The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: rrenaissancemann on May 05, 2009, 04:33:08 AM

Title: Pre NASA
Post by: rrenaissancemann on May 05, 2009, 04:33:08 AM
Flat Earthers claim that NASA is the root of the round earth conspiracy.
The earth was proven to be flat long before NASA ever existed.  Hundreds of years before.
What's the deal with that?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 05, 2009, 05:09:03 AM
Do a search for "Bavarian Globe Maker's Guild" also known as "The Illuminati".  Trust me, RET isn't the only conspiracy that they have going.  Fnord.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: bennihana123 on May 05, 2009, 07:09:18 PM
This whole forum makes me want to punch a baby. Why is there even a debate? This is the 21st century.

Anyway... Is there any proof of these conspiracies?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 05, 2009, 07:38:53 PM
Is there proof for any of the world wide, behind the scenes conspiracies floating around?  It wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if there was proof, would it?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: spanner34.5 on May 06, 2009, 08:13:25 AM
This whole forum makes me want to punch a baby. Why is there even a debate? This is the 21st century.

Anyway... Is there any proof of these conspiracies?
Do all round earthers punch babies in this 21st century?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: RedsoxRockies on May 06, 2009, 09:38:58 AM
Ever hear of Copernicus? Uh, he was 450 years before NASA, and he proved the Earth was round....
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Robbyj on May 06, 2009, 09:45:05 AM
Ever hear of Copernicus? Uh, he was 450 years before NASA, and he theorized the Earth was round....

Fixed.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: RedsoxRockies on May 06, 2009, 09:50:43 AM
Ever hear of Copernicus? Uh, he was 450 years before NASA, and he theorized the Earth was round....

Fixed.
And he had good backing. Here, go to the beach and look out at the horizon. Does itlook totally flat or rounded?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Flat earth is debunked on May 06, 2009, 10:01:23 AM
Ever hear of Copernicus? Uh, he was 450 years before NASA, and he theorized the Earth was round....

Fixed.

Why wasn't Copernicus shot by NASA assasins?

I think he died in a boating accident before they got to him.

(http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chemical-connections/FlatEarth.jpg)
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Floodian on May 06, 2009, 05:06:19 PM
Question: Are all the FE guys just really awesome trolls?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Robbyj on May 06, 2009, 05:25:07 PM
The FE guys are just really awesome.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: bootsie on May 06, 2009, 05:26:00 PM
Ever hear of Copernicus? Uh, he was 450 years before NASA, and he theorized the Earth was round....

Fixed.

he didn't' theorized, he proved it. its basic 21 century educations that the earth is round and not flat.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Robbyj on May 06, 2009, 05:29:46 PM
its basic 21 century educations that the earth is round and not flat.

Was grammar abandoned in said education?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: bootsie on May 06, 2009, 05:42:52 PM
its basic 21 century educations that the earth is round and not flat.

Was grammar abandoned in said education?

you should see the state of the public schools. there fallen apart.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Robbyj on May 07, 2009, 11:13:54 AM
grammar be part of the conspiracy

Fair enough.  By the way, your avatar is awesome.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Jesus Crotch on May 07, 2009, 11:41:36 AM
Ever hear of Copernicus? Uh, he was 450 years before NASA, and he proved the Earth was round....

Actually, Copernicus' theories regard the sun being at the center of our solar system.  I think you're thinking of Eratosthenes or Ptolemy.

Besides, how do you know Copernicus even existed?  Because you read it in a book?  I read a book last night where Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock fired their phasers on stun.  That book isn't used as a school text book, you say?  Hey, when I was in school, they taught me all about the planet Pluto, as well.  We know how that turned out!
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 07, 2009, 12:53:39 PM
Besides, how do you know Copernicus even existed?  Because you read it in a book?

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."  --Napoleon Bonaparte

Besides, how do you know that you exist?  Did someone tell you?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: rrenaissancemann on May 13, 2009, 06:54:53 AM
Rhetorical nonsense.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: grogberries on May 14, 2009, 06:36:15 PM
I don't think anyone here has said that people only believe the earth is round because of NASA. They just happen to claim they've been to outer-space and documented the earth's shape. It's annoying that people come here trying to prove us wrong and NASA is always used when they get cornered. It's just a myth. It's pathetic how people will buy into it without question.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 14, 2009, 07:18:56 PM
Rhetorical nonsense.

