Posted on 02/08/2020 6:51:49 AM PST by DUMBGRUNT
McNamara. Forgot about that.
I am not downplaying the NASA programs but the Soviets had first landing on another planet (not the moon which is a close sattelite) in 1970.
They sent digital imagery from Venus in earlier 1980s. In US you have seen other planets in Star Wars movies at the time.
They had advanced manned space stations and about ten times as many space launches manned included.
Apollo program is the very definition of the dangerous stunt. So is the space shuttle and more so. The death rate for US astronaut per flight was 100 times than that of the Soviet before NASA contracted the Russian flights.
Yea, that guy was a one-man wrecking ball. Amazing how a handful of (modified) votes in Chicago changed the course of the world, and very nearly resulted in a nuclear war (over Cuba).
In fact post Cold War NASA has a lot to be proud about.
Their NSTAR engine is a gem although based on a Russian technology.
They managed to refine it and accelerated a spacecraft all across a solar system to near 30000 miles per hour and spent less than a thousand pounds of fuel while at it.
I understand what you’re saying and agree about the lack if impetus.
But it’s more than that. NASA has devolved as an agency. Political Correctness and the inability to even choose “the best and the brightest” have had their impact. Challenger was forgivable. The Columbia was not. NASA’s best is in its past.
I have enjoyed some amazing documentaries I found on YouTube about the Apollo and other space programs, for what it’s worth. The shear magnitude of systems development, testing, manufacturing and management that went into it is mind-blowing. And that’s not even looking at the technical challenges.
Nearly had, but never actually had. Due to poor engineering and design - it might ave been comparable but, since not one example was ever made - let alone flown, the comparison is mute and academic.
It never happened, since there are no pictures and, which is what the article says - it never was. I have some sketches you could buy for a small price, as does my boss in Nigeria - full details on where to send the money are on our wiki page.
Alternately, there are full color brochures assuring us that people with capes and logos on their chests are real too.
Viking,
I appreciate your perspective, but the US had Viking taking pictures on Mars in the 70’s, too, in addition to the wonderful Star Wars movies.
You used the words “advanced” and “intensive”, which, for me, conjure up images of efforts far more massive than any of these probe missions.
For instance, I think more effort went into the US Gemini program at its time, than all Soviet space efforts up to that time. And that was just to find out that Earth Orbit Rendevous was a stupid idea that wasn’t going to work.
Apollo certainly was a “stunt” to put a man on the Moon to whack a golf ball! But, that wasn’t really the point, as the effort to accomplish that was so unbelievably huge it dwarfed all other efforts in space.
The Space Shuttle isn’t even a stunt. It was a lowering of goals by a NASA that knew that its days of unlimited funding were over.
The ISS is being supplied now by a stockpile of Cold War Soviet booster engines. Probably, this is the best use for them.
I appreciate Russian scientific achievement. It was badly abused by the Soviet government, but it helped stimulate what I am sure is going to be the greatest period of technological advancement that is going to happen in my lifetime.
I am not completely disagree but I mentioned Apollo and Viking.
Comparing Mars to Venus as equal environments is not really correct. The best places of Mars has generally the same enronmnent as Tibet. The Venus is more like a Mariana Trench then it comes to the atmospheric pressure, it is 900 degree hot and the wind (or flow) blows harder than the hurricane Katrina.
I was visited by the son of US developers of the US nuclear-powered aircraft. I read about it later at Wikipedia—was news to me!
And you should hear the Italian curse words I’m calling you for exercising so much and making me feel guilty.
What did I ever do to you?!?!
For some reason, your persona has seized a few of my brain cells?
I was searching for some old Army stuff and dug out my old footlocker. And then I saw it(?) a sacred relic that I had carried in RVN!!!
I never knew how special it was until a few years back, I happened to mention it to a friend, he knew about such things. A simple white handkerchief BLESSED BY THE POPE!
He said it was a BIG DEAL! (I’m Lutheran, not Catholic)
Just before leaving the US and visiting friends a neighbor girl came over and said that her grandma wanted to see me, I only knew them slightly.
Grandma only spoke Italian so the granddaughter translated.
