On May 5, 12:51 pm, "Your Uncle Larry" <Lar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <vkarla...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > On May 4, 2:24 am, "Your Uncle Larry" <Lar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> <vkarla...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1178259327.634091.231170@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > On May 3, 9:27 am, "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Very good, even if not satire. :)
>
> >> >> vkarla...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> >> > On Apr 29, 4:30 am, "Your Uncle Larry" <Lar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Actually didn't Russia just become the world's number 1 arms
> >> >> >> ex****ter?
>
> >> >> > Not according to you. You have been bragging for years that
Russian
> >> >> > arms ex****ts are useless and worthless; and India and all other
> >> >> > Russian customers are switching to US-made weapons.
>
> >> >> > But in reality, yes, Russian ars ex****ts are soaring, because
> >> >> > Russian
> >> >> > arms, just like Russian space ****ps, are much more relaible and
less
> >> >> > expensive than American ex****ts.
>
> >> >> One undiscussed yet very basic problem is that weapons reliability
> >> >> can only be determined from their use. So bragging about
reliability
> >> >> means bragging about the results of their use. And the use of
weapons
> >> >> is to kill, maim, destroy.
>
> >> > Well, if your point is that modern American bomber planes, misiles,
> >> > and guns have been extensively tested and proved reliable in the
> >> > killing, maiming, and destroying of Yugoslavs, Panmanians,
Haitians,
> >> > Afghanis, and Iraqis (twice) - OK. Indeed, USA managed to conquer
> >> > all these countries, suffering probably 1000 times fewer casualties
> >> > than did their victim countries.
>
> >> > On the other hand, if we speak of space crafts, Russian crafts
dont't
> >> > kill, maim, destroy. The American crafts do kill, maim, destroy.
> >> > Sadly, they do that to their own astronaut passengers... That's why
> >> > Russian space craft are much more reliable than American ones.
>
> >> MMMmmm...how so? Wasn't it the Russian R4 that blew up on the launch
pad
> >> and
> >> killed 200 people?
>
> > Definitely not Russian. I have never heard of a Russian space****p
> > callede "R4" nor of any space****p explosions anywhere in the World
> > that killed 200, at least not in the last 40 years.
>
> You should stick to doing what you do best, pu****ng your shopping cart
full
> of empty cans and bottles along the PCH.
>
Wrong. You are confusing me with Bobby Fischer. But I would rather
push carts in sunny California than live in a cold, windy and rainy
provincial hole where you live.
>
> I like how you always leave the kiddie seat open on Friday nights so
your
> date has a place to sit.
>
You weren't my date. I just gave you a ride to Belleview. And the
reason I put you in the child seat is because it has a plastic cover
to prevent you from soiling my seats with excrement. Of course, I
later discovered that it wasn't necessary: like your beloved American
astronauts, you were diapers...
>
> The actual number was 165 dead and the rocket was the R-16.
>
You remind me of a very old Russian joke, told me by my grandfather:
Newspaper correction:
"Our yesterday's article titled "Comrade Ivanov Wins 1 Million Roubles
Playing Lottery" contained a tiny imprecision:
The amount was 10 thousand roubles, not 1 million.
Also, It was not Comrade Ivanov but Mister Rabinowitz.
Also, he was playing cards, not lottery.
And he lost, not won.
Otherwise we stand by the correctness of our original article."
The same with you.
It turns out that it was R-16 not R-4.
And it was not a space ****p but an intercontinental ballistic
missile.
And it was not the final product but an experimental prototype.
And it wasn't Russian but Soviet.
And it didn't explode in flight but on the launch pad.
And the number of victims is "over 100" not exactly 165.
And it happened not recently but half a century ago.
So, how does this relate to our discussion? And how did you expect the
readers to guess what you were talking about, moron?
/////////////////////////////
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-16
The R-16 was the first successful intercontinental ballistic missile
deployed by the Soviet Union. During development, a massive failure
occurred on October 24, 1960, when a prototype rocket exploded on the
pad killing over 100 personnel.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Clear the wax out of your ears and maybe you will hear something?
>
First of all, I don't wear wax in my ears; unlike you, who has to do
so in order to close the powerful wind tunnel between your ears. Have
you considered renting yourself out to NASA or Boeing?
And second, I don't need my ears to read Usenet posts. But ever since
your *** change operation, you probably do, Cindy Ana Jones-Brooxki. I
hear men love with their eyes, but women love with their ears.
>
>
> > What are you talking about? A bad nightmare of yours? Or a wet dream?
> > Or yet another homo***ual mirage in your own "fart bubbles"?
>
> > Then of course there was the very spectacular N-1 moon
> >> rocket explosions. Russia has dead astronauts too.
>
> > No. It doesn't. The last time Russian cosmonauts died in a mission was
> > in 1971, 36 years ago.
>
> > ///////////////////////////////////////////////
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_disaster
>
> > In-flight accidents
>
> > 1971 June 30: crew exposed to vacuum of space : The crew of Soyuz 11,
> > Georgi Dobrovolski, Viktor Patsayev and Vladislav Volkov, were killed
> > after undocking from space station Salyut 1 after a three-week stay.
>
> > 1986 January 28: spacecraft broke apart on takeoff: The first U.S.
> > multiple in-flight fatalities. The Space Shuttle Challenger was
> > destroyed 73 seconds after launch on STS-51-L. Challenger was thrown
> > sideways into the Mach 1.8 windstream causing it to break up in midair
> > with the loss of all seven crew members aboard: Greg Jarvis, Christa
> > McAuliffe, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Michael J.
> > Smith, and Dick Scobee.
>
> > 2003 February 1: spacecraft broke apart on re-entry: The space shuttle
> > Columbia was lost as it reentered after a two-week mission, STS-107.
> > Damage to the shuttle's thermal protection system (TPS) led to
> > structural failure in the shuttle's left wing and, ultimately, the
> > spacecraft breaking apart. Rick D. Husband, William McCool, Michael
> > P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel B. Clark, and Ilan
> > Ramon were killed. See Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.
> > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > In Russia, nationalists of all sorts, scolded the Russian space
> > industry for becoming a "chauffeur" of the US space agency and
> > sacrificing Russia's Mir space station for the benefit of the US-
> > controlled program.
>
> > In the US, columnists and politicians criticized NASA for allowing
> > Russians "into the critical path in the program,"
>
> > The US Congress essentially made Russian space industry a scapegoat of
> > the Kremlin's nuclear flirt with Iran, prohibiting NASA to purchase
> > hardware and services from Moscow. Finally, European-Russian
> > opposition to the US invasion of Iraq probably drove the last nail in
> > the ISS coffin.
> > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy87546.000/hsy87546_0.HTM
> > as
>
> > U.S.-RUSSIAN COOPERATION IN SPACE
>
> > HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS COMMITTEE ON
> > SCIENCE
>
> > HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
> > Reliance on Russian Sup****t to the Space Station. The Space Shuttle
> > Columbia tragedy and subsequent grounding of the Shuttle fleet has
> > made the U.S. human spaceflight program completely reliant on the
> > Russian Soyuz and Progress space vehicles for all crew trans****t and
> > rescue as well as cargo delivery to the International Space Station
> > while the Space Shuttle fleet is grounded.
>
> > NASA is dependent upon Russia's spacecraft to keep the Space Station
> > operational until the Shuttle flights resume. Since the Administration
> > canceled the U.S. Space Station Crew Return Vehicle in 2001, NASA is
> > totally dependent on the Russian Soyuz CRV until the end of this
> > decade.
>
> > Reliance on the Russians to Sup****t the Space Station. U.S. human
> > spaceflight is completely reliant on the Russian Soyuz and Progress
> > space vehicles for all crew trans****t and rescue as well as cargo
> > delivery to the Space Station while the Space Shuttle fleet is
> > grounded. Even when the Space Shuttle fleet returns to flight, U.S.
> > human spaceflight will still rely on the Russian Soyuz vehicle for
> > Space Station crew rescue.
> > \/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >http://www.daviddarling.info/archive/2004/archiveApr04_1.html
>
> > Soyuz docks with space station (Apr 21, 2004)
>
> > A Russian spacecraft carrying a Russian-American-Dutch crew has docked
> > smoothly with the international space station two days after blasting
> > off on a rocket from Russia's Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
> > Carrying three astronauts, it was the third Russian spacecraft to fill
> > in for the U.S. space shuttle, which has been suspended since the
> > Columbia disaster.
> > ///////////////////////////////
>
|
