Branson may have ignored warnings about the safety of his cheezy rocket.

On Thursday, November 6, 2014 8:18:20 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
According to an engineer. We'll see. BTW, who is paying for the NTSB
investigation of the crash? The taxpayers?

And all these "ignored warnings" were about the fuel system which was not
the cause of the crash.

Irrelevant.

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:54:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, November 6, 2014 8:18:20 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
According to an engineer. We'll see. BTW, who is paying for the NTSB
investigation of the crash? The taxpayers?

And all these "ignored warnings" were about the fuel system which was not
the cause of the crash.

Irrelevant.

Basically, the death was for nothing. These rockets aren't exploring anything, they were being developed to take rich celebrities on joyrides.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:19:31 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Basically, the death was for nothing. These rockets aren't exploring anything, they were being developed to take rich celebrities on joyrides.

Everything is pointing to pilot error.

And what's wrong with developing a technology for rich paying
customers? You should be happy that somebody has found a way to use
private resources to develop new technology.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:19:31 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:54:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, November 6, 2014 8:18:20 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
According to an engineer. We'll see. BTW, who is paying for the NTSB
investigation of the crash? The taxpayers?

And all these "ignored warnings" were about the fuel system which was not
the cause of the crash.

Irrelevant.

Basically, the death was for nothing.
These rockets aren't exploring anything, they
were being developed to take rich celebrities on joyrides.

That's a narrow minded attitude.
Capitalism is the foundation of all invention.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:05:44 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:19:31 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Basically, the death was for nothing. These rockets aren't exploring anything, they were being developed to take rich celebrities on joyrides.

Everything is pointing to pilot error.

And what's wrong with developing a technology for rich paying
customers? You should be happy that somebody has found a way to use
private resources to develop new technology.

If they were pilotless and the trips were one-way, I'd be all for them.

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:14:22 PM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:

Basically, the death was for nothing.
These rockets aren't exploring anything, they
were being developed to take rich celebrities on joyrides.

That's a narrow minded attitude.
Capitalism is the foundation of all invention.


What invention? They aren't breaking any new ground. They've had sub-orbital vehicles since the 60's.

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:05:44 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:19:31 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Basically, the death was for nothing. These rockets aren't exploring
anything, they were being developed to take rich celebrities on joyrides.

And what's wrong with developing a technology for rich paying
customers?

You tell us.

You should be happy that somebody has found a way to use
private resources to develop new technology.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rbon-emissions

Can we presume that any/all of the "rich paying customers" will become/remain quiet and non-political wrt "global warming?"

On 14/11/2014 02:12, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:14:22 PM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:

Basically, the death was for nothing.
These rockets aren't exploring anything, they
were being developed to take rich celebrities on joyrides.

That's a narrow minded attitude.
Capitalism is the foundation of all invention.


What invention? They aren't breaking any new ground. They've had sub-orbital vehicles since the 60's.

Early balloons and aeroplanes started out this way too.

Why are you so totally negative about *EVERYTHING* ?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 02:00:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:

And what's wrong with developing a technology for rich paying
customers?

You tell us.

Nothing I can think of.

Can we presume that any/all of the "rich paying customers" will become/remain quiet and non-political wrt "global warming?"

Why? There's nothing inherently wrong with using technologies that
produce carbon emissions. What's wrong is choosing to use more
polluting technologies when there's no reason to do so.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:30:01 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 02:00:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:

And what's wrong with developing a technology for rich paying
customers?

You tell us.

Nothing I can think of.

I say that if some rich guy wants to pump a bunch of money into space
travel, why stop him?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe