Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap

[Melissa]

From http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/ :

Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap

They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that
killed the entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this one.
But a fuel gauge still wasn't right. They wiggled wires to try to
find out why. They didn't find out, but said it was ok to launch
anyway.

They reviewed videos of the chunk that broke off and tore the
tile from the last shuttle, causing that fatal disintegration.

They said that this time, they would have cameras all around the
shuttle to at least be able to see if something like that
happened again, but they don't exactly know how to prevent it
happening again. And sure enough, the cameras captured more
debris breaking off during this launch and striking the outside
of the shuttle. But they have nervous-sounding confidence that if
there was damage this time, they could repair it and save the
lives of this crew.

Let's face it, the space shuttle is an obsolete flying death
trap. It's 1970's technology that's been patched and jury rigged
to keep them flying. How many of you are still using 1970's
computers and software code? I didn't think so.

Someone commented on cable news yesterday that with these space
flights we're "gaining knowledge", but the way I see it, "gaining
knowledge" would be exploring Mars, not trying to figure out if
this shuttle crew will also die on re-entry and how to save them.
To us southerners, that's called stoopin' and fetchin', or
"constantly fighting fires", to the rest of you.
It's time to scrap the space shuttle program before more crew
members die, and develop some new modern spacecraft that can do
the job better, and for less money. And it should be done
privately, not paid for by slavery ( taxation ).
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/

DOESN'T EVERYONE DESERVE A BILL OF RIGHTS?
The last best hope for a liberty.
A subscriber Bill of Individual Rights with the goal of enlisting
the support of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.
http://upalliance.blogspot.com/
http://upalliance.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Universal-Planetary-Alliance/

http://lakewoodcolorado.net/school.htm

[Server 13]

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that
killed the entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this one.
But a fuel gauge still wasn't right. They wiggled wires to try to
find out why. They didn't find out, but said it was ok to launch
anyway.
They reviewed videos of the chunk that broke off and tore the
tile from the last shuttle, causing that fatal disintegration.
They said that this time, they would have cameras all around the
shuttle to at least be able to see if something like that
happened again, but they don't exactly know how to prevent it
happening again. And sure enough, the cameras captured more
debris breaking off during this launch and striking the outside
of the shuttle. But they have nervous-sounding confidence that if
there was damage this time, they could repair it and save the
lives of this crew.
Let's face it, the space shuttle is an obsolete flying death
trap. It's 1970's technology that's been patched and jury rigged
to keep them flying. How many of you are still using 1970's
computers and software code? I didn't think so.
Someone commented on cable news yesterday that with these space
flights we're "gaining knowledge", but the way I see it, "gaining
knowledge" would be exploring Mars, not trying to figure out if
this shuttle crew will also die on re-entry and how to save them.
To us southerners, that's called stoopin' and fetchin', or
"constantly fighting fires", to the rest of you.
It's time to scrap the space shuttle program before more crew
members die, and develop some new modern spacecraft that can do
the job better, and for less money. And it should be done
privately, not paid for by slavery ( taxation ).

Of course, republicans (slavers) wouldn't pay for it at all.

[Ms Voice of freedom]

Post by Server 13

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that
killed the entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this
one. But a fuel gauge still wasn't right. They wiggled wires
to try to find out why. They didn't find out, but said it was
ok to launch anyway.
They reviewed videos of the chunk that broke off and tore the
tile from the last shuttle, causing that fatal
disintegration.
They said that this time, they would have cameras all around
the shuttle to at least be able to see if something like that
happened again, but they don't exactly know how to prevent it
happening again. And sure enough, the cameras captured more
debris breaking off during this launch and striking the
outside of the shuttle. But they have nervous-sounding
confidence that if there was damage this time, they could
repair it and save the lives of this crew.
Let's face it, the space shuttle is an obsolete flying death
trap. It's 1970's technology that's been patched and jury
rigged to keep them flying. How many of you are still using
1970's computers and software code? I didn't think so.
Someone commented on cable news yesterday that with these
space flights we're "gaining knowledge", but the way I see
it, "gaining knowledge" would be exploring Mars, not trying
to figure out if this shuttle crew will also die on re-entry
and how to save them. To us southerners, that's called
stoopin' and fetchin', or "constantly fighting fires", to the
rest of you. It's time to scrap the space shuttle program
before more crew members die, and develop some new modern
spacecraft that can do the job better, and for less money.
And it should be done privately, not paid for by slavery (
taxation ).

