I want a piece to sell on eBay, better yet let it hit Russia...

It's okay Mikey Mike... maybe the sky isn't falling but you won't mind if we take the time to think about the implications of things falling from space, will you?

Thanks so much for understanding. You're a real pal!

MFranklin- NASA has done this quite a bit. Even so I'm sure the Navy would like some more space target practice.

Eddie Creationist; You are an idiot and have no heart. Our friends and families in Russia should not be treated with such disrespect. Your attitude just shows how you feel about yourself, inadequate seems to come to mind!

MFranklin... I'm pretty sure MikeyMike was being sarcastic..

I feel better now that the government has said it I am only at extremely small risk. Of course the government does not know where I will be on impact day and they also don't know where this thing's pieces will hit. Still, I feel much better with their assurance based on nothing more than it will break up and fall over a 500 mile stretch of the earth's surface. Well done NASA.

I like the reasoning at the end of the article, it has never damaged property before, so you are safe. LOL, imagine telling that to someone living in Tornado alley, where the chances of getting a direct hit are small. Do they prepare, or just hope for the best?

Eltex, there's nothing to do except hope for the best. It's the gravity thing.

How much gold is in that satellite?

Scoff if you will, but the way that my luck has been running .....

that thing is going to hit my house AND my car! ;)

It could've stayed up another 20 years if they had not intentionally lowered its orbit in 2005? It's a $750 million piece of equipment and they just want to let it uncontrollably burn up? We've got to find a way to blame Obama for this.

culheath.....you are too late already...IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!!!

culheath

It had already been decommissioned and was just orbiting. This happened about a decade ago. It did its job, and did it well.

WARNING!! WARNING!! WARNING!! POLITICAL STATEMENT FROM A MALCONTENT FOLLOWS: Ok, you have all been warned.

It's getting harder and harder to tell in these discussion forum threads when someone is being sarcastic e;g;, "...blame Obama for this" ... or if the poster is actually serious. So I will assume sarcasm, since most Republicans don't read science articles anyway. (HA! Just kidding. I crack myself up).

Seriously, though, I believe that most of these satellite "costs" state the total "program cost"; the cost of the hardware, placement into orbit and the active monitored science, scientists, engineers and final disposal. In this case the actual hardware would be perhaps anywhere from half to two thirds of the stated $750 million cost.

Back to the political statement, it is somewhat difficult to argue definitively that a piece of science hardware intended to provide data about atmospheric/climate changes was "successful" when despite all of the overwhelming data it still remains the official position/platform of the Republican Party that human-influenced climate change is bogus science." How pathetic is that?

Well this satellite wasn't about CO2 gasses, but was about the detection of CFC's. so yes, this satellite was successful.

As to your first comment, it is very unfortunate that most of them are in fact serious. Sad, and most definitely unfortunate.

That would create more space junk which would be a hazard to satellites. For a satellite this size, one might have thought that they would save some manuevering fuel for a controlled de-orbit.

Because, when you blow something up in space, the pieces don't just vanish. They just continue orbiting the earth for years. We already have enough space junk up there posing a risk to the ISS and other spacecraft.

You might be right. It doesn't have to be blown up in orbit. It could be activated during its re-entry stage, at a point where it's already at a burn up point.

This satellite in conjunction with a number of other NASA satellites are the ones that provided data debunking Al Gore’s Chicken Little global warming frenzy. The instrumentation onboard these satellites compiled data that showed that more heat is escaping earth’s atmosphere than Al Gore claimed and that the planet is in a slight cooling trend.

Poor Al, and he once thought he was going to make huge amounts of money from this fiasco.

Ideally, you'd self destruct the craft just as it is close to re-entry...presumably only really big pieces (that incompletely burn up) actually make it all the way down. A shower of smaller pieces should burn up at higher altitude. This solves the problem of hitting people/property on earth and also keeps the geostationary orbit clear of junk.

they do not put explosives/self destruct devices or 'On/Off' switches on orbiting or space bound craft...

there is a chance the device could self destruct by accident or someone doing in on accident and or turning off the device and it wont re-start.... not to mention the debris field being immense

computers onboard are designed to keep trying to start/boot up, unless it is a programmed hibernation... which means another computer is still running/keeping track of time...

Ideally you'd do a controlled de-obrit into the sea but since this isn't the case here...

And this satellite is well inside the geostationary orbit.

The geostationary orbit is 36,000km high. This one is a low orbit spacecraft.

Can't believe the EPA isn't giving NASA grief for polluting. Haven't they ever heard of recycling?

