Come to think about it I really don't need to leave my house for anything anymore, ever

Yeah, I don't believe for even half a second that someone incapable of discussing something with another human being without insulting them has anything resembling disposable income. Come back when you're ready to behave like an adult.

You kids are hilarious. Good try though :)

Your parents should stop letting you use the internet until you can learn how to act right.

That's a prety... bold... assumption to make. Have you met any cops before? Because I've met smarter boxes of rocks than half the police I've ever had to speak with.

So you don't believe men and women should be equals?

So you're against gender equality then?

No problem. I don't know any more than anyone else here, but that is the only reasonable explanation I can come up with for why something designed for deployment at higher speed could cause a catastrophic failure at a lower (specifically around mach 1.0) speed.

If I tell you that a piece of demolition equipment requires two buttons to be pressed in order for a charge to go off, but then when you press just one it goes off who is at fault? I would argue that the person that incorrectly designed and implemented the system that clearly failed is to blame, not you.

I posted this above, but I believe this is an important point in this discussion:

The only thing I can think of is that it could cause an issue while the aircraft is transonic, which at an indicated airspeed of mach 1 is at least somewhat likely. The pressure waves as each part of the airframe passes from subsonic to supersonic could cause issue with parts that are either moving at the time or…

I would like to submit the above article and the previous explosion of this engine that also killed people into evidence that our ability to control this particular mix hasn't changed.

Yes, and what you're now saying is that if Richard Branson killed someone trying to fly 14 feet off the ground you would still praise the ground he walks on despite the fact that we've been flying a lot higher for a lot longer already. We don't need to repeat past successes, they already happened.

You keep using this word "space" and I don't think you know what it means. Virgin Galactic is not building spacecraft, they are building rocket planes that operate inside of the atmosphere and not in space. We don't learn anything about space flight by a) not going to space and b) doing things that are not new and are…

So being able to circle around the planet going kind of fast (and, apparently, exploding) is the saving grace that solves that problem? Does being a little further off the ground than a commercial airliner somehow stop the sun from exploding or a meteor hitting the planet? "Well, the earth is gone, but at least it's…

What does mankind have to benefit from being able to fly into the upper limits of the atmosphere, kind of sort of near, but definitely not into, "space" as it is defined by science?

In the same way that if I walk down the street and see a car just sitting there and I don't know who it belongs to I can't just take it. These people didn't accidentally think that they dropped all that cash on the ground, they knew it didn't belong to them and took it anyway. That's stealing.

To be fair this is the 1,000th time I've seen a similar comment about the word "anomaly" being incorrectly used by OSC and I just happen to respond to the one person that did actually know what they were talking about. I'm only going to feel like a half of a dumbass now, okay?

The definition of anomaly: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected." So unless you consider an explosion of a spacecraft to be standard, normal, or expected you are the one that is using the word anomaly incorrectly. Their usage is perfectly correct in that something abnormal and unexpected…

Turn up military spending? God damn, how could they even spend more money?