The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Space => Topic started by: geronl on October 21, 2016, 11:11:32 am
-
Europe lost contact with Mars lander 1 minute before touchdown
The European Space Agency (ESA) confirmed Thursday that the Schiaparelli spacecraft went silent less than a minute before it was set to reach the Martian surface Wednesday.
ESA mission managers said Thursday morning that they need more time to understand what went wrong with Schiaparelli, and to figure out exactly where and in what condition the test lander ended up. But the ExoMars team was optimistic that the capsule had collected enough data during its descent to set the stage for the next phase of the mission: the planned 2020 launch of a life-hunting ExoMars rover.
excerpt
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/10/21/europe-lost-contact-with-mars-lander-1-minute-before-touchdown.html
Disappointing!
-
But they are picking up transmissions from Grover's Mill, NJ.
-
Leave space exploration to the Americans will ya'?
-
But they are picking up transmissions from Grover's Mill, NJ.
:beer:
-
now they are reporting it crash landed.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/european-space-agency-experimental-mars-probe-crash-landed-42970507
What a shame. Breaking story.
-
If God had meant for us to travel in space, He would have given us chitinous shells and allowed us to breathe solar wind.
-
I travel in space in my dreams. Or when I look into the skies with my telescope.
Imagination is wonderful. One dream would be to be on our moon and see the Earth rise.
-
Europe lost contact with Mars lander 1 minute before touchdown
Disappointing!
Damn.
For whatever reason, the failure rate for Mars missions is incredibly high.
I wonder if the failure mode is like what happened to the Mars Polar Lander: "The Mars Polar Lander's December 1999 demise apparently occurred when the lander thought the jolt of its landing leg deployment was touchdown - and shut its engines off."
-
Damn.
For whatever reason, the failure rate for Mars missions is incredibly high.
I wonder if the failure mode is like what happened to the Mars Polar Lander: "The Mars Polar Lander's December 1999 demise apparently occurred when the lander thought the jolt of its landing leg deployment was touchdown - and shut its engines off."
That is the drawback of the unmanned missions.
-
Damn.
For whatever reason, the failure rate for Mars missions is incredibly high.
I wonder if the failure mode is like what happened to the Mars Polar Lander: "The Mars Polar Lander's December 1999 demise apparently occurred when the lander thought the jolt of its landing leg deployment was touchdown - and shut its engines off."
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/looneytunes/images/a/a7/307px-Marvin_the_Martian.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/150?cb=20130824011616)
Oops!
-
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/looneytunes/images/a/a7/307px-Marvin_the_Martian.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/150?cb=20130824011616)
Oops!
I miss the kaboom. :silly:
-
They found the crash site.
(http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/10/mars_reconnaissance_orbiter_view_of_schiaparelli_landing_site/16194915-1-eng-GB/Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter_view_of_Schiaparelli_landing_site_large.gif)
Looks like the thrusters shut down too early....
-
sure looks like the spot.
-
Damn.
For whatever reason, the failure rate for Mars missions is incredibly high.
I wonder if the failure mode is like what happened to the Mars Polar Lander: "The Mars Polar Lander's December 1999 demise apparently occurred when the lander thought the jolt of its landing leg deployment was touchdown - and shut its engines off."
If correct, that's be a pretty serious engineering flaw. Full system test probably would have caught that.
-
If correct, that's be a pretty serious engineering flaw. Full system test probably would have caught that.
Yeah, but the PM probably nixed that testing because the project was already over budget........
-
Yeah, but the PM probably nixed that testing because the project was already over budget........
Tests are an easy budget fix. And the only impact is risk. And I've been on enough projects to know that the PM who makes the call will inevitably leave the project and never get blamed for the consequences.
-
Orbital insertions and landings get harder with greater distance.
The automated systems work fine as long as there are no unforeseen circumstances but for last minute intuitive adjustments takes a human.
-
Orbital insertions and landings get harder with greater distance.
The automated systems work fine as long as there are no unforeseen circumstances but for last minute intuitive adjustments takes a human.
What I have read is that the likely cause was an onboard sensor-system malfunction which interpreted the physical jarring of the retro rockets coming on as the impact that would have been experienced when the craft landed - so the computer shut off the engines. What is computer language code for, "Duh"?
