text:
nap wrote:

   You keep saying no one tried. We keep telling you why not. (what was
done, why no more was done, what was physically impossible to do) The
lack of comprehension is not at our end.

   You also suggest that both NASA, and the posters to this newsgroup do
not care about the crew lives, the orbiter, or the space program.
Nothing I say can prove the untruth of that, but you might look again at
the name of this newsgroup, and ask why we are even posting here, if
that were so?

   No engineer can be *all* knowing.

   See below for what the engineers knew. The video is all they had.
There are no nerve endings in the orbiter tiles.

   The operative word is 'appear.'

   There might. And there might not. Do you want to find yourself fixing
the wrong problem? This is what investigations are for.

   (sigh) Physics won't bend for you or me. I don't have to try to jump
a mile-wide chasm to know I can't do it, if the strength of my own
muscles are *all* that's available to me. ISS would not have been
accessable to them. I can't run the numbers, but there are people on
this newsgroup (unconnected with NASA) who can.

   Apollo 13: (Boom) Fuel cell oxygen tank explodes. Plenty of panel
indicators showing bad news. But no damage to pressure hull. Time to
say; "Houston, we have a problem." Time to work it out. TIME to try.

   Columbia: Post-launch review of video (the agency you seem to think
doesn't care does this *every* time, by the way). Fragment of ice or
tank insulation comes off upper part of ET. Glances off underside of
left wing, object disintergrates. Speed at that time is known.
Dimensions of object can be roughly estimated. Speed of impact can be
roughly estimated. Angle of impact can be roughly estimated. Physical
characteristics of tiles known. Physical characteristics of tank
insulation known. Physical characteristics of ice of same dimenstions
can be estimated. Conclusion: risk minimal. No apperant *need* to try
anything.

   Re-entry: Slight irregularity in pressure of left wing tire. Crew
replies-

   We do not know, even now, if there's a connection between the above
facts.

   There is no *time* to try anything.

   Apples. Oranges.


author: Dave O'Neill

subject: Re: N.A.S.A. : "Need Another Seven Astronauts"

text:
"Ian Woollard" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<[email]>...

I believe there is a whole cottage industry around cutting up spent stages
of Russian vehicles.


author: Tom Merkle

text:
"Dave Kenworthy" <[email]> wrote in message news:<b1n47g$p9u$[email]>...

I know, but most people think if NASA would stop being stupid and just
use transporters, they wouldn't need these silly rocket things.

It's a good day for trolls--every dark and cloudy day is.

Tom Merkle


author: Bill Bonde

text:
nap wrote:
I thought about it and I expected this to happen. Most everyone who
thought about it for even a short time thought it would happen. Is this
news to you?


author: Joann Evans

text:
nap wrote:

   If you want perfection, I'm sorry, you're in the wrong universe.


author: Rand Simberg

text:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:51:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Anyone who understands orbital mechanics and the Shuttle systems can
determine in their head, in about five seconds, that it's physically
impossible.  I'm sure that thought occurred to all of them, at least
idly, and it took about that long.


author: Mike Speegle

text:
nap <[email]> typed:

    If you're an engineer, then you should know better than to act like
a spoiled brat.  Buh-bye.  <plonk>


author: Brian Thorn

text:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:51:09 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

The Space Station is in an orbit inclined 51.6 degrees to the equator.
Columbia's orbit was inclined 39 degrees to the equator. Columbia's
orbit was about 140 miles altitude. Space Station is at 250 miles
altitude.

Columbia would have to raise its orbit by over 100 miles and perform a
plane change maneuver of nearly 12 degrees. This does not even take
into account that Columbia's orbit would then have to be phased to
meet the Space Station. Just getting to the Station's orbital plane
wouldn't be enough... it would then have to speed up or slow down to
rendezvous with the Station.

Columbia did not have 1% of the propellant necessary to accomplish
this.

It is a physical impossibility. Wishing it were otherwise and
demanding "do the math!" will not change the fact that changing
orbital inclination requires massive amounts of fuel and/or great
amounts (years) of time.

Anger is a common reaction to a tragedy. In a day or two you will calm
down and sheepishly realize just how stupid your comments were. In the
meantime, we must all mourn in our own way.

Brian


text:
Steve wrote:

   Perhaps. But he seems not to be interested in the answers. Even if,
once Columbia  was in orbit, we *knew* there was major tile damage (and
we do not, even *now,* know that the tank debris caused tile damage),
what he wants to do, could not be done.

   ISS would still be inaccessable, access to the shuttle underside
would be impossible, Progress still could not bring anything useful to
them.


author: nap

text:
"Steve" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1kg5o$14fc8d$[email]...

And it appears that having concern for the life of the astronauts,
and for the space program itself, is considered a really rat bastard
idea by many. How dare I suggest that engineers should know
what condition the ship was in and try to ensure that it survived. That's
stupid, I'm told, and I'll regret saying so in the future is what they
tell me.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:
Now that is not true. What we wouldn't have is *this* manned space
program.


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Ah. I assumed rational people with rational reasons.

I keep over estimating people.

Thanks for the info.

LOL!


author: George William Herbert

text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

Is english your first language?

There is a very important and not at
all merely pedantic difference between
"supposed to kill people" and
"going to kill people".

The Shuttle is not "supposed" to kill people.
It's job is to fly people and cargo to space
and back, safely and reliably.  Any fatalities
are a failure.

We acknowledge that the risks associated with
the program are such that it is likely to
kill people over the course of the program,
because it is not a perfect system and probably
cannot be made to be perfect.  It has done so,
and if we fly it for another hundred to two
hundred flights, it is almost certainly going
to kill more people.  As will any other manned
space system we can design, in all likelyhood.

As with airliners, ships, cars, and buildings,
we know that the risks are not zero and that
such projects and vehicles are going to kill
people eventually.  And in fact, there were
probably on the order of 200 fatalities in
car accidents in the US on Saturday, if that
was a typical day in the US.  And yet we still
build cars for everyday usage.

No, you shouldn't be happy with it.  Nobody should
be happy with it.

But any responsible engineer has to be aware of the
risks and limitation of the field.

You are deluded on all of these points.

There has been a something like 1% (0.4% or higher)
risk of flight loss since Challenger, and the Shuttle
program people have all known that, and the Congress
and its staff have known that, and anyone in the
American people who cared to follow the program
details knew that.  NASA has not dwelled on the
flight risk, but had admitted it was statistically
likely they would lose another shuttle, in testimony
to Congress, in public discussions, etc.

The American people did not think that the Shuttle
program became perfect after Challenger.  They are
right to demand that "we" (I don't work for NASA,
but the agency and industry) find out what went
wrong here and fix it.  They may even demand that
the risk be lowered in other ways too.  But the
risk will not be zero afterwards.  It will probably
not ever be half what it was before Columbia launched,
with the Shuttle system.  And we will fly again.
And NASA, and the public, and congress, and the
astronauts will accept that and move on.

And some day in the future, we will lose more
astronauts in flight, either on Shuttle or on
its successor vehicles.  And we will grieve again,
and keep flying again.

I have said this before and will say it again.
Space is important enough that we must dare
explore it, even at some risk to our explorers.

America's innocence about the safety of space travel
was lost with Apollo 1 and 13.  And a new generation
learned that lesson with Challenger.  And now a new
generation again with Columbia.  But America as a
nation has always accepted those risks.  The public
were incensed with NASA after Challenger for having
been lied to about the risks (1 in 10,000) at that
time, when the industry knew better.  They were not
lied to after Challenger.  Nat, you are upset here
because you were ignorant, but that does not change
the reality of this history.  The people that cared
enough to learn about it knew the risk and accepted it.

Your assumption of the mantle of the offended public
is unjustified hubris.  The public is smarter than
you give them credit, and will accept the risk and
move on, as long as we are honest with them about
the risks and issues.

-george william herbert
[email]


text:
nap wrote:
I bet Boeing has loss probability estimates for its 7E7 project that if
taken literally would mean that people will die from flying in the
aircraft.


author: sickwrister

text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 23:41:45 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

The point I'm trying to make here is that, while NASA does, I believe,
try to make space exploration as safe as possible, it is impossible at
this time to reduce the risk to the level of a Sunday drive.

Driving a car is not safe either, but we do our best to make it as
safe as possible for the purpose.  Are you in line with killing
another 50,000 people on our highways this year?  Those deaths are
part of the cost of traveling 60MPH down the highway and there is
little we can do about them, though both our government and the auto
industry does try.  Do you want to scrap the highway system and go
back to horses and trains?  (Oops.  they have accidents too.  DRAT!
Is NOTHING safe???!!)

I'm no NASA groupie.  I feel NASA hasn't been bold enough for the last
30 years.


text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 23:41:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Yes.  The real problem is that we'll run out of orbiters.

On every major construction project, you'll find a plaque dedicated to
all of the people who died building it.  Dozens died building the
Brooklyn Bridge, several of the bends in the caissons, because they
didn't yet understand decompression sickness.  Ten men died in a
single incident building the Golden Gate Bridge, when their scaffold
collapsed.  They got off lucky with the Empire State Building--only
five men died in its construction.

This is no different.


author: Hobbs

text:
Doug Haxton <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Before you launch you need some kind of module in the cargo bay with
extra seats.  And you probably want to second guess yourself and
put enough provisions on board so the combined crews can live for
a month because hey, the problem that stranded the first shuttle
might get you on the rescue launch too.  Then you're really
screwed with 2 shuttles up and one on the ground.

-McDaniel


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

"Never" is impossible. Critial systems have to pass
a failure modes analysis that shows that the probability
of such a failure is 10 to the minus 9, one in a billion.

No one expects that the shuttle met such requirements.

However, if you get two such incidents in ~ 100 flights,
that's a little too damn high.

You're not helping your case by saying it
is to be expected.

"Felt" or "judgment", regardless. There's seven dead
astronauts. It wasn't good enough.

Well, if a meteor strike had taken it out, you'd
have a point. But saying that some foam fell off
some 20 times before and the only analysis was
"No one dead yet", well, that's not exactly in
the "know everything" category.

No way can you say you have a sufficent
FMA by number of flights with a sample size
of only 20.


text:
"sickwrister" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

That's like saying that because you've gone a few rounds
in a game of Russian Roulette and haven't blown your
brains out yet, that it's safe to play. Do it a thousand times,
sucessfully, and you can make the argument that the pistol
is empty. Do it three times, you don't know!

In the real world, safety claims have been made on the basis
of many, many flight hours that indicate that the probability
of failure, as estimated by past experience, is very high.

When you only have 3 to 20 experiences with falling foam,
your uncertainty is around 5%. No basis for a safety claim.

The replaced the old foam with one that falls off 11 times
more often, and does more damage. In the real world, you
can never make a craft LESS safe.


text:
"sickwrister" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Witchcraft is a myth. Impact damage is not.

Yep. It COULD be a coincidence that the foam, which
we know caused some damage to the heat resistant tile,
happened on the same side that showed a large temperature
increase, the same side that appears to have failed.

The issue is, we know something damaged the left side.
We know the foam and/or ice damaged the left side. Does that
prove anything? No... But it is pretty likely to be cause
and effect.


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

There was no Apollo 13 style effort to save the shuttle, and
NASA never mentioned the big gash they saw in the left wing
on video, according to a report in the Guardian.

Good grief. Writting them off doesn't show a heck of
a lot of concern. Slamming anyone who points out that
1 in 50 failure rate is not very caring is the typical responce.

"Yeah, we sent them up in that death trap. You have a
problem with it? Well, NO ONE COULD SAVE THEM."

talk.politics.misc.

1 in 50 is pretty dang far from knowing anything.
Perhaps you should become familiar with how
real engineers design things that people's lives depend
upon before getting all gushy over a machine that
kills people on time in every 50 uses. Hell, cigarettes
do better than that..

Seems they did know, and didn't do shit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/columbia/story/0,12845,888480,00.html

The warning, first reported on the US news network MSNBC, was from a Nasa
engineer who said there was a 76 x 19cm (30 x 7.5in) area of damaged or
missing tiles on the left wing. At least one tile was totally gone, the memo
said. Video footage appeared to show a substantial dent in the wing.

Foam falls on shuttle, whacks a 30"x7.5" area into the
fragile heat tiles, and NASA doesn't even say a damn
thing about it or admit that they know.

The coverup has begun.

You can tell by all the name calling and engineers
who are banging the penis' on the table and playing
the "my degree is bigger than yours" game.

you

And cover ups, too.

even
[snip]

You know what? This is such a silly argument that it's not
even worth reply. The laws of physics must be obeyed,
but they do not prevent one from posing the problem in
different ways.

The EXAMPLES I gave was Apollo 13. That is an
EXAMPLE where creative thinking saved lives. In
the Columbia case, it was, "Gee, look at those broken
tiles! Guess these guys are DEAD. Don't tell anyone..."


text:
"Bill Bonde" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I didn't know that our design goal was to have astronauts play
something similar to Russian Roulette. Was firing the five guys
concerned with safety part of this goal?


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
burn
another
Tile

Perfection? I want a hell of a lot better than
1 loss in 50. You call THAT anywhere NEAR
well enough?


text:
"Mike Speegle" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1kgbl$140bpc$[email]...

Seven dead, shuttle gone, no big deal! It's immature to be
upset! So says Mr. Speegle.

An almost flawless re-entry, some others have said.

How dare I expect better. How dare I expect
engineering! Nothing could be done, so why try?

You're right, how silly of me to think engineers should
actually ENGINEER.


text:
Brian Thorn <[email]> wrote :

Is anyone else seeing a parellel with "The Cold Equations"?

- Liz


text:
"Brian Thorn" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

But I asked the question. Did NASA?

Your willingness to give up is astounding.

Well, when the space program is dead, and the US
abandons the ISS, we shall see.

It is the engineers job to know. It is the engineers job
to be creative. I think I see the problem here.


text:
nap wrote:

   You believe we have no such concern because we admit that a miracle
couldn't be summoned? (That's what would have been required.)

   You will be hard put to find a group of people anywhere on the
Internet concerned for human access to space.

   You clearly have not watched the NASA press conferences, and listened
to the information they've given so far. Orbiters are more carefully
monitored than any other vehicle built by human hands. This is why they
have nothing like a 'black box.' Any data it could hold is transmitted
to ground anyway. But you cannot monitor and know everything.

   Nor can you see the future.

   No one has said this to you. No one.


text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 03:38:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Is science the only rational reason to be in space?

Do you even understand the meaning of the word "rational"?

No, just your own intelligence and knowledge.

You're certainly easily amused.  Would you like a rubber band to play
with?


text:
"George William Herbert" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1sf3b$ael$[email]...

I see. So, you say that my lack of distinction between
"should kill" and "should probably kill" is incorrect.
Would it be better to say "it is likely this thing,
when used properly, will kill 1 person per seven
flights"?

If I roll the die 36 times, I should roll a six
6 times? ... I should probably roll ... ?

Yeah. Okay, that's a nit, but I'll grant it to you.

If you use the shuttle 100 times, you should
probably lose two crews.

It doesn't fly much cargo. In 2002, it doesn't
seem to fly much more than people. There was
one Hubble Telescope mission, and the rest it
was a ferry to the nearly worthless ISS, which
is over budget, not meeting it's design goals, and
our partners are not holding up their end of the
deal. If there was no ISS, there would be no need
for the shuttle.

Most cargos are flown on Delta rockets. Delta
rockets are not considered very safe, so people
are not allowed on them. They have a failure
rate of 5%, one in 20 flights. One failure about
every 50 flights, and  NASA seems to be good
with that.

You don't find too many cars, other than the
Ford Pinto and the Ford SUVs with Firestone
tires, that kill ANY people when used as designed.
Most car accidents and commercial airplane
accidents are pilot error. Ford had that SUV
problem, out of dozens of thousands of people
driving, they had a few fatal accidents, and the
were sued off the road.

The point here is that your comparison to airliners,
cars and buildings just doesn't hold water. If used
properly, and some terrorist or drunk doesn't
run into you, and all you had to worry about were
engineering failures, these three systems are safe.

[snip]

Well, that is the problem. The "responsible engineers"
were NOT aware of the problems, they blew off
the foam, fired the 5 people with safety issues, and
there you have it.

We shall see.


text:
On 5 Feb 2003 17:51:39 -0800, in a place far, far away,
[email] (George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Yes, by nap's definition (we'll ignore the fact that he's not
confident enough of his ignorant opinions to use his real name),
automobiles are "supposed" to kill people, because tens of thousands
die in accidents every year in America.


text:
"sickwrister" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

NASA changed the foam from a proven type to one that
produces 11 times more damage, and more serious damage,
for politically correct reasons and only politically correct
reasons.

Tell me again how NASA is trying to make space
exploration as safe as possible.

Very few auto deaths are due to engineering failures.
Most are operator error or due to operator error in
a vehicle that collides with another vehicle.


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

[snip]

I guess we have plenty of astronauts, eh?

Now we have OSHA. Maybe NASA is due for an OSHA
inspection.


subject: NASA acted to save Atlantis, but not Columbia

text:
This is the kind of engineering creativity that I was
talking about and the NASA groupies said was
physically impossible. Not only was it possible to
at least TRY, this had been tried before.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77967,00.html

NASA has maintained since last week's disaster that there
was no recourse after liftoff for the seven astronauts aboard
Columbia if there was serious damage to those tiles. But the
Atlantis mission, in which the crew was instructed to make
 a protective re-entry, suggests there were at least options
for an ailing shuttle to return safely.

Experts during the Atlantis mission, in May 2000, feared
damage to tiles on the wing, like Columbia, and over a
slightly smaller area than the damage suspected to the
shuttle that disintegrated over Texas last weekend,
documents show.


text:
nap wrote:

   The video has been televised, the NASA representative described the
analysis. The underside of the orbiter was not visible from the ground.
How would you, NASA or the Guardian be able to characterize anything as
a 'big gash?'

   You don't 'write off' people when you don't even know there's a
problem. And if you did, all the hand wringing in the world doesn't
change the fact that there were NO options. All the concern in the world
doesn't make the impossible, possible.

   If the conclusion *at the time* was that there was no signifigant
risk, why should it become headline news? And once again, it wasn't even
possible to *review the video* until the ship was in orbit.

   So you'd prefer no investigation? Not even the independent ones?

   (shrug) You're welcome to ignore me at any time.

   The EXAMPLE you gave involved an emergency where there was an OBVIOus
problem, and TIME to work a solution. Do you see that at all?


author: kenb

text:
nap wrote in message:

    In the same story, the Guardian also reported this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/columbia/story/0,12845,888480,00.html

 "A key focus of investigations is a piece of insulation foam that tore off
a large external engine and collided with the left wing 80 seconds after
launch and may have exposed the metal skin beneath the tiles."

    A large external engine?  My word......your sources really suck.

    In a related story linked from the same page from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/columbia/story/0,12845,888032,00.html

"The last shuttle tragedy, 17 years ago, kept the fleet from flying for
almost three years until its cause was discovered - faulty welds in rocket
boosters."

    Faulty welds?  Whatever happened to the cold o-rings everybody used to
talk about?  Are these Guardian people improvising or making this stuff up
as fast as the presses run?

    Nap, I hope you don't count on the Guardian for all of your information
needs, people will laugh at you.


text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

Then you are profoundly ignorant of the industry's
safety standards and expectations.  NASA's own analysis
was that the risk of catastrophic loss of vehicle and
life was on the order of 1 in 250 (0.4%), which indicated
that post-Challenger, there was a very high risk that
another shuttle would go down with its crew before the
system was retired.  Everyone associated with the program
was very aware of that risk, particularly the astronaut corps.

A number of safety critics have complained about aspects
of that analysis and believed that the true risk was a
factor of perhaps 2-4 greater than that, closer to 1-2%.
Those criticisms were also well known within the industry
and within the astronaut corps.

The pure statistics on the number of flights which were
successful post-Challenger seems to indicate that the real
risk is probably closer to the 1% mark than the 0.4%,
and that a substantial portion of the real ongoing risk
is simply the unknown and unforseeable situation.

If you consider an irreducable risk on the magnitude of
0.5%-1% to be "russian roulette with astronaut lives" then yes,
that's exactly what was happening.  And NASA knew it.
And the astronauts knew it.  And Congress knew it,
and reporters covering the space program knew it,
and anyone who followed the space program knew it.

That you did not know it is perhaps unfortunate, as it is
causing you much stress and making you act foolishly now,
but in no way changes that everyone who paid attention
was aware that there is and will always remain a significant
risk with flying Shuttle flights.

-george william herbert
[email]


text:
nap wrote:
Hiring Homer Simpson to deal with safety wasn't either.


text:
nap wrote:
It's better than a certain European launcher I won't name.


text:
nap wrote:

   You're quite entitled to be upset. I was. I *know* someone at JSC who
also was.

   You're *not* entitled to ask for physically impossible things.

   Apollo 13's problem was of a nature that we had time to think about
it. (And it was just by good fortune that they had what they needed to
limp home. It could *easily* have ended differently. Jim Lovell has
talked about what his final actions would've been if they couldn't make
it.)

   Challenger gave no one time to think. It *happened.*

   Columbia gave no one time to think. It *happened.*


text:
LizM7 wrote:

   This whole incident (sadly) reminds me of one of the characters in
Niven and Pournelle's 'Inferno' though....


text:
nap wrote:

   Nope. You have benefit of hindsight. Is NASA psychic? No one knew
there was even a question that needed asking. We *still* don't. There
was no reason to think a tile inspection was necessary. It's *still* not
obvious.

   But for reasons already explained to you, if somehow this *could*
have been forseen, there was nowhere to go. (The novel/movie 'Marooned'
used a similar situation. An Apollo spacecraft fails to retrofire after
leaving a Skylab-like station. But they're already in a position where
there is *not* enough thruster fuel to get back to it.)

   "Captain, I canna change the laws of physics!"

   And you still can't make something out of nothing. That's the purview
of deities, not engineers.


text:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 01:37:29 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

Did NASA what? Ask the question? They don't have to ask their
engineers if docking at the Station was possible, it is so far beyond
the realm of possibility, that you might as well be demanding "why
didn't the Columbia divert to a landing on the moon?"

I live in the real world. Your judgment is currently too clouded with
sorrow and anger and irrational thought to realize the impossibility
of your proposals.

Unfortunately, this is not Star Trek. Merely telling Scotty to run the
engines to 125% is not going to get Columbia to the Space Station.
There's no remodulating the shields to come up with a new way to get
home. No 'cross-circuiting to B' is going to fix a hole in the tiles.
In Star Trek, Geordi LaForge infamously said "It's a one in a million
chance, but it just...might...work!" Well, Columbia didn't even have a
one in a million chance of getting to the Space Station. As Scotty
said, "Ya canna change the laws of physics!"

You are the only one who does. Consider that. You are not the
brilliant guy with all the answers who no one is listening to. You're
just wrong.

Brian


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
fine.
had
fuck

Who's "we"? Do you speak for NASA?

?

5 fired people who say they were fired because
they raised safety concerns, 2 people who quit
over safety being ignored, a past history of ignoring
safety....

Foam that falls off on tiles that are essentially very
fragile glass and no one seem to think it will ever
be a problem.

It appears that NASA knew or at the very least
suspected it was not flight worthy, and fired the
appropriate people who were concerned about
safety.

[snip]

It is called "failure mode analysis". Anything flight
critical should be evaluated to where it is highly
improbable that a failure will cause a hull loss.

2 total hull losses in a little over 100 missions is
pretty damn pathetic.

Read the thread.


text:
Well, come back when you want to stop with the insults
and discuss the shuttle, space policy, science or something
on topic for the news group.

Sorry you got so pissed, but it was your own doing.

"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

If there's no manned space program, we have no need
for a manned space program.  Lovely logic there.
Did they teach you that in school?

NASA has accepted something on that magnitude,
yes, as has Congress and the Astronaut corps
and the industry and all.  Everyone hopes it's
half to quarter that but it's somewhere around
that number.

Oh, the hubris.  Oh, the ignorance of history...

Buildings:
Buy and read Petroski's _To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure
in Successful Design_, and his _Invention by Design_ (and arguably,
_Design Paradigms_).  Also Matthys Levy and Mario Salvadori's
_Why Buildings Fall Down_.

Kansas City Hyatt Regency skywalks.  Construction plans change for
the Citicorp Tower which led to it being built insufficiently strong
to survive a typhoon (crossbracing attachment reinforcement was applied
in an emergency program when this was discovered, shortly after the
building opened, and no failure ensued).  Any number of bridge collapses.
The collapse of the Kemper Arena roof structure in Hartford, and of
the CW Post dome at Long Island University.  Collapse of the Cypress
Freeway in Oakland in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.  Several
lift-slab medium rise buildings which collapsed in construction.
This list can go on and on.

Aircraft:
Comet windows / fuselage fatigue.  DC-10 cargo deck doors.
Faulty engineering on aft bulkhead patch on a damaged ANA
747.  Explosive fuel tank fuel vapor conditions in 747s.
Airbus A300 tail fin strength; and spiraling outwards
from that failure, the failure of the whole aviation
industry to recognize the hard-opposite-rudder at maximum
yaw recovery attempt tail stress loads condition until
we lost a plane to it.  The 737 rudder hydraulic control
unit reversal problem.  This list can go on and on.

Cars:
We will leave this as an exercise for the reader.
Most of the people reading should recall famous
engineering and construction problems with certain
models...  Note that a lot of "human error" problems
are in reality a human/vehicle interface problem,
and thus while the person's action is at fault the
system was set up in a way that encouraged the
faulty action.  This is what happened with the
Audi 5000 unintended accelleration problems,
is the failure mechanism in most SUV burst
tire rollovers, etc.

Spacecraft:
_Disaster and Accidents in Manned Spaceflight_ by Shayler.
Suffice it to say that a lot of things have gone wrong.

You keep saying you're an engineer, but it sounds like
your professional education on the history and role of
failures in engineering has been sorely lacking.
Where did you go to school, and which exact major?
Are you a member of your field's professional society?
If so, doesn't it have continuing education on these
topics and such?

-george william herbert
[email]


text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 02:58:19 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

No.  So you reveal your ignorance about statistics as well.  You're on
a roll.


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

No, I'm not going to use my whole name or a real e-mail
address. I don't want spam and almost as worse, I don't
want wackos doing their dirty tricks. Your e-mail address
looks bogus. How do I know your name isn't bogus, too?

Lets' look at this.

Most of the failures of both commerical airplanes and
automobiles are due to either pilot or driver error. Some
are due to bad maintenance. You don't see too many
airplanes or cars out there that going to kill people,
as designed.

Sure, Ford had some, like the Pinto, and then there was
the Firestone tire debacle, where a few failures out of thosands
was cause for a massive recall effort, and they were
sued to where they realized their error.

In short, you design crap that when used and maintained
properly kills people, you can expect to be sued and
put out of business. People don't seem to mind dying
when they drive like jerks, but that has never meant
that the engineer can design something that will kill them.


text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message
news:e_X0a.22563$SD6.1182@sccrnsc03...

As I understand there are lots more astronauts than can ever normally be
expected to get a seat.  I don't for a minute think Columbia will alter
that.


text:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:15:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Yes, actually, we have an oversupply at the current flight rate, with
a hundred competent people standing in line to replace each one that
might want to quit.  We'll never run out of astronauts.

And people still die.  The only risk-free state is the grave.


author: Dirk Collins

subject: Re: NASA acted to save Atlantis, but not Columbia

text:
nap wrote:

There is quite a few things one can do, but first everyone has to
know there is a significant problem.

I have had alot of people tell me this past week shuttle missions
are not like Star Trek, and I agree with them, It isn't. So NASA
should quit treating the shuttle like it is part of starfleet and
institute visual hull inspections after each launch. Takes nothing
but a bit of time, and a little extra equipment on board, and
could just save a shuttle and a crew.

Re,
Dirk


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
was

Moot question.

There was a NASA internal memo that characterized it as
a big gash. So the issue is not that NASA couldn't identify
it, they did. The issue is still, as I pointed out, that no effort
was made to address the problem.

[snip]

1) The article claims that there was a memo and that they
did know there was a problem.

2) The point was that the astronauts were written off because
at first glance, they figured nothing could be done.

No one is asking for hand wringing. I suggest that they
should have sought solutions. Maybe the effort to save
the crew would have been in vain, but you cannot say
that it was impossible before you even try.

1) It was clearly a bad engineering test. A good test would not
have lead them to predict success while in practice there is
failure. Either "don't know" or "fail" would have been valid
conclusions. There were other discussions where it was pointed
out that they threw out more conservative data. I don't know
about that, but I did hear about the people concerned with
safety being fired.

2) So what if it wasn't possible to review the video until the ship
was in orbit?

[snip]

fixing

They need to stop firing the people who seem to have
been correct.

done,

Lets see,  tiles take a hit was known at launch, sixteen days before
they came down. That it was really bad was known two days before
they came down, and no effort at all was made. They could have
stayed up longer.

What is not consistant with the Apollo 13 problem?


author: Scott M. Kozel

text:
Joann Evans <[email]> wrote:

I keep hearing that they had no way to spacewalk under the orbiter, but
I find it amazing that they wouldn't have at least one EVA
suit/umbilical on board.  If they did, then why wouldn't they use it
when their life depended on it?

If NASA knew after the mission's liftoff that there was tile damage that
would be fatal upon reentry, then it would have been irresponsible to
de-orbit it on the California-to-Florida track, given what would happen
during reentry... breakup into thousands of pieces that would endanger
people on the ground.  If they knew (and I'm not asserting that they
did) that it would break up on reentry, then they certainly shouldn't
have done a reentry over land (which would have been almost impossible
to avoid).  Probably it shouldn't be de-orbited at all in a case like
that...

It should have been checked by an EVA, IMO.  If potentially fatal tile
damage was found, then the proper procedure should have been to keep the
shuttle in orbit and NOT to attempt any kind of reentry, and to try to
improvise until a manned rescue mission could be sent, utilizing
unmanned cargo rockets to bring supplies to the shuttle.  After the crew
was rescued, the shuttle could be evaluated as to the possibility of
another mission to repair the tiles so that the shuttle could land.


text:
Ask most people in the UK and they will tell you the Guardian is a
tabloid sutible for lining bird cages and cat boxes.  It's fun to read
because of it's sensatonalism, but you then go to the Times to get the
facts straight.

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 01:32:47 -0500, "kenb" <kenwho?@sympatico.ca>
wrote:


text:
"kenb" <kenwho?@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:T0J%9.1469$[email]...
off

Yep. The Guardian sucks. I also read this story in my local
newspaper.

The problem is that you're chosing to nit pick over insignificant
trivia, and missing the theme of the article, that there was a known
problem  and no effort was made to save the shuttle.

I guess you have no rebuttal to the reported facts other than to
nit pick.

Thanks for that contribution.


author: johndoe

text:
I personaly think that you have made a very valid point and if there
where more people like you in this world it would be a better place as
we say in scotland on yer self big chap.


author: Mike Atkinson

text:
Although George is perfectly correct in the loss of vehicle statistics,
there are other significant risks he does not mention.

1. training accidents - several astronauts have been killed on the
ground or in training flights. Apollo 1 probably should fall into this
category. Although I am not aware of any recent training deaths, it
probably remains a significant risk.

2. industrial accidents among ground crew and at the various
manufacturing plants associated with the solid rocket boosters and
external tank. There are always risks associated with heavy industrial
processes and dangerous chemicals. For instance a worker on Ariane was
killed last(?) year on the pad.

3. heart attacks and other causes of death due to stress and overwork.
Probably higher in the first few years of the shuttle, when there was a
lot of pressure to launch on time.

Any large enterprise consisting of lots of people is bound to lead to
deaths, nothing is risk free. Life is a risk, we all have a 100% chance
of dying.


text:
"Bill Bonde" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

They don't put people on that thing.


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
like

How can you tell what's possible if you don't
even think about it?

You seem to be asking me, without facts and
data, to come up with a solution. That was NASA's
job. They didn't do a thing, just said if they had
damaged tiles from the foam or ice they were dead,
and given that they didn't do anything, they were.

There was over 16 days to think about this shuttle.

It was too much bother, I guess. Maybe NASA is
too much bother.

Another case of NASA stupidity, as Dr. Feynman pointed
out so clearly.

History repeats itself.


author: Gary

text:
Joann Evans <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

<snip>

However, both were preventable.

Challenger flew with O-rings that were known to have problems from
previous flights.  However, it was decided that because there hadn't been
any serious problems up to that point it wasn't worth grounding the fleet
in order to fix it.

Columbia flew despite several previous flights where debris from the
external fuel tank struck the orbiter during ascent.  The fact that no
(or little) damage was found on those previous flights did not make it
any less a safety issue.  Now, with the investigation still in progress
I'll keep an open mind on this one, but given the data so far released,
my gut says that this time they got bit.


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

There is nothing psychic about engineering. Did they
do a failure mode analysis?  Did they ask what happens
if they have a foam failure and how the tiles would react?

Let's review. We have 7 dead astronauts, a shuttel scattered
all over Texas, and 5 fired people who said the craft was
not safe.

They saw a chunk of something; foam or ice maybe, hit the
shuttle. No one knew the question needed asking? Tiles that
are essentually foam glass?

So, write them off and don't try anything.

Sure as hell stops anyone from asking any questions.

I'm not familiar with that movie.

Creativity is the engineers bread and butter. I'm not saying
that they could have been saved, but christ, at least it was
worth THINKING about.


text:
"Brian Thorn" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

They didn't do a damn thing.

Well, the real world is that NASA is likely to
have the space program and ISS axed over this.

If the attitudes seen here are also shared by NASA,
it would be a good thing.

Oh, grow up.


text:
"George William Herbert" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1t8uj$ecn$[email]...

What they taught me in school is that you should first
listen, hear the other guy, make an effort to understand
what he said, see how it conflicts with your own position,
and then try and state what the false premise was or
bad logic they used to get to their position. Or, agree.
Or, agree to disagree.

Let me restate one more time...

If  ISS program is to exist, the space shuttle program
must exist.

If the ISS is to be terminated, then there are no other
missions for the space shuttle.

The ISS should be terminated, ego, there is no mission
for the space shuttle.

Simple. I did not lump the space shuttle and ISS programs
into one "manned space program" as you claim I did.

A FEMA is an engineering estimate of the risk and
failure modes. These numbers on paper are not the
actual risk of failure. The actual risk can only be determined
with a sample large enough to get some risk events, or
an upper limit of the actual risk can be determined if
there are no failures, at a given certainty level.

We can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that
the risk of a hull loss is greater than the 0.4% being used
by NASA.

But lets say we agree about the risk being high. The next
question is a moral one; are we doing something worth
risking human life. I don't see that case being made. We
would get better science by funding research here on Earth,
and even more so for the ISS. So not only are we wasting
life, we are wasting an opportunity for better research.

As for little Timmy's ant-farm(tm), if we really MUST know
how ants tunnel in microgravity, put an an Ant-Farm(tm) on
a Delta rocket with a video camera on it.

So, like most sci. groups, there's lots of childish
name calling. :-)

Some of these are decent examples. The airplane ones
tend to stink... but I'm not here for that.

Even in those cases, every time something went wrong,
a major effort was made to find out what went wrong
and there was a requirement to FIX it. There are many
more examples where there was NO Hull loss and there
were required fixes.

So, when I hear that this foam has fallen off some 20 times,
and there was no fix, and the attitude was that if the tiles
were grossly damaged that there was nothing that could
be done... well, it contradicts all the examples you've given.

For buildings, there is an entirely new approach for analysis
that has become accepted.

You seem to be doing the old usenet trick... when you find
yourself argued into a corner, throw out a lot of true facts
and pretend that you've related them back to your argument
in such a way as to support your conclusion. Problem is,
all these examples, such as they are, support MY conclusion.
You find a problem and you FIX it, you don't just ignore it
and say, "well, that's the risk!"


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Well, explain my error. That's how adults have discussions.


text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

Rand's email address is spamproofed to prevent automated
software from grabbing.  It's possible to figure out what
to change in it to send him email just by looking at it.

A person who answers to the name Rand Simberg has gone to
quite a wide number of conferences and events related to
space travel, at which we have talked about some of the
discussions which have been going on online, etc.  If that
is an assumed name it's one he's consistently using in real
life as well.

I have been using the Internet for literally over 15 years
now, and have had 'dirty tricks' played on me a grand total
of once, though someone got confused and incorrectly thought
I was behind another set of events which resulted in much the
same hassle on a separate occation.  I have a significantly
higher profile than the average user, who even if they are
highly critical will typically see no such probems.

In the space-related newsgroups, though there are separate
sub-communities in each one, by and large the regular posters
know each other outside newsgroup postings.  Many of us
are involved in the field professionally, including Rand
and myself (part time for me, though).  Essentially every
company in the US doing things in space launch is represented
on sci.space.policy for example, in some of the smaller and
newer cases by the company's principals or founders.

-george william herbert
[email]


text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 02:28:38 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Anyone who wants to google me can find numerous columns that I've
written, on Fox News, TechCentralStation, and National Review, with
that name.  Many here have met me at space conferences, using that
name.  I've got to be one of the least anonymous people in this
newsgroup.

Suppose it turns out that they took a hit from space debris that took
out the tiles.  What will you say then?

(idiot)


text:
Dirk Collins <[email]> wrote in message news:<dB%0a.5530$[email]>...

This wouldn't even be that hard these days. Everybody's seen the
little floating PDA ball that's supposed to follow the astronauts
around, right? Of course, that only works in in atmosphere, since it
uses ducted fans. But couldn't the exact same thing be done using a
small rocket powered robot? It would use similar control software, and
have essentially the same features, including offereing easy access to
different views outside the shuttle.

Come to think of it, a remote floating camera would be exceptionally
useful as well for anything done using the RMS--just think how hard it
currently is to get the right view for using the shuttle arm.

The space station would benefit from someting like this as well.

Tom Merkle


text:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 04:21:29 GMT, Dirk Collins
<[email]> wrote:

Hull inspections? You mean have a crew check over the entire outer
surface of the Shuttle? You realize they do that, right? Why do you
think the Shuttle is so damned expensive and takes so long to turn
around between flights?

Brian


text:
"Dirk Collins" <[email]> wrote in message
news:dB%0a.5530$[email]...

They had a clue that there was something wrong from
the launch video. The NASA memo shows this.

And it appears that the USAF has the ability to inspect
the shuttle from Earth as it orbits.


text:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:55:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Scott M.
Kozel" <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

There was no option.  It would have come down from drag eventually,
anyway.  I doubt if it had an orbital lifetime of more than a few
weeks.

It wasn't possible.  Read the FAQ.

http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html


text:
nap wrote in message:

    I'm nit-picking about the fact that you are posting inaccurate drivel as
fact in a science newsgroup.  Many people here (rocket scientists included)
have tried to explain how the laws of physics and orbital mechanics regulate
what can and cannot be done with an orbiting shuttle, but you stubbornly
refuse to accept any of it as reality.
    Since the Columbia accident, thousands of people unfamiliar with space
travel have come to sci.space.shuttle looking for answers about what
happened Saturday, and we don't want them leaving here accepting the
uneducated, naive and gullible mis-information that you would have them
believe.
    When it comes to space travel your ignorance is astounding, and your
worthless opinions and unfounded assumptions would be better posted in
alt.conspiracy where they appreciate such hysterical bullshit.

    Um....OK.

    With regards to your (cough) reported facts, there are few actual
established facts to report anywhere at this point.  The investigation has
hardly begun, and I intend to wait until there is enough real evidence
gathered to form an accurate opinion.  This won't happen until all telemetry
and orbiter debris have been recovered and examined extensively, by people
who don't foolishly believe everything the Guardian tells them.

    The pleasure is mine Nap.


text:
nap wrote:

   If changing from orbit 'x' to orbit 'y' requires a velocity change of
(pure example here) 5000 feet per second, and you have only enough
propellant to change your ship's velocity by 400 feet per second, what
more thought needs to be given to that?

   I'm asking you to stop and understand the situation.

   First, you have to know that there *is* a problem.

   Second, not all problems *have* solutions. No matter how badly you
may want them to.

   The tank debris was analyzed, and the conclusion was reached that it
posed no hazard. You may not like that conclusion, but that *is* doing
something.

   And we *still* do not know that that was the cause of the re-entry
destruction. You cannot jump to conclusions. As has been said (and
sometimes proven in aircraft crash investigations) what sometimes
*looks* like the smoking gun *isn't.* (My personal first thought on
Challenger was a catastrophic main engine failure, considering some of
its development problems. Turned out the SSMEs had nothing to do with
it.)

   It took less time than that to decide that the tank debris was not a
major issue. We still don't know if that was wrong.

   How long should you agonize over the above decision?

   Correct. But that changes what I said about the speed of the event
not one bit.

   In the sense of the loss of seven people and an orbiter, yes.

   We do not know if there were any management or engineering issues in
common.


author: Tim Kozusko

text:
nap <[email]> wrote in message
news:IPE%9.151244$Ve4.9843@sccrnsc03...

More like "Let's change the subject".


text:
nap wrote:

   There was already an issue where small fragments of insulating foam
would seperate from ETs a year or so ago. It was referred to as
'popcorning.' That particular matter was fixed. Do not assume that no
attention has been paid to ET insulation adhesion issues. I know this
and I'm no engineer, just a lay space buff. (But for a *very* long
time.)

   And did they predict this particular failure mode?

   Dittemore has described their analysis of the video at the televised
NASA press conferences. (Assuming you trust NASA analysis. But then,
that's why there are independent investigations, too.) And they know
better than you or I what the tiles are made of. (Though I once had
occasion to handle a sample piece.)

   Is there some part of the phrase 'nowhere to go' that escapes you?

   Hardly. But the questions will be more meaningful if they're informed
ones.

   Once again, thre did not seem to *be* a real problem, and we *still*
do not know that the debris impact caused the problem.

   And just how long do you *have* to think about options you don't
have?


text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

Read the airplane ones.  In more detail,
including the warning histories as well as the
final fatal accidents.

The circle turns.

You didn't enter this argument arguing that we should
find the problem and fix it.  You entered the argument
claiming that NASA had been neglegent in engineering
and operations of the shuttle, *obviously*, since it
lost a shuttle, and that the program should be shut down.
You argued that NASA had lied about the risk, and that it
was obviously too dangerous.

My argument, from the beginning, has been that NASA had
to understand the particular problem, fix it, and go
back to flying Shuttles.

In any real-world transportation engineering system,
there are known flaws.  Jetliners are still flying
with explosive fuel/air mixtures in their center fuel
tanks today.  737s haven't had all their rudder hydraulic
control actuators replaced.  The A300 hasn't been grounded.
I could go on.

NASA has always looked at the shuttle and its flaws and
worked on fixing them.  The engines flying now are much,
much more reliable than the initial SSME models.  Ascent
was the major risk, but that has been reduced significantly
as a result of that.  When minor cracks were found in the
fuel line liners not that long ago, they grounded the fleet
and figured out how to reweld them, and they fixed it.
There are countless examples of things they figured out
were risks, and fixed.

Challenger was the glaring exception; it was identified
as a risk just in time, but the process failed to do
the right thing, and launched anyways and lost the vehicle.

But not every failure or risk in the program is worth
stopping flights for.  Cosmetic problems, things which
don't impair mission safety and functionality, things
which make flights harder somehow but not more dangerous.

The foam loss / tile damage problem was looked at.
Each flight that had an incident, they looked at
how it happened, looked at the tile damage, looked
at the issues.  There had never been a burnthrough,
despite the tile damage.  The tile system had a lot
of redundancy built in.  Foam wasn't usually coming
off tanks in large chunks previously, mostly in
smaller ones (aka 'popcorning').

Assuming (which is not yet a safe conclusion) that
the foam caused tile damage which led to burnthrough
and loss of Columbia, then either something went
wrong unlike previous foam loss events, or the
analysis of the previous foam loss events was
not correct.

In *any* case, we need to know what happened,
and why the analysis before didn't catch it.

The question is whether NASA handled the problem
in a responsible manner or not.   They looked.
They analyzed.  There was general consensus that
the problem wasn't serious enough to ground
the shuttle.  It wasn't covered up.  It, and all
the other problems, have been widely discussed
within the space industry and enthusiast communities,
covered in the media, etc.

Unlike the Challenger SRBs issue, if there were warning
signs on this one, everyone in the community knew about
them, and for the most part didn't think it was a big
deal.

So, if you want NASA to fly shuttles with zero known
defects, that's fine.  We can ground them permanently
because they'll never be that perfect.  And we can
apply the same criterion to your car, too, and it
will never safely leave your driveway either.  That little
scratch in the tire might turn into a fatal tear and
blowout, causing your car to go out of control and
flip over on the freeway.  Is your brake fluid topped
off and completely free of bubbles?  Could a slightly
scratched wire in the dashboard short and cause a fire?
Is that intermittent headlights dimming anything serious,
or is the electrical system going to fail catastrophically
some night soon?

If you find out about something and ignore it, then that's
neglegence.  If you find out about something, and look at
it closely, and decide it's not serious, that's different.
A large part of flight risk is exactly that: the risk that
some engineering judgements made in the program are in
fact mistaken, somehow.

We can never engineer mistakes out of a real world system.
We can expect people to do a dilligent job of looking at
the facts they have, to use good engineering judgement.
So far, there is no sign that the people who had been looking
at the foam problem over the years didn't do a dilligent
job of looking at the facts or using good engineering
judgement.

That will need to be examined in detail, going all the way
back to the beginning.  We need to know how and why.

What you have consistently missed, because you don't have
the background education in the space program and shuttle
program, is that NASA has always done exactly what you
say it should be doing.  It might have done it wrong, but
it was doing exactly what you said it should be doing.

-george william herbert
[email]


text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 02:23:42 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Every time a Shuttle is lost, it will lose several people.  To try to
do a division as you did is nonsensical.


text:
"George William Herbert" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1t694$dsg$[email]...

That's nice. Mine is spam proof too.

And prior to the Columbia loss, we had only lost one
shuttle. I guess that is the fundamental philosophical
difference between you and I... When something bad
happens, I learn quickly from it and re-engineer so it
isn't as likely to happen again. You don't, and go on
hope.

Quite frankly, some of your buddies here do give one
pause to contemplate the wisdom of not giving out anything
more than one's first name!


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Good for you.

The odds of getting hit by space debris at 200,000 feet are not
very great, less than 10 to the minus 9. It is pretty dumb
to do a whums if at over a billion to one shot and claim that
because someone didn't consider that as likely as a claimed
0.4% estimated failure rate that they are an "idiot".

Have a nice day.


text:
"Brian Thorn" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I hear that Columbia came with 100 miles of the ISS, and
nobody bothered to have anyone on the ISS look.

It appears that the Air Force has the ability to view the
shuttle from the ground.

And then there was the argument that the prudent thing to
do was to favor the left wing in a re-entry manuver similar
to that done on Atlantis.


text:
Brian Thorn wrote:

Not in between flights, while the shuttle is in a nice quiet orbit
in vacuum, free from hull torching reentry temperatures, &  steel
shredding G forces.

I seem to remember the astronauts flying around in a little
jet-pack thingy while they built ISS and in the older shuttle
promo footage. What's wrong with using that and a good tether line
  to gentle roll down to the underside of the shuttle for a looksee?

The least they could do is take one of their little mars lander
bots and modify it to crawl the surface of the shuttle snooping
for obvious hull damage.

What part of "Hull integrity needs to be checked and verified
after launch, before reentry" don't you understand.

This is just my personal opinion mind you, but the shuttle crew is
worth more than the shuttle itself any day! If the costs are so
far out of line that it is impractical to build a fleet or
reusable orbital vehicles, it's time to modify our economy, and
economic goals a bit.

Heck, I'll bet we could buy two new shuttles with some of the
monies being used to harrass old Saddam. Given a real choice, I
would trade HARMS, AMRAAMS, mines, heavy artillery and laser
guided bombs for a new shuttle anytime!

With Regards,
Dirk


text:
"Brian Thorn" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I think he means inspection after launch; possibly from the ground
using techniques similar to the method the USAF used to photograph
it.


text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 23:16:35 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I think he means *after* it's gone into orbit, and about to reenter.


text:
[email] (Rand Simberg) wrote:

They could try to improvise until a manned rescue mission could be sent,
utilizing unmanned cargo rockets to bring supplies to the shuttle.  That
includes improvising a method to reboost the orbit if needed.

I keep hearing that they had no way to spacewalk under the orbiter, but
I find it amazing that they wouldn't have at least one EVA suit/
umbilical on board.  If they did, then why wouldn't they use it when
their life depended on it?


text:
"kenb" <kenwho?@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gkm0a.4959$[email]...
as

LOL! As if I was "intruding" upon something scholarly on
the usenet, you take offense.

regulate

I see... sticking to your make believe story of what I said.
This is getting tedious! No one can be this dense and have
your language skills. It appears for all the world you are just
lying now. I have completely and utterly accepted that the
space shuttle could not reach the ISS, and you, and other
self described "rocket scientist" claim that I've refused to
accept that.

What I said, for the OBJECTIVE reader, was that there should
have been a large scale effort to brainstorm alternatives, as was
done on Apollo 13, for the Columbia shuttle. I gave as an example
the admittedly poorly informed suggestion that the crew take
refuge on the ISS; this because I thought that the Columbia had
already been there. I was wrong about that, and the shuttle lacked
the fuel to reach such an orbit. The point was not the wild example
that I gave, but rather that there at least had been a brainstorming
session. Engineering is about creativity, after all.

[snip more name calling]

So, besides your lies about what I said, you now have to
resort to name calling.

Well, that's special.


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Same story I told to the other guy.

Problem is, a 1 in 50 chance of hull loss is a
fundamental design flaw and a serious problem.

What part of "we want to design it so that people don't
die, and people are dying" doesn't appear to be a problem
to you?

The Columbia crew died because they made a
mistake. No, I don't like it.


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
equator.
Columbia's
perform a
take
plane
to
not

Just as before the Challanger accident, they pointed out
a lack of concern for safety before the Columbia accident.

Seems NASA needs a kick in the ass every 10 years or
so, and a flushing out of complacent.

Dittemore says that it was probably foam and probably the tile,
just like I said. Dittemore says that if so, then it shows a fundamental
design flaw of the shuttle, like I've been saying.


text:
"George William Herbert" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1vmhj$mis$[email]...

You are partly correct. The issue I raised was that NASA
new that there was a foam/ice strike on the underside of
the shuttle and did nothing to inspect it or hold a brainstorming
problem to fix it.

I didn't say that the program should be shut down until
people said that it is suppose to have a high probability
of failure, so high that it is likely we will lose the remaining
3 in the next 100 or so planned missions.

So, now that we have someone dead, you advocate that
it be fixed.

Nope. Show me the DER that allows this, or what
the problem is that risks safety of flight, and we can
go to the FAA and shut them down tomorrow.

The NTSB said there was no proof that the fuel tank
explosion was caused buy faulty fuel pumps, but they
ordered the fuel pumps be fixed. They also suggested,
at one point that nitrogen loaded fuel tanks, like those
used by  military airplanes, be used. Of course, ideally,
you don't need to do that because people aren't shooting
at you.

Actually, they have been replaced. The AD went out awhile ago.
Again, here is a case where there was no evidence that there
was a real rudder problem that would endanger safety
of flight. Worst case, it was shown that with really hot
and dirty hydrolic fluid in two of the three systems, you
could cause such a failure. That would be a maintenance
problem. Another case of "gee, we don't know what
caused the accident, but fix this thing that isn't broke".

A pathological airplane, in that the tail was composit and
it was damaged in production. The fix was not as good
as French engineers thought.

If a commercial plane was found to have stuff falling off
it and endangered the safety of flight, the FAA would be
all over that design.

Apparently not, as someone said that the foam falling off
was "safe" because it had happened twenty times before.

[snip]

Bingo. Ditto for Columbia. Which is the problem, isn't
it?

When a commerical plane goes down due to a missile
strike or windshear, the NTSB gets all over the design
and forces some kind of change, even though the design
did not consider missile strikes and massive windshear.

Yeah. NODY. No One Dead Yet. As someone
else pointed out, there was an analysis that pointed
out the danger, and NASA blew it off.

Or that the analysis was fudged to continue with
launches.

[snip]

Zero known defects that endager the safety of flight,
yes.

Didn't they teach you to check your car before you
drive it? No way would I let anyone in my family
drive a car that I felt was so unsound it could
endager their lives.

[snip]

Well, I think you're ignorant too, because you have some serious
misconceptions about what engineering standards are being
used in the real world.

Now, where did that get us.


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

 It is a common way to express risk when looking at events
like nuclear accidents, so you can compare the risks.


text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 03:13:02 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

So, once again, you've been shown to be full of...merde.

You obviously know as little about this as you do about orbital
mechanics.  No one said anything about getting hit at 200,000 feet. It
could have happened any time during the two weeks they were in orbit.
Why do you persist in making yourself look like an idiot in a
knowledgeable newsgroup?

Go get educated, then someone might pay a little attention to your
stupid little footstomping rants.


text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

Columbia's initial orbit was at 178 miles, with the
station at about 250.  So it was nearly 75 miles
lower than ISS, plus any orbit track offsets.
Within 100 nm sounds possible but a stretch.

That's about half the distance at which a KH-11 or KH-12
spysat can resolve objects roughly the right size to tell
if there's any serious tile damage, looking down at
the ground.  The KH-11 and KH-12 use 2 meter main mirrors.
Someone on ISS would have to have a 1 meter telescope
to be able to see the same resolution from that distance.

I don't believe there's even a 30 cm telescope / camera
on ISS right now, though I could be mistaken.

-george william herbert
[email]


subject: Re: Re: NASA acted to save Atlantis, but not Columbia

text:
"Bush Busta" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030207/ap_on_sc/shuttle_
safety_7

Yeah. They also changed the foam from to one that was
11 times more likely to cause tile damage and more serious
damage, because they wanted to kiss left wing wacko
PC ass.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html


subject: NASA knew damaged tiles could cause loss of hull

text:
NASA now says that it was impossible that it was the foam.
This is simply a cover up.

NASA not only knows that damaged tiles near the landing
gear door could cause hull loss, they knew it before hand.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78451,00.html

This theory is entirely consistant with the data gathered
so far, and it doesn't require a mystry event that just
happens to have happened in the same area.

NASA rejects this theory, however. Why? Could it be
because there are too many screw ups with regards to
the foam? Same problem with NASA attitude as the
O rings.


author: Tom Orle

text:
If they can afford a $1 million potty they could place some cameras
on the underbelly. OK - so they don't want any more potential trouble
spots underneath the shuttle by placing additional doors under there -
but they have 3 ideal locations for cameras - the wheel wells.

Allow the gear doors to open in orbit without the wheels coming out.
In each well they could have a panable camera mounted on an extendable
boom. Deploy it after reaching orbit, scan the underside and have the
computer compare it to a preloaded database to find abnormalities.
The camera boom in the nosegear well could be more elaborate to allow
the leading edges of the wings to be scanned.

But - the big question is still: After the initial 'holy sh....t, look
at the damage!!' ...  what can be done about it!

-=tom=-


text:
"Dirk Collins" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4n91a.5680$[email]...

Agreed.

Modify our economy?

 More people value liberty and freedom over
paying for some joy rides for some elite group.


author: Charles Buckley

text:
Dirk Collins wrote:

  OK...   They hop into their nice Jet packs, then fly around
the shuttle a look for hairline cracks in black tiles when the
shuttle is spending it's entire orbit with the sun hitting
from different angles (during the 45 minutes of the 90 minutes
of orbit when the they are in daylight..)

  The feasibility part. On the ground, it takes dozens of
technicians weeks in ideal lighting conditions to do this sort
of examination. Basically, they could see large sections of
missing tile, which is sorta like being able to see that your
life expectancy just went down to being measured in hours instead
of years.

  If it is big enough to see, they are dead. In this case, there
is no real indication that there was anything to see. Generally,
large hull problems would be noticable on the way up, assuming the
Shuttle survived the launch process.

  The real pics they need right now are actually of the launch.
It would be very interesting to see if they shed anything after the
main tank drop.


author: Andre Lieven

text:
"Scott M. Kozel" ([email]) writes:

This is Real Life, not " Armageddon ".... No such hardware exists, and
none could be available for at least a year. Highly likely several
years. The same goes for unmanned rendezvous capabilities with the
shuttle.

Since *no one* knew that " their life depended on it ", until seven
minutes before breakup, *maybe*, this is absurd and irrelevent.

If you want to fantasise, please take that to "alt.i.don't.know.anything."

Andre


author: Rand Simberg

text:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:17:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Scott M.
Kozel" <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

There wasn't time.  Rockets cannot be launched that fast.  Read the
FAQ.

Yes. you already said that.  Their life didn't depend on it.  An EVA
would have accomplished nothing, and they didn't know they had a
problem.  Read the FAQ.


subject: The foam was changed to a more dangerous type.

text:
Who okayed this shit to be used on the shuttle?

First principle of this kind of engineering is that
you can never make the design LESS safe.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html

"Despite that the Freon-based foam worked well and that an exemption from
the CFC phase-out could have been obtained, NASA succumbed to political
correctness. The agency substituted an allegedly more eco-friendly foam for
the Freon-based foam.

PC-foam was an immediate problem.

The first mission with PC-foam resulted in 11 times more damaged thermal
tiles on Columbia than the previous mission with the Freon-based foam.

A Dec. 23, 1997, diary entry on the NASA Web site reported: "308 hits were
counted during the inspection, 132 were greater than 1-inch. Some of the
hits measured 15 inches long, with depths measuring up to 1.5 inches.
Considering that the depth of a tile is 2 inches, a 75 percent penetration
depth had been reached."

More than 100 tiles were damaged beyond repair, well over the normal count
of 40. Flaking PC-foam was the chief suspect.


text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 03:34:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

If you understood anything about statistics, you'd understand that
there are far too few flights for such an analysis as you performed to
have any utility or validity.


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Really? The scientific philosophy has long claimed that
argument by authority is full of shit.

You sure you want to say I am wrong and you are right
by claiming authority? :-D I wasn't going to accuse you
of that, but there you go!

So, you're saying something hit the tiles. So am I!
Mind you, they have a video of something hitting the tiles
shortly after launch.

As for the explaination that it is only soft foam; I have a cup
of water here that is only water. I could pour it on you harmlessly.
However, if the same amount of water was to come out of my
pressure washer, it can cut wood!

Idiots tend to make fools of themselves when the only
way they can express themselves is by venting their
frustration over their inability to advance their point of
view.

Feel better?


author: Hallerb

text:
This news makes management look bad, espically with the block left unchjecked
as to tile damage effect. What were they thinking of?


author: Cantankerous Smelt

subject: Re:  NASA knew damaged tiles could cause loss of hull

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message
news:so83a.110011$be.78273@rwcrnsc53...

You are spam.  I killfile spam.  Mmmm, spam...


author: Derek Lyons

subject: Re: NASA knew damaged tiles could cause loss of hull

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote:

An unproven assertion.

They've known it for years, nothing in the story that wasn't known
long ago.

Except that...  The data gathered so far is not entirely consistent
with the loss-of-tire scenario.  Nor is the data gathered so far
consistent with know cases of foam strike from the past.