Of course, republicans (slavers) wouldn't pay for it at
all.

It should be done by private industry, not with enslavement ( tax
) money.

[Server 13]

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Server 13

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that
killed the entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this
one. But a fuel gauge still wasn't right. They wiggled wires
to try to find out why. They didn't find out, but said it was
ok to launch anyway.
They reviewed videos of the chunk that broke off and tore the
tile from the last shuttle, causing that fatal
disintegration.
They said that this time, they would have cameras all around
the shuttle to at least be able to see if something like that
happened again, but they don't exactly know how to prevent it
happening again. And sure enough, the cameras captured more
debris breaking off during this launch and striking the
outside of the shuttle. But they have nervous-sounding
confidence that if there was damage this time, they could
repair it and save the lives of this crew.
Let's face it, the space shuttle is an obsolete flying death
trap. It's 1970's technology that's been patched and jury
rigged to keep them flying. How many of you are still using
1970's computers and software code? I didn't think so.
Someone commented on cable news yesterday that with these
space flights we're "gaining knowledge", but the way I see
it, "gaining knowledge" would be exploring Mars, not trying
to figure out if this shuttle crew will also die on re-entry
and how to save them. To us southerners, that's called
stoopin' and fetchin', or "constantly fighting fires", to the
rest of you. It's time to scrap the space shuttle program
before more crew members die, and develop some new modern
spacecraft that can do the job better, and for less money.
And it should be done privately, not paid for by slavery (
taxation ).

Of course, republicans (slavers) wouldn't pay for it at
all.

It should be done by private industry, not with enslavement ( tax
) money.

rofl Have you tried peddling your infantile slavery drool down in the ghetto
yet?

[will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees]

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that
killed the entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this one.
But a fuel gauge still wasn't right. They wiggled wires to try to
find out why. They didn't find out, but said it was ok to launch
anyway.

Well they don't have much choice, since their budget has been slashed
repeatedly since the first shuttle was launched. I like the shuttle,
but it needs to be completely redesigned and have to compete with
rival spacecraft designs. We Americans are so obssessed with having
the most advanced everything from weapons to fighter planes to
spacecraft, that we waste lots of money on things that could build
far more almost as effective items. The Russians are still using
their clunky 1960s-era rockets and space capsules, and they are
cheap, reliable, and a country that is bankrupt can get into space
while we can't.

The shuttle is nice and necessary for some things (e.g. repairing
satellites or large experiments), but why do you need to spend
probably 50x as much to launch astronauts to the space station
on a shuttle as Russia spends to launch its astronauts? NASA
really should have pursued both launch vehicles instead of
depleting its budget on the shuttle.

[Paul Broadway]

"will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees"

Post by will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that killed the
entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this one. But a fuel gauge
still wasn't right. They wiggled wires to try to find out why. They
didn't find out, but said it was ok to launch anyway.

Well they don't have much choice, since their budget has been slashed
repeatedly since the first shuttle was launched. I like the shuttle,
but it needs to be completely redesigned and have to compete with
rival spacecraft designs. We Americans are so obssessed with having
the most advanced everything from weapons to fighter planes to
spacecraft, that we waste lots of money on things that could build
far more almost as effective items. The Russians are still using
their clunky 1960s-era rockets and space capsules, and they are
cheap, reliable, and a country that is bankrupt can get into space
while we can't.

We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space over 5 times in
the last year and a half. Of course, it is a private venture and uses old
tires to fuel its propulsion. The ship does not require a high
temperature/friction re-entry. It is too low tech for the government to
take seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost a couple
of private engineers a couple of million, that is the big news. Either NASA
gets competitive with private industry, or they will lose even more funding.
I know all of the flame artists are going to scream about the advances that
NASA has given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for us
lately?"

Post by will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees
The shuttle is nice and necessary for some things (e.g. repairing
satellites or large experiments), but why do you need to spend
probably 50x as much to launch astronauts to the space station
on a shuttle as Russia spends to launch its astronauts? NASA
really should have pursued both launch vehicles instead of
depleting its budget on the shuttle.

NASA is currently based on prestige, nothing more. The Space Shuttle needs
to be replaced with a lower cost, more payload capable vehicle. We are
currently driving a Corvette, we need a pick up truck. Privatization will
be the death of the agency now known as NASA.

[Adam H.]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:18:54 GMT, "Paul Broadway"

Post by Paul Broadway
"will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees"

Post by will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that killed the
entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this one. But a fuel gauge
still wasn't right. They wiggled wires to try to find out why. They
didn't find out, but said it was ok to launch anyway.

Well they don't have much choice, since their budget has been slashed
repeatedly since the first shuttle was launched. I like the shuttle,
but it needs to be completely redesigned and have to compete with
rival spacecraft designs. We Americans are so obssessed with having
the most advanced everything from weapons to fighter planes to
spacecraft, that we waste lots of money on things that could build
far more almost as effective items. The Russians are still using
their clunky 1960s-era rockets and space capsules, and they are
cheap, reliable, and a country that is bankrupt can get into space
while we can't.

We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space over 5 times in
the last year and a half. Of course, it is a private venture and uses old
tires to fuel its propulsion. The ship does not require a high
temperature/friction re-entry. It is too low tech for the government to
take seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost a couple
of private engineers a couple of million, that is the big news. Either NASA
gets competitive with private industry, or they will lose even more funding.
I know all of the flame artists are going to scream about the advances that
NASA has given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for us
lately?"

Spaceship One is not a viable alternative to the shuttle (or, indeed,
any orbital vehicle). It isn't capable of getting to orbit, and it
certainly isn't capable of withstanding the aerobraking necessary to
return from orbit.

That's disregarding the lack of cargo capacity or ability to stay
ex-atmosphere for any reasonable length of time.

What NASA needs to do is diversify. Depending on the shuttle for all
ground to orbit needs is foolish. Russia has some great heavy-lift
rockets that should be used for large cargo loads. NASA should have
been working on single-stage to orbit years ago, and now they're in a
technological deficit (it would help if their budget wasn't being
slashed every year, mind you).

The shuttle is the most complex machine ever built. It's time to get
back to simpler technology that works.

Post by Paul Broadway

Post by will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees
The shuttle is nice and necessary for some things (e.g. repairing
satellites or large experiments), but why do you need to spend
probably 50x as much to launch astronauts to the space station
on a shuttle as Russia spends to launch its astronauts? NASA
really should have pursued both launch vehicles instead of
depleting its budget on the shuttle.

NASA is currently based on prestige, nothing more. The Space Shuttle needs
to be replaced with a lower cost, more payload capable vehicle. We are
currently driving a Corvette, we need a pick up truck. Privatization will
be the death of the agency now known as NASA.

Maybe. The next x-prize is first private orbital vehicle. It'll be
interesting to see if any viable alternatives to the shuttle come from
that (the first private orbital vehicle won't be a useful alternative,
but something may come out of it).

[Ms Voice of freedom]

Post by Paul Broadway
We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space
over 5 times in the last year and a half. Of course, it is a
private venture and uses old tires to fuel its propulsion.
The ship does not require a high temperature/friction
re-entry.

How does it re-enter then?

Post by Paul Broadway
It is too low tech for the government to take
seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost
a couple of private engineers a couple of million, that is the
big news.

It says a lot. Government programs are full of waste.

Post by Paul Broadway
Either NASA gets competitive with private industry,
or they will lose even more funding. I know all of the flame
artists are going to scream about the advances that NASA has
given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for
us lately?"

It's not even a matter of that. It's morally wrong to enslave
people to pay for the whims of others. It's like saying that it's
ok to enslave people to pick our cotton, because look at the
benefits we get from it.

[Adam H.]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:51:13 -0500, Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space
over 5 times in the last year and a half. Of course, it is a
private venture and uses old tires to fuel its propulsion.
The ship does not require a high temperature/friction
re-entry.

How does it re-enter then?

Post by Paul Broadway
It is too low tech for the government to take
seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost
a couple of private engineers a couple of million, that is the
big news.

It says a lot. Government programs are full of waste.

Post by Paul Broadway
Either NASA gets competitive with private industry,
or they will lose even more funding. I know all of the flame
artists are going to scream about the advances that NASA has
given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for
us lately?"

It's not even a matter of that. It's morally wrong to enslave
people to pay for the whims of others. It's like saying that it's
ok to enslave people to pick our cotton, because look at the
benefits we get from it.

For someone who calls taxes 'slavery', you sure don't seem to mind
using all the infrastructure that was paid for by - guess what -
others' taxes.

[Dr. Zarkov]

Post by Adam H.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:51:13 -0500, Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space
over 5 times in the last year and a half. Of course, it is a
private venture and uses old tires to fuel its propulsion.
The ship does not require a high temperature/friction
re-entry.

How does it re-enter then?

Post by Paul Broadway
It is too low tech for the government to take
seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost
a couple of private engineers a couple of million, that is the
big news.

It says a lot. Government programs are full of waste.

Post by Paul Broadway
Either NASA gets competitive with private industry,
or they will lose even more funding. I know all of the flame
artists are going to scream about the advances that NASA has
given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for
us lately?"

It's not even a matter of that. It's morally wrong to enslave
people to pay for the whims of others. It's like saying that it's
ok to enslave people to pick our cotton, because look at the
benefits we get from it.

For someone who calls taxes 'slavery', you sure don't seem to mind
using all the infrastructure that was paid for by - guess what -
others' taxes.

It is not paid for just by *others'* taxes but by *our* taxes. If a
slave eats the food his master gives him, does that mean he acquiesces
in his slavery?

[Adam H.]

Post by Dr. Zarkov

Post by Adam H.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:51:13 -0500, Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space
over 5 times in the last year and a half. Of course, it is a
private venture and uses old tires to fuel its propulsion.
The ship does not require a high temperature/friction
re-entry.

How does it re-enter then?

Post by Paul Broadway
It is too low tech for the government to take
seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost
a couple of private engineers a couple of million, that is the
big news.

It says a lot. Government programs are full of waste.

Post by Paul Broadway
Either NASA gets competitive with private industry,
or they will lose even more funding. I know all of the flame
artists are going to scream about the advances that NASA has
given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for
us lately?"

It's not even a matter of that. It's morally wrong to enslave
people to pay for the whims of others. It's like saying that it's
ok to enslave people to pick our cotton, because look at the
benefits we get from it.

For someone who calls taxes 'slavery', you sure don't seem to mind
using all the infrastructure that was paid for by - guess what -
others' taxes.

It is not paid for just by *others'* taxes but by *our* taxes. If a
slave eats the food his master gives him, does that mean he acquiesces
in his slavery?

If you pay taxes instead of leaving to find a situation more to your
liking, you don't have much room to complain about how those taxes are
'slavery'.

[Dr. Zarkov]

Post by Adam H.

Post by Dr. Zarkov

Post by Adam H.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:51:13 -0500, Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space
over 5 times in the last year and a half. Of course, it is a
private venture and uses old tires to fuel its propulsion.
The ship does not require a high temperature/friction
re-entry.

How does it re-enter then?

Post by Paul Broadway
It is too low tech for the government to take
seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost
a couple of private engineers a couple of million, that is the
big news.

It says a lot. Government programs are full of waste.

Post by Paul Broadway
Either NASA gets competitive with private industry,
or they will lose even more funding. I know all of the flame
artists are going to scream about the advances that NASA has
given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for
us lately?"

It's not even a matter of that. It's morally wrong to enslave
people to pay for the whims of others. It's like saying that it's
ok to enslave people to pick our cotton, because look at the
benefits we get from it.

For someone who calls taxes 'slavery', you sure don't seem to mind
using all the infrastructure that was paid for by - guess what -
others' taxes.

It is not paid for just by *others'* taxes but by *our* taxes. If a
slave eats the food his master gives him, does that mean he acquiesces
in his slavery?

If you pay taxes instead of leaving to find a situation more to your
liking, you don't have much room to complain about how those taxes are
'slavery'.

What right does a government have to rule over an area in the first place?

There are no "situations" free from statist rule. People have no real
choice in the matter.

[Dr. Zarkov]

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space
over 5 times in the last year and a half. Of course, it is a
private venture and uses old tires to fuel its propulsion.
The ship does not require a high temperature/friction
re-entry.

How does it re-enter then?

Since it does not attain anything near orbital velocity, it does not
undergo the much more risky high temp/friction deceleration of the
shuttle (or any vehicle coming out of orbit). It just falls back to earth.

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
It is too low tech for the government to take
seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost
a couple of private engineers a couple of million, that is the
big news.

It says a lot. Government programs are full of waste.

True, but I would not pick on NASA especially--at least some good comes
out of it.

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
Either NASA gets competitive with private industry,
or they will lose even more funding. I know all of the flame
artists are going to scream about the advances that NASA has
given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for
us lately?"

It's not even a matter of that. It's morally wrong to enslave
people to pay for the whims of others. It's like saying that it's
ok to enslave people to pick our cotton, because look at the
benefits we get from it.

True as a generality, but again, why single out NASA, where at least
some good comes out of the spending? Their budget is trivial next to
the waste in other programs, many of which are actually *harmful*, ie,
the hundreds of billions being spent interfering in other people's
business around the world, the tens of billions a year spent enforcing
laws telling people what they can put into their own bodies (one of the
most immoral programs ever conceived). Or the hundreds of billions
wasted on law enforcement in general, which solves only about 1% of
crimes and probably does no net good. Or...well, the list could be
extended at some length. There are many more worthy targets before NASA.

[Ms Voice of freedom]

Post by Dr. Zarkov

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space
over 5 times in the last year and a half. Of course, it is a
private venture and uses old tires to fuel its propulsion.
The ship does not require a high temperature/friction
re-entry.

How does it re-enter then?

Since it does not attain anything near orbital velocity, it
does not undergo the much more risky high temp/friction
deceleration of the shuttle (or any vehicle coming out of
orbit). It just falls back to earth.

Oh yeah, that's right, they said it just travels at twice the
speed of sound, which would be about 1500 MPH? The shuttle
travels at 17,000 MPH to make low earth orbit.

Post by Dr. Zarkov

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
It is too low tech for the government to take
seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only
cost a couple of private engineers a couple of million, that
is the big news.

It says a lot. Government programs are full of waste.

True, but I would not pick on NASA especially--at least some
good comes out of it.

Some good comes out of owning slaves to pick your cotton too, but
it's still morally wrong. Funding the government ( and its
projects like NASA ) with slave money is wrong too.

Post by Dr. Zarkov

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Paul Broadway
Either NASA gets competitive with private industry,
or they will lose even more funding. I know all of the flame
artists are going to scream about the advances that NASA has
given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for
us lately?"

It's not even a matter of that. It's morally wrong to enslave
people to pay for the whims of others. It's like saying that
it's ok to enslave people to pick our cotton, because look at
the benefits we get from it.

True as a generality, but again, why single out NASA, where at
least some good comes out of the spending?

Because some good comes to almost every recipient of government
spending, even though they enslave people to pay for it. My
cotton picking example above?

Post by Dr. Zarkov
Their budget is
trivial next to the waste in other programs, many of which are
actually *harmful*, ie, the hundreds of billions being spent
interfering in other people's business around the world, the
tens of billions a year spent enforcing laws telling people
what they can put into their own bodies (one of the most
immoral programs ever conceived). Or the hundreds of billions
wasted on law enforcement in general, which solves only about
1% of crimes and probably does no net good. Or...well, the
list could be extended at some length. There are many more
worthy targets before NASA.

It's all wrong as long as it enslaves people to pay for it.

[will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees]

Post by Paul Broadway
We do have an alternative. Spaceship One has been in space over 5 times in
the last year and a half. Of course, it is a private venture and uses old
tires to fuel its propulsion. The ship does not require a high
temperature/friction re-entry. It is too low tech for the government to
take seriously, that is a pity. What cost NASA billions, only cost a couple
of private engineers a couple of million, that is the big news. Either NASA
gets competitive with private industry, or they will lose even more funding.
I know all of the flame artists are going to scream about the advances that
NASA has given the world, but my response is, "What have they done for us
lately?"

I just bought a bottle of Canada Dry ginger ale and they're having a contest
where if you've got the lucky bottle cap you win a free ticket into space.
A google revealed that it is that Spaceship One, only 60 miles up but still
pretty cool.

I'm convinced Bush wants to destroy NASA. After so many successful unmanned
missions, Bush suddenly announces we're going to the moon and mars, NASA's
budget is dedicated to these new priorities, missions that are IMPOSSIBLE
given the current budget. For the next 5-10 years NASA will drop almost all
its current projects to devote resources to the alleged mars mission, run
out of money and require up to 100x more than was planned, and the whole
agency will simply be eliminated by Congress. I'm all for private space
flight, but until the market is strong enough to sustain it we do need NASA
to keep the technology progressing.

BTW, I don't remember it of course, but I lived near Cape Canaveral, FL when
I was an infant and my parents tell me I saw the first moon launch in 1969.
The thought that it is OUR flag flying on that ball of rock that mankind has
worshipped since the dawn of time says everything about why I am proud of
our American culture. While certain primitive cultures stick their butts up
in the air and blow up trains, our culture puts its people on other worlds.

Post by Paul Broadway
NASA is currently based on prestige, nothing more. The Space Shuttle needs
to be replaced with a lower cost, more payload capable vehicle. We are
currently driving a Corvette, we need a pick up truck. Privatization will
be the death of the agency now known as NASA.

What's funny is that Russia has spent far less on its space program yet has
more access to space and fewer accidents than the U.S. Maybe it's about
even, I remember they did have those two re-entry fatalities, one pressure
related and the other the parachute failed to open. The point is that
their equipment is primitive by our standards. Soyuz or similar capsules
aren't the most comfortable, but I'm sure the design could easily be
modified for much larger size. I was also thinking as NASA grounded the
shuttle fleet today, that a Soyuz or similar capsule avoids damage from
fuel tank insulation or other craft debris because it sits on top of
everything else, nothing from below could hit it.

[mimus]

Post by will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees
I'm convinced Bush wants to destroy NASA. After so many successful unmanned
missions, Bush suddenly announces we're going to the moon and mars, NASA's
budget is dedicated to these new priorities, missions that are IMPOSSIBLE
given the current budget. For the next 5-10 years NASA will drop almost all
its current projects to devote resources to the alleged mars mission, run
out of money and require up to 100x more than was planned, and the whole
agency will simply be eliminated by Congress.

Sure, he's using that as an excuse to trash everything else, putting up
seed money (if that), and if the thing is ever to be brought off later
Administrations will have to cough up about 99% of the bill.

It's an exercise in sheer cynicism, nothing more, so he can pretend to be a
second Kennedy, space- wise, while trashing the space program.

[mimus]

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that
killed the entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this one.
But a fuel gauge still wasn't right. They wiggled wires to try to
find out why. They didn't find out, but said it was ok to launch
anyway.
They reviewed videos of the chunk that broke off and tore the
tile from the last shuttle, causing that fatal disintegration.
They said that this time, they would have cameras all around the
shuttle to at least be able to see if something like that
happened again, but they don't exactly know how to prevent it
happening again. And sure enough, the cameras captured more
debris breaking off during this launch and striking the outside
of the shuttle. But they have nervous-sounding confidence that if
there was damage this time, they could repair it and save the
lives of this crew.
Let's face it, the space shuttle is an obsolete flying death
trap. It's 1970's technology that's been patched and jury rigged
to keep them flying. How many of you are still using 1970's
computers and software code? I didn't think so.

We're still usin' Colt .45s and B- 52s.

[Adam H.]

Post by mimus

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that
killed the entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this one.
But a fuel gauge still wasn't right. They wiggled wires to try to
find out why. They didn't find out, but said it was ok to launch
anyway.
They reviewed videos of the chunk that broke off and tore the
tile from the last shuttle, causing that fatal disintegration.
They said that this time, they would have cameras all around the
shuttle to at least be able to see if something like that
happened again, but they don't exactly know how to prevent it
happening again. And sure enough, the cameras captured more
debris breaking off during this launch and striking the outside
of the shuttle. But they have nervous-sounding confidence that if
there was damage this time, they could repair it and save the
lives of this crew.
Let's face it, the space shuttle is an obsolete flying death
trap. It's 1970's technology that's been patched and jury rigged
to keep them flying. How many of you are still using 1970's
computers and software code? I didn't think so.

