it means you stop working on the OTHER shuttles till you solve the problem , they mite have to send a rescue ship some day and no point in haveing same problem or you have to send another , then another , than...

Dave's right.

I was listening to this all day and their point is just that they will not launch another shuttle until they figure out how to stop this from happening.

But they do not beleive the current shuttle is in any danger upon it's re-entry.

I don't think so JD.

I think if everything goes okay they come off looking very good for their concern.

If this shuttle blows up on re-entry there's no sugar coating it, there will be a massive movement to shut down the program.

...........'cept maybe those makin that call.....

Well, I'm torn on it Ruby.

I know that a lot of future technology comes out of todays trips into space.

But I'm just really not sure it's worth the money, expecially since we're really not doing anything new.

I mean, we're pretty much doing the same thing today we did 20 years ago. We do have the space station now, and we did put rovers on Mars, but what advancements have those brought? What are the real world applications?

Sometimes NASA just seems like a bunch of Star-Trek geeks getting to live out their fantasies on the government payroll.

Do they still make that stuff?

Man, when I was a kid I actually begged my mom to buy that stuff because "it was what the astronauts drink".

Funny, now we buy what the athletes drink and don't give a crap what the astronauts drink.

how about this- solve the world hunger problem first, make sure things are ok on earth, and then let us delve into space. I mean I love the sort of escapism into the origin of universal molecular movement and what-not, its great for science, its a great escapism from the day to day world to send these orbiters to explore the origins of everything- I love it- but could we ice the whole thing a year so that the funds could be diverted to the children who die every 3 seconds due to malnutrition and starvation here on earth? So that maybe they could enjoy the discoveries made through space exploration?

CP-

an interesting thing is happening. I work in an industrial valley that is quite rapidly becoming another strip mall. South of Miller Park. All thise industrial age buildings along side the railroad tracks are being wiped out for Culvers, Target, Subway, Hardees etc. But the problem is is that if you wipe out the buildings where industry happens (granted most have been dormant now for years), who is it that is going to frequent these chain-joints? Its not the BEST side of town, in spite of its repavement, and while I love the ever-growing lunch-options, it can't be 1 or 2 companies left in the neighborhood to frequent this new drag strip!

When I am no longer bound by contract, I am thinking of writing a book exposing the real Wal-Mart.

CP, I'll design your cover and layout...

Amen to that DAVE.

As with all social problems, THROWING MONEY AT THEM DOES NOT WORK. You've got to change the dynamics of the situation and the behavior of the people involved.

It may be cyclical, but you can't solve it by feeding the people.

What do you think, that once they're not starving anymore they'll have the strength to overthrow the government?

You've GOT to deal with the source of the problem first.

Here's something you won't like, but the way we would need to deal with this issue is, are you ready? Wait for it.... Wait for it......

REGIME CHANGE

Unfortunately we're a little busy right now with Iraq, but put it on the bottom of the list and we'll get over there as soon as we can. We can probably sqeeze it in over a weekend, this would be an easy one. Not much of a fight, but as always the real work will come after the fight.

JD, you and I have had this debate a hundred times in a hundred different ways, but it all comes down to the same main point.

Do you SOLVE a problem by putting in the hard work (and sometimes ugly early results) now, or do you just keep putting a bandaid on it?

Think of it like this. You have a starving guy that camps outside your apartment, are you going to simply take 10% of your weekly pay to buy food for him for the rest of his life? Or at some point are you going to say "Here's 100% of THIS WEEKS CHECK, take a shower, shave, buy some clothes, get a job, and fix your life".

Even if we had the ability to just keep dumping food on those people it doesn't solve the problem.

Africa needs a real government, some population control and a final answer to providing food for themselves.

Giving them $20 from your pocket may feel good, but it solves nothing.

And Africa is a big continent.  We're not talking about one country here, we're talking about an entire continent!  How many countries are in Africa that we'll have to change?  I would say that this isn't really a weekend process, but I do agree that we should teach them to fish, not give them fish...