You're new here, aren't you?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: maxcurrent on May 17, 2009, 09:42:41 PM
Is there proof for any of the world wide, behind the scenes conspiracies floating around?  It wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if there was proof, would it?

So basically, the less evidence there is of a conspiracy, the more efficient the conspirators, and therefore the more truth in the existence of said conspiracy? Gotcha.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: grogberries on May 17, 2009, 09:46:51 PM
NASA contradicts physical reality. What proof could possibly be more sufficient?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: maxcurrent on May 17, 2009, 09:58:08 PM
NASA contradicts physical reality. What proof could possibly be more sufficient?

You can't really say things without giving reasons. Especially things that a retarded first grader will tell you is stupid and not true. Let's assume for a minute that you're worldview isn't completely assbackwards.

Why would the government go through such trouble trying to cover up the geometry of the world (which any curious person can see for himself is spherical, but let's ignore this glaring inconsistency) to make 18 billion dollars a year, especially, when according to you, it's so obvious that the world is flat?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2009, 06:20:25 AM
It's my position that NASA truly and honestly believes that the earth is a globe, which is why they chose to depict it as such in their Apollo images. But since neither space travel or earth orbit is possible, and since the highest NASA can go is to the edge of the atmosphere where they are looking down at the distant curved edges of the sun's circular area of light, they are in no position to tell us what form the earth takes.

The "conspiracy" revolves around faking space travel for political and military purposes. After the Manhattan Project in the 1940's the US needed some kind of unstoppable vehicle to facilitate the transport of its weapons of mass destruction. Thus NASA was created in the 50's for the sole and only purpose of convincing the world that the US could drop an ICBM on foreign cities at the drop of a hat.

You're fooling yourself if you believe that NASA was created for some kind of humanitarian or scientific purpose.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: its_amazing on May 18, 2009, 07:55:07 AM
What does FE think of NACA and the aeronautical research they did before becoming NASA?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 18, 2009, 08:28:44 AM
NASA contradicts physical reality. What proof could possibly be more sufficient?

NASA's motto: "The difficult we do immediately.  The impossible takes a little longer."

Besides, reality is highly over rated.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: tuffers on May 18, 2009, 09:28:17 AM
It's my position that NASA truly and honestly believes that the earth is a globe

Umm OK.

The "conspiracy" revolves around faking space travel for political and military purposes.

So if NASA doesn't do the conspiring (see above) who does?!

A post of infinite value oh lord of retarded buttfucks.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Moon squirter on May 18, 2009, 09:51:28 AM
It's my position that NASA truly and honestly believes that the earth is a globe

You've changed your mind then.  It least we're moving in the right direction.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2009, 09:52:20 AM
So if NASA doesn't do the conspiring (see above) who does?!

NASA is conspiring. They're just not conspiring over the shape of the earth. They're conspiring to create the illusion of America's dominance over space.

Quote
You've changed your mind then.  It least we're moving in the right direction.

I haven't changed my mind. It's what I've been saying for the past two years.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Moon squirter on May 18, 2009, 11:12:50 AM
Quote
You've changed your mind then.  It least we're moving in the right direction.

I haven't changed my mind. It's what I've been saying for the past two years.

Let me get this right:  You are saying that NASA think the earth is round when in fact it is flat.  NASA has no idea why it cannot get into space despite countless attempts, using the most advanced rockets and ground control equipment.

Therefore there is no "Flat Earth Conspiracy", just a "Space Flight Conspiracy".

Do you know even more than the FES?
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: tuffers on May 18, 2009, 11:27:22 AM
So if NASA doesn't do the conspiring (see above) who does?!

NASA is conspiring. They're just not conspiring over the shape of the earth. They're conspiring to create the illusion of America's dominance over space.

LOL Do all your posts make this much sense?

Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2009, 04:40:26 PM
Let me get this right:  You are saying that NASA think the earth is round when in fact it is flat.  NASA has no idea why it cannot get into space despite countless attempts, using the most advanced rockets and ground control equipment.

Therefore there is no "Flat Earth Conspiracy", just a "Space Flight Conspiracy".

Do you know even more than the FES?

NASA may have had a genuine drive to get to space and establish America's military dominance in its early life. It probably started off with a genuine intention of getting into space. But after countless mishaps like the Apollo 1 disaster, technical difficulties where NASA could not even maintain radio communication between two rooms, and being forced to assassinate former employees from speaking out, NASA turned its back on progress and turned into a pure movie studio. Giant hyper-realistic "moon balls" were made, moonscapes were constructed, and modified Nazi V2 rockets were launched for the benefit of politicians and the public.

