The Space Shuttle

[Alareth]

I've not taken the time to investigoogle the "truth" for myself yet, but it's time for a change of pace from 9/11. The new Apollo threads are nice, but I need more.

Anyone heard any good Challenger or Columbia related conspiracies? I'm about to leave work so I'll see what "obvious truths" I can find when I get home.

[grmcdorman]

Hoo boy. You're sure you want this?

Try this thread at BAUT: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61215-columbia-zapped-re-entry.html

This combines the "electric universe" woo with "NASA won't admit the real cause of the Columbia destruction."

Or this thread: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61206-haarp-space-shuttle-columbia.html
wherein HAARP is blamed for destroying Columbia.

And here's one about Challenger: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61078-another-challenger-conspiracy.html

ETA: BAUT is equivalent to JREF for astronomy-related CTs (also try the Against the Mainstream forum - some, um, interesting theories there); ApolloHoax is the equivalent for Apollo hoax believers.

[ConspiRaider]

I'd worked the Space Shuttle program in the mid-80s, about 2 years worth. I left the program in late summer, 1985. Challenger blew 5 months later, on January 28th, 1986.

When I first heard of it, I was more angry than shocked (as most people were). It had almost happened before. And, I had a general understanding of the bureaucracy that was NASA (and still is). My anger was based on the schoolteacher being aboard. I knew that spaceflight on the shuttle was dangerous and not yet ready for the frivolity of putting just anyone aboard.

Soon after the disaster, and talking to people I still knew in the program, the rumor came out that part of the pressure to launch that day, in 36-degree Fahrenheit weather, with icicles hanging off the ship, came from the White House. President Reagan wanted to do a live hookup with the schoolteacher during his State Of The Union address. People who are younger than, say 35, may not realize the extent of the popularity of Ronald Reagan at that time. Reagan never fooled me, not even when he was running for office and I was a 22-year-old kid, but he definitely knew how to play that role of President to the nth degree. Most emotive President ever. Best reader of a teleprompter. Expert at delivering a canned speech, because, as an actor, he knew just when to pause, how to phrase, how to affect the perfect tone and mood. It was all a charade, but America bought it for the most part. That kind of popularity can encourage arrogance. A publicity stunt such as the Prez-to-Shuttle live talk during his 1986 SOTU address is absolutely characteristic with his administration.

I'm not definitively saying Reagan was partly responsible, but there it is.

Here's more from someone eminently more qualified:
http://www.richardccook.com/

[A W Smith]

Pat Santy (Dr sanity)

Challenger - A Flight Surgeon Remembers (http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/01/challenger-flight-surgeon-remembers.html)

[Apollo20]

Well the re-entry trajectory of Columbia as published by NASA is inconsistent with the debris field..... but I am not saying this proves a conspiracy of any sort.

[Unsecured Coins]

Dr Greening, what do you mean by this?

[Apollo20]

Unsecured Coins:

I have carried out some calculations of the Columbia descent trajectory after loss of signal (LOS) including the effects of air resistance. I assumed that Columbia initially broke up into large sections in much the same way that Challenger disintegrated after the infamous post-launch explosion back in 1986. Thus I assumed that four main components were first formed as the out-of-control shuttle plunged earthwards just south of Dallas: the two wing sections, the payload bay and the welded aluminum crew compartment.

The Columbia crew compartment was found more or less intact outside Hemphill near the Texas – Louisiana border, about 525 km from the official LOS point. However, the ground distance traveled by Columbia after LOS becomes much less than 500 km if we take NASA’s reported location for “the onset of vehicle main body breakup”, (near Kerens, Texas), as a starting point. I estimate the distance from Kerens to Hemphill to be just 240 km, which means that the crew compartment descended 60 km with a forward travel of only 240 km, giving a very steep descent angle of 14 degrees

NASA also give a reference trajectory for a hypothetical object with a ballistic number equal to 220 psf striking the ground near Oakdale Louisiana and indicate a time to impact after LOS of about three and a half minutes. I have tried a variety of input parameters in my calculation to duplicate NASA’s 3 1/2 minute descent time and 200 – 500 km forward distance traveled and simply cannot get close to these values!

