NASA: Shuttle Launch May Be Delayed Again...
The Starmaker
controls power to heaters that keep the "shuttle's fuel lines" from freezing.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/NASA-Shuttle-Launch-May-Be-Delayed-Again-121288709.html
fuel lines?
It's been around 20 years since that teacher got killed in one of your rockets...
the cause... 'fuel lines' problems.
I get it, it's not the scientist fault, ...it's the engineers.
When something goes wrong, it's the engineers fault. When things go right...it's the scientist fault.
Same old story isn't it?
So why is it after 20 years 'You're' still having "fuel lines" problems?
Have you considere finding somebody else to build it? Or is there too much money under the table
for that to happen? Everybody got their suitcase of money, so you continue to have "fuel lines" problems.
Bring back teacherforspace program...
Teachers are dumb anyway, what loss is it.
"Oh, don't worry honey, the engineers fixed it.."
"Get your big ass in there!"
The Starmaker Show
(this post is not up for discussion so don't even bother to respond) It's a ...broadcast.
Did you know the people who make spacesuits is a Bra manufacture?
Who manufactures fuel lines? Steve Wonder?
Greg Goss
>The space agency said they have replaced a faulty switch box that
>controls power to heaters that keep the "shuttle's fuel lines" from freezing.
>http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/NASA-Shuttle-Launch-May-Be-Delayed-Again-121288709.html
>
>
> fuel lines?
>
>
>It's been around 20 years since that teacher got killed in one of your rockets...
>the cause... 'fuel lines' problems.
No. The problem with Challenger was in the solid fuel boosters.
Solid fuel rockets don't HAVE fuel lines.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
The Starmaker
fuel lines
fuel tanks
fuel boosters
fuel leaks
fuel cracks
fuel schfuelm, it's all the same thing...
RichA
ancient old rockets like from the Apollo era or go begging hat in hand
to the Russians or Chinese for flights. Disgusting. The Shuttle is
STILL the best method for taking humans to space. There are better
ones, the people are too chicken to try them.
huhie
"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4DC236...@ix.netcom.com...
wrong!
solid fuel does not need pre-heating
huhie
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1560a9b-b20b-40d0...@p7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Obama let the Shuttle die. Now the U.S. either has to resurrect
> ancient old rockets like from the Apollo era or go begging hat in hand
> to the Russians or Chinese for flights. Disgusting. The Shuttle is
> STILL the best method for taking humans to space.
The Shuttle design is still the best at scattering body parts over huge
areas of East Texas.
Michael Moroney
>fuel schfuelm, it's all the same thing...
Consider that upon launch, the shuttles are almost entirely fuel/oxidizer
(and containers to hold them) by weight. It's the biggest thing to go
wrong.
The Challenger problem and the current problem are completely different.
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss wrote:
>> No. The problem with Challenger was in the solid fuel boosters.
>> Solid fuel rockets don't HAVE fuel lines.
>
>fuel lines
>fuel tanks
>fuel boosters
>fuel leaks
>fuel cracks
>
>fuel schfuelm, it's all the same thing...
What's a "fuel booster"?
The Starmaker
'fuel problems' 'fuel related problems'...causes delay and explosions and death.
Why don't You ('the scientific community') tell 'the teachers' the *Truth*? That this..this.. 'fuel THING' is
*never* going to get fixed? Never!
The Starmaker
Maybe you can put a 'warning sign' on your space vechiles..
http://static.seton.net.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/S6455.jpg
like they do with...cigarettes.
But telling a teacher it's SAFE, is a lie.
Anim8rFSK
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Greg Goss wrote:
>
> >> No. The problem with Challenger was in the solid fuel boosters.
> >> Solid fuel rockets don't HAVE fuel lines.
> >
> >fuel lines
> >fuel tanks
> >fuel boosters
> >fuel leaks
> >fuel cracks
> >
> >fuel schfuelm, it's all the same thing...
>
> What's a "fuel booster"?
$50. Same as in town.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Greg Goss
>Why don't You ('the scientific community') tell 'the teachers' the *Truth*? That this..this.. 'fuel THING' is
>*never* going to get fixed? Never!
It takes a LOT of energy to get the adequate orbital speed to stay up
once you get the height. Any way you supply that much energy has
risks. The schoolteacher knew the risks and took them.
>Maybe you can put a 'warning sign' on your space vechiles..
>http://static.seton.net.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/S6455.jpg
>
>
>like they do with...cigarettes.
>
>But telling a teacher it's SAFE, is a lie.
So who is telling you that they told the teacher it was safe?
Lynn McGuire
The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight. Due to the
enormous potential energy in the fuel or the enormous
speed upon re-entering the atmosphere, the likelihood
of surviving this unplanned event is nil.
Lynn
Androcles
"Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message
news:ipv5us$kfh$1...@dont-email.me...
| On 5/5/2011 4:06 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
| > The Starmaker<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
| >
| >
| >> Why don't You ('the scientific community') tell 'the teachers' the
*Truth*? That this..this.. 'fuel THING' is
| >> *never* going to get fixed? Never!
| >
| > It takes a LOT of energy to get the adequate orbital speed to stay up
| > once you get the height. Any way you supply that much energy has
| > risks. The schoolteacher knew the risks and took them.
| >
| >> Maybe you can put a 'warning sign' on your space vechiles..
| >>
http://static.seton.net.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/S6455.jpg
| >>
| >>
| >> like they do with...cigarettes.
| >>
| >> But telling a teacher it's SAFE, is a lie.
| >
| > So who is telling you that they told the teacher it was safe?
|
| The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
| crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight.
That means 1 lost per 100 flights, 2 shuttles have been lost,
there have been 133 flights.
The ACTUAL risk is 1 in 67 no matter what the "official" figure.
The risk of a WWII bomber being lost over Germany was 1 in 28
and that was being deliberately shot at from the ground and other
aircraft. The risk is unacceptable for a civilian flight, the design was
inadequate.
| Due to the
| enormous potential energy in the fuel or the enormous
| speed upon re-entering the atmosphere, the likelihood
| of surviving this unplanned event is nil.
|
That's irrelevant to the statistics. Lost is still lost.
Default User
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.May.2011> wrote in message
news:VbFwp.65787$rF....@newsfe12.ams2...
> | The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
> | crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight.
>
> That means 1 lost per 100 flights, 2 shuttles have been lost,
> there have been 133 flights.
> The ACTUAL risk is 1 in 67 no matter what the "official" figure.
That is inaccurate. Up until Challenger, no shuttles had crashed. That
didn't mean that the "actual risk" for a shuttle mission was 0. Which should
be obvious, as subsequent shuttles did crash.
Brian
--
Day 819 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Current music playing: None.
Lynn McGuire
You are confusing calculated risk and actual risk. The
calculated risk factor is 1 in 100. I submit that 2 failures
out of 133 flights is not enough of a sample to calculate the
actual risk. The flights will be ceasing at 135 so the sample
will not grow much larger.
For as complicated a vehicle as the space shuttle is, 1 in
100 is not bad. In fact, I believe it to be quite good
especially when compared to staged rockets which have a much
higher failure rate. Of course, those rarely have human
beings sitting on them.
BTW, I would not call the space shuttle a civilian flight
as most of the crew are military officers and the dimensions
of the shuttle were specified by the military.
Lynn
Howard Brazee
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.May.2011> wrote:
>| The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
>| crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight.
>
>That means 1 lost per 100 flights, 2 shuttles have been lost,
>there have been 133 flights.
>The ACTUAL risk is 1 in 67 no matter what the "official" figure.
>The risk of a WWII bomber being lost over Germany was 1 in 28
>and that was being deliberately shot at from the ground and other
>aircraft. The risk is unacceptable for a civilian flight, the design was
>inadequate.
By that logic, the person who won last week's lottery had 100% chance
of winning.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Androcles
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:92glvf...@mid.individual.net...
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.May.2011> wrote in message
| news:VbFwp.65787$rF....@newsfe12.ams2...
| >
| > "Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message
|
| > | The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
| > | crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight.
| >
| > That means 1 lost per 100 flights, 2 shuttles have been lost,
| > there have been 133 flights.
| > The ACTUAL risk is 1 in 67 no matter what the "official" figure.
|
| That is inaccurate. Up until Challenger, no shuttles had crashed. That
| didn't mean that the "actual risk" for a shuttle mission was 0. Which
should
| be obvious, as subsequent shuttles did crash.
Sheesh, you don't even have 20-20 hindsight, let alone foresight.
That new mountain road needs no guard rail, nobody has fallen
off the cliff yet. Thankfully you are not an engineer.
--
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Michael A. Terrell
Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> In article <92g285...@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Greg Goss wrote:
> >
> > >> No. The problem with Challenger was in the solid fuel boosters.
> > >> Solid fuel rockets don't HAVE fuel lines.
> > >
> > >fuel lines
> > >fuel tanks
> > >fuel boosters
> > >fuel leaks
> > >fuel cracks
> > >
> > >fuel schfuelm, it's all the same thing...
> >
> > What's a "fuel booster"?
>
> $50. Same as in town.
It's only $20 in Hooterville or Bugtussle, but they have to special
order one for you. :)
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
Androcles
You are confusing wild guess with calculation.
| I submit that 2 failures
| out of 133 flights is not enough of a sample to calculate the
| actual risk. The flights will be ceasing at 135 so the sample
| will not grow much larger.
And what sample size is needed to arrive at a guess of 1 in 100?
Oh wait, I know.... 100!
And Columbia was lost on flight 113, ao the actual risk is 1 in 56 and
not 1 in 67 after all.
|
| For as complicated a vehicle as the space shuttle is, 1 in
| 100 is not bad.
But it is not 1 in 100, is it? It is 1 in 56.
For a Ferris wheel or roller coaster without a guard rail,
1 kid in 56 falling off and breaking his neck isn't bad.
| In fact, I believe it to be quite good
| especially when compared to staged rockets which have a much
| higher failure rate. Of course, those rarely have human
| beings sitting on them.
Bwhahahahahaha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir (1986)
The station was serviced by Soyuz spacecraft, Progress spacecraft and
(during the Shuttle-Mir programme) U.S. space shuttles, and was visited by
astronauts and cosmonauts from 12 different nations.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-russian-rocket-docks-space-station.html
Oh look, another Soyuz, still going strong.
Of course, human beings rarely strap a Soyuz to their arse, Russians
aren't human.
| BTW, I would not call the space shuttle a civilian flight
| as most of the crew are military officers and the dimensions
| of the shuttle were specified by the military.
MIL specs are used for helicopters that get burnt in Pakistani
compounds on secret special missions to kill unarmed top
terrorists (1 in 4 lost).
Derek Lyons
>For as complicated a vehicle as the space shuttle is, 1 in
>100 is not bad. In fact, I believe it to be quite good
>especially when compared to staged rockets which have a much
>higher failure rate. Of course, those rarely have human
>beings sitting on them.
It almost exactly equal to that of staged rockets. Anything better
than 98% is considered acceptable for manned spaceflight.
Hell, when you consider the number of accidents and extremely closes
calls Soyuz has historically had... the Shuttle doesn't seem quite so
bad at all.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
> On 5/5/2011 4:06 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> > The Starmaker<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Why don't You ('the scientific community') tell 'the teachers' the
> >> *Truth*? That this..this.. 'fuel THING' is
> >> *never* going to get fixed? Never!
> >
> > It takes a LOT of energy to get the adequate orbital speed to stay up
> > once you get the height. Any way you supply that much energy has
> > risks. The schoolteacher knew the risks and took them.
> >
> >> Maybe you can put a 'warning sign' on your space vechiles..
> >> http://static.seton.net.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06
> >> f020e43594a9c230972d/S6455.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >> like they do with...cigarettes.
> >>
> >> But telling a teacher it's SAFE, is a lie.
> >
> > So who is telling you that they told the teacher it was safe?
>
> The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
> crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight. Due to the
NOW it is. At the time, it was 1 in 25. Challenger was STS 25.
> enormous potential energy in the fuel or the enormous
> speed upon re-entering the atmosphere, the likelihood
> of surviving this unplanned event is nil.
>
> Lynn
--
Anim8rFSK
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >
> > In article <92g285...@mid.individual.net>,
> > Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Greg Goss wrote:
> > >
> > > >> No. The problem with Challenger was in the solid fuel boosters.
> > > >> Solid fuel rockets don't HAVE fuel lines.
> > > >
> > > >fuel lines
> > > >fuel tanks
> > > >fuel boosters
> > > >fuel leaks
> > > >fuel cracks
> > > >
> > > >fuel schfuelm, it's all the same thing...
> > >
> > > What's a "fuel booster"?
> >
> > $50. Same as in town.
>
>
> It's only $20 in Hooterville or Bugtussle, but they have to special
> order one for you. :)
And they pronounce it ... oddly.
Derek Lyons
>In article <ipv5us$kfh$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
>wrote:
>
>> The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
>> crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight. Due to the
>
>NOW it is. At the time, it was 1 in 25. Challenger was STS 25.
You really have no clue how probability works due you? (Hint: The
Columbia could have blown up on it's first flight and the odds would
*still* be 1-in-100.)
Lynn McGuire
> Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> For as complicated a vehicle as the space shuttle is, 1 in
>> 100 is not bad. In fact, I believe it to be quite good
>> especially when compared to staged rockets which have a much
>> higher failure rate. Of course, those rarely have human
>> beings sitting on them.
>
> It almost exactly equal to that of staged rockets. Anything better
> than 98% is considered acceptable for manned spaceflight.
>
> Hell, when you consider the number of accidents and extremely closes
> calls Soyuz has historically had... the Shuttle doesn't seem quite so
> bad at all.
>
> D.
My point exactly. The Atlas rockets have had some very
exciting liftoffs also.
Lynn
The Starmaker
>
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <ipv5us$kfh$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
> >> crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight. Due to the
> >
> >NOW it is. At the time, it was 1 in 25. Challenger was STS 25.
>
> You really have no clue how probability works due you? (Hint: The
> Columbia could have blown up on it's first flight and the odds would
> *still* be 1-in-100.)
Like I said...math is a religion and these people on my thread are 'math
religious fanatics'!
It's Friday...go to Vegas.
The Starmaker
Default User
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.May.2011> wrote in message
>
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:92glvf...@mid.individual.net...
> |
> | "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.May.2011> wrote in message
> | news:VbFwp.65787$rF....@newsfe12.ams2...
> | >
> | > "Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message
> |
> | > | The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
> | > | crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight.
> | >
> | > That means 1 lost per 100 flights, 2 shuttles have been lost,
> | > there have been 133 flights.
> | > The ACTUAL risk is 1 in 67 no matter what the "official" figure.
> |
> | That is inaccurate. Up until Challenger, no shuttles had crashed. That
> | didn't mean that the "actual risk" for a shuttle mission was 0. Which
> should
> | be obvious, as subsequent shuttles did crash.
>
> Sheesh, you don't even have 20-20 hindsight, let alone foresight.
> That new mountain road needs no guard rail, nobody has fallen
> off the cliff yet. Thankfully you are not an engineer.
I am an engineer, of 30 years experience. Your statement is the exact
opposite of what I said. And is contrary to your own intial statement. I
think you are either trolling or are a very confused person.
> *plonk*
Oh well, if you don't read it, others will. And if you lied about plonking,
then you won't be able to respond without making yourself look even more
foolish.
Brian
--
Day 820 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Current music playing: None.
David Johnston
> Derek Lyons wrote:
>
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >In article <ipv5us$kf...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >> The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
> > >> crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight. Due to the
>
> > >NOW it is. At the time, it was 1 in 25. Challenger was STS 25.
>
> > You really have no clue how probability works due you? (Hint: The
> > Columbia could have blown up on it's first flight and the odds would
> > *still* be 1-in-100.)
>
> Like I said...math is a religion and these people on my thread are 'math
> religious fanatics'!
>
> It's Friday...go to Vegas.
Math tells me I'd lose more money than I won if I went to Vegas.
.
The Starmaker
I always had differculty playing cards or dice unless the cards are marked or the dice are loaded.
If you play strip poker with girls, you have to use marked cards!
I'm used to run gambling joints...I never gave the odds a thought. I just notice I would make more
money than the players...
The Starmaker
PD
>
> (this post is not up for discussion so don't even bother to respond) It's a ...broadcast.
>
That's what blogs are for. If you want to broadcast, do it there and
not in a *discussion* forum.
The Starmaker
a blog is a web page..
there is no freedom of speech on a web page or blogs.
a web page is considered a publication
subject to u.s. laws.
Usenet is proteced by free speech.
You PD wouldn't last long in a moderated newsgroup...
That's why you're here.
And I'm willing to go to far away countries to protect your
right to freedom of speech here...
I'm willing to kill women, childred and men in foreign countries...so
that you can post here...
I would *never* suggest you post at a blog.
They would hang you.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
PD is one of those guys that 'speaks softly but carries a big stick'.
herbert glazier
> The space agency said they have replaced a faulty switch box that
>
> fuel lines?
>
> It's been around 20 years since that teacher got killed in one of your rockets...
> the cause... 'fuel lines' problems.
>
>
> When something goes wrong, it's the engineers fault. When things go right...it's the scientist fault.
>
> Same old story isn't it?
>
> So why is it after 20 years 'You're' still having "fuel lines" problems?
>
> Have you considere finding somebody else to build it? Or is there too much money under the table
> for that to happen? Everybody got their suitcase of money, so you continue to have "fuel lines" problems.
>
> Bring back teacherforspace program...
>
> Teachers are dumb anyway, what loss is it.
>
> "Oh, don't worry honey, the engineers fixed it.."
>
> "Get your big ass in there!"
>
> The Starmaker Show
>
> (this post is not up for discussion so don't even bother to respond) It's a ...broadcast.
>
>
> Who manufactures fuel lines? Steve Wonder?
Be careful you are a trouble maker,and Mafia NASA knows how to take
care of trouble makers. TreBert
herbert glazier
21 top engineers left NASA because they knew the shuttles were not
safe. They are all dead. Mafia NASA knows how to take care of trouble
makers. Shuttle 5 toilets cost 3 times more than the Brooklyn Bridge.
Ha Ha Ha Mafia now ownsthe USA because we did not put a stop to their
stealing. To late We the People 0 Mafia 10 TreBert
Sam Wormley
>
> 21 top engineers left NASA because they knew the shuttles were not
> safe. They are all dead. Mafia NASA knows how to take care of trouble
> makers. Shuttle 5 toilets cost 3 times more than the Brooklyn Bridge.
> Ha Ha Ha Mafia now ownsthe USA because we did not put a stop to their
> stealing. To late We the People 0 Mafia 10 TreBert
Good thing you weren't one of them, Herb, although you did get
run out of Florida!
The Starmaker
I just give them some cocaine and they'll be happy...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/nasa-finds-cocaine-space-center_n_836109.html
they're just a bunch of junkies...
The Starmaker
You have to be fuckin HIGH to get into that rocket...
if it's going to explode you might as well be stone.
Michael A. Terrell
Florida does have it's standards!
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>> The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
>> crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight. Due to the
>
>NOW it is. At the time, it was 1 in 25. Challenger was STS 25.
Challenger was lost on the 25th flight. Technically, it was STS-51L,
or STS-33 on the original numerical sequence. After Challenger, NASA
went back to the number sequence and the next flight was STS-26 (which
means there was later another, different flight called STS-33.)
Brian
The Starmaker
> >> *never* going to get fixed? Never!
> >
> > It takes a LOT of energy to get the adequate orbital speed to stay up
> > once you get the height. Any way you supply that much energy has
> > risks. The schoolteacher knew the risks and took them.
> >
> >> Maybe you can put a 'warning sign' on your space vechiles..
> >> http://static.seton.net.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/S6455.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >> like they do with...cigarettes.
> >>
> >> But telling a teacher it's SAFE, is a lie.
> >
> > So who is telling you that they told the teacher it was safe?
>
> crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight. Due to the
It all depends who made the shuttle..
if the 'scientific community' makes a shuttle...it's going to blow up.
