When it all went wrong

[james_davis_nicoll]

From a previous comment on my LJ:

I thought there was a significant contingent of politicians who feel most of the developments since [The development of agriculture/the Industrial Revolution/The Great Depression/Women's Lib/Etc (Pick one)] have been mistakes and that if only we could set the clock back, everything would be fine.

Or at least better than it is.

A Canadian example of a When It All Went Wrong (WIAWW) moment is the Avro Arrow, something that many Canadians are still bitching about (Mind you, Canada is a nation with a province whose motto is "Je me souviens," but none with the motto "No Use Crying Over Spilled Milk"). In fact, my father used to complain bitterly about the cancellation of the Arrow and not only was he not Canadian (until just before he died) but I don't think he was in Canada when the decision was made and he didn't work in aerospace. Complaining about the Arrow decision unites Canadians in one great mopey If Only.

Ken MacLeod chooses Sputnik as a moment when everything went wrong.

Is there any chance someone could offer up some links for Ken to use in his alt-history of space development that don't require him to cite a James P. Hogan essay? Yes, I saw the disclaimer in MacLeod's essay.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

My skepticism is based on fact, and actually studies of aerospace history. Where you have introduced nothing to the discussion but irrelevancies and cheerleading.

Well, thank you for that cavalier and completely baseless dismissal. I now know the value of your opinion to me: which is to say, very little.

By the way: the word you want is "actual".

[derekl1963.livejournal.com]

How is my dismissal baseless? Either there exists evidence that the aircraft would have performed well in its designed role, or there does not. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts. Or their absence.

Since you fail to introduce evidence that it would have performed well in its designed role... (And there cannot be any such evidence, as the aircraft was never tested in that role.) Your cheerleading can be summarily dismissed.

Since the aircraft you laud aren't the aircraft under discussion... Your cheerleading can be summarily dismissed.

And frankly, I don't care the value of my opinion to you. You've proved yourself an ass with zero to contribute to an adult discussion.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Since the aircraft you laud aren't the aircraft under discussion... Your cheerleading can be summarily dismissed.

See, and there you go again. You know precisely nothing of my knowledge or background in aerospace or aviation, but you've chosen to simply dismiss anything I have to say as "cheerleading", simply because you consider yourself an expert and I have the temerity to disagree with you. I cited several brilliantly successful examples of the British aircraft industry, and all you could say was that time-to-altitude is irrelevant to combat effectiveness, thus proving that you understand nothing whatsoever about the design role of the aircraft being discussed at the time and the requirements of its mission. I repeat: "Cavalier, baseless dismissal." Next time, if you don't want to sound like a complete idiot, at least make the minimum effort to do some background research.

And frankly, I don't care the value of my opinion to you. You've proved yourself an ass with zero to contribute to an adult discussion.

Pot. kettle. Black.

I have no further time to waste on you. Enjoy your sense of moral superiority.

[derekl1963.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that once more I bring up the issue the TSR2's flight testing - and once again you go off on a tangent. I don't care what your background is - because, like the aircraft you cite, it is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. (A topic which you studiously avoid actually discussing once I insisted it be placed on a factual basis..)