Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Swoop on May 12, 2003, 03:42:59 AM
-
Sometimes you just gotta say....
"Hang the expense, we're doing it anyway.
Dont give a crap that it only give's 6 mpg / fires 10 times before needing a barrel change / gotta change the pistons every 50 miles / gotta rebuild the thing after every trip / wont make any money cos build costs are too high / dev costs too high / it's just plain stoopid.
And the reason we're doing it is cos it'll be the biggest, baddest and coolest thing around even if it wont make any money, we dont give a crap.
And we're gonna be proud of it too, not only cos it's the best but because we built it.
And anyone who wants to slag it off cos it won't make any money can go screw themselves, we dont care cos we've already GOT lots of money thanks. We did it cos it needed doing and because we could. If johnny-foreigner thinks he can do better then he's welcome to go ahead and try......."
Now think about it for a second and ask yourself if you havn't thought the same way about something wholly American.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Yeah we do that too.... we just don't need the French to help us do it.
-
Ok how about the English, Irish, Scottish, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, Chinese, Japanese, African....continue until named every sub-culture in the US......?
Lets see, native American means what again?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Ok how about the English, Irish, Scottish, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, Chinese, Japanese, African....continue until named every sub-culture in the US......?
Lets see, native American means what again?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Who said anything about native Americans?
America ( the nation) wouldn't need French ( the nation) help if we needed to build an SST.
-
Are you building an SST?
And is there anything major any nation has built in recent years with zero outside assistance? I mean totally zero.
Oh and you do know the Statue of Liberty was a French gift, right? You often in the habit of accepting gifts from the French? You gonna give it back now cos it's French?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Are you building an SST?
And is there anything major any nation has built in recent years with zero outside assistance? I mean totally zero.
Oh and you do know the Statue of Liberty was a French gift, right? You often in the habit of accepting gifts from the French? You gonna give it back now cos it's French?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Is it "an" sst or "a" sst.
"our" you building an super sonic transport, or are you building a super-sonic transport.
-
Well, that's a new approach to these things.
When you're not making headway in a debate, turn it into a matter of grammar.
"our" you building an super sonic transport, or are you building a super-sonic transport.
Eh? The first isn't even a sentence in any context.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Is it "an" sst or "a" sst.
"our" you building an super sonic transport, or are you building a super-sonic transport.
Is it super sonic transport or super-sonic transport?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Who said anything about native Americans?
America ( the nation) wouldn't need French ( the nation) help if we needed to build an SST.
You're ready to intern about 5% of you population ?
-
Oh and for the record it's "an" SST....
or it would be if you built one, which you wont.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Well, that's a new approach to these things.
When you're not making headway in a debate, turn it into a matter of grammar.
Eh? The first isn't even a sentence in any context.
exactly Dowding, Swoop attacked my grammer because he was'nt making any headway. I returned the favor.
And you cant spell "our"
Swoop
-
Wrong again Nuke. I merely pointed out a spelling mistake, spelling is not grammar.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
lol! :D
You haven't refuted any of his arguments in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
lol! :D
You haven't refuted any of his arguments in this thread.
And we're gonna be proud of it too, not only cos it's the best but because we built it.
Now think about it for a second and ask yourself if you havn't thought the same way about something wholly American.
He implied that the UK built the SST ( my impression) I refuted that.
Swoop changed his argument after that and then asked what nation had built something with zero outside assistance.
Moving target is he.
-
Say Nuke, 1 more thing.
If you're gonna argue grammar then I'd highly recommend making sure that the grammar you're about to correct is in fact incorrect. My Grammar was not incorrect cos I'm an educated Briton and you.......well you can't spell our.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Say Nuke, 1 more thing.
If you're gonna argue grammar then I'd highly recommend making sure that the grammar you're about to correct is in fact incorrect. My Grammar was not incorrect cos I'm an educated Briton and you.......well you can't spell our.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
how do you know I can't spell "our"
I used the word "are" out of context as far as you ( or Dowding) know.
p.s. Dowding, I could indeed argue that my grammer was attacked.
-
Lame, lame, lame. He didn't say the UK built the Concorde alone at all. He was talking about the thinking behind it, and how similar it is to many American projects. He didn't tie in any arguments about sole ownership of the Concorde concept at all.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Lame, lame, lame. He didn't say the UK built the Concorde alone at all. He was talking about the thinking behind it, and how similar it is to many American projects. He didn't tie in any arguments about sole ownership of the Concorde concept at all.
If johnny-foreigner thinks he can do better then he's welcome to go ahead and try......."
so what did he mean by this?
-
I mean I'm proud of my country's achievements. Aren't you proud of yours? My point exactly.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
I mean I'm proud of my country's achievements. Aren't you proud of yours? My point exactly.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
I didn't realise that you guys could dance so well.
-
A huge regret of mine is that I didn't get a chance to have a ride on one of those beautiful machines.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Sometimes you just gotta say....
"Hang the expense, we're doing it anyway.
Dont give a crap that it only give's 6 mpg ..., we dont give a crap.
And we're gonna be proud of it too, not only cos it's the best but because we built it.
And anyone who wants to slag it off cos it won't make any money can go screw themselves, we dont care ..... If johnny-foreigner thinks he can do better then he's welcome to go ahead and try......."
Now think about it for a second and ask yourself if you havn't thought the same way about something wholly American.
I assume this is still Concord related...
your ascertation is absolutely correct, many decisions are made with a hang the cost mentality. (anybody get a plasma screen TV?)
However, when another decision is made to cancel the development, purchase, et al, because of cost, environmental, and political factors, does that make this decision bad?
Fact remains that with subsidies Concorde still cost, what, $10k per round trip, London/Paris to New York? And cannot (or according to BA, can barely) break even? Kinda like Amtrak US train service, which is on the verge of possibly being cancelled.
Concorde is an outstanding engineering success, but your investment money does better in T-bills.
-
I think what this boils down to is that the yanks are jealous.:D
-
heard they had to install the tele on the concorde on the ceiling, so the "average" passenger could enjoy it without lower their nose....
-
Jealous of what? From what I heard, the French / British won't have a(n) SST after November anyway...
(Hope Virgin gets it and flys it)
-
You forgot one thing...
"...and the taxpayers are going to pay for all of it."
At least the Tu-144 flew the common people. The concord was payed for by the entire nation, but only flown by the wealthy elite. Yeppers, there's a source of national pride for you.
Hell... if that's the fundamental criteria, we built the SR-71. Sure it carried fewer passengers, but the average American had the same chance of getting a ride on one as the average Brit did on the concord.
Beautifull aircraft... huge waste of money.
But... fastest passenger jet! You guys have that going for you.
Once again... look at any of the terminals at Heathrow.
MiniD
-
Listen to lefties in this thread. Makes you sick, the commie bastards. "It was so expensive, the poor common man couldn't afford it - why didn't they buy more buses or trains? Most people can afford them."
Usual left wing jealousy from Eagler and co. Keep waving that red flag!
bwahahahahahahaha
-
UK and France are by far the most technologically advanced nations in the Moslem world.
-
""Hang the expense, we're doing it anyway.
Dont give a crap that it only give's 6 mpg / fires 10 times before needing a barrel change / gotta change the pistons every 50 miles / gotta rebuild the thing after every trip / wont make any money cos build costs are too high / dev costs too high / it's just plain stoopid.
And the reason we're doing it is cos it'll be the biggest, baddest and coolest thing around even if it wont make any money, we dont give a crap.
And we're gonna be proud of it too, not only cos it's the best but because we built it.
And anyone who wants to slag it off cos it won't make any money can go screw themselves, we dont care cos we've already GOT lots of money thanks. We did it cos it needed doing and because we could. If johnny-foreigner thinks he can do better then he's welcome to go ahead and try......."
Hey, that pretty much sums up the APOLLO program.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Hell... if that's the fundamental criteria, we built the SR-71. Sure it carried fewer passengers, but the average American had the same chance of getting a ride on one as the average Brit did on the concord.MiniD
LOL. Just a slight exaggeration there Mini D. The SR-71 is a military aircraft, so all Americans NOT in the military are immediately disqualified as potential passengers.
I guess those German holiday makers who were killed on the French concord must have all been millionaires?
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Oh and you do know the Statue of Liberty was a French gift, right? You often in the habit of accepting gifts from the French? You gonna give it back now cos it's French?
Hey there Swoop ,
We accepted the gift a LONG time ago. Back when the French government actually seemed reasonable... The thing didn't just arrive yesterday ya know. If it had, I'm sure the French would have replaced the torch with a giant hand extending the middle finger and flipping us the bird. Seems they don't like us much these days... hehehe :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Lame, lame, lame. He didn't say the UK built the Concorde alone at all. He was talking about the thinking behind it, and how similar it is to many American projects. He didn't tie in any arguments about sole ownership of the Concorde concept at all.
I thought we abandoned our efforts regarding a SST due to no profitability.
The many American projects you refer to in camparison to the SST...examples of the many please?
-
The whole space race for starters. You've got a plethora of examples right there spanning decades, as someone already pointed out. It was done because of national prestige more than anything else and was hugely expensive.
-
Many I don't know but at least one :
http://www.the-sst.com/aircraft/b2707/
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
We accepted the gift a LONG time ago. Back when the French government actually seemed reasonable... The thing didn't just arrive yesterday ya know. If it had, I'm sure the French would have replaced the torch with a giant hand extending the middle finger and flipping us the bird. Seems they don't like us much these days... hehehe :rolleyes:
You guys accepted another gift...at Yorktown, during your War of Independence against Britain. If my history teacher was correct it had something to do with a fleet of French warships that prevented Cornwallis from getting reinforcements or to escape to fight on.
-
The French government in the dying days of its monarchy was far from reasonable.
-
The statue of of liberty was second hand scrap by the time it got put up in New York. It wasnt particularly liked or wanted. It happened to be up during a time of massive immigration of Eastern Europeans and Italians and as such it became a symbol to them. But at the time folks thought it was stupid.
Much like this thread........
I mean I'm proud of my country's achievements. Aren't you proud of yours? My point exactly.
It doesnt seem like its much be proud of but I guess you gotta take what you can get.
Whats next "My Chunnel is longer then yours....."?
-
Originally posted by Curval
A huge regret of mine is that I didn't get a chance to have a ride on one of those beautiful machines.
Right now my only regret is clicking on this pointless thread.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The French government in the dying days of its monarchy was far from reasonable.
hu ?
It was the 3rd republic since september 1870 ;)
-
Doh! I had my wires crossed. I was thinking about the War of Independence support.
BTW, how many Napoleons were there? Was there an Emperor of that name in the 1860s?
-
There were 3 Napoléons : the one you fought (the 1st) , his son also called "l'aiglon" and a distant usurpator/dictator who took the name Napoléon III(*) after betraying the people who elected him ...
(*) also called "badinguet" by his most famous opposant Victor Hugo.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Sometimes you just gotta say....
"Hang the expense, we're doing it anyway.
Dont give a crap that it only give's 6 mpg / fires 10 times before needing a barrel change / gotta change the pistons every 50 miles / gotta rebuild the thing after every trip / wont make any money cos build costs are too high / dev costs too high / it's just plain stoopid.
And the reason we're doing it is cos it'll be the biggest, baddest and coolest thing around even if it wont make any money, we dont give a crap.
And we're gonna be proud of it too, not only cos it's the best but because we built it.
And anyone who wants to slag it off cos it won't make any money can go screw themselves, we dont care cos we've already GOT lots of money thanks. We did it cos it needed doing and because we could. If johnny-foreigner thinks he can do better then he's welcome to go ahead and try......."
Now think about it for a second and ask yourself if you havn't thought the same way about something wholly American.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Nah! Never happen.... (http://www.monster-truck.com/images/031small.JPG)
-
Swoop, you do realize that us yanks do have a few of those "damn the expense we're gonna build it" irons in the fire. We just keep some of 'em hidden 'cause we don't want everyone copying them.
-
a bit of Hugo opinion of Napoléon III :
"Bonaparte sera empereur, soit, mais il ne sera jamais que le tyran pygmée d'un grand peuple. Dictateur, il est bouffon. Qu'il se fasse empereur, il sera grotesque."
translated (fast and badly) it give :
Bonaparte will be an emperor,right, but he will be never anything but a Pygmy tyrant of a great people. Dictator, he is a buffoon. Made emperor, it will be grotesque.
-
damnit.. some of 'secrets' are leaking out...
(runs to camo the jeep)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Are you building an SST?
And is there anything major any nation has built in recent years with zero outside assistance? I mean totally zero.
Oh and you do know the Statue of Liberty was a French gift, right? You often in the habit of accepting gifts from the French? You gonna give it back now cos it's French?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg) [/QUOTE
Ya come git it, damn think turned green :D :rolleyes:
-
So your government wasted billions building an impractical and hideously expensive passenger jet and you are proud of that???
Look in the mirror and think of the dental care you could have bought with the money you spent on taxes instead.
Man maybe you guys will be kind enough to buy NASA from us (actually you can have it for FREE as far as I am concerned, what a bargain!!!!) and be proud of that. In fact we have a whole host of "cool" government agencies you are welcome to: The DOE, EPA, Dept of Education, Peace Corps and about a billion others too numerous to mention here come to mind.
Hooligan
-
A possible explanation for this thread: British doctors removed at least 20,000 brains for research from 1970 to 1999 without obtaining families' consent, according a government report published Monday. (http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=4&aid=D7QVRR2G0_story)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
A possible explanation for this thread: British doctors removed at least 20,000 brains for research from 1970 to 1999 without obtaining families' consent, according a government report published Monday. (http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=4&aid=D7QVRR2G0_story)
Where the Brits who had their brains removed Blair backers?
(I COLD say that Beetle is one of the 20,000, but that would be mean) ;)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
.
Oh and you do know the Statue of Liberty was a French gift, right? You often in the habit of accepting gifts from the French? You gonna give it back now cos it's French?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Yes, Swoop, there is a movement here in the States to return the Statue of Liberty to France- only we're modifying it first by having BOTH hands raised.
-
Yeah that's a funny topic you've found there, Funked. People who commit suicide having their brain's removed without any form of consent from relatives is always a good laugh.
Hooligan - what's this about dental care? I've never heard that one before! Jesus, you are originality incarnate!
And now I'm going to a Rude special (edited for brevity):
"You're all just jealous."
-
Posted by Swoop.
Oh and for the record it's "an" SST....
Sorry, but "an" is only used when preceding a word that starts with a vowel.
;)
-
aww, come on my fellow Americans! Swallow your pride and admit that Dowding and Swoopy actually have a point. So the UK and the French worked together and have an SST to show for it while the USA doesn't. It's not like they get to be on top very often, so let them have their pride. ;)
-
Yes, Swoop, there is a movement here in the States to return the Statue of Liberty to France- only we're modifying it first by having BOTH hands raised.
ROFL
:D
-
Originally posted by 2stony
Posted by Swoop.
Sorry, but "an" is only used when preceding a word that starts with a vowel.
;)
http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/acronyms.html
-
lol Nifty
I'd like to mention a little matter called football. But seeing as you fluked...err... played your way to the quarter finals, I'm not on firm ground anymore. Darn! :D
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Oh and for the record it's "an" SST....
or it would be if you built one, which you wont.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Yeah because its a dinosaur. its impractical and way too expensive.
Or are you saying we CANT build a sst?
-
Originally posted by 2stony
Sorry, but "an" is only used when preceding a word that starts with a vowel.
;)
Ya know that sound on quiz shows when someone gives a wrong answer? insert here.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
so it's: A hour ? ooookaaaay,....
-
Originally posted by Nifty
aww, come on my fellow Americans! Swallow your pride and admit that Dowding and Swoopy actually have a point. So the UK and the French worked together and have an SST to show for it while the USA doesn't. It's not like they get to be on top very often, so let them have their pride. ;)
heheh its quite a plane the concorde, but its no great engineering feat. big deal.....
now that tunnel under the channel, thats bragging rights.
-
You kidding? It's the French that wanted the tunnel, we wanted a bridge so that we can see the bastards coming......
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Curval
You guys accepted another gift...at Yorktown, during your War of Independence against Britain. If my history teacher was correct it had something to do with a fleet of French warships that prevented Cornwallis from getting reinforcements or to escape to fight on.
Curval,
Indeed, without the French, we more than likely would have lost to the Brits during the Revolutionary War. Your history teacher was correct.
However, your history teacher probably also told you that France was liberated not once, but twice, due to the help of the United States.
That old debt to the French has been more than paid, and is no longer of any concern. Try again sir.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The whole space race for starters. You've got a plethora of examples right there spanning decades, as someone already pointed out. It was done because of national prestige more than anything else and was hugely expensive.
No it was done to develop technology and furthur mankinds reach. Its one of the reasons we can frequent these lame arse message boards on our personal PCs.
But you wont see that, you will just see the wasted money.
Ask the average American if we think our dollars are wasted on space exploration.
What you guys across the pond think matters not tho...
Has Briton or France ever put anyone in orbit?
-
Originally posted by Swoop
You kidding? It's the French that wanted the tunnel, we wanted a bridge so that we can see the bastards coming......
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
No I am impressed to this day over that tunnel :D
-
"Has Briton or France ever put anyone in orbit?"
Regularly. Don't you read squad mail?
-
Regarding A vs An:
"A" goes before all words that begin with consonants.
a cat
a dog
a purple onion
a buffalo
a big apple
with one exception: Use an before unsounded h.
an honorable peace
an honest error
"An" goes before all words that begin with vowels:
an apricot
an egg
an Indian
an orbit
an uprising
with two exceptions: When u makes the same sound as the y in you, or o makes the same sound as w in won, then a is used.
a union
a united front
a unicorn
a used napkin
a U.S. ship
a one-legged man
Note: The exceptions for the articles are based upon the orthographic or written representation of the word-initial letter not the phonetic or sound quality of the letter. So, if you consider the rule from a phonetic perspective, there aren't any exceptions. Since the 'h' hasn't any phonetic representation, no audible sound, in the first exception, the sound that follows the article is a vowel; consequently, 'an' is used. In the second exception, the word-initial 'y' sound (unicorn) is actually a glide [j] phonetically, which has consonantal properties; consequently, it is treated as a consonant, requiring 'a'.
-
I'm having flashbacks of a real mean elementary school teacher with a beehive hairdo and pointy glasses. Stop with the grammar lessons already! It's giving me nightmares!
-
A hehe
-
Grim...
I don't have anything against America..or think that anything is owed. I'm just absolutely shocked to see how quickly things can change.
Less than a month ago the US and Great Britain were allies in a common cause.
Now we are back to bickering.
This post is merely Swoop's reaction to all of Nuke's recent posts about how great America is...and how we should all look up to..and respect....Americans, merely by virtue of the fact that they are Americans.
My post you refer to was a knee jerk reaction to all the flak Swoop is taking here. I was a big supporter of the US in the war against Iraq. Now it seems we must all bow to America's greatness. Sorry...I don't bow to no-one.
-
Hmmmm
I wonder how much they owe the US from the last two big wars we "helped out on".
I always pay my bills before I buy more toys.
Just a thought, oh buy the way Poland paid off its debt to the US can you name the only other country to do this?
Waiting
-
We ain't jealous. Ther frankly is nothing at all to be jealous of!
You guys never made a Spruce Goose.
Or a decent muscle car.
Or a World Trade Center.
Or a United Nations.
Or a Subway below a water table that crosses 16 fault lines. Safely.
Or put a reactor on a fault line. Safely.
Or built a decent nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Let alone 15 of 'em.
Or a spyplane that could overfly all yer puny tulips with impunity. Say CHEEZE!
Or a Lunar Lander that could be tasked as a lifeboat.
Or put a Man on The Moon.
Or a build spacecraft that could be reused.
Which we did all of these things during my lifetime, without any outside help.
And we still can do it better, faster, and post a profit.
Jealous?
Not us.
-
lol
"You can't have Concorde - you still owe us money!"
I've heard it all now. Getting a little desperate aren't we?
-
"Yes, the SR-71 turned a mean profit.
And that lunar buggy? Wow, you should have seen the profit it turned back in '72. We couldn't get them onto the forecourt fast enough, let me tell 'ya!
As for the Space Shuttle, apparently you customize them online to match your tastes. Huge profit there.
The Lunar lander is aging but still a solid seller. Tidy profit there.
As for that golf course on the moon - the Japanese love it, and I mean love it! They can't buy enough package tours. Our space tourism sector is booming like no other.
Yes, profit has always been made in US endeavours. It has always been the over-riding motivation - and those are just a few examples."
Your point is absurd, Hangtime.
-
LOL Dowding!
Lockheed sure didn't lose a dime building SR71's. Grumman's Aerospace development program made it more money than the aircraft division did... need I go on?
We ain't lost a dime yet we couldn't write off on taxes.
;)
-
Government subsidies are the way forward comrade! ;)
-
That SR71 may pay for itself yet, well, the military as whole I mean. Just wait 'till that Iraqi oil starts pourin' in.
To really get our monies worth we may have to enslave Europe. I could really use a good foot rub. ;)
-
Bring it on Yank. I got a sander around here that would be just the ticket. Which is your preference - glass paper or sand paper? ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime, Edit by me
We ain't jealous. Ther frankly is nothing at all to be jealous of!
You guys never made a Spruce Goose. - Why would we want to?
Or a decent muscle car. - Again, we have corner's, we make better cars (Aston Martin, Bentley, Jaguar, Land rover, Rolls-Royce, TVR, McLaren etc etc etc)
Or a World Trade Center. - We dont need em, big sky scrapers would look out of place in our historic cities - ever been to London?
Or a United Nations. - We are a founding member.
Or a Subway below a water table that crosses 16 fault lines. Safely. - We have no fault lines, but we did build a tunnel under a sea.
Or put a reactor on a fault line. Safely. - Again, no fault lines here.
Or built a decent nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Let alone 15 of 'em. - We have no need for huge nuclear aircraft carriers.
Or a spyplane that could overfly all yer puny tulips with impunity. Say CHEEZE! - We have spy sattelites and better human intelligence than you will ever have.
Or a Lunar Lander that could be tasked as a lifeboat. - a what?
Or put a Man on The Moon. - why would we need to?
Or a build spacecraft that could be reused. - nope, we haven't
Which we did all of these things during my lifetime, without any outside help.
And we still can do it better, faster, and post a profit.
Jealous? - hell no
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Government subsidies are the way forward comrade! ;)
Dowding.. seems to me that proofs in the pudding. Our nation is neither bankrupt, nor is it likely to be.
Now, how is the American Experiment to be judged? Guage it on standard of living? Economic Poweress? Manufacturing? Technology? Innovation? Research?
What?
Just what is it we're supposed to be jealous of again?
-
Swoop, I do not think you should be pointing out anyone else's spelling errors as yours are numerous indeed. Would you like me to point out a few dozen?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Dowding.. seems to me that proofs in the pudding. Our nation is neither bankrupt, nor is it likely to be.
Now, how is the American Experiment to be judged? Guage it on standard of living? Economic Poweress? Manufacturing? Technology? Innovation? Research?
What?
Just what is it we're supposed to be jealous of again?
The last time I saw the US deficit it looked alot like bankruptcy. A world approved and sanctioned bankruptcy admittedly...but a bankrupty nonetheless.
When does the judgement of this great experiment occur? You guys need to be running things for a few centuries yet before that call can be made. After all, Britannia ruled the waves for a very long time, from a very small island before you guys took over the lead role.
Most countries are jealous of the United States in some form or another, it is only natural. One thing that Britain is distinctly NOT jealous of is that lead role though, I suspect. It has a tendancy to all come to a crashing end, and people get hurt.
I hope the US doesn't have as hard a time as the Brits did, but somehow, given todays international situation...I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Grim...
I don't have anything against America..or think that anything is owed. I'm just absolutely shocked to see how quickly things can change.
Less than a month ago the US and Great Britain were allies in a common cause.
Now we are back to bickering.
This post is merely Swoop's reaction to all of Nuke's recent posts about how great America is...and how we should all look up to..and respect....Americans, merely by virtue of the fact that they are Americans.
My post you refer to was a knee jerk reaction to all the flak Swoop is taking here. I was a big supporter of the US in the war against Iraq. Now it seems we must all bow to America's greatness. Sorry...I don't bow to no-one.
Awwwww Curval,
I've never had a single problem with Swoop even though I don't always agree with is viewpoints.
Unlike some people, I'm more inclined to weigh a reaction based upon fact rather than national pride. That doesn't mean I'm not a proud American, but I still respect other people's opinions unless they're just making a blatant attempt at bashing.
I think most of us know Nuke makes a lot of controversial posts to get under other people's skin. I just take it for what it is, and pay it no heed.
I also won't bow down to anyone, so I don't blame you there. No offense intended, and none taken sir.
-
My wife doesn't give me oral as much as she did before we were married. Do I heve grounds for a "breach of promise" divorce? After all, I thought the head would last forever.
-
This is why the human race is stuck on this planet drying out it's resources and progessively making it even less able to support life... cuz we're a bunch of handsomehunkes always drawing imaginary lines in the imaginary sand.
Let me know when we make it past the moon.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Steve
Swoop, I do not think you should be pointing out anyone else's spelling errors as yours are numerous indeed. Would you like me to point out a few dozen?
I never said my spelling was perfect. I mainly miss 's.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Swoop, I have nothing against you and I understand why you started this thread.
I started my Concorde thread in response to Dowdings rantings about the American SST in another thread.
I have nothing against the Concorde . It's a remarkable and beautiful plane. I saw one land at Phoenix a few years ago and it made news just coming here.
Brits and French on a great aircraft, unequaled in commercial aviation history.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
And is there anything major any nation has built in recent years with zero outside assistance?
Windows.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
My wife doesn't give me oral as much as she did before we were married. Do I heve grounds for a "breach of promise" divorce? After all, I thought the head would last forever.
Every once in a while somebody cuts thru all the bullpucky and hits the nail right on the (ahem) head.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
This is why the human race is stuck on this planet drying out it's resources and progessively making it even less able to support life... cuz we're a bunch of handsomehunkes always drawing imaginary lines in the imaginary sand.
Let me know when we make it past the moon.
-SW
AKswulfe.....
[SIZE=8][/SIZE]
:)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Windows.
Arlo, ROTFLMAO, windows, Muhahahaha!!! :D
-
I started my Concorde thread in response to Dowdings rantings about the American SST in another thread.
I don't think so. I think you should read that thread from top to bottom and check out who started ranting first. It's the one about the Russian plane.
-
Blame Boroda!
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Blame Boroda!
Blame him for what? Trying to convince everyone that everything the Russians do or make is superior? I once took a jab at him by bringing up the subject of standing in bread lines. I now regret doing so, and have come to enjoy reading his perspective on things... Entertaining to say the least.
The twirling hammer and sickle adds that extra panache.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
lol Nifty
I'd like to mention a little matter called football. But seeing as you fluked...err... played your way to the quarter finals, I'm not on firm ground anymore. Darn! :D
What happened the last time the USA and England met in the World Cup, Dowding? huh? What was that? Speak up, bro!
USA 1 England 0!!! :D
oh yeah, our girls are gonna spank your girls' tulips this weekend... mmm, if only that was the literal case! :D
-
Yeah but it was soooo long ago. We were arrogant. We were complacent. That won't happen again, old bean. :D
I bet your women's team is full of mooses anyway. So there.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yeah but it was soooo long ago. We were arrogant. We were complacent. That won't happen again, old bean. :D
I bet your women's team is full of mooses anyway. So there.
Heh, we need to play a friendly. we're 2-2 aggregate in our last two matches home and away. (2-0 USA in USA 1993 and 2-0 England in London 1994. yes, I had to look the scores up.)
Mooses? Naw, that's Canada's women's team. ;) We got good looking girls on our team. uhmm, ok, so maybe like 2 good looking girls... ;) You got at least one fine looking woman on your team. Kelly Smith I think is her name. She plays over here for one of the WUSA teams I think.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yeah but it was soooo long ago. We were arrogant. We were complacent. That won't happen again, old bean. :D
I bet your women's team is full of mooses anyway. So there.
Well, at least some of ours take their tops off when they score the winning goal. :eek:
And, at least our team has some women on it who you would like to see take their tops off, even if they didn't score the winning goal. :eek:
-
I'll get on the phone to the FA this afternoon. I'll organise a friendly for next month sometime - that ok with your lads? :D
I haven't actually seen any women's sides. At uni they were quite fit - a friend of mine was going out with one and they were fun to watch. Seemed to run a lot more than we did, but were a lot less physical. On the pitch anyway, I'm not sure what happened in the post-match team bath. ;)
-
Next month won't be good for us. We've got the Confederations Cup thingee in France in June. ;) Oh well, guess we'll have to wait.
mmm, shower scenes with the women's team... that could be a porn flick in the making! Good idea, Dowding! Heh, as for the game this weekend, I won't get to see all of it, because the second half will be during the last frame of Guadalcanal. I guess I could tape it and watch it on Sunday, as Sat afternoon and evening are reserved for MLS matches or dates... wait, this is me we're talking about... I'll be home! lol
heh, this was a good hijack. Talking about soccer/football in a thread titled "Here's something you Yanks should understand" :D yeah right. I think me and Sancho the only ones that care a thing about "footie." Nope, just doesn't seem right with a Yank saying that word. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The whole space race for starters. You've got a plethora of examples right there spanning decades, as someone already pointed out. It was done because of national prestige more than anything else and was hugely expensive.
The above is such an ignorant statement...think about what you just said, it's laughable.
I would think the efforts regarding space exploration have proven to be dollars well invested, refering to ROI.
The Concorde accomplished exactly what, other than chest thumping?
Oh...I stand corrected...you're not jealous, just envious. Best to let it go rather than continue to look silly in front of all your pals.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I would think the efforts regarding space exploration have proven to be dollars well invested, refering to ROI.
Are you sure about this Rude? What was the return? I suppose the program generated some revenue by delivering satelites to their respective orbits, but I cannot imagine that it covered even a small portion of the costs.
NASA is in turmoil. They have now had two multi-billion dollar machines blow up in front of the whole world.
I'm wondering where the ROI is...I suspect you are calling doing a little "pot calling" here.
-
OK Rude, you seem to know your stuff on this issue. Give me the bottom line on the trillions pumped into the space program. The cold hard spreadsheet style facts. Not wishy-washy statements about it being 'good for mankind'. How much profit has it all turned?
Show me the money!
-
Originally posted by Curval
Are you sure about this Rude? What was the return? I suppose the program generated some revenue by delivering satelites to their respective orbits, but I cannot imagine that it covered even a small portion of the costs.
NASA is in turmoil. They have now had two multi-billion dollar machines blow up in front of the whole world.
I'm wondering where the ROI is...I suspect you are calling doing a little "pot calling" here.
Heyas Curval:)
Just give some thought to what industries and new innovations were born from those dollars invested....medical, scientific and consumer windfalls resulted directly from money invested in the space programs. Let's take a look....
PROGAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
The NASA Commercial Technology Program has helped many industrial, educational, and government organizations develop new products, increase productivity, reduce costs, and improve the quality of life for US citizens. Typically, the Technology Transfer Program provides user access to aerospace technology in support of technical problem solving. For example, sensor technology, microelectronics and telemetry systems have been adapted and applied in the development of a range of biomedical implantable devices to control or otherwise administer corrective treatment of diseases or bodily functions or ailments, such as diabetes or intractable pain. Many industrial uses of aerospace technology have occurred, including: wireless infrared communications systems; manufacturing scheduling enhancements; structural analysis of industrial products and systems, and a host of materials applications in new and improved products. NASA computer programs are routinely adapted and used by hundreds of U.S. companies annually, with substantial savings in software development costs. During the past year, over 200,000 individuals and firms were given access to new ideas and improvements from NASA resulting in new products and processes. Over 27,000 technical innovations from the space program have been published and are now available for use by American industry by subscribing to NASA Tech Briefs.
Hey!!! Let's not forget about Tang!:)
Just take a poke around the net for more detailed info.
Cyas Up!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
OK Rude, you seem to know your stuff on this issue. Give me the bottom line on the trillions pumped into the space program. The cold hard spreadsheet style facts. Not wishy-washy statements about it being 'good for mankind'. How much profit has it all turned?
Show me the money!
I refer you to my response to Curval.
If a General Ledger is what you're after, I understand Curval has the education to produce one regarding this topic, for a fee of course.
Just some advice for you Curval....I'de get a personal financial statement from Dowding before I would even sharpen my pencil...talks cheap ya know:)
-
Originally posted by Naso
Arlo, ROTFLMAO, windows, Muhahahaha!!! :D
The fine print at the bottom of my Microsoft certifications states that I have to promote Windows at least once a week. ;)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Heyas Curval:)
Just give some thought to what industries and new innovations were born from those dollars invested....medical, scientific and consumer windfalls resulted directly from money invested in the space programs. Let's take a look....
Hey!!! Let's not forget about Tang!:)
Just take a poke around the net for more detailed info.
Cyas Up!
Repost - Move ON!
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85789&highlight=space
-
Originally posted by Rude
I refer you to my response to Curval.
If a General Ledger is what you're after, I understand Curval has the education to produce one regarding this topic, for a fee of course.
Just some advice for you Curval....I'de get a personal financial statement from Dowding before I would even sharpen my pencil...talks cheap ya know:)
LOL.
We don't use pencils anymore Rude. It's all done with computers these days.;)
Impossible to quantify the gain/loss from what you propose Rude. Bill Gates couldn't afford all the accountants required to figure it out, so Dowding's gonna have to go without his G/L. How could you possibly calculate the value to society of those neat little space saving juice containers my kids drink from, for example.
Fact is though, one must compare apples to apples for the sake of this discussion old chap.
The purpose for which a space craft is employed is to transfer people and equipment into space. Concorde was employed to transfer people from country to country. For their specified purpose they both resulted in a loss. One was much much greater than the other.
..and by the way, I'm not trying to downplay the important influence that space exploration has had on technological, medical and manufacturing innovation. I have one better example though...
war.
-
Well of course war, but if I had said that then Dowding and Co. would have spouted....trying hard to get along ya know:)
I still maintain that to simplify the comparison by limiting the space program to only freight hauling is deceptive....further, to compare the Concorde to Nasa in the first place is convenient for some.
Now if you compare the whole ROI of both endeavors without restriction, it's really not worth discussing...like you said, apples and oranges. NASA's efforts are funded for national returns...a broad in scope enterprise which has yielded much.
In comparision, the joint effort of the Concorde is no comparison at all....just an attempt to say, hey look what we did and it failed.
Remember, I'm talking about the money invested in each program and the camparitive return....do you see the Concorde as yielding a return percentage wise to that of the US Space Program? Yes, the US spent much more over time, however, the yield was greater as well....it's relative.
What would you personally have invested in....the Concorde or the 747?:)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Are you building an SST?
And is there anything major any nation has built in recent years with zero outside assistance? I mean totally zero.
Oh and you do know the Statue of Liberty was a French gift, right? You often in the habit of accepting gifts from the French? You gonna give it back now cos it's French?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Well, we looked at doing it, but realized it wouldn't cashflow...built the 747 instead.
We cooperate with many nations....the question is could we do it alone? Yes.
Freedom for Europe was a gift as well....fair exchange I guess...big concrete statue....life and free to boot....I don't know man, it's a close one:)
-
Well, we looked at doing it, but realized it wouldn't cashflow...built the 747 instead.
That definitely was NOT the timeline of events.
-
Originally posted by Curval
NASA is in turmoil. They have now had two multi-billion dollar machines blow up in front of the whole world.
I hope you will agree that orbital flight is much closer to the extreme of the envelope than atmospheric flight.
The first flight of Columbia was 1981, 80? Only about 5 years after Concord(e)'s first operational flight, I think that was in '76?
Two incredible machines developed more or less concurrently, or at least with nearly the same level of technology for the developers to start out with.
The shuttle needs the next generation, and so does the Concord(e) After all, it was probably by far the oldest aircraft in the stable of AF and BA. Present age of the commercial aircraft fleet is typically about 10 years.
Saying that because NASA doesn't make a profit therefore justifies the lack of profitablity for SST service doesn't hold water.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That definitely was NOT the timeline of events.
I'm not speaking to a timeline Dowding....the fact remains that the US abandoned it's efforts to build a SST and banked on the 747 to carry the load regarding commercial air travel. The reason for this was that we realized that you can't cashflow a SST due to the high cost involved. If you can't understand that simple fact of business or believe that what I've stated is false, then please provide a factual rebuttal and I'll gladly stand down.
-
You seriously think the Concorde was designed as a capacity carrier? To make up the bulk of an airline's fleet? You make it sound like the 747 and Concorde were penned from the same specifications, and that Boeing decided to go the 747 route as a natural alternative to the Concorde.
I've asked you for a factual rebuttal of the assertion that the Shuttle made no money considering the investment. I've yet to see one.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You seriously think the Concorde was designed as a capacity carrier? To make up the bulk of an airline's fleet? You make it sound like the 747 and Concorde were penned from the same specifications, and that Boeing decided to go the 747 route as a natural alternative to the Concorde.
I've asked you for a factual rebuttal of the assertion that the Shuttle made no money considering the investment. I've yet to see one.
I guess the assumption I made was that the joint venture between the Brits and the French was to, in the end, be profitable? Or was this a hey..... look what we can do thing without profit being a part of the equation? You tell me. Further, I merely stated fact....if you want to make assumptions as to what my meaning was so it will suit your needs, then knock yourself out....I remain unimpressed with the effort.
