And speaking of gas...

On Feb 7, 12:40 pm, wrote:
This NASA gal drives 900 miles in diapers so she wouldn't have to
stop...er, OK...what the hell is she driving, a gas tanker...with a
REALLY good gas gauge? Eh, maybe she's just stupid...

Your comment appreciated...stuff the links,
R

When we were kids, my dad was a B52 tail gunner, and he had this
military-issue pee bottle that he would bring along on long road trips
for us kids. It was a plastic bottle with a push button valve on the
top so you could seal it and it wouldn't leak. Certainly something
essential when you were hanging off the back of a bomber at 35000
feet, but not so much when you are driving down the highway passing
rest area after rest area. However, I knew enough then to realize that
he was just immersed in his military technologies, so having something
like that along wasn't weird to him at all....probably he even felt it
was kinda cool to be able to avoid stopping.

I suppose that this astronaut lady lives in the same type of
headspace; astronaut training is likely so immersive that to her,
wearing a diaper is a fairly normal thing to do when piloting the
shuttle, and she probably thought it a bit clever to transfer it over
to everyday use.

That being said, I still think she sounds a bit high maintenance.

--riverman

when it comes to woman ..there's always problems....affirmative action
sucks




"riverman" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 7, 12:40 pm, wrote:
This NASA gal drives 900 miles in diapers so she wouldn't have to
stop...er, OK...what the hell is she driving, a gas tanker...with a
REALLY good gas gauge? Eh, maybe she's just stupid...

Your comment appreciated...stuff the links,
R

When we were kids, my dad was a B52 tail gunner, and he had this
military-issue pee bottle that he would bring along on long road trips
for us kids. It was a plastic bottle with a push button valve on the
top so you could seal it and it wouldn't leak. Certainly something
essential when you were hanging off the back of a bomber at 35000
feet, but not so much when you are driving down the highway passing
rest area after rest area. However, I knew enough then to realize that
he was just immersed in his military technologies, so having something
like that along wasn't weird to him at all....probably he even felt it
was kinda cool to be able to avoid stopping.

I suppose that this astronaut lady lives in the same type of
headspace; astronaut training is likely so immersive that to her,
wearing a diaper is a fairly normal thing to do when piloting the
shuttle, and she probably thought it a bit clever to transfer it over
to everyday use.

That being said, I still think she sounds a bit high maintenance.

--riverman

On Feb 7, 1:24 pm, "riverman" wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:40 pm, wrote:

This NASA gal drives 900 miles in diapers so she wouldn't have to
stop...er, OK...what the hell is she driving, a gas tanker...with a
REALLY good gas gauge? Eh, maybe she's just stupid...

Your comment appreciated...stuff the links,
R

That being said, I still think she sounds a bit high maintenance.


D-oh. My reading comprehension ain't what I think it is. You were
apparently commenting on the range of her vehicle, not that she was
wearing diapers...funny that I missed that.

Is it that unusual to have a vehicle that has a range of 900 miles?
Something with a 26 gallon tank that gets 32+ mpg could easily do it.
I once had a diesel Jetta with a 28 gallon tank that got 45 mpg...I
filled that baby up each year on my birthday.

Aren't there a bunch of cars out there that have a 900 mile range? If
not, I think I see the core of the whole problem....

--riverman

On 6 Feb 2007 22:49:47 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

On Feb 7, 1:24 pm, "riverman" wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:40 pm, wrote:

This NASA gal drives 900 miles in diapers so she wouldn't have to
stop...er, OK...what the hell is she driving, a gas tanker...with a
REALLY good gas gauge? Eh, maybe she's just stupid...

Your comment appreciated...stuff the links,
R

That being said, I still think she sounds a bit high maintenance.


D-oh. My reading comprehension ain't what I think it is. You were
apparently commenting on the range of her vehicle, not that she was
wearing diapers...funny that I missed that.

Is it that unusual to have a vehicle that has a range of 900 miles?
Something with a 26 gallon tank that gets 32+ mpg could easily do it.
I once had a diesel Jetta with a 28 gallon tank that got 45 mpg...I
filled that baby up each year on my birthday.

Um, care to guess what 26 x 32 might equal?

IAC, there aren't many "cars" (and I include most pickup trucks) that'll
go 900 miles, and really, Houston to Orlando would probably take more
gas than a pure, simple 900 mile range, assuming the 900 mile range was
based upon a constant 60 mph/120 kph-ish speed. Few "high mpg" type
cars have large tanks - fuel is heavy, and more fuel means more weight,
and more weight means less fuel economy.

TC,
R

Aren't there a bunch of cars out there that have a 900 mile range? If
not, I think I see the core of the whole problem....

--riverman

On Feb 7, 8:30 pm, wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 22:49:47 -0800, "riverman" wrote:





On Feb 7, 1:24 pm, "riverman" wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:40 pm, wrote:

This NASA gal drives 900 miles in diapers so she wouldn't have to
stop...er, OK...what the hell is she driving, a gas tanker...with a
REALLY good gas gauge? Eh, maybe she's just stupid...

