OT: We got it up!

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:18:15 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:10:13 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:iirke110s85667njikpdmt41kn9o2k3vbf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:44:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5430d426ae8413989b48@news.individual.net...
In article <pan.2005.07.29.15.45.25.162707@doubleclick.net>,
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:07:36 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote:
[snip]
didn't paint it, in hopes of saving a couple hundred pounds.

Howcome nobody thought of using the original design, that
didn't fall apart?

You mean the foam made using CFCs? Can't do that. Ozone hole, ya'
know!

NASA has an exemption.

I don't know if they have an exemption or not, but tile failure was
not a major problem until environmentalists forced the discontinuation
of fluorocarbon(freon)-based foaming agents. NASA used hydrazine
instead, and the tile failures began.

Interesting.

The first thing I remember seeing published by NASA (in the no-longer-mailed
(at lesat to me)) NASA Tech Briefs was a lot of stuff about tile repair and
replacement.

And I didn't know the tiles were foamed, anyway. I thought they were
pressed and sintered slabs of silica fibers.

No. The _foam_break-away_ failures began after the switch away from
CFC's.

There ya go, Jim. It's the fault of those damn liberal eco-loonies!
(Now, if you could only smarten up about the invasion thing...)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:01:55 -0700, Richard Henry wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:5jske1hcvccojbu9vet0hb0nshenvhdrsv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:10:13 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:iirke110s85667njikpdmt41kn9o2k3vbf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:44:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:


"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5430d426ae8413989b48@news.individual.net...
In article <pan.2005.07.29.15.45.25.162707@doubleclick.net>,
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:07:36 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote:
[snip]
didn't paint it, in hopes of saving a couple hundred pounds.

Howcome nobody thought of using the original design, that
didn't fall apart?

You mean the foam made using CFCs? Can't do that. Ozone hole, ya'
know!

NASA has an exemption.


I don't know if they have an exemption or not, but tile failure was
not a major problem until environmentalists forced the discontinuation
of fluorocarbon(freon)-based foaming agents. NASA used hydrazine
instead, and the tile failures began.

Interesting.

The first thing I remember seeing published by NASA (in the
no-longer-mailed
(at lesat to me)) NASA Tech Briefs was a lot of stuff about tile repair
and
replacement.

And I didn't know the tiles were foamed, anyway. I thought they were
pressed and sintered slabs of silica fibers.



No. The _foam_break-away_ failures began after the switch away from
CFC's.

Well, you did say "tile".

This question has come up on sci.space.shuttle, and one response was that
the hand-foamed areas are still done with the old blowing agent. Also, the
big piece that broke off was from one of those areas.

The whole premise (the nasty new foam is killing our astronauts) sound like
a HaHaHanson whine, anyway.

Wow! A whole nother group I can edjamacate!!!

Kewl!
Rich

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:39:38 GMT, the renowned Richard the Dreaded
Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:04:06 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:44:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:


"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5430d426ae8413989b48@news.individual.net...
In article <pan.2005.07.29.15.45.25.162707@doubleclick.net>,
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:07:36 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote:
[snip]
didn't paint it, in hopes of saving a couple hundred pounds.

Howcome nobody thought of using the original design, that
didn't fall apart?

You mean the foam made using CFCs? Can't do that. Ozone hole, ya'
know!

NASA has an exemption.


I don't know if they have an exemption or not, but tile failure was
not a major problem until environmentalists forced the discontinuation
of fluorocarbon(freon)-based foaming agents. NASA used hydrazine
instead, and the tile failures began.

Oddly (possibly), I'm of one mind with Mr. T here - the enviro-loonies
shouldn't be given such leverage. Let's go back to what WORKED! Hell,
the environment is doomed anyway, unless we can either get people to
stop breeding, or go turn down the thermostat on the Sun.

Cheers!
Rich

So, every time a significant design change is forced on them, they are
going to lose a spacecraft and the crew, then be grounded for a couple
of years while they figure out what wasn't tested or simulated
thoroughly and how to fix it?

Doesn't bode well for the next version. There are probably going to be
tens of thousands of significant changes from the last version that
was known to work.