The British documentary that I watched spoke to the fact that it was hoped by both parties to be a profitable venture and that, yes, many more SST's would be built and flying. It failed....thus a more devoted and focused effort was directed towards Airbus by all involved.
The whole space race for starters. You've got a plethora of examples right there spanning decades, as someone already pointed out. It was done because of national prestige more than anything else and was hugely expensive.
It is to the above that I responded to....you are correct regarding the national pride. If you cannot see by my posts regarding our space program, that indeed it was profitable to our nation, which funds NASA btw, then you my young friend have eyes, yet cannot see.
I was not the one who compared only the Shuttle program to that of the SST....I simply stated that our space program as a whole has yielded a real dollar return based on the monies invested throughout its history.
Are you unable to disprove the above, or would you prefer I waste more of my time?
This is the problem I have with you Dowding....you feel the need to show us all how intellectual and well versed you are, covering a wide spectrum of topics...you stand in judgement of others and more specifically my country....by convenience you offer your opinion as fact, when the truth is that you are just a young man suffering from what most all young men suffer from, youthful omniscience.
You lack the humility to admit you're wrong regarding any topic brought before the readers of this board....rather, you ridicule those here who can't match your clever offerings.
Hopefully you'll grow out of it
-
I'll ignore the psychiatric evalutation, wade through the waffle, not rise to the patronising tone or the pathetically veiled insults and cut to the chase. Brevity, old bean, brevity.
I simply stated that our space program as a whole has yielded a real dollar return based on the monies invested throughout its history.
Are you unable to disprove the above, or would you prefer I waste more of my time?
Why should I disprove your assertion? I've asked you to prove this 'fact' as you present it. You haven't done that and furthermore insist that I should disprove it. If you can't see how ridiculous that is...
-
Come on, didn't you guys see Armageddon? If it wasn't for the US space program (and Bruce Willis) the whole planet would be lifeless by now.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I'll ignore the psychiatric evalutation, wade through the waffle, not rise to the patronising tone or the pathetically veiled insults and cut to the chase. Brevity, old bean, brevity.
Why should I disprove your assertion? I've asked you to prove this 'fact' as you present it. You haven't done that and furthermore insist that I should disprove it. If you can't see how ridiculous that is...
Are you blind? Look back thru this very thread for your answer....sheesh!
-
The results from the space program, or "spin-offs" as they are sometimes called, have been much more than a handful of moon "rocks" or Tang powdered drink. To simply count these very tangible outputs from space exploration is a gross underestimation of what our "space dollars" have produced for us over the years. Consider, for example, the progress in telecommunications, which was, and is, a true revolution in how we live our lives. The space program largely contributed to the existence of the Global Positioning Satellites-- at first a marvelous intelligence tool, now a standard fixture in new cars. The technologies prevalent in cellular transmission and data compression had their origins, or were perfected, in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's space effort. Similarly, we gained extensive knowledge on new materials and their behavior in extreme conditions, avionics, telemetry, sensor technology and even innovative large-scale project management techniques.
and......
Artificial Limbs
Responding to a request from the orthopedic-appliance industry, NASA
recommended that the foam insulation used to protect the Shuttle's
external tank replace the heavy, fragile plaster used to produce
master molds for prosthetics. The new material is light, virtually
indestructible, and easy to ship and store.
Lifesaving Light
Special lighting technology developed for plant-growth experiments on
Space Shuttle missions is now used to treat brain tumors in children.
Doctors at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee use
light-emitting diodes in a treatment called photodynamic therapy, a
form of chemotherapy, to kill cancerous tumors.
Taking Temperatures
Infrared sensors developed to remotely measure the temperature of
distant stars and planets for the Space Shuttle program led to the
development of the hand-held optical sensor thermometer. Placed inside
the ear canal, the thermometer provides an accurate reading in two
seconds or less.
Better Balance
Devices built to measure the equilibrium of Space Shuttle astronauts
when they return from space are now widely used by major medical
centers to diagnose and treat patients suffering head injury, stroke,
chronic dizziness and disorders of the central nervous system.
Faster Diagnostics
NASA technology was used to create a compact laboratory instrument for
hospitals and doctor offices. This device quickly analyzes blood,
accomplishing in 30 seconds what once took 20 minutes with
conventional equipment.
Land Mine Removal
The same rocket fuel that helps launch the Space Shuttle is now being
used to save lives -- by destroying land mines. A flare device, using
leftover fuel donated by NASA, is placed next to the uncovered land
mine and is ignited from a safe distance using a battery-triggered
electric match. The explosive burns away, disabling the mine and
rendering it harmless.
Tracking Vehicles on Earth
Tracking information originally used for Space Shuttle missions now
helps track vehicles here on the ground. This commercial spin-off
allows vehicles to transmit a signal back to a home base. Many cities
today use the software to track and reassign emergency and public
works vehicles. The technology also is used by vehicle fleet
operations, such as taxis, armored cars and vehicles carrying
hazardous cargo.
Rescue 911
Rescue squads have a new extrication tool to help remove accident
victims from wrecked vehicles. The hand-held device requires no
auxiliary power systems or cumbersome hoses and is 70 percent cheaper
than previous rescue equipment. The cutter uses a miniature version of
the explosive charges that separate devices on the Space Shuttle.
Byte Out of Crime
Image-processing technology used to analyze Space Shuttle launch
videos and to study meteorological images also helps law enforcement
agencies improve crime-solving videos. The technology removes defects
due to image jitter, image rotation and image zoom in video sequences.
The technology also may be useful for medical imaging, scientific
applications and home video.
Gas Gauges
A gas leak-detection system, originally developed to monitor the
Shuttle's hydrogen propulsion system, is now being used by the Ford
Motor Company in the production of a natural gas-powered car.
Product Labeling
NASA needs to identify, track, and keep records on each of the
thousands of heat-shield tiles on the Space Shuttle. This required a
labeling system that could be put on ceramic material and withstand
the rigors of space travel to be readable after a flight. NASA
developed high data-density, two-dimensional, machine-readable symbol
technology used to mark individual tiles. This novel method of
labeling products with invisible and virtually indestructible markings
can be used on electronic parts, pharmaceuticals and livestock -- in
fact on just about anything.
Keep Cool Under Fire
Materials from the Space Shuttle thermal protection system are used on
NASCAR racing cars to protect drivers from the extreme heat generated
by the engines. This same material is also used to protect
firefighters.
Fire Resistant Foam
A unique foam developed for Space Shuttle thermal insulation and
packing is now being used as thermal and acoustical insulation in
aerospace, marine and industrial products. Since it's also fire
resistant, it's being used as well for fire barriers, packaging and
other applications requiring either high-temperature or very
low-temperature insulation in critical environments. For example, use
of these foam products by airframe manufacturers such as Boeing,
Lockheed-Martin, and Airbus provides major weight savings, while
retaining good thermal and acoustical properties in the various
products.
Fire Sighting
A sensitive, gas infrared camera, used by NASA observers to monitor
the blazing plumes from the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters is
also capable of scanning for fires. Firefighters use this hand-held
camera to pinpoint the hotspots of wildfires that rage out of control.
Jeweler's Gem
Jewelers no longer have to worry about inhaling dangerous asbestos
fibers from the blocks they use as soldering bases. Space Shuttle
heat-shield tiles offer jewelers a safer soldering base with
temperature resistance far beyond the 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit
generated by the jeweler's torch.
Jet Stripping
NASA developed a tool that uses powerful jet streams of water to strip
paint and primer from the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters. A
commercial version of this water jet is now used to treat
turbine-engine components, airframe components, large aerospace
hardware, ships and other mechanical devices, using only pure water.
No hazardous chemicals are needed.
Quick Fit Fasteners
Fastening items in space is a difficult task. A Virginia company
developed a fastener that can be pushed on, rather than turned. These
quick-connect fasteners are flexible and strong, and have been used by
NASA astronauts since 1989. The product is now in use by firefighters
and nuclear power-plant repair technicians, and has other commercial
applications.
Computer Joysticks
Computer games can now be played with all the precision and
sensitivity needed for a safe and soft Space Shuttle touchdown. A
game-controlling joystick for personal computer-based entertainment
systems was modeled after controls used in shuttle simulators.
Astronauts used the joystick to practice runway landings and orbit
maneuvering.
Toys for Tots
Already successful with its Nerf toy products, Hasbro, Inc. wanted to
design a toy glider that a child could fly. Benefiting from NASA
wind-tunnel and aerodynamic expertise used in the Space Shuttle
program, Hasbro improved the flying distances and loop-to-loop stunts
of its toy gliders.
Slick Products
A lubricant used on the transporter that carries a Space Shuttle to
the launch pad has resulted in a commercial penetrating-spray lube,
which is used for rust prevention and loosening corroded nuts. It's
also a cleaner and lubricant for guns and fishing reels, and can be
used to reduce engine friction.
Do I really need to continue?
Perhaps it's not too late for some post graduate work in the field of common sense?
I'm done.
-
Nice qualitative data. I think I was pretty clear that I actually wanted the quantitative information that you base your assertions on. How much was spent actually trying to get the Shuttle up there and those technologies developed?
I don't doubt money was made - I really have issues with the fact that a profit was turned, which was the whole crux of the issue.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Nice qualitative data. I think I was pretty clear that I actually wanted the quantitative information that you base your assertions on. How much was spent actually trying to get the Shuttle up there and those technologies developed?
I don't doubt money was made - I really have issues with the fact that a profit was turned, which was the whole crux of the issue.
