Crap Throwing Monkey

There any scientific experiments aboard the space station that are meaningful to begin with? In the history of the shuttle program, how much research has been published from all those "scientific" launches? Two papers? Three? I can actually think of a hell of a lot of valid reasons to put people in space...I just can't think of any valid ones that require the current shuttle program.

I've been sitting her saying to myself "I'm NOT going to respond to that stupid-ass post. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not..." Bob, every year we learn more about such things, we learn that behavoir is not dictated by any one item, but formed through the interaction of genetic predisposition, cognitive environment, and emotional environment (both internal and external)...and parenting is a BIG part of the last two. Genetics does not causes behavior, it imparts a predisposition to behavior that may or may not be expressed...which is orphaned twins separated at birth and raised separately end up being only similar and not identical in behavior as adults.

Your view in this case isn't relevant. It's not your rationalizing that dictates terrorists blow up children, it's theirs.

Again, you wouldn't know a fact from an a priori assumption...

Apparently, when viewed in the glorious panorama of Frenklevision, the cost of freedom is apparently beating the sh-- out of law enforcement.

No, OUR "terror victims" are THEIR "targets". That is the entire point of al Siba'i's statements. Jesus Christ, can't you people read?

Except that a good many Iraqis realize that a lot of the "freedom fighters" are actually foreigners imported to prosecute their jihad, and don't give a damn about Iraqis. As often as not, Moore's "Minutemen" are more analogous to...oh, I don't know. Maybe the French in the Revolutionary War: couldn't give two ***** about American independence, save for the effect it had in weakening England. That, however, is true enough.

Rambo II: First Blood Part III. That's the one where he rams the helicopter with a tank. Not the worst movie I've ever seen...but easily the worst movie I've ever seen in the theater. Except maybe Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy this past spring... Ghost Wars by Steven (or Stephen) Coll is a good read on the US (and Pakistani, and Saudi) involvement in Afghanistan from about '79 to '01. Taliban, by Ahmed Rashid, is another excellent book on the rise of the Tailban (Rashid's an excellent read in particular - he's a Pakistani journalist who's spent maybe two decades covering Afghanistan; great sources, great perspective, and very objective, particularly considering how close he is to events). I'm not going to claim those two books together can explain Afghanistan...but I will say that those books will demonstrate precisely how thoroughly !@#$ed up the politics of that region is.

Russians have had more than one, actually. At least two, possibly three, but none recently.

And what happened to Challenger nearly happened to Atlantis...and what could have happened to Discovery if they'd pushed ahead today has nearly happened on a bunch of different missions (they've actually aborted at least one mission to orbit when a main engine has shut down prematurely). Sure, the shuttle's a flawed vehicle. It was doomed the moment the Air Force demanded it be able to recover recon satellites (a vehicle complex enough for manned missions, but with enough volume for meaningful cargo capacity, with a structure robust to survive reentry in reusable condition? Dumb set of requirements). But, like Bledsoe, in a system that understands its weaknesses and maximizes its strengths, it can be servicable. Sadly, NASA's management is so blinded by budgetary greed that they're completely incapable of seeing the shuttle's flaws.

Regardless of your being in jest, I have to point out that the Afghan Mujahadeen was a lot more complex than the US supporting everyone against the USSR. And technically, the Taliban didn't even exist until about 1994 or so...Reagan couldn't have supported them without inventing time travel.

Actually, the story about Challenger's worse than that. NASA's risk analysis for the O-ring/temperature issue was basically a graph that charted the amount of O-ring burn-through versus ambient temperature. Perfectly valid method...except they decided that missions where there was NO burn-through wouldn't be included in their data set. Thus, their partial data set showed no correllation between O-ring performance and temperature...whereas the complete data set showed that O-ring failure never occured below about 10C, but was rather common below that - which is a pretty damned strong correllation between O-ring performance and temperature. Between that, and NASA management's judgement that "since it didn't fail completely, it's acceptable performance even though it's not supposed to fail at all", losing a shuttle was a matter of when and not if. Columbia had the same basic problem: engineers were screaming "We need to look at this!", but management's thinking was "We've had ice come off the tank and hit the shuttle before, and we've had damaged tiles before, but it's never been a problem before so it won't be one now." And quite frankly...the 30 month post-Columbia witch hunt hasn't changed that at all; if anything it's probably made it worse by ensuring that more bureaucrats spend more time covering their asses in case of a mistake (the bureaucratic definition of "risk management": don't mitigate error, mitigate blame) while ignoring the fundamental realities of natural physical law. It's not that the shuttle's a death-trap - it's a complicated (overly so, in my opinion) piece of machinery that comes nowhere CLOSE to living up to its hype, but its failure modes are well known to the engineers (Columbia died precisely how the engineers said it would - they weren't surprised by it, only management). It's that NASA's bureaucracy is a death-trap, and they will almost certainly lose another shuttle before the fleet's grounded.

Thereby establishing via implication that there is, in fact, a manner in which it is acceptable to insult the French.

It's the bureaucrats. I have to believe the engineers are competent...but calling it "minor" when things are falling off on the launch pad hours before liftoff (and falling off because they were taped on) is bureacracy run amok. And "flying deathtrap" is a bit of an exaggeration. Considering it hasn't actually flown in more than two years...

I can just picture you sitting behind your keyboard thinking "Maybe if I call this news 'good' often enough, no one will notice how delusional I am."

Fergy's dead?

Excuse me but since when do you state facts?

Apparently that qualifies as a "major" issue...whereas sh-- falling off the orbiter and damaging the heat shield while it's stationary on the pad is "minor" and "expected". I'm all for the space program...but can we get someone other than NASA to do it? Maybe someone who knows what the !@#$ they're doing? Please?

Of course, you neglect to mention that they lost that generation because they were criminally stupid. "Machine gun bullets is no match for the morale of the French soldier!" Why their idiotic tactics in that war should even REMOTELY be considered a feather in their hat is beyond me...

That they're true and accurate statements?

My uncle has Down's. One of the nicest people you'd ever meet. He'd probably find the link funny. He'd sure as hell be nicer and more forgiving about it than you are. Ironic, really...he's considered disabled, yet you're the sanctimonius prick...

Too bad you're serious. You'd be hilarious if you were just trolling.

You get a triple word score with that? (I was SO hoping you spelled it wrong, too...dammit! )

No, because Rove did it, because Newsweek says his lawyer says he talked to Time. That's damning fourth-hand testimony right there, particularly in Frenklevision...case closed.

Rhetorical question?