The Fermi Paradox

@engineer,

Which was a monument to nit-picking, unless you allege that the technology and the economy of the United States did not benefit enormously from the space program. That was the point of the my post which you hacked up to indulge your petty need to find fault with me and display your wonderful knowledge. Given that Corning Ware was a by-product of a contract to produce a ceramic for missile nosecones, i don't think you have a point at all.

(The other point of that post is that it was accomplished for a small fraction of the average annual cost of the Vietnam War. See if you can come up with some idiotic quibbles about that.)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

engineer wrote:

Agree with most of that, but CorningWare was developed by Corning, not Dow Corning and was developed for missile nosecones in the 50's, not the space program.

My point is exactly what I wrote: Most of what you wrote was on the money, that small part of it was not correct and we shouldn't leave it out there for posterity. Only on the Internet would such an innocuous effort to set the record straight result in a page of name calling venom spewing.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Only on the internet would a minor point like that be raised to a level of significance is does not deserve while the main points, and the more important points about technology, the economy, and, yes, money, are ignored. Only on the internet would one encounter someone who thinks no space program existed until NASA was founded in 1958, and that missile nosecones in 1953 were not a part of a space program.

EDIT: I see you continue to have no comment on the contribution to American technology and the economy of the development of the space program. I see you continue to have no comment about the cost to benefit ratio of the space program, as starkly highlighted by comparing it to the cost of the Vietnam War. It appears that you also continue to think that there was no space program until NASA was established. What do you think the point of missile nosecones was in 1953? Decorative enhancement?

1 Reply

Werner von Braun and the other German (Nazi, if you prefer) rocket scientists were sent to Huntsville, Alabama in 1950. They were then set to work on rocket development plans at the Redstone Arsenal. Von Braun would spend 20 years there. So i guess you think there was no space program in 1953 when the army asked Corning to develop a ceramic for missile nosecones, huh? As far as i'm concerned, you've been wrong from the outset. I consider that Corning Ware is a by-product of the space program, without regard to when NASA was founded.

You've spent way to long in political threads. This is not a political thread. Hammering on a minor point like this does nothing for the thread, and does nothing to enhance your image at this site.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Only on the internet would one encounter someone who thinks no space program existed until NASA was founded in 1958, and that missile nosecones in 1953 were not a part of a space program.

I suppose we could take a poll to see who thinks cold war research in the 40's and early 50's counts as the space program if we wanted. Of course I believe most people would agree with me. Certainly Corning was very proud of their space program contributions but they never mentioned Pyroceram. They touted their space capsule windows which they made virtually no money on but got a lot of press out of. Corning also did not mention Pyroceram as part of the space program in the histories they commissioned although they wrote extensively about Pyroceram. I would never advise my children to make the argument you have in a school paper on the benefits of the space program both because there are plenty of good, tangible benefits without trying to make Corningware part of it and because I doubt many people would see things like missile nosecone development as part of the space program any more than they would consider Star Wars part of the space program. I'm sure others will pipe up if I am wrong there.

Setanta wrote:

EDIT: I see you continue to have no comment on the contribution to American technology and the economy of the development of the space program. I see you continue to have no comment about the cost to benefit ratio of the space program, as starkly highlighted by comparing it to the cost of the Vietnam War.

I agreed with your original comments (as I've pointed out a couple of times already) with the exception of the factual errors. I don't feel the need to post a "me too" entry. Government investment in technology usually yields pretty good results and I fully support it, not just for the space program.

Setanta wrote:

It appears that you also continue to think that there was no space program until NASA was established. What do you think the point of missile nosecones was in 1953? Decorative enhancement?

I think there is a definitive start to the space program. It is not some nebulous term you can squint your eyes at, tilt you head and turn it into whatever you want. The point of missile nosecones in 1953 was to allow the US to develop missiles that could hit the Soviet Union. If a few years later that technology happened to help the space program then great.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Werner von Braun and the other German (Nazi, if you prefer) rocket scientists were sent to Huntsville, Alabama in 1950. They were then set to work on rocket development plans at the Redstone Arsenal.

Sounds like a great program to develop missiles to blast the Soviet Union, at least at the start.

Setanta wrote:

Von Braun would spend 20 years there.

I'm sure he was happy to move over to space research in the late 50's.

