 |
 | 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 / February 2007Astronaut wigging out in space?
Serious question: I'm sure they have some sort of a plan already put together should an astronaut totally wig out in space? Even with all the screening and training, I'm sure they have to think that there is a (very remote) possibility such a thing could happen to anyone up there by any number of unknown mental (or more likely, physical) reasons... Perhaps the plan is just "everyone grab him/her, hold 'em down, and tie 'em up", or do they have syringes that they could quickly inject someone with. (tranquilizer) ? > Serious question: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > up there by any number of unknown mental (or more likely, physical) > reasons... There have been persistent rumors over the years that at least one Salyut 7 had to be cut short due to psycological issues. > Perhaps the plan is just "everyone grab him/her, hold 'em down, and tie > 'em up", or do they have syringes that they could quickly inject someone > with. (tranquilizer) ? >> Serious question: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> 'em up", or do they have syringes that they could quickly inject someone >> with. (tranquilizer) ? I got to work with the Russians in 1993 when we were considering buying the Soyuz as the station "life boat". I heard it straight from one of their flight directors that they had to cut mission short because the astronauts lost touch with reality. Danny Deger >>> Serious question: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > flight directors that they had to cut mission short because the astronauts > lost touch with reality. Beyond that, Russian scientists have noted milder effects occurring even more commonly: Depression, neurosis, psychosomatic illness, etc.--all of which can impair the crew's ability to conduct a mission.  SignatureSteven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. >>>> Serious question: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > more commonly: Depression, neurosis, psychosomatic illness, etc.--all of > which can impair the crew's ability to conduct a mission. Yes. In my opinion the Russians take mental health more seriously than we do. Read the book "Dragon Fly". The Russians told us a perticular astronaut was not mentally OK to fly in their station. In training he was showing signs of not getting allong with his crew mates. We flew him anyway and he had MAJOR problems with his crew. This is a documented case of NASA not taking mental health seriously. Keep in mind the Russians had a LOT more experience with long stays by a crew in space. Danny Deger > Yes. In my opinion the Russians take mental health more seriously than we > do. Read the book "Dragon Fly". The Russians told us a perticular [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Danny Deger Mike Mullane wrote in his recent book that some of the early shuttle Payload Specialists gave their commanders a rough time. One pretty much went into a state of depression when his experiment didn't work in orbit. Another apparently kept asking the mission commander about the shuttle hatch to the point that it got the commander worried "why are you asking about the hatch so much?" and resulted in a recommendation that it be padlocked after the shuttle reaches orbit, with only the CDR's knowing the key. -A.L. Imagine a shuttle docked at station.... Crewmember loses it and somehow depressurives station / ISS No cabin air no control:( Now we have a large sectional vehicle stuck in a eventual declining orbit. Can progress reboost with shuttle attached? How long till average ISS orbit with draggy shuttle attached would re enter? I rather imagine structure would tumble and come apart distributing debris all around the globe:( Obviously a astronaut can lose it:( Screening must be poor once your on the team. > Yes. In my opinion the Russians take mental health more seriously than we > do. Read the book "Dragon Fly". The Russians told us a perticular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of NASA not taking mental health seriously. Keep in mind the Russians had > a LOT more experience with long stays by a crew in space. NASA ignored *a lot* of the advice of the Russians during the Shuttle-Mir program, not just advice related to mental health of its astronauts. Jeff Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) Op Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:28:05 -0500, schreef Jeff Findley: > NASA ignored *a lot* of the advice of the Russians during the Shuttle-Mir > program, not just advice related to mental health of its astronauts. Do tell. Could be interesting :) > Yes. In my opinion the Russians take mental health more seriously than we > do. Read the book "Dragon Fly". The Russians told us a perticular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of NASA not taking mental health seriously. Keep in mind the Russians had > a LOT more experience with long stays by a crew in space. that had nothing to do with "mental health", just basic personality type. Jerry Linenger was the MS in question, adn the Russians kept warning NASA that he was too much of a "loner" to function well in an extended-duration mission. And they were right, and he basically withdrew into his shell. N.b. he wasn't "depressed", he didn't stop functioning, but he just kept to himself all the time and didn't rely on all the support staff groundside to help him with his mission objectives. Kind of like the basic rule for Survivor: if you don't like being around people 24/7...don't send in an application in the first place. SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." - Elbert Hubbard >> Yes. In my opinion the Russians take mental health more seriously than >> we do. Read the book "Dragon Fly". The Russians told us a perticular [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that he was too much of a "loner" to function well in an extended-duration > mission. And they were right, and he basically withdrew into his shell. I agree. Mental health is not the right term. Danny Deger This exact thing happened to William Shatner on at least two occaisions. In Star Trek episodes 105 and 210 he was divided into a good Kirk and an evil anti-Kirk. I believe this happens in space and we just have to look on the Enterprise for the good Nowak and recombobulate her with the evil anti-Nowak... easy When you launch an astronaut into space wearing diapers you are asking for trouble. What were they thinking. > This exact thing happened to William Shatner on at least two occaisions. > In Star Trek episodes 105 and 210 he was divided into a good Kirk and an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > When you launch an astronaut into space wearing diapers you are asking > for trouble. What were they thinking. They were likely thinking that the alternative wasn't too pretty. George >> This exact thing happened to William Shatner on at least two occaisions. >> In Star Trek episodes 105 and 210 he was divided into a good Kirk and an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >They were likely thinking that the alternative wasn't too pretty. Which brings up the question: Have any astronauts crapped themselves during launch? I bet I might... >>> This exact thing happened to William Shatner on at least two >>> occaisions. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > during > launch? I bet I might... I think Gordo took a wiz in his mercury spacesuit. George > I got to work with the Russians in 1993 when we were considering buying the > Soyuz as the station "life boat". I heard it straight from one of their > flight directors that they had to cut mission short because the astronauts > lost touch with reality. I vaguely remember hearing something about a Skylab mission where the commander was relieved of duty and one of the other two guys became the new commander. They didn't have to terminate the mission early, though. > > I got to work with the Russians in 1993 when we were considering buying the > > Soyuz as the station "life boat". I heard it straight from one of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > commander was relieved of duty and one of the other two guys became the > new commander. They didn't have to terminate the mission early, though. Where the hell did you hear that one? The third Skylab crew felt they were being overworked and went on strike for a day, and also tried to cover up that the pilot, Bill Pogue, got a bad bout of space-sickness early in the flight. -A.L. >>I vaguely remember hearing something about a Skylab mission where the >>commander was relieved of duty and one of the other two guys became the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > strike for a day, and also tried to cover up that the pilot, Bill > Pogue, got a bad bout of space-sickness early in the flight. That may have been just what it really was then. What I "vaguely" remember may have been a garbled news report. Or just a mis-remembered comment from 30 or so years ago... Why do you think they all have access to email phones private medical conferences etc? The mind is complex and I'm sure they are aware of the problems. I heard a story during the Skylab era that there were tranquiliser injections available simply to allow someone to be brought back without destroying the capsule! Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> Serious question: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> 'em up", or do they have syringes that they could quickly inject someone >> with. (tranquilizer) ? > Serious question: > > I'm sure they have some sort of a plan already put together should an > astronaut totally wig out in space? Long-duration spaceflights with large crews (e.g., trips lasting several years to the outer planets) are still a big unknown. We don't know if a large, mixed-gender crew will degenerate over several years like "Mutiny on the Bounty" or "Lord of the Flies" or "The Caine Mutiny" or any of the other scenarios we're already familiar with. You're only thinking about an individual astronaut freaking out. What about a "love triangle," complete with jealous rages, forming *among* three or more members of a mixed-gender spaceflight crew *during* a long-duration mission? I've changed my mind about building a lunar base. I'm now thinking it really is the only way to test out really long-duration spaceflight--put a whole bunch of men and women on the moon for 5+ years and see how they deal with it. They may form a new society, just like how tribes self-organize on the TV show "Survivor." If things go really wrong, rescue from Earth is only a few days away. SignatureSteven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. >> Serious question: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >on the Bounty" or "Lord of the Flies" or "The Caine Mutiny" or any of >the other scenarios we're already familiar with. We don't know about mixed genders - but the literature on single gender (I.E. male) is abundant. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > >We don't know if a >>large, mixed-gender crew will degenerate over several years like >>"Mutiny >>on the Bounty" or "Lord of the Flies" or "The Caine Mutiny" or any of >>the other scenarios we're already familiar with. Quite true. My feeling is that if you put a group of average people up there then yes it is going to go badly, but if you put people who are successful, screened, normal, and who make a conscious effort to put the mission priorities over personal issues that it can work. And then luck helps also. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>Long-duration spaceflights with large crews (e.g., trips lasting several >>years to the outer planets) are still a big unknown. We don't know if a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We don't know about mixed genders - but the literature on single > gender (I.E. male) is abundant. The US Navy surely has a lot of data on the crews of nuclear submarines. Jeff Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) >>>Long-duration spaceflights with large crews (e.g., trips lasting several >>>years to the outer planets) are still a big unknown. We don't know if a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >The US Navy surely has a lot of data on the crews of nuclear submarines. Not just nuclear submarines, but Antarctic stations (which includes a mixed gender component in the later years), various voyages of exploration, intentional and accidental isolation, etc... etc... There are some questions - but I'd not characterize it as a 'big unknown'. In short, just as he is with the PRP, Steven is fearmongering/trolling out of his a.s. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > I've changed my mind about building a lunar base. I'm now thinking it > really is the only way to test out really long-duration spaceflight--put > a whole bunch of men and women on the moon for 5+ years and see how they > deal with it. They may form a new society, just like how tribes > self-organize on the TV show "Survivor." If things go really wrong, > rescue from Earth is only a few days away. There were some long duration expeditions to Antarctica about a hundred years ago. Though everyone who went are long since gone, so the only source of experience would be the captain's logs and crew members' letter and diaries. There's also long duration Navy submarine missions. With crews and inside space roughly comparable to what a Mars mission would look like. Though with a sub, if a really serious problem comes up you can head for the nearest Navy base, which is at most a day away. >Though with a sub, if a really serious problem comes up you can head >for the nearest Navy base, which is at most a day away. ROTFLMAO. The one time we had a serious problem (we were directed to offload someone due to a family situation he needed to attend to), it took over a day to get from where we were to the rendezvous point. The East coast was much further away. (And we were in the Atlantic, which is a puddle compared to the Pacific.) D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > Long-duration spaceflights with large crews (e.g., trips lasting several > years to the outer planets) are still a big unknown. We don't know if a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I've changed my mind about building a lunar base. I'm now thinking it > really is the only way to test out really long-duration spaceflight might want to read up on Biosphere2, all the things you suggest happened then. And they had the advantage of being in a 3-acre facility with abundant light and vegetation, lots more "elbow room" than a long-duration space mission. SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." - Elbert Hubbard > Serious question: > > I'm sure they have some sort of a plan already put together should an > astronaut totally wig out in space? Yes there are. I belive the documents were on NASA Watch at one point. Try using Google. Jeff Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) snip >> I'm sure they have some sort of a plan already put together should an >> astronaut totally wig out in space? > > Yes there are. I belive the documents were on NASA Watch at one point. > Try using Google. I attended a few meetings on Mars missions. We seriously talked about possibly flying some anti-depressants, anti-mania, and anti-psychotic medications. With medication a wigged out astronaut could be brought back to being functional. Many people said things like, "Because of the way we pick astronauts, we would never fly a person that might have difficulty to Mars." I don't think that would be said in a meeting today. Danny Deger >Many people said things like, "Because of the way we pick astronauts, we >would never fly a person that might have difficulty to Mars." I don't think >that would be said in a meeting today. I wouldn't have said it in a meeting last week, let alone today. Not because of errors in psychological screening - but because the hiring system is broken at the most basic level. Highly competitive, overachieving, individualistic alpha types are precisely the *wrong* type to send on a long duration mission - but that's precisely the kind of people the ASCAN selection process is designed to find. Yes, I know they work in teams today - but as Micheal Collins said, "in pursuit of a common and greatly desired goal, almost anyone can work together for a time". I suspect that the duration of training for, and flying a Mars mission will exceed that time. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > Yes, I know they work in teams today - but as Micheal Collins said, > "in pursuit of a common and greatly desired goal, almost anyone can > work together for a time". I suspect that the duration of training > for, and flying a Mars mission will exceed that time. I suppose NASA could borrow a nuke submarine and do a test run of a crew who have been selected for the Mars trip. They need not be isolated from the world, let them have 'net access and such they would have on the Mars trip. So the scientists on board can continue to publish papers and email them and not perish in their science careers. The purpose of this test run would be to see if everyone can handle being cooped up with the same few people for 6 months or more. > > Yes, I know they work in teams today - but as Micheal Collins said, > > "in pursuit of a common and greatly desired goal, almost anyone can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > purpose of this test run would be to see if everyone can handle being > cooped up with the same few people for 6 months or more. IIRC, something similar has already been done, by NASA, with a submarine. I don't recall the duration, but the accomplishment got little attention because some other NASA event (may have been Apollo 11) completely overshadowed it. Austin > IIRC, something similar has already been done, by NASA, with a > submarine. I don't recall the duration, but the accomplishment got > little attention because some other NASA event (may have been Apollo > 11) completely overshadowed it. You may be thinking Sealab which involved an astronaut but I don't believe was a NASA project. > Austin > ...Highly competitive, > overachieving, individualistic alpha types are precisely the *wrong* > type to send on a long duration mission - but that's precisely the > kind of people the ASCAN selection process is designed to find. Yeah, that's a valuable point. Can you imagine sticking the original Mercury 7 into some tight litle interplanetary ship and boosting it off to Mars in a multi-month coast trajectory? Someone would have strangled Glenn within weeks, I bet. There's actually a really good James Tiptree short story that revolves around exactly this premise. Can't recall the title but it's in one of her collections. >> ...Highly competitive, >> overachieving, individualistic alpha types are precisely the *wrong* [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > around exactly this premise. Can't recall the title but it's in one of > her collections. I believe that was "Houston, Houston, do you read?" from 1967... SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." - Elbert Hubbard > up", or do they have syringes that they could quickly inject someone with. > (tranquilizer) ? Syringes (or any other weapon) would quite easily end up in the hands of an intelligent psycho before anyone else knew they'd gone over the edge. Austin > Syringes (or any other weapon) would quite easily end up in the hands > of an intelligent psycho before anyone else knew they'd gone over the > edge. The commander would have the only key to the storage cabinet, but what if it's the commander is the one who loses it? >> Syringes (or any other weapon) would quite easily end up in the hands >> of an intelligent psycho before anyone else knew they'd gone over the >> edge. > > The commander would have the only key to the storage cabinet, but what if > it's the commander is the one who loses it? Who watches the watchmen? Jeff Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) >> Syringes (or any other weapon) would quite easily end up in the hands >> of an intelligent psycho before anyone else knew they'd gone over the >> edge. > > The commander would have the only key to the storage cabinet, but what if > it's the commander is the one who loses it? How do you keep the commander of a nuclear missile facility from launching? There ARE ways around issues like this. >>> Syringes (or any other weapon) would quite easily end up in the hands >>> of an intelligent psycho before anyone else knew they'd gone over the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How do you keep the commander of a nuclear missile facility from > launching? You have a second person in the facility that also has a key. It takes two keys to launch. Danny Deger > You have a second person in the facility that also has a key. It takes two > keys to launch. That's what they did up in an Air Force base in North Dakota. Two guys who have to turn their keys within some fraction of a second of each other, and of course the locations of the key-switches is about 20 feet apart. Way past arm's length. >> You have a second person in the facility that also has a key. It takes >> two keys to launch. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other, and of course the locations of the key-switches is about 20 feet > apart. Way past arm's length. Umm more than just some AF Base in North Dakota. All Nuclear Weapons Release operates in a similar manner. (in the past there have been a few that haven't, but the implications of misuse are obvious.) >> You have a second person in the facility that also has a key. It takes >> two keys to launch. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other, and of course the locations of the key-switches is about 20 feet > apart. Way past arm's length. ...but even if two (Air Force) butterbars are having a bad day and decide to nuke someone, doesn't it take a bunch of other BS to happen first --- or otherwise they can turn the keys all day long and it won't do anything? Such as the launch codes to propagate their way down the pecking order and also even with if they have the launch codes, doesn't the system still require other "yes" votes from other silos in the the same squadron? The smallest "independent level" is the squadron. The silos attached to a single squadron are spread out by miles, so that the other side can't take them all out with a single "hole-in-one" nuke.. I'm as much asking as telling. I seem to recall this as described once by a missileneer.. It may even be by wing. Replace "wing" for "squadron" above if thats the deal. Seems like the "squadron (wing?) vote" would be just one mode of operation though and their would be a also mode of operation to make the individual silos become indepenent in a scenerio where things were already getting blow up everywhere.. Not even going to speculate on the Navy. They are weird to begin with, especially anyone who volunteers to go on a boat that intentionally sinks (subs). Seems logical that sub commanders would have the ability to become far more independent though as a sub can get cut off the rest of the world.... (My military experience is Army airborne infantry -- which probably shows.) :^) Cheers, Esaz >Not even going to speculate on the Navy. They are weird to begin with, >especially anyone who volunteers to go on a boat that intentionally sinks >(subs). Seems logical that sub commanders would have the ability to become >far more independent though as a sub can get cut off the rest of the >world.... Yes, the [ballistic missile] sub can be far more independent than a hole in the ground in North Dakota. Yes, there are measures in place to prevent that from happening (fairly strong ones). D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>Not even going to speculate on the Navy. They are weird to begin with, >>especially anyone who volunteers to go on a boat that intentionally sinks [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > D. Makes sense. The comment that I made which implied the questioning of the mental stability for those that volunteer to go on a boat that intentionally sinks was simply in jest. I have respect for submariners, mainly because I know I couldn't do it. I get sea sick in a bathtub! :-) >>>> Syringes (or any other weapon) would quite easily end up in the hands >>>> of an intelligent psycho before anyone else knew they'd gone over the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You have a second person in the facility that also has a key. Both of whom are armed, in the case of American launch facilities (or they used to be, way back when I actually paid attention to such things). > It takes two > keys to launch. As well as valid launch codes and so forth to get past the permissive action locks, at least in USAF facilities. Query: doesn't a U.S. sub actually have three launch keys (Commander, XO and a weapons officer), any one of whom can launch? Or am I totally misremembering that? > Danny Deger SignatureYou can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash >Query: doesn't a U.S. sub actually have three launch keys (Commander, XO and >a weapons officer), any one of whom can launch? Or am I totally >misremembering that? You are totally misremembering that. The Weps has the combination to the safe holding the firing trigger, (which is actuated for each missile in sequence). The CO holds the keys that arm the eject system (one key per tube), and issues the required number of key to the XO on setting 1SQ. In the inner SAS safe is a key which is issued to the CO on verification of launch authority by the SAS team - the CO must use this key to arm the firing circuit from a panel in the control room. (Said panel also allows the the CO and XO to monitor which tubes have been released by Fire Control and Launcher.) All three keys must be used to launch missiles. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>>How do you keep the commander of a nuclear missile facility from >>>launching? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>It takes two >>keys to launch. What if it's the President of the USA is the one who goes nuts? Though I've heard that the secretary of state has to concur to launch the nukes. Or he forgets the password... "robert casey" wrote in message... > What if it's the President of the USA is the one who /goes/ nuts? Past tense? <g> "robert casey" wrote in message ... > What if it's the President of the USA is the one who /goes/ nuts? Er, <damn it>.. Future tense? <g> (Hey, I took a pop shot earlier at Clinton too.) :-) >> Syringes (or any other weapon) would quite easily end up in the hands >> of an intelligent psycho before anyone else knew they'd gone over the >> edge. > > The commander would have the only key to the storage cabinet, but what > if it's the commander is the one who loses it? Future spaceships will need to be designed fail-safe. Just like the ICBM missile silos where it takes four men to turn keys simultaneously to launch one missile, it's going to get to the point where a spaceship won't be able to be destroyed by any one person *even if they try to*. One simple measure is to require two or more crewpersons to turn keys or enter passwords in order to enter any course correction into the guidance system. That way, no one crewperson can throw the spaceship off course. Ditto for opening an airlock--it will require simultaneous entry of passwords by two or more crewpersons in order to open the airlock door. Shades of Star Trek! We really are going to need a large crew. It's a lot harder for one berserk crewperson to overcome twenty others, than for a berserk crewperson to just overcome two or or three others. SignatureSteven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. >> Syringes (or any other weapon) would quite easily end up in the hands >> of an intelligent psycho before anyone else knew they'd gone over the >> edge. > > The commander would have the only key to the storage cabinet, but what if > it's the commander is the one who loses it? You mean like when Clinton left the nuke football behind at a NATO summit? <g> Interesting comments all around. Regarding everything that NASA seems to be prudish about (which they need to overcome) --- This may sound silly or even nuts at first, but makes sense if you think about it... The long mission and sex thing: why shouldn't the crew be composed of couples that are sexually intimate? Why can't they even be sexually intimate during the mission? Other than the risk of pregnancy, which is overcome by pills, what harm could come of it. I'll even go further -- maybe the couples should even be liberal with the idea of, ahem, "swinging", should that occur.. Going even further, perhaps even take a very liberal approach to some other things (within reason) as well. If that means smoking a little, ahem, marijuana occassionally -- so be it. I'm not saying to turn the vehicle into a hippy Volkswagen "Love Bus". Its just, it seems to me, that if you are going to send people 33+ million miles (with a good chance they may never return), some of these things take re-thinking... |
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.