Your comment appreciated...stuff the links,
R

That being said, I still think she sounds a bit high maintenance.

D-oh. My reading comprehension ain't what I think it is. You were
apparently commenting on the range of her vehicle, not that she was
wearing diapers...funny that I missed that.

Is it that unusual to have a vehicle that has a range of 900 miles?
Something with a 26 gallon tank that gets 32+ mpg could easily do it.
I once had a diesel Jetta with a 28 gallon tank that got 45 mpg...I
filled that baby up each year on my birthday.

Um, care to guess what 26 x 32 might equal?

You forgot to carry the "+", but you got me. Mea Culpa, sloppy
math...I meant to imply the type of car that gets mileage in the lower
30s, but I wouldn't give myself partial credit for what I wrote.

Still, you got my drift, I see. ;-)


IAC, there aren't many "cars" (and I include most pickup trucks) that'll
go 900 miles, and really, Houston to Orlando would probably take more
gas than a pure, simple 900 mile range, assuming the 900 mile range was
based upon a constant 60 mph/120 kph-ish speed. Few "high mpg" type
cars have large tanks - fuel is heavy, and more fuel means more weight,
and more weight means less fuel economy.

I know I've commented on this before, but its amazing the difference
in vehicles used inside and outside the US. Of course, in Congo I did
not keep up with the current trends in automobiles, but in Latvia the
roads were filled with very fuel efficient vehicles where 900 miles
(1440 kn) would not have been unresonable for some of them. I had a
4WD SUV that averaged 32-35 mpg, with a 4-cylinder engine and a 24
gallon tank.

You could be completely right that there aren't many cars in the US
that have a 900 mile range. I am curious what she was driving...do you
think she really was able to do the drive nonstop? If not, what was
all that diaper stuff about?

--riverman

On 8 Feb 2007 02:11:48 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

On Feb 7, 8:30 pm, wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 22:49:47 -0800, "riverman" wrote:





On Feb 7, 1:24 pm, "riverman" wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:40 pm, wrote:

This NASA gal drives 900 miles in diapers so she wouldn't have to
stop...er, OK...what the hell is she driving, a gas tanker...with a
REALLY good gas gauge? Eh, maybe she's just stupid...

Your comment appreciated...stuff the links,
R

That being said, I still think she sounds a bit high maintenance.

D-oh. My reading comprehension ain't what I think it is. You were
apparently commenting on the range of her vehicle, not that she was
wearing diapers...funny that I missed that.

Is it that unusual to have a vehicle that has a range of 900 miles?
Something with a 26 gallon tank that gets 32+ mpg could easily do it.
I once had a diesel Jetta with a 28 gallon tank that got 45 mpg...I
filled that baby up each year on my birthday.

Um, care to guess what 26 x 32 might equal?

You forgot to carry the "+", but you got me. Mea Culpa, sloppy
math...I meant to imply the type of car that gets mileage in the lower
30s, but I wouldn't give myself partial credit for what I wrote.

Still, you got my drift, I see. ;-)


IAC, there aren't many "cars" (and I include most pickup trucks) that'll
go 900 miles, and really, Houston to Orlando would probably take more
gas than a pure, simple 900 mile range, assuming the 900 mile range was
based upon a constant 60 mph/120 kph-ish speed. Few "high mpg" type
cars have large tanks - fuel is heavy, and more fuel means more weight,
and more weight means less fuel economy.

I know I've commented on this before, but its amazing the difference
in vehicles used inside and outside the US. Of course, in Congo I did
not keep up with the current trends in automobiles, but in Latvia the
roads were filled with very fuel efficient vehicles where 900 miles
(1440 kn) would not have been unresonable for some of them. I had a
4WD SUV that averaged 32-35 mpg, with a 4-cylinder engine and a 24
gallon tank.

You could be completely right that there aren't many cars in the US
that have a 900 mile range. I am curious what she was driving...do you
think she really was able to do the drive nonstop? If not, what was
all that diaper stuff about?

--riverman

I'd offer that it has very little to do with anything other than the
fact that in the US and much of Europe, there's no reason to have a 900
mile range on a vehicle. Most sane folks aren't interested in wearing
diapers and going on themselves instead of stopping at the
readily-available facilities, which offer everything from fuel to, well,
diapers, if you just LIKE wearing them...

I'm sure there's a route or two you could plan (without simply going in
circles or some attempt at _avoiding_ fuel) somewhere in the Americas
or Europe where a 900 mile range in a standard "car" (IOW, not a
special-purpose vehicle) might be a necessary thing, but given the
_extremely_ limited number of "cars" that have it, obviously, it
wouldn't be an oft-desired "feature."

And I have no idea what she was driving, but even if it did have a
900-mile range, I know the route she took about as well as I know my
driveway (mostly "interstate highway"), and if, as the "news" is
alleging, she's some genius and great planner, she would have known it
wouldn't have saved all that much time. I heard they found two used
diapers - I'd say that saved maybe 10 minutes. Which leads me to my
next thing - how the hell did she change herself without stopping? I
have no memory of what it was like as a baby to have worn them, much
less ever change myself, but I've changed a few. I'm still a fairly
dextrous, albeit big, athlete. I don't think I could change myself and
drive. I know these are supposedly some special space diapers or
something, but why would they design 'em to be changed while driving a
car?

I think the bottom line is there are lots of folks at least two places,
the Navy and NASA, that don't want too many folks realizing that they
spent millions and millions of (tax-payer) dollars testing and training
a loony, who they then let play with billions and billions of
(tax-payer) dollars' worth of toys.

TC,
R

Can we say in flight refueling..........How about a hybrid not sure
how they work but if the wheels turning keep the batteries charged
theres your answer.........Maybe a propane car bungy 4 100 lb tanks on
the roof you could go acrost the country..........

wrote in message
...
On 8 Feb 2007 02:11:48 -0800, "riverman" wrote:
snip
I think the bottom line is there are lots of folks at least two places,
the Navy and NASA, that don't want too many folks realizing that they
spent millions and millions of (tax-payer) dollars testing and training
a loony, who they then let play with billions and billions of
(tax-payer) dollars' worth of toys.

TC,
R

You're probably right about that. The problem is that there is often a very
fine line between people with the type of overachiever personality, that is
best suited to those types of NASA and Navy positions, and those people who
suddenly go off the deep end. Though only anecdotal 8), all three people I
have known who suddenly went off the deep end, without any other outward
indications that they might do so, were overachievers and somewhat
perfectionists. One of them was a Navy Captain who, all who knew him
agreed, was on a fast track to make Admiral. Like the current case in the
news, his also involved a love triangle - killed his former girlfriend, her
new boyfriend, and attempted to kill himself, all with a hunting knife,
after making detailed plans of how he would do so.

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:52:27 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Feb 2007 02:11:48 -0800, "riverman" wrote:
snip
I think the bottom line is there are lots of folks at least two places,
the Navy and NASA, that don't want too many folks realizing that they
spent millions and millions of (tax-payer) dollars testing and training
a loony, who they then let play with billions and billions of
(tax-payer) dollars' worth of toys.

TC,
R

You're probably right about that. The problem is that there is often a very
fine line between people with the type of overachiever personality, that is
best suited to those types of NASA and Navy positions, and those people who
suddenly go off the deep end. Though only anecdotal 8), all three people I
have known who suddenly went off the deep end, without any other outward
indications that they might do so, were overachievers and somewhat
perfectionists. One of them was a Navy Captain who, all who knew him
agreed, was on a fast track to make Admiral. Like the current case in the
news, his also involved a love triangle - killed his former girlfriend, her
new boyfriend, and attempted to kill himself, all with a hunting knife,
after making detailed plans of how he would do so.

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR



I particularly liked the bb gun. They may have meant an air or gas
propellant gun, which could do damage or even kill, but they said bb
gun.

She went over the edge for sure. Probably lucky for the intended
victim that the intended had good reflexes and control and managed to
get out of the parking spot quickly and drive some before showing that
she didn't know much about mace or had forgotten about touching eyes
with hands when the hands have hot stuff on them.

There are some indications that the over the edge woman had detailed
plans, too. Not only that, but that she kept them with her in her
vehicle.
--

r.bc: vixen
Minnow goddess.Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:52:27 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Feb 2007 02:11:48 -0800, "riverman" wrote:
snip
I think the bottom line is there are lots of folks at least two places,
the Navy and NASA, that don't want too many folks realizing that they
spent millions and millions of (tax-payer) dollars testing and training
a loony, who they then let play with billions and billions of
(tax-payer) dollars' worth of toys.

TC,
R

You're probably right about that. The problem is that there is often a very
fine line between people with the type of overachiever personality, that is
best suited to those types of NASA and Navy positions, and those people who
suddenly go off the deep end. Though only anecdotal 8), all three people I
have known who suddenly went off the deep end, without any other outward
indications that they might do so, were overachievers and somewhat
perfectionists. One of them was a Navy Captain who, all who knew him
agreed, was on a fast track to make Admiral. Like the current case in the
news, his also involved a love triangle - killed his former girlfriend, her
new boyfriend, and attempted to kill himself, all with a hunting knife,
after making detailed plans of how he would do so.

I'd offer that I'd find no reason to disagree with most of the
above...well, up until the part about the double-murder-attempted-
suicide part evidence of much with regard to others, anyhow. I've known
a fair share of people that shared one of more of high-intelligence,
high-achiever, and/or perfectionist traits, and I've seen plenty of
folks of every personality type and mental ability put into high-stress
situations, both real and self-induced. What I've noticed (also
anecdotally...) is that it isn't so much that this type or that type
freaks when the **** hits the circulator, it's that those standing
around them tend to be able to make less sense of it when it was someone
_they perceived_ as somehow golden, versus when it someone who they
"just knew was a bomb waiting to go off..." IOW, smart and
outwardly-promising doesn't provide an telltale of mental stability.
That's why I look at, generally, Captain Pampers being just an another
example of plain old garden-variety nuts.

TC,
R

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR