Oh dear........

[Pisces]

Well while we're on or at least close to subjects that anger us when it comes to what the news shows, I also have a slight problem with this. On Saturday, 10 Grade 10 students from Calgary were killed in an avalanche while attending a ski trip to Revelstoke in British Colombia. And the amount of news coverage I've seen in either the newspaper or on T.V.? 'Bout 10 minutes, and one page of a newspaper.

 

The reason? It's not American. Colombia is. Granted the Colombia explosion was a tragedy, but is it really that much worse? 2 hours on the news, like 13 pages in the newspaper? Gimme a break. My prayers go out to the families but it was no more of a tragedy then the students killed by the avalanche.

[Nute Gunray]

Originally posted by NeoDios

The reason? It's not American. Colombia is. Granted the Colombia explosion was a tragedy, but is it really that much worse? 2 hours on the news, like 13 pages in the newspaper? Gimme a break. My prayers go out to the families but it was no more of a tragedy then the students killed by the avalanche.

 

I'll tell you the reason: avalanches occur often. Space Shuttles tend to have NEVER broken up in reentry with six americans and the first israeli astronaut aboard.

 

The same day Columbia exploded, a bus explosion in Zimbabwe killed 30+. Was this a big deal? In the sense that 30 people died, yes. However, the NEXT DAY 40 people IN ZIMBABWE died in a train collision. Frequence of disaster makes something less of a story. I guarantee you that RIGHT NOW AS YOU READ THIS, 7 people were just killed in a car wreck. Because this happens literally all the time, no one cares. However, space craft have exploded like six times ever and killed people. That's why this is a huge deal. Quite literally the ONLY manned spacecraft in the world exploded. That's going to be huge news everywhere.

[Rogue15]

nah, just talking about regular, low quality news.

[edlib]

Originally posted by Nute Gunray

I'll tell you the reason: avalanches occur often. Space Shuttles tend to have NEVER broken up in reentry with six americans and the first israeli astronaut aboard.

That,.. plus there's the factor of the Space Shuttle being a symbol of America's superpower status. It's the most complex, most expensive piece of technology mankind has ever devised, and there's only been a couple ever made, so the loss of one is a pretty big deal. It's a symbol of national pride as well. How many other nations have viable manned space programs? And how many of them have a multi-purpose reusable space plane that can be reconfigured and turned around as quickly as the Shuttles can?

[Nute Gunray]

Originally posted by edlib

How many other nations have viable manned space programs?

 

I'm actually quite surprised that the answer is two. Not that I think TWO! THAT IS MORE THAN I EXPECTED!!@ I'm surprised it's ONLY two. Of course, the viability of the Russian Space Agency is debatable, but they still fly manned craft every so often. China will be the next definitely and apparently India expects to orbit the moon by the end of the decade. I'm not sure if they mean a probe or manned though. India does have a decent space program but I don't know much about it.

I'm surprised that the European Space Agency is so far behind. I haven't heard anything out of them as far as manned missions in the future. Nor the Japanese.

I used to have this big cool poster of all the current space launch vehicles. It was really cool. It went from the tiny Israeli and Japanese satellite launchers up to the ESA and Chinese launchers to the monster Titan IV, Space Shuttle, and Buran/Energia.

 

I must add that the destruction of Columbia has somewhat rekindled my interest in space. I honestly feel that it is by far the most important thing, other than the defense of our nation, that our government does.