Setanta wrote:

So i guess you think there was no space program in 1953 when the army asked Corning to develop a ceramic for missile nosecones, huh? As far as i'm concerned, you've been wrong from the outset. I consider that Corning Ware is a by-product of the space program, without regard to when NASA was founded.

Obviously. I've never seen anything from Corning where I think they would agree with any part of that.

Setanta wrote:

Hammering on a minor point like this does nothing for the thread...

How true. Much better if you'd just said, "Oops, wrong about those particular facts" and moved on. IMO, allowing factually wrong information to stand would be a disservice to all the other readers who are probably bored to tears by this but at least don't think Corningware was funded by the space program.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I did say i was wrong about Dow-Corning, apparently you only read and take on what you want to. Your claim that corningware is not a product of the space program is not a fact, it's an opinion, and one which i don't believe is supported by the evidence.

0 Replies

@engineer,

You once again display your ignorance. The United States began research on a three stage ICBM in 1946. That was abandoned in 1948, because the Air Forced considered their bomber capability to be sufficient for a nuclear threat. In 1953, the Soviets successfully tested a hydrogen bomb, and the Air Force again became interested in ICBMs. They had to restart their ICBM program, and eventually, six years later, they had a viable Atlas rocket. ICBMs are defined as being able to fly at east 5000 kilometers. They do so by flying up out of the atmosphere, and then become a re-entry vehicle to deliver the weapon payload. The Soviets were way ahead of us in that category, and we would spend years trying to catch up, which is why von Braun would spend 20 years working at Redstone, your ignorant, smartass remarks notwithstanding.

In 1952, the International Council of Scientific Unions proposed an international geophysical year to take place in 1957-58. Both the United States and the Soviet Union stated that they would put a satellite in orbit in honor of the event. The Russians succeeded, but the Americans did not. So, essentially, your claim would mean that the United States promised to do something which required a space program at a time when they did not have a space program--according to you. In fact, the United States appointed a committee to investigate the needs of such a project and Project Vanguard was the response. Even though NASA was created in 1958, the Redstone Arsenal did not turn over its resources until 1960--more than 4000 employees and $100,000,000 of funding.

I have no problem with your ignorance, but i do have a problem with being sneered at by you when you know so little, and just vaguely refer to a space program which you seem to think did not start until many years after the Army, the Air Force and the Navy had all started programs in missile development, the purpose of which were to come up with a launch vehicle which worked by reaching outer space before dropping back to the earth. You don't seem to know anything substantive about the time period in question. I see you have also ignored that when NASA was formed, it got its start by being given the thousands of employees and millions of dollars of funding.

I not only have no reason to to consider what is now called corningware a product of the space program, i have very good reason to consider just that.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I suppose we could take a poll to see who thinks cold war research in the 40's and early 50's counts as the space program if we wanted.

We could also look at the historical evidence, which is well documented. You son't seem to have done that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

engineer wrote:
I suppose we could take a poll to see who thinks cold war research in the 40's and early 50's counts as the space program if we wanted.

We could also look at the historical evidence, which is well documented. You son't seem to have done that.

The space program was funded in 1958. I've made several references to that. In your initial post, you mentioned "Well, the space program in the 12 years from its inception of the moon landing" so that would put your definition of the space program as starting in 1957, at least until you had to redefine it in order to continue arguing. For the sake of argument, I'll just go with your 1957 number. If you want more "research", try searching for the "birth of the space program". Every single entry on the first page says 1957-8, even the one that says " America's Space Program, 1915-2011 " says the space program started in 1958.

(As you previously posted, Pyroceram was developed in 1953.)

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

...but i do have a problem with being sneered at ...

Could you quote where I "sneered at" you? Not that there hasn't been sneering, but I can't see where I did it. Pointing out an error in an otherwise fine post is not meant to be insulting.

0 Replies

The litany of your distortions is breathtaking. At no time did i say that the production of corningware was funded by the space program. It was simply a fortunate opportunity for Corning to create a consumer product. You have also completely ignored the information i have provided (and which can easily be fact-checked) about Project Vanguard and the commitment to put a satellite in orbit to honor the International Geophysical Year. That project began in 1953. At least you've been honest enough to claim that the space program began with the establishment of NASA in 1958, in your opinion. I'm just here to set the record straight because your "facts" are not in fact, factual.

I think a more profitable line of discussion would be the little known but crucial passage in the cold war when the United States was able to create a Tupperware gap over the Soviet Union.