NASA doesn't care why they can't get into space, the shape of the earth, or whether the moon is made up of Igneous rock. NASA just cares about money.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 18, 2009, 05:40:28 PM
Let me get this right:  You are saying that NASA think the earth is round when in fact it is flat.  NASA has no idea why it cannot get into space despite countless attempts, using the most advanced rockets and ground control equipment.

Therefore there is no "Flat Earth Conspiracy", just a "Space Flight Conspiracy".

Do you know even more than the FES?

NASA may have had a genuine drive to get to space and establish America's military dominance in its early life. It probably started off with a genuine intention of getting into space. But after countless mishaps like the Apollo 1 disaster, technical difficulties where NASA could not even communicate between two rooms, and being forced to assassinate former employees from speaking out, NASA turned its back on progress and turned into a pure movie studio. Giant hyper-realistic "moon balls" were made, moonscapes were constructed, and modified Nazi V-3 rockets were launched for the benefit of politicians and the public.

NASA doesn't care why they can't get into space, the shape of the earth, or whether the moon is made up of Igneous rock. NASA just cares about money.

(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Nightmare30/Funny%20stuff/facepalm.jpg)
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Moon squirter on May 19, 2009, 02:05:46 AM
NASA doesn't care why they can't get into space

But as you previously touched on, getting into space would facilitate the development of ICBMs, in addition to spy satellites.  I think the US Government would care an awful lot and would want to find out why this was not possible, at any cost.  So would the Kremlin.

It gets worse: The alternative is that both the US and Russia knew that (for unknown reasons) neither could deliver ICBMs, there is no MAD and the Cold War was just played out according to a script.  In short, the White House and the Kremlin were working in partnership for no apparent reason.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Grawrrrr on May 19, 2009, 08:35:29 PM
lol im so srry just this is so funny to read conspiracy this conspicary that :O SOMEONE ATE MEH BACON, ITS A CONSPIRACY like lol not everything is a conspiracy why cant you just accept that the earth is round i mean it even makes life easier for you to understand it is because not almost every person will be going down on you and you know you can go to space wouldnt that be fun and you can stop being scared of going over the edge of the earth
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: NASAScientist on May 19, 2009, 10:46:02 PM
It's my position that NASA truly and honestly believes that the earth is a globe, which is why they chose to depict it as such in their Apollo images. But since neither space travel or earth orbit is possible, and since the highest NASA can go is to the edge of the atmosphere where they are looking down at the distant curved edges of the sun's circular area of light, they are in no position to tell us what form the earth takes.

The "conspiracy" revolves around faking space travel for political and military purposes. After the Manhattan Project in the 1940's the US needed some kind of unstoppable vehicle to facilitate the transport of its weapons of mass destruction. Thus NASA was created in the 50's for the sole and only purpose of convincing the world that the US could drop an ICBM on foreign cities at the drop of a hat.

You're fooling yourself if you believe that NASA was created for some kind of humanitarian or scientific purpose.

This is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read during my brief existence in this universe.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: spanner34.5 on May 20, 2009, 01:57:07 AM

This is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read during my brief existence in this universe.
Try this site http://theroundearthsociety.net/..... an abundance of stupidity.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: svenanders on May 20, 2009, 02:32:12 AM

This is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read during my brief existence in this universe.
Try this site http://theroundearthsociety.net/..... an abundance of stupidity.

You mean lack of stupidity. This site is the trolling site #1 on the internets!
The Round Earth Society is for serious discussions!
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 20, 2009, 06:25:35 AM
But as you previously touched on, getting into space would facilitate the development of ICBMs, in addition to spy satellites.  I think the US Government would care an awful lot and would want to find out why this was not possible, at any cost.  So would the Kremlin.

It gets worse: The alternative is that both the US and Russia knew that (for unknown reasons) neither could deliver ICBMs, there is no MAD and the Cold War was just played out according to a script.  In short, the White House and the Kremlin were working in partnership for no apparent reason.

Sure, there was MAD, it just didn't revolve around ICBM's. The Russians developed all of those suitcase nukes, remember? Bombers were also outfitted with nukes. The only downside to those technologies were that planes could be shot down and the suitcase nukes weren't very powerful (less than 1kt).

It was important to create the illusion of ICBM's because, as they knew from their encounter with the Nazi's V2 rockets, ballistic missiles were impossible to shoot down or prevent and could contain significant payload. Whoever created the strongest illusion of ICBM's made the most powerful allies. ICBM's were the alpha and omega of super weapons.

