NASA Discovers Space Spies From the 60's

Saeed al-Sahaf writes "In a room forgotten for more than thirty years at NASA's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, NASA recently found suits for space spies. Originally thought to be Gemini suits, the manufacturer determined that they were suits from a short-lived Cold War-era military program to put a manned reconnaissance station in space. Begun in 1964, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program was an Air Force initiative that would have sent Air Force astronauts to a space station in a Gemini capsule. After spending a few weeks in orbit, the crew would undock and return to Earth. An interesting blast from the past."

Comments

Wasn't Paranoia

[reallocate]

Being concerned because your enemies are aiming a few tens of thousand nukes at you is not paranoid.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[drsmack1]

>>The REAL question that should be asked, is why do you have those enemies in the first place. Answer that question and you have solved the problem.

I think that the USSR was considered an enemy because we were in the way of them accomplishing their stated goal of world conquest. They threatened to nuke us several times if we interfered.

It was soooo long ago; maybe it didn't happen...

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I think that the USSR was considered an enemy because we were in the way of them accomplishing their stated goal of world conquest.

That's funny, because in Soviet Russia, the USA was considered an enemy because the Soviets were in the way of the US accomplishing their stated goal of world conquest.

We call it things like 'Opening the Markets', 'capitalism', and 'free trade'. It wasn't really 'free market', as much as opening the markets to American business, which would frequently be favored over non-American businesses.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the same mentality your enemies have with regards to the thousands of nukes YOU are aiming at them. When will this schoolyard mentality end? It scares me to think of the mental caliber of the people who are supposed to be "in charge" on this planet.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[bombadier_beetle]

Put down the bong and pick up a history book, son. The stated goal of the United States during the Cold War included very little about free trade and open markets. But of course, it's not hip these days to acknowledge that, on the whole, the US is a force for human rights, economic progress, and democratization.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Rather you should put down the history texts for a moment and educate yourself on the analysis of trends and politics before returning to sweep out your own false ideas. The goal of US foreign policy has always maximally open international markets. Think back to Commodore Perry and the opening of Japan by threat of the black ships. It is the same goal as every nation had at some time: when the nations of Europe were the world powers and maintained empires despite long-term losses it is because they held each other in check by the only course available in monopolizing enough to prevent their enemies from having more market than the opposition. The US did not oppose Communism ideologically, it opposed the closing of markets that it inexorably produced against capitalist goods. It has never been for democracy. Otherwise: Why prop up military Junta governments, support slavery in the Marianas, and why does its media support the slavery of Lama controlled Tibet? It promotes only international business interests with convenient covering.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[bombadillo]

Turn off Fox news and put down the viagra,oxycotin ro other pharm drug of your choice.

But of course, it's not hip these days to acknowledge that, on the whole, the US is a force for human rights, economic progress, and democratization.

Yeah go tell Central and South America that. Get off your ass , visit other countries around the world. Go see how the other 90% lives.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[reallocate]

Is is a mark of how stupid some people deliberately allow themselves to become that you can makes such an absurd remark.

The Soviets were aggressive totalitarian conquerors with no respect for freedom or human rights. You are positing the disgusting hypothesis that there was no difference between the Soviets and the democratic West. A more credible comparison is between the Soviets and the Nazis, between Stalin and Hitler, both psychopaths who murdered millions of their own citizens.

The only thing that saved Europe from being fed into Nazi death camps was American blood. The only things that saved western Europe from being dragged into the gulag along with the east was American military might, the American nuclear umbrella, and American willingness to respond to an ayyack on Europe as an attack on the U.S. Without the American presence in Europe, Stalin would have marched to the Atlantic and across the Channel.

Perhaps you would have preferred the gulag. Grow up. Learn the difference between right and wrong. Acquire the guts to combat wrong, rather than prostitute yourself by cozying up to it.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[iminplaya]

The only thing that saved Europe from being fed into Nazi death camps was American blood.

Yeah, Russia had absolutely nothing to do with that. I believe the running thought is that Russia saved Europe from the Nazis and the US saved Europe(part of it anyway) from the Russians. Could be that the whole world would've been better off if we let Patton and Macarthur go for it. We'll never know. Will we? And of course, the truth we shall never see. All we have is each other's propaganda...sound bites taken out of context. Our attempts at world domination were every bit as intense as the Soviet's. From the looks of things, we were a bit more successful...for now. The attitude we carry now could bring an end to that. We could be seen as a common threat to everybody else. We are doing everything possible to make sure most don't realize that. We need to provoke wars and such to keep everybody from focusing on what we are doing. Distraction is the name of the game. I know nobody here will admit it, but we are the same. We just speak in different tongues. Meanwhile, life inside the empire shall remain good while those outside the walls suffer the consequences.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[iminplaya]

