[freepersup]

It’s not murder... sheesh! It’s space exploration with inherent risks. Spam in a can... Riding a bomb... That there haven’t been more catastrophic disasters is the wonder. Your comparison isn’t apples to apples. It’s more like comparing apples to a redwood tree, or oranges to a sea urchin.

[bvw]

It’s not exploration, it’s not science, it’s not even technology. Its a socialistic jobs program that considers death of the “heroes” a necessary sacrifice.

[bvw]

War is VERY risky. The recent "surge" in Iraq was 140,000 troops. A 1.5% catastrophic failure rate per month in that endeavor would have meant EVERY American soldier killed. What was the rate? About 0.07%.

What does that mean? That means that Americans tolerate TWENTY TIMES less acceptable risk in WAR than they do in the scientifically worthless Shuttle Program. Great PR machine NASA has. And the public, is, well, gullible. Murderously gullible.

[PapaBear3625]

It’s not murder... sheesh! It’s space exploration with inherent risks. Spam in a can... Riding a bomb...

And yet NASA gave the impression that the Shuttle was so safe they could send up a civilian school teacher to experience how wonderful it was.

Would McAuliffe and her family have been comfortable with her going, if it was explained that she would have a higher probability of dying than a US soldier faced while serving a tour in SouthEast Asia during the Vietnam War?