > stupor. > > > > > > > Quickly though, 'better options' were to leave a sovereign nation > > > > > alone as global law dictated. OR, once occupied, get out! The > > > > > sanctions were draconian and caused the suffering and loss of life > to > > > > > untold numbers of citizens. Perhaps, after 10 years, recognize the > > > > > quagmire? Perhaps, elect a president with an IQ higher than a > plant? > > > > > Perhaps accept the intel acquired as 'true'? Perhaps, not pit Iraq > > > > > against Iran for over a decade? The list of much better options > could > > > > > reach the moon. > > > > > > > "I would fight > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