I never said it wasn't a team effort. However, if we acted on what was known and if we weren't providing (albeit minor)economic support to the man, he never would have been a real problem. We(and others)let this happen. We knew what was going on. We knew what he was doing to the Jewish population. We did nothing because it was an "internal" matter. Same thing haapens today. Now because we wasted our credibility in places like Vietnam and Central and South America, and more importantly, the Middle East. we can't go anywhere to help the helpless(like in Cambodia or Rwanda), first because that's never our intention, and second now we look like the invaders that we have become. I really wish we could be the good guys here, but we're not. We just have the slickest propaganda machine in town. And the misery continues. There really are no heroes. Oh, how I miss Camelot. "It's been all downhill since Kennedy died." :-)

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[reallocate]

Well, if you can't see the difference between the Soviets and the U.S., then you're beyond hope.

By the way, it was clearly impossible for any Soviet to live "as well" as I do in the States. No matter how much money they had. I'm free; they weren't.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[Paua Fritter]

The stated goal of the United States during the Cold War included very little about free trade and open markets. But of course, it's not hip these days to acknowledge that, on the whole, the US is a force for human rights, economic progress, and democratization.

Excuse me, but what the fuck do people's "stated goals" have to do with it? Judge people by what they do, not what they say.

e.g. dropping tonnes of bombs and chemicals on Viet Nam was a very eloquent way to say "fuck off and die", meanwhile "stated goals" of freedom and democracy were for American domestic consumption.

Re:Wasn't Paranoia

[lgw]

The truth of what he says seems obvious to me, and I'd suspect to anyone who believes in such things as "Right" and "Wrong" with capital letters. Hitler's system of maintaining power deserved to be destroyed. Stalin's system of maintaining power deserved to be destroyed. Saddam's system of maintaining power deserved to be destroyed. These statements shouldn't be controversial - unless you've lost all moral compass.

Re:Wow... the 1960's..

[AKAImBatman]

Bush want's to extend the arms race into space, and quite simply ignore existing treaties

Got any evidence to back that up, or are you just talking from your ass? (I'll give you a clue: You're talking out of your ass.)

Re:Lawyer?

[Lord Kano]

Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

When you've been falsely accused of a crime or illegal tactics are used against you, you'll gain a new appreciation for lawyers.

LK

Re:Lawyer?

[dmaxwell]

When you've been falsely accused of a crime or illegal tactics are used against you, you'll gain a new appreciation for lawyers.

Lawyers are used to carry out both activities. The fact that one has to spend exorbitant amounts of money on their own lawyers to fight it off is reason enough to have contempt for both lawyers and the system.

Re:Spending money on space

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about MOL, but the US Air Force Space Command has been in existence for at least 25 years. As a show of technical prowness, JFK set the goal of a man on the moon by the end of the decade. That worked out pretty well. Dubya has set the goal of USA militarization of space, not the least of which is the current reincarnation of Reagan's Star Wars. The first USA military base on the moon will have a PX named after Dubya, and the first commercial interests there will be construction and/or real estate companies. NASA has already been making the switch to funding space robotics -- having someone from Space Command running NASA confirms the trend. The USA's "military-industrial complex" loves such dual-use areas of research such as space obotics, and it's a great way to offset military expenditures on robotics into other more pressing military operations. It is a shame, though, that the Voyager project and the final Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission are on the chopping block to help fund "Star Wars (XX) -- Revenge of The Arbustos".

Re:You are a dipshit

[reallocate]

So, you're telling me that no one had the right, today, to do what needs to be done because of something in their past? That their great-grandparents' behavior should have precluded American involvement in WW2?

I hear that alleged logic all the time. I simply do not understand it. We are not responsible for the actions of our ancestors.

Re:Lawyer?

[quanticle]

No, silly, the reason that everyone hates lawyers these days is that they're the closest thing to mercenaries that we have in this day and age.

The thing that makes lawyers so despicable is the fact that they'll fight for the highest bidder, not what's considered *good*.

Re:Lawyer?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I don't buy that argument right away, because the following has occurred to me:

Computer programmers are used to both build systems, and to repair the bugs in the systems that they built in the first place. The fast that one has to spend exhorbitant amounts of money on their own computer programmers to fix problems caused by computer programmers is reason enough to have contempt for both programmers that build computer systems, and programmers that fix other programmer's crappy code.

The alternative in both cases (computer programmers and lawyers) is to become an expert at navigating a very technical field by yourself. Becoming an expert in either field is so difficult that if you try it, you'll soon appreciate why both computer programmers and lawyers make a lot of money and charge you by the hour.