RUN!! Forrest!! RUN!!

[Dave S]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/28/shuttle.plane/index.html

Small plane enters shuttle no-fly zone
Pilot disappears after being forced to land

From Mike Mount
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, July 29, 2005; Posted: 6:53 a.m. EDT (10:53 GMT)

A small plane came within 20 miles of Discovery's launch pad three
minutes before liftoff Tuesday.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The pilot of a small plane that penetrated the
no-fly zone around Kennedy Space Center shortly before the space
shuttle's launch Tuesday disappeared after being forced to land, Air
Force officials said.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating, the officials said
Thursday.....

rest of article snipped

[Andrew Gideon]

Dave S wrote:

> Pilot disappears after being forced to land

He's probably looking for a NASA form.

- Andrew

[John Larson]

I am glad he got away. 40 mile no fly zone. Idiotic. Shuttle program.
Expensive idiocy.


"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/28/shuttle.plane/index.html
>
> Small plane enters shuttle no-fly zone
> Pilot disappears after being forced to land
>
> From Mike Mount
> CNN Washington Bureau
> Friday, July 29, 2005; Posted: 6:53 a.m. EDT (10:53 GMT)
>
> A small plane came within 20 miles of Discovery's launch pad three minutes
> before liftoff Tuesday.
>
>
> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The pilot of a small plane that penetrated the no-fly
> zone around Kennedy Space Center shortly before the space shuttle's launch
> Tuesday disappeared after being forced to land, Air Force officials said.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating, the officials said
> Thursday.....
>
> rest of article snipped
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:41:50 -0700, "John Larson" <None ...> wrote in
>::

>Shuttle program. Expensive idiocy.


Ah! At last, the words of an expert. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:17:12 GMT, Dave S >
wrote in et>::

>
>http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/28/shuttle.plane/index.html
>
>Small plane enters shuttle no-fly zone
>Pilot disappears after being forced to land
>
> From Mike Mount
>CNN Washington Bureau
>Friday, July 29, 2005; Posted: 6:53 a.m. EDT (10:53 GMT)
>
>A small plane came within 20 miles of Discovery's launch pad three
>minutes before liftoff Tuesday.
>

Hurry, let's establish another ADIZ. :-)

[Mike Weller]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:14:58 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Dave S wrote:
>
>> Pilot disappears after being forced to land
>
>He's probably looking for a NASA form.
>
> - Andrew

Ah! At last, the words of an expert.

[George Patterson]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> He's probably looking for a NASA form.

Probably won't help him any. If the FAA argues he's incompetent, that overrides
the form.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:

LD> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:41:50 -0700, "John Larson" <None ...>
LD> wrote in >::

>> Shuttle program. Expensive idiocy.


LD> Ah! At last, the words of an expert. :-)

Well, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out:

1) Launch shuttle with a zillion cameras following it to check for
debris.

2) Spend orbital time examining yourself for damage, offloading
supplies to a useless space station and onloading said station's
garbage.

3) Return and repeat.

It's time someone said that both the shuttle and the ISS have turned
out to be stupid ideas. I'm not against science and progress, and
even risk, but I am against ****ing pointlessly into a headwind and
wondering why we stink.

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Fry" wrote:

> It's time someone said that both the shuttle and the ISS have turned
> out to be stupid ideas. I'm not against science and progress, and
> even risk, but I am against ****ing pointlessly into a headwind and
> wondering why we stink.

Hear, hear.

--

Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Bob Fry >
wrote:

> Well, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out:

and what have you figured out?

>
> 1) Launch shuttle with a zillion cameras following it to check for
> debris.
>
> 2) Spend orbital time examining yourself for damage, offloading
> supplies to a useless space station and onloading said station's
> garbage.

nice circular "logic"

>
> 3) Return and repeat.
>
> It's time someone said that both the shuttle and the ISS have turned
> out to be stupid ideas.

People have been whining about the space program for decades.

> I'm not against science and progress, and even risk,

for some reason, I don't believe you

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Mike W.]

