From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

John Beamish wrote:
> Well, once you have go-to-orbit-return nothing else is needed for
> precision ICBM hardware/software.  That eliminates Gemini and Apollo.
>
> I agree that the military and NASA were often working hand-in-glove
> (there are, after all, a lot of other NASA programs that would have
> delivered information that the military would find, ahem, useful) but I
> think Kennedy's race to the moon wasn't about the military benefits but,
> rather, was a marketing tool (so many things done "in the open" when
> compared to the Soviet approach).
>

Riiiight....

& Sputnik was an interesting civilian effort on the part of the SU to
explore science...


Large lift vehicles lead to better surveillance satellites etc.etc.

Edwards is...(A) A Nasa facility or (B) an Airforce facility ?

Vandenberg is....?

Right across a creek from Kennedy is.....Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

France has supported Ariane because of a deep love of....... (a) science
(b) it's nuclear deterrent

Brazil.......Ukraine.....odd how nuke capable countries develop such a deep
love of civie space efforts at a national level.

etc.


> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:26:06 -0500, Monte Davis
>  wrote:
>
>> Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge">
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What's the diff twixt a space launch vehicle & a ICBM? The payload?
>>
>> This is news? :-)
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5