24 Oct 1946 -- 66 years ago

Platapus · 10-24-12, 04:50 PM

Let us not forget that our own "space race" had little to do with science and the betterment of humanity but more for the development of ICBM technology and political one-up-manship with the ruskies.

Unfortunately, our history shows that innovation is often spurred by war and finding out cooleo ways of killing people.

War, even a cold one, is good for science.

Stealhead · 10-25-12, 03:30 PM

Oh I have no doubt of this even during the space race each rocket was first developed as a deployment system for nuclear warheads the Redstone and Titians Mercury missions used Redstones and the Gemini missions used Titians and then the Minuteman is a solid fuel rocket and was developed in 1962 before the Saturn rocket was designed so the weaponry was always the first priority.The Saturn of course was the only rocket not also used as a weapon.The Titian had much longevity and was used until 2005 as a payload rocket so it saw much more use as a payload carrier of peaceful purposes than it did as a weapon of war.The Minuteman will be around for along time as well but as a weapon it even outlasted its newer counter part the Peacemaker though they have since converted some Peacemakers into payload rockets as well.

The same of course can be said of Soviet rockets.

Wars have done us alot of good when it comes to medical science as well.

geetrue · 10-27-12, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The same of course can be said of Soviet rockets.

Wars have done us alot of good when it comes to medical science as well.

Speaking of which the Russians have figured out how to reload their missile
silos after lauching a first strike and we haven't.

Does that mean we need more medical science?

Jimbuna · 10-27-12, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetrue

Does that mean we need more medical science?

I'm not sure but if they indeed have then it may mean you'll need more medical doctors

Stealhead · 10-27-12, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetrue

Speaking of which the Russians have figured out how to reload their missile
silos after lauching a first strike and we haven't.

Does that mean we need more medical science?

What difference does that make seeing as the first targets of either side are all known enemy missile silos.Meaning that we'd launch our missiles at their silos and many would be destroyed before they would have enough time to reload one. You mean to tell me that the Russians can reload a missile tube and launch another one in less than 30 minutes? I highly doubt it.That process takes much longer than 30 minutes.

Did you hear that on Russia Today? Show me where you get this information from I find it very hard to believe even with a solid fuel rocket there is no way they can reload a missile tube that fast in the time to be able to launch before it gets destroyed no way that is not possible it would have to take less than 10 minutes to be reloaded and ready for launch no way Jose.I know because the silo itself gets damaged a bit by each launch even if you did a cold launch you'd need all that compressed gas back in a very short time span not to mention the actual loading of the tube and there is simply no way that that can be done effectively in such a short time as to allow a second launch from the same silo before it got destroyed by a counter strike.Why even risk such a thing in the first place and leave a silo open all that time exposed to certain destruction at least with it close up it would take a direct or very close hit with the thing open and crew trying to reload it leaves the entire thing exposed and the MIRV could be of by miles and still kill the loading crew and the exposed missile and tube.

You most be thinking of their mobile ICBM platforms and even those dotn have that fast of a turn around.

I think we need less still in the Cold War thinking.

10-24-12, 04:50 PM	#1
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,391 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Let us not forget that our own "space race" had little to do with science and the betterment of humanity but more for the development of ICBM technology and political one-up-manship with the ruskies. Unfortunately, our history shows that innovation is often spurred by war and finding out cooleo ways of killing people. War, even a cold one, is good for science. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

10-25-12, 03:30 PM	#2
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Oh I have no doubt of this even during the space race each rocket was first developed as a deployment system for nuclear warheads the Redstone and Titians Mercury missions used Redstones and the Gemini missions used Titians and then the Minuteman is a solid fuel rocket and was developed in 1962 before the Saturn rocket was designed so the weaponry was always the first priority.The Saturn of course was the only rocket not also used as a weapon.The Titian had much longevity and was used until 2005 as a payload rocket so it saw much more use as a payload carrier of peaceful purposes than it did as a weapon of war.The Minuteman will be around for along time as well but as a weapon it even outlasted its newer counter part the Peacemaker though they have since converted some Peacemakers into payload rockets as well. The same of course can be said of Soviet rockets. Wars have done us alot of good when it comes to medical science as well. Last edited by Stealhead; 10-25-12 at 03:40 PM.