Like I have the time to indulge you with quantitative data...couldn't find it if I had the time...just stop will ya?
Herein lies a common ailment of those whose educations are deemed lord of all....the lack of common sense. If you cannot see how contiguous profits were recognized by the those industries downline of the space program, then I quit.
Here's a perfect example....read it and then multiply by some thousands of US companies.
NASA Computer Imaging Technology Is Helping Commercial Firm See New Jobs And More Profits
April 1997
Bio-Imaging Research, Inc., (BIR) of Lincolnshire, Ill., is seeing new employees in its plant and more profits at the end of the year, all thanks to their commercializing computer imaging technologies developed for NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
The Advanced Computed Tomography Inspection System (ACTIS) was put into service at Marshall in 1989 to find imperfections in aerospace structures and components such as rocket motor casings, assemblies and nozzles used in the Space Shuttle program. ACTIS helped NASA engineers characterize structural assemblies by producing high-quality computed tomography (CT) images. These images demonstrated the ablative properties of various solid rocket motor nozzle assembly materials and revealed anomalies at bondline interfaces that could have caused mission failures. The two-million-volt ACTIS system at Marshall has also found flaws in turbine and valve castings for NASA.
Having proven its potential in the national space program, the system was used to scan an entire automobile, as well as large castings used in the automotive industry. It has scanned a cruise missile's jet engine. A similar ACTIS at Boeing has scanned a complete satellite, avoiding the time and expense of opening it, then resealing and resterilizing it. It has also verified the safety of spaceborne battery packs.
BIR undertook to refine the technology for broader commercial applications, introducing a smaller, PC-based version called ACTIS+ for general industrial use. BIR spokesman Charles Smith said recently, "ACTIS+ provides CT imaging capability at less than a third the cost of current CT systems."
CT itself is a technology derived partly from the Apollo space program of the 1960's and partly from the field of medicine. CT creates cross-sectional images by projecting a thin beam of x-rays through one plane of an object from many different angles. In some scanners, a cone beam covers an area detector so that many slices or a volume can be scanned at once.
Millions of people around the world benefit each year from the medical applications of the technology. Hospitals use CT scanners to help diagnose illnesses and assess injuries. The technology also was quickly adopted by industries for non-destructive testing.
The key to the low cost of ACTIS+ is that it is designed to be added to existing real-time radiography (RTR) systems. It uses major RTR components and can eliminate the expense of an x-ray system and a detector system.
The ACTIS+ system consists of a high-precision rotation/elevation manipulator, a color image monitor, a graphical user interface monitor, a keyboard with mouse, and a Unix-based PC compatible workstation. "From our viewpoint," Smith says, "one of the most important commercial applications of the technology came when Marshall allowed us to scan a 55-gallon drum containing cement, metal parts, liquids, and other materials. This allowed us to demonstrate to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that computed tomography is much better at seeing what is inside drums of radioactive waste than any existing techniques."
The tests at Marshall led to the development of Waste Inspection Tomography (WIT), a trailer-mounted portable system that can be taken to waste dump sites to identify the contents in drums found there. "We have written software that enables us to combine three-dimensional x-ray CT images of the drum's contents with three-dimensional gamma-ray information on where the radioactivity is inside the drum. To our knowledge," said Richard Bernardi, program manager for WIT, "this is the only non-medical application that presents two different types of sensor information in a single picture. BIR has gone even further by adding a third sensor that provides information on the distribution of neutron emitters, such as plutonium, into the three-dimensional image."
The main sensor in the WIT trailer is a two-million-volt CT system. The voltage is able to see through drums filled with high-density material, such as cement or sludge, which cannot be penetrated by other x-ray systems used by the DOE. While the scanner can provide "quick look" images, its primary value is in making volume CT images comprised of more than 75 individual slices. Two gamma cameras image the internal radioactivity and their output can be presented in either two- or three-dimensional form. Special software allows their images to be accurately superimposed on the density images from the CT scanner. The radioactivity is measured by nuclear spectroscopy, which determines its gamma-ray energies and then looks up that energy in a table to identify individual isotopes. The system can distinguish between weak internal sources surrounded by low-density material and a shielded stronger source.
It can also identify and measure the volume of potentially corrosive free liquids, the extent to which the storage drum's wall may have been thinned by corrosion, and the presence of objects that are supposed to be forbidden in storage drums. BIR has been able to integrate the results of a neutron-sensing system developed by Lockheed-Martin's Pinellas, Fla., facility, and superimpose the spatial distribution of neutron intensities onto the three-dimensional x-ray density information. Bernardi said the mobile device has performed outstandingly at a number of DOE sites. The device is back at BIR's facility. BIR hopes to increase the number of detectors on the unit to scan drums from five to 30 times faster. BIR hopes to build two additional trailers so as to be able to offer scanning and other analytic services to DOE and to nuclear power utilities that are a significant source of radioactive waste.
Dr. John F. Moore, president of BIR, pointed out that the technology developed for NASA has led to other products. BIR has adapted the detectors to keep their efficiency with x-ray energies as high as nine million volts, and have installed a six-meter-high linear detector array to inspect tractor-trailers for contraband at the border crossings near Shenzhen in the People's Republic of China. Systems now in use by the U.S. Customs Service operate at 450,000 volts and - while able to see false compartments in the outer walls of vehicles - they cannot look through heavily loaded cargo as well as the system in use by the Chinese, he said. For more information on BIR, contact Smith at 425 Barclay Blvd., Lincolnshire, IL 60069-3624 or phone (847) 634-6425.
-
Oh my. Always the pathetic slights. Like a broken N-sync record through a smashed PC speaker.
That there were spin-offs has never been in doubt - it's the quantitative profitability of them compared to the investment needed for their development is what interests me. No big deal though.
-
Here's another example....
Dave Drachlis
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone: 205/544-0034)
Release No.: 95-27
MARSHALL CENTER'S EXPENDITURES IN ALABAMA TOTAL $837 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 1994
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville contributed $837 million to Alabama's economy during the fiscal year 1994 that ended last September. This figure includes $234 million in salaries for personnel and related costs, and $603 million spent on locally procured services, contractor support, and local construction. In addition, retirement annuities were paid to the approximately 2,400 Marshall Center retirees who currently reside in Alabama, adding about $57 million more to the state and local economies.
The $600-million-plus in program funds Marshall Center spent in Alabama was more than its expenditures in any other state. Additional NASA funding (approximately $156 million) was spent locally for International Space Station hardware development done by Boeing/Huntsville. California received $400 million, $400 million was spent in Utah, $200 million was spent in Louisiana and $200 million was spent in Florida. Smaller sums were dispersed among other states.
During fiscal year 1994 the Marshall Center received almost 20 percent of NASA's total budget of $14.55 billion. Of Marshall's $2.84 billion allocation from NASA, $1.89 billion was spent for human space flight activities, $519 million went for science and technology, and the balance -- $433 million -- was spent on mission and institutional support at Marshall Center and other sites across the country.
Since it was established in 1960, the Marshall Center has received a total of $52.7 billion. If these dollars are adjusted for inflation, this total is equivalent to more than $130 billion in 1994 money.
The Marshall Center has paid $3.9 billion in federal salaries during the past 34 years.
At the end of September 1994, the Marshall Center had a total of 3,377 Civil Service permanent and temporary employees, including employees at resident offices at prime contractors' facilities and at component facilities such as the Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana.
Of Marshall's total Civil Service workforce last year, 2,654 were college graduates, with 1,947 holding baccalaureate degrees. There were 160 employees at the doctoral level and 547 with master's degrees in fields of engineering, science (predominantly mathematics and physics), and other disciplines, predominantly business administration.
During the past fiscal year, the center had approximately 5,469 institutional and mission service contractor employees working in support of center activities, and about 21,717 prime contractor employees (including subcontractors and vendors), of which 3,199 live in Alabama.
It is estimated that locally employed Marshall Center civil service and contractor personnel and their families comprise about 16 percent (approximately 27,200 people) of the total Huntsville population of 166,900. (As in the case of funding figures, these contractor workforce numbers do not include Boeing's Space Station work, since management of that program is not the responsibility of Marshall Center. About 1,800 Boeing personnel are involved.)
The Huntsville International Airport is supported in some measure by the Center, servicing commercial air service needs. Marshall employees used the airport to make 4,852 business trips at a cost of approximately $1.85 million.
During fiscal year 1994, the Marshall Center purchased $9.6 million in electricity and spent $2.6 million for steam heat and burner fuel, $200,000 for water and $500,000 for sewage treatment. An additional $13.8 million was spent for communications services including line usage and equipment.
In fiscal year 1994, 294,012 individuals toured the Marshall center including educators; civic, conference and symposia visitors; and news media. Of these visitors, 265,000 toured the center as part of the Space and Rocket Center's bus tour program.
In support of our nation's higher education institutions, the Marshall Center in the past fiscal year had 110 active research grants valued at $12.6 million to seven universities and colleges in Alabama: Alabama A&M, Auburn, Tuskegee, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, and the University of South Alabama.
Marshall supported the Graduate Student Researchers Program with 56 fellowships given to science and engineering students in fiscal year 1994. Sixteen of these fellowships were granted to participants from universities in Alabama.
The Marshall Center's Cooperative Education Program included 71 graduate and undergraduate students representing 33 colleges and universities in 18 states. Some 62 participants came from 10 different Alabama colleges and universities.
The center supported a Summer Faculty Program with 49 participants spending part of their summer performing research at many of Marshall's laboratories.
The Alabama Space Grant Consortium continued in fiscal year 1994 with $400,000 in Center funding. Five Alabama universities participated in the year's activities.
In 1994, more than 200,000 students and 50,000 teachers and faculty were reached through the operation of Marshall's education programs. Marshall employees and retirees volunteered to participate in the NASA Project LASER (Learning About Science, Engineering and Research) Program, serving locally as speakers, tutors, consultants, and science fair judges. Through Project LASER, 375 instances were recorded of Marshall Center volunteers making presentations, holding workshops, serving as science fair judges, leading tours of center facilities, being "study buddies" and mentors for students with special needs or interests.
Marshall's employees pledged $455,609 to the Combined Federal Campaign in 1994, with $306,992 designated for agencies in northern Alabama. These figures do not include contributions from Marshall Center retirees or from any of the center's contractor employees who contributed directly to the United Way Campaign.
Marshall employees paid $6.7 million in Alabama state income taxes in fiscal year 1994.
In this last decade of the 20th Century, the center remains committed to excellence and continuous improvements in its wide range of current and future endeavors.
Marshall Center continues to be one of the most diverse of NASA's field centers. Space Shuttle-related programs under way in the past fiscal year included the Space Shuttle Main Engines, the Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, Redesigned Solid Rocket Motors and External Tank projects, plus Systems Analysis/Test and Integration. Other major programs and efforts include the Reusable Launch Vehicle technology program; providing contributions to the International Space Station; the Global Hydrology and Climate Center; Spacelab Operations and Payload Mission Management; microgravity experiments; flight experiment science and applications; upper stage vehicles; the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility; the Tethered Satellite System; the Small Expendable Deployer System; Gravity Probe-B payload development; the Optical Transient Detector/Lightning Imaging Sensor; and supporting research and technology.
Another major thrust at the center is to take technology developed for the space program and make it available to U.S. industry, through a wide range of initiatives managed by its Technology Transfer Office.
Throughout 1995 and well into the future, the Marshall Center will remain a vital contributor to America's future in space and to the economy of Huntsville and the state of Alabama.
In closing....if you cannot begin to see the economic benefits of the US Space Program over the years, then there is simply no hope for you.
Remember, we are profit driven in the United States...you know, Capitalist? The ROI of monies spent over time is evident to anyone humble enough to see it.
Later Professor!
-
Those are all known as "intangibles" to us accountants Rude.
I was sitting in on a closing of the sale of an aircraft a few months ago....in fact the company which held the aircraft was being sold. Somehow the purchase price missed a bank account with about $7,000 (in Stirling though) in it and therefore was understated by that much. The buyer had done a quick calculation and insisted the price was $7,000 too low (this on a multi-million dollar deal). One of the principals on the sellers side came up with a great explanation for why and told the purchasor it was essentially an intangible asset in that amount that he was purchasing.
I'll never forget it...the guy looked over from the top of his glasses and very calmly stated, "I don't buy intangible assets."
Show me NASA's balance sheet Rude, and then point out all those wonderful products that should logically be included according to your argument. They should still be there, even at a nominal value.
I'll help you...you can't.
The fact of the matter is that you are arguing that the space program had value but that Concorde was a British/French chest thumping exercise. Were all those spin-off products considered in the decision to put a spacecraft into space? No. Why did the US do it? Because the Russians did it...first. It wasn't even a chest thumping exercise...it was "catch-up".
-
Do you enjoy being an accountant Curval? I have a friend who's just about to become chartered and he always wanted to be one, but now hates it. He wants to move into consultancy.
I've got a good numerate degree so I should be able to start the training if I wanted to. But if he had his heart set on that career and hates it, I wonder how I would do considering I'm not exactly enthused by the idea...
To be honest, it's the money and the chartered status that appeals the most. But, no offence, is it really as boring as people make out? :)
-
Originally posted by Seeker
"Has Briton or France ever put anyone in orbit?"
Regularly. Don't you read squad mail?
hehehe seeker
-
Dowding, if I didn't live where I do, and get involved in some of the more "cool" aspects of off-shore business I think I would slit my wrists. I couldn't imagine working in a firm in the UK, Canada or the US. It would bore me to tears.
Consultancy is the way to go...more interesting work, you get to actually help a company to operate and grow (rather than telling them what they did wrong based on historic information), and the money is much, much better.
Having said that though an accounting designation, be it a CA or CPA is something that would hold you in good stead no matter what you do in life. If you run your own business it is very difficult for a partner or employee to rip you off, for example.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Those are all known as "intangibles" to us accountants Rude.
I was sitting in on a closing of the sale of an aircraft a few months ago....in fact the company which held the aircraft was being sold. Somehow the purchase price missed a bank account with about $7,000 (in Stirling though) in it and therefore was understated by that much. The buyer had done a quick calculation and insisted the price was $7,000 too low (this on a multi-million dollar deal). One of the principals on the sellers side came up with a great explanation for why and told the purchasor it was essentially an intangible asset in that amount that he was purchasing.
I'll never forget it...the guy looked over from the top of his glasses and very calmly stated, "I don't buy intangible assets."
Show me NASA's balance sheet Rude, and then point out all those wonderful products that should logically be included according to your argument. They should still be there, even at a nominal value.
I'll help you...you can't.
The fact of the matter is that you are arguing that the space program had value but that Concorde was a British/French chest thumping exercise. Were all those spin-off products considered in the decision to put a spacecraft into space? No. Why did the US do it? Because the Russians did it...first. It wasn't even a chest thumping exercise...it was "catch-up".
Curval....
So what your saying is that by the advent of the US space program, a program funded by US tax dollars, provided by US tax payers, never contributed to private tax payer owned business in this country by generating new and increased profits in those businesses?
I hire CPA's....not smart enough nor do I have the patience required to ever pretend to be one, however, I do know how to make money.
Through many new innovations, be it in any industry, the bottom line can be enhanced and in some cases immediately. If my cost of doing business is reduced, my profit increases.
For anyone to tell me that real dollar gains have not been realized through the investment in our space program and that only intangibles have been the result from the same, it's simply not the truth.
My point has been missed by you as well....I simply stated that the US space program was money well spent.:)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yeah but it was soooo long ago. We were arrogant. We were complacent. That won't happen again, old bean. :D
I bet your women's team is full of mooses anyway. So there.
Have you ever eaten any american moose?
-
Why did the US do it? Because the Russians did it...first. It wasn't even a chest thumping exercise...it was "catch-up".
Not entirely true Curval.
We had a planned space program, with an initial launch (unmanned) planned for 1957, (the international geophysical year), but something pushed the launch back into 1958. Sputnik (Oct. 1957) just made us look bad and freed up additional resources to accelerate the process.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not entirely true Curval.
We had a planned space program, with an initial launch (unmanned) planned for 1957, (the international geophysical year), but something pushed the launch back into 1958. Sputnik (Oct. 1957) just made us look bad and freed up additional resources to accelerate the process.
Okay...then it was a race. A big chest thumping race.:)
Gotta eat...Rude, I'll get back to ya.;)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Jeweler's Gem
Jewelers no longer have to worry about inhaling dangerous asbestos
fibers from the blocks they use as soldering bases. Space Shuttle
heat-shield tiles offer jewelers a safer soldering base with
temperature resistance far beyond the 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit
generated by the jeweler's torch.
I'm done.
I was at nasa a few years back and they demonstrated those tiles. I held on in my hand that was about a 1" 1/2 thick
put a blowtorch on the other side till it glowed orange,
I was still holding it in my hand...
-
It seems to me that this Dowding / Rude discussion can be ended peacefully if both would agree that neither the Shuttle nor Concord were intended to be profitable.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It seems to me that this Dowding / Rude discussion can be ended peacefully if both would agree that neither the Shuttle nor Concord were intended to be profitable.
Nah, they'll argue til the cows come home. The only thing that can stop this thread is a lock.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Nah, they'll argue til the cows come home. The only thing that can stop this thread is a lock.
I dunno, Blitz now has the On probation moniker attached to his name, and he seems to have slowed down a wee bit :)
-
My point is simply this....
If you compare two nationally underwritten programs, the Concorde vs. the Shuttle, the shuttle yielded a much higher return back to that nation, be it spin offs or intangibles.
What I was trying to get across was that the US space program has realized a massive ROI both in real dollars and intangibles, which can also lead to new innovation and increase US commerce.
It paid off for American tax payers and throughout the world as well.
Lastly, the Shuttle is still an active program...the Concorde is a bust.
Don't fret....I'll lock this thread myself.
Someday I'll learn not to have discussions with those of higher education....reality rarely lives in a book.
-
Originally posted by Rude
If you compare two nationally underwritten programs, the Concorde vs. the Shuttle, the shuttle yielded a much higher return back to that nation, be it spin offs or intangibles.
I would say that while the launching of satellites could be a profit making enterprise, most of the other things in space don't pencil out. Pure science rarely does. And there is much pure science in the space program. The rest has far too much risk for no short term foreseeable financial reward. Rewards are generally more insulated from investments than accountants like.
Commercial air travel, on the other hand, has been shown to be profitable, the last few years notwithstanding.
-
Nah, don't lock it, Rude. This one's relatively civil. Anyway Skuzzy gets a ten dollar bonus for every thread he locks. Let him do it. :)
-
Rude,
I recognise the benefits that came later. Let's face it, the Concorde probably used technology derived from the space program.
BUT...these benefits resulted from MASSIVE spending of tax payer funds (trillions) and the benefits to which you refer were not what were considered prior to the first launch...it was a race with the Soviets to control space. It was that simple. Hindsight is 20/20. To say "We had lots of benefits from spinoff and intangibles" is easy to say now. In the 1950s' it would have been impossible to know that these benefits would be the result. Furthurmore, if you throw enough money at something there are "bound" to be some benefits..and the US threw ALOT of it at the space program.
Using your argument one could then say that without Hitler and World War 2 there would not have been a space race. (In reference to the development of the V-2 rocket etc) So, we should all be very grateful that those millions of lives were "spent" so that we could have the benefits that such a conflagration provided to humanity.
I am in complete agreement with Holden...both programs were commenced without a profit motive in mind.
-
Well, if you can show me where I stated that the intention of the US space program was initially to make money, then I will apologize. I never went there.
I just stated a fact in regards to the intended and unintended innovations which have over time, saved lives, created new industries and jobs, saved monies, increased profits, etc. I also believe that there will continue to be new technologies born from this effort which will again yield profitable returns on monies spent.
I still believe, insignificant as the thought might have been, that someone in those early years saw opportunity for financial gain by going into space...might not have been the impetus for the first launch, but still....we're capitalists:)
Your Hitler analogy is silly....human life cannot be appraised on a monetary basis...at least to me.
My company has made investments, which at the time looked like losses to CPA's....they only saw what was on paper....we knew that those intangibles you spoke of would evolve into real dollars over time....risk when calculated, is necessary to prosper. I just see our space program as that kind of venture....didn't start that way due to the nature of the venture, however, I cannot be convinced that overall, it was not worth the investment and that mankind has not realized profit from the very same.:)
-
C'mon guys, something generating a profit doesn't always have a bearing on it usefulness.
The United States is building a device called LIGO that is going to end up costing upwards of a billion dollars, and generate not a single cent of profit. It's sole purpose is to detect the presence of gravitional waves, and prove yet another aspect of Einstein's Theory of Relativity to be true. If these waves are detected, it will shake the foundations of modern science.
Is the United States wasting money?
Apparently the governments of Germany, France, Japan, and the UK don't think so because they have plans of building similar devices themselves. Eventually, each of these devices will work together and provide a much higher level of sensitivity than a single unit in a single country could.
LIGO (http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12367.html)
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
C'mon guys, something generating a profit doesn't always have a bearing on it usefulness.
The United States is building a device called LIGO that is going to end up costing upwards of a billion dollars, and generate not a single cent of profit. It's sole purpose is to detect the presence of gravitional waves, and prove yet another aspect of Einstein's Theory of Relativity to be true. If these waves are detected, it will shake the foundations of modern science.
Is the United States wasting money?
Apparently the governments of Germany, France, Japan, and the UK don't think so because they have plans of building similar devices themselves. Eventually, each of these devices will work together and provide a much higher level of sensitivity than a single unit in a single country could.
LIGO (http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12367.html)
That would depend on who's money was invested....I've always found profit to be quite useful:)
I do catch your drift:)
-
A very quick look into NASA's finances revealed this by the way...looks like you might want to sell out on some of those investments in intangibles there Rude....the gravy train is running low.
Can you say...Enron?
NASA (http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/730)
-
Originally posted by Rude
I just stated a fact in regards to the intended and unintended innovations which have over time, saved lives, created new industries and jobs, saved monies, increased profits, etc. I also believe that there will continue to be new technologies born from this effort which will again yield profitable returns on monies spent.
Your Hitler analogy is silly....human life cannot be appraised on a monetary basis...at least to me.
All that you said in your first paragraph can be said about the World War 2....THAT is my point.
-
It seems to me that this Dowding / Rude discussion can be ended peacefully if both would agree that neither the Shuttle nor Concord were intended to be profitable.
That's what I've been arguing all along! It was about national prestige/pride. I've never argued that Concorde was a commercial success.
Someday I'll learn not to have discussions with those of higher education....reality rarely lives in a book.
The snide remarks get you nowhere rude. Born out of some weird jealousy, they make you look foolish - especially since you've supposedly benefitted from your aged wisdom. But I've only got your testament to that.
-
Originally posted by Rude
That would depend on who's money was invested....I've always found profit to be quite useful:)
I do catch your drift:)
Hey there Rude,
I'm not anti-profit either, believe me... I love making the green stuff... LOL But I also don't mind chipping in a few tax dollars in the name of science. Who knows what will come in the future from the discoveries made by this project.
It's the same old argument of "How large a price can be put on knowledge?".
-
Agreed!
-
-
Originally posted by Nifty
oh yeah, our girls are gonna spank your girls' tulips this weekend... mmm, if only that was the literal case! :D
Now that is a game I would watch !
-
NASA has contributed so much to the world, but there is still one little thing that bugs me.
Why is there only one flavor of Tang?
:D
-
Oh and for the record it's "an" SST....
or it would be if you built one, which you wont.
Maybe its "an SST" where you live, but I believe we would say "a super sonic transport", not "an super sonic transport".
And by the way, we built alot of them, we just call them B1 Bombers, and use them to transport precison guided bombs.
We Americans bow to your great British developments, lets see, you have to brag about:
bad food,
bad dentistry,
punk rock,
unreliable cars, etc.
hahahaha
dago
-
Oh no not this again... someone restrain me.
-
British Inventions/Patents/Firsts 101 (Remedial Class for Ignorant Yanks):
TV
Telephone
Jet Engine
Steam Turbine
The World Wide Web
Electric Batteries
Electric Lightbulb
'Cat's Eye' road reflector
Powered Flight (unmanned)
VTOL Jet Fighter
Carbonated Water
Lawnmower
Steel Ribbed Umbrella
The Geologic Timescale
Reflecting Telescopes
Railways
Spinning Jenny - textiles (Kicking off Industrial Revolution)
The Kelvin Temperature scale (defined in relation to absolute zero)
Rubber and Latex
Graphite (Pencils)
Refrigeration
Electrical Generator
Electric Motor
Screwdriver (used in Knight's armour)
Sextant
Newtonian Telescope
Toilet Paper
The Paperclip
Steam Engines
Iron Steam Ships (the largest Steam ship ever built, was constructed by perhaps the greatest engineer ever - Brunel)
Bagless Vacuum cleaner
Clockwork Radio
Parliamentary Democracy
Modern Military Structure
Football
Cricket
Rugby
BTW, the B1 was developed decades after the Concorde - hardly a suitable comparison.
-
Lets see, native American means what again?
it means Native American.
as in Indians..
-
Aw Christ, not again.
I would Dowd.....but I can't be arsed.
Originally posted by Dago
Maybe its "an SST" where you live, but I believe we would say "a super sonic transport", not "an super sonic transport".
You numpty. Of course it's a supersonic transport. But it's not a SST. Try saying SST......ok, I'll spell it for ya: ess-ess-tee. A ess-ess-tee or an ess-ess-tee, you work it out.
'kin 'ell, what is with all the English 101 dropouts in here?
And yet another who's completely missed the point of the thread.
It's NOT about concorde, it's NOT about whether the USA is better than Great Britain and it's DAMN WELL NOT about grammar.
:rolleyes: What avacado punted this again anyway?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
And it's also not about native Americans or people that don't know what sarcasm is either.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
and perpetual clouds
-
No it's definately not about perpetual clouds.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
(snicker)
people that don't know what sarcasm is either.
-
Or boobies.
But why was this thread punted? Enquiring minds demand an answer.
-
I didn't MEAN to punt it..
I just was being sarcastic about native americans..of which I am one
smile!
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
(snicker)
There's two completely different senses of humour working together here, trouble is neither understands the other. Nev mind, I'm having fun anyway.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
It wasn't you wlfgang, it was smackdabb - it's on the previous page. Who the * is he/she?
-
hey, it's only 8am here...
I haven't had my coffee.. lemme' catch up!
-----
I have no idea.. haven't heard the handle before.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
British Inventions/Patents/Firsts 101 (Remedial Class for Ignorant Yanks):
TV
Telephone
Jet Engine
Steam Turbine
The World Wide Web
Electric Batteries
Electric Lightbulb
'Cat's Eye' road reflector
Powered Flight (unmanned)
VTOL Jet Fighter
Carbonated Water
Lawnmower
Steel Ribbed Umbrella
The Geologic Timescale
Reflecting Telescopes
Railways
Spinning Jenny - textiles (Kicking off Industrial Revolution)
The Kelvin Temperature scale (defined in relation to absolute zero)
Rubber and Latex
Graphite (Pencils)
Refrigeration
Electrical Generator
Electric Motor
Screwdriver (used in Knight's armour)
Sextant
Newtonian Telescope
Toilet Paper
The Paperclip
Steam Engines
Iron Steam Ships (the largest Steam ship ever built, was constructed by perhaps the greatest engineer ever - Brunel)
Bagless Vacuum cleaner
Clockwork Radio
Parliamentary Democracy
Modern Military Structure
Football
Cricket
Rugby
BTW, the B1 was developed decades after the Concorde - hardly a suitable comparison.
This is the same list Boroda said was Russian?????
-
LOL, I knew I could get Dowding fired up with that one, he especially hates it when I pick on the dentistry. Thanks for rising to it buddy. :)
And yeah, didnt someone once claim the same list were German inventions? heheheh
Seriously, I still like the Beatles music.
I would give a small fortune for a night with Baby Spice.
The Spitfire is one great looking aircraft, with flying qualities to match.
The Rolls Royce Merlin is about the greatest sounding engine passing by.
But, your beer is too warm and taste crappy.
Dago
Diplomatic Ambassador of Goodwill
-
lol very funny Dago :D
And MT :)