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

I thought we made him an honorary American?

Which judge swore him in?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.







Well....there are some fossils on the supreme court old enough to have done it


take care

Blll

I thought we made him an honorary American?

Which judge swore him in?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.







Well....there are some fossils on the supreme court old enough to have done it


take care

Blll

In message aMcRb.155865$xy6.747162@attbi_s02, Robert J. Kolker
writes


Richard Herring wrote:
None of which provide a direct flow of $$$ to keep the control and
space sectors functioning.

Some of the tax $$$$ generated by the additional business go to pay for
the GPS.

However generated, they are still tax dollars, which is what you were
complaining about.

Another way it can be funded is by subscription, similar to the monthly
fee you pay your ISP. I don't know why it isn't funded that way.

Partly for the same reason lighthouses are no longer funded by port
taxes, I guess. It's too difficult even to identify, let along bill, the
direct users when they don't physically plug in to anything, and half of
them never set foot in your jurisdiction.

--
Richard Herring

In message aMcRb.155865$xy6.747162@attbi_s02, Robert J. Kolker
writes


Richard Herring wrote:
None of which provide a direct flow of $$$ to keep the control and
space sectors functioning.

Some of the tax $$$$ generated by the additional business go to pay for
the GPS.

However generated, they are still tax dollars, which is what you were
complaining about.

Another way it can be funded is by subscription, similar to the monthly
fee you pay your ISP. I don't know why it isn't funded that way.

Partly for the same reason lighthouses are no longer funded by port
taxes, I guess. It's too difficult even to identify, let along bill, the
direct users when they don't physically plug in to anything, and half of
them never set foot in your jurisdiction.

--
Richard Herring

In message aMcRb.155865$xy6.747162@attbi_s02, Robert J. Kolker
writes


Richard Herring wrote:
None of which provide a direct flow of $$$ to keep the control and
space sectors functioning.

Some of the tax $$$$ generated by the additional business go to pay for
the GPS.

However generated, they are still tax dollars, which is what you were
complaining about.

Another way it can be funded is by subscription, similar to the monthly
fee you pay your ISP. I don't know why it isn't funded that way.

Partly for the same reason lighthouses are no longer funded by port
taxes, I guess. It's too difficult even to identify, let along bill, the
direct users when they don't physically plug in to anything, and half of
them never set foot in your jurisdiction.

--
Richard Herring

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:%pRQb.115802$sv6.604631@attbi_s52...
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

For once, I actually agree with klonker.
Mark K.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:%pRQb.115802$sv6.604631@attbi_s52...
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

For once, I actually agree with klonker.
Mark K.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:%pRQb.115802$sv6.604631@attbi_s52...
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

For once, I actually agree with klonker.
Mark K.

(Mark K.) wrote in
om:

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:%pRQb.115802$sv6.604631@attbi_s52...
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

For once, I actually agree with klonker.
Mark K.


NASA claims 1 in 100 chance of a shuttle crash

(Mark K.) wrote in
om:

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:%pRQb.115802$sv6.604631@attbi_s52...
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

For once, I actually agree with klonker.
Mark K.


NASA claims 1 in 100 chance of a shuttle crash