The space race was pure military propaganda and and deception. Props were made, tests were staged, and missiles were paraded, all to fabricate the illusion of superiority. See this article for instance:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981118/ai_n14192997

Moscow paraded dummy missiles

MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday.

One such fake, GR-1, an acronym for Global Missile, showed during a parade in 1965, prompted the United States to build an anti- missile defence system worth billions of dollars, said the weekly Vlast (Power). In fact, the Soviets had abandoned the GR-1 project long before the parade.

Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure, the magazine said. "Foreign military attaches were scared to death, triggering panic in Nato headquarters," it said. "A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies." One of the authors of the Vlast report worked as a missile engineer and said he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles to prevent it from bouncing on the stone-paved Red Square in Moscow. The magazine said the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev first bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage". "Such comparison sounded ambiguous for the Soviet people, because the sausage was in deficit, but it duly impressed foreigners," it said. At the time of Krushchev's comment, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty, while the United States had 60. "The myth about the Soviet missile superiority was convenient for both the Soviet leadership and the American military industrial complex, which was getting huge contracts," the magazine said.


Another article on the subject:

http://www.cdi.org/russia/may1499.html#6

There's also a book about their dummy programs:

(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/91/fa/aa98923f8da0ee2a8d0aa010._AA240_.L.jpg) 

Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 20, 2009, 06:43:42 AM
Sure, the Soviets may have had several dummy or failed missiles that they bluffed the US into believing were real.  But, then again, they had enough genuinely real missiles to worry about too.  As usual Tom, I'm not sure that I see your point, especially when you also claim that the whole cold war was fake and the US and USSR were really good buddies all along.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 20, 2009, 07:40:19 AM
Sure, the Soviets may have had several dummy or failed missiles that they bluffed the US into believing were real.  But, then again, they had enough genuinely real missiles to worry about too.  As usual Tom, I'm not sure that I see your point, especially when you also claim that the whole cold war was fake and the US and USSR were really good buddies all along.

The missiles the Russian did have weren't ICBM's which could get into earth orbit, but more like V2's which could do no more than kiss the edge of space. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Soviets, limited by the V2 technology they stole, needed to get within 200 miles of the US to have a hope of hitting it.

If they really had orbital technology they wouldn't need to get that close.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: SHOOPDAWHOOP on May 20, 2009, 07:53:57 AM
heres an interesting concept.

A pizza is flat. A pizza is round....  :P
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 20, 2009, 08:00:28 AM
Sure, the Soviets may have had several dummy or failed missiles that they bluffed the US into believing were real.  But, then again, they had enough genuinely real missiles to worry about too.  As usual Tom, I'm not sure that I see your point, especially when you also claim that the whole cold war was fake and the US and USSR were really good buddies all along.

The missiles the Russian did have weren't ICBM's which could get into earth orbit, but more like modified V2's which could do no more than kiss the edge of space. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Soviets, limited by V2 technology, needed to get within 200 miles of the US to have a hope of hitting it.

I keep telling you that ICBMS do not need to achieve earth orbit in order to travel thousands of miles.  But, if you want to insist, all ballistic missiles (even the V2) can be considered to have orbital paths where most of the orbit is within the earth itself.

BTW, the missiles in Cuba were medium and intermediate range missiles with a ranges of around 1000-4000 km or so which put about 2/3 of the US in range.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#U-2_flights
The first consignment of SS-3 MRBMs (medium range ballistic missiles) arrived on the night of September 8, followed by a second on September 16. The Soviets were building nine sites ? six for SS-4s and three for SS-5s with a 4,000 kilometer-range (2,400 statute miles).
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 20, 2009, 08:13:50 AM
Quote
I keep telling you that ICBMS do not need to achieve earth orbit in order to travel thousands of miles.  But, if you want to insist, all ballistic missiles (even the V2) can be considered to have orbital paths where most of the orbit is within the earth itself.

BTW, the missiles in Cuba were medium and intermediate range missiles with a ranges of around 1000-4000 km or so which put about 2/3 of the US in range.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#U-2_flights
The first consignment of SS-3 MRBMs (medium range ballistic missiles) arrived on the night of September 8, followed by a second on September 16. The Soviets were building nine sites ? six for SS-4s and three for SS-5s with a 4,000 kilometer-range (2,400 statute miles).