Whichever department was responsible for reviewing the system control feature which sensed motion and issued commands in response didn't do their job. The question would have inevitably come up in the review process - what physical motion events could cause the sensor to respond by shutting down the engines? Some PM in the chain of command took a long lunch instead of doing an exhaustive review of the possible scenarios resulting from inclusion of that control feature in the overall system protocols.
So yes, this is a similar error to what crashed that other probe because some project manager in the chain-of-command on that mission missed the critically important need for converting miles to kilometers.
Comparatively inexpensive Microsoft Windows operating system programs and other O.S.'s have built-in safety features which prompt the user whenever automatic commands or functions want to make a change that is potentially dangerous or could cause a problem - why can't they install a similar feature in the computer control systems for a billion-dollar space probe?
"WARNING! The motion sensor has detected an event and wants to shut down the engines. Should the engines be shut down? Yes or no?"
Even if they needed the system to shut off the engines quickly without time for prompting, they couldn't build in a feature that lets them know so if it's a mistake, they could restart the engines?
"The motion sensor system detected an event and has shut down the engines. Do you want to restart the engines? Yes or no?"
-
The very first manned moon landing would have ended up with an abort or a crash had computers been running the show.
-
...
So yes, this is a similar error to what crashed that other probe because some project manager in the chain-of-command on that mission missed the critically important need for converting miles to kilometers.
Comparatively inexpensive Microsoft Windows operating system programs and other O.S.'s have built-in safety features which prompt the user whenever automatic commands or functions want to make a change that is potentially dangerous or could cause a problem - why can't they install a similar feature in the computer control systems for a billion-dollar space probe?
"WARNING! The motion sensor has detected an event and wants to shut down the engines. Should the engines be shut down? Yes or no?"
Even if they needed the system to shut off the engines quickly without time for prompting, they couldn't build in a feature that lets them know so if it's a mistake, they could restart the engines?
"The motion sensor system detected an event and has shut down the engines. Do you want to restart the engines? Yes or no?"
The problem of course, is that the travel time for the command to get from Mars to Earth for the controllers to make a decision is 4.3 minutes at the shortest distance, and as much as 21 minutes at the longest. So with a round trip of ~10 minutes best case, the mission is over before the command can be executed.
Human on board is the best fix for programming unknowns.
-
The problem of course, is that the travel time for the command to get from Mars to Earth for the controllers to make a decision is 4.3 minutes at the shortest distance, and as much as 21 minutes at the longest. So with a round trip of ~10 minutes best case, the mission is over before the command can be executed.
This brings up a point that I often make in my classes. When you're designing a spacecraft or planning a mission, it is always necessary to ask, "what's the worst that can happen?" A lot of times the answer is "not much," but in some cases -- autonomous landing on a planet, for instance -- the answer is, "loss of mission."
For such cases, it is necessary not only to carefully design, but also to carefully and comprehensively test that portion of the mission to ensure that the risks of "loss of mission" are understood and, to the extent possible, mitigated or eliminated. This imposes costs, obviously, but the question is: does loss of mission outweigh the cost savings? (In some cases, cost may actually win the argument.)
There are numerous examples of what happens when you don't ask the question: The Mars Polar Lander failure could have been identified and mitigated through testing and software dynamic simulation, but that was deemed too expensive. The one test that would have identified the "wrong prescription" for the Hubble telescope, likewise. The recent SpaceX explosion destroyed the payload, for no good reason other than considerations of cost and a couple of days of schedule. Perhaps this lander failure had the same root cause.....
But it seems that they maybe either didn't ask the question (and therefore identify the problem in test), or their cost/risk decision was ill-founded.
Human on board is the best fix for programming unknowns.
Absolutely. The only problem being that it's really expensive to keep humans alive....
-
Tests are an easy budget fix. And the only impact is risk. And I've been on enough projects to know that the PM who makes the call will inevitably leave the project and never get blamed for the consequences.
Yep. Happens in all fields and all organizations.
-
Yep. Happens in all fields and all organizations.
Agreed -- software projects, in particular....
But when it comes to things like space missions, failure tends to be concentrated in such a way that it's difficult to pretend that everything is actually fine.
