Re: Von Braun and Suzanne.
Andre Lieven
Wernher von Braun worked on actual ICBM missiles.
On Nov 21, 7:47 am, Liar Idiot Dolan <xanth...@well.com> moroned:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> > VB never worked on any ICBMs. The Redstone was not
> > even an IRBM, rather it was a battlefield weapon,
> > with a range barely greater than that of the V-2.
>
> And yet again you entertain us with your adamant but
> incorrect opinion, this time by a failed attempt to
> divert the discussion.
>
> One need not "work on an ICBM" to "work in the ICBM
> program":
>
> As Germany fell in 1945, Von Braun surrendered
> to the American military. The arrangements that
> he made would have him working again on rockets
> -- this time for American military efforts --
> while his Nazi peers were being tried and hung
> in Nuremberg.
>
> His work of the next 10 years culminated with
> the 1953-54 birth of the ICBM. The terror and
> death that he had transported across the English
> Channel was now able to travel across
> continents.
The error there is that "culmination" does NOT indicate any
link beyond a temporal one. One might as well claim that
Sergei Korolyov's work "culminated" in the US Atlas ICBM...
> http://www.systemtoolbox.com/article.php?history_id=1
>
> Von Braun worked on the American
> intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
> program before joining NASA
The one problem with Wikipedia is that it contains many
such techincal errors of fact, because the people who wrote
them didn't know any better.
Please post a list and citations describing any "ICBMs" that
VB is claimed to have worked on. Uh huh.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
>
> The development of the world's first practical
> design for a ICBM, A9/10, intended for use in
> bombing New York and other American cities, was
> undertaken in Nazi Germany by the team of
> Wernher von Braun under Projekt Amerika.
>
> The ICBM A9/A10 rocket initially was intended to
> be guided by radio, but was changed to be a
> piloted craft after the failure of Operation
> Elster.
>
> The second stage of the A9/A10 rocket was tested
> a few times in January and February 1945.
Since the second stage was a modified V-2, this means
little in terms of getting to any actual intercontinental rockets.
"The A9, second (upper) stage of IRBM A9/A10 rocket, was a
further development of the A4 rocket (as the prototype for the
A9 was the A4b). It was able to execute separate start and
flight also."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A10_(rocket)
> The progenitor of the A9/A10 was the German V-2
> rocket, also designed by von Braun and widely
> used at the end of World War II to bomb British
> and Belgian cities.
>
> All of these rockets used liquid propellants.
>
> Following the war, von Braun and other leading
> German scientists were secretly transferred to
> the United States to work directly for the U.S.
> Army through Operation Paperclip, developing the
> IRBMs, ICBMs, and launchers.
Once again, the same Wiki propblem, as the Paperclip
Germans never worked on any ICBMs. Further, the A9/A10
design was such a non starter that that Wiki article on VB
doesn't even bother to mention it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM
>
> The progenitor of the ICBM was the German A9/10,
> which was never developed but only proposed by
> Wernher von Braun.
"Proposals" don't count as "worked to develop"... Duh.
> http://en.allexperts.com/e/i/in/intercontinental_ballistic_missile.htm
>
> Werner von Braun's missile design team considered
> themselves in competition with the developers of the
> first US ICBM, the Atlas D, with the strong
> implication that WvB and team thought they _were_
> working on ICBM development.
>
> Many engineers, including famed rocket designer
> Wernher von Braun, worried that the Atlas'
> design could not survive the intense aerodynamic
> stresses placed upon it the early phases of
> launch, so much so that von Braun's design team
> derisively referred to the Atlas as a "blimp" or
> their "inflated competition."
That quote does NOT say what you (Lyingly) claimed that
it did. It merely describes worries on the part of VB's team about
a part of the Atlas design, a part that, BTW, actually WORKED.
IOW, said "worries" were WRONG...
> http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/space/Atlas.htm
>
> Was Werner von Braun directly involved in the ICBM
> program? Why yes, he was
Wrong.
> Was his interest improved
> when smaller bombs were developed that could be
> lofted with achievable rocket technology, just as I
> discussed earlier? Why yes, it was.
Wrong.
> From 1951 to 1954, the Atlas project was poorly
> funded and had a low priority. However, in late
> 1953, the Atomic Energy Commission achieved a
> breakthrough in nuclear weapons, making smaller
> and lighter bombs available. In early 1954,
> studies by the von Neumann Committee and the
> RAND Corporation both recommended that the Air
> Force pursue ICBMs. Project Atlas was given the
> Air Force's top priority status in May 1954.
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower elevated it to
> the highest national priority in September 1955.
