Never mind the shuttle crash, the real threat is the CAIB report

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

As for sidewalks between towns... you do realize the SIZE of this country?
We've got states that it can take 8+ hours to drive through.

But your towns are still normal sized.

I lived in a nice part of the SF Bay Area, it was only a mile or so to the
local strip mall, and about 2 miles to the town. Only, if I wanted to walk
into Redwood City, it was a 5 mile walk including a detour over the 101.

In comparison to European cities things are not organised around walking
even where it would be practical to do so.

If I move back to the US, which is likely at some point, I'll chose to live
in a city.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Cardman wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:37:44 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
That is no excuse, when Europe is both large and usually has pavements
/ sidewalks between towns.

I really don't think you appreciate the SIZE of this country.

Yes I am aware of the size of your country...

It does not seem so.

YOu can drive
an HOUR or more at high speeds between towns and encounter nothing in
between. About the only place where the population density in the US
approaches that of Europe is on the East coast.

And still lacking sidewalks between towns, but as I said you are bound
to get their one day.

What would be the point of sidewalks between towns when it would take
three days to walk the journey?

Sidewalks between towns would be silly, and there aren't that many where I
lived in the West of England. However, he does have a point about getting
around without a car.

I just visited friends in MA, getting from JFK airport to their closest MBTA
station was impossible at the time I arrived and instead I ended up in New
Haven, a 90 minute drive. To get from Grand Central to New Haven took 110
minutes for an 90 mile journey. To put it in perspective I live almost
twice that distance from London but a visitor would get to my house from
Heathrow by train now in under 2 hours.

The 10 mile ride into Boston on the T I did took over 30 minutes.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...


I could walk between about 12 towns in that time. And even in your
less popular states the towns are only about 50 miles apart, which
could be done in a one day hard walk.

I invite you to walk to Vegas from LA. Having driven that, it is
significantly more than 50 miles between towns.

The Mojave and the surroundings aren't fun either.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:26:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So, given the above, doesn't it concern you just how badly we've screwed
up
the occupation so far?

I'll answer that when you tell me when you're going to quit beating
your wife.

This none answer, I take it, means you think we're doing a dandy job then?

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:31:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So, given the above, doesn't it concern you just how badly we've screwed
up
the occupation so far?

I'll answer that when you tell me when you're going to quit beating
your wife.

This none answer, I take it, means you think we're doing a dandy job then?

We're doing about as well as can be expected under the circumstances.
It's not perfect, but I don't expect that. I certainly wouldn't say
we're "screwing up badly" or at all.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:40:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I'll answer that when you tell me when you're going to quit beating
your wife.

Actually, the more I think about this, the more it annoys me.

Sorry, it's the way I always answer complex questions (which annoy
*me*)--it's the classic example.

You could have answered the question,

No, I couldn't answer it as stated, because I didn't accept the
premise, but it was meant to imply that I did.

Complex questions are a sneaky rhetorical gimmick, and that's why I
don't tolerate them.

The issue here is I don't think that was all that complex a question.

At least compared to some of the statements made by people prior to the war.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:29:50 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Complex questions are a sneaky rhetorical gimmick, and that's why I
don't tolerate them.

The issue here is I don't think that was all that complex a question.

Well, obviously it was. Whether or not I agreed with the premise, it
had one.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
...One could argue that Germany's fascination with all things
"high tech" led it to pursue weapons that were technically impressive,
but otherwise overly expensive for the results obtained.

More to the point, speaking of "Germany" as a single entity is deceptive.
WW2 Germany *had* no organized review process for weapons proposals, no
central preliminary assessment of cost and military potential that would
permit rational priority-setting. The result was what you'd expect: a
lot of duplication of effort, a lot of effort wasted on ridiculous ideas,
too much effort spent chasing multiple approaches when concentration on
one might well have succeeded, and a number of things that were technical
successes but made little military contribution because they were not
effective enough or were too hard to deploy in quantity.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
Greg Kuperberg wrote:


How about the original shape of the Hubble mirror--what
did that have to do with the fact that it was launched on an Evil
Manned Launch System?

It was either bad management or bad luck, although flying on the shuttle
was an unwelcome distraction for the mission.

Distraction to whom? Perkin-Elmer? Those in NASA who might've caught
it? Where does the nature of the launcher figure into that?

Cargo has to meet higher standards when flying on a manned vehicle.

Karl Hallowell -

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
...One could argue that Germany's fascination with all things
"high tech" led it to pursue weapons that were technically impressive,
but otherwise overly expensive for the results obtained.

More to the point, speaking of "Germany" as a single entity is deceptive.
WW2 Germany *had* no organized review process for weapons proposals, no
central preliminary assessment of cost and military potential that would
permit rational priority-setting. The result was what you'd expect:

Another significant problem was a general unwillingness to disturb
existing production lines. Thus as existing equipment fell behind the
curve, 'high tech' systems were seen as an attractive way to leap the
gap.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.