A Memorial Day Posting, Of Sorts.... - Index 01.jpg (1/1)

[Mitchell Holman[_5_]]

[®i©ardo]

On 30/05/2010 13:08, Mitchell Holman wrote:

Thank you for posting, they are a timely reminder that despite
considering ourselves the conquerors of the skies our own mortality is
but a short step away.

Hmm, a bit deep that...

--
Moving things in still pictures

[Mitchell Holman[_5_]]

®i©ardo > wrote in
:

> On 30/05/2010 13:08, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> Thank you for posting, they are a timely reminder that despite
> considering ourselves the conquerors of the skies our own mortality is
> but a short step away.
>
> Hmm, a bit deep that...
>


I can remember the nationwide shock at the launch
of Sputnik, that the US was NOT superior to everyone
at everything.

[®i©ardo]

On 31/05/2010 22:28, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 30/05/2010 13:08, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for posting, they are a timely reminder that despite
>> considering ourselves the conquerors of the skies our own mortality is
>> but a short step away.
>>
>> Hmm, a bit deep that...
>>
>
>
> I can remember the nationwide shock at the launch
> of Sputnik, that the US was NOT superior to everyone
> at everything.
>
>
>
>
>
>

So can I.

I actually saw it in orbit - that was in the dark, as a moving dot of
light - and was able to pick up its signals when it was line of sight on
my home made crystal radio set.

--
Moving things in still pictures

[rabid_fan]

On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:28:22 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:

>
> I can remember the nationwide shock at the launch
> of Sputnik, that the US was NOT superior to everyone at everything.
>

The nationwide shock was the delusion of an ignorant populace.

Those who knew anything understood that Sputnik was an
insignificant bit of theatrics.

Eisenhower, for example, dismissed the whole affair as trivial.

Disclaimer: I was not born until well after Sputnik, but
my historical research reveals the truth.

[Jess Lurkin]

rabid_fan > wrote in news:pan.2010.06.01.21.26.06
@righthere.net:

> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:28:22 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>>
>> I can remember the nationwide shock at the launch
>> of Sputnik, that the US was NOT superior to everyone at everything.
>>
>
> The nationwide shock was the delusion of an ignorant populace.
>
> Those who knew anything understood that Sputnik was an
> insignificant bit of theatrics.
>
> Eisenhower, for example, dismissed the whole affair as trivial.
>
> Disclaimer: I was not born until well after Sputnik, but
> my historical research reveals the truth.
>

Absolutely right.

The Ike Admin had been able to launch and orbit recon sats several
years prior to Spudnik (sic). They were just too afraid of the
bear being provoked to the point of pushing a red button.

Spudnik made the issue moot...

[Mitchell Holman[_5_]]

Jess Lurkin <NULL> wrote in news:Xns9D8AB055CFBD8IPHIDEinuseALERT@
74.209.136.92:

> rabid_fan > wrote in news:pan.2010.06.01.21.26.06
> @righthere.net:
>
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:28:22 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I can remember the nationwide shock at the launch
>>> of Sputnik, that the US was NOT superior to everyone at everything.
>>>
>>
>> The nationwide shock was the delusion of an ignorant populace.
>>
>> Those who knew anything understood that Sputnik was an
>> insignificant bit of theatrics.
>>
>> Eisenhower, for example, dismissed the whole affair as trivial.
>>
>> Disclaimer: I was not born until well after Sputnik, but
>> my historical research reveals the truth.
>>
>
> Absolutely right.
>
> The Ike Admin had been able to launch and orbit recon sats several
> years prior to Spudnik (sic). They were just too afraid of the
> bear being provoked to the point of pushing a red button.


Of course, for a whole year after Sputnik the
US orbital rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad,
showing just how "able" the US was..........

[rabid_fan]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:28:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:

>
> Of course, for a whole year after Sputnik the
> US orbital rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad, showing just how
> "able" the US was..........

Dubbed by the popular press the Stayputnik ...

But when the US finally did achieve orbit, the first satellites
contained sophisticated payloads that delivered useful scientific
knowledge. Compare that to the Sputnik payload which was only
a cheap radio transmitter intended to dazzle the ignorant masses
with its incessant (and useless) "bleeping." That was a measure
of the Soviet state of the art.

[Mitchell Holman[_5_]]

rabid_fan > wrote in news:pan.2010.06.02.01.47.09
@righthere.net:

> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:28:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course, for a whole year after Sputnik the
>> US orbital rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad, showing just how
>> "able" the US was..........
>
> Dubbed by the popular press the Stayputnik ...
>
> But when the US finally did achieve orbit, the first satellites
> contained sophisticated payloads that delivered useful scientific
> knowledge. Compare that to the Sputnik payload which was only
> a cheap radio transmitter intended to dazzle the ignorant masses
> with its incessant (and useless) "bleeping." That was a measure
> of the Soviet state of the art.
>
>


Of course Sputnik was primitive. But it got into
orbit, something it took the US over a year to imitate.

The plus side was it kick-started US educational
standards and ushered in the priority of math and
science education that served NASA well in the
following decades.

