NASA idiots cancel service mission to Hubble

Hi Nightbat I wish you would not pick on NASA (that's my job) NASA
threw away the Saturn V so why not the great Hubble telescope. NASA has
not started to build the new Hubble. Read NASA admites the shuttle's are
getting old.Right now I smell a dead rat. Its possible NASA is not
getting volunteers to go up in the shuttle. NASA is probably finding out
it would be cheaper to build a new shuttle than recondition an old one(I
had an old car like that) Metal fatigue is put to the test when the
shuttle hits the atmosphere. Bert

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:51 -0500, G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Hi Nightbat I wish you would not pick on NASA (that's my job) NASA threw

I seem to remember something from you about it being one of your New
Year's Resolutions, not to have a go at NASA. Only thing I don't
remember, is whether you qualified it with a reference to quantity.

Dat's Me My New Year resolution was not to let people in this group
"**** me off" These people are not killers. NASA is a killer. Both in
the Challenger,and Columbia they lied,stone walled,and covered things
up. Till we dump all those political crooks that run NASA today I will
stay on their backs. Some one has to do this,for they answer to no one.
As I type the families of the astronauts that were killed on the shuttle
Columbia are suing. As did the families of the Challenger. You will not
hear to much about these suits because NASA for the most part controlled
the press. A political identity(NASA) can kill with the same immunity as
Ford,and Firestone,like the American Red Cross, Power,and money are
equivelent Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Dat's Me My New Year resolution was not to let people in this group
"**** me off" These people are not killers. NASA is a killer. Both in
the Challenger,and Columbia they lied,stone walled,and covered things
up. Till we dump all those political crooks that run NASA today I will
stay on their backs. Some one has to do this,for they answer to no one.
As I type the families of the astronauts that were killed on the shuttle
Columbia are suing. As did the families of the Challenger. You will not
hear to much about these suits because NASA for the most part controlled
the press. A political identity(NASA) can kill with the same immunity as
Ford,and Firestone,like the American Red Cross, Power,and money are
equivelent Bert

Hey Bert...serious question...What is an exceptable failure rate for a space
program in your opinion? Surely with a complex system constantly moving from
one state to another there is risk of failure, and with every state change,
the chances go up. So there must be a certain level of failure that is
deemed acceptable. Do you agree? What is yours?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:07:03 -0500, G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Dat's Me My New Year resolution was not to let people in this group
"**** me off" These people are not killers. NASA is a killer. Both in the
Challenger,and Columbia they lied,stone walled,and covered things up. Till
we dump all those political crooks that run NASA today I will stay on
their backs. Some one has to do this,for they answer to no one. As I type
the families of the astronauts that were killed on the shuttle Columbia
are suing. As did the families of the Challenger. You will not hear to
much about these suits because NASA for the most part controlled the
press. A political identity(NASA) can kill with the same immunity as
Ford,and Firestone,like the American Red Cross, Power,and money are
equivelent Bert

The message below can be found at the following url (The url will be
wrapped by the time you see it. Remove the "&output=gplain" to see a
pretty version):

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?s...&output=gplain

--- Begin Paste ---
From: (G=EMC^2 Glazier)
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy
Subject: Beagle 2 might have landed on his back?
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:20:42 -0500 (EST)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Lines: 15
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-WebTV-Signatu 1
ETAtAhRsZ+v2EDzNFtEh89MLH3sam9vfZAIVALr2dHYIa3hRYh cSYd5NgukcgX4G
Content-Disposition: Inline


UGO My New Year resolution is not to bad mouth NASA Since I still have
today,I'll say this. NASA has gotten away with murder. NASA has stolen
hundreds of millions of dollars. NASA answers to no one. Months before
the Columbia explosion 21 of its best engineers(one was a friend of
mine) quite,and there reason was the shuttles were not safe to fly.
Tiles always coming off,need for new wiring,and plumbing etc. My friend
is a very nice person,and has to much class to work where the executives
have a motto "Life is cheap,but a buck is still a buck" My New Year
prediction the shuttle might fly on more time so NASA can retire it as a
great space vehical (get some egg of their face) or Bush will con the
public and say we don't need the shuttle anymore,because we are going to
build a base on the moon. Well if they aution of the parts of the
shuttles I would like to have one of the toilets. It could be its most
dependable piece of equipment. Bert

--- End Paste ---

Not replying to anyone in particular, but a general comment on
the Hubble loss of support. They should ask the Chinese, who now
have a successful manned space program.(:-))

Fred

Well my conscience will not let me stop bashing NASA I tried(for two
days) I hate killers,and political crooks. When NASA made a closed
shuttle,that would not open and save peoples lives in case of a failure
in the system like the Saturn V had I asked why. Here is the answer I
got back. It would cost to much money $$$$$$$$$$ Life is cheap,for
NASA knows a buck is still a buck. They are indeed no better than a Ford
with its Firestone(cheap) tires They have indeed.the same corrupt mind
as those that ran the American Red Cross,and sold blood that tested
positive for HIV because they could make a big buck on those millions of
pints they had in stock(And The Band Played On) NASA is out to lunch
when I call. My biggest regret is I did not picket NASA(its a short ride
away.) For that I have myself to blame. NASA answers to no one,and I
have only one voice. Bert When I use getting out I mean blasting away
from the failed system and parachuting down.

NASA has to fly the shuttle again. They will have lots of problems
finding a crew. When they do it will be astronauts that are young and
with no wives or children. It would be great if NASA could develop
robots to fly these dangerous machines. If they have people aboard they
must fit in an escape hatch(like the Apollo V had),and put life ahead of
a buck. All an all I think Nasa got the rovers down nicely. I think they
should use retro-rockets all the way down,for that would be good
practice for landing on Mercury,our moon,and the moons of Jupiter.
Saves time and money to think ahead,and we used retro-rockets on the
moon landings 37 years ago,and with computers its not all that hard to
do. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
NASA has to fly the shuttle again. They will have lots of problems
finding a crew. When they do it will be astronauts that are young and
with no wives or children. It would be great if NASA could develop
robots to fly these dangerous machines. If they have people aboard they
must fit in an escape hatch(like the Apollo V had),and put life ahead of
a buck. All an all I think Nasa got the rovers down nicely. I think they
should use retro-rockets all the way down,for that would be good
practice for landing on Mercury,our moon,and the moons of Jupiter.
Saves time and money to think ahead,and we used retro-rockets on the
moon landings 37 years ago,and with computers its not all that hard to
do. Bert

Using the rockets all the way down, would require a lot more fuel, which is
a lot more weight, which means less experiments. Seems to me the airbags are
working good for the robots. I wonder how they would work for humans? I am
guessing we need something a bit less dramatic to put (wo)men on the moon
again.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BV It would be a good idea to have refueling tanks of fuel in orbit
around Mars. For a landers retro-rockets. I know this technology is
beyond todays NASA,but todays NASA will be dumped someday(hopefully
soon) Bert