Opportunity, the second Mars Explorer Rover is on the surface andtransmitting!

constantly works in CYA mode. Their arrogance and stupidity has already
lead to the distriction of two vehicles with the death of the crews.

You're right, accidents never happen outside of nasa... dumb ass!

Former employee, who got fired? Wife left you? Beaten and neglected as a
child? Bought too much .com stock? Disgruntled postal worker? Neo nazi?
What?.... Tell us?



"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:_lIQb.117114$nt4.482280@attbi_s51...


John D'Amico wrote:

Go baby...
NASA & JPL rocks.

NASA is an over the hill, corrupt decrepit organization whose management
NASA does not rock. NASA sucks lemons.

The management of NASA somehow manages to silence any engineers who have
misgivings about the safety of missions. If this were a just world, the
management of NASA would be indicted for criminal negligence.

Bob Kolker

constantly works in CYA mode. Their arrogance and stupidity has already
lead to the distriction of two vehicles with the death of the crews.

You're right, accidents never happen outside of nasa... dumb ass!

Former employee, who got fired? Wife left you? Beaten and neglected as a
child? Bought too much .com stock? Disgruntled postal worker? Neo nazi?
What?.... Tell us?



"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:_lIQb.117114$nt4.482280@attbi_s51...


John D'Amico wrote:

Go baby...
NASA & JPL rocks.

NASA is an over the hill, corrupt decrepit organization whose management
NASA does not rock. NASA sucks lemons.

The management of NASA somehow manages to silence any engineers who have
misgivings about the safety of missions. If this were a just world, the
management of NASA would be indicted for criminal negligence.

Bob Kolker

constantly works in CYA mode. Their arrogance and stupidity has already
lead to the distriction of two vehicles with the death of the crews.

You're right, accidents never happen outside of nasa... dumb ass!

Former employee, who got fired? Wife left you? Beaten and neglected as a
child? Bought too much .com stock? Disgruntled postal worker? Neo nazi?
What?.... Tell us?



"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:_lIQb.117114$nt4.482280@attbi_s51...


John D'Amico wrote:

Go baby...
NASA & JPL rocks.

NASA is an over the hill, corrupt decrepit organization whose management
NASA does not rock. NASA sucks lemons.

The management of NASA somehow manages to silence any engineers who have
misgivings about the safety of missions. If this were a just world, the
management of NASA would be indicted for criminal negligence.

Bob Kolker

In article %pRQb.115802$sv6.604631@attbi_s52,
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:


Al wrote:
Do you think you may be a little too hard on NASA? After all, the space
shuttle is not quite like the shuttle from NY to Boston. All of the
space
shuttle flights are experimental and failures are expected.

NASA received funding via Congress (a funnel reaching into your wallet
and mine) on the promise that it could loft payload for under $100/kg.
They sold Congress on the idea that the Scuttle was the Ace Trucking
Company of Space. This is not test mode, this is a promise of commercial
viablity. It was a lie, and a damned lie from day uno. If anything I am
easy on NASA. It is a racket and a criminal organization funded by you
and me.

Oh, can it.


On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

I never heard this claim. Cite?

.. It is actually somewhere between one in
twenty five and one in fifty per orbiter.

What data did you use to make this stat?

..Their Ace Trucks are so unsafe
they are puting off further flights. The keep on delaying the resumption
of flight.

How can there be a delay when none have been scheduled?

..This gives the lie to their prior (and bogus) claims of
reasonable safety.

If you want to prove them lying, you should use real stuff
rather than figments of your interpretation.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article %pRQb.115802$sv6.604631@attbi_s52,
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:


Al wrote:
Do you think you may be a little too hard on NASA? After all, the space
shuttle is not quite like the shuttle from NY to Boston. All of the
space
shuttle flights are experimental and failures are expected.

NASA received funding via Congress (a funnel reaching into your wallet
and mine) on the promise that it could loft payload for under $100/kg.
They sold Congress on the idea that the Scuttle was the Ace Trucking
Company of Space. This is not test mode, this is a promise of commercial
viablity. It was a lie, and a damned lie from day uno. If anything I am
easy on NASA. It is a racket and a criminal organization funded by you
and me.

Oh, can it.


On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

I never heard this claim. Cite?

.. It is actually somewhere between one in
twenty five and one in fifty per orbiter.

What data did you use to make this stat?

..Their Ace Trucks are so unsafe
they are puting off further flights. The keep on delaying the resumption
of flight.

How can there be a delay when none have been scheduled?

..This gives the lie to their prior (and bogus) claims of
reasonable safety.

If you want to prove them lying, you should use real stuff
rather than figments of your interpretation.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article %pRQb.115802$sv6.604631@attbi_s52,
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:


Al wrote:
Do you think you may be a little too hard on NASA? After all, the space
shuttle is not quite like the shuttle from NY to Boston. All of the
space
shuttle flights are experimental and failures are expected.

NASA received funding via Congress (a funnel reaching into your wallet
and mine) on the promise that it could loft payload for under $100/kg.
They sold Congress on the idea that the Scuttle was the Ace Trucking
Company of Space. This is not test mode, this is a promise of commercial
viablity. It was a lie, and a damned lie from day uno. If anything I am
easy on NASA. It is a racket and a criminal organization funded by you
and me.

Oh, can it.


On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

I never heard this claim. Cite?

.. It is actually somewhere between one in
twenty five and one in fifty per orbiter.

What data did you use to make this stat?

..Their Ace Trucks are so unsafe
they are puting off further flights. The keep on delaying the resumption
of flight.

How can there be a delay when none have been scheduled?

..This gives the lie to their prior (and bogus) claims of
reasonable safety.

If you want to prove them lying, you should use real stuff
rather than figments of your interpretation.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Al wrote:
Do you think you may be a little too hard on NASA? After all, the space
shuttle is not quite like the shuttle from NY to Boston. All of the space
shuttle flights are experimental and failures are expected.

NASA received funding via Congress (a funnel reaching into your wallet
and mine) on the promise that it could loft payload for under $100/kg.
They sold Congress on the idea that the Scuttle was the Ace Trucking
Company of Space. This is not test mode, this is a promise of commercial
viablity. It was a lie, and a damned lie from day uno. If anything I am
easy on NASA. It is a racket and a criminal organization funded by you
and me.

On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter. It is actually somewhere between one in
twenty five and one in fifty per orbiter. Their Ace Trucks are so unsafe
they are puting off further flights. The keep on delaying the resumption
of flight. This gives the lie to their prior (and bogus) claims of
reasonable safety.

Bob Kolker

Al wrote:
Do you think you may be a little too hard on NASA? After all, the space
shuttle is not quite like the shuttle from NY to Boston. All of the space
shuttle flights are experimental and failures are expected.

NASA received funding via Congress (a funnel reaching into your wallet
and mine) on the promise that it could loft payload for under $100/kg.
They sold Congress on the idea that the Scuttle was the Ace Trucking
Company of Space. This is not test mode, this is a promise of commercial
viablity. It was a lie, and a damned lie from day uno. If anything I am
easy on NASA. It is a racket and a criminal organization funded by you
and me.

On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter. It is actually somewhere between one in
twenty five and one in fifty per orbiter. Their Ace Trucks are so unsafe
they are puting off further flights. The keep on delaying the resumption
of flight. This gives the lie to their prior (and bogus) claims of
reasonable safety.

Bob Kolker

Al wrote:
Do you think you may be a little too hard on NASA? After all, the space
shuttle is not quite like the shuttle from NY to Boston. All of the space
shuttle flights are experimental and failures are expected.

NASA received funding via Congress (a funnel reaching into your wallet
and mine) on the promise that it could loft payload for under $100/kg.
They sold Congress on the idea that the Scuttle was the Ace Trucking
Company of Space. This is not test mode, this is a promise of commercial
viablity. It was a lie, and a damned lie from day uno. If anything I am
easy on NASA. It is a racket and a criminal organization funded by you
and me.

On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter. It is actually somewhere between one in
twenty five and one in fifty per orbiter. Their Ace Trucks are so unsafe
they are puting off further flights. The keep on delaying the resumption
of flight. This gives the lie to their prior (and bogus) claims of
reasonable safety.

Bob Kolker

Craig Davidson wrote:


You do know that Spirit and Opportunity are unmanned spacecraft? With your
rant about dangers to crews I wasn't quite sure you knew that.

I am quite aware that they are unmanned. They are also second rate
vehicles which cost nearly a half-billion apiece and who useful
scientific yield is dubious. How will knowing whether bacteria ever
lived on Mars promote the General Welfare and Defend the Republic
against enemies foreign and domestic.

If a private company, raising its own capital wants to build survey
vehicles to scope out the planet, I say more power to them. It is their
money and their risk. But NASA is using MY money for a goal that I do
not share.

Here is the answer: Privatize. The only thing the Gummint has any
business spending your money and mine on, is national defense.


I wonder if they said that about Christopher Columbus. He lied you know.
Never did bring back spices from India. What a waste of dollars that could
be better spent in Spain. (or was it Portugal?)

Chris's voyage was funded by money stolen from Jews kicked out of Spain
in 1491, the year before. In short, Chris sailed on Loot. It so happened
that the voyage paid off for many. I fail to see how a voyage of men to
Mars can plausibly be thought to pay off for the rest of us. At least
NASA is not promising to bring back gold and spice.

By the way, Chris Baby sold the voyage on the grounds he was going to
China and India (as in Indies). He lied knowingly about the
circumference of the earth (Erathosthenes figure that out around 200
B.C.E). His voyage was a fraud that just happened to pay off. I cannot
see how a manned voyage to Mars can pay off (for those who can, let them
fund the effort with ThEIR money, not MINE), nor can I say any first
rate science coming out of his paltry un-manned mission (nearly one half
billion dollars per golf cart. Good God!).

Bob Kolker