Good feedback. I was meaning "in principle we should plan on having the ability to decommission and safely burn up anything we put up there". For this specific case the options are limited, as mentioned, no controlled re-entry and no self-destruct options available. Clearly this one will simply be a case of letting physics take it's course and we'll see what happens...nice plan :)

Yes, in theory, explosives to destruct/break-up a satellite during its final reentry would make sense. But probably not for the payloads - like this satellite - which were carried in the payload bay of the Space Shuttles.

The maneuvering thrusters and high earth orbit insertion rockets of some of the Shuttle payloads were risky enough to carry in the payload bays of the Shuttles. But carrying payloads which also contained destruct explosives would, I think, have been far beyond the risk threshold for the Shuttle missions. Best to have launched those risky payloads on unmanned rockets like Atlas and Delta

Robert,

Under no circumstances does it make sense to destroy a payload in orbit, did you not read the news article a few days ago about the levels of debris in orbit as it is? Blowing this up WILL case more problems than it solves.

NASA is notifying that this is going to happen because it is required under international treaty. The risk of any damage occurring, while not zero, is not very high.

Why didn't they just intercept it with a shuttle and haul it back?

because you can't devote a mission to that task. It isn't in a common orbit so it would have required a special mission.

Jonathan, you took exception and inferred something which I did not suggest. And your comment "...did you not read the news article a few days ago..." is condescending. Don't do that. I have been complementary of your contributions, but it's harder to be complementary if you are condescending to others when you disagree. If you wish to 'educate', please do so without the condescension.

Yes, I read the news story, and of course I am aware of the growing issue of 'space junk'. I have been avidly following the space program, watched almost every launch, since I was a child and rode my bicycle to a dark spot away from the street lights of my neighborhood so that I could watch the tiny light that was Sputnik go cross the sky. So don't be condescending and assume that others know much less than you. You need to reread my post above, and look at what I actually wrote.

I did not suggest it made sense to "destroy a payload in orbit." I was very specific in my verbiage. I said "destruct/break-up a satellite during its final reentry." During "final reentry" an object is committed to reentry by atmospheric drag and inertia. Small explosive charges to break up a larger object into smaller components which could then be more fully consumed in final reentry "would make sense." Not only does this make sense, but this technique has already been used for breaking up large military reconnaissance satellites to ensure nothing recoverable survives reentry.

The point I was making was that this specific payload was lifted into orbit in the payload bay of a Space Shuttle, not on a rocket booster. Hence it would not have been acceptable risk to use such destruct/break-up explosives, and carry that payload in the bay of a manned mission.

I don't mind being challenged on facts; I enjoy learning. But please don't assign arguments to me which I haven't made. Thank you.

robert,

sorry that should have been addressed to jh, not to you.

And IIRC most satellites that are built for LEO operations are designed to break up in a certain way, but that can't always be predicted as the orientation isn't always predictable. You would never design self destruct mechanisms on a payload (only on the launch vehicle) specifically because it would be extremely counter productive to do so.

I also believe that ALL satellites built today have a node on them that allows them to be captured by something like the Canadarm, though this would most likely never be used in the case of a geo sat because that is damn smack in the middle of a radiation belt.

Accepted, Jonathan. We're cool.

Speaking of the Canadarm, do you happen to know why the arms from each of the shuttles were not left at the ISS during their final missions? I believe I read that Endeavor or Discovery left their arms at the ISS (possibly both). It seems to me that even if there were no additional (unoccupied) mating points, these "spares" might well be needed before the end-of-life for the ISS. I was curious when I believe I saw that the Canadarm was still in the bay of Atlantis when she un-docked from the ISS at the end of STS-135.

More on topic with this thread...what is the plan for the end-of life of the ISS? I do not recall ever reading what happens to THAT enormous satellite when it is eventually nothing more than a huge piece of space junk. Does NASA plan to remotely boost it into higher orbit, or will it eventually succumb to atmospheric drag and reentry?

1) because the arm can only be taken off in space with explosive bolts (yes there are explosives on the shuttle, and in the case of the Canadarm, would be used if the arm failed and prevented the doors from closing).

2) there is nothing to attach the arms to on the station

3) the arm that is on the station is a completely different design that has no fixed point. This allows the arm on the station to 'walk' the length of the station by attaching itself end to end onto 'nodes' that are all over the station structure.

Jonathan-2055273 wrote:

1) because the arm can only be taken off in space with explosive bolts (yes there are explosives on the shuttle, and in the case of the Canadarm, would be used if the arm failed and prevented the doors from closing).