If God made the shuttle, it would never blow up.
otherwise...birds would be exploding everywhere.
The Starmaker
Michael Moroney
>> The official risk factor of the shuttle blowing up or
>> crashing is 1 in 100 for each flight. Due to the
>> enormous potential energy in the fuel
>It all depends who made the shuttle..
>if the 'scientific community' makes a shuttle...it's going to blow up.
>If God made the shuttle, it would never blow up.
>otherwise...birds would be exploding everywhere.
Show me a bird that can reach orbital altitude and velocity.
You can't. They all blew up.
Greg Goss
>If you play strip poker with girls, you have to use marked cards!
If the girls make me take clothes off, then I'm doing better than most
such dates.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
>Obama let the Shuttle die. Now the U.S. either has to resurrect
>ancient old rockets like from the Apollo era or go begging hat in hand
>to the Russians or Chinese for flights. Disgusting. The Shuttle is
>STILL the best method for taking humans to space. There are better
>ones, the people are too chicken to try them.
They are hoping that the market will step up. There are high hopes
for the Falcon. If the Falcon fails, then it's not government capital
wasted.
The debt has been a crisis for fifteen years. If the government is
finally paying attention, don't complain. Lots of things need to be
cut until the economy is back on track, and space isn't the last that
people really want to keep.
If you have to choose between rent and car payments, you walk to work
for a while.
Howard Brazee
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It all depends who made the shuttle..
>if the 'scientific community' makes a shuttle...it's going to blow up.
>
>If God made the shuttle, it would never blow up.
>
>otherwise...birds would be exploding everywhere.
On the other hand, some mountains blow up.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
>>If you play strip poker with girls, you have to use marked cards!
>
>If the girls make me take clothes off, then I'm doing better than most
>such dates.
But one can get cold, sitting in front of the computer playing strip
poker in one's skivvies...
Howard Brazee
>They are hoping that the market will step up. There are high hopes
>for the Falcon. If the Falcon fails, then it's not government capital
>wasted.
>
>The debt has been a crisis for fifteen years. If the government is
>finally paying attention, don't complain. Lots of things need to be
>cut until the economy is back on track, and space isn't the last that
>people really want to keep.
In the past, the only thing that has helped the debt problem has been
prosperity. The argument then should be whose plans for prosperity
is most likely to be achieved, with the least risk of failure.
The Starmaker
>
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 17:38:13 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >It all depends who made the shuttle..
> >if the 'scientific community' makes a shuttle...it's going to blow up.
> >
> >If God made the shuttle, it would never blow up.
> >
> >otherwise...birds would be exploding everywhere.
>
> On the other hand, some mountains blow up.
burbing is not blowing up..
The Starmaker
you forgot 'steal a car'..doesn't require money.
Ask any scientist, there is nothing good or bad about stealing a car..to them
it's a question...."Should I steal this car or not?" "Will it get me to where I want
to go without using money?" "Is there a hell for people who steal cars?" "What are the
mathematical odds of the cops catching me?" "Let me see, the population of Los Angeles
is 8 million and there are only 10,000 cops..."
The Starmaker
Howard Brazee
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Ask any scientist, there is nothing good or bad about stealing a car..to them
>it's a question...."Should I steal this car or not?" "Will it get me to where I want
>to go without using money?" "Is there a hell for people who steal cars?" "What are the
>mathematical odds of the cops catching me?" "Let me see, the population of Los Angeles
>is 8 million and there are only 10,000 cops..."
Lots of scientists will disagree with you. I suppose they have
psychopaths, as does the general population. Certainly we don't see
a larger percentage of scientists with psychopathic behavior than we
see other subsets of our population.
The Starmaker
>
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 10:03:24 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Ask any scientist, there is nothing good or bad about stealing a car..to them
> >it's a question...."Should I steal this car or not?" "Will it get me to where I want
> >to go without using money?" "Is there a hell for people who steal cars?" "What are the
> >mathematical odds of the cops catching me?" "Let me see, the population of Los Angeles
> >is 8 million and there are only 10,000 cops..."
>
> Lots of scientists will disagree with you. I suppose they have
> psychopaths, as does the general population. Certainly we don't see
> a larger percentage of scientists with psychopathic behavior than we
> see other subsets of our population.
I looked up the definition and it sounds to me it's defining 'scientist'
psychopath (plural psychopaths)
A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of
lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness,
arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control,
disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility,
callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be
especially prone to violent and criminal offenses.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/psychopath
Albert Einstein created the atom bomb with the intention of killing
people. And he banged his counsin while still married..
Howard Brazee
Sounds like you are talking about humans, or maybe life.
So which population has observable behavior that you are comparing
them to? Are you saying that clergy, or politicians, or
astrologers or authors or computer programmers or sales clerks are
different?
The Starmaker
>
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 11:21:37 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> Lots of scientists will disagree with you. I suppose they have
> >> psychopaths, as does the general population. Certainly we don't see
> >> a larger percentage of scientists with psychopathic behavior than we
> >> see other subsets of our population.
> >
> >
> >
> >I looked up the definition and it sounds to me it's defining 'scientist'
> >
> >psychopath (plural psychopaths)
> >
> > A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of
> >lying, cunning, manipulating, glibness, exploiting, heedlessness,
> >arrogance, delusions of grandeur, sexual promiscuity, low self-control,
> >disregard for morality, lack of acceptance of responsibility,
> >callousness, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be
> >especially prone to violent and criminal offenses.
> >http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/psychopath
> >
> >
> >Albert Einstein created the atom bomb with the intention of killing
> >people. And he banged his counsin while still married..
>
> Sounds like you are talking about humans, or maybe life.
>
> So which population has observable behavior that you are comparing
> them to? Are you saying that clergy, or politicians, or
> astrologers or authors or computer programmers or sales clerks are
> different?
Yes, they all have morals. Morals is...unscientific.
Steal the car, it'll get you home.
The Starmaker
You should not include 'computer programers', they are part of the 'scientific community'...who created Facebook? The person
who stole it!
Who is hacking Sony, astrologers???
Howard Brazee
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> So which population has observable behavior that you are comparing
>> them to? Are you saying that clergy, or politicians, or
>> astrologers or authors or computer programmers or sales clerks are
>> different?
>
>
>Yes, they all have morals. Morals is...unscientific.
Morals are observable. Science is about observations. What can be
observed and measured is science - including behavioral science.
The Starmaker
>
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 12:30:44 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> So which population has observable behavior that you are comparing
> >> them to? Are you saying that clergy, or politicians, or
> >> astrologers or authors or computer programmers or sales clerks are
> >> different?
> >
> >
> >Yes, they all have morals. Morals is...unscientific.
>
> Morals are observable. Science is about observations. What can be
> observed and measured is science - including behavioral science.
You can observe someone having an abortion..
Is having an abortion right or wrong?
herbert glazier
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 12:30:44 -0700, The Starmaker
>
No wisdom in NASA Mafia GOP thinking. Shuttles built not to get back
to the moon,but on to put 2 billion each year into GOPers deep
pockets. 43 years of going round and round 200 miles up is a joke.
Spending $25,000,000 for each of the shuttles toilets is tell ing you
GOPers are shitting all over "WE the PEOPLE." Nixon And Annenberg had
a good laugh on us tax payers. Nixon and Kissenger made sure USA would
have a "Great Reccession" Vote GOPers in 2012,and then the poor can
take Tang and have their late ride in a Waste Management dump truck.
O ya its sad,but reality. TreBert
Joseph Nebus
>On Mon, 09 May 2011 12:30:44 -0700, The Starmaker
><star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Yes, they all have morals. Morals is...unscientific.
>Morals are observable. Science is about observations. What can be
>observed and measured is science - including behavioral science.
Now, class, who's able to identify the logical fallacies in
the above? Don't be shy.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stemper
>Albert Einstein created the atom bomb
No, he didn't.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If it's "tourist season", where do I get my license?
The Starmaker
It is illogical to believe others are shy...they just don't want reveal
how stupid they are.
I'm not shy...
Science is not about observations...it's about, finding things out.
So, what did you find out today?