Hitler's V2's were powerful enough to get to the edge of space and their maximum range was 200 miles. I'd trust Hitler over the American or Soviet propaganda machines who were constantly exchanging technology claims and misinformation any day of the week.

If the Russians really did have orbital capabilities they wouldn't have needed to set up missile bases in Cuba. The fact that they needed to set up a missile base about 100 miles from the US several years after they had already claimed to achieve earth orbit is absolute proof that they really could not achieve orbit at all.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 20, 2009, 08:24:30 AM
Hitler's V2's were powerful enough to get to the edge of space and their maximum range was 200 miles. I'd trust Hitler over American or Soviet propaganda machines any day of the week.

If the Russians really did have orbital capabilities they wouldn't have needed to set up missile bases in Cuba at all. The fact that they needed to set up a missile base about 100 miles from the US after they had already claimed to achieve earth orbit, is absolute proof that they really could not achieve orbit at all.

Tom, are you saying that the maximum range of any ballistic missile is 200 miles?  ::)  Just because you can lob a nuke half way across the earth, that doesn't mean that you can reliably hit your target (especially in the early '60s).  Here's a hint for you, shorter range missiles are more accurate and give your enemy less time to react (10 minutes or less from Cuba as opposed to 30-40 minutes from Russia).  Can you say tactical advantage?  I knew that you could.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Moon squirter on May 20, 2009, 02:36:15 PM
The fact that they needed to set up a missile base about 100 miles from the US several years after they had already claimed to achieve earth orbit is absolute proof that they really could not achieve orbit at all.

It's not "proof" by a long way I'm afraid.  The devil's in the detail.

The soviets were deploying "tactical" NWs, with the purpose of dissuading the US from invading Cuba (not attacking Russia and thereby triggering a full exchange).  Cuba was an extremely important communist outpost and consequently a major headache to the US.  However, Russia (as much as it liked Cuba) knew it was not worth going for the MAD "strategic" defence option and risking everything for small country with no economic or military value.  That really would have been mad.

Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 20, 2009, 03:36:57 PM
The fact that they needed to set up a missile base about 100 miles from the US several years after they had already claimed to achieve earth orbit is absolute proof that they really could not achieve orbit at all.

It's not "proof" by a long way I'm afraid.  The devil's in the detail.

The soviets were deploying "tactical" NWs, with the purpose of dissuading the US from invading Cuba (not attacking Russia and thereby triggering a full exchange).  Cuba was an extremely important communist outpost and consequently a major headache to the US.  However, Russia (as much as it liked Cuba) knew it was not worth going for the MAD "strategic" defence option and risking everything for small country with no economic or military value.  That really would have been mad.

If the soviets really did have the capability of getting into earth orbit as they had been claiming for a number of years, they wouldn't need to set up "tactical" missile bases near the US.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: NASAScientist on May 20, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
The fact that they needed to set up a missile base about 100 miles from the US several years after they had already claimed to achieve earth orbit is absolute proof that they really could not achieve orbit at all.

It's not "proof" by a long way I'm afraid.  The devil's in the detail.

The soviets were deploying "tactical" NWs, with the purpose of dissuading the US from invading Cuba (not attacking Russia and thereby triggering a full exchange).  Cuba was an extremely important communist outpost and consequently a major headache to the US.  However, Russia (as much as it liked Cuba) knew it was not worth going for the MAD "strategic" defence option and risking everything for small country with no economic or military value.  That really would have been mad.

If the soviets really did have the capability of getting into earth orbit as they had been claiming for a number of years, they wouldn't need to set up "tactical" missile bases near the US.
Getting into Earth's orbit is one thing. The ability to successfully launch nuclear weapons from space (or launching a device into space capable of launching nuclear weapons) is completely different. Sputnik was the size of a basketball.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 20, 2009, 07:14:30 PM
If the soviets really did have the capability of getting into earth orbit as they had been claiming for a number of years, they wouldn't need to set up "tactical" missile bases near the US.