I think it was meant as a joke. I found humor in it, anyway.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:nWAGe.46$eh1.17@trndny07...
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
> >
> > He's probably looking for a NASA form.
>
> Probably won't help him any. If the FAA argues he's incompetent, that
overrides
> the form.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Mike W.]

"John Larson" <None ...> wrote in message
...
> I am glad he got away. 40 mile no fly zone. Idiotic.

OK, he abandoned the plane he was flying. Someone will want that plane back.
They will find out who was flying it. He escaped, for now.

A 40 mile no-fly zone around the shuttle launch site makes a hell of a lot
more sense than the presidential TFR's that go up every time he wants to fly
somewhere to kiss ass.

[Blueskies]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> LD> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:41:50 -0700, "John Larson" <None ...>
> LD> wrote in >::
>
> >> Shuttle program. Expensive idiocy.
>
>
> LD> Ah! At last, the words of an expert. :-)
>
> Well, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out:
>
> 1) Launch shuttle with a zillion cameras following it to check for
> debris.
>
> 2) Spend orbital time examining yourself for damage, offloading
> supplies to a useless space station and onloading said station's
> garbage.
>
> 3) Return and repeat.
>
> It's time someone said that both the shuttle and the ISS have turned
> out to be stupid ideas. I'm not against science and progress, and
> even risk, but I am against ****ing pointlessly into a headwind and
> wondering why we stink.

You should see all the preflight parties all at taxpayer expense. Same stuff happens in the military...

[John Larson]

And why would that make sense? It costs $1,000,000,000 to launch the garbage
scow (yes, the secondary mission of the shuttle, after the failed test
flight re. the parts falling off this model T, and the delivery of supplies
that could have been done by the Russians with their unmanned vehicle) was
to retrieve the 13 odd tons of garbage the useless space station has been
collecting.

It is so annoying to read the posts by you Buck Rogers wannabe's on this
board. You are all so enthralled by the space program you can't see just how
pointless and useless it is.

Yes, we have been whining about this boondoggle, the shuttle, and the ISS
for years. And with good reason.
"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Larson" <None ...> wrote in message
> ...
>> I am glad he got away. 40 mile no fly zone. Idiotic.
>
> OK, he abandoned the plane he was flying. Someone will want that plane
> back.
> They will find out who was flying it. He escaped, for now.
>
> A 40 mile no-fly zone around the shuttle launch site makes a hell of a lot
> more sense than the presidential TFR's that go up every time he wants to
> fly
> somewhere to kiss ass.
>
>

[John Larson]

Yeah, around you.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:17:12 GMT, Dave S >
> wrote in et>::
>
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/28/shuttle.plane/index.html
>>
>>Small plane enters shuttle no-fly zone
>>Pilot disappears after being forced to land
>>
>> From Mike Mount
>>CNN Washington Bureau
>>Friday, July 29, 2005; Posted: 6:53 a.m. EDT (10:53 GMT)
>>
>>A small plane came within 20 miles of Discovery's launch pad three
>>minutes before liftoff Tuesday.
>>
>
> Hurry, let's establish another ADIZ. :-)
>
>

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, Bob Fry >
> wrote:
>
> > It's time someone said that both the shuttle and the ISS have turned
> > out to be stupid ideas.
>
> People have been whining about the space program for decades.

Well, maybe we'd whine less if it accomplished more. It took us less
than ten years to go from the atmosphere to the surface of the moon and
back. 36 years later we've gone nowhere.

On the 20th anniversary of Apollo, Bush Sr. asked NASA for a mission
plan for a Mars landing. The plan came back with a $200 billion price
tag. This number was deliberately cooked up to be as expensive as
possible to guarantee the idea would be shelved. Why? Because they were
afraid that if the Mars mission were doable we'd pull the plug on the
ISS gravy train.

There's an old joke that you're not a real country unless you have your
own airline and a national beer. Five years ago putting a man in space
was something only the superpowers had done. Now that Burt Rutal and
Paul Allen crashed that party, we either need to either s--t or get off
the pot. For the price of a shuttle launch we can send a robot to Mars
where real discoveries can be made. I'm fully in favor of manned space
exploration but all this ****ing around in LEO isn't getting us
anywhere.

-cwk.

[Andrew Gideon]

wrote:

> Well, maybe we'd whine less if it accomplished more. It took us less
> than ten years to go from the atmosphere to the surface of the moon and
> back. 36 years later we've gone nowhere.

We were supposed to have this cheap reusable "pickup truck" as a cheap and
reusable way to get stuff into low earth orbit. That wasn't supposed to be
an end, but a means.

For example, why should any particular vehicle to be leaving LEO have to be
built and assembled on the ground, be capable of withstanding (as a whole)
the acceleration to get into orbit, or even fit some particular ground
launch vehicle? Better to lug the necessary parts into orbit, insert tab A
into slot B, and let it be on its way.

But the pickup truck became the end itself somewhere along the way.
Depressing.

- Andrew

[StellaStarr]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, maybe we'd whine less if it accomplished more. It took us less
>>than ten years to go from the atmosphere to the surface of the moon and
>>back. 36 years later we've gone nowhere.
>
>
> We were supposed to have this cheap reusable "pickup truck" as a cheap and
> reusable way to get stuff into low earth orbit.

It is, indeed, depressing.
Decades ago as a kid I was reading Heinlein books like "Rocket Summer,"
and knew even then that everybody lifting off from their backyards in
their own rockets wouldn't ever be a reality.

But it does feel like we made it to the moon and then just gave up the
venture into space, for the most part. Who knew once we finally leaped
off the planet, there'd be so much delay and so much nitpicking...and so
little further progress.

It's great, livin' in the future. We've got Jetsons ultralights and
Dick Tracy miniphones, but I sure wish we had Heinlein's Mars, and all
the rest.

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article <IHWGe.226148$xm3.73811@attbi_s21>,
StellaStarr > wrote:

> Andrew Gideon wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Well, maybe we'd whine less if it accomplished more. It took us less
> >>than ten years to go from the atmosphere to the surface of the moon and
> >>back. 36 years later we've gone nowhere.
> >
> >
> > We were supposed to have this cheap reusable "pickup truck" as a cheap and
> > reusable way to get stuff into low earth orbit.
>
> It is, indeed, depressing.
> Decades ago as a kid I was reading Heinlein books like "Rocket Summer,"
> and knew even then that everybody lifting off from their backyards in
> their own rockets wouldn't ever be a reality.
>
> But it does feel like we made it to the moon and then just gave up the
> venture into space, for the most part. Who knew once we finally leaped
> off the planet, there'd be so much delay and so much nitpicking...and so
> little further progress.
>
> It's great, livin' in the future. We've got Jetsons ultralights and
> Dick Tracy miniphones, but I sure wish we had Heinlein's Mars, and all
> the rest.


The problem, of course is that it takes so damn much raw energy even to
make orbit, so the cost is astronomical. It will remain so until we make
some physics breakthrough that allows true antigravity machines.

[Dave Stadt]

"ORVAL FAIRAIRN" > wrote in message
...
> In article <IHWGe.226148$xm3.73811@attbi_s21>,
> StellaStarr > wrote:
>
> > Andrew Gideon wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Well, maybe we'd whine less if it accomplished more. It took us less
> > >>than ten years to go from the atmosphere to the surface of the moon
and
> > >>back. 36 years later we've gone nowhere.
> > >
> > >
> > > We were supposed to have this cheap reusable "pickup truck" as a cheap
and
> > > reusable way to get stuff into low earth orbit.
> >
> > It is, indeed, depressing.
> > Decades ago as a kid I was reading Heinlein books like "Rocket Summer,"
> > and knew even then that everybody lifting off from their backyards in
> > their own rockets wouldn't ever be a reality.
> >
> > But it does feel like we made it to the moon and then just gave up the
> > venture into space, for the most part. Who knew once we finally leaped
> > off the planet, there'd be so much delay and so much nitpicking...and so
> > little further progress.
> >
> > It's great, livin' in the future. We've got Jetsons ultralights and
> > Dick Tracy miniphones, but I sure wish we had Heinlein's Mars, and all
> > the rest.
>
>
> The problem, of course is that it takes so damn much raw energy even to
> make orbit, so the cost is astronomical.

Rutan has it partially figured out. Give him a couple of years and the
energy and cost problems are liable to be a thing of the past.

[Andrew Gideon]

ORVAL FAIRAIRN wrote:

> The problem, of course is that it takes so damn much raw energy even to
> make orbit, so the cost is astronomical. It will remain so until we make
> some physics breakthrough that allows true antigravity machines.

But even if we ignore the cost of the energy involved, there's also the cost
of the vehicle. The shuttle was supposed to save that cost by being
reusable.

There were probably other savings intended; it's been a long time those
topics were discussed and I just don't remember anymore.

BTW, there are other places to save on that energy cost besides the ultimate
of antigravity (assuming that it's sufficiently "magical" that one need not
pay the cost of the potential energy gain of climbing into orbit {8^).
Anything that involves expending the energy on the ground, from the fancy
laser ideas to just shoving a large bomb up the tailpipe <laugh> saves on
the cost of lifting fuel, for example.

- Andrew

[Sylvain]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> BTW, there are other places to save on that energy cost besides the ultimate
> of antigravity (assuming that it's sufficiently "magical" that one need not
> pay the cost of the potential energy gain of climbing into orbit {8^).

two words: space elevator! not as crazy as it sounds since
it was suggested seriously in 1957 by Artsutanov or romanticized
later in 1978 by Arthur C. Clarke, a number of key technologies
are coming together (e.g., carbon nanotubes to make a cable
that'd could take it) that might eventually make it practical
before we got antigravity that is :-))

There are a lot of stuff about it on the web, just google away,
e.g., wikipedia, but the following is a good starting point,
from NASA no less:

http://trs.nis.nasa.gov/archive/00000535/


--Sylvain

[Jose]

> two words: space elevator!

Two more words: Big TFR.

It's a sure target. So is a vacuum subway tube for orbital speed cross
country transport.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Larson]

Two more big words "Fairy Tale."

There must be a bigger reason to go to space other than the invention of
Tang and Teflon.

Face it, people are just curious and that's not enough to forget the
problems on the planets surface and justify spending billions on a program
to shoot human beings into low orbit.

If we weren't fighting wars all of the world to the tune of billions a day,
it might make sense to have a space program.


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> two words: space elevator!
>
> Two more words: Big TFR.
>
> It's a sure target. So is a vacuum subway tube for orbital speed cross
> country transport.
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Face it, people are just curious and that's not enough...

Not only is that definately "enough", that is ultimately the =only=
reason to do anything.

> If we weren't fighting wars all of the world to the tune of billions a day,
> it might make sense to have a space program.

If we had a space program, we might not be fighting wars all over the world.

(To the metaphor-challenged, what I mean by this is that it is part of
our deeper being to go out and explore, to find out how things work, why
things do what they do, just because it's there. Doing this occupies
our time, our brain, and our energy, and while so occupied, we (and I
mean all humanity) might not be distracted by the petty things another
part of our deeper being causes us to destroy each other for.)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Denny]

Burt Rutan is an exceptional human being, fellow pilot, engineer,
creative thinker, entrepreneur, and a fellow home builder.. I truly
admire this man... But let us not get carried away... His fragile,
epoxy composite, airframes will not attain orbital speed and then
re-enter into that 5400 degree cutting torch we call the atmosphere at
Mach 17.5... His machine is a shuttlecock... And like a shuttlecock is
light as a feather and popped straight up at low speeds....
Interesting and arresting to watch, and he and Branson just may make a
bunch of money off the idea - and more power to them... Shucks, I might
even buy a ride... But, putting a working load into orbit is a real
task requiring huge amounts of explosives and oxidizers and no amount
of blue sky pronouncements is going to change the laws of physics...
Slowng back down by atmospheric braking is always going to be a life
and death situation..

Now, we would be vastly further ahead had we spent a tiny fraction of
the cost of the orbiters on a fleet of cost effective, large capsules
of the general configuration of the Gemini's, et. al. lifted by
subsequent generations of the Saturn rocket, for moving loads into
orbit and the blunt capsule for bringing them back.. What should have
had wings is the lower stages of the booster, which would glide back to
a recovery area and land softly...

denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:42:02 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>If we had a space program, we might not be fighting wars all over the world.

Careful. You're suggesting curtailing war to a military man. :-)

[John Larson]

I hear you, and I suppose I am not curtailing war - know we need to fight
them from time to time. And as a father of an A-10 pilot based at DM as well
as a son in the 82nd Airborne both deploying to either Iraq or Afghanistan
in September, I am completely in favor of curtailing the Iraq conflict, a
war about oil.

I think my sons are too valuable to waste in that endeavor. The Afghanistan
situation is understandable since the terrorists had training camps there.
For that matter, Saudi Arabia should have been attacked since most of the
terrorists originated there.,

But I digress.

The space program is a toy and gravy bucket for rich American corporations.
I have never been to space, but my guess is, it's more or less a vacuum and
if we do need to explore, use unmanned vehicles that don't need to have the
environmental protection humans do in space.

Certainly our scientists are creative enough to be able to dash off into
space without sending humans.
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:42:02 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >::
>
>>
>>If we had a space program, we might not be fighting wars all over the
>>world.
>
> Careful. You're suggesting curtailing war to a military man. :-)
>

[Wallace Berry]

In article
>,
ORVAL FAIRAIRN > wrote:

>
> The problem, of course is that it takes so damn much raw energy even to
> make orbit, so the cost is astronomical. It will remain so until we make
> some physics breakthrough that allows true antigravity machines.

Not really, the energy required to put the shuttle into orbit is about
the same amount as required to fly a 747 from Los Angeles to Sydney.

The problem is overly complex vehicles like the shuttle, designed more
to meet political goals than the goals of transportation.

--
Take out the airplane for reply

[Skywise]

"Denny" > wrote in news:1122835901.916937.201370
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola>
> Slowng back down by atmospheric braking is always going to be a life
> and death situation..
<Snipola>

An obvious answer there is to stop using atmospheric braking. Well,
at least to the extent that it is currently done.

I wonder, with the use of lightweight solid fuel rocket motors, if
an orbital craft couldn't go up with an extra for deorbit, using it
to slow the craft down so it doesn't slam into the atmoshpere at
Mach 17.5, but perhaps something a bit more manageable, like Mach 10?

It would take too much energy to lift a craft with enough deorbit
energy reserves to have a completely non ballistic re-entry. But
perhaps a compromise point can be reached. A balance between 100%
ballistic re-entry and 100% non-ballistic. Slow down half-way and
let the atmosphere do the rest.

Just an idea....

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Blueskies]

> An obvious answer there is to stop using atmospheric braking. Well,
> at least to the extent that it is currently done.
>
> I wonder, with the use of lightweight solid fuel rocket motors, if
> an orbital craft couldn't go up with an extra for deorbit, using it
> to slow the craft down so it doesn't slam into the atmoshpere at
> Mach 17.5, but perhaps something a bit more manageable, like Mach 10?
>
> It would take too much energy to lift a craft with enough deorbit
> energy reserves to have a completely non ballistic re-entry. But
> perhaps a compromise point can be reached. A balance between 100%
> ballistic re-entry and 100% non-ballistic. Slow down half-way and
> let the atmosphere do the rest.
>
> Just an idea....
>
> Brian

How about big gas balloons?

[George Patterson]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> How about big gas balloons?

They work pretty well at getting up there. IIRC, Echo burned up pretty well on
re-entry.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Denny]

Really.... I didn't know that a 747 burns 4 million pounds of fuel
going to Sydney ...
Has anyone pointed this out to NASA !

denny

[Andrew Gideon]

Denny wrote:

> Has anyone pointed this out to NASA !

Why? Do you think they'll move the ISS to Sydney?

<Laugh>

- Andrew

[Wallace Berry]

In article . com>,
"Denny" > wrote:

> Really.... I didn't know that a 747 burns 4 million pounds of fuel
> going to Sydney ...
> Has anyone pointed this out to NASA !
>
> denny
>

Well, most of that 4 million pounds isn't fuel exactly. It's oxidizer
(liquid oxygen for the main engines and ammonium perchlorate for the
solid boosters) and, of course, the 747 gets it's oxidizer along the
way. Liquid hydrogen is very light stuff, so it is a relatively small
fraction of the weight. Also, what I was (not so clearly) referring to
was the theoretical minimum amount of energy it takes to put something
the size and weight of the shuttle into a nominal orbit.

--
Take out the airplane for reply

[Mike Weller]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:05:54 GMT, " Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>How about big gas balloons?
>

They're also called senior NASA managers.

Mike Weller

[Mike Weller]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:00:37 -0700, "John Larson" <None ...> wrote:

>And why would that make sense? It costs $1,000,000,000 to launch the garbage
>scow (yes, the secondary mission of the shuttle, after the failed test
>flight re. the parts falling off this model T, and the delivery of supplies
>that could have been done by the Russians with their unmanned vehicle) was
>to retrieve the 13 odd tons of garbage the useless space station has been
>collecting.
>
>It is so annoying to read the posts by you Buck Rogers wannabe's on this
>board. You are all so enthralled by the space program you can't see just how
>pointless and useless it is.

Don't you have the least inkling to want to fly to the other planets?

We have to start with basic physics.

Sadly, though, there are no new avenues to that other than pure brain
power, which is NASA's best attribute.

Mike Weller

[John Larson]

Never liked to read science fiction, and never wanted to fly to other
planets. Have all the fun I can find flying this one.

I just think there are better uses for our tax dollars than shooting humans
into space for fun.


"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
news:1122949349.642e06b1d94d9aef3b083b7f79065faa@o nlynews...
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:00:37 -0700, "John Larson" <None ...> wrote:
>
>>And why would that make sense? It costs $1,000,000,000 to launch the
>>garbage
>>scow (yes, the secondary mission of the shuttle, after the failed test
>>flight re. the parts falling off this model T, and the delivery of
>>supplies
>>that could have been done by the Russians with their unmanned vehicle) was
>>to retrieve the 13 odd tons of garbage the useless space station has been
>>collecting.
>>
>>It is so annoying to read the posts by you Buck Rogers wannabe's on this
>>board. You are all so enthralled by the space program you can't see just
>>how
>>pointless and useless it is.
>
> Don't you have the least inkling to want to fly to the other planets?
>
> We have to start with basic physics.
>
> Sadly, though, there are no new avenues to that other than pure brain
> power, which is NASA's best attribute.
>
> Mike Weller
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:28:54 -0500, Mike Weller
> wrote in
<1122949349.642e06b1d94d9aef3b083b7f79065faa@onlyne ws>::

>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:00:37 -0700, "John Larson" <None ...> wrote:
>>
>>It is so annoying to read the posts by you Buck Rogers wannabe's on this
>>board. You are all so enthralled by the space program you can't see just how
>>pointless and useless it is.
>
>Don't you have the least inkling to want to fly to the other planets?

The paltry amount of funding for the US space program, a constructive
endeavor, in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars squandered
annually on useless war, a destructive action, is moot testament to
our nation's reprehensible lack of foresight and the ravenous appetite
of those currently in power for plundering the coffers of the US
Treasury. So while the space shuttle program has become a somewhat
regular and repetitious assertion of man's noble intent to continue to
explore the frontiers of his environment in search of the riches he
may find there, the state of war entreats emergency funding, and at
times extra-constitutional power, that provides an opportunity for
increasing the wealth of those in power and oppressing the populous.