Could it be because they have a clue, and you don't?

D.


author: aggies

text:
Sorry but if a URL contains fox or msnbc I avoid it like the plague.

"nap" <[email]> wrote in message
news:so83a.110011$be.78273@rwcrnsc53...

<snip>


author: ed kyle

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message news:<so83a.110011$be.78273@rwcrnsc53>...

Incorrect.  NASA has not ruled anything out yet.

 - Ed Kyle


author: David Harper

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message news:<so83a.110011$be.78273@rwcrnsc53>...

I see.  And you have concrete evidence that it WAS the foam?

Yes, Daugherty even states that the questions he raised were purely
speculative, worse-case scenarios, and that he was only "what-if'ing".

No, it isn't consistant with the theory.  Even after a re-analysis of
the foam impact, it STILL seems that the foam wouldn't have been
sufficient.  In addition, the latest analysis points out that the
temperature rises were too high to be caused by small tile loss, and
that an actual puncture/breach had to occur to allow plasma to enter
the wing.  Furthermore, more evidence is pointing towards other
causes, such as the debris that was tracked leaving the shuttle 24
hours after launch when no water dumps were scheduled.

You are basing your entire "conspiracy theory" on what could be only a
coincidence: the fact that the impact and the failure occured on the
same side.  That is a poor argument.

Right now, it sounds more likely to be a meteoroid impact than the
foam to me.  However, I'll wait until I hear more evidence, and I
won't JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS.


author: Sal Bruno

text:
What I am wondering is whether such incidences of foam hitting the
Shuttle are rare or commonplace during launches. Could it be said that
during this particular launch the size of the impact plume from the
foam segment is the largest yet seen? Or have such incidents of
similar severity taken place numerous times in the past, with no
consequences?

If so, this could be a case of a worst-case impact trajectory - for
example, a square-sized segment of foam, perhaps rotating on it's
plane, and moving in a direction parallel to it's plane. On impact, a
corner hits the tile(s) in the direction of rotation, thereby focusing
maximum kinetic energy in a minimum of space. I suppose any impact
must be looked at as being it's worst-case scenario.


author: OM

text:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:00:24 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

...Oh great. Another Maxson bastard child. Do us a favor and live up
to your alias. Preferably taking the dirt variant.

Better still, let's send you home to Killfile Hell with PoppaMax...

<PLONK>

Idiots.

				OM


author: Dirk Collins

text:
nap wrote:

Mmmm-hmmm. Seriously put more resources into developing a viable
and safe space program. Personally, I would put up my Medicare
benefits and my social security up on the block in exchange for a
viable space program.

Wouldn't do me a bit of good to be able to live to be 125 with
good medical care and social security if my grandchildren are only
going to die as a result of a planetkiller asteroid slamming into
the earth.

What about you? Do you have to live to be 125, or would you rather
see your grandchildren survive? This is what is at stake in the
long-term with the manned space program.

We have Liberty and Freedom. We have 15 aircraft carrier battle
groups, and ten divisions of the most powerful warriors on the
planet with thousands of aircraft to back them up. We already have
the resources, and an arsenal of sufficient quantity, to ensure
our liberty and freedom for many life times. We only have three
orbital shuttles now though, and one space station innaccessible
from many different orbits it would seem.

The Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own freedom at
least to the degree we seem to be interested in helping them
achieve their freedom from tyranny.

As for Joy Rides for some elite group. The astronauts are
hardworking, expending enormous amounts of time in studying, and
learning, optimistic, achievement oriented, and willing to
sacrifice their time, and their lives, to enhance our long-term
chances for survival by exploring the most hazardous environment
we can ever be in.

We owe them a lot more than we owe some yuck who is too afraid to
pick up a gun and defend himself from some bully and his
psychopathic friends.

With Regards,
Dirk


text:
Charles Buckley wrote:

  I don't know how you can conclude that.  The NASA estimates on the foam hit
(pre-dating the accident) included scenarios up to 7x30 inches of missing tile.
 An inspection would sensibly concentrate on those areas where damage would be
of most concern.

  As to "they're dead anyway", this may be true but only under existing
protocols.

  I believe that a recommendation for just such inspections (manual, robot, or
remotely visualized) as well as crew-saving contingencies (boost to ISS or
Orbiter-Orbiter or Orbiter-Soyuz transfer) will be part of the fallout from the
investigation.

JGM


text:
Charles Buckley wrote:

That's good the shuttle is checked so thouroughly on the ground,
and I'm not advocating abandoning this, mind you.

On an orbital inspection though, if the damage is large enoungh to
see, they are not automatically "dead". Far from it! They can
immediately reorient the mission for survival as opposed to
"Commercial" success, and work on saving themselves and the
damaged shuttle they are in.

Just because the shuttle is useless for reentry doesn't
necessarily mean it is useless for additional orbital work. Heck a
damaged shuttle could become the heart of the newest space station
provided it is in a stable orbit when abandoned. That is one way
to build your orbital infrastructure!

With Regards,
Dirk


author: Alain Fournier

text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Read the FAQ Rand.

From
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Alain Fournier


author: nap

text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
on

Small sample sizes mean that you have greater uncertainty,
not that you cannot apply statistics. Student T and all that.

And you really must learn not to preface your "arguments"
with ad hominem. It's really very rude, and doesn't enhance
discussion.


text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 02:18:05 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

No, idiot.  I was simply pointing out that, when you asked how you
could know who I am, that you were full of...merde.  It had nothing to
do with my authority--just my lack of anonymity, which you (like most
trolls) seem to feel important.


text:
"Cantankerous Smelt" <[email]> wrote in message
news:yUh3a.2404$[email]...

A proper reply would be:
"But Nap, NASA is not saying that it wasn't the foam, just
that they think it was highly unlikely based on a computer
model that conflicted with experiment. They are trying to
draw attention away from the controversial foam issue and
towards something else, anything else. They did not say
that foam was impossible, that is an overstatement."

Someone intelligent might say that.

Do I have to make the intelligent arguments against myself
for you NASA geeks and groupies?

"Spam" is inappropriate advertising to a news group
or to an individual's e-mail server.

You want to call me a "troll". A troll is someone who
posts something inflammatory to news groups and usually
posts to groups that are at odds to one another, like
soc.men and some feminist group and similar things.
However, I am not a troll as I am simply posting news
stories, stories from a variety of news sources, and
drawing the obvious parallels to the Challenger debacle.

All in all, you'd do good to just kill file everyone. Especially
anyone who would make you think and challenges your
beliefs. You wouldn't want to have to think for yourself,
would you? Tim Kozusko, for example, says he is waiting
for NASA to tell him what it was. He appears to not find
himself qualified to reach his own conclusions.

Now, let the childish replies begin!


text:
"Derek Lyons" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

NASA investigates NASA. The obvious cause, which
has growing supporting evidence, is being denied. There's
a lot of NASA asses on the line if it is the obvious cause.

And the fact that NASA did this with the O-ring problem
on Challenger.

Not proven, but more than likely.

How does it being a well known problem make it
any less probable?

Let's review. Foam hit the underside of the shuttle. Engineering
analysis shows that loss of foam near the wheel well can cause
the tire to burst. The data shows that there was a rise in temperature
in the wheel well, and the tire lost pressure. If the tire burst,
it would pop open the wheel well door and cause a lot of
drag on the wing. The data shows that there was lots of
drag on that wing. The analysis shows that there would have
to be a significant hole. The popped open wheel well would
be a significant hole. They found a tire, probably the Columbia's,
and it appears to have been burst.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/14/sprj.colu.shuttle.tire/index.html

This is all entirely consistant.

The thing that is discouraging, is that NASA keeps trying to
throw the scent off the tile issue:

"A preliminary analysis, made public Thursday afternoon,
has determined that the temperature inside the wheel well
was too hot for it to have been caused by one missing tile."

Like it was being said it was only one tile.

A comeback worthy of the elementary school yard.


text:
"aggies" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

It's an Associated Press story. You could make SOME
effort to be informed and check for the same or similar
story on a news source you like. You're showing an
attitude that you don't want to know anything that
conflicts with your world view. Some NASA groupie
you are!

But if it makes you happy...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/12/shuttle.tires.ap/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20030212_745.html
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030213-122032-7877r.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A287-2003Feb12.html

I could find more, but I want to see you blow these off
first.


text:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:16:04 -0800, in a place far, far away, "aggies"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

That makes about as much sense as "Sorry but if a post is top posted I
avoid it like the plague."

It's an opinion piece by me.  The fact that it runs on Fox has no
relevance to the opinion.


text:
"David Harper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<so83a.110011$be.78273@rwcrnsc53>...

1) Photos of foam hitting the shuttle.
2) Engineering test that show that the PC foam caused damage
more often and more serious than the freon based foam.
3) An NASA safety engineer's evalutation that foam damage
to the tile near the wheel well doors could cause a rise in
temperature that would cause the tire to burst, and pop open
the wheel well door, causing drag and loss of the shuttle.
4) Telemetry from the shuttle that is entirely consistant with
this theory.
5) They found what is probably the shuttle's tire, blown.

See above. It seems to be the case.

They threw it out based on  a computer model that conflicts with
the experimental data.

It's called "Cover your ass", and it calls into question NASA's
credibility.

As in popping the wheel well door. Yes.

I'm sure that NASA will fabricate whatever "evidence"
they need to CYA.

Just because NASA did this crap once before after
the Challenger? We're fresh out of Feynman's to make
them look like the sloppy asses they are.


text:
"Dirk Collins" <[email]> wrote in message
news:99b1a.5862$[email]...

I fail to see the connection between low orbit manned
space flight and the prevention of a planetkiller asteroid
event.

You were saying you would trade a great deal of our
military forces for another shuttle or two. What, exactly,
does the American people get from having a shuttle that
blows up once every 50 launches or so, that cannot be
had a lot cheaper with unmanned satelites?

And there is a whole lot of other, more worthy science
projects here on earth that could be funded.

Well,  the Iraqis are not taking responsibility for
their own freedom, and that rat bastard Saddam
wants to gas Americans.

Let's see, another shuttle, or stop Saddam? I go
with stopping Saddam.

How do shuttle flights enhance our long term chances
for survival?

Well, it's the guys who are going to defend against guys
like bin Laden and Saddam that I worry about. I want
to see them have the best equipment that we can provide.
It's my tax money, but it's their ass. And their mission is
preserving freedom and liberty, not seeing that little Timmy's
ant farm gets up in space so we can see how ants dig in
microgravity.


author: Kelly McDonald

text:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:00:40 GMT, Dirk Collins
<[email]> wrote:

Then two years from now an Astronaut on one of these inspection EVA's
is killed by a micrometorite impact, or tether breaking or MMU
malfunction and everyone will start complaining about the unessesary
risk to human life we are taking by doing these inspections that
maybe, just maybe might see a problem once out of every 100 odd
flights.

Kelly McDonald


text:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:00:56 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I did.  He was referring to cargo rockets.


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Some people get very frustrated, and they get downright
hateful, over what should be intelligent discussions. For
the rest of us, it is not too safe to be around them and let
them know who we are.

You can always tell who these dangerous ones are because
they first start out with name calling.


text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote:

A failed assertion.  NASA isn't investigating NASA.

Did what? Covered up? Investigated itself?  The historical record
clearly shows they did neither.

It makes false your assumption that something related to this accident
is being covered up or hidden.

False.  They lost the tire pressure signal, not tire pressure.  Your
analysis begins to unravel.

Such a burst has a tremendous amount of energy and would cause
extensive  sudden damage.  No telemetry indicates that such damage
occurred, nor that the door opened.  Your analysis continues to
unravel.

A popped open main gear door would show on telemetry.  No indication
of an opened door, or of a failure of the door related sensors has
been noted.   Your analysis fails.

But when?  Before, during, or after the accident?

It's not in the least consistent, as demonstrated above.

You confuse press quotes of a single analysis (of the many being done)
with the sum total of NASA's opinion.

A demonstrable fact.

D.


text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote:

ROTFLMAO.  This from *YOU*?  You who can't even get basic facts about
the accident right?

D.


author: Tim Kozusko

text:
nap <[email]> wrote in message
news:x3e3a.101890$SD6.5124@sccrnsc03...

I'll blow it all off until the final report is in.


text:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:42:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
[email] (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Whoops.  Thought you were talking about a URL to my column that I
posted in a different thread.  However, I still don't understand the
point about avoiding foxnews.com or msnbc.  They are established news
sources.


text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message news:<Bdd3a.102111$iG3.12794@sccrnsc02>...

A photo is concrete evidence?  I can show you plenty of other photos
of foam hitting the orbiter, and on those occasions no damage was
done.

Yes, this type of foam CAN cause more damage.  This isn't concrete
evidence that it DID cause more damage.

Operative phrase: "could cause".  This is not concrete evidence.
Drinking before you drive "could cause" you to have a wreck.  It
doesn't mean it will.

What telemetry suggests that it was foam that caused damage?
Telemetry suggests there was tile damage, yes... but it doesn't
support the claim that the tile/TPS damage was inflicted by the foam.

The shuttle breaks up, the tire re-enters the atmosphere at 200,000 ft
and 12,500, and you say there's enough evidence to support the fact
that it's blown?  Regardless, even it it HAD blown, this wouldn't
support the foam theory.  It could have been blown out by a
micrometeroid in orbit.  I'd like to hear someone say it was probable
that the foam stuck hard enough to cause the tire to blow out.

They threw it out, huh?  Care to cite this experimental data?

This wasn't fabricated.  This "fabricated evidence" came from outside
NASA (aka the military).  Unless you think the conspiracy involves the
military too...

You mean covering their ass?  So you think it wasn't the O-rings?


author: Popin

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message
news:v5c1a.33376$SD6.1809@sccrnsc03...

Seeing how ants dig in micro gravity could lead to sum kinda of new
tunnelling bomb. After all most of the military side of NASA nobody hears
about. The DOD (Department of Defense) does give them funding and a portion
of the stuff they do is for the DOD. Note the Armed forces have Kevlar
helmets and our EVA suits are made of Kevlar.


text:
Kelly McDonald wrote:

Fine, we do a closeup inspection with OIV Rover then, and only
send the astronauts out when we have some possible hazardous
situation.

IMO, a debris strike on the orbiter during launch that is
observable from the ground warrants an inspection. If I were crew
on board, I would be the first to volunteer to inspect such a FOD
strike, even if it meant risking my own life. I would be first to
volunteer to do it every time.

With Regards,
Dirk


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

He was referring to cargo rockets to bring supplies until a manned
mission could
be sent. According to the FAQ the number of cargo rockets needed was zero.
Do you think there wasn't enough time to send zero cargo rockets? The
problem
sure wasn't that rockets can not be launched that fast, the Progress
M-47 could of
been there in time (but it wasn't needed).

Alain Fournier


text:
"Derek Lyons" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

[snip]

I'm not going to bother with all the other little things
you got wrong, but the indicator showed the landing
gear was deployed.

NASA decided that couldn't have been right because
the drag wasn't great enough. Of course, that doesn't
mean that the door couldn't have been busted open.

I backed up what I said with urls to news sources, often
times multiple sources. You're just pulling facts out of your
ass.

What else could I expect from a bunch of NASA groupies
and science wannabees.


author: charleston

text:
"Derek Lyons" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Derek, NASA is most certainly investigating itself as was done in the case
of Challenger.

Daniel


text:
"Derek Lyons" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Are all Shuttle groupies this dense? Seems to be.

If I got it wrong, and one of my references didn't back me
up, point it out!

But you can't do that, so you just lie. Seems to be a common
practice among the shuttle groupies. It must be some sort of
cult, not unlike the airplane cult of some primitive South Pacific
Islanders.


text:
"Tim Kozusko" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b2k0f7$8d7$[email]...

Humm. Then what the hell are you doing on any of these
news groups, if you can't be bothered with facts and
freely and proudly admit you are not going to think for
yourself?


text:
Rand Simberg <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Fox is not what I'd call rigorous journalism.  It is what I'd call a joke.


text:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:48:17 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Do you know what "theoretically" means?

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice, there is.


text:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:34:27 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

One of the four sensors that montor the landing gear for deployment
indicated that it was down, the other three said it was up. An
insteresting data point but not conclusive in of isteld.

Kelly McDonald


text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote:

Of course, because I didn't get them wrong.

Yes it does.  If the door had been busted open, 'Game Over', *period*.
The drag and amount of plasma would have destroyed the shuttle
immediately.

So far in this accident, the news media routinely gets things wrong.

So? Demonstrate your facts, so far I've seen none.

D.


text:
nap <[email]> wrote in message
news:DOg3a.115883$[email]...

I bet that deep down you love it that NASA's lost a crew and orbiter.  You
seem to relish bashing them.  In any event, you don't strike me as anyone
with anything other than an opinion.  I remain unimpressed.

People much more knowledgeable than you or me will figure this out and then
we'll know.  Until then it's all just semi-informed lay-speculation.


text:
"charleston" <[email]> wrote:

Right, this time just like last time, the board consists entirely of
NASA drones.  (And given the deep indictments the Rogers commission
did NASA...)

D.


text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote:

See my earlier deconstruction of your scenario.  You routinely got
basic facts about the accident wrong.

And where did I lie?  Please provide a cite.

D.


text:
nap <[email]> wrote in message
news:3Qg3a.113383$be.79998@rwcrnsc53...

If that's what you think I wrote, you have an over-active imagination.


text:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:01:56 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Tim
Kozusko" <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So you read their web site regularly?  If not how can you know?  Do
you have some specific examples of false reporting?  In what way is it
less of a joke than, say, CNN?


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Is that a theoretical question or does it have a practical purpose?
In other words, do you have a point to make?

Alain Fournier


author: George Evans

text:
in article [email], Derek Lyons at
[email] wrote on 2/14/03 11:14 PM:

Let's not get carried away. "nap", I can't see the breach being into the
wheel well first. Each sensor that went OSL indicates damage of itself or
the wiring to it. All OSL's are outside the wheel well long before inside.
It doesn't seem likely that the gear door opening was the cause because how
do the wheels survive in 3,000 degree plasma from the time Columbia was out
over the Pacific until it entering Texas air space.

George Evans


text:
"Tim Kozusko" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b2kceq$hfj$[email]...

 Now, that's a god damned lie. Something a total loser would say.


author: Rhonda Lea Kirk

text:
Tim Kozusko wrote:

Hey Tim! Nap is short on reading comprehension and long on
irrationality. I finally gave up and introduced him to my plonker.

rl


text:
Rand Simberg <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
joke.

I saw enough of it on TV to make a judgment, and frankly can't be bothered
to pay attention to that dross anymore.  Last time I saw it some bimbo was
going on about her fake fingernails.  Spare me.  I don't know anyone who
watches it.  You are correct, CNN is little better.


author: Rand Simberg

text:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:41:23 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Yes, my point is that if you read the FAQ, it says they could
"theoretically" get a Shuttle off within a week if it's on the pad.


author: Hobbs

text:
George Evans <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

How the heck can the door open without some alarm going off in the
cockpit?  I don't get that.  But I havent' studied the sequence of
sensor failures so maybe it's mentioned.

-McDaniel


text:
nap <[email]> wrote in message
news:bzj3a.106493$iG3.13769@sccrnsc02...

No that's not a lie.  If you read it again you'll see that you aren't the
subject of the sentence.  I really do think that you get some amount of
validation out of being able to bash NASA.  Others here are being very
critical of NASA without the venom that you seem to relish injecting into
each statement.


text:
Rhonda Lea Kirk <[email]> wrote in message
news:b2kgou$1cek1m$[email]...

Heh, I don't at all seem to be alone in the view that Nap puts a little too
much venom in the attacks on NASA.  This is unfortunate because at times
such as these we need to be critical of NASA.  But our criticism must be as
objective as possible, and we must realize what we don't know.  I'm a very
good ecologist, but I'd make a shitty engineer:)