"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...s_ow.html#more
That damn woman...that damn _Bush_ woman.
This could destroy the entire impeccable tradition of the NASA PAO
having no political agenda whatsoever. :-D
Meanwhile, back on the ISS, the Mir glycol cooling system spill gets
repeated with freon:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...pill.html#more
Uh...excuse me... but wasn't freon supposed to be a no-no due to
depletion of the ozonosphere long before they started building the ISS?
Like someone having a scrimshawed sperm whale tooth from before the
whaling ban, I have my unused firefighting bottle of liquefied Halon
1301/1211 gas from 1988 sitting on the shelf next to my desk....Serial
Number M-416760.
Like Professor Chaos and General Disarray from South Park, I hold this
over _ONE POUND_ of pure Halon above the world's head as a perpetual
threat.
One wrong move and you all die of third degree sunburn, cataracts, and
skin cancer!

But, of course... that doesn't need happen, does it?

In fact, if $30.00 in small unmarked bills were given to me, this threat
to all life could leave my hands, and the world be safe again.
So think about it.

....okay, $25.00 dollars in a pinch... but that must be in
_gold_...deposited to a numbered Swiss bank account. :-)

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Uh...excuse me... but wasn't freon supposed to be a no-no due to
depletion of the ozonosphere long before they started building the ISS?
Like someone having a scrimshawed sperm whale tooth from before the
whaling ban, I have my unused firefighting bottle of liquefied Halon
1301/1211 gas from 1988 sitting on the shelf next to my desk....Serial
Number M-416760.

Probably wouldn't work anymore, Pat. 20 years is a long time to store
anything, let alone a liquified gas. What does the guage say (in the red,
probably)?

Alan Erskine wrote:
Probably wouldn't work anymore, Pat. 20 years is a long time to store
anything, let alone a liquified gas. What does the guage say (in the red,
probably)?


It's still fairly full. It's quite small (8" tall by 2" diameter). I
assume they used some sort of sealant on the valve.
Shake it, and you can feel the Halon moving around inside. The Halon
appears to be within two inches of the top.
IIRC, that's about where it was when I bought it.

Pat

On May 15, 6:08 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...s_ow.html#more

That damn woman...that damn _Bush_ woman.

The photoshopped redheaded bible college educated astronaut -
bureaucrat woman was brilliant, Keith is really hitting his stride.

No red bush jokes please. Thanks!

On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:02 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

Lemme guess...

- Someone at a NASA center didn't update a web page this week?
- Keith didn't get an invite to another Constellation teleconference?
- The DIRECT guys dared to suggest their approach was superior to Ares
and Keith's beloved EELVs?
- A political appointee got a job Keith thinks he/she doesn't deserve?

NASA Watch has bitched and whined itself into irrelevance. Nothing to
see here, move along...

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:02 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:


"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.


Lemme guess...


- A political appointee got a job Keith thinks he/she doesn't deserve?


Bingo!

Pat

On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:40:45 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:02 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

Lemme guess...

- Someone at a NASA center didn't update a web page this week?
- Keith didn't get an invite to another Constellation teleconference?
- The DIRECT guys dared to suggest their approach was superior to Ares
and Keith's beloved EELVs?
- A political appointee got a job Keith thinks he/she doesn't deserve?

....You left out the most obvious one:

- Keith is just ragging on and trying to make something out of
nothing, just because he's still ****ed that he was fired from NASA
for being a ****up.

NASA Watch has bitched and whined itself into irrelevance. Nothing to
see here, move along...

....Agreed. Best thing that could happen right about now is for some
h@kk3r to go replace the entire site with a picture of a middle finger
and an advisory for Keith to shut the **** up and go away. He's worn
out his welcome long ago.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On May 15, 8:40*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:02 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

Lemme guess...

- Someone at a NASA center didn't update a web page this week?
- Keith didn't get an invite to another Constellation teleconference?
- The DIRECT guys dared to suggest their approach was superior to Ares
and Keith's beloved EELVs?
- A political appointee got a job Keith thinks he/she doesn't deserve?

NASA Watch has bitched and whined itself into irrelevance. Nothing to
see here, move along...

Brian

You got that right. A phenomenal waste of time.

You got that right. A phenomenal waste of time.

You know, it actually didn't use to be.

But now that it has morphed into "Everest Watch" instead of NASA
Watch, it is really quite different. I submitted some comments to his
site pointing out that while what Scott Parazynski is doing a
wonderful personal adventure, it actually isn't relevant to watching
NASA, and only vaguely has anything to do with real exploration for
any one but Scott. In that Scott is doing what many others have
already done, and actually following in their footprints as well as
their footsteps, there is some symbolic reference to the whole "return
to the Moon for the first time" effort.

But Keith threw me off his site. "You made your point", he curtly e-
mailed me.

So let's just all be aware that the "comments" that NASA Watch is now
inviting are well filtered, and if they appear to disagree with Keith,
even if they are civil and in the spirit of good discourse, they're
just not going to show up. That's his prerogative, of course, since
it's his website. But the experiment has been done, and the results
are pretty clear.

Fortunately, there are many other forums that welcome different
perspectives, and actually tolerate some intellectual contrariness.

wrote:
You got that right. A phenomenal waste of time.


You know, it actually didn't use to be.

But now that it has morphed into "Everest Watch" instead of NASA
Watch, it is really quite different. I submitted some comments to his
site pointing out that while what Scott Parazynski is doing a
wonderful personal adventure, it actually isn't relevant to watching
NASA, and only vaguely has anything to do with real exploration for
any one but Scott. In that Scott is doing what many others have
already done, and actually following in their footprints as well as
their footsteps, there is some symbolic reference to the whole "return
to the Moon for the first time" effort.


I can't figure that out either.
He also became fascinated with the astronauts in the underwater habitat
around a year back, as well as the crew up on Devon Island pretending
they're on Mars.
Maybe he got bored with space? :-\

Pat