We're still usin' Colt .45s and B- 52s.

Banks still use plenty of patched 70s era code, too. You wouldn't
believe what's still out there.

[mimus]

Post by Adam H.

Post by mimus

Post by Melissa
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Obsolete Space Shuttle a flying death trap
They waited a couple of years after the deadly explosion that
killed the entire crew of the space shuttle, to launch this one.
But a fuel gauge still wasn't right. They wiggled wires to try to
find out why. They didn't find out, but said it was ok to launch
anyway.
They reviewed videos of the chunk that broke off and tore the
tile from the last shuttle, causing that fatal disintegration.
They said that this time, they would have cameras all around the
shuttle to at least be able to see if something like that
happened again, but they don't exactly know how to prevent it
happening again. And sure enough, the cameras captured more
debris breaking off during this launch and striking the outside
of the shuttle. But they have nervous-sounding confidence that if
there was damage this time, they could repair it and save the
lives of this crew.
Let's face it, the space shuttle is an obsolete flying death
trap. It's 1970's technology that's been patched and jury rigged
to keep them flying. How many of you are still using 1970's
computers and software code? I didn't think so.

We're still usin' Colt .45s and B- 52s.

Banks still use plenty of patched 70s era code, too. You wouldn't
believe what's still out there.

COBOL is forever.

[Ms Voice of freedom]

Post by mimus
COBOL is forever.

So apparently are tyrant thugs like you.

[mimus]

Post by Melissa
And it should be done
privately, not paid for by slavery ( taxation ).

I suppose you think it's moral for people to evade paying their fair share
of the burden of government, education, science, etc., not to mention jury
duty, the draft, etc.

Tell me, were you raised by rats, or did you buy some bad drugs? how does
someone become as stupid and vicious as you are?

[Ms Voice of freedom]

Post by mimus

Post by Melissa
And it should be done
privately, not paid for by slavery ( taxation ).

I suppose you think it's moral for people to evade paying
their fair share of the burden of government, education,
science, etc., not to mention jury duty, the draft, etc.

If it was fair it would be voluntary, not forced. People are
being forced into slavery to pay for every idiotic whim that any
government official can fantasize up.

Post by mimus
Tell me, were you raised by rats, or did you buy some bad
drugs?

Go to hell, slavery advocate!

Post by mimus
how does someone become as stupid and vicious as you
are?

That says a lot about you, that you see people who oppose slavery
as stupid and vicious. Tyrant!

[Adam H.]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:19:24 -0500, Ms Voice of freedom

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by mimus

Post by Melissa
And it should be done
privately, not paid for by slavery ( taxation ).

I suppose you think it's moral for people to evade paying
their fair share of the burden of government, education,
science, etc., not to mention jury duty, the draft, etc.

If it was fair it would be voluntary, not forced. People are
being forced into slavery to pay for every idiotic whim that any
government official can fantasize up.

Post by mimus
Tell me, were you raised by rats, or did you buy some bad
drugs?

Go to hell, slavery advocate!

Post by mimus
how does someone become as stupid and vicious as you
are?

That says a lot about you, that you see people who oppose slavery
as stupid and vicious. Tyrant!

"Slavery". Heh.

Tell me, are you being forbidden to live somewhere else?

No?

Then stop with the bullshit histrionics, won't you?

[ouroboros rex]

Post by Ms Voice of freedom

Post by mimus

Post by Melissa
And it should be done
privately, not paid for by slavery ( taxation ).

I suppose you think it's moral for people to evade paying
their fair share of the burden of government, education,
science, etc., not to mention jury duty, the draft, etc.

If it was fair it would be voluntary, not forced. People are
being forced into slavery to pay for every idiotic whim that any
government official can fantasize up.

Post by mimus
Tell me, were you raised by rats, or did you buy some bad
drugs?

Go to hell, slavery advocate!

Post by mimus
how does someone become as stupid and vicious as you
are?

That says a lot about you, that you see people who oppose slavery
as stupid and vicious. Tyrant!

Have you taken your infantile rant to the ghetto yet like I suggested?
Better be packin'.