And notice that NOWHERE in that, is VB even MENTIONED...
> http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1955.html
>
> The Google search
>
> Werner.von.Braun ICBM
>
> got 11,100 hits. This is enough of a sample to make
> the point.
Yes, that 11,100 sites are WRONG. Hardly a record for
the Net...
> Once more, yammering without having your facts in
> place has just let you prove yourself a fool before
> the newsgroup readership.
<Massive Loon Projection>
> What else is new?
Not much, other than that you are a now PROVEN willfully
ignorant idiot and LIAR.
> You do this times beyond counting, and never learn
> from your mistakes.
<Massive Lying Loon Projection>
Please die last week, idiot.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:15:25 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >To the SSH folks: I have a loon here who continues to INSIST that
> >Wernher von Braun worked on actual ICBM missiles.
>
> have enough of them of our own fracking up the place.
I wanted to do so, in the hope that the ssh participation could
provide the evidence/argument that would nail this isue.
It's not like I did this with a CT type...
Andre
Pat Flannery
> I wanted to do so, in the hope that the ssh participation could
> provide the evidence/argument that would nail this isue.
>
> It's not like I did this with a CT type...
If the writer means did WvB work on any American ICBM designs, not that
I'm aware of...which is kind of surprising when you think about it, but
he was working for the Army, and it was decided that the Army's missiles
were not going to include ICBMs, so his missile work ended with the
Jupiter IRBM.
But if the writer is going to include all ICBMs, then he did indeed work
on the A9/A10, and that was a serious ICBM proposal that got to the
design if not construction phase.
As to whether it would have worked or not is a very open question, but
the Peenemunde team did figure out things like the interior structure of
the A10 and two different ways to make its engine.
Pat
Andre Lieven
The point that seems to me to rule that concept out is that, no post
war
ICBM project used a design even remotely similar to the A9/A10.
To suggest that doing any concept work on the A9/A10 translates to
any specific expertise with 1950s and/or 1960s ICBMs would be similar
to a suggestion that a Concorde engineer's work counts as working on
777s....
Andre
Pat Flannery
>
> The point that seems to me to rule that concept out is that, no post
> war
> ICBM project used a design even remotely similar to the A9/A10.
The Soviets considered building something along those lines, and
actually started work on a modified version of Sanger's Antipodal
Bomber: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kelomber.htm
Before deciding purely ballistic was the way to go.
Then there was Atlas in its original five-engined MX-1593 form:
http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/atlas-program.html
"When the MX-1593 contract was issued, Convair already had available for
the U.S. Air Force detailed ballistic missile design proposals that had
been refined in-house following the expiration of the MX-774. The
company offered design proposals for both pure ballistic and
semi-ballistic concepts.
In the pure ballistic approach, the missile would fly a ballistic
pattern to its target. In the semi-ballistic approach, the missile would
be launched in a ballistic pattern, but would glide toward its target
using wings.
A firm decision was made by the U.S. Air Force to press ahead with
Convair's pure ballistic missile warhead delivery system in September,
1951. It was decided that the semi-ballistic version would be too easy
to intercept. Even though a pure ballistic guidance system had yet to be
developed, the semi-ballistic approach was scrapped."
When Atlas was first designed, one of the proposals was to make the
warhead section into a hypersonic glider, although it used airbrakes
rather than fins or wings for steering, unlike the A9.
The idea was dropped in favor of a ballistic RV.
Later the Air Force got around to actually testing the hypersonic glider
concept; launched on a Atlas, no less:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/boohicle.htm
Pat
heekster
Apples and oranges.
Concorde was British-French SST.
777 is Boeing commercial subsonic transport.
The analogy is invalid on oh, so many levels.
Andre Lieven
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:23:24 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
In a word, bullshit. The differences between those two planes are
similar to the differences between the A9/A10 and any actually
built ICBMs of the 50s and 60s.
Just the gross difference in the staging procedure of an A9/A10
and, say, a Titan 1/2 makes that point abundently clear.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:17:21 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> ....Did you *have* to bring him here, Andre? It's not as if we don't
> >> have enough of them of our own fracking up the place.
>
> >I wanted to do so, in the hope that the ssh participation could
> >provide the evidence/argument that would nail this isue.
>
> totally fracking honest with me now: has this *ever* worked? Have we
> ever converted any of the whackos and CT nutters?
The thing is that the person whose views I had hoped to shift by
means of more evidence from well informed people *isn't* a whacko
or CT nutter. Thus, I cannot accept the analogy.
