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

In sci.physics,

wrote
on Mon, 26 Jan 04 12:11:13 GMT
:
In article ,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Craig Davidson

wrote
on Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:05:10 GMT
nk.net:
snip

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 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?)


NASA. 17 deaths. (Did you forget the Apollo 1 ground failure?)

How much is space exploration worth in terms of blood, sweat, and tears?
It's an obvious question.

If 17 dead is too much, then the automobile should be banned, sexual
intercourse should be stopped, and all agriculture should be stopped.
Farming is not safe.

An obvious answer. :-) Just be careful: some would *love*
to stop sexual intercourse -- mostly prudish pro-life types
who seem to think women can't decide things for themselves.
However, this is getting a little far afield of orbital
satellites (among other things), despite the many flying
metaphors of certain physical activities...

As it is, man exists to explore, as well as eat, fornicate,
****, ****, create, shuffle paperwork, radiate heat,
eventually die, and other things. Presumably, the main
issues relate to proper prioritization of these activities.
Of course, some of them aren't exactly controllable --
the heat radiation will occur no matter what, for example,
and urination and defecation can only be put off for so
long, as evidenced by Tycho Brahe.

I would hope that we don't lose 17 more, but it's clear that
from a death standpoint 17 is a lot less than 1.7 million,
which IINM is within an order of magnitude of the number of
Americans who perished during World War II.

snip

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics,

wrote
on Mon, 26 Jan 04 12:11:13 GMT
:
In article ,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Craig Davidson

wrote
on Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:05:10 GMT
nk.net:
snip

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 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?)


NASA. 17 deaths. (Did you forget the Apollo 1 ground failure?)

How much is space exploration worth in terms of blood, sweat, and tears?
It's an obvious question.

If 17 dead is too much, then the automobile should be banned, sexual
intercourse should be stopped, and all agriculture should be stopped.
Farming is not safe.

An obvious answer. :-) Just be careful: some would *love*
to stop sexual intercourse -- mostly prudish pro-life types
who seem to think women can't decide things for themselves.
However, this is getting a little far afield of orbital
satellites (among other things), despite the many flying
metaphors of certain physical activities...

As it is, man exists to explore, as well as eat, fornicate,
****, ****, create, shuffle paperwork, radiate heat,
eventually die, and other things. Presumably, the main
issues relate to proper prioritization of these activities.
Of course, some of them aren't exactly controllable --
the heat radiation will occur no matter what, for example,
and urination and defecation can only be put off for so
long, as evidenced by Tycho Brahe.

I would hope that we don't lose 17 more, but it's clear that
from a death standpoint 17 is a lot less than 1.7 million,
which IINM is within an order of magnitude of the number of
Americans who perished during World War II.

snip

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics,

wrote
on Mon, 26 Jan 04 12:11:13 GMT
:
In article ,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Craig Davidson

wrote
on Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:05:10 GMT
nk.net:
snip

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 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?)


NASA. 17 deaths. (Did you forget the Apollo 1 ground failure?)

How much is space exploration worth in terms of blood, sweat, and tears?
It's an obvious question.

If 17 dead is too much, then the automobile should be banned, sexual
intercourse should be stopped, and all agriculture should be stopped.
Farming is not safe.

An obvious answer. :-) Just be careful: some would *love*
to stop sexual intercourse -- mostly prudish pro-life types
who seem to think women can't decide things for themselves.
However, this is getting a little far afield of orbital
satellites (among other things), despite the many flying
metaphors of certain physical activities...

As it is, man exists to explore, as well as eat, fornicate,
****, ****, create, shuffle paperwork, radiate heat,
eventually die, and other things. Presumably, the main
issues relate to proper prioritization of these activities.
Of course, some of them aren't exactly controllable --
the heat radiation will occur no matter what, for example,
and urination and defecation can only be put off for so
long, as evidenced by Tycho Brahe.

