US Army's Land Trains (2020)(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
US Army's Land Trains (2020)
https://www.thedrive.com/news/33645/the-incredible-story-of-the-us-armys-earth-shaking-off-road-land-trains
157 comments
The US Navy also maintained a picket on both east and west coasts about 500 miles offshore with overlapping radars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian-class_radar_picket_...
My father as a newly minted ensign in 1958 served aboard the USS Interpreter and would recall fondly one of his first conversations with the captain. My father asked about how the analysts they reported contacts to would know “when it was the real one”. To which the captain laughed “You damn fool. They’ll know it’s the real one when we don’t report in.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian-class_radar_picket_...
My father as a newly minted ensign in 1958 served aboard the USS Interpreter and would recall fondly one of his first conversations with the captain. My father asked about how the analysts they reported contacts to would know “when it was the real one”. To which the captain laughed “You damn fool. They’ll know it’s the real one when we don’t report in.”
In an episode released a few years back, Omega Tau spoke with two individuals who had worked on the DEW Line back in the day: https://omegataupodcast.net/248-dew-sage-and-the-f-106-delta...
It didn't seem to help Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze in the 1984 movie Red Dawn ;) Interesting NATO is disbanded in that movie, and the harvest in the Ukraine suffers for some reason (blight? war?).
The Ukraine harvest suffering isn't as random as you might think. It produced the majority of the food for the Warsaw block, and avoiding a famine leading to revolution is a good reason to start a major war.
NATO being dissolved is pretty deterministic as well. The average American in 1984 couldn't conceive of the Russians actually making it all the way over to the US. Nuking the US, but not a successful land invasion. So there had to be some reason the US got weaker. NATO dissolving doesn't put any blame for that on the US, which is important for a flag-waving film.
NATO being dissolved is pretty deterministic as well. The average American in 1984 couldn't conceive of the Russians actually making it all the way over to the US. Nuking the US, but not a successful land invasion. So there had to be some reason the US got weaker. NATO dissolving doesn't put any blame for that on the US, which is important for a flag-waving film.
> So there had to be some reason the US got weaker. NATO dissolving doesn't put any blame for that on the US, which is important for a flag-waving film.
I don't recall exactly where I read it (it was some interview or something with the people who made the movie 10+ years ago), but I think it was a little more extreme than that. IIRC, (the perhaps unstated) bit of the backstory was domino theory was true and the US was badly on the wrong end of it. The NATO dissolving thing was just part of the picture.
I don't recall exactly where I read it (it was some interview or something with the people who made the movie 10+ years ago), but I think it was a little more extreme than that. IIRC, (the perhaps unstated) bit of the backstory was domino theory was true and the US was badly on the wrong end of it. The NATO dissolving thing was just part of the picture.
the majority of the food for the Warsaw block
It would have starved, if that were true. The Soviet Union was a grain importer for much of its existence.
It would have starved, if that were true. The Soviet Union was a grain importer for much of its existence.
> Average American in 1984 couldn't conceive....
"Couldn't conceive" is pretty strong - it was the era of the Cold War, GI Joe, a hangover from the Cuban Missile Crisis, the contras. Maybe accurate to say the average American would find it highly improbable, and our eventual victory always assured because Chuck Norris, Rambo, and the inherent virtue of our cause against totalitarianism.
Anyway, I think the paratroopers that appear in Red Dawn are from Cuba or a socialist country in Central/South America, right? Which isn't terribly far-fetched in the context of the eighties imagination - maybe more accessible idea than a Soviet D-Day-style invasion. Also not out of line in history - didn't the Germans court the Mexicans in WWII? The French during the Civil War (I use the word "court" loosely with the French 'intervention', but hell, we got a holiday out of it).
The film was marketed saying that no foreign invasion of US soil had happened, though it ignored the Japanese invasion of Alaska. The "average American" probably still doesn't think of Alaska very often except for reality TV, much less its history.
https://www.archaeology.org/issues/433-2107/letter-from/9780...
"Couldn't conceive" is pretty strong - it was the era of the Cold War, GI Joe, a hangover from the Cuban Missile Crisis, the contras. Maybe accurate to say the average American would find it highly improbable, and our eventual victory always assured because Chuck Norris, Rambo, and the inherent virtue of our cause against totalitarianism.
Anyway, I think the paratroopers that appear in Red Dawn are from Cuba or a socialist country in Central/South America, right? Which isn't terribly far-fetched in the context of the eighties imagination - maybe more accessible idea than a Soviet D-Day-style invasion. Also not out of line in history - didn't the Germans court the Mexicans in WWII? The French during the Civil War (I use the word "court" loosely with the French 'intervention', but hell, we got a holiday out of it).
The film was marketed saying that no foreign invasion of US soil had happened, though it ignored the Japanese invasion of Alaska. The "average American" probably still doesn't think of Alaska very often except for reality TV, much less its history.
https://www.archaeology.org/issues/433-2107/letter-from/9780...
> didn't the Germans court the Mexicans in WWII?
Italians and Germans were active all over the Americas, in response the US created the Office for Inter-American Affairs [0] to spread its own counter-propaganda. Among other things, they hired Disney to create The Grain That Built a Hemisphere, using corn as a symbol for Pan-American unity.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Coordinator_of_I...
Italians and Germans were active all over the Americas, in response the US created the Office for Inter-American Affairs [0] to spread its own counter-propaganda. Among other things, they hired Disney to create The Grain That Built a Hemisphere, using corn as a symbol for Pan-American unity.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Coordinator_of_I...
> didn't the Germans court the Mexicans in WWII?
Yes [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
Yes [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
The Zimmermann Telegram was WW1 though, not WW2.
We got revenge in Heartbreak Ridge and got our shitty dentist students back.
>didn’t the Germans court the Mexicans in WWII?
Wrong war - that was WWI.
Wrong war - that was WWI.
Tom Cruise was not in Red Dawn
In the 1984 movie, paratroopers dropped from supposed commercial flights, which was the approach the USSR used for their 1980 invasion of Afghanistan
Nukes were used later against the Chinese, which was why there were 500 million screaming Chinese in our side. 13 year old me was a big fan of the movie.
John has a big mustache. The chair is against the wall.
In the 1984 movie, paratroopers dropped from supposed commercial flights, which was the approach the USSR used for their 1980 invasion of Afghanistan
Nukes were used later against the Chinese, which was why there were 500 million screaming Chinese in our side. 13 year old me was a big fan of the movie.
John has a big mustache. The chair is against the wall.
I had to look up "John has a long mustache. The chair is against the wall. "
They are explained in this blog post.
https://www.housemorningwood.com/red-dawn-code-words-and-wol...
"John has a long mustache" is a callback to the movie "The Longest Day" as a signal to French Resistance.
"John has a long mustache" is a callback to the movie "The Longest Day" as a signal to French Resistance.
Now those kids look like my nightmare vision of the American Taliban.
Except if there ever is an incident, and something like those kids save your ass. I've watched many people intellectualize something, and then when it gets visceral, reach for the thing they repulsed or detested before. Sort of what happened during 9/11. I was a middle of the road kind of guy, half dove, half hawk. I grew up in a violent neighborhood fighting when I didn't want to. Four years of military school, and I watched my more dovish friends go total hawk.
[deleted]
Those kids are my cousins kind of, in a sense based on where I come from and the people that I go home to visit. I don't think I have any misperceptions about the good things that those people can do and the hard work that let's say "rural people" do in their lives.
But I also have learned they're pretty much universally believing in things that are not true, from the election being stolen to q&a stuff and an unfortunate fixation on racism. Pretty much they're mostly influenced by Fox News, their elders more than the younger generation, but plenty of people in the younger generation have inherited some kind of white grievance. I see those kinds of people as really unhappy because they see that there is not a good economic future in general for people in farming and rural areas. In my family the people that still have farms call them hobby farms and they have real jobs out in the world doing something.