They handed me a white envelope with some writing and a date with the handkerchief inside, they said it would help keep me safe.
I carried it most of the time, the paper envelope fell apart, while in the hospital it became mixed in with other handkerchiefs! They took all my personal stuff and put in a footlocker and shipped it out.
My friend is now sadly gone so I ask you.
Any help in determining the real one from the others?
Is it a big deal?
Nothing personal, and I get the distinct impression you carry a torch for the Soviet Union, but...the MIG-25 was a waste of money and a joke.
And anything the Soviets did with satellites didn’t help the citizens of that country one bit...
You seem to miss my point-it isn’t the American scientists that produced things that outperformed Soviet products-they themselves aren’t exceptional-American Exceptionalism is the combination of the Scientists with our Republic.
Mig-25 was a role model for F-15 among other things.
I have no love for the Soviet Union and quite contrary but facts are facts.
Nah you can get the whole bunch blessed by any priest for free. it’s all the same
I’ll do it for $15 :-)
.
‘VERSION’ and something that actually OPERATIONALLY WORKS are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
.
*ping*
“...the XB-70 came to being AFTER Kennedy was elected...
Had multiple problems which seemed to get worked out. It could do as advertised and hit Mach 3. What truly killed it was the mid-air accident that killed a chase plane pilot and one of the Valkyrie pilots.” [hoagy62, post 24]
None of these statements are correct.
As early as 1947, the US Air Force began drafting a requirement for a manned bomber capable of supersonic flight and intercontinental range.
The B-70 was developed to satisfy WS-110A, a specification published in 1955 to answer a mission requirement USAF had published the year before.
Research was cutting-edge and necessarily complex; changing requirements, politics (national, interservice, intraservice etc), bureaucratic reorganization, and competing concepts combined to delay progress yet more. Selection of North American as the system contractor was announced in late 1957. Initial operational capability slipped, from 1963 to 1965.
Late in 1959, President Eisenhower reckoned that forecast funding levels would delay operational capability until 1967 or 1969. On 1 December 1959, USAF announced the program would be reduced to a single airframe and most subsystem development was canceled.
The games weren’t over.
The 1960 election campaigns rekindled interest; a new contract was signed in late September; production of 12 aircraft was authorized.
The incoming Kennedy administration reevaluated the program and altered it in April 1961, to a development-only effort. Three aircraft were authorized.
From August 1961 through April 1962, the administration tussled with Congress over the fate of the program. The legislators voted funds for up to 210 aircraft to be built in a modified reconnaissance/strike configuration; Secretary of Defense Robert S McNamara made clear his complete opposition to any new manned bomber and refused to release the funds.
The first air vehicle was rolled out in early May 1964. A couple months later, the program was reduced further: air vehicle 3, then being built, was canceled. The test program was reduced to 180 flight hours.
First flight took place on 21 September 1964.
The mid-air collision resulting in the destruction of air vehicle 2 occurred on 8 June 1966.
Final flight took place on 4 February 1969.
It can thus be seen that the B-70 predated the election of John F Kennedy by a number years, and that mid-air collision did not stop the program.
Forum members interested in examining the subject in detail should read _Valkyrie: North American’s Mach 3 Superbomber_ by Dennis R Jenkins and Tony R Landis (North Branch MN: Specialty Press, 2004) ISBN-13 978-1-58007-130-7
I’ll do it for $15 :-)
And such a deal!
That work must keep you gainfully employed.
Have you considered a writ of indulgence franchise?
Unsure about the franchise agreement, it may require a vow of chastity?
ROFL
Well with my love life lately... :)
Good gosh, the MIG-25 was no “role model” for the F-15. About the only commonality between those two platforms is the twin tail.
Those two aircraft had two completely different missions-the MIG-25 was an interceptor, and the program resulting in the F-15 was prompted by the MIG-25, but not because of the plane itself but because the US erroneously thought it was an air superiority fighter, which it was not.
The gross weight of the MIG-25 was 20,000 lbs greater than the F-15. Those aircraft aren’t in the same universe when it comes to size, performance, range or mission (Speaking of the F-15A)
Facts are indeed facts. Those last two paragraphs are indisputable facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.