REPLY: That certainly makes sense. And explosive bolts are a fixture of the space program. I recall that Gus Grissom had a love/hate relationship with them. :)

Explosive bolts/connections is actually what I was thinking of in that prior post when suggesting that might be a means by which a large satellite could be broken into smaller subcomponents to be more thoroughly consumed on final reentry

2) there is nothing to attach the arms to on the station

REPLY: Hmm, I guess I misread the article about a Shuttle leaving an arm at the ISS, thinking it was a Shuttle Canadarm when they were actually referring to the Shuttle delivering the ISS arm? Both types built in Canada?

3) the arm that is on the station is a completely different design that has no fixed point. This allows the arm on the station to 'walk' the length of the station by attaching itself end to end onto 'nodes' that are all over the station structure.

REPLY: Sounds like watching a big mechanical inchworm (or end-over-end Slinky navigate around the outside of the ISS. The stuff of science fiction ... applied to real life!

I did a little research after my previous query, and read the Wiki about the ISS. The end of that Wikipedia information appears to suggest that the final disposition of the ISS is still an open question - boosted into higher orbit / salvaged and reused modules / controlled reentry into the ocean (boy wouldn't THAT be a spectacular nighttime light show!!? Sad, but spectacular).

1) the bolts are such that they just release the arm so that the shuttle could fly away from the arm to allow the doors to close. Not sure what to say of it, but that has never been needed.

A vehicle can be designed to break up a certain way when coming in to the atmosphere and to be honest with you, I have NO idea why the satellite wasn't deorbited with a controlled burn when it was decommissioned. Maybe there was a possibility of reactivating the satellite later on. It is much easier to design that with a much smaller 'vehicle' such as a satellite (you can't do it with the station however because it is just too large of an object.

With this satellite however, I am not sure if they still have control over it, which means they have no control over where and when it may reenter. (Similar to Skylab's situation actually). To me it does drive home the fact that we need to ensure that we do deorbit these things after their life has ended (or boost them into a higher orbit).

2) I think there was a suggestion that an arm be left at the station, but there would have to be an attachment point that would provide the control interfaces. None of that has been designed into the station, so it would literally just be deadweight.

3) yes, the arm on the ISS is wizzo wicked cool. It is just too bad that there have been NO secondary uses for the arm technology developed for the space program. When people think of Robotics technology, nobody really thinks of Canada, yet one of the most amazing examples of it is plain to see, the Canadarm, and Canadarm 2 (the ISS version). This is one of the reasons why I don't live in Canada anymore. A cultural unwillingness to take what we have and drive with it.

4) The disposal of the space station is going to be a really interesting technical challenge. Challenging because of the political ramifications. Actually to me, it makes the justification for the higher inclination orbit that it is in because that gives you a potentially larger cross section of an ocean debris path. Who knows what is going to happen, and hopefully a long way in the future. I don't believe that there would really be any value in retaining any of the modules. The extremely high cost associated with them is largely the engineering costs and the cost of only making one of them. (if two ISS's were made, the second one would have cost very little compared to the first one)

The Wikipedia info makes mention of the Russians considering salvage and reassembly of some of their modules into a new/secondary station at the end of life for the ISS. It notes that the Russians assume a 30-year life for their modules, based on their experience with MIR. And since their first module was orbited in 1998 a secondary Russian station assembled from their modules could remain in use until around 2028 or later.

While recognizing that all of the ISS components have a limited safe lifespan (especially given the uncertainties of micrometeorites and the degrading effects of cosmic radiation), ... I have a hard time understanding why the partner nations in the ISS program would not want to get as many years service as possible from the significant investment that has been made.

Although it's an apples and oranges argument, I recall that the Mars Rovers 'Spirit' and 'Opportunity' had about 90-day design lives. And we know how reality played out with those two remarkable pieces of space machinery. I can't imagine abandoning the ISS investment in just a few more years when it is still usable with little increase in risk to the crews? Just seems a bit shortsighted and unimaginative to this observer.

because the russian module is essentially Mir-2, the Russians have that option. The other member nations don't. They are all dependent on the US Truss structure.

The Russians also have their own means of transport, something that the other nations don't have.

I can report that I have resolved my confusion about the article I read noting that one of the Shuttles had left its arm at the ISS on its final mission. I did a little more digging and found that it was actually the Canadarm's Orbital Boom Sensor System (OBSS) which Endeavor left at the ISS on its final mission; not the actual Canadarm itself.