I would hope that we don't lose 17 more, but it's clear that
from a death standpoint 17 is a lot less than 1.7 million,
which IINM is within an order of magnitude of the number of
Americans who perished during World War II.

snip

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics, Robert J. Kolker

wrote
on Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:52:21 GMT
UKhRb.157757$xy6.754287@attbi_s02:


Jeremiah J. Burton wrote:

Mark K.



NASA claims 1 in 100 chance of a shuttle crash

Not initially. After loosing two orbiters they revised their statistics.

Indeed. It would now have to be 1 in 50 -- and that's not
assuming some sort of statistical adjustment.


Bob Kolker


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics, Robert J. Kolker

wrote
on Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:52:21 GMT
UKhRb.157757$xy6.754287@attbi_s02:


Jeremiah J. Burton wrote:

Mark K.



NASA claims 1 in 100 chance of a shuttle crash

Not initially. After loosing two orbiters they revised their statistics.

Indeed. It would now have to be 1 in 50 -- and that's not
assuming some sort of statistical adjustment.


Bob Kolker


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics, Robert J. Kolker

wrote
on Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:52:21 GMT
UKhRb.157757$xy6.754287@attbi_s02:


Jeremiah J. Burton wrote:

Mark K.



NASA claims 1 in 100 chance of a shuttle crash

Not initially. After loosing two orbiters they revised their statistics.

Indeed. It would now have to be 1 in 50 -- and that's not
assuming some sort of statistical adjustment.


Bob Kolker


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


I would hope that we don't lose 17 more, but it's clear that
from a death standpoint 17 is a lot less than 1.7 million,
which IINM is within an order of magnitude of the number of
Americans who perished during World War II.

Our survival as a nation depended on America entering into the
festivities of WW2. Can you convince the skeptical that our survival as
a nation is conditioned on sending manned expeditions to Mars or the
Moon? Pray do tell us why we must. And no fair invoking Cheng He either.

The only condition that I can see is if there is a credible military
threat from another nation's occupying the Moon, say. If that be the
case, then we would have to respond in some fashion.

Bob Kolker

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


I would hope that we don't lose 17 more, but it's clear that
from a death standpoint 17 is a lot less than 1.7 million,
which IINM is within an order of magnitude of the number of
Americans who perished during World War II.

Our survival as a nation depended on America entering into the
festivities of WW2. Can you convince the skeptical that our survival as
a nation is conditioned on sending manned expeditions to Mars or the
Moon? Pray do tell us why we must. And no fair invoking Cheng He either.

The only condition that I can see is if there is a credible military
threat from another nation's occupying the Moon, say. If that be the
case, then we would have to respond in some fashion.

Bob Kolker

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


I would hope that we don't lose 17 more, but it's clear that
from a death standpoint 17 is a lot less than 1.7 million,
which IINM is within an order of magnitude of the number of
Americans who perished during World War II.

Our survival as a nation depended on America entering into the
festivities of WW2. Can you convince the skeptical that our survival as
a nation is conditioned on sending manned expeditions to Mars or the
Moon? Pray do tell us why we must. And no fair invoking Cheng He either.

The only condition that I can see is if there is a credible military
threat from another nation's occupying the Moon, say. If that be the
case, then we would have to respond in some fashion.

Bob Kolker

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


Indeed. It would now have to be 1 in 50 -- and that's not
assuming some sort of statistical adjustment.

I posted an article that cited the initial odds at one in a thousand (I
was mistaken about the one in ten thousand estimate. That was just a
fond wish, it turned out). NASA people have either been lying about the
odds, or have been incompetent in estimating the odds.

But soft. If the manned programs were -test- programs, one can forgive
the risk. The crews are test pilots and they presumably know the risks
before they go aloft. But NASA attempted to sell Congress on the -Ace
Trucking Company- canard and a damnable lie. Why we can even send a
school teacher aloft! Ya. Sure. Poor Christa bought it in every way.

Bob Kolker