What's with his totally random remark about "why can't you see stars in pictures taken from space"? It has absolutely no relevance to the rest of his remarks. He seems to understand it's not a fake, so why make that interjection?<br /><br />The guy's just randomly miffed, I think. He doesn't even know what it is he doesn't like about the Shuttle. That's obvious. I've seen people dislike the Shuttle for good reasons. This guy isn't one of them. He seems to think that because Eileen Collins said something rather trite in reaction to what is, quite frankly, a horribly cliched question (and probably asked by a reporter, not that this guy would notice that), that means the whole thing is just a waste of taxpayer dollars perpetuated for the sole purpose of giving extreme environmentalists a way of lying about the environment to get their way.<br /><br />I don't mind rants against the Shuttle when the ranter has taken the time to actually find something out about it. I mean, good grief! He's just rambling on about nothing, sort of vaguely affronted by the notion of people flying in space on taxpayer money. I suspect this is the sort of person who thinks science is a stupid class to take, because it's all a waste of time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>