I either misread the article about that mission, or the article contained mistatement (sometimes that happens). But, always nice to know that I'm not actually going crazy and inventing stuff in my mind which I remember as being true. I hate when THAT happens!!! :O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_Boom_Sensor_System

So what is the primary reason for abandoning the ISS program in just a few more years. Is it just a matter of budgets, or is their a driving obsolescence/safety issue which gives finite life to the ISS?

cost, but also that it will largely be obsolete. The only way to actually progress in this is to iterate, and that means building new stations, new designs etc... The learning experience from this I hope will towards constructing an even more useful station going forward.

That's my hope too, Jonathan. But then I have been a space science nerd for more than 50 years, since I was a child. I still visualize bold interplanetary missions using spacecraft assembled at permanent space stations in high Earth orbit ... like the plethora of science fiction movies and literature of the past five decades.

Therefore it is so disappointing for me as a man in his late 50s to watch as America gives up on all of her 'can do' visions for the future, and resigns herself to deepening self-defeating internal divisiveness between polarized but equally unimaginative views of the future. America has lost her way, and my generation is at fault.

I think it is still very possible that we will see a manned mission to mars in my lifetime, but it will be a Chinese spacecraft, built with American dollars spent to purchase Chinese goods which might have been made in America were it not for placing party politics ahead of sensible American public policy and planning for the future of our country.

I fear that America will be remembered by history as the nation with the greatest potential, which squandered it all on pointless rhetoric.

3 flights in 9 years isn't all that ambitious, but to be honest, it is the american people that have lost it. I am from Canada and I have actually been really disappointed that the malaise that pervades canadian culture (the risk adverse nature, the entitlement mentality etc...) seems to have infected the US as well. This isn't a union/non union issue, it is far more subtle. It is almost like the nation has given up and only wants to piss on each other to make themselves feel good. It is very sad.

We certainly see that drive to piss on each other in the content of the mostly anonymous posts in these Internet discussion threads. It is very sad; pathetic actually.

I often get the feeling that the only thing which will change the course of the increasingly polarized American rhetoric is a new external threat. We found much cooperation and compromise between the political parties during the Cold War (as foolish as that entire 40+ year period turned out to be). But it seems that the American "can do spirit" collapsed with the collapse of the "iron curtain." We turned on ourselves and overemphasized our differences because we didn't have an external 'boogie man' to fear. We needed that boogie man because it made us work to a common purpose; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", as goes the old adage.

Well, we have an equal or greater threat to our nation operating largely invisibly now. It is our own divisiveness; focusing only on our differences rather than taking care of the needs of the nation and its future (while the developing world seizes the opportunity to eat our lunch).

"We have seen the enemy, and it is us."

Well it isn't the country that I first came to 20 years ago, then I could feel at home. Right now, I don't feel at home, I have been on edge for the 3 years that I have been here. That feeling isn't really helpful in running a business for the long term, back surgery also not helping, but this was planned. I just don't know myself if this is a feeling that I want to live under for much longer, hence my inaction in trying to change my E visa to a green card.

My costs would be much lower in Canada, though my opportunities would be far lower there too. This feeling is just a lot of 'is it worth it' self reflection.

Well, for what it is worth, Jonathan, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of Canadian engineering and construction jobs available after November 2012 if any one of the current 6 or 7 "extreme" Right-wing candidates is nominated, and actually gets elected.

Canada is going to need a Southern border fence to stop the mass influx of millions of illegal alien Americans trying to flee North!!! (Me included. HA! :)

well I have about a year left on my last visa (I have to leave for I believe a couple of years on this visa type IIRC) if I don't convert it to an L1a visa. That would be about the same time frame. The market that I am trying to get into is space related and there is an even more 'we love space but we don't want to fund it' attitude in Canada than there is here in the US so I am not sure what to do.

Right now I only have about 200 employee's so it isn't as though my business is all that difficult to move if it ever came to that, it is just that the opportunities are far fewer, but that is more or less a nature of the population difference. I personally have no interest in a wall though (yes I know it was in jest). We have too many walls in our lives at the moment and we need people to break those walls down, not put them up.

And yes, if the one of the 6 stooges is elected, that would pretty much be the end of it. I am a fiscal conservative, not a fiscal retard or a fiscal lunatic.

Having spent many of the most wonderful and memorable vacations of my life in Canada (British Columbia and Alberta) I am giving very serious consideration to retirement in Canada. I have also had about all I can stand of the current American rhetoric. It's pervasive. I was at a cocktail party last weekend and four guests at the party got into it over politics and almost came to blows. And these were guys in their late 40s to mid 50s.

We seem to have forgotten that we are Americans, identifying ourselves first as Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, etc., etc., ad nauseam. As if any of that actually matters. A lot of Americans, perhaps the majority of Americans are completely fed up with the verbal pissing match; it's so completely adolescent and unproductive.

Jonathan, would you ever consider relocating your business to India, and grabbing business in their developing space program industries. I have a wonderful new Indian extension to my family, a beautiful woman who married my cousin in Seattle ... and her 500 cousins, HA! And I have spent a lot of time talking with her about her native country. India is just eating it up in technology and science, and remains very easy for Anglo-Saxons to adapt because most Indians also speak English (many speak English better than Americans, HA!)

Well the one thing that I have always thought that I would do if I did relocate is to offer each and every one of my current employee's the ability to move with the company, and locating in India would be a problem. The other aspects of India are more complicated though, though unrelated to that, I am definitely not impressed with the level of engineering skill that comes out of the schools there. Very book smart but no ability to extrapolate.

Vijya came here as a child when her mom and dad immigrated. Her dad, Ganji, is an aerospace engineering consultant and still consults to Boeing and the FAA (certifying new commercial aircraft). Her Indian educated older brother has been employed in the Boeing-Bigelow Aerospace CST-100 project on early avionics design.

At our family reunion the end of July I had a long conversation with Ganji and he indicated that Boeing and the FAA both were hiring a significant number of Indian educated engineers. I was impressed, but also a bit saddened to hear reiterated that a country with 9.1% unemployment and a population of 308 million is not producing enough American educated engineers to fill the available slots in leading edge aerospace! That says a lot.

Well that is a matter of students not thinking that engineering is the way to go in terms of education. Most of them that are 'engineering' inclined end up on wall street and the rest of them tend to take the easy way out.

Now my exposure to Indian engineers tend to be on the computer side, and quite frankly I was most definitely not impressed. Basically they would be too literal in their interpretations and never challenge the requirements that were given to them, so even if a problem did slip by, they didn't have the culture set to challenge what was sent to them even though it was wrong. The development teams here that I have worked with were in most cases far different. They understood the job and challenged them when someone from the business side did something stupid. The reality is that mistakes can happen anywhere and without your development teams validating what they are doing, it makes it harder to complete the development cycle.

It does surprise me that the FAA and Boeing is hiring a significant number of indian educated engineers considering that those positions normally require US citizenship.

It really is a culture thing.

Jonathan, your computers related comment that "they would be too literal in their interpretations and never challenge the requirements that were given to them, so even if a problem did slip by, they didn't have the culture set to challenge what was sent to them even though it was wrong" gave me a good chuckle.

Thanks, I finally have an explanation for why, when I spend two hours on the telephone with outsourced Sony VAIO support services in Bangalore (with that guy named 'Peggy'), my computer never gets fixed! I always end up having to do the research and just fix the damned thing on my own. HA! Now it all makes sense. It really is "a culture thing".

Well, time to call it a day (it's an age thing).

Property damage in north Canada? Nobody up there. Rudolf recharged his shiney nose.

Skylab fell on Australia.

Australia was destroyed by Skylab??!!! Noooooooooo!

:-P

damn, RIP australia. And I wanted to launch rockets from there. Bastard americans, bombing australia like that.

Speaking of the demise of Skylab (back in the summer of 1979), I was playing in a softball game on the day that Skylab was supposed to reenter the atmosphere, one of my teammates hit a pop-up to the infield, and just as a girl on the other team was about to catch it, I yelled "Skylab!" Of course, she dropped it :D (coulda been she was just a bad fielder, but still kinda funny)

And of course, none of the debris ended up anywhere close to where I was at the time (Southern California) :)

Is THAT why I got all these aussies here in n.y.? they got no home?;-)

Fudge that, if I find a piece I'm keeping it - providing it doesn't set my geiger counter into a tantrum

Only because it's Gov't property...hey! wait a minute! dont we ALL pay for the Gov't??? shoot, i'm keeping a piece too!

if its gov't property and damages your property ,then they better get out that checkbook for property damage or have insurance on it !

"Don't touch it, it's eeevilll!"... (touch) POOF! "Oink, oink, oink..."

-- Time Bandits

Don't you know anything??? It's Bush's fault!

Another Kool-aid drinker. You go from the dumb to stupid.

Too many variables, I think. It would likely get knocked off course, possibly by solar winds, then we'd just be throwing our garbage out into space

It is my understanding that it takes much more power for an object to exit earths gravity completely than it does to simly get into low earth orbit. A booster could bring it down into earth at a more controlled direction, but could not cause it to exit our gravity (which is what is making it fall out of orbit to begin with).

why not use a large lunar crater for a handy landfill? if it were on the back side of the moon it would no more despoil the moon's scenic beauty than that unsightly sore on "theexecutioner's" butt.

p.s. sorry executioner, but I'm an Obama supporter too.

Too many variables involved Benji2, trajectories, fuel enough to leave orbit, (See above) etc. Hey, its not like pointing a gun and hittting a stationary target, the moon is moving AND spinning. There is no permanently "dark side". Eventually It'll face the earth, THEN the TREE huggers'll scream!!LOL

Stephen, while I agree that there are way too many uncontrolled variables, as well as huge fuel costs to get an object as large as this satellite out of Earth's gravity well, whether it's final destination is meant to be the moon's suface or into the sun, I have to disagree about your assertion that the moon will ever slowly rotate which face of it is toward the earth. It has slowed to it's current one to one face relationship with the Earth because it's mass is not evenly distributed, most likely due to the catastrophic collisions which formed it originally. The denser part rests inward toward the Earth, and that's not going to change.

Thank you for the correction, I'd momentarily forgotten that, just remembering Alan explaining that all sides of moon see daylight eventually, assumed he meant while facing earth. I now(again) realize that isn't the case.....

so the cops can keep it and you won't be compasated? for property damages,while they just ebay it

light - Sounds like "theexectioner" hit a soar spot there....???

I thought it funny, considering how the TP movement is turning everything "wrong" in the world, onto Obama's shoulders. YOU JUST MISSED THE RELEVENTS....LOL

Light(en) up a little.........Maybe it'll land on Bush's ranch and a chunk on Cheney's spread and make many Happy, they finally got what's coming to them. NOW THAT WOULD BE REALLY FUNNY!

Guess we're all entitled to dream a little HUH......

Your grammar leaves a bit to be desired. Soar? Revelvents?

Do you prefer to be called "retarded" or simply "an idiot"?

Wow! We have new words for the dictionary: relevents" and "relevants". I wonder if they could be used to enhance the definition of retards?

Thanks for the English lesson Ya all.....

Guess my relevEnts was missed.....LOL

BUZZZ! No. Sorry, but that's incorrect. The word you want is "relevance". Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

I hope it comes in over the west coast, Lat. 33N or so. that would be a sight.

I too would feel lucky to see it fall. Along with just about everyone else, I live between 57N and 57S, so it could happen. Good luck everyone.

no shuttle...

"... some people call me the gangster of love..."

You're an idiot. The sun is 93 million miles away, radiating solar winds outward. the amount of fuel needed would cost billions

It would not cost billions. The solar winds are hardly a factor in any of this. Where do you people get your information from?

The simply energy to bring the satellite out of Earth's gravity is too high. Bringing it down is much more efficient and cheaper.

I hope it lands on you.

Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself please!

Have you tried? or are you just Supposing?

Still only a tiny fraction compared to what we have to spend on "BUSH'S WAR" USA has been fighting an uphill, losing battle. For what? Oil you say? NO! BUSH'S little ego, has to impress daddy. Does anyone feel "safer"? I love how "Obama" messed up the world, yeah, coming into office 7 years into a *pointless* war. Last time I checked, it was an Afghani(s) that attacked us, not an Iraqi. Reps. couldn't get it right then, and wont get it right in 2012. But i'm sure they will find SOMEONE to blame. Stupid.

I am betting I could find an article about finger paintings by children and some douche-bag will bring politics into the discussion.

I actually enjoy reading some of these STUPID remarks. Even all the Liberal's and Union Leaders stupidity is Bush's fault right?

I seem to remember a certain idiot-in-chief vowing to end both wars if he was elected. Hmmm, I wonder what happened to that? That idea is probably hiding out with old aunt Zeituni and uncle Onyango collecting welfare while it waits for Obama to approve green cards...

An actual astronomer wrote off-topic:

Last time I checked, it was an Afghani(s) that attacked us, not an Iraqi.

If you refer to the jerks that knocked down our buildings some years back, they were Arabs, not Afghans. Fifteen of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. The others were from Egypt, Lebanon, and United Arab Emirates.

BTW Afghani refers to the currency of Afghanistan, which fact I know only because I looked it up a moment ago.

Survive!