Maybe John Larkin is right, it's hopeless, and they should scrap the
thing and rebuild the organization from the ground up, particularly if
there isn't enough money to run two programs in parallel. Right now
they're like the Red Queen-- it takes all the running they can do just
to stay in the same spot. To move to the next level, they have to run
at least twice as fast.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:42:10 -0500, "Aubrey McIntosh, Ph.D."
<newsposter@spam.vima.austin.tx.us> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:


Absolutely! Asbestos was wonderful stuff, dangerous only to asbestos
workers/handlers. So, instead of fixing the worker safety issue,
we're denied the benefits.


I think the data say that asbestos is only dangerous to smokers. I.e.,
tobacco is the culprit.

Asbestos dust damages the lungs somewhat in the style of silicosis.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:34:39 -0500, Aubrey McIntosh, Ph.D. wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:39:38 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

The point was, "terrorism" is the last line of defense of a people
who are being invaded by the inexorable US war machine.

That's absurd. The first attempt to bring down the WTC was in 1992.
Islamic terrorists have been bringing down planes and ships for
decades. These guys aren't acting on the behalf of, or for the welfare
of, any people but themselves. They want to be the Taliban, to rule
absolutely without anyone's vote or consent, to keep their women down
and send their young men off to die, leaving that many more young
women for themselves.

There is an article at

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp

that argues to legally define "terrorists" as "pirates" in order to
bring mature and accepted law to bear.

One of the implications is the jurisdiction issue: pirates could be
captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them.

Now, we just need an electronic pirate locator circuit.

That's stupid. Terrorists are not pirates, they're ideologues. What
could possess a person to blow themselves up? I heard stories of the
same thing happening in VietNam - they were using children to deliver
explosives, and, yes, blow themselves up along with as many invaders
as they could. "Would you give your life for Your Country?" - Which
side says that?

Back to the point, "terrorists" are just guerillas who are faced with
certain defeat. "Pirates" are simply "privateers." In the days when
"pirates" were glorified, the various kings and queens and princes
and stuff didn't like them operating on the open seas, not paying their
tribute to the kqp&e.

But nobody's willing to look at the root cause of terrorism, which is
imperialist aggression.

Do you know why repuglicans go to the barber for a shave?
Because they can't stand to look themselves in the face in
the mirror.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:43:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:48:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:25:32 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

[snip]

*You* are absurd. You popped out of my killfile, by changing
your address with THIS and THAT, but now that I read your
stupid rants again, well -> PLONK!


So now I'm responsible for maintaining my entry in his killfile?

John

Bemelman is nonexistent ;-)

In healing circles, this is called, "denial."

Love,
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:31:09 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Same here. Richard the <insert pseudonym here> should be sent to Fort
Bliss and used for target practice ;-)

No, they should send his sorry drunken ass through basic training.

Been there, done that, thank you very much.

Have you?

Or Mr. T?

He would try to blow his brains out with his M-16 before it was over.

Well, you sure are horseshit as a fortune-teller!

No booze, no drugs and no transvestite whores there to keep him happy.

What mental illness is it that impels you to advocate overriding
another person's free will? That's unamerican, you know.

Thanks,
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:52:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:04:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:44:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:07:36 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote:
[snip]
didn't paint it, in hopes of saving a couple hundred pounds.

Howcome nobody thought of using the original design, that
didn't fall apart?

You mean the foam made using CFCs? Can't do that. Ozone hole, ya'
know!

NASA has an exemption.

I don't know if they have an exemption or not, but tile failure was
not a major problem until environmentalists forced the discontinuation
of fluorocarbon(freon)-based foaming agents. NASA used hydrazine
instead, and the tile failures began.

And the putty used on the SRB segment seals, the stuff that worked,
included asbestos.

And I can still remember the days when asbestos was routinely used
as fireproof stuff - the one that really sticks out in my mind is,
admittedly, from old cartoons, but they were so proud of their
fireproof asbestos curtains, that they labeled the curtains,
"ASBESTOS". There was a joke, "We do asbestos we can." But the
hysterics got ahold of it, and now we all get PCBs or whatever the
heck is next, as we try to bypass Mother Nature.

Feh. I say, if you don't like living on Earth the way She is, then
just walk off the cliff.

Meanwhile, does anybody know how to contact NASA to ask them, "Why
not go back to the design from before, that didn't fall apart?"

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:41:26 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:52:53 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:04:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

[snip]

I don't know if they have an exemption or not, but tile failure was
not a major problem until environmentalists forced the discontinuation
of fluorocarbon(freon)-based foaming agents. NASA used hydrazine
instead, and the tile failures began.