[Jess Lurkin]

Mitchell Holman > wrote in
30:

snip

>
>
> Of course, for a whole year after Sputnik the
> US orbital rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad,
> showing just how "able" the US was..........
>


Painting with a wide brush there, pilgrim. Refine your
searches. Read more (recently printed) history books.
Quit using Hollyweird as a source (your comment sounds
suspiciously close to a verbatim quote from the script
of "The Right Stuff"). One of these days you may
actually learn the full extent of what was really going
on back in those days.

Just in the last few years has some of the records/info seen
the light of day. Much of what you may believe as history
might actually have been a govt. subterfuge.

[Mitchell Holman[_5_]]

Jess Lurkin <NULL> wrote in news:Xns9D8AED8D8266BIPHIDEinuseALERT@
74.209.136.81:

> Mitchell Holman > wrote in
> 30:
>
> snip
>
>>
>>
>> Of course, for a whole year after Sputnik the
>> US orbital rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad,
>> showing just how "able" the US was..........
>>
>
>
> Painting with a wide brush there, pilgrim. Refine your
> searches. Read more (recently printed) history books.
> Quit using Hollyweird as a source (your comment sounds
> suspiciously close to a verbatim quote from the script
> of "The Right Stuff"). One of these days you may
> actually learn the full extent of what was really going
> on back in those days.
>
> Just in the last few years has some of the records/info seen
> the light of day. Much of what you may believe as history
> might actually have been a govt. subterfuge.
>
>


"As the first tangible effort to counter the apparent Soviet
leadership in space technology, the White House announced that
the United States would test launch a Project Vanguard booster
on 6 December 1957. The media was invited to witness the launch
in the hope that it could help restore public confidence, but
it was a disaster of the first order. During the ignition sequence,
the rocket rose about three feet above the platform, shook briefly,
and disintegrated in flames. John Hagen, who had been working
feverishly to ready the rocket for flight, was demoralized. He felt
even worse after the next test. On 5 February 1958, the Vanguard
launch vehicle reached an altitude of four miles and then exploded."

http://tinyurl.com/2fyfpp5

[rabid_fan]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:06:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:

>
> Of course Sputnik was primitive. But it got into
> orbit, something it took the US over a year to imitate.
>

The story is complex and perhaps best discussed in alt.history
or something.

But, to be brief, the massive Soviet push to develop and
showcase a rocket that had orbital capabilities was a direct
response to their own nuclear bomber inferiority (an inferiority
which persisted until the very end of the cold war).

Furthermore, the US military had plans for orbital satellites
well before Sputnik but were concerned about the political
ramifications of sending space objects over foreign territory.
Ironically, the Soviet Sputnik launch only dissolved those
concerns.


> The plus side was it kick-started US educational
> standards and ushered in the priority of math and science education that
> served NASA well in the following decades.
>

If public hysteria has value, that was it, I suppose.

Consider the following quote (LA Times, 1957):

One proud exception to the general knicker-twisting? The editorial
board of the Los Angeles Times, whose primary response to the news
of Sputnik's launch was a Pattonesque slap at all the blubbering
ninnies. From our Oct. 8, 1957 editorial "Moonshine About the New
Moon"...

This week-end's outpourings over the Russian satellite show most
of the American spokesmen at their juvenile worst. They act like
the alumni who want to fire the coach every time the team loses
a game. That is exact: they view the satellite launching as a race
which the United States has lost.


"Blubbering juvenile ninnies" is a good characterization of
the public hysteria that surrounded Sputnik.

[rabid_fan]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:47:35 +0000, rabid_fan wrote:

>>
> The story is complex and perhaps best discussed in alt.history or
> something.
>

Fortunately, I was able to locate an article on the web
that provides an excellent summary:

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/10/01/the-real-sputnik-story.html

Internet sources cannot (yet) compete with printed publications
for depth and comprehensiveness. But be assured that scholarly
works do exist that completely dispel the ridiculous notion
that the Sputnik launch was a "proof" of Soviet technical
superiority. Sputnik was a cheap sideshow, and nothing more.

[Jess Lurkin]

rabid_fan > wrote in news:pan.2010.06.02.21.22.13
@righthere.net:

> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:47:35 +0000, rabid_fan wrote:
>
>>>
>> The story is complex and perhaps best discussed in alt.history or
>> something.
>>
>
> Fortunately, I was able to locate an article on the web
> that provides an excellent summary:
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/2007/10/01/the-real-sputnik-story.html
>
> Internet sources cannot (yet) compete with printed publications
> for depth and comprehensiveness. But be assured that scholarly
> works do exist that completely dispel the ridiculous notion
> that the Sputnik launch was a "proof" of Soviet technical
> superiority. Sputnik was a cheap sideshow, and nothing more.
>
>

Mr. Fan,

Thanks for the follow-up(s). The interesting part for me is that
my father-in-law is an 80-something cryogenic engineer who worked
in the Soviet rocketry programs, including the Buran. He retired
at 70, just before the fall of the USSR. After the fall, he realized
that there was no retirement check, he and his wife listened to
their only child and immigrated to the US. I am fortunate enough
to have married into this class family (my wife is a research doctor
of microbiology, her daughter is a cardiologist, my wife's ex is a
physicist still in Moscow). I have learned enough Russian to be able to
sit and enjoy his knowledge and tales.

He says that for every U.S. rocket loss, there were at least two for
the Reds. Also says that it was more a sheer miracle that Spudnik
(sic) made it. But the (Western) agitprop of the day lead the sheep to
think that the U.S. was trailing far behind. Even he knows better.

On top of what I have read and heard, he can dispel much of what has
been discussed in this thread... But then no one would believe what
he or I say... it's just the internet... and we like anonymity.

[rabid_fan]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 01:55:55 +0000, Jess Lurkin wrote:

>
> He says that for every U.S. rocket loss, there were at least two for the
> Reds. Also says that it was more a sheer miracle that Spudnik (sic)
> made it. But the (Western) agitprop of the day lead the sheep to think
> that the U.S. was trailing far behind. Even he knows better.
>

In retrospect, the Western reaction (or overreaction) to Sputnik
may seem senseless and silly, but the world was far different back
then. Communism was perceived as a terrible threat to the freedom
of the world, and in many ways the threat was very real. The
animosity between Soviets and Americans extended down to the
average man/woman on the street.

Attitudes are different now, but the citizen of the 1950's lived
in the midst of a palpable fear of the communist enemy. Schools
regularly held nuclear attack drills (the "duck and cover" campaign)
and home fallout shelters were even encouraged.

Once we take the prevalent social anxiety of the 1950's into
consideration, the hysteria over Sputnik becomes more understandable
if not more excusable.

[®i©ardo]

On 03/06/2010 03:52, rabid_fan wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 01:55:55 +0000, Jess Lurkin wrote:
>
>>
>> He says that for every U.S. rocket loss, there were at least two for the
>> Reds. Also says that it was more a sheer miracle that Spudnik (sic)
>> made it. But the (Western) agitprop of the day lead the sheep to think
>> that the U.S. was trailing far behind. Even he knows better.
>>
>

Nonetheless, the Russians still did something that no-one thought they
were capable of doing - placing a satellite in orbit before anyone else
was capable of doing so.

> In retrospect, the Western reaction (or overreaction) to Sputnik

Surely that should be "...the *American* reaction (or overreaction) to
Sputnik..."

> may seem senseless and silly, but the world was far different back
> then. Communism was perceived as a terrible threat to the freedom
> of the world, and in many ways the threat was very real. The
> animosity between Soviets and Americans extended down to the
> average man/woman on the street.
>
> Attitudes are different now, but the citizen of the 1950's lived
> in the midst of a palpable fear of the communist enemy. Schools
> regularly held nuclear attack drills (the "duck and cover" campaign)
> and home fallout shelters were even encouraged.
>

....thus taking hysteria to a whole new level.

> Once we take the prevalent social anxiety of the 1950's into
> consideration, the hysteria over Sputnik becomes more understandable
> if not more excusable.

Only from an American viewpoint! Those that lived a lot closer to the
Soviet threat weren't nearly so paranoid. Of course there was danger,
I'm more than fully aware of that, having served in Germany in the
1960s, but Europe tended to get on with its life rather than looking for
Reds under every bed.

--
Moving things in still pictures

[rabid_fan]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:18:10 +0100, ®i©ardo wrote:

>>
> Nonetheless, the Russians still did something that no-one thought they
> were capable of doing - placing a satellite in orbit before anyone else
> was capable of doing so.
>

If you insist on giving credit where credit is due, then
we all have to admit that virtually every aeronautical
and astronautical development that occurred since 1945
was the direct result of *German* engineering.

Both the US and the Soviet Union grabbed as many German
scientists and engineers as was possible. The post-war
space and aviation industries of both nations was shaped
largely by the work of the these German ex-patriots.

The American B-47 bomber, for example, which laid the
foundation for all subsequent aircraft in its class,
both military and commercial, was based entirely on German
experimental work on swept-wing airframes that the Boeing
Corp. had acquired.

If not for the Germans, we'd probably still be flying
the B-36.

[®i©ardo]

On 03/06/2010 21:03, rabid_fan wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:18:10 +0100, ®i©ardo wrote:
>
>>>
>> Nonetheless, the Russians still did something that no-one thought they
>> were capable of doing - placing a satellite in orbit before anyone else
>> was capable of doing so.
>>
>
> If you insist on giving credit where credit is due, then
> we all have to admit that virtually every aeronautical
> and astronautical development that occurred since 1945
> was the direct result of *German* engineering.
>
> Both the US and the Soviet Union grabbed as many German
> scientists and engineers as was possible. The post-war
> space and aviation industries of both nations was shaped
> largely by the work of the these German ex-patriots.
>
> The American B-47 bomber, for example, which laid the
> foundation for all subsequent aircraft in its class,
> both military and commercial, was based entirely on German
> experimental work on swept-wing airframes that the Boeing
> Corp. had acquired.
>
> If not for the Germans, we'd probably still be flying
> the B-36.

Yes, you probably would be which, I seem to recall, used a development
of the British Whittle jet engine!

--
Moving things in still pictures