 |
 | 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 / October 2003Here we go again (OSP)
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994317 >http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994317 ...Yet another couple of congresscum who need to stick to molesting page boys and collecting graft & kickbacks. OM  Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >...Yet another couple of congresscum who need to stick to molesting >page boys and collecting graft & kickbacks. > > OM NO! The spaceplane is a bad idea. What we need is a nice low cost capsule system. Not a high cost plane, havent we learned anything? > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994317 I do kind of see the point though... " The board that investigated the Columbia space shuttle disaster recommended that the future goals of human spaceflight be subject to a national debate before any replacement for the shuttle be considered. " Before deciding what you need - you need decide what you're going to DO - then decide what you need to do it. Doug > I do kind of see the point though... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Before deciding what you need - you need decide what you're going to DO - > then decide what you need to do it. The CAIB didn't come out and say it, but Columbia and Challenger accidents can be traced back to fundamental policy failure. The policy-setting mechanism for space is broken; replacing hardware or NASA procedures is just rearranging deck chairs until that is fixed. Paul > The CAIB didn't come out and say it, but Columbia and Challenger accidents > can be traced back to fundamental policy failure. The policy-setting > mechanism for space is broken; replacing hardware or NASA procedures is > just rearranging deck chairs until that is fixed. Has the policy-setting mechanism for space ever been any other way? Some would still argue that it was working fine for Apollo, but more and more people are believing that history has shown this not to be the case. "Flags and footprints" seems to be an increasingly common way to refer to the short sighted Apollo policy. Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
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.