Topic: End of Space Shuttle program

[Chew]

Today is a good day for short-sighted people who lack imagination and a sense of exploration and discovery.

[On Fire For Christ]

Today is a good day for short-sighted people who lack imagination and a sense of exploration and discovery.

But a good day for people who approve of the decommissioning of flying deathtraps rushed into service by impatient scientists and politicians.

[Chew]

Today is a good day for short-sighted people who lack imagination and a sense of exploration and discovery.

But a good day for people who approve of the decommissioning of flying deathtraps rushed into service by impatient scientists and politicians.

And an even better day for those who apparently know nothing about the long developmental history of the Space Shuttle and who think space travel is inherently as safe as a walk though the park.

[Skulker]

this is a good day.  135 missions and 2 catastrophes is a completely unacceptable statistic.

Why do you hate peanut butter?

What you weren't talking about peanut butter?

I'm sure this is both clever and hysterical, but I don't get it.

You answered your own question.

[On Fire For Christ]

this is a good day.  135 missions and 2 catastrophes is a completely unacceptable statistic.

Why do you hate peanut butter?

What you weren't talking about peanut butter?

I'm sure this is both clever and hysterical, but I don't get it.

You answered your own question.

Thanks.  but it wasn't a question.  The clue is there not being a question mark.

[Skulker]

this is a good day.  135 missions and 2 catastrophes is a completely unacceptable statistic.

Why do you hate peanut butter?

What you weren't talking about peanut butter?

I'm sure this is both clever and hysterical, but I don't get it.

You answered your own question.

Thanks.  but it wasn't a question.  The clue is there not being a question mark.

That was the answer to the implied question of "Why are you trolling this thread?"   
 

[On Fire For Christ]

And an even better day for those who apparently know nothing about the long developmental history of the Space Shuttle and who think space travel is inherently as safe as a walk though the park.

ok so how would knowing more about the developmental history make the survival rate any more acceptable?  14 people died in the shuttle after 135 launches.  That is atrocious.  It should have been decommissioned a long time ago.  It's not like we even have a valid risk/benefit ratio here, the shuttle doesn't save lives or bring in vast revenue. 

[On Fire For Christ]

this is a good day.  135 missions and 2 catastrophes is a completely unacceptable statistic.

Why do you hate peanut butter?

What you weren't talking about peanut butter?

I'm sure this is both clever and hysterical, but I don't get it.

You answered your own question.

Thanks.  but it wasn't a question.  The clue is there not being a question mark.

That was the answer to the implied question of "Why are you trolling this thread?"   

That you be YOUR question then, wouldn't it?  (hint, this time it is a question, but it is rhetorical (hint, that means you don't have to answer it))

[MikeHz]

ok so how would knowing more about the developmental history make the survival rate any more acceptable?  14 people died in the shuttle after 135 launches.  That is atrocious.  It should have been decommissioned a long time ago.  It's not like we even have a valid risk/benefit ratio here, the shuttle doesn't save lives or bring in vast revenue.

Don't worry--we're out of the space biz now, so no one will get hurt. 

[Skulker]

this is a good day.  135 missions and 2 catastrophes is a completely unacceptable statistic.

Why do you hate peanut butter?

What you weren't talking about peanut butter?

I'm sure this is both clever and hysterical, but I don't get it.

You answered your own question.

Thanks.  but it wasn't a question.  The clue is there not being a question mark.

That was the answer to the implied question of "Why are you trolling this thread?"   

That you be YOUR question then, wouldn't it?  (hint, this time it is a question, but it is rhetorical (hint, that means you don't have to answer it))

I won't. I'm all out of Purina Troll Food®.   

[On Fire For Christ]

ok so how would knowing more about the developmental history make the survival rate any more acceptable?  14 people died in the shuttle after 135 launches.  That is atrocious.  It should have been decommissioned a long time ago.  It's not like we even have a valid risk/benefit ratio here, the shuttle doesn't save lives or bring in vast revenue.

Don't worry--we're out of the space biz now, so no one will get hurt. 

Well that isn't true is it.  Nasa will be hitching a ride on safer foreign alternatives.

[Chew]

But a good day for people who approve of the decommissioning of flying deathtraps rushed into service by impatient scientists and politicians.

And an even better day for those who apparently know nothing about the long developmental history of the Space Shuttle and who think space travel is inherently as safe as a walk though the park.

ok so how would knowing more about the developmental history make the survival rate any more acceptable?

It wouldn't, but it will go to show you you were completely wrong when you said it was rushed into service.

14 people died in the shuttle after 135 launches.  That is atrocious.

That is your opinion; mine is it was acceptable.

  It should have been decommissioned a long time ago. It's not like we even have a valid risk/benefit ratio here, the shuttle doesn't save lives or bring in vast revenue.

Whether or not it saves lives is debatable; it was never intended to make money. It was science for sciences' sake. Isn't that enough?

[On Fire For Christ]

Whether or not it saves lives is debatable; it was never intended to make money. It was science for sciences' sake. Isn't that enough?

More like death for science's sake.  What would an unacceptable body count be in your world?

[Chew]

Whether or not it saves lives is debatable; it was never intended to make money. It was science for sciences' sake. Isn't that enough?

More like death for science's sake.  What would an unacceptable body count be in your world?

Unacceptable to me would be more than 1 out of 20 missions failing.

You?

[On Fire For Christ]

Whether or not it saves lives is debatable; it was never intended to make money. It was science for sciences' sake. Isn't that enough?

More like death for science's sake.  What would an unacceptable body count be in your world?

Unacceptable to me would be more than 1 out of 20 missions failing.

You?

That is an incredibly low threshold for success when we're dealing with human life vs scientific advance.  MY threshold would be orders of magnitude higher.  I bet you like NASCAR too, right?