Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Martinus on January 09, 2006, 07:43:44 am
-
It seems space tourism and terrorism are mutually exclusive pass times now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4589072.stm
-
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"By the grace of Allah, you will die Infidel! Oops, sorry...... no."
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
-
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"By the grace of Allah, you will die Infidel! Oops, sorry...... no."
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
..
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No"
"on you go, then"
*chokes laughing*
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
What a joke...... :rolleyes:
-
In space no one can hear you scream Durka! Durka! Muhammed Ali!
-
Dear god make him stop.
-
"Are you a terrorist?"
"No."
"Did you vote Democrat?"
"Yeah, why?"
"CODE 19! CODE 19!"
Or better yet:
"Are you a terrorist?"
"Err, yes, actually. I'm with Islamic Jihad. I helped in that hijacking a few weeks back. Killed a lot of people."
"Really?"
"Yeah. I was actually the ring leader and....Nah, I'm only kidding. I've never been to a mosque in my life."
"Oh - you. You had me going for a minute there. Third row down, second on the left."
-
I have no idea why it's being built in the US anyway. Put the damned thing in Mexico and import American specialists on work visas. The government would be far less intrusive, for one, and any general labour would be cheaper.
-
Space tourism security: because a lot of very evil people want to blow up the moon!
-
'I'd like a pack of Cheese and Onion Crisps and the second bomb on the left please'.
Sheesh... You only have to look for the instruction book 'How to fly the Space Shuttle in 3 easy lessons' in their luggage! :rolleyes:
-
They'd only need to know how to crash it.
And if anyone ever mentions blowing up the Moon again, I'm going to kill them. No-one touches it till I carve a smiley-face into it with a collosal laser.
-
But even getting the shuttle through the Atmosphere in one piece takes a great deal of training, else you just end up as a very brief falling star.
-
Yeah, so you attack the pilot once you're in zero-G.
-
Falling stars burn up on reentry, so you'd have to attack the pilot during descent. :p
-
It's probably so the brilliant American public won't complain I would imagine. *shrugs* I didn't bother to read the whole article though, so it probably is far more ludicrous than I'd like to believe.
-
The FAA also suggests space tourism companies check the global "no-fly" list, from the US Homeland Security Department, to exclude potential terrorists.
Well that's Cat Stevens out. :D
-
Why would they need to?
What terrorist is going to blow up a Mexican space shuttle? That'd be like bombing Ethiopia.
-
Oh, please, stop your *****ing, people. It's hardly a ludicrous proposal, you all are just poking fun for the hell of it.
Grow the hell up.
-
:confused:
Although, after 9/11 I guess nothing can be a joke anymore. And after 9/11, no risks can be taken anymore. *shrugs*
-
But the question is: Is it worth it.
Of a nation of some 260million, under the good, old 'come one, come all' security arrangements, the death-toll from terrorism was about 10,000 give or take.
Yet all 260million have been ass-raped by the PATRIOT Act and other similar measures.
Personally, I'd put a bullet in the head of every last one of the 10k 'saved' under the new regime, if it meant I could get a package through customs without it looking like it'd been home to a pack of wild badgers.
But then the value I place on a human life is about 50p.
-
Oh, please, stop your *****ing, people. It's hardly a ludicrous proposal, you all are just poking fun for the hell of it.
Grow the hell up.
Yes it is, it's utterly, stupendously ludicrous.
Consider the cost of flights, the point of destroying any craft like that, the chances of actually crashing into anything worthwhile even if you do somehow wrangle control of the vehicle, the amount of damage you're likely to do.....
A bomb is much better value for money, far more accurate and potentially far more devestating.
-
in space, nobody can hear you scream "Infidels!" :p
-
Oh, please, stop your *****ing, people. It's hardly a ludicrous proposal, you all are just poking fun for the hell of it.
Grow the hell up.
Tell me what exactly they're going to do?
"With my six week crash course on spacecraft I will burn it up in the atmosphere for Allah!"
The potential damage from this would be losing a perfectly good spaceship and flightcrew, not turning a ceramic spacecraft into a missile.
-
Oh, please, stop your *****ing, people. It's hardly a ludicrous proposal, you all are just poking fun for the hell of it.
Grow the hell up.
Tell me what exactly they're going to do?
"With my six week crash course on spacecraft I will burn it up in the atmosphere for Allah!"
The potential damage from this would be losing a perfectly good spaceship and flightcrew, not turning a ceramic spacecraft into a missile.
Apart from the billions of dollars wasted from the destruction of the shuttle and ruination of the launch, and the civilian lives (keyword some of you folks seem to have missed: Tourists)? Even assuming they can't turn it into a missile (unlikely they can, but not impossible), that's a metric ****load of damage. In any space launch, there's a lot more that can go wrong than taking off in an Airliner.
Higher stakes=better protection required.
Again, stop your *****ing.
-
In space no one can hear you scream Durka! Durka! Muhammed Ali!
"It will be 911 times 2356."
"My God, that's... I don't even know what that is!"
"Nobody does!"
-
Apart from the billions of dollars wasted from the destruction of the shuttle and ruination of the launch, and the civilian lives (keyword some of you folks seem to have missed: Tourists)? Even assuming they can't turn it into a missile (unlikely they can, but not impossible), that's a metric ****load of damage. In any space launch, there's a lot more that can go wrong than taking off in an Airliner.
Higher stakes=better protection required.
Again, stop your *****ing.
What higher stakes?
The whole point is that by turning space-travel into a commercial venture, it'll be like an expensive standard flight. Costs will plummet, safety will increase.
If they wanted to just kill a bunch of people, they'd still be better off hitting a standard passenger plane taking off from a standard airport whose modern security systems are fitted into an existing building - as the space-launch terminal will be built with modern security systems in mind and will be streets ahead simply by virtue of being new.
And the effort required to properly calculate a re-entry vector that would bring the shuttle down intact onto a specific target is probably a damn sight less than would be required to build a nuclear weapon. You can't just recruit morons and have them do the math. And anyone whose spent the decades required to learn all that **** will have already been conscripted by the corporations to run numbers for their sparkly new space venture.
-
Oh, please, stop your *****ing, people. It's hardly a ludicrous proposal, you all are just poking fun for the hell of it.
Grow the hell up.
Tell me what exactly they're going to do?
"With my six week crash course on spacecraft I will burn it up in the atmosphere for Allah!"
The potential damage from this would be losing a perfectly good spaceship and flightcrew, not turning a ceramic spacecraft into a missile.
Good flight crews are VERY hard to come by, and asides from that their HUMAN LIVES. Space shuttles, while far less valuable, are still very expensive. As far as I know, the U.S. only has the Atlantis, the Discovery, and the Endavour left ( :( ). I THOUGHT there was an Enterprise, but mayby thats an aircraft carrier.
Again, stop your *****ing.
I saw people making jokes, and jokes are O.K. . An0n and Ace don't count. *looks at Meaglamor* :nervous: Neither do admins.
-
... This is luicrous. And the jokers are right, this is one of the stupidest laws ever considerred.
I think some others need to chill out a little bit. Like everyone said, hijacking space liner is... meh. read anon and ace's posts.
-
Enterprise is a shuttle as well (The name was changed to Enterprise after thousands of letters from Star Trek fans).
-
What did it use to be?
-
Ironically, it was supposed to be called Constitution. So in a way, it was....Constitution class? :confused:
-
Posting another thread with the title "THIS is the kind of stuff you should make fun of, not that Space tourism ****..." simply because you don't comprehend the reason why this one is funny tends to convey '*****ing' on your part Jetmech.
Take a step back and look around before you start throwing bricks. :wtf:
-
Enterprise is a shuttle as well (The name was changed to Enterprise after thousands of letters from Star Trek fans).
Wasn't shuttle Enterprise a test rig strapped to the back of a 747? It was used for zero-G training or something.
-
That's the vomit comet.
Seriously... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomit_comet
-
Enterprise is a shuttle as well (The name was changed to Enterprise after thousands of letters from Star Trek fans).
Wasn't shuttle Enterprise a test rig strapped to the back of a 747? It was used for zero-G training or something.
Enterprise was the aerodynamic glider test, IIRC. I think it may have been a smaller (still human-flown) scaled model rather than full size, though.
-
Enterprise was to-scale. She just didn't have anything that made her capable of space flight.
-
Enterprise is a shuttle as well (The name was changed to Enterprise after thousands of letters from Star Trek fans).
Wasn't shuttle Enterprise a test rig strapped to the back of a 747? It was used for zero-G training or something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterprise
-
Ah, that's right. I knew it was a test rig of some sort.
-
Just read up on the article. Why would people consider it stupid?
-
Posting another thread with the title "THIS is the kind of stuff you should make fun of, not that Space tourism ****..." simply because you don't comprehend the reason why this one is funny tends to convey '*****ing' on your part Jetmech.
Take a step back and look around before you start throwing bricks. :wtf:
It's not funny. You see "terrorist," "space," and "U.S." in the same article and seem to think "L0Lz, st00p1d Amurikans."
There's more than enough "Stupid America" threads without some people making fun of articles that barely even register as 'kinda odd.'
"What? The Americans don't want people on shuttles in space that are intent on causing harm? Haha, n00bs!"
Forgive me if I fail to see where the humor lies. Let's do a quick rundown of the list:
-Security checks for passengers, similar to whats done on airlines. Not bad. Not the best either, but hardly "ludicrous."
-No-fly lists used.
-Companies should give passengers safety advice including the number of flights the spacecraft has been on and any problems they have experienced with the craft.
-Pre-flight training to handle emergency situations such as a loss of cabin pressure or fire.
-Medical requirements in the hands of the tourist, who should decide themselves if they are fit to fly.
Where's the big deal? I don't see any humor. The only one I really don't agree with is the last, and that only because of the one truth that your average person isn't exactly the brightest bulb when it comes to knowing ones own limits.
-
I agree with Jetmech on this one. I hardly see a reason to mock American efforts to strengthen security around one of the most sensitive and expensive programs in the country. In all honestly, you can laugh now and have the government not go through with the security checks, but when Atlantis explodes in the atmosphere and Islamic radicals step up to claim responsibility, don't be all shocked.
The idea of hijacking/blowing up a space shuttle isn't for turning into a missile or a weapon, but more of a psychological attack. Sure, Americans know we're not safe on the ground (World Trade Center), in the air (hijacked aircraft), or in the sea (USS Cole), but blowing up a shuttle would simply prove that America isn't safe even in space.
Not to mention that NASA can't afford another catastrophe after Columbia. Space shuttles really aren't cheap, and the loss of another shuttle due to not checking who was on the damned thing is only another blow to faith in the American Space Program.
So, no, I see no humor or point in mocking this.
-
Posting another thread with the title "THIS is the kind of stuff you should make fun of, not that Space tourism ****..." simply because you don't comprehend the reason why this one is funny tends to convey '*****ing' on your part Jetmech.
Take a step back and look around before you start throwing bricks. :wtf:
It's not funny. You see "terrorist," "space," and "U.S." in the same article and seem to think "L0Lz, st00p1d Amurikans."
There's more than enough "Stupid America" threads without some people making fun of articles that barely even register as 'kinda odd.'
"What? The Americans don't want people on shuttles in space that are intent on causing harm? Haha, n00bs!"
Forgive me if I fail to see where the humor lies. Let's do a quick rundown of the list: (removed from quote)
WTH!?!? From what I saw, they were making fun of POLITITIONS, EXECUTIVES, and SENETORS. I don't care if they say that they are incompetent, and in fact, bush is. And myby some of his cabnit + legislature. THEY ARE NOT MAKING FUN OF THE CITIZENS!!! If they were I would flame them untill SOMETHING BAD WOULD HAPPEN.
-
Take a pill and calm down. Seriously. Jetmech said nowhere in his post about anything that you just ranted on about.
-
sigh...
It's not funny. You see "terrorist," "space," and "U.S." in the same article and seem to think "L0Lz, st00p1d Amurikans."
There's more than enough "Stupid America" threads without some people making fun of articles that barely even register as 'kinda odd.'
"What? The Americans don't want people on shuttles in space that are intent on causing harm? Haha, n00bs!"
Was it that hard to read?
-
No it's not, and nowhere in there does he say that Maeg or anyone else here is attacking American citizens. From what I can gather, they are poking fun at and mocking the government/NASA officials that are setting up these security measures. Jetmech's only countering that attacking reasonable American policies is just low and irritating.
-
sigh...
It's not funny. You see "terrorist," "space," and "U.S." in the same article and seem to think "L0Lz, st00p1d Amurikans."
There's more than enough "Stupid America" threads without some people making fun of articles that barely even register as 'kinda odd.'
"What? The Americans don't want people on shuttles in space that are intent on causing harm? Haha, n00bs!"
Was it that hard to read?
Considering I don't really see your point...kinda. I'm well aware of the fact that certain U.S. politicians not quite 'all there,' partiularly in the head, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying.
-
Then it's me. What are you saying?
-
Nuclear1 got it. Read his post.
-
okay, sorry. it just sounded like you were *****ing by they way you were saying it. sorry.
And I'm gonna stop posting in this thread because it got WAY off topic, and because it might get locked because it got so close to flamewars.
-
You're weird. :wtf: This is being handled with quite the civility.
-
I agree with Jetmech on this one. I hardly see a reason to mock American efforts to strengthen security around one of the most sensitive and expensive programs in the country. In all honestly, you can laugh now and have the government not go through with the security checks, but when Atlantis explodes in the atmosphere and Islamic radicals step up to claim responsibility, don't be all shocked.
The idea of hijacking/blowing up a space shuttle isn't for turning into a missile or a weapon, but more of a psychological attack. Sure, Americans know we're not safe on the ground (World Trade Center), in the air (hijacked aircraft), or in the sea (USS Cole), but blowing up a shuttle would simply prove that America isn't safe even in space.
Not to mention that NASA can't afford another catastrophe after Columbia. Space shuttles really aren't cheap, and the loss of another shuttle due to not checking who was on the damned thing is only another blow to faith in the American Space Program.
So, no, I see no humor or point in mocking this.
Agreed on all accounts. I think it's easy to jump to the conclusion (based on the 9/11 attacks) that the only reason to hijack a shuttle would be to use it as a missile to blow somethings/someones up. Taking large security measures to prevent a space shuttle version of 9/11 is humorous because flying a space shuttle is a little more difficult than a plane, as is flying through an atmosphere (or at least, I would imagine). However, you and Jetmech raised good points on why security measures should be taken. If terrorists hijacked and blew up a space shuttle and its crew, I imagine people would feel a bit terrorized. *shrugs*
-
Ok guys, take a look at the overall picture here. You pay a fairly astronomical amount of cash to get on one of these space tours, you have to change into a suit they give you, you don't get to bring anything along with you and there's at least a three to five man team of astronauts overseeing the flight logistics.
You don't get to go into space until you do rigorous training, you have to pass a through medical, your background is scrutinised. Right now going into space is one of the most intensive things you can do regardless of being just 'a passenger'.
Perhaps in 20 years time when you have large scale (and thus cheap) space tours you'll have to give security some consideration. For the next 5 to 10 it's the vice of the rich and eccentric. By the time it does get to large scale flights security procedures will have changed regardless. It's a bit like cavemen putting a plan together on how to run a railway network.
-
Besides - this is about private space tourism. TThink SpaceShip One - not Space Shuttles. Nothing to do with NASA.
-
Not to mention it's still a pie-in-the-sky situation - so we don't even know how it'd work, if it ever does.
Nor let us forget the inanity of having 'no-fly' screening (something shown to be incredibly useless and unfair in real application, with people not even allowed to find out why they are on the list, let alone contest being on it), when there is no requirement for health screening. Or that buying a seat on the first commerical spaceflights would probably cost more than it took to arrange 9/11, and you could do more damage (and probably fear) by walking into K-mart and buying an M-16 for a little people-shooting.
Or the simple fact there's a bit of a shortage of spaceflight training schools for any sort of would be suicide spacenaut (because once re-entry begins, you'd have to be strapped down, so you'd need to fly it down yourself then crash - unless you want to ram the ISS, a tiny spec in the vast distance; if these things will even go into true orbit), and any destruction in flight would probably be regarded as accident and thus diminish actual fear until the long investigative process was completed.
It's just so astonishingly unecessary.......
-
That's precisely the point. The reasons that are being given "oh noes! the terrists might attack a satellite!" are complete and utter bull**** when these vehicles aren't even reaching orbit.
Let alone the fact that even if they were in orbit the limited fuel these craft have means that it is still extraordinarily unlikely that they would be able to create an intercepting orbit with a satellite. (they'd have to manually do all of the calculations based on memorized orbital data, flightplan, and cross-referencing it with the starfield since the navigation software wouldn't be like the HUD of a videogame showing all of the millions of km away satellites that don't have anything to do with your flightplan)
Even then, worst case scenario:
Orbiting spacecraft is hijacked by the passenger, pilot is killed, satellite is rammed.
We lose a man, a spacecraft, and a satellite. Yes it's sad, but 400m dollars later a more up to date satellite is there.
Hell if anything these people should be encouraging terrorists to be on these flights as a method of decommissioning old com sats :p
The problem is we have people making decisions that have an idiot-child like view of space where astronauts zip around at will as soon as they break the atmosphere.
Yes, some security measures will be needed. But as of this moment the reasons for putting it on the current generation of space tourist craft is wrong. The reason should be 'protecting the pilot' not 'protecting satellites' as it's the pilot that would be in danger. Just using a no-fly list is a bandaid solution as well as opposed to creating an actual standard for spaceflight.
-
But it does stop congressmen, Cat Stevens, journalists and newly born infants getting into space, I suppose. And isn't that what counts?
(No)
-
Keep in mind that a lot of this is the american "paranoia factor".
When I arrived in Shanghai, the people at the customs gate did not even search my luggage. All I had to do was fill out a couple of forms and bingo.
Plus I also saw no metal detectors at all.
EDIT: Edited some of the retardedness out of the post :p
-
Well, now that I think about it, a terrorist wouldn't have to board the shuttle to plant a bomb on it (outside). But since that's a little more legitimate, tehre's security and checks and whatnot to take care of that obviously. I don't even know why I posted this. *wanders off aimlessly*
-
Plus I also saw no mettle detectors at all.
Good mettle detectors are hard to come by. So are good mettles, come to think of it.
-
I'm not surprised you didn't see any mettle detectors.
mettle != shiny rocks, mettle = courage, strength; metal = shiny rocks
-
I'm not surprised you didn't see any mettle detectors.
mettle != shiny rocks, mettle = courage, strength; metal = shiny rocks
You know what I meant. :p