-
This brings up a point that I often make in my classes. When you're designing a spacecraft or planning a mission, it is always necessary to ask, "what's the worst that can happen?" A lot of times the answer is "not much," but in some cases -- autonomous landing on a planet, for instance -- the answer is, "loss of mission."
For such cases, it is necessary not only to carefully design, but also to carefully and comprehensively test that portion of the mission to ensure that the risks of "loss of mission" are understood and, to the extent possible, mitigated or eliminated. This imposes costs, obviously, but the question is: does loss of mission outweigh the cost savings? (In some cases, cost may actually win the argument.)
Absolutely.
There are numerous examples of what happens when you don't ask the question: The Mars Polar Lander failure could have been identified and mitigated through testing and software dynamic simulation, but that was deemed too expensive. The one test that would have identified the "wrong prescription" for the Hubble telescope, likewise. The recent SpaceX explosion destroyed the payload, for no good reason other than considerations of cost and a couple of days of schedule. Perhaps this lander failure had the same root cause.....
But it seems that they maybe either didn't ask the question (and therefore identify the problem in test), or their cost/risk decision was ill-founded.
Absolutely. The only problem being that it's really expensive to keep humans alive....
Of course with human space flight we get to deal with a whole new class of failure resulting in "loss of crew." In those scenarios, "loss of mission," seems pretty benign in severity.
-
Absolutely.
Of course with human space flight we get to deal with a whole new class of failure resulting in "loss of crew." In those scenarios, "loss of mission," seems pretty benign in severity.
Ideally of course, that is true. However, as I recall, one of the reasons that the urgent attempt of a junior project manager to stop the Challenger launch because of a danger of O-ring failure was frustrated, was that the senior NASA manager(s) overruled his assessment and decided that the "risk factor was acceptable". I wonder if the crew of Challenger if asked prior to launch would have agreed that the risk factor for O-Ring failure was "acceptable".
The senior managers who made that bad call on the O-Rings basically skated. None were fired or brought up on negligence charges or anything more severe than getting a little bad press, being forced to take a few weeks off with pay, make a lateral transfer or to take a slightly earlier retirement (with full pension and benefits). This proclivity for our system to insulate people against being held accountable for lethally bad decisions that cost people their lives seems to be a recurring issue.
The problem is that the opposite approach (such as taken by the Chicoms, the Russkies, etc.) of taking people out and shooting them when there are catastrophic failures, doesn't reduce the number of incidents either.
-
Ideally of course, that is true. However, as I recall, one of the reasons that the urgent attempt of a junior project manager to stop the Challenger launch because of a danger of O-ring failure was frustrated, was that the senior NASA manager(s) overruled his assessment and decided that the "risk factor was acceptable". I wonder if the crew of Challenger would have agreed if asked whether they believed that the "risk factor for O-Ring failure" was acceptable.
This is an example of how non-technical considerations can often affect technical decisions, whether in the design of a system, or in space operations.
They were under tremendous media and political pressure to launch. They had already scrubbed that launch a couple of times, and after the scrub just prior to the explosion, I recall very clearly Dan Rather grimly announcing the scrub, adding "... raising the question of whether NASA can ever launch a Shuttle on time."
Plus which, the SOTU was coming up, and they wanted to take advantage of the optics created by having a Teacher in space.
-
This is an example of how non-technical considerations can often affect technical decisions, whether in the design of a system, or in space operations.
They were under tremendous media and political pressure to launch. They had already scrubbed that launch a couple of times, and after the scrub just prior to the explosion, I recall very clearly Dan Rather grimly announcing the scrub, adding "... raising the question of whether NASA can ever launch a Shuttle on time."
Plus which, the SOTU was coming up, and they wanted to take advantage of the optics created by having a Teacher in space.
Yeah, Dan Rather strikes again! What's the frequency, Kenneth!?! Way too often if you ask me.
in his last years, Michael Crichton spoke a lot about his concerns about how politics and "other non-technical considerations" are intruding into science management.
It's gotten so bad now, that politicians are even allowed to overrule genuine scientists when those politicians decide that the opinions of some scientists are not in line with some non-scientific consensus of opinion, as in the case of the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
-
(https://www.commitstrip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Strip-Pendant-ce-temps-sur-Mars-11-650-finalenglish.jpg)
Oh My!
@kevindavis @Freya @LateForLunch @Just_Victor @Cripplecreek @Joe Wooten
-
Damn.
For whatever reason, the failure rate for Mars missions is incredibly high.
I wonder if the failure mode is like what happened to the Mars Polar Lander: "The Mars Polar Lander's December 1999 demise apparently occurred when the lander thought the jolt of its landing leg deployment was touchdown - and shut its engines off."
"No parking zone"
-
"No parking zone"
888high58888
-
Martian SDI still active and puts another notch on their disintegration ray gun. ;)
-
Martian SDI still active and puts another notch on their disintegration ray gun. ;)
Anyone who has "Nevertrump" as a screen avatar is de facto a Hill-O-Lies supporter (regardless of whatever rationalization with which they may assuage their conscience) and too dumb or immoral to rate a civil response.
-
Anyone who has "Nevertrump" as a screen avatar is de facto a Hill-O-Lies supporter (regardless of whatever rationalization with which they may assuage their conscience) and too dumb or immoral to rate a civil response.
Trump is and has always been a Hillary supporter. Democrat Trump has done more damage to conservatism and the Republican Party in a year than Hillary and Obama have done in their lifetimes.
That was the plan.
-
Anyone who has "Nevertrump" as a screen avatar is de facto a Hill-O-Lies supporter (regardless of whatever rationalization with which they may assuage their conscience) and too dumb or immoral to rate a civil response.
And anybody who drags Trump vs. Clinton into a discussion of a Mars lander crash, is in the grip of an unhealthy obsession. Might I suggest it is possible and healthy to discuss topics other than the ones you're interested in?
-
And anybody who drags Trump vs. Clinton into a discussion of a Mars lander crash, is in the grip of an unhealthy obsession. Might I suggest it is possible and healthy to discuss topics other than the ones you're interested in?
thank you!
-
Anyone who has "Nevertrump" as a screen avatar is de facto a Hill-O-Lies supporter (regardless of whatever rationalization with which they may assuage their conscience) and too dumb or immoral to rate a civil response.
:boring:
O for the love of mike take it to another thread lunch bucket. Don't stink up this one.
-
Anyone who has "Nevertrump" as a screen avatar is de facto a Hill-O-Lies supporter (regardless of whatever rationalization with which they may assuage their conscience) and too dumb or immoral to rate a civil response.
@LateForLunch
#NeverTrump
-
Martian SDI still active and puts another notch on their disintegration ray gun. ;)
Martian Skynet?
-
The very first manned moon landing would have ended up with an abort or a crash had computers been running the show.
@LateForLunch @r9etb Factor in transit time for the signal, and the engines may keep running nine minutes extra. Oops. Need a better AI, or simply pad probes which compress to signal ground contact.
-
Anyone who has "Nevertrump" as a screen avatar is de facto a Hill-O-Lies supporter (regardless of whatever rationalization with which they may assuage their conscience) and too dumb or immoral to rate a civil response.
Y'all have used that turd for a pull toy so long I'm surprised the string hasn't worn away. WTF does that have to do with the thread?
-
I still think it was Marvin and his ray gun. :)
Ack! Ack!
-
Y'all have used that turd for a pull toy so long I'm surprised the string hasn't worn away. WTF does that have to do with the thread?
Wow. I guess you told me. What a scathing come back, Joe. Just devastating. Especially the part about "pulling on a turd". Inspired aphorism. Do you write professionally for a living?
Look, I thought that new poster having an anti-Trump avatar was stupid and rude, so I expressed my opinion. Then like five people jumped in and cluttered up the thread after my single post. That made a lot of sense when one of the big complaints was "off topic posting". I posted one, they posted five. So much for cluttering up the thread with off topic posts.
Besides there are only a few days before the election. SO MAYBE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO INTERRUPT FUN AND GAMES WITH SOME SERIOUS POSTING!!!
There is no equivalent anti-Hillary faction on 'Crat forums. I find that VERY disturbing. It also find it disturbing that Smokin' Joe and Gernol and some others on this forum don't find that disturbing. There are some arguments to be made for refusing to vote for Trump. There are no GOOD arguments, but at least there are ones that are more substantive than the endless parade of feeling-centered ( at best) ones I've seen on this forum.
Michael Medved has made about the best argument against voting for Trump that I have heard so far and even though it is still a terrible argument, at least he tries to make rational sense instead of throwing one long tantrum that boils down to, "I have supernatural powers to see the future so I know that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Trump will be significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies".
-
Look, I thought that new poster having an anti-Trump avatar was stupid and rude, so I expressed my opinion. Then like five people jumped in and cluttered up the thread after my single post. That made a lot of sense when one of the big complaints was "off topic posting". I posted one, they posted five. So much for cluttering up the thread with off topic posts.
Did nobody ever teach you the first law of holes?
-
Wow. I guess you told me. What a scathing come back, Joe. Just devastating. Especially the part about "pulling on a turd". Inspired aphorism. Do you write professionally for a living?
Look, I thought that new poster having an anti-Trump avatar was stupid and rude, so I expressed my opinion. Then like five people jumped in and cluttered up the thread after my single post. That made a lot of sense when one of the big complaints was "off topic posting". I posted one, they posted five. So much for cluttering up the thread with off topic posts.
Besides there are only a few days before the election. SO MAYBE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO INTERRUPT FUN AND GAMES WITH SOME SERIOUS POSTING!!!
There is no equivalent anti-Hillary faction on 'Crat forums. I find that VERY disturbing. It also find it disturbing that Smokin' Joe and Gernol and some others on this forum don't find that disturbing. There are some arguments to be made for refusing to vote for Trump. There are no GOOD arguments, but at least there are ones that are more substantive than the endless parade of feeling-centered ( at best) ones I've seen on this forum.
Michael Medved has made about the best argument against voting for Trump that I have heard so far and even though it is still a terrible argument, at least he tries to make rational sense instead of throwing one long tantrum that boils down to, "I have supernatural powers to see the future so I know that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Trump will be significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies".
I don't need to have supernatural senses to know that Trump will be a terrible president, I just need to use the common sense God gave me to look at his past, at what he's done and said, and apply a modicum of rational thought to the garbage that comes out of his mouth now to know that. Perhaps if the bleep had used their God-given wits and not swooned like lovesick puppies we wouldn't be where we are now: about to lose what should have been the easiest election to win in living memory.
-
This thread needs to be locked, bigtime.
-
This thread needs to be locked, bigtime.
And there is another one for my huge IGNORE list now too.
-
Did nobody ever teach you the first law of holes?
Drive for show, putt for dough? :laugh:
-
Wow. I guess you told me. What a scathing come back, Joe. Just devastating. Especially the part about "pulling on a turd". Inspired aphorism. Do you write professionally for a living?
Look, I thought that new poster having an anti-Trump avatar was stupid and rude, so I expressed my opinion. Then like five people jumped in and cluttered up the thread after my single post. That made a lot of sense when one of the big complaints was "off topic posting". I posted one, they posted five. So much for cluttering up the thread with off topic posts.
Besides there are only a few days before the election. SO MAYBE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO INTERRUPT FUN AND GAMES WITH SOME SERIOUS POSTING!!!
Okay, you don't have to shout. For starters, after the craniorectal insertion the GOP has had this year, after four decades of support they can KMA, I'm no longer a member. That's serious. Such changes are not made lightly.
Second, in order to cut down on the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments around here, we have a tendency toward 'gallows humor'. Handle it, it will only get more intense.
Now for the really serious part. Due to the collective stupidity of the American voting public, it is highly like that without accident, incident, or Divine Intervention we will end up with one of two New York Liberals for President, neither of which is suited for the task.
It doesn't get much more effing serious than that.
There is no equivalent anti-Hillary faction on 'Crat forums. I find that VERY disturbing. It also find it disturbing that Smokin' Joe and Gernol and some others on this forum don't find that disturbing. There are some arguments to be made for refusing to vote for Trump. There are no GOOD arguments, but at least there are ones that are more substantive than the endless parade of feeling-centered ( at best) ones I've seen on this forum.
Why should I find that disturbing? I don't hang out on Democrat forums. If you don't want to see bad things written about Trump (like the truth), well, maybe you can't handle the truth. Maybe you would find one of the many forums out there which will tolerate no ill word about their subject of worship more to your tastes. Those of us here who are going into this horrorshow with our eyes open are going to discuss what we expect, when it will be time to dump the stock portfolio, buy metals, groceries, tools, or more ammo, and basically try to figure out who will be shooting at who, 'cause I think that's coming.
Michael Medved has made about the best argument against voting for Trump that I have heard so far and even though it is still a terrible argument, at least he tries to make rational sense instead of throwing one long tantrum that boils down to, "I have supernatural powers to see the future so I know that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Trump will be significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies".
I don't know anyone here who claims to have supernatural powers to see the future.
I have been paying attention to Mr. Trump's escapades, many of which are well recorded, and they bode ill for the future of any country run like he runs his businesses. It does not take a genius at extrapolation to anticipate a trainwreck.
Reasons people will vote for him vary, but I am not so terrified of Hillary that I will vote for him. I do not think he will do a significantly better job than she will, nor do I think he will better follow the Constitution of the United States, as he doesn't even know how many Articles it has.
He, too, has oft embraced Liberal philosophies, Planned Parenthood, and has engaged in questionable practices in the past limited in scope because he hasn't had access to the things Hillary has.
Frankly, there is no excuse I can see to vote for either of them.
So I won't. Michael Medved can vote for whoever he damn well pleases.
So can I.
-
Okay, you don't have to shout. For starters, after the craniorectal insertion the GOP has had this year, after four decades of support they can KMA, I'm no longer a member. That's serious. Such changes are not made lightly.
Second, in order to cut down on the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments around here, we have a tendency toward 'gallows humor'. Handle it, it will only get more intense.
Now for the really serious part. Due to the collective stupidity of the American voting public, it is highly like that without accident, incident, or Divine Intervention we will end up with one of two New York Liberals for President, neither of which is suited for the task.
It doesn't get much more effing serious than that. Why should I find that disturbing? I don't hang out on Democrat forums. If you don't want to see bad things written about Trump (like the truth), well, maybe you can't handle the truth. Maybe you would find one of the many forums out there which will tolerate no ill word about their subject of worship more to your tastes. Those of us here who are going into this horrorshow with our eyes open are going to discuss what we expect, when it will be time to dump the stock portfolio, buy metals, groceries, tools, or more ammo, and basically try to figure out who will be shooting at who, 'cause I think that's coming.
I don't know anyone here who claims to have supernatural powers to see the future.
I have been paying attention to Mr. Trump's escapades, many of which are well recorded, and they bode ill for the future of any country run like he runs his businesses. It does not take a genius at extrapolation to anticipate a trainwreck.
Reasons people will vote for him vary, but I am not so terrified of Hillary that I will vote for him. I do not think he will do a significantly better job than she will, nor do I think he will better follow the Constitution of the United States, as he doesn't even know how many Articles it has.
He, too, has oft embraced Liberal philosophies, Planned Parenthood, and has engaged in questionable practices in the past limited in scope because he hasn't had access to the things Hillary has.
Frankly, there is no excuse I can see to vote for either of them.
So I won't. Michael Medved can vote for whoever he damn well pleases.
So can I.
Joe, 'not gonna respond in detail on this thread. 'Wouldn't be prudent. Not that you are interested anyway - 'sounds like you have made up your mind and are truly fanatical about your position i.e., not really open to reappraising it at this time. Fine but time is running out. Clearly your conviction that there is as little chance that you will ever live to regret your decision to allow Hill-O-Lies to become president instead of doing something to stop her, is as strong as the one that there would be no substantive difference between a Hill-O-Lies presidency and Trump presidency. Selah.
-
Joe, 'not gonna respond in detail on this thread. 'Wouldn't be prudent. Not that you are interested anyway - 'sounds like you have made up your mind and are truly fanatical about your position i.e., not really open to reappraising it at this time. Fine but time is running out. Clearly your conviction that there is as little chance that you will ever live to regret your decision to allow Hill-O-Lies to become president instead of doing something to stop her, is as strong as the one that there would be no substantive difference between a Hill-O-Lies presidency and Trump presidency. Selah.
My vote will make no difference in the outcome of this election. Hillary Clinton will not carry this state by 1 vote. I guess you don't get that. I feel none of the desperation those of you who think Trump to be a more acceptable alternative feel, because my vote will not sway the outcome.
I can, however vote my conscience, not that I would not have anyway. You act as if I would cast the deciding ballot to make Criminal Cankles POTUS, but that just isn't so. So who is being silly, now?
Either way, this life is short, maybe shorter than we think, but eternity goes on for a long, long time. When all is said and done, I will have given my approval to neither the liar nor the thief, and I'll leave it to you to sort out which one deserves which title.
Have a nice day. :seeya:
-
My vote will make no difference in the outcome of this election. Hillary Clinton will not carry this state by 1 vote. I guess you don't get that. I feel none of the desperation those of you who think Trump to be a more acceptable alternative feel, because my vote will not sway the outcome.
I can, however vote my conscience, not that I would not have anyway. You act as if I would cast the deciding ballot to make Criminal Cankles POTUS, but that just isn't so. So who is being silly, now?
Either way, this life is short, maybe shorter than we think, but eternity goes on for a long, long time. When all is said and done, I will have given my approval to neither the liar nor the thief, and I'll leave it to you to sort out which one deserves which title.
Have a nice day. :seeya:
Of course I get that, siuer! I have posted several times (though perhaps not yet on this thread) that those who are in deathly blue states which will go wholly and absolutely for the Bitch have no call to vote for anyone save the candidate they personally admire. People need to be sure that their state does not proportionally allocate electoral votes, however. In a few states I believe that electoral votes are allocated according to district totals not state totals - so a candidate that loses the state may yet receive one or two electoral votes.
-
Of course I get that, siuer! I have posted several times (though perhaps not yet on this thread) that those who are in deathly blue states which will go wholly and absolutely for the Bitch have no call to vote for anyone save the candidate they personally admire. People need to be sure that their state does not proportionally allocate electoral votes, however. In a few states I believe that electoral votes are allocated according to district totals not state totals - so a candidate that loses the state may yet receive one or two electoral votes.
Well, monsewer, it's my vote. If y'all don't like the results, maybe you should have seen this coming, especially since so many tried so often to let y'all know what the result would be. I will cast my ballot as I see fit. I will vote for someone I can support with neither qualm nor shame, and let the rest of you sort out which New York Liberal sucks worst. I didn't vote for this mess, and I'm not voting for it next Tuesday.
-
Well, monsewer, it's my vote. If y'all don't like the results, maybe you should have seen this coming, especially since so many tried so often to let y'all know what the result would be. I will cast my ballot as I see fit. I will vote for someone I can support with neither qualm nor shame, and let the rest of you sort out which New York Liberal sucks worst. I didn't vote for this mess, and I'm not voting for it next Tuesday.
:thumbsup:
-
:thumbsup:
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Joe. Of course I disagree strongly on most of that, but I'm not going to go with any more off topic posts on this thread out of courtesy as I've previously mentioned. 'See you maybe elsewhere and we can continue if you'd like.
-
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Joe. Of course I disagree strongly on most of that, but I'm not going to go with any more off topic posts on this thread out of courtesy as I've previously mentioned. 'See you maybe elsewhere and we can continue if you'd like.
You could have said that unpteem posts ago. Instead, you killed the thread. Like the lander itself, the on-topic discussion is nothing but a dark smudge on the surface of the internet.
Well done.
-
Back to our regularly scheduled programming?
-
Back to our regularly scheduled programming?
(http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Marvin-marvin-the-martian-739955_500_325.jpg)By all means. This is under control.
-
(http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Marvin-marvin-the-martian-739955_500_325.jpg)By all means. This is under control.
My favorite Martian!
-
My favorite Martian!
Wrong TV show....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/My_Favorite_Martian_Ray_Walston_1963.JPG)
-
Wrong TV show....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/My_Favorite_Martian_Ray_Walston_1963.JPG)
It was a double pun. I loved Marvin as a kid- Bugs Bunny was my favorite TV show. I have an autographed poster of Bugs by Mel Blanc, it's one of the few things I have I treasure.
Where's the kaboom?