info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A sobering thought
1 view
Skip to first unread message
GordonD
Sep 19, 2011, 5:10:40 AM9/19/11
to
Today, 19 September 2011, it is 15,401 days since the 'Eagle' landed on the
Moon.
The significance of that number is that the touchdown at Tranquility Base
was, itself, 15,401 days after another famous landing: that of the 'Spirit
of St. Louis', on 21 May 1927.
After today, Neil Armstrong's "small step" will be forever closer in history
to Lucky Lindy than it is to us. And if that doesn't make those of us who
watched it at the time feel old, I don't know what will...
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
Moon.
The significance of that number is that the touchdown at Tranquility Base
was, itself, 15,401 days after another famous landing: that of the 'Spirit
of St. Louis', on 21 May 1927.
After today, Neil Armstrong's "small step" will be forever closer in history
to Lucky Lindy than it is to us. And if that doesn't make those of us who
watched it at the time feel old, I don't know what will...
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
Stuf4
Sep 19, 2011, 9:09:30 AM9/19/11
to
From Gordon Davie:
in my apology for my British/English mixup.
Now about your sobering thought, my immediate reaction is, "How can
you possibly know this fact?" I'm picturing that years ago you
installed as your screensaver a Lindy v Eagle countdown timer, and
you've been watching it closely ever since in anticipation of today.
Ha!
I agree that it is a significant mark that stirs emotion. But to be
accurate historians, we should caution exactly what it is marking.
Why are we singling out Lindbergh's flight? His was not the first
transatlantic flight. That happened in 1919. His was not even the
first non-stop transatlantic flight. This happened a couple of weeks
later in that same year, 1919. And a distance far greater than what
Lucky Lindy flew had been spanned in a non-stop flight in 1924, years
before Lindbergh, going the other direction - Europe to US.
All three of those preceding milestones were accomplished in
government sponsored aircraft. Accurate history will recognize that
Charles Lindbergh's "envelope expansion" factor was that he did it
solo non-stop, and he did it with private and commercial funding. No
person has yet to fly to the Moon solo. And no person has yet to fly
to the Moon without government funding.
As for the doubling time of that original 1919 flight, it was 50 years
from then to Tranquility Base. So it will not be til 2019 that
Armstrong & Aldrin will have split the halfway mark of that.
Now one might also feel the need to point out that Lindbergh's flight
should be singled out because although he was far from the first to
fly across the Atlantic, his flight was historically important because
he was the first to cross the Atlantic in the manner that it is
crossed today: non-stop over the full distance in an airplane, not an
airship. And if it is this precedent for the routine that is what
makes the Lindy-vs-lunar flight comparison compelling, then it seems
to me that it would need waiting until lunar flights are routine to
ensure that Armstrong & Aldrin set the precedent for how that will be
done. As in, chemical propellants, parking orbit around the Earth and
then again around the Moon, and having your ride home wait for you up
there in lunar orbit as well.
...or maybe it is better to just let go of all these other facts that
can sometimes get in the way. Tomorrow, history will be more than
double the timeline distance from Lucky Lindy to Luck Armstrong &
Aldrin. That certainly IS a sobering thought.
~ CT
> Today, 19 September 2011, it is 15,401 days since the 'Eagle' landed on the
> Moon.
>
> The significance of that number is that the touchdown at Tranquility Base
> was, itself, 15,401 days after another famous landing: that of the 'Spirit
> of St. Louis', on 21 May 1927.
>
> After today, Neil Armstrong's "small step" will be forever closer in history
> to Lucky Lindy than it is to us. And if that doesn't make those of us who
> watched it at the time feel old, I don't know what will...
First, Gordon, I need to tell you that I meant to specify you as well
> Moon.
>
> The significance of that number is that the touchdown at Tranquility Base
> was, itself, 15,401 days after another famous landing: that of the 'Spirit
> of St. Louis', on 21 May 1927.
>
> After today, Neil Armstrong's "small step" will be forever closer in history
> to Lucky Lindy than it is to us. And if that doesn't make those of us who
> watched it at the time feel old, I don't know what will...
in my apology for my British/English mixup.
Now about your sobering thought, my immediate reaction is, "How can
you possibly know this fact?" I'm picturing that years ago you
installed as your screensaver a Lindy v Eagle countdown timer, and
you've been watching it closely ever since in anticipation of today.
Ha!
I agree that it is a significant mark that stirs emotion. But to be
accurate historians, we should caution exactly what it is marking.
Why are we singling out Lindbergh's flight? His was not the first
transatlantic flight. That happened in 1919. His was not even the
first non-stop transatlantic flight. This happened a couple of weeks
later in that same year, 1919. And a distance far greater than what
Lucky Lindy flew had been spanned in a non-stop flight in 1924, years
before Lindbergh, going the other direction - Europe to US.
All three of those preceding milestones were accomplished in
government sponsored aircraft. Accurate history will recognize that
Charles Lindbergh's "envelope expansion" factor was that he did it
solo non-stop, and he did it with private and commercial funding. No
person has yet to fly to the Moon solo. And no person has yet to fly
to the Moon without government funding.
As for the doubling time of that original 1919 flight, it was 50 years
from then to Tranquility Base. So it will not be til 2019 that
Armstrong & Aldrin will have split the halfway mark of that.
Now one might also feel the need to point out that Lindbergh's flight
should be singled out because although he was far from the first to
fly across the Atlantic, his flight was historically important because
he was the first to cross the Atlantic in the manner that it is
crossed today: non-stop over the full distance in an airplane, not an
airship. And if it is this precedent for the routine that is what
makes the Lindy-vs-lunar flight comparison compelling, then it seems
to me that it would need waiting until lunar flights are routine to
ensure that Armstrong & Aldrin set the precedent for how that will be
done. As in, chemical propellants, parking orbit around the Earth and
then again around the Moon, and having your ride home wait for you up
there in lunar orbit as well.
...or maybe it is better to just let go of all these other facts that
can sometimes get in the way. Tomorrow, history will be more than
double the timeline distance from Lucky Lindy to Luck Armstrong &
Aldrin. That certainly IS a sobering thought.
~ CT
GordonD
Sep 19, 2011, 10:49:07 AM9/19/11
to
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ff6afca2-a38e-44d8...@w8g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> Now about your sobering thought, my immediate reaction is, "How can
> you possibly know this fact?" I'm picturing that years ago you
> installed as your screensaver a Lindy v Eagle countdown timer, and
> you've been watching it closely ever since in anticipation of today.
> Ha!
Not quite! I realised several months ago that it was 42 years plus change
between Lindy and Apollo 11, which was itself of course 42 years ago, so
decided to check the exact date. Any spreadsheet will let you subtract one
date from another and give the answer as a number of days, so all I had to
do was *add* that number to 20 July 1969 and it came back with today's date.
I set my calendar to remind me to post this today, and here we are!
Another point though - by the time Apollo 11 landed on the Moon,
transatlantic air travel had become commonplace. 42 years after that, we
can't even get back to the Moon the same way we went the first time. (And I
hope you'll forgive a non-American saying that 'we' went to the Moon - after
all, they did go in peace for all Mankind!)
> I agree that it is a significant mark that stirs emotion. But to be
> accurate historians, we should caution exactly what it is marking.
> Why are we singling out Lindbergh's flight? His was not the first
> transatlantic flight. That happened in 1919. His was not even the
> first non-stop transatlantic flight. This happened a couple of weeks
> later in that same year, 1919. And a distance far greater than what
> Lucky Lindy flew had been spanned in a non-stop flight in 1924, years
> before Lindbergh, going the other direction - Europe to US.
But Lindy is the one that Americans care about. Ask them who Alcock & Brown
were and most of them haven't a clue. When Ripley stated that Lindbergh
wasn't the first to fly the Atlantic in his 'Believe it or Not' feature, he
got hate mail!
For what it's worth, 25 August 2019 is the date when Tranquility Base is
equidistant between Alcock and Brown and 'today' - 18,298 days. And for the
Wright brothers at Kittyhawk, it will be 21 February 2035 - 23,957 days.
news:ff6afca2-a38e-44d8...@w8g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> From Gordon Davie:
>> Today, 19 September 2011, it is 15,401 days since the 'Eagle' landed on
>> the
>> Moon.
>>
>> The significance of that number is that the touchdown at Tranquility Base
>> was, itself, 15,401 days after another famous landing: that of the
>> 'Spirit
>> of St. Louis', on 21 May 1927.
>>
>> After today, Neil Armstrong's "small step" will be forever closer in
>> history
>> to Lucky Lindy than it is to us. And if that doesn't make those of us who
>> watched it at the time feel old, I don't know what will...
>
> First, Gordon, I need to tell you that I meant to specify you as well
> in my apology for my British/English mixup.
No worries, I'm used to it!
>> Today, 19 September 2011, it is 15,401 days since the 'Eagle' landed on
>> the
>> Moon.
>>
>> The significance of that number is that the touchdown at Tranquility Base
>> was, itself, 15,401 days after another famous landing: that of the
>> 'Spirit
>> of St. Louis', on 21 May 1927.
>>
>> After today, Neil Armstrong's "small step" will be forever closer in
>> history
>> to Lucky Lindy than it is to us. And if that doesn't make those of us who
>> watched it at the time feel old, I don't know what will...
>
> First, Gordon, I need to tell you that I meant to specify you as well
> in my apology for my British/English mixup.
> Now about your sobering thought, my immediate reaction is, "How can
> you possibly know this fact?" I'm picturing that years ago you
> installed as your screensaver a Lindy v Eagle countdown timer, and
> you've been watching it closely ever since in anticipation of today.
> Ha!
between Lindy and Apollo 11, which was itself of course 42 years ago, so
decided to check the exact date. Any spreadsheet will let you subtract one
date from another and give the answer as a number of days, so all I had to
do was *add* that number to 20 July 1969 and it came back with today's date.
I set my calendar to remind me to post this today, and here we are!
Another point though - by the time Apollo 11 landed on the Moon,
transatlantic air travel had become commonplace. 42 years after that, we
can't even get back to the Moon the same way we went the first time. (And I
hope you'll forgive a non-American saying that 'we' went to the Moon - after
all, they did go in peace for all Mankind!)
> I agree that it is a significant mark that stirs emotion. But to be
> accurate historians, we should caution exactly what it is marking.
> Why are we singling out Lindbergh's flight? His was not the first
> transatlantic flight. That happened in 1919. His was not even the
> first non-stop transatlantic flight. This happened a couple of weeks
> later in that same year, 1919. And a distance far greater than what
> Lucky Lindy flew had been spanned in a non-stop flight in 1924, years
> before Lindbergh, going the other direction - Europe to US.
were and most of them haven't a clue. When Ripley stated that Lindbergh
wasn't the first to fly the Atlantic in his 'Believe it or Not' feature, he
got hate mail!
For what it's worth, 25 August 2019 is the date when Tranquility Base is
equidistant between Alcock and Brown and 'today' - 18,298 days. And for the
Wright brothers at Kittyhawk, it will be 21 February 2035 - 23,957 days.
Pat Flannery
Sep 19, 2011, 2:47:52 PM9/19/11
to
On 9/19/2011 1:10 AM, GordonD wrote:
> Today, 19 September 2011, it is 15,401 days since the 'Eagle' landed on
> the Moon.
>
> The significance of that number is that the touchdown at Tranquility
> Base was, itself, 15,401 days after another famous landing: that of the
> 'Spirit of St. Louis', on 21 May 1927.
Now tell us about the astrological significance of this. Extra points
> Today, 19 September 2011, it is 15,401 days since the 'Eagle' landed on
> the Moon.
>
> The significance of that number is that the touchdown at Tranquility
> Base was, itself, 15,401 days after another famous landing: that of the
> 'Spirit of St. Louis', on 21 May 1927.
for bringing Nostradamus into the discussion. ;-)
Pat
Stuf4
Sep 19, 2011, 1:30:49 PM9/19/11
to
From Gordon Davie:
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
that explains the distinctions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10&t=44s
"While you can call them all British, it's not recommended as the four
countries generally don't like each other."
Hah!
<snip>
*not* peaceful. The stakes were of proportions that would make
Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like firecrackers.
But it certainly was a singular event that changed all of humanity,
and I have no qualms about saying "we" myself even though I gave
absolutely no contribution throughout the 60s or 70s other than
cheering them on.
~ CT
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ff6afca2-a38e-44d8...@w8g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > From Gordon Davie:
> news:ff6afca2-a38e-44d8...@w8g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > From Gordon Davie:
> > First, Gordon, I need to tell you that I meant to specify you as well
> > in my apology for my British/English mixup.
>
> No worries, I'm used to it!
There's a very informative YouTube video I first watched a while ago
> > in my apology for my British/English mixup.
>
> No worries, I'm used to it!
that explains the distinctions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10&t=44s
"While you can call them all British, it's not recommended as the four
countries generally don't like each other."
Hah!
<snip>
> Another point though - by the time Apollo 11 landed on the Moon,
> transatlantic air travel had become commonplace. 42 years after that, we
> can't even get back to the Moon the same way we went the first time. (And I
> hope you'll forgive a non-American saying that 'we' went to the Moon - after
> all, they did go in peace for all Mankind!)
Actually, the main point of my 9-11 post last week was that Apollo was
> transatlantic air travel had become commonplace. 42 years after that, we
> can't even get back to the Moon the same way we went the first time. (And I
> hope you'll forgive a non-American saying that 'we' went to the Moon - after
> all, they did go in peace for all Mankind!)
*not* peaceful. The stakes were of proportions that would make
Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like firecrackers.
But it certainly was a singular event that changed all of humanity,
and I have no qualms about saying "we" myself even though I gave
absolutely no contribution throughout the 60s or 70s other than
cheering them on.
~ CT
GordonD
Sep 19, 2011, 2:47:24 PM9/19/11
to
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d9c4b0c6-71ee-4815...@d41g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> There's a very informative YouTube video I first watched a while ago
> that explains the distinctions:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10&t=44s
>
> "While you can call them all British, it's not recommended as the four
> countries generally don't like each other."
English!
Stuf4
Sep 19, 2011, 7:31:40 PM9/19/11
to
From Gordon Davie:
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
much the situation as you are saying. You always have the option to
bail out like we Yanks did back in the 18th century. Of course
Gandhi's method was a lot less bloody. But if I were to peer into a
crystal ball, I'd expect that the trend we're currently in is drawing
us in the other direction. Like those Liverpool blokes sang about:
Come Together... I believe we are now living the age of the Walrus.
And events like landing on the Moon and even tragedies like 9-11 can
serve as catalyzing effects toward that end. Maybe even Lindbergh had
glimpses of how his feat was going to draw the world closer together
into a much tighter community. Today we regularly call the Atlantic
Ocean "The Pond". I'm certain Columbus's crews didn't think of it
that way. They must have fretted the Atlantic in the way that Apollo
crews wondered if they would ever return from cis-lunar space.
Kansas could do an excellent reprise with a Space Age version of their
classic 'Point of Know Return':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRtgr9n7V9w
...to be played daily at the Kansas Cosmosphere of course. Maybe
someone here would like to post a video for that song with
interspersed clips of great explorers - Lindbergh, Borman-Lovell-
Anders, Columbus... and can include the one's who didn't make it back,
like Shackleton, Mallory, Magellan, Volkov-Dobrovolski-Patsayev, etc.
~ CT
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d9c4b0c6-71ee-4815...@d41g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There's a very informative YouTube video I first watched a while ago
> > that explains the distinctions:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10&t=44s
>
> > "While you can call them all British, it's not recommended as the four
> > countries generally don't like each other."
>
> Not really. The Scots, Irish and Welsh all get on fine. But we all hate the
> English!
Right after that quote, the narrator elaborates to describe pretty
> news:d9c4b0c6-71ee-4815...@d41g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There's a very informative YouTube video I first watched a while ago
> > that explains the distinctions:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10&t=44s
>
> > "While you can call them all British, it's not recommended as the four
> > countries generally don't like each other."
>
> Not really. The Scots, Irish and Welsh all get on fine. But we all hate the
> English!
much the situation as you are saying. You always have the option to
bail out like we Yanks did back in the 18th century. Of course
Gandhi's method was a lot less bloody. But if I were to peer into a
crystal ball, I'd expect that the trend we're currently in is drawing
us in the other direction. Like those Liverpool blokes sang about:
Come Together... I believe we are now living the age of the Walrus.
And events like landing on the Moon and even tragedies like 9-11 can
serve as catalyzing effects toward that end. Maybe even Lindbergh had
glimpses of how his feat was going to draw the world closer together
into a much tighter community. Today we regularly call the Atlantic
Ocean "The Pond". I'm certain Columbus's crews didn't think of it
that way. They must have fretted the Atlantic in the way that Apollo
crews wondered if they would ever return from cis-lunar space.
Kansas could do an excellent reprise with a Space Age version of their
classic 'Point of Know Return':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRtgr9n7V9w
...to be played daily at the Kansas Cosmosphere of course. Maybe
someone here would like to post a video for that song with
interspersed clips of great explorers - Lindbergh, Borman-Lovell-
Anders, Columbus... and can include the one's who didn't make it back,
like Shackleton, Mallory, Magellan, Volkov-Dobrovolski-Patsayev, etc.
~ CT
rwalker
Sep 19, 2011, 11:43:38 PM9/19/11
to
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:49:07 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>Another point though - by the time Apollo 11 landed on the Moon,
>transatlantic air travel had become commonplace. 42 years after that, we
>can't even get back to the Moon the same way we went the first time. (And I
>hope you'll forgive a non-American saying that 'we' went to the Moon - after
>all, they did go in peace for all Mankind!)
Nor can we cross the Atlantic in a supersonic transport any more.
Concorde made its first test flights in 1969.
wrote:
>Another point though - by the time Apollo 11 landed on the Moon,
>transatlantic air travel had become commonplace. 42 years after that, we
>can't even get back to the Moon the same way we went the first time. (And I
>hope you'll forgive a non-American saying that 'we' went to the Moon - after
>all, they did go in peace for all Mankind!)
Concorde made its first test flights in 1969.
rwalker
Sep 19, 2011, 11:48:24 PM9/19/11
to
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:47:24 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>
>Not really. The Scots, Irish and Welsh all get on fine. But we all hate the
>English!
I'm an American of part Welsh and part English descent, but I'm always
conflicted.
wrote:
>
>Not really. The Scots, Irish and Welsh all get on fine. But we all hate the
>English!
conflicted.
Stuf4
Sep 20, 2011, 12:24:43 AM9/20/11
to
From rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com>:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:49:07 +0100, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com>
Concorde was scrapped for the same reason that Shuttle was ended.
These programs were born out of government funded Cold War competition
to make grand displays of aerospace superiority ...which indicated
nuclear weapons delivery superiority ...which justified their immense
program costs in the name of national defense. After the Cold War
threat ended, all that was needed was an excuse to pull the plug. For
Concorde, it was that CDG takeoff mess in 2000. For Shuttle, it was
the Columbia entry mess in '03. Also, the justification for funding
ISS was to not be shown up by Mir, again a Cold War competition
holdover, this one becoming moot in 2001.
If space travel or supersonic transoceanic flight was economically
viable for commercial purposes, companies like Airbus & Boeing would
be all over it. But the margins are so unwieldy that Boeing even
scrapped its *Sonic* Cruiser that had been designed to push the fuel
inefficient wall of transonic wave drag and take on heaps of parasitic
drag as well.
I expect that schemes like Virgin Galactic's will be doubly doomed as
far as transportation is concerned. There's the fuel inefficiencies
as well as the huge increase in safety risk. I don't see their market
expanding much beyond the thrill-seekers. The very wealthy thrill
seekers.
The laws of physics are what they are. It was the laws of psychology
and the need for nations to struggle for their very survival under the
threat of nuclear annihilation that created a very unique set of
conditions whereby the extreme financial requirements of spectacular
programs like Apollo, Concorde, Shuttle and ISS could be justified.
It was like the planets aligning for a period of a terror-driven
fiscal aerospace bonanza, and almost as quickly as that alignment had
occurred, it was then over.
So instead of lamenting the fact that programs like Concorde and
Apollo and Shuttle and such are no more, we could uphold the broader
view where we can be glad that we no longer live under the threat of
total nuclear annihilation.
If a magic genie were to appear and give us the choice to bring back
Apollo, Concorde, Shuttle AND nukes on a hair trigger to Armageddon or
chose to simply leave things as they are (all or none), I would hope
our vote would be unanimous to seal that near-gruesome chapter of
history and work out our future from where we stand today.
~ CT
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:49:07 +0100, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com>
These programs were born out of government funded Cold War competition
to make grand displays of aerospace superiority ...which indicated
nuclear weapons delivery superiority ...which justified their immense
program costs in the name of national defense. After the Cold War
threat ended, all that was needed was an excuse to pull the plug. For
Concorde, it was that CDG takeoff mess in 2000. For Shuttle, it was
the Columbia entry mess in '03. Also, the justification for funding
ISS was to not be shown up by Mir, again a Cold War competition
holdover, this one becoming moot in 2001.
If space travel or supersonic transoceanic flight was economically
viable for commercial purposes, companies like Airbus & Boeing would
be all over it. But the margins are so unwieldy that Boeing even
scrapped its *Sonic* Cruiser that had been designed to push the fuel
inefficient wall of transonic wave drag and take on heaps of parasitic
drag as well.
I expect that schemes like Virgin Galactic's will be doubly doomed as
far as transportation is concerned. There's the fuel inefficiencies
as well as the huge increase in safety risk. I don't see their market
expanding much beyond the thrill-seekers. The very wealthy thrill
seekers.
The laws of physics are what they are. It was the laws of psychology
and the need for nations to struggle for their very survival under the
threat of nuclear annihilation that created a very unique set of
conditions whereby the extreme financial requirements of spectacular
programs like Apollo, Concorde, Shuttle and ISS could be justified.
It was like the planets aligning for a period of a terror-driven
fiscal aerospace bonanza, and almost as quickly as that alignment had
occurred, it was then over.
So instead of lamenting the fact that programs like Concorde and
Apollo and Shuttle and such are no more, we could uphold the broader
view where we can be glad that we no longer live under the threat of
total nuclear annihilation.
If a magic genie were to appear and give us the choice to bring back
Apollo, Concorde, Shuttle AND nukes on a hair trigger to Armageddon or
chose to simply leave things as they are (all or none), I would hope
our vote would be unanimous to seal that near-gruesome chapter of
history and work out our future from where we stand today.
~ CT
GordonD
Sep 20, 2011, 5:00:46 AM9/20/11
to
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:288908d5-fc58-4e05...@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> From Gordon Davie:
>> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d9c4b0c6-71ee-4815...@d41g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > There's a very informative YouTube video I first watched a while ago
>> > that explains the distinctions:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10&t=44s
>>
>> > "While you can call them all British, it's not recommended as the four
>> > countries generally don't like each other."
>>
>> Not really. The Scots, Irish and Welsh all get on fine. But we all hate
>> the
>> English!
>
> Right after that quote, the narrator elaborates to describe pretty
> much the situation as you are saying. You always have the option to
> bail out like we Yanks did back in the 18th century.
At the elections to the Scottish Parliament back in May, the Scottish
>> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d9c4b0c6-71ee-4815...@d41g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > There's a very informative YouTube video I first watched a while ago
>> > that explains the distinctions:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10&t=44s
>>
>> > "While you can call them all British, it's not recommended as the four
>> > countries generally don't like each other."
>>
>> Not really. The Scots, Irish and Welsh all get on fine. But we all hate
>> the
>> English!
>
> Right after that quote, the narrator elaborates to describe pretty
> much the situation as you are saying. You always have the option to
> bail out like we Yanks did back in the 18th century.
National Party was elected with an overall majority (something the voting
system was specifically designed to avoid!) so sometime within the next four
years there will be a referendum on independence.
Message has been deleted
Pat Flannery
Sep 20, 2011, 2:25:44 PM9/20/11
to
On 9/20/2011 1:00 AM, GordonD wrote:
>
> At the elections to the Scottish Parliament back in May, the Scottish
> National Party was elected with an overall majority (something the
> voting system was specifically designed to avoid!) so sometime within
> the next four years there will be a referendum on independence.
Threaten to decrease whisky exports if the British government doesn't go
>
> At the elections to the Scottish Parliament back in May, the Scottish
> National Party was elected with an overall majority (something the
> voting system was specifically designed to avoid!) so sometime within
> the next four years there will be a referendum on independence.
along with the idea... alternately, threaten to _increase_ haggis
exports if the British government doesn't go along with the idea. ;-)
Pat
rwalker
Sep 20, 2011, 11:45:42 PM9/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:59:24 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But we can certainly cross the Atlantic. We can't get back to the
>Moon in ANY way.
True, but both seem to be an abandonment of accomplishment.
A friend of mine has put it as follows. Were the Apollo missions
going to be the equivalent of the Vikings' journeys to the New World,
or of Columbus'. It appears to have been the former.
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Moon in ANY way.
True, but both seem to be an abandonment of accomplishment.
A friend of mine has put it as follows. Were the Apollo missions
going to be the equivalent of the Vikings' journeys to the New World,
or of Columbus'. It appears to have been the former.
Matt Wiser
Sep 21, 2011, 12:46:58 AM9/21/11
to
"rwalker" <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:2bni77tkv15ktdiqp...@4ax.com...
It would, if this Administration has its way. Fortunately, there are members
of Congress in both parties who feel differently. Charlie Bolden keeps
getting asked whenever he goes to the Hill to testify about lunar return-and
the answers he gives don't satisfy the members of the relevant congressional
committees.
Pat Flannery
Sep 21, 2011, 5:26:34 PM9/21/11
to
On 9/20/2011 8:46 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>> A friend of mine has put it as follows. Were the Apollo missions
>> going to be the equivalent of the Vikings' journeys to the New World,
>> or of Columbus'. It appears to have been the former.
>
> It would, if this Administration has its way. Fortunately, there are members
> of Congress in both parties who feel differently. Charlie Bolden keeps
> getting asked whenever he goes to the Hill to testify about lunar return-and
> the answers he gives don't satisfy the members of the relevant congressional
> committees.
We're going to steal the Selinite's gold and silver, and drive them off
>> A friend of mine has put it as follows. Were the Apollo missions
>> going to be the equivalent of the Vikings' journeys to the New World,
>> or of Columbus'. It appears to have been the former.
>
> It would, if this Administration has its way. Fortunately, there are members
> of Congress in both parties who feel differently. Charlie Bolden keeps
> getting asked whenever he goes to the Hill to testify about lunar return-and
> the answers he gives don't satisfy the members of the relevant congressional
> committees.
the Moon to be resettled on Mercury?
If Cortez had come home to Spain with his ship's holds bulging with New
World rocks and soil, he would have not been very popular.
In fact Columbus wasn't very popular with the stuff he showed up with
after his first voyage. "Where's the God-damn pepper? Where's the
God-damn cloves? That's not a porcelain cup, it's a God-damn seashell."
"I have the skin of a strange green lizard also, your majesties."
"And we will soon have the skin of a strange green Italian sailor..."
Pat
Brad Guth
Sep 22, 2011, 7:02:29 PM9/22/11
to
happening exactly as stipulated.
How many lies and do-overs does our government get nowadays?
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Waimate01
Sep 22, 2011, 11:36:08 PM9/22/11
to
news:a2da5105-1f4c-4a26...@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
> If a magic genie were to appear and give us the choice to bring back
> Apollo, Concorde, Shuttle AND nukes on a hair trigger to Armageddon or
> chose to simply leave things as they are (all or none), I would hope
> our vote would be unanimous to seal that near-gruesome chapter of
> history and work out our future from where we stand today.
Although certain aspects of the cold war were unsettling at the time, I have
to say that in retrospect it all actually worked pretty well. At the time I
thought M.A.D really was insane, but now I can see that having *two*
superpowers provides the benefit that each needs to be on its best behaviour
and not do anything too extreme. When there's only one superpower, that
superpower can stomp around pretty much as it likes, and even do things that
it used to accuse the other superpower of doing.
I certainly wouldn't ask the magic genie to 'make it so'; but in many ways
multiple superpowers served as a governor, as well as an incentive.
Pat Flannery
Sep 23, 2011, 6:12:00 AM9/23/11
to
On 9/22/2011 7:36 PM, Waimate01 wrote:
> Although certain aspects of the cold war were unsettling at the time, I have
> to say that in retrospect it all actually worked pretty well. At the time I
> thought M.A.D really was insane, but now I can see that having *two*
> superpowers provides the benefit that each needs to be on its best behaviour
> and not do anything too extreme. When there's only one superpower, that
> superpower can stomp around pretty much as it likes, and even do things that
> it used to accuse the other superpower of doing.
MAD was pure genius; the big problem with it was trying to talk the
military of the US or USSR into the concept, which was entirely
antithetical to standard military philosophy of the time, which fully
embraced the concept of ideally being able to completely destroy your
opponent while suffering zero harm yourself.
Reagan never could figure this out with his drive for a ABM system that
could defend the whole US from a Soviet attack.
Pat
0 new messages