It does happen that otherwise reasonable people can, and do, often
enough, get the wrong idea because of all sorts of things, like "This
is how I remember it", and they *can* be moved towards the actual
facts, *if* a sufficient amount of evidence that shows that the facts
do not line up with what they recall.
> I'm serious, sir. Name. Me. One.
I pay so little attention to any group's actual nutters, that even if
one did rejoin the sane, it is not likely that I would see it.
Andre
heekster
You are comparing aircraft to multistage missiles.
Having worked on ICBMs, the 777, and the British Airways Concorde,
I'm interested in what you think you know about them.
So produce these differences, and show similarity.
Pat Flannery
> You are comparing aircraft to multistage missiles.
Meet the A9/A10, a multistage missile where the upper stage is an
aircraft: http://www.project1947.com/gfb/a-9.htm
I built a 1/72 scale model of one of these in the swept wing upper stage
version, and a 1/32 scale model of the A9 with the underslung ramjet
(which, according to Scott Lowther, was to be fueled by liquid acetylene).
Pat
Andre Lieven
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:17:40 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
No, to anyone who is not illiterate, I am comparing two different
kinds
of aircraft to each other, just as you tried to compare two different
kinds
of missiles to each other.
> Having worked on ICBMs, the 777, and the British Airways Concorde,
> I'm interested in what you think you know about them.
When I get to see your name, resume, and qualifications, I shall
be happy to discuss this.
> So produce these differences, and show similarity.
Once you produce the specific differences and similarities between
any actual missiles that VB worked on, and ICBMs.
Andre
heekster
This is usenet, kid, not a job interview, get over yourself.
Your inability to respond reasonably to a civil request is duly noted.
>> So produce these differences, and show similarity.
>
>Once you produce the specific differences and similarities between
>any actual missiles that VB worked on, and ICBMs.
>
IOW, you can't.
Andre Lieven
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:51:33 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
<Projection>
> Your inability to respond reasonably to a civil request is duly noted.
<Projection>
> >> So produce these differences, and show similarity.
>
> >Once you produce the specific differences and similarities between
> >any actual missiles that VB worked on, and ICBMs.
>
> IOW, you can't.
<Projection>
You're an idiot. HTH.
Andre
Kent Paul Dolan
> OM wrote:
>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>> OM wrote:
>>>> ....Did you *have* to bring him here, Andre?
>>>> It's not as if we don't have enough of them of
>>>> our own fracking up the place.
>>> I wanted to do so, in the hope that the ssh
>>> participation could provide the
>>> evidence/argument that would nail this isue.
Funny how that worked out.
>> ....I know you and I have had our differences
>> over the years, but be totally fracking honest
>> with me now: has this *ever* worked? Have we ever
>> converted any of the whackos and CT nutters?
> The thing is that the person whose views I had
> hoped to shift by means of more evidence from well
> informed people *isn't* a whacko or CT nutter.
Talk about being damned with faint praise.
Of course, Paul Harvey would be sure to add the rest
of the story,
When Andre claims to be trying to change my mind, he
has no stake in the effort.
He isn't going to see the results.
Having been repeatedly called on his numerous lies,
Andre, coward to the end, chose to shoot the
messenger, with a killfile placement, and ran off
tail between his legs hoping to be helped by people
not part of the discussion, but whom he suspected
knew whereof they spoke, not a burden Andre takes
willingly on himself.
> Thus, I cannot accept the analogy.
Andre cannot accept a lot of things, like reality.
> It does happen that otherwise reasonable people
> can, and do, often enough, get the wrong idea
> because of all sorts of things, like "This is how
> I remember it", and they *can* be moved towards
> the actual facts, *if* a sufficient amount of
> evidence that shows that the facts do not line up
> with what they recall.
>> I'm serious, sir. Name. Me. One.
> I pay so little attention to any group's actual
> nutters, that even if one did rejoin the sane, it
> is not likely that I would see it.
I find it hilarious that having run for shelter to
sci.space.history, Andre has promptly gotten his
head handed to him from multiple directions.
He has learned that the facts which he had been so
adamantly denying
in an attempt to disparage the lifework of
Werner von Braun, apparently a carryover from
his dislike of von Braun's also well documented
use of slave labor
and replacing with his agenda-plagued invented lies,
were in the case exactly correct.
Life is good.
Thanks for all the help, ssh folks.
Not that Andre will in any way change his habits of
invincible ignorance and blatant lying
this is not the first time he's pulled this
garbage in talk.origins, with me off and on as
his opponent, and I seem to recall him
killfiling me last time, too, must have had an
expiration attached somehow
but thanks for trying.
xanthian.