In all my calculations I use the following starting conditions: shuttle altitude = 60 km, forward velocity = 5.5 km/s and descent velocity = 36 m/s. I set up two equations of motion, one in the horizontal plane, and the other in the vertical plane (with respect to the earth’s surface) and numerically solve for altitude, time and ground distance using different (trial) values for the coefficients of lift and drag. I have also used the US Standard Atmosphere as published in J.D. Anderson’s Introduction to Flight in the calculation of lift and drag effects. As a first calculation I consider the space shuttle descending in one piece. Based on published data on the shuttle I used a coefficient of lift equal to 1, and a coefficient of drag equal to 0.7. The resulting descent time is very close to 5 minutes with a forward distance traveled of 850 km. Interestingly the calculation shows that the descent velocity increases very rapidly at first because there is almost no air resistance at 60 km. There is then a period of rapid deceleration from 30 – 15 km, as air resistance kicks in, and the shuttle slows to a terminal velocity ~ 75 m/s.

As a second, improved, calculation I have considered just the crew compartment. I assume it has a surface area of about 100 sq. m., and 1/3 the weight of the shuttle. I have taken the coefficients of lift and drag to be both equal to 0.6 since this gives the correct descent time for a calculation when applied to the Challenger crew compartment crash – Challenger took 2 minutes and 45 seconds to descend 16.5 km after the booster rocket explosion. With the above input parameters the Columbia descent time is now reduced to 4 minutes and 15 seconds and the forward distance traveled after LOS comes out to about 800 km. This would put the LOS/breakup point near Lubbock, Texas, well west of NASA’s reported LOS position near Dallas. So, I believe the shuttle was coming in too low!

[grmcdorman]

Well the re-entry trajectory of Columbia as published by NASA is inconsistent with the debris field..... but I am not saying this proves a conspiracy of any sort.Sigh.

Dr. Greening, if you want to debate these sorts of things, go over the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums (www.bautforum.com) for the shuttle issues, and ApolloHoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com) for Apollo Space program issues.

I would suggest, though, that if the re-entry trajectory was significantly inconsistent, then this would be quickly uncovered. There are a very large number of amateur astronomers and space buffs who would notice - and they are world wide, not just in the U.S. That is my opinion, though; if you want a more considered, expert response go to the BAUT forums. I'm not going to follow up on it, myself.

[Alareth]

I'd worked the Space Shuttle program in the mid-80s, about 2 years worth. I left the program in late summer, 1985. Challenger blew 5 months later, on January 28th, 1986.

When I first heard of it, I was more angry than shocked (as most people were). It had almost happened before. And, I had a general understanding of the bureaucracy that was NASA (and still is). My anger was based on the schoolteacher being aboard. I knew that spaceflight on the shuttle was dangerous and not yet ready for the frivolity of putting just anyone aboard.

Soon after the disaster, and talking to people I still knew in the program, the rumor came out that part of the pressure to launch that day, in 36-degree Fahrenheit weather, with icicles hanging off the ship, came from the White House. President Reagan wanted to do a live hookup with the schoolteacher during his State Of The Union address. People who are younger than, say 35, may not realize the extent of the popularity of Ronald Reagan at that time. Reagan never fooled me, not even when he was running for office and I was a 22-year-old kid, but he definitely knew how to play that role of President to the nth degree. Most emotive President ever. Best reader of a teleprompter. Expert at delivering a canned speech, because, as an actor, he knew just when to pause, how to phrase, how to affect the perfect tone and mood. It was all a charade, but America bought it for the most part. That kind of popularity can encourage arrogance. A publicity stunt such as the Prez-to-Shuttle live talk during his 1986 SOTU address is absolutely characteristic with his administration.

I'm not definitively saying Reagan was partly responsible, but there it is.

