[Nuclear1]

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.

[Polpolion]

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.

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.

[Nuclear1]

Take a pill and calm down. Seriously. Jetmech said nowhere in his post about anything that you just ranted on about.

[Polpolion]

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?

[Nuclear1]

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.

[Jetmech Jr.]

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.

[Polpolion]

Then it's me. What are you saying?

[Jetmech Jr.]

Nuclear1 got it. Read his post.

[Polpolion]

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.

[Nuclear1]

You're weird. This is being handled with quite the civility.

[Ulala]

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*

[Martinus]

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.

[Black Wolf]

Besides - this is about private space tourism. TThink SpaceShip One - not Space Shuttles. Nothing to do with NASA.

[aldo_14]

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....... 

[Ace]

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

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.

[aldo_14]

But it does stop congressmen, Cat Stevens, journalists and newly born infants getting into space, I suppose.  And isn't that what counts?


(No)

[Kosh]

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

[Ulala]

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*

[Goober5000]

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.

[Nuclear1]

I'm not surprised you didn't see any mettle detectors.

mettle != shiny rocks, mettle = courage, strength; metal = shiny rocks