And the putty used on the SRB segment seals, the stuff that worked,
included asbestos.

Absolutely! Asbestos was wonderful stuff, dangerous only to asbestos
workers/handlers. So, instead of fixing the worker safety issue,
we're denied the benefits.

Same situation with RoHS... bunch of bureaucratic BS that'll do more
damage than good. And beware, the replacements will end up being more
dangerous than the originals.

Geez Jim! With a brilliant mind like this, how can you not see
how wrong the neocons are with their warmongering? I was in in the
Vietnam era, and I ragged on you about being a draft dodger, but,
Geez! I thought that the _smart_ people were peaceniks! There's no
profit in murder or invasion. It's ideology, and initiating force
for any ideology is just plain wrong. Or, to get the moralism out
of it, just plain stupid. And hurtful. Of course, you might have
the same syndrome I had back before the days when I'd fight you
tooth and nail before admitting I was an alcoholic - but I've
accepted myself the way I am.

Can you say the same?

And here's the clincher - I've never advocated an administration that
commits wanton murder and invasion.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:42:10 -0500, Aubrey McIntosh, Ph.D. wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Absolutely! Asbestos was wonderful stuff, dangerous only to asbestos
workers/handlers. So, instead of fixing the worker safety issue,
we're denied the benefits.

I think the data say that asbestos is only dangerous to smokers. I.e.,
tobacco is the culprit.

Praise the Lord! You've got Religion! Sing Praises to your
high priest, Henry Waxman, antismokerist extraordinaire!!

The actual truth is the exact opposite. The smoke itself provides
a layer of isolation between your alveoli and that nasty asbestos-
laden air. Not to mention car exhaust, diesel exhaust, power plant
emissions, pollen, dust mite feces, benzine and other volative
hydrocarbons, cyanoacrylates, fungus spores, and all of the various
things that you breathe in routinely.

Eww!

I just proofread this, and discovered that I seem to be on Jim
Thompson's side again. Don't you think it's a waste when people limit
themselves to one dimension?

Thanks!
Rich

 

[keith]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:55:45 +0000, Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:43:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:48:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:25:32 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

[snip]

*You* are absurd. You popped out of my killfile, by changing
your address with THIS and THAT, but now that I read your
stupid rants again, well -> PLONK!


So now I'm responsible for maintaining my entry in his killfile?

John

Bemelman is nonexistent ;-)


In healing circles, this is called, "denial."

Works for me. I deny Bemelman's reason to exist. ...fair 'nuff.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:32:21 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:45:34 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:59:23 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:39:38 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

[snip]

My father and uncles fought for the peace you enjoy. Neither Germany,
Japan, Austria, nor Italy have attacked anyone since.

Same here. Richard the <insert pseudonym here> should be sent to Fort
Bliss and used for target practice ;-)

Boy, you're really addicted to killing, aren't you?

Addicted? ...only to those who wish me harm. Do them before they do
unto you!

What psychosis is it that you have that impels you to embrace murder?

Kill <> murder, which you peace-nicks will never understand. What
psychosis is it that your type must equate the two?

I'm just amazed that such an otherwise brilliant man, a pillar of
society, can embrace a philosophy so linear as "He doesn't agree with me
- KILL HIM!".

Not "agree" at all. ...rather "he will kill me, if I don't do so first".
Is that so hard for you to understand? <rhetorical here, since I know
your answer>

You're the kind of people who shouldn't be allowed to vote. Have you
got
your KKK robe back from the cleaners yet?

FOAD, nazi.

Look in the mirror, Godwin.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:28:07 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:59:23 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:39:38 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

The point was, "terrorism" is the last line of defense of a people
who are being invaded by the inexorable US war machine.

That's absurd. The first attempt to bring down the WTC was in 1992.

Kinda about the time Israel was occupying the Sinai Peninsula by
force?

What a doof! Why did Israel occupy the Sanai? ...and you're off by a
couple of decades. Sheesh! Toke up another one, Rich. You're batting
..000 now.

Islamic terrorists have been bringing down planes and ships for
decades. These guys aren't acting on the behalf of, or for the welfare
of, any people but themselves. They want to be the Taliban, to rule
absolutely without anyone's vote or consent, to keep their women down
and send their young men off to die, leaving that many more young women
for themselves.

They want us to get off their back so that they can run their sovereign
state in tha manner of their own choosing,

Who is "they"? You really don't get it, eh?

just like we did. We threw
off the chains of the King, and we jumped in to defend Europe from
Hitler - can't you see, from their Point of View, that we're
indistinguishable from Hitler, on our jihad of conquest?

Again, who is "they"? The Taliban? Good idea Rich <the idiot>.

When somebody sends a hundred billion dollars' worth of weapons of mass
destruction, and a hundred and fifteen thousand soldiers, into your back
yard, isn't that an invasion?

Oh, it was Iraqis that bombed the London tubes? Grow up!

Who _cares_ what they want? They are not us.

I care! They want *US*! If you're too drugged up to understand that
simple fact, don't stop me from trying to defend myself!

In the US, there are laws
against discrimination.

Discrimination? You've totally lost it. Perhaps you should move in with
Bemelman.

(or, there used to be - nowadays, it seems, you
can discriminate against people who look like ay-rabs.)

Discriminate? If they're not citizens, send 'em back for looking
cross-eyed. They have no inherent right to be here. There here at the US
government's leisure.

But we made a
decision a couple hundred years ago, and wrote it into the constitution
- we are not a theocracy.

You really need to read some more. The *US* government isnt' a theocracy,
but there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state can't be
(congress shall pass no law...). Indeed PA was. Your friends on the
courts have since decided that the Constitution is meaningless, so...

If somebody else wants to be a theocracy,

That really isnt' the point. It's defense. They want to kill us, and say
so every day. You want them to succeed, because you're a "pacifist".
Fine, you drop on the next bomb. You will meet 72 Catholic virgins on
the other side; giving your life for Christ.

isn't that their right? Didn't women, in their own right, get the right
to vote?

In Afganistan? In Iraq? What the hell are you yammering on about?

Didn't the slaves get emancipated by their own wherewithal, and
the help of one sane president? If the women of the muslimic countries
want to throw off the chains of their oppressors, maybe they could
follow the example of Lady Mo - seduce the soldiers, and when they fall
asleep, cut their throat.

Good idea, except their baby's throats were slit in front of them,
instead.

What sickness is it that impels you to meddle in other peoples' internal
affaris?

It's *not* "internal" at all. It is our security, whether you believe it
or not.

Those people are fighting for their _lives_. The US is murdering
people. The US is now king planetary bully.

Shiites are killing Sunni women and children in food markets to repel
the US bully? Absurd.

Well, aren't those people grown-ups? Are we big uncle sugardaddy to the
whole fucking _WORLD?_ We're not supposed to be, you know. That's the
part about Freedom that so horrifies the neonazis - "Freedom is Good, as
long as you're free in _MY_ style." They think that "Freedom" means
"Free to be just like us, if you've got the proper white skin and
embrace _our_ values, and to hell with Allah".

WOuldn't it be nice if they all got along in peace? THey haven't been
doing a great job of it for centuries. Maybe it's time for a little help
down the right path.

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

My father and uncles fought for the peace you enjoy. Neither Germany,
Japan, Austria, nor Italy have attacked anyone since.

Maybe that's because Germany, Japan, Austria, and Italy have somehow,
along the line, acquired "SANITY"?

Exactly. They didn't get "it" by themselves. They had to beaten over the
head with a clue-stick. Nothing has changed. Peaceniks were in abundance
in WWII too.

Freedom means, "I might disagree with you, but you have a right to be as
foolish as you choose to be, and it's not my place to retrain you,
unless you ask me to." My dear ol' Dad, rest his soul, used to quip, "I
may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to remain uninformed."

....unless you are a thread to me and mine. Then you meet Mr. Loisville
(or Mr. Smith), right across the forehead! No appologies, you die first.

Personally, I don't totally embrace that philosophy - I will continue to
attempt to inform you of your own stupidity. And warmongering is just
plain bad.

You are simply stupid, beyond hope. ...nothing new here.

Who cares who started it? Let's be the bigger man and end it! It's in
our power, you know. "OK, sorry about invading you and murdering your
women and children - if we stop invading you and murdering your
citizens, will you stop fighting back?"

No, I really don't care who started it. I didn't. I will do my best to
make sure *WE* end it though. If that takes making a lot of glass, so be
it.

What do we have to lose, but our immortal souls?