1 Reply

This is your completely unwarranted sneer:

Quote:

It is not some nebulous term you can squint your eyes at, tilt you head and turn it into whatever you want.

I did not previously make an ipse dixit contention about when the space program began because i had not yet found an outside source which would definitively provide that information. Today, i did find such a source. b[]You can read the National Academies of Science[/b] article on the IGY by clicking on that link. It lists names, credentials and dates. I have no doubt that, in the best tradition of the Able2Know political thread junky, you will attempt to deny what is written there.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I provided you this link where site after site mark the start of the space program. It's not just "my opinion".

Thanks for the links on Project Vanguard. It was referenced in the NASA article on its founding and also on its own Wikipedia's page. If you want to take this as the start of the "space program" I suppose you can but NASA et al disagree with you.

Quote:

On 29 July 1955, James C. Hagerty, president Dwight D. Eisenhower's press secretary, announced that the United States intended to launch "small Earth circling satellites" between 1 July 1957 and 31 December 1958 as part of the United States contribution to the International Geophysical Year (IGY).

Setanta wrote:

At no time did i say that the production of corningware was funded by the space program.

Of course Pyroceram was invented before this earlier date and was not part of the satellite program but if you never claimed that Corningware was a product of the space program, then this has all been a misunderstanding and we can move on to Tupperware.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Tupperware will indeed be a fascinating topic. I consider the National Institutes of Science to be a reliable source. I am perplexed by your continuing (political thread-like) reluctance to admit that you may have been wrong. The NAS site states that a project was established in 1953 to put a satellite in orbit. You don't consider that a space program? Is English not your native language?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

NASA doesn't consider it the space program. I'll go with them.

0 Replies

Meaning that you can be hit over th head with the evidence, and still won't admit the possibility that you may have been wrong. I'm not surprised.

Quote:

American participation in the IGY was charged to a US National Committee (USNC) appointed in March 1953 by the NAS. Joseph Kaplan, Professor of Physics at UCLA, was appointed Chairman of the USNC. Physicist Alan H. Shapley of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) was appointed Vice-Chairman, and Hugh Odishaw, also of the NBS, was appointed Executive Secretary (later, Executive Director). The core USNC was made up of sixteen members, but the five Working Groups and thirteen Technical Panels that operated under it eventually drew in nearly 200 additional scientists. The technical panels were formed to pursue work in the following areas: aurora and airglow, cosmic rays, geomagnetism, glaciology, gravity, ionospheric physics, longitude and latitude determination, meteorology, oceanography, rocketry, seismology, and solar activity. In addition, a technical panel was set up to attempt to launch an artificial satellite into orbit around the earth.

If you don't consider an attempt to launch an artificial satellite into orbit to be a space program, i once again wonder if English is your native language. I'm not going to waste my time looking for what NASA has to say (which you haven't quoted or linked). One shouldn't wonder, though, if they have an institutional objection to acknowledging that they weren't the first.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I can find a dozen sites without effort that directly say "the space program was founded in 1958 with the creation of NASA." I've provided you the link. Can you find one that says "the space program was founded in 1953 with the US commitment to the IGY?" Can you consider that (gasp) I'm not wrong? In your first post you even mentioned the twelve years since the space program founding to the moon landing. Other than for the purpose of arguing, why are you taking a different position now? Why add this "debate" to the factual issues we've already settled? Are you still trying to back door some way Pryoceram came from the space program instead of defense spending on missiles?

If any spending on space constitutes the "start of the space program", why aren't you going back to the Mt Palomar telescope originally funded in the 20's or even earlier? Even this link that goes back to 1915 discussing the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and its work on aviation technology says "Their research led to the creation of the space program and the birth of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1958, and its now-legendary space missions: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and the Space Shuttle."

1 Reply

@engineer,

I've already done so, and quoted it in my last post. While it is true that it does not specifically say what you wrote, once gain, a rudimentary knowledge of the English language helps to understand these things. I grow tired of your snotty, Little-Miss-Can't-Be-Wrong wrangling. You can play with yourself now. Oh, i know, better yet, go find a political thread, whicx this ain't.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

One dozen sites (at least) with a direct quote vs one where if you spin it the right way, stamp your foot and yell loud enough, it might say what you want. Yes, your point is obvious.

1 Reply

The Fermi Paradox

Quick Links

My Account

able2know