But I also have learned they're pretty much universally believing in things that are not true, from the election being stolen to q&a stuff and an unfortunate fixation on racism. Pretty much they're mostly influenced by Fox News, their elders more than the younger generation, but plenty of people in the younger generation have inherited some kind of white grievance. I see those kinds of people as really unhappy because they see that there is not a good economic future in general for people in farming and rural areas. In my family the people that still have farms call them hobby farms and they have real jobs out in the world doing something.
You're right. Charlie Sheen, not Tom Cruise. I was 20 when I saw it at the movies. My memory is not what it used to be, and I have the old habit of trying to actually write something without always using Google to back me up!
Funny story: I sat at the table for lunch with my 20-to-30-something colleagues, and I purposely brought up trivia or esoterica, to watch them all dart to their thumbs on phones to answer. I said, STOP!. Try and think it out. It's fun, even when you are wrong, because the conversation flows nicely. Disclaimer: I use Google a lot to check myself ;)
Funny story: I sat at the table for lunch with my 20-to-30-something colleagues, and I purposely brought up trivia or esoterica, to watch them all dart to their thumbs on phones to answer. I said, STOP!. Try and think it out. It's fun, even when you are wrong, because the conversation flows nicely. Disclaimer: I use Google a lot to check myself ;)
Harry Dean Stanton was though, which still weirds me out. Not a very big through line between Red Dawn and Repo Man.
Actually, his character in Repo Man goes on a rant against communists that seems out of place -- unless it's the same person from Red Dawn. So it's probably part of the RDCU (or Dawniverse if you prefer).
The Soviets did not parachute from commercial flights during Storm-333.
Tom Cruise wasn't in Red Dawn, as I recall - maybe thinking about Charlie Sheen (the discount Tom Cruise)? Yes, wheat harvest fails in Ukraine, coup in Mexico, NATO disbanded. Cuban paratroopers in the first wave if I recall correctly. Still a highly enjoyable movie - one of the best eighties adventure flicks.
Hah, the discount Tom Cruise, that's funny! Yeah, I saw it in 1984, so it's been a while. My mind is slipping. Navy Seals (1990) was Charlie Sheen. Could have been better with Tom Cruise!
> It didn't seem to help Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze in the 1984 movie Red Dawn ;) Interesting NATO is disbanded in that movie, and the harvest in the Ukraine suffers for some reason (blight? war?).
Of course. The DEW line was mean to warn against a Soviet nuclear attack, but in that movie no such attack occurs.
Of course. The DEW line was mean to warn against a Soviet nuclear attack, but in that movie no such attack occurs.
Actually the downed jet pilot mentions DC, NYC, and a few other cities getting nuked.
> Actually the downed jet pilot mentions DC, NYC, and a few other cities getting nuked.
Oh, that's totally possible. It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, and I just recall that nukes didn't feature in the plot at all.
Oh, that's totally possible. It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, and I just recall that nukes didn't feature in the plot at all.
Of course, that was the Cubans that invaded.
> Of course, that was the Cubans that invaded.
In the backstory for the movie it wasn't just the Cubans. The Russians directly led it, and also Mexico went Communist and the invasion actually proceeded from there, so I'd assume Mexican forces participated as well. That would have been obscured because the main antagonist characters were a Russian commander and a Cuban commander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn#Plot:
> In an alternate 1980s, the United States is strategically isolated after NATO is disbanded. At the same time, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies aggressively expand. In addition, the Ukrainian wheat harvest fails while a socialist coup d'état occurs in Mexico.
In the backstory for the movie it wasn't just the Cubans. The Russians directly led it, and also Mexico went Communist and the invasion actually proceeded from there, so I'd assume Mexican forces participated as well. That would have been obscured because the main antagonist characters were a Russian commander and a Cuban commander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn#Plot:
> In an alternate 1980s, the United States is strategically isolated after NATO is disbanded. At the same time, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies aggressively expand. In addition, the Ukrainian wheat harvest fails while a socialist coup d'état occurs in Mexico.
It’s like the exact story happened in reverse
Except for the small detail that nobody cares about invading Russia.
China might, as Siberia warms and Russia’s military forces are depleted.
No, China has no interest in this.
China has an interest in the normalization of reconquest and regional spheres of influence superceding other norms, and an interest in both Russia and the West being focussed on conflict in Europe.
Despite its totalitarianism, China isn't very expansionist or aggressive. Significantly less than Russia and the US. Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951? They do make it very clear that they consider some countries and territories an intrinsic part of China (Taiwan obviously, Hong Kong, and this was also the case with Tibet), but they're generally not very aggressive about taking them, and extremely patient about waiting for the right moment, and tend to do it with minimal bloodshed. So far at least. (And only in their expansion; they have far less scruples about domestic bloodshed.)
That said, I believe the Soviet Union has taken quite a bit of land from China a long time ago, and although they haven't made any claim on that land yet (unlike with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea), I can imagine China might want it back when the time is right for it. Like a serious collapse of Russia. But I don't think they'll go to war over it.
Also, apparently there exist some Finnish imperialists who'd like to annex Karelia, and possibly some other parts of North-West Russia.
That said, I believe the Soviet Union has taken quite a bit of land from China a long time ago, and although they haven't made any claim on that land yet (unlike with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea), I can imagine China might want it back when the time is right for it. Like a serious collapse of Russia. But I don't think they'll go to war over it.
Also, apparently there exist some Finnish imperialists who'd like to annex Karelia, and possibly some other parts of North-West Russia.
> Despite its totalitarianism, China isn't very expansionist or aggressive
That's...debatable, but it has one particular clear, specific interest in normalizing reconquest of formerly-held territories, irrespective of whether it is “aggressive” or “expansionist“ in any general sense.
> Significantly less than Russia and the US.
While it has integrated as states some territories it already held in that time, the US has been anti-expansionist since 1947, voluntarily relinquishing formerly-held territories and seeking neither to acquire new ones nor to reassert sovereign control over former ones. (The US may exercise strong influence over foreign states, including many that it formerly administered as territories, and may entertain the idea of integrating existing territories as states, but territorial expansion hasn't been on the table for a while.) China, in the same time period, has launched several wars for territorial expansion.
> Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951?
No. Excluding internal (even arguable, like several with the ROC) wars, since 1951 they've fought in the Korean War, several wars with India, the Vietnam War, several wars against Vietnam after the Vietnam War, and some others. Against both India and Vietnam, particularly, their goals in involved territorial expansion.
That's...debatable, but it has one particular clear, specific interest in normalizing reconquest of formerly-held territories, irrespective of whether it is “aggressive” or “expansionist“ in any general sense.
> Significantly less than Russia and the US.
While it has integrated as states some territories it already held in that time, the US has been anti-expansionist since 1947, voluntarily relinquishing formerly-held territories and seeking neither to acquire new ones nor to reassert sovereign control over former ones. (The US may exercise strong influence over foreign states, including many that it formerly administered as territories, and may entertain the idea of integrating existing territories as states, but territorial expansion hasn't been on the table for a while.) China, in the same time period, has launched several wars for territorial expansion.
> Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951?
No. Excluding internal (even arguable, like several with the ROC) wars, since 1951 they've fought in the Korean War, several wars with India, the Vietnam War, several wars against Vietnam after the Vietnam War, and some others. Against both India and Vietnam, particularly, their goals in involved territorial expansion.
I stand corrected. Maybe I notice it less because it's on the other side of the world, then. That's definitely a factor that skews our perception of such events.
Yes, because the next big attack of a major country invading a weaker democratic country will be China invading Taiwan. Unless Russia gives up on that meany Ukraine and attacks the belligerent Moldavia (expands the separatist region) because they want a victory.
The remaining Azov troops just surrender in Mariupol, they have been winning pretty hard lately.
Invading, no, but regime change? Absolutely (see Western involvement in the Russian civil war and, well, all of the cold war)
That's not the impression one would get following the last two decades of geopolitics.
In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized and voiced [0] when Clinton was working towards it.
Bush didn't follow straight up, had 9/11 to deal with and used that to justify quitting anti-ballistic missile treaties in Europe [1], allegedly to defend against Iran, when in practice it very much killed a "nuclear impasse" that kept Russia comfortable, and then Bush suddenly also started talking about NATO expansion [2].
All of that was already quite suspect to Russia, so it was agreed to give Russia something like a voice at NATO [3], which never went past symbolism, but allowed Russia to save at least some face and was supposed to calm nerves.
That was needed, because the US invasion, and following NATO occupation of Afghanistan translated to histories largest NATO operation, right in the backyard of Russia. Consultation with Russia about that; Zero
What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest.
Afaik, right now there is only one security treaty still in effect between Russia and the US, New START, which is about keeping total arsenals of both parties in check. But in terms of security treaties regulating the stationing of conventional troops or treaties regulating the placement of ballistic missile systems in Europe, there's literally nothing left to keep everybody in check.
A situation, that from Russia's PoV is one the US has actively worked towards [5] for these last two decades, along-side it's steady NATO expansion.
Disclaimer; None of this is meant to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but said invasion is very much the result of consistently ignoring Russia's own security demands, and warnings, for literally decades.
That's why from the Russian PoV they are not in Ukraine on the "offensive to invade all of Europe", from the Russian PoV the bear is cornered and fighting off a still approaching aggressor, after years of roaring at it not to approach further.
[0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speec...
[3] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized and voiced [0] when Clinton was working towards it.
Bush didn't follow straight up, had 9/11 to deal with and used that to justify quitting anti-ballistic missile treaties in Europe [1], allegedly to defend against Iran, when in practice it very much killed a "nuclear impasse" that kept Russia comfortable, and then Bush suddenly also started talking about NATO expansion [2].
All of that was already quite suspect to Russia, so it was agreed to give Russia something like a voice at NATO [3], which never went past symbolism, but allowed Russia to save at least some face and was supposed to calm nerves.
That was needed, because the US invasion, and following NATO occupation of Afghanistan translated to histories largest NATO operation, right in the backyard of Russia. Consultation with Russia about that; Zero
What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest.
Afaik, right now there is only one security treaty still in effect between Russia and the US, New START, which is about keeping total arsenals of both parties in check. But in terms of security treaties regulating the stationing of conventional troops or treaties regulating the placement of ballistic missile systems in Europe, there's literally nothing left to keep everybody in check.
A situation, that from Russia's PoV is one the US has actively worked towards [5] for these last two decades, along-side it's steady NATO expansion.
Disclaimer; None of this is meant to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but said invasion is very much the result of consistently ignoring Russia's own security demands, and warnings, for literally decades.
That's why from the Russian PoV they are not in Ukraine on the "offensive to invade all of Europe", from the Russian PoV the bear is cornered and fighting off a still approaching aggressor, after years of roaring at it not to approach further.
[0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speec...
[3] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
> What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest.
So I decided to actually go to the treaty text here to figure out what it was that US/NATO supposedly violated and... I'm not actually seeing it.
This does seem to be a general pattern to me of Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to as an excuse to not do things that Russia explicitly agreed to do. So forgive me if I'm not exactly sympathizing with Russia here.
So I decided to actually go to the treaty text here to figure out what it was that US/NATO supposedly violated and... I'm not actually seeing it.
This does seem to be a general pattern to me of Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to as an excuse to not do things that Russia explicitly agreed to do. So forgive me if I'm not exactly sympathizing with Russia here.
Curious how you are not able to see a whole Wikipedia chapter I directly linked to;
> In 2007, the United States' plans to create bases in Romania and Bulgaria constituted, according to Russia, a breach of the treaty.
> NATO officials disputed this and stated that the US bases were not intended as permanent and thus could not be seen as a breach.
> However, it was then reported that the agreements signed with both Romania and Bulgaria in 2006 specifically allowed for permanent bases under direct US control and The Washington Times also had obtained the confirmation of a senior United States official that the facilities were intended to be permanent.
Are you also unable to see the chapter that follow, about the US alleging how countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not in compliance?
Do you also consider that an excuse, or is it only an excuse when Russia points out non-compliance?
Particularly, considering how the US would complain about hundreds of former Soviets troops being somewhere where they had been since the Cold War, while at the same time the US was blatantly lying about permanently stationing thousands new troops increasingly closer to Russia in countries like Bulgaria and Romania.
Btw;
> Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to
The US, just like all European NATO countries, are very much party to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
What you seem to wanting to refer to, is how the US and NATO never ratified the Adapted CFE Treaty [0], which is not the same as the original CFE Treaty.
It's also quite the odd point trying to make; The US complaining about non-compliance of others, who have actually ratified it, while itself did not even ratify the treaty, is just blatantly hypocritical.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_Conventional_Armed_For...
> In 2007, the United States' plans to create bases in Romania and Bulgaria constituted, according to Russia, a breach of the treaty.
> NATO officials disputed this and stated that the US bases were not intended as permanent and thus could not be seen as a breach.
> However, it was then reported that the agreements signed with both Romania and Bulgaria in 2006 specifically allowed for permanent bases under direct US control and The Washington Times also had obtained the confirmation of a senior United States official that the facilities were intended to be permanent.
Are you also unable to see the chapter that follow, about the US alleging how countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not in compliance?
Do you also consider that an excuse, or is it only an excuse when Russia points out non-compliance?
Particularly, considering how the US would complain about hundreds of former Soviets troops being somewhere where they had been since the Cold War, while at the same time the US was blatantly lying about permanently stationing thousands new troops increasingly closer to Russia in countries like Bulgaria and Romania.
Btw;
> Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to
The US, just like all European NATO countries, are very much party to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
What you seem to wanting to refer to, is how the US and NATO never ratified the Adapted CFE Treaty [0], which is not the same as the original CFE Treaty.
It's also quite the odd point trying to make; The US complaining about non-compliance of others, who have actually ratified it, while itself did not even ratify the treaty, is just blatantly hypocritical.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_Conventional_Armed_For...
I did read the whole Wikipedia chapter.
I then turned to read the text of the treaty itself, to find the exact text of the clause of the treaty it violated. The way the Wikipedia article is written, it sounds like there's a clause in the treaty that says "NATO cannot have any [permanent] bases in Romania and Bulgaria." There is no such clause.
If you read the Wikipedia text carefully, you'll notice that it doesn't say that US violated the treaty--it says that Russia alleges that the US violated the treaty. Now that's very arguably bias on the part of the Wikipedia editor, but the fact that there isn't any followup to actually show how Russia's interpretation can be backed up by the treaty itself.
So if you believe that Russia is correct, please point me to where in the treaty itself that the US's actions violated the treaty.
I then turned to read the text of the treaty itself, to find the exact text of the clause of the treaty it violated. The way the Wikipedia article is written, it sounds like there's a clause in the treaty that says "NATO cannot have any [permanent] bases in Romania and Bulgaria." There is no such clause.
If you read the Wikipedia text carefully, you'll notice that it doesn't say that US violated the treaty--it says that Russia alleges that the US violated the treaty. Now that's very arguably bias on the part of the Wikipedia editor, but the fact that there isn't any followup to actually show how Russia's interpretation can be backed up by the treaty itself.
So if you believe that Russia is correct, please point me to where in the treaty itself that the US's actions violated the treaty.
> So if you believe that Russia is correct, please point me to where in the treaty itself that the US's actions violated the treaty.
That is by now pretty meaningless pedantry, the point is what impression that left on the Russian side when the US was complaining about Russian troops in Transdniestria, while at the same stationing increasingly more troops in Europe [0].
Particularly as it happened after the US quit the AMB Treaty, something Russia was never shy about signaling how its perceived as a threat [1].
Mind you; The US didn't quit the ABM Treaty over alleged violations by Russia, it simply did because it considered the treaty in the way of its foreign policy ambitions in the Middle East, which directly required ramping up US presence in Europe.
Yet in that history of interactions, it's somehow Russia that's constantly framed as the not trustworthy party, when US foreign policy is dominated by such examples of the US just having it their way, with zero considerations to any other parties.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192504/http://www.tirasp...
[1] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/articles/2007-04-26-nrc-...
That is by now pretty meaningless pedantry, the point is what impression that left on the Russian side when the US was complaining about Russian troops in Transdniestria, while at the same stationing increasingly more troops in Europe [0].
Particularly as it happened after the US quit the AMB Treaty, something Russia was never shy about signaling how its perceived as a threat [1].
Mind you; The US didn't quit the ABM Treaty over alleged violations by Russia, it simply did because it considered the treaty in the way of its foreign policy ambitions in the Middle East, which directly required ramping up US presence in Europe.
Yet in that history of interactions, it's somehow Russia that's constantly framed as the not trustworthy party, when US foreign policy is dominated by such examples of the US just having it their way, with zero considerations to any other parties.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192504/http://www.tirasp...
[1] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/articles/2007-04-26-nrc-...
I mean, Putin's an expansionistic genocidal gangster all on his own, but it's incontrovertible that Bush Jr. reneged on a very important anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia and tried to position anti-missile systems in former Warsaw countries like Poland, thereby greatly aggravating the nuclear detente.
It doesn't take all that much empathy to see it from a Russian POV - your main geopolitical rival abandons a treaty with you, and begins placing military assets near your borders? Sure, it's definitely threatening, especially if you don't trust them.
It's nothing to do with their war in Ukraine, but is nevertheless real.
It doesn't take all that much empathy to see it from a Russian POV - your main geopolitical rival abandons a treaty with you, and begins placing military assets near your borders? Sure, it's definitely threatening, especially if you don't trust them.
It's nothing to do with their war in Ukraine, but is nevertheless real.
It seems amazing that you could build 63 radar setups that were manned with just 500 tons of supplies.
Very small compared to coal draglines like "big muskie"
Why make a mere train to eventually make a building, when you can make a large building that moves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Muskie
Interesting to think that Big Muskie was significantly larger in all dimensions than the residence hall I lived in for my first year of university. One machine moved more material than two panama canals in its lifespan...
Big Muskie was not a fast mover but it could have made that proverbial 400 mile trip in about 5 months, which isn't all that bad. I do believe it would have cost more overall, which is why they didn't do it this way. I would imagine trying to ford a river with Big Muskie would have been very exciting indeed.
Why make a mere train to eventually make a building, when you can make a large building that moves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Muskie
Interesting to think that Big Muskie was significantly larger in all dimensions than the residence hall I lived in for my first year of university. One machine moved more material than two panama canals in its lifespan...
Big Muskie was not a fast mover but it could have made that proverbial 400 mile trip in about 5 months, which isn't all that bad. I do believe it would have cost more overall, which is why they didn't do it this way. I would imagine trying to ford a river with Big Muskie would have been very exciting indeed.
it wouldn't have made it, as it ran off of electric power. It trailed a huge electrical cable. Which makes sense as it was operated by American Electric Power. You can visit the bucket at Miners' Memorial Park where it's on top of a hill ( which I have to visit to get cell service when I camp nearby). It's the size of a small house.
Still digging... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293
A YouTuber I follow recently put up a ~1 hour long documentary on the land trains [1]. It's well-researched and contains some interesting details not covered by the article.
And if you enjoy that, be sure to check out his video on the Soviet Kharkovchanka Antarctic cruisers [2]. It's just as entertaining and what initially led me to his channel.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abGyX2uwXsw [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6R-h06IsJw
And if you enjoy that, be sure to check out his video on the Soviet Kharkovchanka Antarctic cruisers [2]. It's just as entertaining and what initially led me to his channel.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abGyX2uwXsw [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6R-h06IsJw
> Oh, your pickup has a lift? That's cute.
My favorite fact about land trains is that the tires were later reused on Bigfoot monster trucks[0].
[0] http://bigfoot4x4.com/blog/bigfoot-5/
My favorite fact about land trains is that the tires were later reused on Bigfoot monster trucks[0].
[0] http://bigfoot4x4.com/blog/bigfoot-5/
Fantastic link! don't miss the videos at the bottom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGcFtWnPUOs&list=PLkNbuDiWyZ...
Is Monster Trucking still a thing? Seems I'd see it all over the place a while back, and haven't really noticed a thing about it in 10-15 years or so.
I went to a Monster Jam show in ~2018, looks like they're still going: https://www.monsterjam.com/en-US/tickets
Yay, some local history... Bigfoot's Hazelwood, MO location (just outside St. Louis) was just a few miles from my house. The birthplace of the "monster truck". They used to leave the first model parked out by the highway.
That sounds like it would be pretty cool to drive past! A local auto shop has a monster truck with smallish tractor tires parked out front, but that's pretty tame compared to these monsters.
I read somewhere that these had a mechanism that made all of the wheels follow in roughly the same track, but I haven't been able to find an explanation of how they made that work. Anyone happen to have a link/explanation?
Edit: Found this https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steering-scheme-of-a-roa....
Edit: Found this https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steering-scheme-of-a-roa....
My impression from the first picture in the article was that these might be so tightly coupled car-to-car, a single car tilting (L/R) into a hole might be impossible. More fancifully, imagine they were so tightly linked wrt front/back tilt, the land train could bridge gaps all by itself.
For those of us who don't understand engineering diagrams^1, could you write a summary of how it works?
^1: These are probably called schematics or something...
^1: These are probably called schematics or something...
I did a quick Google. Play with some keywords, especially searching for images: drawbar steering-angle turntable dolly Ackerman train
The usual design is to use mechanical linkages to steer the wheels, with varying levels of complexity that have different compromises. A complicated double Ackermann example (scroll down for plan view): https://planindustrie.de/en/products/industrial-heavy-duty-d... and look at other products of theirs from the menu for simpler linkage examples.
Academic papers are about the design of linkages and turning paths, with consideration for tyre slippage, obstacle avoidance, following, etcetera. The more mathematical papers use an idealised world on a flat surface (ignoring: surface tilts; terrain elevation changes/steps; slippery or soft surfaces especially if variable). Some modern systems use computer controlled power and steering to wheels to help avoid the errors in reality of idealised systems. It is a huge industry, but we need a https://ciechanow.ski/ type person to give us a nice model to play with.
The usual design is to use mechanical linkages to steer the wheels, with varying levels of complexity that have different compromises. A complicated double Ackermann example (scroll down for plan view): https://planindustrie.de/en/products/industrial-heavy-duty-d... and look at other products of theirs from the menu for simpler linkage examples.
Academic papers are about the design of linkages and turning paths, with consideration for tyre slippage, obstacle avoidance, following, etcetera. The more mathematical papers use an idealised world on a flat surface (ignoring: surface tilts; terrain elevation changes/steps; slippery or soft surfaces especially if variable). Some modern systems use computer controlled power and steering to wheels to help avoid the errors in reality of idealised systems. It is a huge industry, but we need a https://ciechanow.ski/ type person to give us a nice model to play with.
My total guess not based on the drawings - the wheels of the cars move with a certain delay as a reaction to its tow bar getting turned. I would assume this delay can be configured on a per-car basis because the cars farther back may require more compensation than the ones in the front.
Although I am calling it a delay, I assume the mechanism is mechanical and there is probably a better word to describe the action where the wheels do not turn at the same time or with the same severity as the tow bar.
Although I am calling it a delay, I assume the mechanism is mechanical and there is probably a better word to describe the action where the wheels do not turn at the same time or with the same severity as the tow bar.
Wheel-steering or axle-steering perhaps? Some actual locomotives have linkages to consistently steer individual axles to match the overal curvature of the track.
[deleted]
This sort of lore is drilled into the engineering students at LeTourneau University (my alma mater). There's an entire mini museum setup to LeTourneau's achievements on campus. After working there after grad school I realized much of LeTourneau's "genius" was some form of reductionism.
problem: "We need a machine that can grab these logs from these trees we cut down." solution: "Why not make a gigantic claw and put it on wheels?" https://www.imcdb.org/i236846.jpg
problem: "All these trees are in the way. We just need a way to quickly clear the area." solution: "Why not just stomp them down?" 'Stomp them down?' "Yeah" http://cyberneticzoo.com/walking-machines/1964-tree-stomper-...
problem: "Ok, RG. Some trees we can't just stomp" solution: "Ok. Let's just drive over them them." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-9yvNESLPo
There's this saying: "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."
RG was never guilty of making anything "barely". Dude straight over over did it on a lot of projects. He took small simple machines and just scaled them tf up. He didn't do small. "You've got a big problem? You just need a bigger machine." is something that fits with what his machinery says about his design choices.
He filled a niche for sure. His style and creations fit at a unique time in American history. American steel and manufacture was very much in it's heyday. He had access to all the stuff needed to execute his big ideas. His conservative religious fervor also fit the politics of the day, allowing him to link up with Billy Graham which had some factional differences of opinion from the likes of the overly conservative Bob Jones and Oral Roberts. Seeing large numbers of GIs returning from WW2 eager to work, RG put them to work building gargantuan creations. My personal, somewhat cynical take, is RG also saw that each of those veteran workers had GI Bill money sitting unused. He formed LeTourneau Technical College on the grounds of a shuttered military hospital to train employees at his factory a short walk from the campus. Being a "college" meant he could charge exactly the dollar limit amount of tuition the GI Bill afforded. Being a private college meant he could control what and how they studied. It remains a quite conservative Christian institution and students and faculty alike are reminded how it's a "ministry" until it comes time for a student who can't pay or an employee that asks for a raise. Suddenly the "ministry" facade shatters and the word "business" hops into the wording. As soon as the matter is closed, it returns to its "ministry" persona (esp when asked to do something above-and-beyond).
RG is a fascinating character nevertheless. He's even listed in the Offshore Drilling Hall of Fame in Galveston (yep, it's a thing) for his work on Scorpion an offshore rig for the Zapata Oil Company, then run by a young businessman named George H. W. Bush.
problem: "We need a machine that can grab these logs from these trees we cut down." solution: "Why not make a gigantic claw and put it on wheels?" https://www.imcdb.org/i236846.jpg
problem: "All these trees are in the way. We just need a way to quickly clear the area." solution: "Why not just stomp them down?" 'Stomp them down?' "Yeah" http://cyberneticzoo.com/walking-machines/1964-tree-stomper-...
problem: "Ok, RG. Some trees we can't just stomp" solution: "Ok. Let's just drive over them them." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-9yvNESLPo
There's this saying: "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."
RG was never guilty of making anything "barely". Dude straight over over did it on a lot of projects. He took small simple machines and just scaled them tf up. He didn't do small. "You've got a big problem? You just need a bigger machine." is something that fits with what his machinery says about his design choices.
He filled a niche for sure. His style and creations fit at a unique time in American history. American steel and manufacture was very much in it's heyday. He had access to all the stuff needed to execute his big ideas. His conservative religious fervor also fit the politics of the day, allowing him to link up with Billy Graham which had some factional differences of opinion from the likes of the overly conservative Bob Jones and Oral Roberts. Seeing large numbers of GIs returning from WW2 eager to work, RG put them to work building gargantuan creations. My personal, somewhat cynical take, is RG also saw that each of those veteran workers had GI Bill money sitting unused. He formed LeTourneau Technical College on the grounds of a shuttered military hospital to train employees at his factory a short walk from the campus. Being a "college" meant he could charge exactly the dollar limit amount of tuition the GI Bill afforded. Being a private college meant he could control what and how they studied. It remains a quite conservative Christian institution and students and faculty alike are reminded how it's a "ministry" until it comes time for a student who can't pay or an employee that asks for a raise. Suddenly the "ministry" facade shatters and the word "business" hops into the wording. As soon as the matter is closed, it returns to its "ministry" persona (esp when asked to do something above-and-beyond).
RG is a fascinating character nevertheless. He's even listed in the Offshore Drilling Hall of Fame in Galveston (yep, it's a thing) for his work on Scorpion an offshore rig for the Zapata Oil Company, then run by a young businessman named George H. W. Bush.
Ministry != charity. Otherwise, great history - that tree stomper would be fun for like fifteen minutes, and fun to fantasize about on the freeway during rush hour.
Unrelated, but in the Netflix series Snowpiercer - I never understood why its not a vehicle like but is instead a huge train besides Wilford just liking trains?
Because it's one of those classic "The story is about what happens when we accept the conceit of the setting" sci-fi approaches. It's a train, because there's exploration to be done around what happens on a journey that is both linear and fixed.
> It's a train, because there's exploration to be done around what happens on a journey that is both linear and fixed.
Eh, they could have done that with a shelter built in a tunnel or something like that. But that would have been boring; it's a train because trains are cool. And they could have had the train circling a city or even continent, but they made it circumnavigate the world instead because that's cooler.
Eh, they could have done that with a shelter built in a tunnel or something like that. But that would have been boring; it's a train because trains are cool. And they could have had the train circling a city or even continent, but they made it circumnavigate the world instead because that's cooler.
It's based on a French visual novel and the theme is class struggle. Trains are a pretty good metaphor for that as trains segregate passengers by their "class", usually defined by how much they can pay for the fare.
I haven’t watched the Netflix adaption but I think they were trying to suggest it’s a fixed loop with no driver. That felt thematically appropriate
is it the dumbest concept in all fiction?
The dumber part of that world is that there was a separate train of very similar or identical design that managed to defeat the "can't stop for prolonged period of time" plot point using nothing but what was available on the train, and it was somehow able to do this only after the world ended and not before.
Reminds me of Australian trucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iFkKRh5kcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iFkKRh5kcM
Why not by ship? Was the area completely inaccessible due to the ice? Too far from shore?
I'm sure they thought of it, I just wonder why it was ruled out.
I'm sure they thought of it, I just wonder why it was ruled out.
These stations are all along the Northwest Passage which was extremely inaccessible back then, especially for the large commercial shipping that would be needed. It's become much more accessible recently with warming waters but still mostly just by small craft in the summer.
> With no suitable runways or ports and heavy lift helicopters still in their infancy, it would all have to be hauled in over land.
The implication then is that without a port, transferring that much material from ships to shore would be prohibitively difficult.
The implication then is that without a port, transferring that much material from ships to shore would be prohibitively difficult.
Ah, thanks. I searched the article for ship, boat, sea, water, thinking I must have missed something, but not 'port'.
They could build a port, which would provide permanent infrastructure for the logistics, but again I'm sure someone thought of that.
They could build a port, which would provide permanent infrastructure for the logistics, but again I'm sure someone thought of that.
But you'd either need ports at all the locations you need to send supplies, or you'd need something like this "land train"[*]. And if you have that, why bother with the complexity, difficulty, and time needed to build ports?
[*] I'm sure that name makes sense to someone, but not to me...
[*] I'm sure that name makes sense to someone, but not to me...
most of the year it's frozen over, the barge transport season to take things to nunavut is very short.
Whenever I hear of land trains I think of the SF novel series “The Amtrak Wars” from the eighties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amtrak_Wars
Which I never got around to starting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amtrak_Wars
Which I never got around to starting
Oh, it's definitely worth the read.
In his autobiography, LeTurneau talks about one of the land trains being nuclear powered, casually as if it was just another increment. This man was on another level. His faith was pretty fantastic too, it's a really enjoyable read of how he did a bootstraps-pull-up but also with the appropriate amount of good fortune ("fortune?") that generally leads to massive successes. The man was a prodigy/genius, absolutely amazing and from very humble roots.
Now, the nuclear land train didn't materialize, but this guy is the guy that Elon Musk wished he was. The OG ironman back in the 50's or whenever you'd classify his active years to be in. Presumably because he died, on the nuclear powerplant front, but I got the sense from reading it that he was adored enough that despite the safety risks he could have relatively handily gotten something like that in production.
Which would have changed the nature of our transportation today in a big kind of way. If you make a portable nuclear generator that can sit on a military land train (and this man could, just read his engineering reasoning you'll see why I speak of it with a sense of awe and wonder), then you can make that same generator and use it to power rural neighborhoods, remote electric vehicle stations, etc. The cost of infrastructure maintenance and installation would go down, and we'd have one more good option during the energy crisis today, with global warming and such as it is.
Really and truly a peek into what could have been almost our current "alternative future". Probably not a bad one either, though presumably there would be negative consequences like Appalachia getting hit more hard economically due to further lowered coal dependence, etc.
Now, the nuclear land train didn't materialize, but this guy is the guy that Elon Musk wished he was. The OG ironman back in the 50's or whenever you'd classify his active years to be in. Presumably because he died, on the nuclear powerplant front, but I got the sense from reading it that he was adored enough that despite the safety risks he could have relatively handily gotten something like that in production.
Which would have changed the nature of our transportation today in a big kind of way. If you make a portable nuclear generator that can sit on a military land train (and this man could, just read his engineering reasoning you'll see why I speak of it with a sense of awe and wonder), then you can make that same generator and use it to power rural neighborhoods, remote electric vehicle stations, etc. The cost of infrastructure maintenance and installation would go down, and we'd have one more good option during the energy crisis today, with global warming and such as it is.
Really and truly a peek into what could have been almost our current "alternative future". Probably not a bad one either, though presumably there would be negative consequences like Appalachia getting hit more hard economically due to further lowered coal dependence, etc.
Wasn't it rather common for the time to fantasize about everything being powered by nuclear reactors? (Think: Ford Nucleon, ideas about civilian nuclear powered ships or aircraft)
I also don't get the Musk hate. That man created more than 100k jobs for Americans, made rockets land and cars go electric. And with "made", I mean that he enabled the engineers at these companies to do what they did. If you don't believe that then mentally substract Musk from SpaceX or Tesla and ask where they would they be today? (Answers: Tesla would have died in 2004 or soon after because Tesla was not much more than an idea back then and SpaceX would have never existed at all).
I also don't get the Musk hate. That man created more than 100k jobs for Americans, made rockets land and cars go electric. And with "made", I mean that he enabled the engineers at these companies to do what they did. If you don't believe that then mentally substract Musk from SpaceX or Tesla and ask where they would they be today? (Answers: Tesla would have died in 2004 or soon after because Tesla was not much more than an idea back then and SpaceX would have never existed at all).
I think the billions in government loans, contracts, tax credits, and subsidies contributed significantly: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-su...
"He enabled the engineers at these companies to do what they did" is a weird way of saying he's an extremely abusive manager.
Work at enough companies and you'll see that a lot of them succeed despite their "founder"/owner, not because of them. They end up surrounded by people who insulate them enough, clean up their messes, and so on.
With a competent manager, it's likely Tesla would have long ago mastered things like "paint a car properly", not taken a decade to make a single-gear transmission that lasts more than 30,000 miles (and can be driven in heavy rain without risk of water ingestion) and "have body panels align the same on the left side of the car as on the right", as well as not faced the huge production problems they did because Musk was obsessed with switching to automated production.
"He enabled the engineers at these companies to do what they did" is a weird way of saying he's an extremely abusive manager.
Work at enough companies and you'll see that a lot of them succeed despite their "founder"/owner, not because of them. They end up surrounded by people who insulate them enough, clean up their messes, and so on.
With a competent manager, it's likely Tesla would have long ago mastered things like "paint a car properly", not taken a decade to make a single-gear transmission that lasts more than 30,000 miles (and can be driven in heavy rain without risk of water ingestion) and "have body panels align the same on the left side of the car as on the right", as well as not faced the huge production problems they did because Musk was obsessed with switching to automated production.
>I also don't get the Musk hate.
The man sent an email saying that Raptor 2 engine development might bankrupt SpaceX about 1/2 a year ago but is now spending lots of money on Twitter for reasons that make little sense.
If his dream truly is Mars then funding SpaceX is a much better use of his funds and time.
The man sent an email saying that Raptor 2 engine development might bankrupt SpaceX about 1/2 a year ago but is now spending lots of money on Twitter for reasons that make little sense.
If his dream truly is Mars then funding SpaceX is a much better use of his funds and time.
It's weird to me that so many Musk critics (not all mind, not myself..) seem so confident in the Raptor 2 / Starship program, seemingly for little reason other than 'believe the opposite of everything Elon says'
The way I see it, that project is in trouble. The last time it flew it caught fire after landing, and the time before that it blew up. I know rockets in development blowing up is nothing new for SpaceX or the industry generally, but even so things don't look so rosey to me. In one of the tests the engine was plainly seen to be burning its copper lining, which is exactly the problem with engine cycles using oxygen-rich mixtures, and this precise difficulty is why nobody has ever succeeded in making an engine like Raptor 2 before. This isn't like Merlins, there was nothing particularly novel about the Merlin engines. Gas generator cycle burning LOX / RP-1 is 1950s technology. Raptor is a new kind of engine and success is by no means a foregone conclusion; it may fail no matter how much money is thrown at it. Extant material and/or manufacturing technology may not be sufficient for this sort of engine.
As for bankrupting SpaceX; if the Raptor engines don't work, then Starship doesn't work. And if Starship doesn't work, then Starlink probably makes no economic sense (even with Starship working, it seems questionable to me.) If they can't make any of that work, they're stuck doing satellite launches on Falcon 9. Is that enough to keep SpaceX in business? I think they've already been using Starlink to buy launches from themselves to cook their books, so if Starlink is on the precipice of failure, I think the whole enterprise is at risk.
As for Elon Musk still having a lot of money, that's technically not SpaceX's money and SpaceX could go bankrupt without Elon Musk ever being at risk of bankruptcy. And would he even continue to fund SpaceX if Raptor fails?
> If his dream truly is Mars
I don't believe it is (I know he claims it, I just don't believe him. I think the whole business is about Defense contracts, particularly for massive constellations.) But assuming for the sake of argument that Mars is earnestly his plan: for that to make any sense at all he'd need a rocket like Starship. And if the Raptor 2 can't be made to work properly, then his Mars plan is kaput anyway. Why would he bail out the company if his idea for the company is a technical failure?
The way I see it, that project is in trouble. The last time it flew it caught fire after landing, and the time before that it blew up. I know rockets in development blowing up is nothing new for SpaceX or the industry generally, but even so things don't look so rosey to me. In one of the tests the engine was plainly seen to be burning its copper lining, which is exactly the problem with engine cycles using oxygen-rich mixtures, and this precise difficulty is why nobody has ever succeeded in making an engine like Raptor 2 before. This isn't like Merlins, there was nothing particularly novel about the Merlin engines. Gas generator cycle burning LOX / RP-1 is 1950s technology. Raptor is a new kind of engine and success is by no means a foregone conclusion; it may fail no matter how much money is thrown at it. Extant material and/or manufacturing technology may not be sufficient for this sort of engine.
As for bankrupting SpaceX; if the Raptor engines don't work, then Starship doesn't work. And if Starship doesn't work, then Starlink probably makes no economic sense (even with Starship working, it seems questionable to me.) If they can't make any of that work, they're stuck doing satellite launches on Falcon 9. Is that enough to keep SpaceX in business? I think they've already been using Starlink to buy launches from themselves to cook their books, so if Starlink is on the precipice of failure, I think the whole enterprise is at risk.
As for Elon Musk still having a lot of money, that's technically not SpaceX's money and SpaceX could go bankrupt without Elon Musk ever being at risk of bankruptcy. And would he even continue to fund SpaceX if Raptor fails?
> If his dream truly is Mars
I don't believe it is (I know he claims it, I just don't believe him. I think the whole business is about Defense contracts, particularly for massive constellations.) But assuming for the sake of argument that Mars is earnestly his plan: for that to make any sense at all he'd need a rocket like Starship. And if the Raptor 2 can't be made to work properly, then his Mars plan is kaput anyway. Why would he bail out the company if his idea for the company is a technical failure?
Yes, Falcon 9 and Starlink are each separately enough to keep space x in business. One easy observation is that company are trying to support themselves with only sat internet. Also companies are trying to support themselves by "only" being a rocket launch for hire. SpaceX is beating all of those. So yeah, they have a business.
Maybe SpaceX could survive as a satellite launch company using Falcon 9, but if we accept the premise of Elon Musk funding this company to go to Mars, would he continue to provide that funding if plans for the Mars missions go up in smoke?
As for Starlink's commercial viability, it seems reasonable enough if they can launch hundreds of satellites at once with a cheap fully-reusable rocket. Right now they can't do that, they can only use a semi-reusable rocket that launches tens of satellites at a time. So far they've used this to launch 2000+ satellites, which is impressive, but is that enough? I don't think so, because they've received approval for 12,000 and sought approval for 30,000. What they've launched thusfar with Falcon 9 seems to only be a small fraction of what they want. The constellation isn't a one-time expense either; it requires constant upkeep because these satellites are low and only last a few years.
I think they've been making do with what they have, knowing that Starship will be necessary to make the business work in the full scale / long term.
> Also companies are trying to support themselves by "only" being a rocket launch for hire.
Well that's the other thing isn't it? SpaceX is very invested in designing rockets, but doesn't seem to give a shit about colony technology. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Elon Musk constantly talks about going to Mars, but isn't interested in actually developing a Mars colony. Instead he'll leave that part to other groups, and focus on making the spaceship that will get them there. In other words, he's building a bridge to nowhere and is counting on somebody else building the destination required for his bridge to make sense. For a man who supposedly endeavors for Mars, this seems absurd. Instead of buying twitter, he could be throwing tens of billions of dollars at colony R&D. But he isn't.
I don't think Starship is for going to Mars. I think it's for rapidly launching and replenishing large constellations of satellites. Probably for military purposes.
As for Starlink's commercial viability, it seems reasonable enough if they can launch hundreds of satellites at once with a cheap fully-reusable rocket. Right now they can't do that, they can only use a semi-reusable rocket that launches tens of satellites at a time. So far they've used this to launch 2000+ satellites, which is impressive, but is that enough? I don't think so, because they've received approval for 12,000 and sought approval for 30,000. What they've launched thusfar with Falcon 9 seems to only be a small fraction of what they want. The constellation isn't a one-time expense either; it requires constant upkeep because these satellites are low and only last a few years.
I think they've been making do with what they have, knowing that Starship will be necessary to make the business work in the full scale / long term.
> Also companies are trying to support themselves by "only" being a rocket launch for hire.
Well that's the other thing isn't it? SpaceX is very invested in designing rockets, but doesn't seem to give a shit about colony technology. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Elon Musk constantly talks about going to Mars, but isn't interested in actually developing a Mars colony. Instead he'll leave that part to other groups, and focus on making the spaceship that will get them there. In other words, he's building a bridge to nowhere and is counting on somebody else building the destination required for his bridge to make sense. For a man who supposedly endeavors for Mars, this seems absurd. Instead of buying twitter, he could be throwing tens of billions of dollars at colony R&D. But he isn't.
I don't think Starship is for going to Mars. I think it's for rapidly launching and replenishing large constellations of satellites. Probably for military purposes.
As a long-time Musk hater, I can tell you, I don't hate the player, I hate the game. I hate that, for a while, the most powerful man in the world (Trump) and the richest man in the world (Musk), were both essentially Twitter trolls with side gigs.
All of his companies are fine, but it just sucks that we're at a point in time where the way he behaves is basically optimal behavior from a market standpoint.
All of his companies are fine, but it just sucks that we're at a point in time where the way he behaves is basically optimal behavior from a market standpoint.
[deleted]
> I also don't get the Musk hate.
If Musk just stuck to SpaceX and Tesla, a lot fewer people would have problems with him. The issue is that he comes across as a smarter-than-thou narcissist who needs to "solve" every problem [1], can't stand being told to shut up (cf. coronavirus restrictions, or the Thailand cave rescue incident), and generally acts like a petulant asshole.
I'll also point out that--in my opinion--Tesla just isn't as revolutionary as people think it is. Yes, they are today the largest producer of electric vehicles, but there is a very good chance that they will not retain this position by the end of the decade. And while Tesla may have accelerated adoption of electric vehicles, without Tesla, it's still likely that we would be moving to electric vehicles before much longer.
[1] I could insert a long discussion about why his efforts on Hyperloop and Loop are worse than useless, but details aren't really germane.
If Musk just stuck to SpaceX and Tesla, a lot fewer people would have problems with him. The issue is that he comes across as a smarter-than-thou narcissist who needs to "solve" every problem [1], can't stand being told to shut up (cf. coronavirus restrictions, or the Thailand cave rescue incident), and generally acts like a petulant asshole.
I'll also point out that--in my opinion--Tesla just isn't as revolutionary as people think it is. Yes, they are today the largest producer of electric vehicles, but there is a very good chance that they will not retain this position by the end of the decade. And while Tesla may have accelerated adoption of electric vehicles, without Tesla, it's still likely that we would be moving to electric vehicles before much longer.
[1] I could insert a long discussion about why his efforts on Hyperloop and Loop are worse than useless, but details aren't really germane.
> If Musk just stuck to SpaceX and Tesla, a lot fewer people would have problems with him. The issue is that he comes across as a smarter-than-thou narcissist who needs to "solve" every problem [1], can't stand being told to shut up (cf. coronavirus restrictions, or the Thailand cave rescue incident), and generally acts like a petulant asshole.
Even if he "just stuck to SpaceX and Tesla," he'd also have to stop over-promising to the point where he seems like a pathological liar.
Even if he "just stuck to SpaceX and Tesla," he'd also have to stop over-promising to the point where he seems like a pathological liar.
"Seems"?
The daemonization of nuclear during the cold war, prerequisite for the MAD threat, led to hypersecure research centers, centralization of funding and research, preventing tinkerers from studying new solutions, and ultimately nuclear innovation completely halting. As you said, many suggest that if we had left it run its course, we might have seen nuclear stacks the size of a washing machine powering neighborhoods, and other applications entirely unimagined today.
Given what happens when the average Joe encounters a small, moveable, scrappable machine [1][2], I am pretty happy we never saw your nuclear washing machine-sized power plants...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Ju%C3%A1rez_cobalt-60_c...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Ju%C3%A1rez_cobalt-60_c...
Mutual Assured Destruction
>LeTurneau talks about one of the land trains being nuclear powered, casually as if it was just another increment
This was a decade before hippies and greenpeace. It was casual to them. It was like saying "we're gonna use batteries and DC motors" would be today. About the most condemning response you'd get is "good luck with that I don't think the numbers pencil out".
This was a decade before hippies and greenpeace. It was casual to them. It was like saying "we're gonna use batteries and DC motors" would be today. About the most condemning response you'd get is "good luck with that I don't think the numbers pencil out".
In case you weren't aware, the US also pursued nuclear powered airplanes[1] with actual test units built. They're still sitting out there in Idaho a few miles off the highway and you can visit certain times of the year. Reading the placards (or the wiki) honestly scares me a bit, despite my thought that nuclear power makes a lot of sense for our energy needs. I don't love the idea of 500mph reactors up above me, even with modern airplane safety records.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
LeTurneau talks about one of the land trains being nuclear powered, casually as if it was just another increment
Reminds me of The Big Bus, which was also nuclear powered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bus
Reminds me of The Big Bus, which was also nuclear powered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bus
Just 50s culture I guess, the typical Fallout book of nuclear power.
This line of thinking about the future - large vehicles with nuclear engines - was what led to battletech/mechwarrior I am sure.
Ridiculous sized stompy robots powered by "fusion" engines and the default measurement for something is in tons - including targeting computers for projectile prediction.
The Pacific Rim-like awe and wonder is cool.(I am a mecha fan, however ridiculous it may be.) The actual effectiveness compared to other options is less so...
Ridiculous sized stompy robots powered by "fusion" engines and the default measurement for something is in tons - including targeting computers for projectile prediction.
The Pacific Rim-like awe and wonder is cool.(I am a mecha fan, however ridiculous it may be.) The actual effectiveness compared to other options is less so...
A nuclear version would not have been competitive - they were very special purpose vehicles; after the DEW line heavy lift helicopters became available and made them obsolete.
I don't know if I dreamed this or read the idea somewhere. It would be to have a nuclear reactor submerged in a canal (achieving cooling) and it could be propelled (via tracks on the side) from place to place.
Don't pump the water, move the heat source!
Don't pump the water, move the heat source!
[deleted]
>read his engineering reasoning you'll see why I speak of it with a sense of awe and wonder
Where can I do this please?
I'm also generally curious what "engineering reasoning" is and how I may be able to use it to sell in new ideas at work
Where can I do this please?
I'm also generally curious what "engineering reasoning" is and how I may be able to use it to sell in new ideas at work
Here you go! It's a charming and riveting (heh) read. Also talks about his faith, but I find it a truly integral (and amazing!) Part of his story. <3
https://www.amazon.com/Mover-Men-Mountains-Autobiography-LeT...
https://www.amazon.com/Mover-Men-Mountains-Autobiography-LeT...
If LeTourneau was Iron Man, his suit would have been gigantic.
This made me laugh a fair bit, haha. Many thanks for that.
The man was a 5 year old in an adult's body, in terms of size. Nothing was too large for the man. He would have been the Mecha king if he had lived for 50 more years, assuredly. XD
The man was a 5 year old in an adult's body, in terms of size. Nothing was too large for the man. He would have been the Mecha king if he had lived for 50 more years, assuredly. XD
> The VC-22 was quickly assembled in a little more than a month.
Most incredible takeaway from the article.
Most incredible takeaway from the article.
[deleted](1)
I feel we need a better name for something like that. "Land trains" invoke the idea of railways, and the first reaction would be "d'uh, many armies have dedicated rail lines, what's so special about this?"...
Related:
The US Army's earth-shaking, off-road land trains - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23304788 - May 2020 (118 comments)
The US Army's earth-shaking, off-road land trains - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23304788 - May 2020 (118 comments)
why does adding "land" to train mean there are no rails?
Because it replaces the implicit prefix "railway".
Scope.
The land train goes "anywhere on land" (clearly not anywhere but many/most places) as opposed to "anywhere on rails".
The land train goes "anywhere on land" (clearly not anywhere but many/most places) as opposed to "anywhere on rails".
Brilliant!
[deleted]
Isn’t saying “Land Train” like saying “Sky Plane”?
The word "train" is actually a reference to a series of connected "whatever" following one another.
IE a train of thoughts, a camel train (where one camel is tethered to the behind of the one in front) and of course the far more commonly used train of railway cars.
Hence the word train is - through common use - a contraction of railway train. "Railway" being scope/domain of the train in question. IE the train of cars is intended to only ever run on rails.
So riffing off "railway train" for a vehicle that is limited to land but not rails ... land train. A train of cars that intends to be capable of going anywhere on land.
Plane is a contraction of aeroplane - aero referring to air. Clearly, aeroplane is intended to be limited in scope/domain by air. So saying "sky aeroplane" is similar to saying "ATM machine" - somewhat silly. But saying "land train" is an exact reference to the machine and what it's intended scope/domain is.
Now.. what is a sea plane? Strictly, a "plane"(no aero) limited in scope/domain by "sea" IE a submarine.
But no... what we have is a contraction of "sea-landing limited aeroplane". Again, sea refers to scope/domain but only of a portion of the capability of the vehicle.
The contortions that language goes to for improved information density can lead to ambiguity instead.
EDIT: trying to remove ambiguity myself!
IE a train of thoughts, a camel train (where one camel is tethered to the behind of the one in front) and of course the far more commonly used train of railway cars.
Hence the word train is - through common use - a contraction of railway train. "Railway" being scope/domain of the train in question. IE the train of cars is intended to only ever run on rails.
So riffing off "railway train" for a vehicle that is limited to land but not rails ... land train. A train of cars that intends to be capable of going anywhere on land.
Plane is a contraction of aeroplane - aero referring to air. Clearly, aeroplane is intended to be limited in scope/domain by air. So saying "sky aeroplane" is similar to saying "ATM machine" - somewhat silly. But saying "land train" is an exact reference to the machine and what it's intended scope/domain is.
Now.. what is a sea plane? Strictly, a "plane"(no aero) limited in scope/domain by "sea" IE a submarine.
But no... what we have is a contraction of "sea-landing limited aeroplane". Again, sea refers to scope/domain but only of a portion of the capability of the vehicle.
The contortions that language goes to for improved information density can lead to ambiguity instead.
EDIT: trying to remove ambiguity myself!
Trains usually go on rails; this is a train (a series of physically linked cars) that goes on many kinds of land instead of rails. The name fits IMHO.
> Trains usually go on rails
Usually indeed. Besides accidental derailments, there was a time in the late 90s when a town in Canada intentionally derailed a diesel-electric locomotive and drove it down the street half a mile under its own power so they could use it as an emergency generator. The road needed to be repaired, but apparently the locomotive was fine and eventually returned to regular service.
Usually indeed. Besides accidental derailments, there was a time in the late 90s when a town in Canada intentionally derailed a diesel-electric locomotive and drove it down the street half a mile under its own power so they could use it as an emergency generator. The road needed to be repaired, but apparently the locomotive was fine and eventually returned to regular service.
Here's a HN post from a few months back discussing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26233736
I suppose they do fine on land as long as you don't drop them:
https://trainfanatics.com/locomotive-dropped-dock/
https://trainfanatics.com/locomotive-dropped-dock/
Camel trains? Mule trains? thought trains?
Etymology 1 From Middle English trayne (“train”), from Old French train (“a delay, a drawing out”), from traïner (“to pull out, to draw”), from Vulgar Latin traginō, from tragō, from Latin trahō (“to pull, to draw”), ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *tregʰ- (“to pull, draw, drag”). The verb was derived from the noun in Middle English. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/train)
A group of people following an important figure such as a king or noble; a retinue, a group of retainers. [from 14th c.] A group of animals, vehicles, or people that follow one another in a line, such as a wagon train; a caravan or procession. [from 15th c.] The men and vehicles following an army, which carry artillery and other equipment for battle or siege. [from 16th c.]
lots of trains don't go on rails.
Etymology 1 From Middle English trayne (“train”), from Old French train (“a delay, a drawing out”), from traïner (“to pull out, to draw”), from Vulgar Latin traginō, from tragō, from Latin trahō (“to pull, to draw”), ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *tregʰ- (“to pull, draw, drag”). The verb was derived from the noun in Middle English. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/train)
A group of people following an important figure such as a king or noble; a retinue, a group of retainers. [from 14th c.] A group of animals, vehicles, or people that follow one another in a line, such as a wagon train; a caravan or procession. [from 15th c.] The men and vehicles following an army, which carry artillery and other equipment for battle or siege. [from 16th c.]
lots of trains don't go on rails.
[deleted]
"Offrail Train" is more like it yeah.
Great read! Minor nit - shouldn't they be called 'road trains'? The other kind are also land trains, no?
They are different from road trains- these were built to drive through untracked wilderness. Wikipedia calls them ‘overland trains’
Road trains were invented in Australia to haul livestock and general freight on their long, empty roads
For anyone interested in what a road train looks like: https://www.google.com/search?q=road+train+australia&tbm=isc...
"Road train" is a monicker for multi-trailer semis. These are quite common in Australia. In North America we sometimes see doubles, but I don't think they quite qualify for the name.
Last year I drove up I5 and counted at least 20 triples!
In Aus they can be up to 5 or 6, 120 wheelers. And I think they might be driven by kangaroos. I could be wrong about that part.
[deleted]
Trackless train. Backcountry train
I had the same thought. Not many water and air trains going around.
To be honest this is slightly disturbing or eerie. It’s like a glimpse inside the minds of people from the era that set us on the trajectory of ruined car focused wasteland cities and climate destruction. It’s like art depicting capitalism and consumption. Simply scale everything up to solve all your problems! Just make everything bigger! Just consume more!
Interesting read but boy, does that website have ads of all kinds!
No ads for me though, but I use:
https://i.postimg.cc/G3N3x4LQ/u-Block-Origins-plus-No-Script...
https://i.postimg.cc/G3N3x4LQ/u-Block-Origins-plus-No-Script...
The title needs “(2020)”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Early_Warning_Line