Getting a nuke into orbit is one thing.  Getting it to land on target is something else.  Again, there's also the annoying little problem of giving your enemy enough time to launch their missiles while your's are still in 'orbit'.  Oh, and ICBMs predate space flight by a few months.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM#Cold_War
In 1953, the USSR initiated, under the direction of the reactive propulsion engineer Sergey Korolyov, a program to develop an ICBM. Korolyov had constructed the R-1, a copy of the V-2 based on some captured materials, but later developed his own distinct design. This rocket, the R-7, was successfully tested in August 1957 becoming the world's first ICBM and, on October 4, 1957, placed the first artificial satellite in space, Sputnik.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: cristiano on May 20, 2009, 08:45:37 PM
Hello there.Nice to meet you.It will be really interesting if we get the chance to work with NASA.It is like dream come true.
_____________________________________
gelato (http://www.villadolcegelato.com/)
better search engine rankings (http://www.seoformywebsite.com/seo-concepts.html)
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Moon squirter on May 21, 2009, 12:42:36 AM
The fact that they needed to set up a missile base about 100 miles from the US several years after they had already claimed to achieve earth orbit is absolute proof that they really could not achieve orbit at all.

It's not "proof" by a long way I'm afraid.  The devil's in the detail.

The soviets were deploying "tactical" NWs, with the purpose of dissuading the US from invading Cuba (not attacking Russia and thereby triggering a full exchange).  Cuba was an extremely important communist outpost and consequently a major headache to the US.  However, Russia (as much as it liked Cuba) knew it was not worth going for the MAD "strategic" defence option and risking everything for small country with no economic or military value.  That really would have been mad.

If the soviets really did have the capability of getting into earth orbit as they had been claiming for a number of years, they wouldn't need to set up "tactical" missile bases near the US.

You really haven't understood a word.  The Russian missiles were set up to be used in a specific scenario that did not directly involving Russia (the likely invasion of Cuba by the US).  Launching an all-out strategic attack on US cities would have meant the end of modern civilisation for both sides.  In Russian eyes, a limited Nuclear response would be more sensible.

However, Kennedy made it clear that any individual Nuclear attack would trigger a full response by the US.
  (by your standards, Tom, proof that the US could get into space?)


Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 21, 2009, 04:48:18 AM
Quote
You really haven't understood a word.  The Russian missiles were set up to be used in a specific scenario that did not directly involving Russia (the likely invasion of Cuba by the US).  Launching an all-out strategic attack on US cities would have meant the end of modern civilisation for both sides.  In Russian eyes, a limited Nuclear response would be more sensible.

If Russia was interested solely in the preventing an invasion of Cuba they would have, you know, reinforced it with traditional munitions and traditional military bases, not build a nuclear silo. Putting a nuclear silo 100 miles off the coast of a country doesn't stop an invasion. It just increases the chance of an invasion. It's obvious what Russia's intentions were.

Getting a nuke into orbit is one thing.  Getting it to land on target is something else.

Well it's a good thing they were already claiming to be able to do that, too.

Quote
Oh, and ICBMs predate space flight by a few months.

Just goes to show that the space race was for neither humanitarian or for scientific purposes as was constantly claimed by both sides.

It's ridiculous beyond belief that you guys will sit here saying "yes well Russia lied about all of those fake ICBM's, but everything else they said and did during the space race was pure fact." The extent of globularist brainwashing is truly frightening.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: markjo on May 21, 2009, 06:20:16 AM
Quote
Oh, and ICBMs predate space flight by a few months.

Just goes to show that the space race was for neither humanitarian or for scientific purposes as was constantly claimed by both sides.

It's ridiculous beyond belief that you guys will sit here saying "yes well Russia lied about all of those fake ICBM's, but everything else they said and did during the space race was pure fact." The extent of globularist brainwashing is truly frightening.

Actually Tom, you are the one saying that "Russia lied about all of those fake ICBMs".  I agreed that they may have lied about some fake ICBMs.  Big difference.  To me, your trolling abilities are truly frightening.
Title: Re: Pre NASA
Post by: Moon squirter on May 21, 2009, 06:45:17 AM
Quote
You really haven't understood a word.  The Russian missiles were set up to be used in a specific scenario that did not directly involving Russia (the likely invasion of Cuba by the US).  Launching an all-out strategic attack on US cities would have meant the end of modern civilisation for both sides.  In Russian eyes, a limited Nuclear response would be more sensible.

Putting a nuclear silo 100 miles off the coast of a country doesn't stop an invasion. It just increases the chance of an invasion. It's obvious what Russia's intentions were...

Installing a local nuclear deterrent does "deter"  invasion;  The clue's in the word "deterrent".  Take Israel for instance. And India. And Pakistan.  And (in the future) North Korea and Iran.  According to your Logic, they're saying to their neighbours "Hi, we've got Nukes, please come in".

You've lost this one I'm afraid, Tom.  Tactical nukes don't prove anything.