New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#351 Re: Meta New Mars » WIKI: We now have a useable wiki... » 2005-08-01 15:22:25
The sun is the bright yellow light we see during the day.
Priceless!
#352 Re: Not So Free Chat » I'll take malaprops for *5* Bob - Apropos of Nothing continues. . . » 2005-08-01 13:08:08
93% of American males rate their love-making skills as above average
#353 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-08-01 11:42:05
Federalism is one of those issues that cuts sideways to "Left" vs "Right"
State level minimum wage laws and safety regulations have been struck down (pre-New Deal) as unconstitutional. Medical marijuana and national opposition to "gay marriage' are modern examples where the Right does not want states going their own direction.
Minnesota very recently reduced the blood alcohol level to 0.08 for drunk driving purposes, becoming the 50th state to do so and now joins the other 49 in qualifying for federal highway dollars. While I have no problem with 0.08 as a matter of policy, it is an example of law and order types in Washington passing a one size fits all policy.
= = =
What if the Confederacy "won" and by 1914 the CSA and the USA choose different sides in World War One? Under the CSA model, could states switch back and forth between the USA and the CSA?
Calling Harry Turtledove, calling Harry Turtledove.
Last week on my Barnes and Noble adventure I saw his latest before I saw Carhart's book on Gettysburg.
#354 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-08-01 10:40:30
Read the http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … &v=glance] Amazon.com comments for a real flame war on this topic.
If Carhart is right, Lee rolled the dice and lost. That said, the North's industrial might meant Lee didn't really have a choice but to gamble.
#355 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-08-01 09:35:17
Put another way, what would have been the result if Lee had waited for Stuart to reach the artillery first? And we seem to be mixing signals here- on the one hand it is being stated that the Confederate guns falling silent is the signal to Stuart to get a move on his attack. On the other, it is being said that the Union guns falling silent is a signal to Lee that Stuart has reached the artillery.
How does any of that make any sense?
The Gettysburg historian who told people that Lee believed the Union guns falling silent was evidence that Stuart had arrived apparently was speculating from map positions of units. (This was raised to answer Cobra's point that many visitors to the Park at Gettysburg have been exposed to a somewhat related theory)
Carhart's theory arises from analysis of diaries, journals and letters written by eye-witnesses blended with analysis of unit positions. This delves quickly into the nuts and bolts mechanics of "doing history" and sifting evidence.
Carhart, I believe, would say the Gettysburg National Park historian was close, but wrong. Stuart's attack and Pickett's attack were to be synchronized, a difficult ballet timed by Stuart's assignment to arrive X minutes after the Rebel barrage ceased.
= = =
Messengers? That would take too long.
= = =
what would have been the result if Lee had waited for Stuart to reach the artillery first?
Pickett's Division was a huge distraction to the Union Army. This point is well accepted. With all eyes on Pickett, the arrival of Stuart would have caused terror and panic.
Like at Chancellorsville.
No charge from Pickett? Stuart's men attack while hopelessly outnumbered and fail. Coordinate the attacks? The few defeat the many.
That historian working at Gettysburg was close, but wrong.
#356 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-08-01 08:49:38
:shock:
I betcha Cobra colored outside the lines, in pre-school.
#357 Re: Human missions » Shuttle Derived II - last thread crashed » 2005-08-01 08:32:03
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/421/1]Griffin vs Rumsfeld - - do we have peace?
#358 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-08-01 07:41:25
Ah, forgive me, how easily one forgets. Stuart arrived on the afternoon of the second day along the Harrisburg Road. Nonetheless, if the cavalry had strayed so far to the southeast during the third day, I seriously doubt whether Stuart could have known if and when Lee had decided for a frontal attack and been able to make his reappearence in a timely fashion to catch the Union rear as Pickett's charge went in.
Stuart and Lee met in Lee's tent the evening of July 2nd.
Elsewhere, others have commented that this strategy would seem to reprise what Lee coordinated with Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville less than 60 days earlier. Send a large detachment on a concealed march to attack from an unexpected direction.
Stuart arrived on July 2nd, late. Did Meade know Stuart was even there?
On Cobra's point:
That is indeed the question. It would seem that a commander of Lee's caliber wouldn't assume everything in such a precise operation would fall into place when the stakes were so high.
The cessation of the Confederate artillery bombardment that came before Pickett's Charge was a signal to Stuart that he had betwen 30 & 60 minutes to reach his target. Lee gave Stuart responsibility to coordinate the timing.
Carhart asserts that at this moment, Stuart formed his men into a large column and they were ordered to a gallup heading towards the road that lead to the Baltimore Pike. They also seemed intent on ignoring scattered Union cavalry on either side. (Carhart cites letters and diaries from eye-witnesses on this point.)
Until Custer charged the front of the column.
Is Carhart correct? That depends upon a painstaking examination of sources.
= = =
I have discovered that a former official Gettysburg historian held a similar belief. When the Union guns also fell silent after the Confederate barrage ended (to allow the barrels to cool for shooting at Pickett's men later) Lee believed Stuart had already started tearing up the Union artillery units.
#359 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri VIII » 2005-08-01 07:28:11
US & UK disagree (somewhat? considerably?) concerning http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7083c7e8-0228- … 8.html]War on Terror:
Experts said the recent disagreements follow a history of differing approaches towards international intelligence gathering and law enforcement that have marked an otherwise seamless relationship.
Former US intelligence officials say the UK intelligence services tend to spend more time watching suspects, whereas the US tends to prefer to close in more quickly. One UK official said co-operation between US and UK intelligence officials over the London bombings had been "superb". But he said the UK had a different view of the war on terrorism than the US.
"One of the distinguishing characteristics of [the US] is that they think they are at war, and we don't. It is very difficult to persuade people in London, even after the bombings, that there's a war on. This is a big psychological difference."
Is fighting terror "war" or is fighting terror something else? Maybe like robust police and intelligence work?
It also seems we Americans gave the news media photos the British wanted to be kept secret:
The rifts rose to the surface last week when Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan police commissioner, expressed thinly veiled annoyance at his US counterparts following the airing of sensitive crime-scene photos by a US television network.
Speaking at a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Sir Ian said he had expressed "concern" about the publication, saying the photos had been "supplied in confidence to some of our colleague agencies".
#360 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri VIII » 2005-07-31 23:08:15
The U.S.A. became fabulously wealthy during the 20th century partially, but substantially in my view, because it eschewed socialism and pursued rugged individualism and a strict meritocracy. Its current pursuit of greater social welfare, while just and very understandable, will ultimately spell the end of its economic dominance and a gradual decline into 'former superpower' status, like Britain before it.
General Motors and US Steel are hardly paragons of rugged individualism.
= = =
Many of America's best decades of economic performance came after the New Deal, which I believe was an effort to blend the best attributues of capitalism and socialism.
It has also been argued that liberal (meaning easily available) bankruptcy laws allow American business folk to take risks Europeans would never dream of taking.
Is easy access to bankruptcy protection (debt relief) free enterprise or socialism? I say that's a hard question to answer.
#361 Re: Not So Free Chat » I'll take malaprops for *5* Bob - Apropos of Nothing continues. . . » 2005-07-31 22:12:28
Some sigs that struck me recently:
Smith and Wesson, the original "Point and Click" interface.
I stole this sig from someone smarter than me.
You can beat me but you can't make me smarter.
Oh yeah, Michael Griffin actually said that last one.
More to come, maybe.
I suppose burning the haystack is one way to find a needle.
87% of Americans believe their driving skills are "above average"
#362 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-07-30 14:56:35
I don't understand, perhaps you could explain a bit...
After contending with Custer, why didn't Stuart pursue the objective? Even if he was half an hour late, would that not have made a difference?
Or would it be that the main thrust of the attack would have been decimated by that point?
Once Pickett was repulsed, Stuart could have killed a lot of Yankees and lost a lot of his own men but the line would have held. Stuart's cavalry was essential for making sure Lee could retreat safely back to Virginia. Had Pickett's division been destroyed and Stuart's men lost, Meade could have mopped up Lee's army as it retreated.
As far as I can tell, the author argues that the plan was for Stuart to link up with Pickett and distract/destroy the Union artillery before they slaughtered Pickett's men. Once the opportune moment passed, it didn't matter any more.
#363 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-07-30 12:21:18
So why didn't Stuart detach a part of his troops to act as a screen while the main force contiued at all speed towards the artillery?
It seems from the theory presented here that Lee wished to distract the Union artillery while Stuart attacked from the rear.
Lee gambled with a precision attack, and lost.
What would be interesting is to find out what Custer "knew" when trying to rally the men for a hopeless charge.
If I am reading the book correctly, Custer hit the very front of Stuart's column, head on.
His 400 men were in the hole Stuart had opened and the expectation was that Stuart would bowl them over in short order. There was no going around Custer but had Custer not charged, but tried to defend, Stuarts men could have simply ridden through and between Custer's men and keep on going.
There were staggeringly few Union officers capable of doing what Custer did. General Gregg, Custer's superior, is totally trashed by Carhart and the author asserts that if Custer had followed Gregg's intentions, he would have evaded Stuart rather than charged him.
Lee and Stuart were "betting on" the legendary timidity of the Union officer corps.
The Union infantry and artillery never ever knew (even after the War was over) that Stuart had been out there at Hanover, other than as scouts or pickets. The author also believes Custer never really knew the true "big" picture and just fought by instinct.
General Meade dodged a bullet he never knew had been fired.
= = =
Why Stuart and Lee never discussed this in public after the battle is discussed by Carhart, persuasively, IMHO.
Stuart died soon thereafter and Stuart and Lee had been close for years and years. During eht war, to announce that Stuart had failed would have demoralized the CSA. After the war, Lee saw no benefit to trashing Stuart's reputation by discussing something that could not be changed.
#364 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-07-30 10:10:56
Then be thankful for the audacity of George Armstrong Custer.
If Carhart is correct, that ONE MAN saved the Union from defeat in the Civil War.
*On that particular count -- okay.
[But I cannot thank him for another "war" he engaged in (Little Big Horn), but don't want to go off topic...]
--Cindy
I agree. The world is infinitely nuanced, no?
#365 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-07-30 09:41:58
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863,
I am most definitely a Yankee, yet this is still moving to me.
*I'm a Yankee too and I'm glad the South lost. The end of slavery and etc.
The CW has never interested me. History is generally a topic I enjoy, but even high school courses on that particular was always something I felt "mucking through." Maybe that was in part due to all those trips to Texas in the 1970s, when Yankees were still reviled and hated for the most part (thanks...it all happened 100 years before I was born...whatev).
I certainly can't speak for Black Americans, but I'll bet they don't look back fondly and wistfully on "Dixie."
I'm glad the South LOST. And I suppose that's more than enough said already.
--Cindy
Then be thankful for the audacity of George Armstrong Custer.
If Carhart is correct, that ONE MAN saved the Union from defeat in the Civil War.
#366 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-07-30 09:30:56
One nuance to Robert E. Lee's plan.
Pickett's Charge crossed a field visible to the entire Union army. Indeed, historians tell us nearly all the Federal soldiers were mezmerized by the sight of Pickett's division lining up to launch what appeared to be a suicide attack right into the barrels of the Union artillery.
What better way to distract attention from their rear and magnify the shock and terror had Stuart's men arrived in time.
#367 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-07-30 09:12:08
William Faulkner on Pickett's Charge:
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is stll time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armstead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose and all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago....
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863,
I am most definitely a Yankee, yet this is still moving to me.
#368 Re: Not So Free Chat » Military History: Gettysburg » 2005-07-30 09:05:30
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/produc … 83155]This book argues that Robert E. Lee actually intended for 6000 cavalry troopers led by Jeb Stuart to crash into the rear of the Union lines at the exact moment Pickett's Charge was to strike the front of the Union lines.
http://americancivilwar.com/civil_war_m … g.jpg]Look at this map. (Zoom if you can) Note the cavalry action 3 miles to the east at Hanover. What the map does not show is the timing of this cavalry action, or its significance.
Had Stuart brushed aside the Union cavalry (something done easily and often in prior battles) Stuart had an open road to the Baltimore Pike and an open road to the artillery batteries that actually did decimate Pickett's division.
Earlier that afternoon, Stuart had disrupted the Union cavalry and opened a hole which would have allowed him to reach the Baltimore Pike, except for 400 relatively inexperienced Michigan cavalry.
When the Confederate cannon bombardment ceased, to signal the commencement of Pickett's Charge, Stuart knew he had less than an hour to breakthrough and reach the rear of the Union lines. Carhart explains that Stuart formed about 4000 troopers into a long column intended to fly down the roads and decend upon the Union artillery and the rear of the forces facing Pickett.
Presumably, these men were ordered to ignore the Union cavalry they had been fighting and gallop towards the exact point where Pickett was aiming.
But at that same moment, George Armstrong Custer rallied the 400 Michigan cavalry and charged head on into the front of Stuart's oncoming column.
It appears that historians agree that the two cavalry units met head on at a full gallop. 400 charging 4000.
As Stuart's men repulsed Custer's charge, their forward progress was temporarily halted allowing disorganized Union cavalry units on both sides to re-enter the battle.
Before long, the Confederates "won" but it took too long.
30 minutes later Stuart knew that Pickett's Charge was over (Win or Lose) and if Pickett had been repulsed, for Stuart to fling his cavalry into the Union lines an hour late would have been utterly futile, so he withdrew his men and Gettysburg was over.
This is http://www.mohicanpress.com/wwwboard1/m … /195.html] interesting:
Also as important to the South's defeat at Gettysburg was Joshua Champerlains defense of Little Roundtop. This was the high ground that gave the Yankees an advantage. Again, a stubborn southern leader gave the order to attack straight up Little Roundtop instead of attacking the flank; and also George Armstrong Custer's defeat, or at least a stalemate, of Jeb Stuart's calvary at Hanover, about five miles away from Gettysburg. Stuart was Lee's "eye," his information gatherer, and Custer stopped him cold from rejoining Lee and giving Lee calvary support and information.
Until Carhart's book, no one apparently saw exactly what support Lee had intended Stuart to provide.
Had Stuart descended on the rear of the Union lines 15 minutes before Pickett's men reached those same lines, Meade's army would have been cut in half and destroyed.
#369 Re: Meta New Mars » WIKI: We now have a useable wiki... » 2005-07-29 20:59:21
All I'm doing is putting up some empty 'coathangers', in a very random way, to boot...
idea behind this is that it's probably more tempting that way for people to try and edit existing stuff, than create new pages by themselves....
Then again, it looks pretty empty that way...Keep it up Rxke, you're doing a great job
.
I concur.
Empty coathangers are a terrific idea since edits are easier than thinking up new pages.
#370 Re: Human missions » STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion » 2005-07-29 16:32:27
Michael Griffin to appear on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
Pablum or candor?
It might be interesting, or not.
#371 Re: Human missions » Re-using vehicles which launch -hard- » 2005-07-29 14:00:26
Regarding putting the insulation inside the tanks: the problem there is that any foam that breaks off will run through the PUMPS and could damage them. Foam will be put under tensile stress from contact with the cryogenic liquid and launch vibration may break some loose.
This foam problem does not strike me as fixable. They've worried about it since the first launch. They can't develop a formula that doesn't break up or explode off. Punching little tiny vent holes in the foam didn't work. Apparently there's buildup of liquid nitrogen under the foam covering the liquid hydrogen tank and it vaporizes during ascent. It's a messy, complicated problem that results from side mounting the orbiter.
-- RobS
I've read that if you clog a fuel pump in this manner, there is a good chance the thing will explode, spectacularly.
#372 Re: Human missions » STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion » 2005-07-29 06:25:40
I keep talking about Earth orbit rendezvous for both Lunar and Mars. That means launching crew in a separate vehicle. The SDV doesn't have to be man ranted. Furthermore, the problem isn't with foam itself; it's with foam hitting tiles. If the vehicle doesn't have any tiles the tank can lose all the foam it wants and still be safe.
