Friday, September 23, 2011

NASA flippant about human life as media comparing voluntary risk to involuntary risk

Can you tell that not only Nazis but self-centered rich ham brats (both feeding at the trough) are replete at this agency and others like it by their carefree attitudes ? More are collecting pensions for their involvement in programs like this.

The geek media is helping.

The risk to public safety or property is extremely small, and safety is NASA's top priority. Since the beginning of the Space Age in the late-1950s, there have been no confirmed reports of an injury resulting from re-entering space objects. Nor is there a record of significant property damage resulting from a satellite re-entry.

"Safety is NASA's top priority" ? You lost control of an orbiting bus. You're screw ups.

There should be no risk. Citizens aren't your waiting collateral damage for your thieves' salaries. You're some of the biggest nerd science wimps on earth, but you get to risk the lives of innocents ?

And yes, the following paragraph from Space.com is not entirely sourced to NASA, but it's the most heinous I've seen and is representative of NASA's comparisons.

According to NASA, since the beginning of the space age there have been no confirmed reports of an injury from re-entering space objects. In his 1983 book “Observing Earth Satellites” (Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.), author Desmond King-Hele put things into perspective:

“Far more dangerous are aircraft, of which at least a hundred per week fall out of the sky worldwide, as compared with about two satellites per week. With an expected casualty rate of about one person per hundred years, as compared with several hundred people per day on the world’s roads, space travel deserves to be called the safest form of transport for bystanders.”

Desmond is a RAE Cold War leftover.

These criminals are typical science majors, besides their murderous agency historical affiliations which color their careers' immorality. They fail to see that the drivers chose to get on the highway, while people didn't choose to risk having a plane or satellite funded by them, hit them.

Comparisons of these events are psychotic. How do they get and keep security clearances with what would be mental illness to people who don't kill for a living, but rather only in the self-defense they deny ?

If they hit you, can you hit them back ?

SPQR

No comments: