Crap Throwing Monkey

That, at least, can be changed. Have no goal for space exploration? Well...define a !@#$ing goal. But what am I thinking? This is the government. Let's just generate massive piles of paperwork while flailing around blindly in the dark instead...

20000 posts. Wow. I almost give a sh--. In fact, here it comes...I'm starting to care...yes, almost there... No, sorry, just gas. Still don't give a flying !@#$.

Conversely, if we have absolutely no intention of sending people into space eventually, what the hell's the point in exploring it anyway?

Maybe you don't...

The funny thing about this "federal stem cell research ban" is that the federal government spends more money on stem cell research than the rest of the world combined. Some ban...

People relate better to them. To misquote Stalin, one death is a tragedy, fifty a statistic. And far more people are parents that fear and can relate to the disappearance of someone's daughter than are victims of suicide bombers and can relate to the London bombings.

BF's gone...but in a pinch stojan's more than capable of holding his own. And he usually does.

At least this time they've looked it over twice. With Columbia they just said "Oh, it'll be fine...thanks, NRO, but you don't have to retask a recon satellite to examine it." Even so...given they've broken their own safety rules twice in three days...well, sure Discovery's probably okay, but I wouldn't take the Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Space Program's word for it.

The Niners finished 2-14 last year...kind of makes you question whether they ever went to the Superbowl, doesn't it?

Yeah...the problems with the shuttle program prove we didn't land on the moon.

Two thousand people are employed for the sole purpose of spraying foam onto a giant beer can once a month? I love this country... By the way, they just apply the insulation. They don't write the specs for doing it. Ultimately, they just do what NASA tells them.

Uh...that's not quite the point. The point is that, the technical aspects of that white elephant aside, the management of the shuttle program is tremendously poor. Probably as bad as any government program out there...with the key difference being that when HUD whitewashes some project that's over schedule and budget and ultimately doesn't meet the specifications, people aren't killed by it.

Oh my God...they've been searching for the wrong girl!!!

An industrial plant that makes and distributes chemicals. Just looking at the products they keep in stock now...that fire is going to be one B word-mother to put out.

No. They'll fail...but we expect these things to happen on reentry; it's a minor issue...

No, actually you'd said it doesn't mean attacks on civilians. But then, it makes it much easier to win the argument when you change your words in mid-stream, doesn't it?

Sensitivity training? No. Management training? Yes, considering they've broken their safety rules twice in three days (the fuel gauge waiver, now grounding the shuttles despite the requirement that they maintain one in a "ready to launch state" for rescue purposes when one is in orbit). And that after all the "It's not a problem, it's just a piece of paper...well, okay maybe it is a problem...yeah, let's ground the fleet." And all THAT with most of their data on shuttle performance inaccessible to them, embodied as it is in the vehicle that's currently in orbit. So basically, they're flailing about randomly with incomplete data and violating their own rules consistently in doing so. But I'm sure the "risk" has been "mitigated" because the paperwork has been filed properly. Stupid !@#$ing way to run a shop.

What's the correct spelling of "extemporanious" [sic]?

Virtually ALL of them their own fault. NASA's culture has become completely risk averse, which is fundamentally contrary to a manned space program. Manned space flight will always be risky. If you're risk-averse, the only solution is to not fly manned space missions. NASA needs to change their culture from "risk averse" back to "risk aware" before they'll every be successful again. And what, you ask, is the difference between "risk averse" and "risk aware"? If I have to explain it, the explanation wouldn't do you any good anyway. Do some research, it was very much up to them. As originally envisioned, it was an "Apollo capsule with wings" type of design, with the Saturn V doing all the necessary heavy lifting for the space program. The political pressue you talk about was created by NASA itself, from running to the Air Force for help and from eliminating every single launch program other than the shuttle, thereby leaving no option other than the shuttle to do everything. No one forced them to do that, not Congress, not the White House, not the DoD. Those were NASA's decisions. And as for the engineering...the shuttle is one of the most poorly engineered vehicle designs since the Ford Pinto. Many of the design decisions - the segmented solid rocket boosters, for example - were made not out of engineering considerations but out of the desire to spread the construction around the entire country...thus, rather than building the SRBs on-site in one piece as they originally intended, NASA farmed them out to a Thiokol plant a thousand miles away, thus the requirement that they break down for transport, thus the loss of Challenger. The main engines are some of the most poorly engineered equipment ever designed - the design phase was so poor and completely counter to any proper or even sane engineering practice that the engines not only cost far more than they should have, but they STILL have failure modes that aren't even understood (e.g. the 10kHz vibration that occurs in some new-built engines - the only solution to which is to scrap the entire engine, since their design process was so flawed they can't even diagnose the source of the vibration.) The vehicle itself is such an engineering marvel, it's missed it's functional goals by a factor of about 12 at least (four times the specified turnaround time with three times the specified number of maintenance workers). Yeah, some great piece of engineering that. The shuttle could be a legitimate case-study in how not to manage an engineering project.

I would not expect someone who admits to but takes pride in thinking reading is a waste of time to find any value in the space program...

The same way they characterize 9/11. "Defense" against "enemies of Islam". WHICH WAS PRECISELY MY POINT.

One hour. Seven casualties. That's called "token resistance". Even the French do better than that.

This is the most stunning piece of double-talk I have ever read. For twenty years, "martyrdom" in "attacking the enemies of Islam" has meant terrorist attacks against Western, primarily civilian, targets in Western countries. And suddenly, it means something completely different?

Kirk > Oppenheimer.

Mine call me Live&DieBillsFootball. Ruthless, heartless bastards.