Exactly
#373 Re: Water on Mars » Ice Within Craters » 2005-07-28 19:30:49
Cindy:-
It's quite a concentration of ice, no?
It's quite a concentration of ice .. YES!
And it just underlines the huge difference between the Moon and Mars when it comes to readily available resources. With Luna, we're scratching around looking for theoretical ice deposits in shadowed polar craters, while on Mars we have plentiful water ice for sure .. as well as unlimited carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and all the other elements necessary for a thriving colony.
God! I hope we don't spend too long faffing around on the Moon. I want to get on with the Mars thing!
![http://americancivilwar.com/civil_war_m … g.jpg]Look](http://americancivilwar.com/civil_war_map/battle_of_gettysburg.jpg]Look){kind=link}
Shaun, next time you argue with a lunatic about lunar ice, cite NASA scientist Wendell Mendell. At Return to the Moon he was very critical of the lunar polar ice theory. He says the stuff just ain't there.
Maybe I will google some links and edit, when I get bored of politics. :?
#374 Re: Human missions » NASA Calls On Private Sector » 2005-07-28 19:12:58
More on Chris Shank. His office is next door to Griffin's (as I hear) and one of his job descriptions is to "socialize" NASA plans to Congress and the public (space advocacy groups).
Therefore, what he says is probably reliable information on what Griffin (a) really thinks, or (b) what Griffin wants us to think he is thinking.
Socialize was Shank's term for his job description.
#375 Re: Human missions » NASA Calls On Private Sector » 2005-07-28 19:02:05
I was there, in person, when Chris Shank spoke. Several Space Frontier people are interpreting what Chris Shank actually said. I cannot say they are wrong, however there are several shades of gray here and they are interpreting comments more towards what they want to hear.
"We've run the numbers, the budget numbers, and we can't afford this plan -- we simply can't -- if we follow the business-as-usual approach," said Christopher Shank, Special Assistant to the NASA Administrator, the keynote speaker at the conference.
"The NASA budget is only so much per year. It is just a matter of what it is you want to do with that money. So we, NASA, need to be smarter customers. If we assume CEV was the only vehicle, in a business-as-usual conservative costing approach, that if we didn't take a firm fixed-price approach towards our acquisition practices on how we're going to provide ISS crew and cargo, we could not afford to move on to the Moon," said Shank.
This is my paraphrase/interpretation of Shank's comments including the above, which fit my memory as well:
(1) Business as usual will fail. He said this very bluntly.
(2) Dramatically lowering the cost of ISS service missions (cargo AND crew) was needed to make the VSE affordable within current projected budgets. Private sector crew transfer duty absoutely was needed to stay within budget and not gut other essential but non-VSE programs.
I read between the lines as follows - - Griffin covets a private sector funding source for t/Space. If they will sell SAFE crew transfer anywhere near what Gump advertises ($20 million for 4 crew to ISS) Griffin will gleefully buy seats for every NASA astronaut sent to ISS.
That said, he cannot pay development costs, up-front.
It was a fascinating dance watching NASA guys talk and then watch t/Space guys talk. It may be my imagination, but I sensed negotiation going on.
Chris Shank also was very clear - - CEV needed to have ISS capability in case no private sector guys actually came through BUT he also said using CEV to ISS was NOT the preferred result.
= = =
Jeff Foust (Space Review) apparently recorded the speakers. Therefore, his article should be accurate.
= = =
GCNRevenger, I took the liberty of deleting your duplicate post. I hope that is not a problem.
= = =
Chris Shank will be speaking at the Mars Society convention, on Saturday. Almost worth the trip right there in light of Discovery and foam developments.
= = =
Chris Shank also was very clear - - CEV needed to have ISS capability in case no private sector guys actually came through BUT he also said using CEV to ISS was NOT the preferred result.
This is the origin of the "they need us" posture taken by the alt-spacers, I think.