You assume a lot, as usual.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:13:53 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:42:10 -0500, "Aubrey McIntosh, Ph.D."
newsposter@spam.vima.austin.tx.us> wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:


Absolutely! Asbestos was wonderful stuff, dangerous only to asbestos
workers/handlers. So, instead of fixing the worker safety issue,
we're denied the benefits.


I think the data say that asbestos is only dangerous to smokers. I.e.,
tobacco is the culprit.



Asbestos dust damages the lungs somewhat in the style of silicosis.

Wait until they figure out that fiberglass dust is pretty much the same
thing. My hypothesis is that they're waiting another few years, and then
they're going to force every home built within the past 50 years to be
torn down. ... right after they've made smoking, drinking, eating, and
sex illegal. The Dems are on the cutting edge here.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:00:34 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <iirke110s85667njikpdmt41kn9o2k3vbf@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
not a major problem until environmentalists forced the discontinuation
of fluorocarbon(freon)-based foaming agents. NASA used hydrazine
instead, and the tile failures began.

Its not hydrazine. Its CCl2FCH3. The blowing agent isn't really the
problem anyway. Its the solid Dihydrogen Monoxide that seems to be the
real trouble maker.

The solid phase of Hydrogen-Hydroxide is a given, considering that the
SSMEs are cryogenic (we are talkign abough launching from FL here too).
The point is that this didn't seem to be a problem until they changed the
foaming agent to something more politically correct. Bad science is a
stupid reason to kill people.

--
Keith

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:55:45 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<rtp@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:43:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:48:56 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:25:32 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

[snip]

*You* are absurd. You popped out of my killfile, by changing
your address with THIS and THAT, but now that I read your
stupid rants again, well -> PLONK!


So now I'm responsible for maintaining my entry in his killfile?

John

Bemelman is nonexistent ;-)


In healing circles, this is called, "denial."

In healthy circles, this is called "reality."

John

 

[John Larkin]

But nobody's willing to look at the root cause of terrorism, which is
imperialist aggression.

That doesn't compute. The world's biggest imperialist relationship of
modern times, probably of all times, was the British conquest of
India. Ghandi kicked them out, and he was no terrorist.

Has terrorism ever accomplished anything but killing innocents?

Good news about the IRA, if true. The really bad thing about terrorism
is that it tends to evolve from idealism to general criminality.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:06:23 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

Maybe John Larkin is right, it's hopeless, and they should scrap the
thing and rebuild the organization from the ground up, particularly if
there isn't enough money to run two programs in parallel. Right now
they're like the Red Queen-- it takes all the running they can do just
to stay in the same spot. To move to the next level, they have to run
at least twice as fast.

They shouldn't even try to build a next-generation shuttle. There's
nothing to accomplish by launching humans, spam-in-a-can, into low
earth orbit, and no way to, or reason to, send men to Mars or beyond.
It's just silly Star Trek notions used to justify monstrous budgets.

Space science should be robotic. When the next shuttle crashes and the
Space Station finally becomes un-maintainable, and we look back on the
lives and resources we've wasted, it will be obvious that nothing was
accomplished.


John

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <11eklh0p538bdb8@corp.supernews.com>,
Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dcc272$eil$2@blue.rahul.net...
[....]
Very little of the research needs to go on in space and none of it needs a
shuttle to do. Mice have bones and can withstand G forces.

Assuming this were true -- and I imagine that, while some research probably
could be performed at lower cost, either here on earth or in unmanned
spaceships -- the usual problem is that just because NASA has a budget of
however-many-billions of dollars, taking away a dollar from NASA in no way
implies that that same dollar would (a) exist at all (in the government
coffers)

Last time I checked the "government coffers" had a harder vacuum in them
than you will find in interstellar space, so this is a given on the face
of it.

When you start looking at programs on a "cost per capita" basis, they often
seem quite reasonable. It's just that there are soooo many of of them these
days...

Actually a lot of the programs look quite unreasonable to me on a "cost
per capita" basis. Why should the people that grow cotton get any money
at all from us?



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <iirke110s85667njikpdmt41kn9o2k3vbf@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

not a major problem until environmentalists forced the discontinuation
of fluorocarbon(freon)-based foaming agents. NASA used hydrazine
instead, and the tile failures began.

Its not hydrazine. Its CCl2FCH3. The blowing agent isn't really the
problem anyway. Its the solid Dihydrogen Monoxide that seems to be the
real trouble maker.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge