[Martinus]

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.

[Turnsky]

in space, nobody can hear you scream "Infidels!" 

[Ace]

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.

[Jetmech Jr.]

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.

[Col. Fishguts]

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!"

[an0n]

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.

[Polpolion]

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*         Neither do admins.

[Taristin]

... 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.

[WMCoolmon]

Enterprise is a shuttle as well (The name was changed to Enterprise after thousands of letters from Star Trek fans).

[Polpolion]

What did it use to be?

[Labcoatguy]

Ironically, it was supposed to be called Constitution. So in a way, it was....Constitution class?

[Martinus]

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.

[Descenterace]

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.

[Ghostavo]

That's the vomit comet.












Seriously... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomit_comet

[aldo_14]

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.

[vyper]

Enterprise was to-scale. She just didn't have anything that made her capable of space flight.

[WMCoolmon]

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

[Descenterace]

Ah, that's right. I knew it was a test rig of some sort.

[ionia23]

Just read up on the article.  Why would people consider it stupid?

[Jetmech Jr.]

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:

-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.