Here's more from someone eminently more qualified:
http://www.richardccook.com/

Setting aside the loss of life and the impact on the national psyche caused by the Challenger disaster, one of the things that bothers me about the event was how Morton Thiokol was made a scapegoat over the o-rings. Prior to the launch they were consulted about o-ring performance in those temperatures and they told the people at NASA that they couldn't guarantee they were safe under the existing launch conditions.

People on both sides new the danger, but chose to overlook it based on the desire to get in the sky and the accompanying publicity.

[grmcdorman]

Unsecured Coins:

I have carried out some calculations of the Columbia descent trajectory after loss of signal (LOS) including the effects of air resistance. I assumed that Columbia initially broke up into large sections in much the same way that Challenger disintegrated after the infamous post-launch explosion back in 1986. Thus I assumed that four main components were first formed as the out-of-control shuttle plunged earthwards just south of Dallas: the two wing sections, the payload bay and the welded aluminum crew compartment.

[snip]
Interesting. The problem with this, though, is that the disintegration wouldn't have happened in that way. The damage was at the root of one of the wings (the left wing comes to mind, but I could be wrong in that). As the re-entry gasses entered and damaged the wing, a considerable lateral force (yaw-inducing) developed; the automated systems attempted to correct for this until it became to great to compensate for. This was confirmed from telemetry.

So it is likely that a) the breakup was not at all symmetrical and b) the damaged wing did not disintegrate the same way (in fact, I would suspect that it came apart more quickly). In fact, the asymmetrical breakup would probably substantially affect the debris field.

The other issue, of course, is that the aerodynamic and thermal loads on the shuttle would be substantially greater than in in the case of Challenger, so the shuttle would probably disintegrate faster (and in a different fashion, to boot - even leaving aside the asymmetrical initiating damage).

There is photography of the re-entry track prior to the breakup, by the way. One of the threads at BAUT includes one of these photos.

ETA: I prefer your well-reasoned second post to the fact and information-free first one, Dr. Greening.

[Apollo20]

Grmcdorman:

I didn't start this thread, but its title is SPACE SHUTTLE!

I post something about the space shuttle and what do I get from you:

"Sigh. Dr. Greening, if you want to debate these sorts of things, go over the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums...."

VERY STRANGE! But sure, I would be happy NOT to debate this further if it bothers you....

[grmcdorman]

Grmcdorman:

I didn't start this thread, but its title is SPACE SHUTTLE!

I post something about the space shuttle and what do I get from you:

"Sigh. Dr. Greening, if you want to debate these sorts of things, go over the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums...."

VERY STRANGE! But sure, I would be happy NOT to debate this further if it bothers you....Well, in part, Dr. Greening, it was the content (or lack thereof) of the post. However, what I was trying to point out is that if you want really good answers to this, then the best place to go is the BAUT forums.

ETA: You are correct about the thread topic, by the way. Perhaps I was a bit overly dismissive in my first response.

[FramerDave]

I do recall some years ago that they were having the damndest time working out problems fabricating, and then later installing, the heat shield tiles.

But then (cue the woo) they had an overnight breakthrough! As if a solution was just handed to them!

If the shuttle had been back-engineered from alien technology, would we really have so many problems with it? Maybe we just outsourced it to the wrong aliens.

[ConspiRaider]

Setting aside the loss of life and the impact on the national psyche caused by the Challenger disaster, one of the things that bothers me about the event was how Morton Thiokol was made a scapegoat over the o-rings. Prior to the launch they were consulted about o-ring performance in those temperatures and they told the people at NASA that they couldn't guarantee they were safe under the existing launch conditions.

People on both sides new the danger, but chose to overlook it based on the desire to get in the sky and the accompanying publicity.
Good points. I remember Thiokol getting raked over the coals. This wasn't the equipment, primarily. It was decision-making. Essentially it was the engineers versus the suits who pay their salaries. Suits can be pressured politically because that is mostly what upper management is all about. Engineers see only the numbers.

I followed a good deal of the fallout afterwards. I remember one of the PBS specials focused on an engineer, who refused to look at the monitors while Challenger was counting down and launching.

I'd known, being in the program, about the near burn-through of an SRB at the O-ring on a previous launch. That, along with the schoolteacher (who in a way I felt was sacrificed) had me using the saltiest sailor language I could dredge up when I heard about the disaster, up in Oakland on a business trip. Just about everyone else was shocked, had their hands over their O-shaped mouths. I was swearing up a blue streak. Obviously I'm an engineer.

[R.Mackey]

I have carried out some calculations of the Columbia descent trajectory after loss of signal (LOS) including the effects of air resistance. I assumed that Columbia initially broke up into large sections in much the same way that Challenger disintegrated after the infamous post-launch explosion back in 1986. Thus I assumed that four main components were first formed as the out-of-control shuttle plunged earthwards just south of Dallas: the two wing sections, the payload bay and the welded aluminum crew compartment.

Well, there's your problem. The phenomenology of Columbia's breakup was nothing like that of Challenger. Absolutely nothing. The recovered data module showing how the control system reacted during softening and eventual breakup of the leading edge gives you a much more precise accounting of how and why it broke up, and this is supported by amateur photographs taken as far west as California, sufficient to trace the initial events.

If you want a frank discussion of the debris field, trajectory, and photographic evidence, I suggest you contact Dr. Paul Dimotakis, professor at GALCIT and the JPL Chief Technologist, who conducted a formal investigation into this precise effect personally. You may find it enlightening, and totally inconsistent with your own conclusions.

Quite dangerous to speculate so on the basis of such a poor assumption, wouldn't you agree?

[uk_dave]

Quite dangerous to speculate so on the basis of such a poor assumption, wouldn't you agree?

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the towers were brought down with explosives. :boggled:

[Apollo20]

R Mackey:

I think you need to do more research yourself old chap! Especially about the fate of the forward crew comparments in the Columbia vs. the Challenger disasters. This is key to what I am saying in case you didn't appreciate that..... And could you please show me YOUR calculations of the trajectory ... then we would have something to discuss!

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.

[Revolutionary91]

R Mackey:

I think you need to do more research yourself old chap! Especially about the fate of the forward crew comparments in the Columbia vs. the Challenger disasters. This is key to what I am saying in case you didn't appreciate that..... And could you please show me YOUR calculations of the trajectory ... then we would have something to discuss!

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.

Yes, I agree. RMackey used to be so respectful of you. I think you might have upset him when he suffered the humiliation of trying to debunk you with your own work lol

[rwguinn]

R Mackey:

I think you need to do more research yourself old chap! Especially about the fate of the forward crew comparments in the Columbia vs. the Challenger disasters. This is key to what I am saying in case you didn't appreciate that..... And could you please show me YOUR calculations of the trajectory ... then we would have something to discuss!

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.

:dl: :dl: :dl:
oh the irony!

Detonations are exactly like aerodynamic forces, huh, Doc?
Stick to chemistry, ok?

[grmcdorman]

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.Dr. Greening, looking at R. Mackey's post, I don't see anything particularly impolite, other than possibly pointing out that your assumption that the two breakups were comparable (something I pointed out above). Even then, to my mind the wording isn't really confrontational (unlike some of your posts I can point to). He even points you to a expert who studied exactly this thing you can talk to!

[oglommi]

The space shuttles should be scrapped anywqay. At a cost of 500mill to 1 bill per laucnh they are vary far from the "cheap, reliable, reusable" spacecrafts they were intended as. The russian Soyuz and Proton spacecraft are much much cheaper and very reliable. Nasa should just purchase the right to produce these spacecraft and they could launch many more spacecraft for a cheaper prize. After all I want humanity to travel into space as much a possible and cost is a big drawback.

[MWare]

I'm still waiting for the damn elevator. When is that baby gonna get built?

[oglommi]

Not for a long time

[Rahne Everson]

Good points. I remember Thiokol getting raked over the coals. This wasn't the equipment, primarily. It was decision-making. Essentially it was the engineers versus the suits who pay their salaries. Suits can be pressured politically because that is mostly what upper management is all about. Engineers see only the numbers.

Painfully, this is how disasters tend to happen.

[PhantomWolf]

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.

In psychology this trick is know as "projection."

[R.Mackey]

R Mackey:

I think you need to do more research yourself old chap! Especially about the fate of the forward crew comparments in the Columbia vs. the Challenger disasters. This is key to what I am saying in case you didn't appreciate that..... And could you please show me YOUR calculations of the trajectory ... then we would have something to discuss!
Shifting the burden of proof.

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.
Argument to emotion.

For anyone who is actually interested, Dr. Dimotakis described tracking of the first large fragment from aerodynamic arguments in a Caltech Watson Lecture in 2005. This link (http://today.caltech.edu/theater/item?story%5fid=6443) will allow you to see for yourself (lecture is about 70 minutes long, the period about 10:00 to 45:00 covers Columbia). While this piece landed in extremely remote and rugged terrain in southeast Nevada and has not been recovered, the calculations match FAA radar tracking data in time and space to better than 1% accuracy. As explained in the talk, the calculations depend on initial position information from the official Shuttle track correlated with amateur videos and parallax against known astronomical targets. Had the Shuttle re-entered off its track as Dr. Greening claims, these measurements would not match. The talk also covers other important and necessary elements of an accurate calculation, including cross-track variation, that are not included in Dr. Greening's back-of-envelope estimate. It is hardly surprising that he arrived at an inaccurate result.

What is surprising is that, rather than examine his grossly simplified calculation for sources of error, he jumped straight to accusing NASA of publishing false results, ostensibly to cover up improper operation of the Shuttle. Responsible scientists do not act in this manner. Dr. Greening, shame on you.

[R.Mackey]

Yes, I agree. RMackey used to be so respectful of you. I think you might have upset him when he suffered the humiliation of trying to debunk you with your own work lol

This is, of course, completely ridiculous.

You can only be referring to the infamous Debate? What Debate! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111) thread, started by Dr. Greening. Your analysis makes no sense because, if it were true, I would have always been "upset." My refutation of Dr. Greening with his own work was in my very first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2470760#post2470760) to him.

There is no law of physics or logic that prevents me from using someone's words against him. Fact knows no ownership. If I discover something, that does not mean that I can carelessly ignore this fact in my future labors. Colloquially this tactic in discourse is known as making one eat one's own words or by the aphorism "turnabout is fair play."

You will also notice that I was among the first (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2471147#post2471147) to discern that Apollo20 was Dr. Greening. You will further notice that I did not retract my statements thereafter -- because my logic was correct. The simple fact is that Dr. Greening, at different times and in different forums, presented two logically inconsistent positions. I described this clearly in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2471206#post2471206).

Finally, later in the thread, after it had settled down a bit, I described (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2489544#post2489544) to Dr. Greening why his summary of NIST was wrong, and he even acknowledged (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2490267#post2490267) this. Therefore, I'm not sure what "humiliation" I am supposed to have suffered.

The reason I have, indeed, lost a great deal of respect for Dr. Greening is clearly outlined in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2761894#post2761894). Since then, he's continued to make completely unfounded and irresponsible claims, about everything from Columbia to evolution. He's continued to ignore or resort to ad hominem baiting when corrected. How can you expect me to retain respect under those circumstances?

[T.A.M.]

I am not sure if Rev is old enough to remember that thread (Pssst. He is only 15).

TAM:)

[shagster]

A Columbia truth site:

http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/

[Damien Evans]

Hoo boy. You're sure you want this?

Try this thread at BAUT: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61215-columbia-zapped-re-entry.html

This combines the "electric universe" woo with "NASA won't admit the real cause of the Columbia destruction."

Or this thread: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61206-haarp-space-shuttle-columbia.html
wherein HAARP is blamed for destroying Columbia.

And here's one about Challenger: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61078-another-challenger-conspiracy.html

ETA: BAUT is equivalent to JREF for astronomy-related CTs (also try the Against the Mainstream forum - some, um, interesting theories there); ApolloHoax is the equivalent for Apollo hoax believers.

Not any more it isn't, now it's more like BAUTs CT section, plenty of good debunkers in there

[LashL]

I am not sure if Rev is old enough to remember that thread (Pssst. He is only 15).

TAM:)

Nobody cares about what the 15yo troofer kid has to say, given that, oh, um, he has nothing of any substance to say, but "Apollo" is way beyond old enough to remember that thread, and he avoids it like the plague.

ETA: Note to Stundie, that's "plague", not "plaque".

[Father Dagon]

I do recall some years ago that they were having the damndest time working out problems fabricating, and then later installing, the heat shield tiles.

But then (cue the woo) they had an overnight breakthrough! As if a solution was just handed to them!

If the shuttle had been back-engineered from alien technology, would we really have so many problems with it? Maybe we just outsourced it to the wrong aliens.Probably anticapitalistic aliens: The Killer Bug in the Space Shuttle (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4448) by Steven Brockerman.

For the CT:ers, human stupidity will never be a good enough explanation.

[grmcdorman]

Not any more it isn't, now it's more like BAUTs CT section, plenty of good debunkers in therePerhaps my post was ambiguous. In both cases, I meant that the sites are where very knowledgeable debunkers hang out (I have lurked for some time on both forums, and have accounts on both now).

Check out some threads by 'rocky' at ApolloHoax. It's more or less the equivalent of threads by one Mr. Kirkman here - although Kirkman, lately, seems to have taken things to new, um, levels. (I'll leave it to the reader to decide if that's up or down.)

[PhantomWolf]

Not any more it isn't, now it's more like BAUTs CT section, plenty of good debunkers in there

AH has always been populated with BAUT regulars (and BBAB before the BABB and UTF merged into BAUT.) While it has a CT forum that covers other conspiracies such as 9/11 and JFK, the main forum is Apollo.

[JJR]

I was bummed out about Challenger, bummed about the school teacher specifically. Even having been exposed to some pretty evil German teachers I still get depressed. Wistfully depressed. Hey, I can't just casually let my (very justified) hatred spill on to the Challenger crew. That's missing the target.

Oh, and I know people in every branch of the service basically and theoretically could ask someone about space shuttles if someone really needs to know something. It is within the realm of possibility at any rate. I'd have to arrange some kind of lunch or other social engagement and seed my conversation with a few well placed querries.

Remember though, I'd never reveal to the general public anything I deemed to be something that would make Uncle Sammy feel exposed or embarassed or something. I sort of did that once by talking too much about my rich engineer Uncle. It was just a casual kind of joke, but it got round to him and he was displeased. Thank God I really don't know too much about his particular job, making the comment (I said, "Hey, maybe he did some stealth technology") null and void as far as credibility goes. No empiracle verification, not even a casual querry. I usually just talk to him about science fiction and passing the potatoes when we visit his gated community house.

Oh, and it's possible that I could see the President some time. I'd probably ask him, "Hey, do you think I could go to space??" but could also ask him something else if anyone has a suggestion. At this point, however, most people just say, "Ask him: how do you sleep at night?" so I suppose this whole paragraph is moot. Null and void. Lol.

My father played the trumpet for George Bush Jr., you see. He was six feet from the president, and was of course carefull not to point his trumpet directly at him because it would quite probably aggitate the secret service. After all, a wide variety of projectile weapons could have been concealed within the trumpet, and it was never inspected.

I go with father on his jobs frequently. We mostly play in military bars or military retirement homes here in San Diego. It's fun. Those guys are cool and I love to drink beer with 'em.

Peace.

[JJR]

Probably anticapitalistic aliens: The Killer Bug in the Space Shuttle (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4448) by Steven Brockerman.

For the CT:ers, human stupidity will never be a good enough explanation.

I hope that is incorrect, but it's possible. Very strange. :cool: