 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / January 2006Aren't we coming up to the 20th anniversary of the space shuttle Challenger 'tragedy'?
We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they were sacrificed to the gods. NASA knew it was not safe to send that spacecraft up due to the probable breach of the o-rings in the extremely cold weather. But they did it anyway. But Ken and I have to admit...it was a very, very good EXPLOSION! We have quite a few pictures of it on the walls of our house. 1) to demonize Ronald Reagan and 2) because they are pretty, after all. It's just too bad we couldn't be having another cold weather shuttle mission this winter like the ill-fated Challenger and Columbia had. It might well have made the trifecta. And, as far as anyone having any questions about "why was this posted to MY group", don't you be worrying about it. You ALL have been discussing Challenger lately, so it is fair game. Don't shoot the messengers. Kathy (with Ken mixing up some 'mind erasers' in the kitchen just now) kathy_and_or_...@yahoo.com wrote: > We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space > shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Kathy Thanks for the reminder. Time to warm up the tasteless jokes from the day: What does NASA stand for? -Need Another Seven Astronuats! Did you know Pepsi is the Official Soda of NASA? -They couldn't get Seven-Up! What were the last words of the flight crew? -"I wanted a Bud Light!" -"What does this button do?" Did you know the Shuttle crew had dandruff? -Their Head and Shoulders were washed up on the beach! > (with Ken mixing up some 'mind erasers' in the kitchen just now) > kathy_and_or_...@yahoo.com wrote: >> We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Did you know the Shuttle crew had dandruff? > -Their Head and Shoulders were washed up on the beach! My favorite one was What was Christa McAullifs husbands last words to her? I'll feed the kids you feed the fish. http://lovedmyteacher.ytmnd.com/ > And, as far as anyone having any questions about "why was this posted > to MY group", don't you be worrying about it. You ALL have been > discussing Challenger lately, so it is fair game. Don't shoot the > messengers. > > Kathy Oh, I expect we're all going to get some wonderfully erudite and intelligent answers from rec.sport.pro-wrestling and rec.music.gdead. :-/ Please. Cross-posting to this many groups is putting you on a direct path towards many killfiles.  SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH Read my moniker, Herb. Doesn't bother me. > > And, as far as anyone having any questions about "why was this posted > > to MY group", don't you be worrying about it. You ALL have been [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Please. Cross-posting to this many groups is putting you on a direct > path towards many killfiles. I look to a day when people will not be judged by the newsgroup they subscribe to, but by the content of their character. > Read my moniker, Herb. Doesn't bother me. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Please. Cross-posting to this many groups is putting you on a direct >> path towards many killfiles. >I look to a day when people will not be judged by the newsgroup they >subscribe to, but by the content of their character. I, OTOH, am happy to oblidge! 1/2* troll. PN3ED (or whatever). PKB. I got two words for ya... SUCK IT! And that's the bottom line... If ya smelllllllllalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaah... what the Rock... is cookin'! LG (top postin' BAH GAWD RSPWer) Signature"The United States is like a giant boiler. When the fire is finally lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." - Winston Churchill >> Read my moniker, Herb. Doesn't bother me. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> Please. Cross-posting to this many groups is putting you on a direct >>> path towards many killfiles. Kenny and I are thinking you wouldn't mind taking some of the Rock's rock...if you know what we mean jellybean..... Kathy ******************************************************************************************************** Bill Becker" <b...@rmisp.com> wrote in message news:42oe24F1jm9q1U1@individual.net... >I look to a day when people will not be judged by the newsgroup they >subscribe to, but by the content of their character. I, OTOH, am happy to oblidge! 1/2* troll. PN3ED (or whatever). PKB. I got two words for ya... SUCK IT! And that's the bottom line... If ya smelllllllllalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaah... what the Rock... is cookin'! LG (top postin' BAH GAWD RSPWer) -- "The United States is like a giant boiler. When the fire is finally lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." - Winston Churchill - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > I look to a day when people will not be judged by the newsgroup they > subscribe to, but by the content of their character. why do you hate Affirmative Posting Action so much? > > And, as far as anyone having any questions about "why was this > > posted to MY group", don't you be worrying about it. You ALL [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > intelligent answers from rec.sport.pro-wrestling and rec.music.gdead. > :-/ You are suggesting that your group is somehow more erudite and intelligent than rec.music.gdead? At least *we* have the good sense not to propagate crossposted garbage to our own newsgroup. Good luck with the whole "self-congratulatory elitist jerk" thing. SignatureThe Iron Muffin DEAD FREAKS UNITE Who are you? Where are you? How are you? Ken says you are a pussy Herb. Kathy (with Ken working me over with a full frontal massage just now) ***************************************************************************************************** On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:42:00 -0600, kathy_and_or_...@yahoo.com wrote (in article <1137112920.426201.17...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>): > And, as far as anyone having any questions about "why was this posted > to MY group", don't you be worrying about it. You ALL have been > discussing Challenger lately, so it is fair game. Don't shoot the > messengers. > Kathy Oh, I expect we're all going to get some wonderfully erudite and intelligent answers from rec.sport.pro-wrestling and rec.music.gdead. :-/ Please. Cross-posting to this many groups is putting you on a direct path towards many killfiles. SignatureHerb >> And, as far as anyone having any questions about "why was this posted >> to MY group", don't you be worrying about it. You ALL have been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh, I expect we're all going to get some wonderfully erudite and > intelligent answers from rec.sport.pro-wrestling and rec.music.gdead. Hey Herb, Why don't you take your preconceptions and prejudices and stick them up your a.s? Scot > Hey Herb, > > Why don't you take your preconceptions and prejudices and stick them up your > a.s? > > Scot I rest my case. SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH >> Hey Herb, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I rest my case. And exactly what "erudite and intelligent answers" have you contributed to this thread other than to besmerch people from newsgroups that you feel are beneath you? I stand by my comments. BTW, this particular Deadhead will put his knowledge of the US space program, and FTM the Soviet/Russian Space programs against anyones. Whether it be hardware, history, policy or whatever. I have spent most of my life being a "space geek" Don't be so quick to make assumptions about people, you might end up being the one looking like an ignoramus. Scot >> I rest my case. > > And exactly what "erudite and intelligent answers" have you contributed to > this thread My comments on STS-51L are already stored in Google's archives. Look them up. > other than to besmerch people from newsgroups that you feel are > beneath you? Where exactly did I say people from other newsgroups are beneath me? You're raising a nice fluffy strawman. What I implied is that said groups are way off-topic for the questions raised. If you want an off-topic discussion in your own favored group, fine. Cross-posting is poor form and more than not a sign of trolling. > I stand by my comments. BTW, this particular Deadhead will put > his knowledge of the US space program, and FTM the Soviet/Russian Space > programs against anyones. Whether it be hardware, history, policy or > whatever. I have spent most of my life being a "space geek" Then you should be spending time reading the sci.space.* newsgroups and not cross-posting to places that have no relevance to the topic at hand. Basic netiquette. Off-topic cross-posting is a good way to get yourself labeled as a loon and ultimately killfiled. > Don't be so quick to make assumptions about people, you might end up being > the one looking like an ignoramus. You're the one guilty of the faulty assumptions in this case. > Scot SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH >>> I rest my case. >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >> Scot Thanks for the lesson in "nettiquite" but I was responding to YOUR crossposted message. Perhaps you should try your own advice? Scot > Thanks for the lesson in "nettiquite" Here's another one: trim your quotes. > but I was responding to YOUR > crossposted message. Which was, itself, responding to a cross-posted original. Please do try to keep up. > Perhaps you should try your own advice? And I'll note *you're* continuing to cross-post as well. > Scot SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH >> Thanks for the lesson in "nettiquite" > > Here's another one: trim your quotes. Thanks Dad, I'll try to do better from now on........... >> but I was responding to YOUR >> crossposted message. > > Which was, itself, responding to a cross-posted original. Please do > try to keep up. I didn't post the original message, I merely responded to your originally crossposted message. If you think crossposting is bad form, why did you crosspost? It seems odd that you think it is so offensive, yet are chastising me for behavior which you are guilty of. Not too mention pretty hypocritical to boot. BTW, If you had only posted your original smartassed response to the group which you participate in, I would have never seen it in the first place. Your logic leaves a lot to be desired. If you are going to be critical of the behavior of others, perhaps you should make sure that you aren't guilty of it yourself? Unless you enjoy making an a.s of yourself. >> Perhaps you should try your own advice? > > And I'll note *you're* continuing to cross-post as well. I don't care, you are the one with your panties in a bunch about it. >> Scot This is my last word on the subject. <Sarcasm> You're a real f.cking rocket scientist, aren't you? <Sarcasm/> Scot > >> I rest my case. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Where exactly did I say people from other newsgroups are beneath me? You said, "Oh, I expect we're all going to get some wonderfully erudite and intelligent answers from rec.sport.pro-wrestling and rec.music.gdead." You followed it up with one of those punctuation faces indicating sarcasm. Assuming you knew what you were typing, your sarcastic response indicates you didn't really believe any subsribers to those newsgroups would be providing erudite or intelligent answers. Further, since your use of sarcasm was unprovoked and condescending (and therefore not defensive - although your use of "we're all" to try to ingratiate yourself with a group indicates a certain insecurity), you were impliedly asserting you are erudite and intelligent yourself and subscribers to rec.music.gdead and rec.sport.pro-wrestling are not. It follows that you believe you are superior to those subscribers. Thus, you believe they are beneath you. Hope this helps, Herb. Let me know if you need any help understanding anything else you may write. John H., (snipped more horse feces) > Hope this helps, Herb. Let me know if you need any help understanding > anything else you may write. > > John H., Again, I rest my case. SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH > (snipped more horse feces) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Again, I rest my case. Hey Herb, The saying "Never try to teach a pig to speak, you only frustrate yourself and annoy the pig" was obviously patterned after you. HTH, Scot BTW, it is pretty obvious that you are no where near as smart as you think you are. > Hey Herb, (snip) Keep it up. You prove my assertion with each post. SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH > > Hey Herb, > > (snip) > > Keep it up. You prove my assertion with each post. Hey Herb, welcome to RMGD. Several of us have been reading your posts with interest and have a quick question for you: What are you wearing right about now? Mark > > Hey Herb, > > (snip) > > Keep it up. You prove my assertion with each post. Darn it Herb, you're making my head spin here. You posted: "Where exactly did I say people from other newsgroups are beneath me? You're raising a nice fluffy strawman. What I implied is that said groups are way off-topic for the questions raised." But Herb, now you seem to be saying that the things we rmgd'rs are posting prove some assertion you were making. What assertion are we proving, Herb? I know it can't be that we're not erudite or intelligent because you told us you never said that. And the Herb Schaltegger I know would never tell a lie, so what assertion are you talking about? John H. (snipped more fecal matter) And with that, folks, we bid this thread a fond farewell! Stay tuned for even MORE off-topic nonsense from a wide variety of inappropriate groups covering a huge swath of interest. Good night everyone! *fade to waving American flags, with "Star Spangled Banner" playing* *test pattern* SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH > (snipped more fecal matter) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > *fade to waving American flags, with "Star Spangled Banner" playing* Hey Herb, As I pointed out before, you're a real rocket scientist, aren't you? I love bomb throwers like you who are too proud (or stupid) to fess up when they screw up. You insulted us, when we called you on it, you act like we are the ones who started it One more time, just for clairitys sake, thr first crossposted shot across our bow was fired by you. Let me refresh your memory, you posted "Oh, I expect we're all going to get some wonderfully erudite and intelligent answers from rec.sport.pro-wrestling and rec.music.gdead. :-/" That was your post, wasn't it? Crossposted to rec.music.gdead? and rec.sport.pro-wrestling? I then told you exactly what to do with your preconceptions and prejudices, to which you replied "I rest my case" And since then your response to every person who has called you on your arrogance has been "See, I rest my case" So far the only case that you have proved is that you are arrogant and illogical. You definitely don't come off as erudite or intelligent, especially since you seem to be a member of a group that is interested in science and technology HTH, Scot PS Killfiles are for pussies Also sprach "volkfolk" <volkfolk@comcast.net>: > So far the only case that you have proved is that you are arrogant and > illogical. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ Hey Scot, You misspelled "a complete jackass." HTH :-) > Also sprach "volkfolk" <volkfolk@comcast.net>: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > HTH :-) Thanks Kelly. It always helps to have a good proof reader. :^) Scot > Kelly wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > HTH :-) Kelly, your really need to take it easy on poor Herb. His priggishness is quite understandable. Look at what he's married to: http://www.angryherb.net/misc/AmyCouch.jpg I'd be angry too...... Peace, Neil X. >> Kelly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Peace, > Neil X. I don't know, she looks kind of fun in "Quincy Dominatrix" sort of way http://news.yahoo.com/s/wcvb/20060117/lo_wcvb/3198115 Scot > >> Kelly wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/wcvb/20060117/lo_wcvb/3198115 Um, guys? I don't think that's *Mrs.* Herb at all ... at least now we know what he's wearing. John H. >> >> Kelly wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > John H. *heh* Scot >>> >> Kelly wrote: >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Scot Wow! Reading that thread was almost as good as watching pro wrestling. Next time start hitting each other with folding chairs and I'll be in heaven man. > >>> >> Kelly wrote: > >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Wow! Reading that thread was almost as good as watching pro wrestling. Next > time start hitting each other with folding chairs and I'll be in heaven man. Well, when some loud braggart tries to put me down, and says his newsgroup is great, I tell him right away, "Now what's the matter buddy, ain't you heard of my newsgroup? It's number one in the state." It's all about being true to your newsgroup, just like you would to your girl or guy. John You are just another dick suckin' gov'mint shill Herb...... Get the cat-o-nine-tails ready, Ken, but this time i will be holding him while you do the honours............ kathy ************************************************************************************************** On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:39:01 -0600, Stuknot wrote (in article <1137620341.497502.312...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>): (snipped more fecal matter) And with that, folks, we bid this thread a fond farewell! Stay tuned for even MORE off-topic nonsense from a wide variety of inappropriate groups covering a huge swath of interest. Good night everyone! *fade to waving American flags, with "Star Spangled Banner" playing* *test pattern* SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH > We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space > shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in > the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they > were sacrificed to the gods. The Gipper, iirc, wanted to be able to give his State Of The Union Address, point up into the sky and comment on how at that very moment, a courageous American schoolteacher was exploring the Final Frontier, etc... sort of like Kruschev at the UN after Vostok I, except without the shoe-banging. A lot of the bad decisions, incidents and crew losses early in the Soviet program were due to things like Kruschev wanting another bigger, better spaceflight "first". Of course, by this time, the "race" was long since over, unless you want to count the Gipper's desire to one-up the Soviets' Mir station with what was then called "Space Station Freedom", which later morphed into the current day orbiting science fair called the International Space Station. I've always been more excited by manned missions, except ISS is going nowhere except around in circles, and I think that if I go to the ISS Web site and see one more goddamn' photo of an astronaut excercising on the zero-g stationary bicycle, I'm going to scream. Meanwhile, on Mars and at Saturn, the robots are having all the fun. > NASA knew it was not safe to send that spacecraft up due to the > probable breach of the o-rings in the extremely cold weather. But they > did it anyway. See previous paragraph. The NASA "safety culture" had seriously deteriorated since the end of Apollo/Skylab, and the program was under increasing pressure to deliver on the promise of the "space truck" made at the beginning of the program. In fact, the "safety culture" remained pretty much moribund _after_ Challenger. The program managers were reminded by the Rogers Commission that if drastic improvement in the safety culture weren't forthcoming, something like this would happen again which, of course, it did (Columbia). It's also important to remember that when you consider everything leading up to what happened, you can't really call it an "accident" any more than what you saw in the sky was really an "explosion". A tragedy for sure, no matter _how_ you look at it -- an "incident", a "disaster", not an "accident". Same deal with Columbia: A high-speed bird strike on the way up, taking out a divot in the heat sheild tiles = accident; a chunk of misapplied fuel tank insulation breaking loose during launch, striking the heat shield tiles at several hundred mph and bashing a hole = no friggin' accident. > But Ken and I have to admit...it was a very, very good EXPLOSION! We > have quite a few pictures of it on the walls of our house. 1) to > demonize Ronald Reagan and 2) because they are pretty, after all. Perversely beautiful it was, in the same manner as a nuclear detonation, but I want to point out here that what happened was not technically an explosion, but a fireball. The O-Ring gave out, the solid booster pivoted on its mount, hit the main tank and broke it open, igniting the fuel inside; still, if you watch the films and video carefully, you'll see that the Orbiter came through in a group of major pieces, including the crew module, which stayed intact until impact with the Atlantic. Actually, it was more like aerodynamic stress pulling the vehicle apart as it suddenly found itself moving far past the speed of sound in the entirely wrong attitude. A true explosion would've likely given you more and smaller fragments. For more and better details on this, visit sci.space.history and look up a noted NASA policy analyst and space history writer -- specialized in the Soviet program, wrote the classic "Red Star In Orbit" -- by the name of Jim Oberg. Signature. "Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few: Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!" --grateful dead. _______________________________________________________________ Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org "Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org Somebody made this up for the delight of the weak-minded, and they keep repeating it as if repetition were the soul of authenticity. I have another clipping where Reagan was blamed for the Mt. St. Helens blast -- apparently he had allowed excessive forest clear cutting so the roots that intertwined to hold down the soil had weakened, allowing the magma to burst forth. I'm not making this up. >> We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space >> shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in the Soviet program were due to things like Kruschev wanting another > bigger, better spaceflight "first". People!! Listen up, there are very things happening in the world. Should we be worried, afraid, taking precautions?! I'll report. You decide. There's only so much I can say because well, I think my house is bugged. Terminex couldn't find anything suspicious yesterday, but I know how smart THEY can be. Hmmm. Here's a good link that I hope all of you will read carefully, very carefully~~ http://members.tripod.com/mking60/conspiracies.htm The shuttle blew up on January 28, 1986. The only reason I can remember the date is because it was my sister's birthday and I got a new car that night; my 1986 Renault Alliance. Ahh, the disposable commuter car, which only lasted three years before I totalled it, on purpose, according to the ex. That is one of the reasons why he is now an ex-husband. Theresa > Somebody made this up for the delight of the weak-minded, > and they keep repeating it as if repetition were the soul of authenticity... Hence, the iirc. I remember at the time not giving a whole lot of thought to the SOTU speech other than the fact that it was coming up soon. > I have another clipping where Reagan was blamed for the Mt. St. Helens > blast -- apparently he had allowed excessive forest clear cutting so the > roots > that intertwined to hold down the soil had weakened, allowing the magma to > burst forth. Well-lll...the Gip' may not have been directly, personally responsible -- that is, he didn't sit there in a director's chair or something and yell out, "OK, fellas, let 'er blow!" -- but there is responsibility in the form of having enabled bad policy. Not being a vulcanologist or geologist, I couldn't really tell you if old growth closer to the edge of the cone would've kept much lava from advancing or not. Signature. "Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few: Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!" --grateful dead. _______________________________________________________________ Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org "Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org >> I have another clipping where Reagan was blamed for the Mt. St. Helens >> blast -- apparently he had allowed excessive forest clear cutting so the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > out, "OK, fellas, let 'er blow!" -- but there is responsibility in the > form of having enabled bad policy. Yeah, but have you compared lately the date of the eruption and the date Reagan became president? [grin] >Somebody made this up for the delight of the weak-minded, >and they keep repeating it as if repetition were the soul of authenticity. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I'm not making this up. Seriously? They certainly are divorced from both reality, and the calendar. (Reagan wasn't President when St. Helens blew). >>Somebody made this up for the delight of the weak-minded, >>and they keep repeating it as if repetition were the soul of authenticity. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Seriously? They certainly are divorced from both reality, and the > calendar. (Reagan wasn't President when St. Helens blew). Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. Scot > And, as far as anyone having any questions about "why was this posted > to MY group", don't you be worrying about it. You ALL have been > discussing Challenger lately, so it is fair game. Don't shoot the > messengers. > > Kathy You're just another pointless spammer. <plonk> > We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space > shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in > the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they > were sacrificed to the gods.\ How do you figure? The "Space Race" was over in July of 1969. The proof of this is that NASA's budget was slashed dramaticly in the months following the return of Apollo 11. At least three lunar landings were completely scrapped (Apollos 18, 19 and 20) The Space Shuttle was a very poor investment, especially considering the fact that we had bought and paid for the tooling and manufacturing for the most powerful snd reliable launch vehicle ever built (The Saturn V) > NASA knew it was not safe to send that spacecraft up due to the > probable breach of the o-rings in the extremely cold weather. But they > did it anyway. Yup, NASA (and Morton Thiokol, the prime contractor for the SRB's) definitely f.cked up. But Reagan had little or nothing to do with the decision to launch. Reagan had little or no interest in NASA from what I recall. There are plenty of things that you can give Reagan crap for, but the Challenger accident isn't on the list The blame lies squarely in the lap of NASA. > But Ken and I have to admit...it was a very, very good EXPLOSION! We > have quite a few pictures of it on the walls of our house. 1) to > demonize Ronald Reagan and 2) because they are pretty, after all. So not only are you morons, you are also ghouls. Nice. > It's just too bad we couldn't be having another cold weather shuttle > mission this winter like the ill-fated Challenger and Columbia had. It > might well have made the trifecta. I guess we need to add a.sholes to the list as well. > And, as far as anyone having any questions about "why was this posted > to MY group", don't you be worrying about it. You ALL have been > discussing Challenger lately, so it is fair game. Don't shoot the > messengers. You posted it because you are trolls. But at least good trolls have their facts straight. You are obviously just a moronic stoner. Scot PS sorry for feeding the troll and sorry for the cross post. >> We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space >> shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the return of Apollo 11. At least three lunar landings were completely >scrapped (Apollos 18, 19 and 20) For a self proclaimed 'space geek' - you sure don't know much. The *first* dramatic slashing (and the cancellation of two of the flights you mention) came in 1967 - before Apollo had even flown. The post -11 cutbacks were modest compared to those. >The Space Shuttle was a very poor investment, especially considering the >fact that we had bought and paid for the tooling and manufacturing for >the most powerful snd reliable launch vehicle ever built (The Saturn V) For a self proclaimed 'space geek' - you sure don't know much. The Saturn V had significant problems on almost half it's flights. (And there were not enough flights in the first place to make a statistically valid claim of reliability.) In addition, it was hideously expensive by any measurement - no matter how much it impresses the phallic oriented. >You posted it because you are trolls. But at least good trolls have their >facts straight. You are obviously just a moronic stoner. Pot meet Kettle. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>> We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space >>> shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you mention) came in 1967 - before Apollo had even flown. The post > -11 cutbacks were modest compared to those. My understanding is that 18, 19 and 20 were canceled by the Nixon Administration in early 1970. Here is a link to one site I am aware of that backs up my assertion http://www.retroweb.com/apollo_retrospective.html This timeline had been altered slightly even before the Apollo 13 mission, when in January, 1970, Apollo 20 was cancelled in order to reserve the last production Saturn V for use in launching the planned Skylab orbiting laboratory a few years later. This change shifted the planned Apollo 18 and 19 lunar missions to 1974 to follow Skylab, but further budget-cutting in late 1970 also resulted in the cancellation of Apollo 18 and 19. If you have information that contridicts this, please post it along with whatever links maybe appropriate. (otherwise STFU) >>The Space Shuttle was a very poor investment, especially considering the >>fact that we had bought and paid for the tooling and manufacturing for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hideously expensive by any measurement - no matter how much it > impresses the phallic oriented. Be specific. What problems are you refering to? The lightining strike during the launch of Apollo 12? The "Pogo" effect on the Apollo 6 launch? The premature shutdown of the center J-2 engine on the second stage on Apollo 13? Granted, thirteen launches doesn't provide much basis for statistical analysis, but other than the problems which I just mentioned, I don't know of any other issues with the Saturn V. Certainly the Launch Escape System provided the Apollo crew with a much better opportunity for survival than the Shuttle does in the event of a catastrophic failure during launch. So far as the hideous expense, which was more expensive, the Saturn V or the Space Shuttle? The Space Shuttle has never lived up to expectations, has commited all of our manned flights to low earth orbit, and is incredibly labor intensive to keep flying. Not too mention the fact that two out of five vehicles in the fleet have killed a total of fourteen astronauts in catastrophic failures. Certainly the original launch schedule that was envisioned for the Shuttle was worthy of an episode of Fantasy Island. The Apollo Hardware was far more versatile, and would have allowed us to launch a lot more meaninful missions. There were plans to place a Skylab in Geo Synchronous. That would have happened a good ten years before Hubble was launched. For that matter we could have saved Skylab, and had the basis for a permamently manned space station, 25 years before the ISS. Not to mention that we could have easily had a permanent base on the moon by now. All with flight tested hardware. So which program was more expensive again? If it had been my decision, I would have stayed with the Apollo/Saturn V/Saturn IB/Skylab hardware, rather than retool and start from scratch with a completely unproven vehicle IMO the Space Shuttle looked great on paper, but never worked as advertised. The irony is that now the crew of the ISS is reliant on a 40 year old spacecraft and a 55 year old launch vehicle-made in Russia. And no matter exactly when specific Apollo flights were cancelled, the Nixon Administration is responsible for having the Space Shuttle be the United State's primary launch vehicle. Which was short sighted at best, and has created some real issues for NASA flight planners, and Administrators IMO YMMV, Scot >>>> We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space >>>> shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >If you have information that contridicts this, please post it along with >whatever links maybe appropriate. (otherwise STFU) Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books. That website relates NASA's plans on what they hoped would happen - not what actually happened. Even though Saturn V production has been canceled in 1967 and budget money routinely denied for Apollo's 18-20, they continued to delude themselves that this was of a temporary nature and the near blank checks would shortly return. In some ways NASA still operates under that delusion. >>>The Space Shuttle was a very poor investment, especially considering the >>>fact that we had bought and paid for the tooling and manufacturing for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >provided the Apollo crew with a much better opportunity for survival than >the Shuttle does in the event of a catastrophic failure during launch. ROTFLMAO. Virtually *every* flight prior to 14 had Pogo problems. >So far as the hideous expense, which was more expensive, the Saturn V or the >Space Shuttle? It really doesn't matter - what does matter is that neither was/is cheap enough to support sustained operations. >The Space Shuttle has never lived up to expectations, has >commited all of our manned flights to low earth orbit, and is incredibly >labor intensive to keep flying. Not too mention the fact that two out of >five vehicles in the fleet have killed a total of fourteen astronauts in >catastrophic failures. Certainly the original launch schedule that was >envisioned for the Shuttle was worthy of an episode of Fantasy Island. So what? You think that the Saturn V/IB and Apollo CSM combo wouldn't have racked up a similar record had it flown a similar number of times? In 13 launches in killed one crew (Apollo 1) and tried to kill three others (12, 13, ASTP). Not to mention at least two flights that should have been aborted (14 - docking problems, and 17 - SPS problems) by the flight rules in place at that time. >The Apollo Hardware was far more versatile, and would have allowed us to >launch a lot more meaninful missions. The Apollo CSM was highly optimized for the lunar missions - which would cause problems in the Skylab era because it was too heavy for a LEO spacecraft. (In particular the heatshield was vastly overweight.) >There were plans to place a Skylab in Geo Synchronous. No, there were pie-in-the-sky fantasies - which like the rest of AAP, foundered quickly on the rocks of budgetary reality. There's a reason why Skylab B was never launched. >That would have happened a good ten years before Hubble was >launched. For that matter we could have saved Skylab, and had the basis for >a permamently manned space station, 25 years before the ISS. Only in an alternate fantasy world where Congress continued to provide a near blank check. >Not to mention that we could have easily had a permanent base on the moon >by now. All with flight tested hardware. Only in an alternate fantasy world where Congress continued to provide a near blank check. >If it had been my decision, I would have stayed with the Apollo/Saturn V/Saturn >IB/Skylab hardware, rather than retool and start from scratch with a >completely unproven vehicle I find that unlikely if you use the facts and suppositions in place *then* rather than 20/20 drooling fanboy hindsight. >And no matter exactly when specific Apollo flights were cancelled, the Nixon >Administration is responsible for having the Space Shuttle be the United >State's primary launch vehicle. Which was short sighted at best, and has >created some real issues for NASA flight planners, and Administrators IMO Proof positive that you are drooling fanboy with utterly f.ck-all knowledge about the evolution of the US space program. NASA started working on the Shuttle in the mid-60's. When asked by Congress what they wanted to do post Apollo, NASA (despite the budget cutbacks already in progress) responded with a plan for a Shuttle, Station, Moonbase, and Mars mission whose price tag made Apollo look like a bargain basement remnant. When that was tossed back in their face - NASA limited the program to the Shuttle as the only thing that could be salvaged from the disaster (politically speaking) they had got themselves mired in. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>>>> We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space >>>>> shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books. I have read plenty of them. Andrew Chaikin, Lovell,.Shepard, Borman, Collins to name only a few. > That website relates NASA's plans on what they hoped would happen - > not what actually happened. Well that's pretty much a statement of the obvious. since 19-20 never happened. But it also would seem to go against your claim that all of these flights were canceld prior to Nixon's election in 1968. Again how about some attribution to back up your claim, be it a book or a web link > Even though Saturn V production has been > canceled in 1967 and budget money routinely denied for Apollo's 18-20, > they continued to delude themselves that this was of a temporary > nature and the near blank checks would shortly return. >>>>The Space Shuttle was a very poor investment, especially considering the >>>>fact that we had bought and paid for the tooling and manufacturing for [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > ROTFLMAO. Virtually *every* flight prior to 14 had Pogo problems. How about some attribution? Either a weblink, or a Book? >>So far as the hideous expense, which was more expensive, the Saturn V or >>the >>Space Shuttle? > > It really doesn't matter - what does matter is that neither was/is > cheap enough to support sustained operations. ROTFLMAO!!!!! Of course manned space flight is hideously expensive. So is the defense budget. World War II and FTM the War in Iraq were/are too. Having said that, NASA's budget is a miniscule part of the federal budget. If we had national leadership with long term vision, and the ability to sell an idea, we could probably double NASA's budget. NASA is an easy target but the reality is that it is small fraction of the budget. >>The Space Shuttle has never lived up to expectations, has >>commited all of our manned flights to low earth orbit, and is incredibly [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > should have been aborted (14 - docking problems, and 17 - SPS > problems) by the flight rules in place at that time. Actually Apollo flew 15 manned flights-and had zero fatalities. Not to mention at least six additional unmanned flights. The Apollo One fire was a "Block One" spacecraft that had some very signifigant design differences (no docking tunnel, hatch or probe, different electrical system, different main hatch)and occured during a "plugs out" test on the launch pad. The fire was a result of using pure oxygen at 15 psi with no way to dump the cabin pressure. In orbit the cabin pressure would have only been about 4-5 PSI. The fire would likely have not even been able to sustain itself in that environment. The fire was as much a result of recklessness as equipement failure. The Block I manned flights were never flown; All the manned flights were flown using Block II spacecraft. For all intents and purposes The Block I and Block II were different spacecraft. The Apollo 12 lightning strike was hardly the fault of the hardware, it was based on a bad "Go/No Go" decision by the launch team. It should have been obvious that launching in the weather conditions that they had that day presented the possibility that the entire vehicle would become a lightning rod. (Which is exactly what happened) Al Shepard, Stu Roosa and Edgar Mitchell were able to fix the problems with the probe and drogue, The problem only occurred during the Transpostion and Docking phase, and never recurred. I am not aware of ANY SPS problems during the Apollo 17 flight. How about a link to back up your claim about the Apollo 17 SPS problems? >>The Apollo Hardware was far more versatile, and would have allowed us to >>launch a lot more meaninful missions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > foundered quickly on the rocks of budgetary reality. There's a reason > why Skylab B was never launched. No sh.t Sherlock, that doesn't change the fact that there was serious talk about launching such a mission, Funding is why none of the missions I mentioned ever happened. >>That would have happened a good ten years before Hubble was >>launched. For that matter we could have saved Skylab, and had the basis [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Only in an alternate fantasy world where Congress continued to provide > a near blank check. Not if we had decided to stay with Apollo instead of killling the program in favor of a new program, >>Not to mention that we could have easily had a permanent base on the moon >>by now. All with flight tested hardware. > > Only in an alternate fantasy world where Congress continued to provide > a near blank check. Not if we had decided to stay with Apollo instead of killling the program in favor of a new program, The Shuttle has been at least as expensive as Apollo was. Hell,the spent close to $2 Billion dollars in safety "improvements" after the Columbia disaster. >>If it had been my decision, I would have stayed with the Apollo/Saturn >>V/Saturn [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I find that unlikely if you use the facts and suppositions in place > *then* rather than 20/20 drooling fanboy hindsight. Actually I felt that way then too. I was never much of a fan of the Shuttle, because it killed any US manned spaceflight for six years and had no where to go until we started going to Mir in the mid 90's and then started building the ISS. >>And no matter exactly when specific Apollo flights were cancelled, the >>Nixon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Proof positive that you are drooling fanboy with utterly f.ck-all > knowledge about the evolution of the US space program. I haven't seen much evidence that you know what the f.ck you are talking about either. You have made several claims that border on being seriously erronious (the number of actual manned flights being the most glaring) and have provided not one link or attribution to back up your assertions regarding specific problems on specific flights. Nizon was the one who killed Apollo. > NASA started working on the Shuttle in the mid-60's. When asked by > Congress what they wanted to do post Apollo, NASA (despite the budget [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could be salvaged from the disaster (politically speaking) they had > got themselves mired in. There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air Force DynaSoar and X-20 projects. There have always been guys who draw "artist conceptions" of idealised flight hardware, starting with Von Braun's collaboration with Walt Disney right on through today with CG graphics of possible missions to Mar's on the Discovery Channel. Ther was no serious work done on the shuttle untill after the cancelation of the last Apollo flights by the Nizon Administration. If you have a link that says differently, post it or STFU > -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. > Oct 5th, 2004 JDL Not doing a very good job, are you? Scot >> Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books. > >I have read plenty of them. Andrew Chaikin, Lovell,.Shepard, >Borman, Collins to name only a few. You name all the books I'd expect a drooling fanboy to list - I.E. all books about the Apollo era, which isn't under discussion, and none about AAP and the Shuttle, which is. >Nizon was the one who killed Apollo. Only in the drug addled fantasy world you inhabit. >There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle >configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >flights by the Nizon Administration. If you have a link that says >differently, post it or STFU Try reading Jenkins. Be warned though, it's serious history - not the lightweight stuff you list above. >> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. >> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > >Not doing a very good job, are you? My restraint does not apply to idiot trolls. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>> Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > books about the Apollo era, which isn't under discussion, and none > about AAP and the Shuttle, which is. How about trying to read for comprehension? My original point was that the Shuttle never lived up to it's promise that it would be a cheap, reliable way of putting men and big payloads into orbit. It has been neither. We would have been far better off to continue using the Saturn/Apollo hardware, The Russian's continue to use Soyuz, and it looks quite likely that if we don't get our sh.t together, we will be using Soyuz too. The ultimate irony is that almost 40 years after this country that first put a man on the moon our only means of putting men into orbit will be using the Space craft that the competition used. I have read about the shuttle to. I >>Nizon was the one who killed Apollo. > Only in the drug addled fantasy world you inhabit. Ok Smart guy, who did kill Apollo? The Johnson Administration? According to what I have read the, Nixon adminstration decided to cancel what ever funding Apollo had left. The tooling was still in place in 1970, there were still several launch vehicles yet to be delivered at that time. While the funding might have been in question, it would have still been possible restart the program. >>There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle >>configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Try reading Jenkins. Be warned though, it's serious history - not the > lightweight stuff you list above. Autobiographies by people who were part of the program aren't real history? They are lightweight stuff? I am sure that Jim Lovell, Mike Collins, Frank Borman and others who were actually there would be surprised to hear that their experiences aren't "real history" Here are several other books that I have read on the subject "Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race for the Moon" by Mike Gray http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014023280X/104-0408417-1696731?v=glance&n=283155 'Chariots for Apollo' by Charles R. Pellegrino and Joshua Stoff http://www.cnn.com/books/reviews/9911/26/chariots/ I suppose that neither one of these count as "real history" in your opinion either? -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. >>> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >> >>Not doing a very good job, are you? > > My restraint does not apply to idiot trolls. How am I a troll? True, I did respond to a cross posted troll, but I don't see how anything I have posted to you counts as a troll. I have tried to be polite to you ( a courtesy that you seem to be unwilling to extend to me) I suppose that I am a "fanboy" as you called me, but you have yet to articulate any position that I can see, other than to insult me and my knowledge. So smart guy, I maintain that we would have been better off sticking with the Apollo/Saturn hardware (which is the philosophy that the Russians followed staying with the Soyuz) instead of building the Space Shuttle, an incredibly maintaince intensive, fragile and expensive vehicle which limits manned spaceflight to low earth orbit.(not to mention offers the crew no real possibility of escape in the event of a catastrophic launch failure) Other than call me a fan boy, insult my knowledge of the Space Program and otherwise act like an arrogant, intellectually superior a.shole, you have yet to address my point. (That the Shuttle was a lousy investment vs staying with a program which already had the tooling and manufacturing in place and paid for) So instead of insulting me, how about arguing your position on it's merits vs using as hominems and bluster to make yourself feel superior. Scot > >>> Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books. > >> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > Scot *Being called a troll by the ghoulish and the arrogant is a *Badge of Honor*, Scot. You've mopped the floor with these maniacs! They'll never give you credit for a great argument. May the force be with you. ;-) Carrie "Space...the final frontier." >>>> Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >orbit. It has been neither. We would have been far better off to continue >using the Saturn/Apollo hardware, I've never been interested in debating that point. You however, insist on doing so. If you actually read for comprehension, you'll note I addressed a *different* point in the form of a claim you made about your knowledge. >I have read about the shuttle to. I > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >funding might have been in question, it would have still been possible >restart the program. Even with the tooling in place, the political and economic base for an ongoing series of space spectaculars had vanished. Nobody 'killed' Apollo. Again, well known to students of space issues, an anathema to the drooling fanboy. >>>There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle >>>configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Autobiographies by people who were part of the program aren't real history? Try reading for comprehension - I didn't say they weren't real history, I said they were lightweight history. There is a difference. (And I notice you fail to address the issue of Jenkins. A *very* significant omission when one is discussing the history of the Shuttle and wished to be taken seriously around these parts.) >They are lightweight stuff? I am sure that Jim Lovell, Mike Collins, Frank >Borman and others who were actually there would be surprised to hear that >their experiences aren't "real history" I am sure they would be too. I am equally sure that the being the intelligent and talented people they are that they would know the difference between autobiographies and serious technical and political works. >Here are several other books that I have read on the subject > >"Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race for the Moon" by Mike Gray > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014023280X/104-0408417-1696731?v=glance&n=283155 Well known as a self important piece of puffery with much sizzle but little steak. >'Chariots for Apollo' >by Charles R. Pellegrino >and Joshua Stoff > >http://www.cnn.com/books/reviews/9911/26/chariots/ Ditto. >I suppose that neither one of these count as "real history" in your opinion >either? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >articulate any position that I can see, other than to insult me and my >knowledge. I've given you multiple positions - ones well known to any scholar of space issues, but little known to the fanboys. You reply with a fanboy level of adulation and no understanding of the issues involved. *You* started by claiming to be a knowledgeable space geek, who would 'stack his knowledge against anyone'. I took you at your word and compared your knowledge to facts - you came off a poor second and insist on trying for third. >Other than call me a fan boy, insult my knowledge of the Space Program You lack the knowledge to insult. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL just to hop in on this part of the rant >>>> ..all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in >>>> the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they >>>> were sacrificed to the gods.\ yeah, they were sacrificed. so? no one held a pistol to their heads, all types of travel have fatalities. no one dropped out after this happened. I am working on (re?) creating the little joe. a lil single seater that might go into space. might. the first hundred flights are already taken. one of the things i try to explain to them is that they might die. One of the biggest things slowing me down is how I would tell these peoples partents is that their son or daughter died because i missed something in the updated design. I am still working on it. > just to hop in on this part of the rant > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > yeah, they were sacrificed. so? They weren't sacrificed. They were victims of a bad decision making process, but they all knew the risks. As did every astronaut and cosmonaut who has ever strapped themselves to the equivalent of a small nuclear weapon in order to launch themselves into space. Story Musgrave has said that the only part of space flight that made him nervous was the launch. > no one held a pistol to their heads, all types of travel have fatalities. > no one dropped out after this happened. He is 100% right you know. > I am working on (re?) creating the little joe. a lil single seater that > might go into space. might. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I am still working on it. Got a website? I'll go : ) Scot > > We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space > > shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the tooling and manufacturing for the most powerful snd reliable launch > vehicle ever built (The Saturn V) Naw....Ronald Reagan was still scared of the Russians. That demented man remained so until he finally lost his mind. And, as Pat Robertson would say, he must have done something wrong to deserve his 'tragic fate'. As we all have known for years, Ronald Reagan was an idiot. He was so stupid he wanted to make ketchup count as a vegetable in school kids luncheons. He dodged a bullet when someone tried to put him out of his misery. All the rest of his cheesin' life was gravy. > > NASA knew it was not safe to send that spacecraft up due to the > > probable breach of the o-rings in the extremely cold weather. But they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the Challenger accident isn't on the list The blame lies squarely in the > lap of NASA. Here is where you have it wrong warfrat. Thiokol raised the red flag to NASA that it was not safe to proceed. NASA went to Washington with that information. Ronald Reagan, being the coward, wimp and deluded nincompoop he was said something to the effect of 'the shuttle mission continues...the show must go on!'. And so it did. And yes.....someone's husband went home to feed the kids that night while mommy was busy feeding the fish. > > But Ken and I have to admit...it was a very, very good EXPLOSION! We > > have quite a few pictures of it on the walls of our house. 1) to > > demonize Ronald Reagan and 2) because they are pretty, after all. > > So not only are you morons, you are also ghouls. Nice. Yes...we LOVE explosions! I guess you always turn off the TV when all those shows with gore and murder come on? We LOVE the Challenger artwork on our wall...... a constant reminder of how those innocent astronauts were sacrificed up to God by the evil, satanic Ronald Reagan. Our space shuttle Columbia pictures are pretty nice too. But they are less numerous than the Challenger pictures. The evil, satanic government tried to squelch the public records from us, the US taxpayers who paid for the contract murders. But, the truth will out. It always has...and it always will. "Heaven's golden chorus sings.... As Hell's angels flap their wings....." - Black Sabbath > > It's just too bad we couldn't be having another cold weather shuttle > > mission this winter like the ill-fated Challenger and Columbia had. It [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You posted it because you are trolls. But at least good trolls have their > facts straight. You are obviously just a moronic stoner. You call us trolls because we have posted something that is counter to what you think Scot. But you are probably some government mook anyway. > Scot > > PS sorry for feeding the troll and sorry for the cross post. You deserve a spanking Scot. Ken, you hold him while i get out the cat-o-nine-tails! (mistress Sharon to the subdom) "The blonde didn't like it so much, now did she?" (the subdom to mistress Sharon) (smiling) "No....I guess she didn't mistress....." (mistress Sharon to the subdom) "Well, now it's your turn! Do you think you will like it as much as she did?" (the subdom to Mistress Sharon) (sigh) "Yes, mistress!" (the subdom to no one in particular) "Shshshshshshshshsh.............ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" Dresden Diary episode 3 > Here is where you have it wrong warfrat. Thiokol raised the red flag > to NASA that it was not safe to proceed. NASA went to Washington with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yes.....someone's husband went home to feed the kids that night while > mommy was busy feeding the fish. Except this never happened. NASA never went to Washington with the information. Reagan said no such thing. In a joint meeting that included Morton Thiokol management and NASA management they jointly made the decision to proceed. > You call us trolls because we have posted something that is counter to > what you think Scot. But you are probably some government mook anyway. No, you're called a troll for persistently posting stuff that has been shown time and time again to be wrong. > > You call us trolls because we have posted something that is > > counter to what you think Scot. No, he calls you trolls because you crosspost off-topic garbage to various newsgroups. HTH. > But you are probably some government mook anyway. ROTFL! I know Scot in person, and he's definitely not a government mook. SignatureThe Iron Muffin DEAD FREAKS UNITE Who are you? Where are you? How are you? > > > You call us trolls because we have posted something that is > > > counter to what you think Scot. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I know Scot in person, and he's definitely not a government mook. How well do you know him? Good enough to have sucked his cock in the back of that VW minibus? Kathy > -- > The Iron Muffin > > DEAD FREAKS UNITE > > Who are you? Kathy AND Ken > Where are you? Right here....spank! > > How are you? We are going to be asking you when we get done with youse. >> > > You call us trolls because we have posted something that is >> > > counter to what you think Scot. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Kathy There is only one cocksucker in this conversation and it ain't the IM. I heard through the grapevine that you were pretty good, so anytime you want a ride............. a.s, Gas or Grass, nobody rides for free Kathy Scot > kathy_and_or_ken@yahoo.com > > > kathy_and_or_ken@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > You call us trolls because we have posted something that > > > > > is counter to what you think Scot. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How well do you know him? Good enough to have sucked his > > cock in the back of that VW minibus? Nope, not nearly that well. Well enough to know that he's a hell of a guitar player, though. > There is only one cocksucker in this conversation and it ain't the > IM. I heard through the grapevine that you were pretty good, so > anytime you want a ride............. > > a.s, Gas or Grass, nobody rides for free Kathy Heh. SignatureThe Iron Muffin DEAD FREAKS UNITE Who are you? Where are you? How are you? >> kathy_and_or_ken@yahoo.com >> > > kathy_and_or_ken@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Nope, not nearly that well. Well enough to know that he's a hell of > a guitar player, though. Thanks man, I'm trying. You don't do too bad yourself. I have really been enjoying our get togethers at Scratchies. Now we just need a gig. . Scot > > > > > I know Scot in person, and he's definitely not a government > > > > > mook. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thanks man, I'm trying. You don't do too bad yourself. I have really > been enjoying our get togethers at Scratchies. Hell yeah. > Now we just need a gig. I think the logical next step is to record a demo. My friend in Boston says she wants to be our agent, but she needs a press kit and demo to pass out to the clubs, etc.. Also, we should look into getting some gigs in my area...it's a lot less competitive out here than it is in the city. Then again, there are way fewer clubs here. SignatureThe Iron Muffin DEAD FREAKS UNITE Who are you? Where are you? How are you? > > > > > > I know Scot in person, and he's definitely not a government > > > > > > mook. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Then > again, there are way fewer clubs here. You both have confirmed our suspicions. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...... Kathy (with Ken doing a shoulder massage to me, but 'missing high' sometimes. Ken!) > -- > The Iron Muffin [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How are you? > You both have confirmed our suspicions. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...... > > Kathy Kathy, You have watched "Brokeback Mountain" a few too many times. Besides I get off on playing guitar way more than I would from a bl.wj.b, no matter how good the bl.wj.b was. HTH Scot > (with Ken doing a shoulder massage to me, but 'missing high' sometimes. > Ken!) PS Are you Sean Baker's evil female alter ego? Rumor has it that Sean and Deb's are pretty pissed that you are stealing their schtick > > You both have confirmed our suspicions. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > off on playing guitar way more than I would from a bl.wj.b, no matter how > good the bl.wj.b was. Sounds like you starred in 'BrokeSphinter Mountain' with your mammy. And your daddy was the producer and loved all the takes. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Kathy! > HTH > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > PS Are you Sean Baker's evil female alter ego? Rumor has it that Sean and > Deb's are pretty pissed that you are stealing their schtick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.