NASA's three largest mistakes

1. The ISS. An horrific $160B disaster. An orbiting money pit.
2. The discontinuance of the Shuttle program. With NOTHING to replace it.
3. Squandering multi-millions and space missions for "global warming" research.

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:25:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote this crap:

1. The ISS. An horrific $160B disaster. An orbiting money pit.
2. The discontinuance of the Shuttle program. With NOTHING to replace it.
3. Squandering multi-millions and space missions for "global warming" research.

Nailed it.


But I would put in order, 2, 3, then 1. After all, what's 160B to a
government who has everything?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:25:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

1. The ISS. An horrific $160B disaster. An orbiting money pit.
2. The discontinuance of the Shuttle program. With NOTHING to replace it.
3. Squandering multi-millions and space missions for "global warming" research.

The methane you fart out of your mouth every time you say something
probably contributes to half our global warming.

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 8:25:23 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

2. The discontinuance of the Shuttle program. With NOTHING to replace it.

I agree about (1). (3) is not a mistake, but arguing politics doesn't get
anywhere fast.

As far as (2) is concerned, though, I agree it's a mistake, but it's hardly
NASA's mistake. When, due to disasters, and aging electronics, some new
replacement shuttles were needed, too much time had passed, and the firm that
made the Shuttles - Rockwell - was no longer able to roll some more off the
assembly line.

Now, this isn't like making Saturn V craft again - the SSME can still be made,
and has been proposed for Shuttle replacements - so development costs for a
Shuttle with updated electronics probably wouldn't be _too_ terrible. But NASA
isn't in the "been there, done that" business - and as its current mission is
Mars, apparently, they need something to go beyond LEO.

Since the ISS *is* a mistake, why should a ferry to the ISS be NASA's highest
priority?

John Savard

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:24:31 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:25:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

1. The ISS. An horrific $160B disaster. An orbiting money pit.
2. The discontinuance of the Shuttle program. With NOTHING to replace it.
3. Squandering multi-millions and space missions for "global warming" research.

The methane you fart out of your mouth every time you say something
probably contributes to half our global warming.

That's nothing compared to the hydrogen sulfide that comes out of yours. At least methane is odorless.

(You probably meant methanethiol, not methane. Methane production in humans is minimal but given your scientific illiteracy, your mistake is to be expected.)

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:31:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

(You probably meant methanethiol, not methane. Methane production in humans is minimal but given your scientific illiteracy, your mistake is to be expected.)

It's arguable that Rich is human.

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 10:08:44 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:31:35 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

(You probably meant methanethiol, not methane. Methane production in humans is minimal but given your scientific illiteracy, your mistake is to be expected.)

It's arguable that Rich is human.

Are you saying that he is a 'bot?

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 10:08:44 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:31:35 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

(You probably meant methanethiol, not methane. Methane production in humans is minimal but given your scientific illiteracy, your mistake is to be expected.)

It's arguable that Rich is human.

Are you saying that he is a 'bot?

No, I'm saying he's something like the anus of a cow.

On Friday, 24 April 2015 07:24:31 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The methane you fart out of your mouth every time you say something
probably contributes to half our global warming.

i.e. Not below the belt then?

On Friday, 24 April 2015 17:00:18 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:

No, I'm saying he's something like the anus of a cow.

Are we back below the belt again?

I find it hard to believe that RichA is a herbivore.

But now that you come to mention it...

He does have a fixation with grass and fences.

"The green-green grass of home, tra-la!"