Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Shuttle Columbia STS-107 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (317)	2/4/2003 8:15:41 PM
From: ownstock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 627

Completely agree! Here is another alternative series of rescues. Ones which cannot be denied by NASA dweebs: it is in their book! Check out this useless contingency plan link: nasaexplores.com The reason they are all useless is each needs immediate decision to take the option; and many would result in the loss of the shuttle. NASA, being the political-committee-decision-making-cover-your-ass-three-ways-monster it has become, could not make a decision that would result in damage to the shuttle, let alone loss. Not without clearance up the ying yang. They claim not to have noticed the debris hitting the wing until a long time after it was useless. That I simply do not believe. I know the launch tracking videos are closely monitored. Any idiot in his or her right mind could see the quantity of material coming off the wing was 100 times that which struck it. It even looks like it came from the leading edge or wheel well area, for goodness sake. The Challenger never made it to SRM cuttoff to make the ALS (Africa) a possibility, but the Columbia did. In theory. That's what should have happened. -Own

To: Yogizuna who wrote (317)	2/4/2003 9:21:43 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 627

I do not believe we should be sentencing astronauts to death when something goes wrong without even attempting or being prepared for a rescue mission. Did Magellan have a rescue mission in mind? Columbus? Do all the parties involved know the risks they are taking? Where in the modern psyche did it become mandatory that there be no risk no matter what the cost? Because I guarantee that no matter how much NASA (or anyone else for that matter) spends, space will remain risky. In a way it sucks, but it is some of what makes it admirable and an adventure. As long as the participants know the risks, and we always strive to fix them. Clark