Shuttle Ops in a Post-9/11 world

Yeah, I know what you mean. That photo was taken from just outside my
office, to which a SWATter had paid a brief visit just a bit earlier
("just checking on which way you're pointing your bazooka" - no,
really, his words).

I wonder if anyone gives any thought to the fact that these
astro-people drive home from work every day without armed coverage? So
why, then, do they feel the need for a strong armed presence within the
confines of a secured facility?

-Kim-

Pad Rat wrote:

Yeah, I know what you mean. That photo was taken from
just outside my office,

snip

-Kim-

I've been getting the impression for some time that you've been working
at Cape Canaveral.

Are you saying you've finally wangled a job on the Kennedy Space Center
again, one where the fellow was worried that you might have your camera
with you? If not, are you saying this photo was snapped outside Kennedy
Space Center proper?

Challenger's Ghost

On Thu, 5 May 2005 11:33:44 -0500, Pad Rat wrote
(in article .com):

I wonder if anyone gives any thought to the fact that these
astro-people drive home from work every day without armed coverage? So
why, then, do they feel the need for a strong armed presence within the
confines of a secured facility?

Exactly. Schneier makes excellent points about all this so-called
"security" we've spent so much money on since 9/11. I wish those
running the show would heed some of them.

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.individual-i.com/

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:33:44 -0700, Pad Rat wrote:

Yeah, I know what you mean. That photo was taken from just outside my
office, to which a SWATter had paid a brief visit just a bit earlier
("just checking on which way you're pointing your bazooka" - no, really,
his words).

I wonder if anyone gives any thought to the fact that these astro-people
drive home from work every day without armed coverage? So why, then, do
they feel the need for a strong armed presence within the confines of a
secured facility?



lol, scratches head as he takes off his shoes to get on an airplane. Makes one
wonder who it is that they consider to be the enemy. Some religous nut
declares a holy war on the US, then proceeds to blow up US property around
the world. While doing so, is essentially ignored by many government
agencies until he gets it right on his second attempt on the same
building. What were they working on all those years? Must have been the
Patriot Act, because it must have taken more time to come up with that
great piece of legislation, than the week or two it took to get it passed
through Congress. That's it, more data should make them more intelligent.
Kind of makes one wonder what's on the shopping list of legislation that
they're working on for when the next ...

Benjamin Franklin, smart guy.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

"Pad Rat" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yeah, I know what you mean. That photo was taken from just outside my
office, to which a SWATter had paid a brief visit just a bit earlier
("just checking on which way you're pointing your bazooka" - no,
really, his words).

I wonder if anyone gives any thought to the fact that these
astro-people drive home from work every day without armed coverage? So
why, then, do they feel the need for a strong armed presence within the
confines of a secured facility?

I forgot to add that the presence of armed security guards is not new. When
I first attended an astronaut walkout back around 1990, there were SWAT guys
standing around, too. I also recall a coworker's story about security guards
with shotguns on the roof of an OPF during roll-over to the VAB. That was
back in the early 80s.

The security's not new, but it does seem kind of ridiculous.

Kim Keller wrote:
The security's not new, but it does seem kind of ridiculous.

What is new is that they are now made quite visible on purpose, to show
americans that NASA is taking heavy duty security measures.

Since the PR folks are told that americans like to see such scenes,
then they make sure the machine-gun toting guard is prominent in the pictures.

Kim Keller wrote:

I forgot to add that the presence of armed security guards
is not new.

snip

I forgot to add something myself. The security guards I respect are the
grunts who stand tall against tyranny, be it here in the newsgroups
against unwarranted attacks by the likes of book-banning Derek Lyons
(who planted words in a guard's mouth when he used the term "naval") or
be it while protecting our interests in the ghetto, aboard ships, and
in the Middle East.

I also recall a coworker's story about security guards
with shotguns on the roof of an OPF during roll-over to
the VAB. That was back in the early 80s.

That sounds about right, back during Reagan's stunts with Challenger,
when Gomez led NASA Security and Hattaway led Lockheed Security. That's
where the national security problems generally are, at the top. I have
it on good authority that after Mission 51-L, Hattaway was dismissed
for unauthorized wiretaps of Lockheed employees at KSC (if not also at
Vandenberg).

The security's not new, but it does seem kind of ridiculous.

I think it depends on which end you're looking at it from. I'm sure
that kid in the photo, like my son Paul, is just doing his job. I'd
trust either one of them with my life.

Challenger's Ghost