[plug] [OT] Goodbye, Columbia

[Mike Holland]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Simon Scott wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 03:47, shayne oneill wrote:
> 
> > This is a disaster.
> 
> No it isnt.

  Disaster Dis*as"ter, n. F. d'esastre; pref. d'es- (L.
   dis-) + astre star, fr. L. astrum; a word of astrological origin.
   1.    malevolent influence of a heavenly body; hence, an ill portent.
 
I think that qualifies.

But seriously, the loss of seven lives is only the tip of the iceberg. 
That shuttle represented the equivalent of the life's work of countless 
thousands. That kind of money equals many more lives. (e.g. could be spent 
on medical gear, road safety, ...)

> In fact, the risks are pretty low. Look at what NASA achieve and how few 
> accidents theyve had. I wonder how their safety record matches up against 
> most of the worlds airlines

You must be kidding! Shuttle launches have maybe a 98% survival rate. 
Anything unmanned, rather less.  Airlines - consider how many fatalities 
in decades of Australian commercial jet travel (none?). Thats with as many 
flights per day as the shuttles have done _ever_. >99.999% survival.

> (which by comparison is a jog down the the local 
> deli).

Actually, space is closer than Sydney. You can count the orbital km, thats 
just parking.
 
> I feel sorry for the 3 guys stuck up on the ISS. Maybe theyll have to hitch a 
> ride back with the Russians. Egads.

Yes. Arn't the russians supposed to be delivering an escape module to the 
ISS, for thsi kind of thing>

-- 
You ain't seen nothing yet.  - Miguel de Cervantes