Risks

[Hallerb]

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory2A5725A.htm

Yes I know your tired of me. Well get over it!

Complete FLORIDA TODAY coverage delivered to your door. Subscribe now.
Jul 12, 8:49 PM

Lurking land mines endanger shuttle

Cost crunch delays critical safety upgrades

By John Kelly and Todd Halvorson
FLORIDA TODAY

CAPE CANAVERAL -- Leaking toxic rocket fuel triggered a fire during a shuttle
landing.

Sensor failures prompted perilous engine shutdowns.

Hot gases burned through the shuttle's heat shield during atmospheric re-entry,
even before the Columbia disaster.

Florida Today uncovered serious lurking problems with high-risk shuttle systems
whose failure could destroy another ship and kill astronauts.

A review of more than two decades worth of NASA documents revealed the systems
most likely to cause another disaster are the shuttle's auxiliary power units,
heat-shield components and liquid-fueled main engines.

Potential failures within those three systems alone represent 75 percent of the
catastrophe risk that is accepted each time the shuttle flies, internal NASA
studies show.

Florida Today's computer-assisted analysis also shows NASA has identified many
of the problems. But key safety upgrades that would reduce the risk have been
put off because of technological and financial barriers, including a $5 billion
cost overrun on the International Space Station.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board is urging NASA to put more effort
into ferreting out and fixing apparent and hidden hazards within the three
remaining shuttles. The agency now plans to fly the ships until at least 2020.

"We feel that if you're going to continue to fly this thing for twice as long
as it's already flown, there has to be an aggressive program out there looking
for what we call the 'unknown unknowns,' " board chairman Harold Gehman said at
a public hearing.

"In other words, you've got to look for trouble."

By almost all accounts, NASA's shuttle is the most complex flying machine ever
built.

A fully assembled shuttle has more than 2.5 million parts, including 230 miles
of wiring, more than 1,060 plumbing valves and connections, some 1,440 circuit
breakers, and about 27,000 insulating tiles and thermal blankets.

And a leak in something as simple as a rubber O-ring seal can lead to
catastrophe. In fact, a NASA review after the 1986 Challenger disaster
identified some 1,584 components whose failure could lead to the destruction of
an orbiter and the death of its crew.

One of the most troublesome then and now: the auxiliary power units, or APUs.
They provide the hydraulic power needed to steer the shuttles' main engines
during launch and control the wing flaps, wheels and brakes during landing.


Power units: The greatest threat

The auxiliary power units are dangerous because they are powered by a highly
toxic, corrosive and flammable rocket fuel called hydrazine.

Three of them are crammed into the rear-engine compartment where leaks of the
nasty fuel can spawn fires and wreak other havoc.

NASA engineers have long targeted the hydrazine-powered APUs for replacement
with ones that would run on electricity.

Florida Today's examination found at least 190 in-flight problems with the
power units and related systems, including the cooling and hydraulic subsystems
that must work for the power units to do their job.

At least 20 of the problems, which NASA calls "in-flight anomalies," involved
leaks of gases, water, hydraulic fluid or that dangerous toxic fuel. At least
eight premature power-unit shutdowns have been recorded.

NASA prefers all three power units operate during launches and landings. At
least one must work to climb into orbit or touch down safely.

Two units failed on Columbia during a hair-raising 1983 landing.

During that mission, two shuttle computers and a key guidance and navigation
device failed before re-entry. Backup systems were pressed into service. The
APUs sprang a hydrazine leak, sparking a fire in the engine compartment. Two
units shut down as the orbiter landed.

Technicians found "substantial" fire damage in the engine compartment. NASA
said back then, the orbiter and crew were not in danger.

An internal part was redesigned afterward. But the power units still represent
up to 30 percent of the risk of catastrophe on each shuttle mission.

In the late 1990s, NASA launched an effort to develop a battery-powered
electric APU. The idea was to eliminate the deadly hydrazine as well as
high-speed turbo-machinery.

The development of necessary battery technology, however, proved more difficult
than expected. Project cost estimates ballooned from $182 million to $667
million, according to a July 2002 NASA Inspector General report.

NASA deferred the upgrade in June 2001.

The electric-powered units could have been completed in two years, an
independent safety expert told Columbia investigators.

Finishing them "would eliminate the single largest risk to orbiter flight
safety," former astronaut Michael McCulley told Congress in September 2001. At
the time, McCulley was chief operating officer of shuttle contractor United
Space Alliance. This year, he was made the company's CEO.

The power unit upgrade remains high on NASA's list of crucial shuttle safety
improvements.


Perilous engine problems persist

The more obvious danger is in the shuttles' three main engines.

A 1995 NASA contractor study showed that more than one-third of the risk of a
catastrophe on any shuttle mission could be traced to dozens of potential
engine failures.

Florida Today's review uncovered at least 170 in-flight problems involving
main-engine components, including defects with sensors designed to detect
engine troubles.

There also have been at least 84 more problems with the maze of plumbing that
delivers explosive liquid propellants from the giant external fuel tank to the
three engines.

The agency's 1995 study cited 20 scenarios most likely to destroy a shuttle and
kill its astronauts. Ten involved the failure of engine components -- broken
turbines, weak welds in critical structures or other problems that could cause
premature shutdown of engines.

The potential consequence: A catastrophic explosion in flight.

An engine shutdown also could lead to an unprecedented emergency landing
attempt at Kennedy Space Center or an overseas runway. At best, a shuttle would
limp into a lower-than-intended orbit.

Challenger and a crew of seven did just that in July 1985 when a sensor problem
prompted an engine shutdown 5 minutes and 45 seconds into flight. Nevertheless,
the astronauts still accomplished their intended science mission.

But valve and sensor problems also have triggered five engine shutdowns that
led to perilous launch-pad aborts.

In each of those cases, astronauts were left inside an orbiter after
flame-belching engines shut down ahead of the ignition of the shuttle's twin
solid rocket boosters. NASA in the past 17 years has spent more than $1 billion
to reduce risk associated with the engines. But a key upgrade that would have
eliminated dangerous engine-failure scenarios was put on hold in September
2001.

The agency spent $7.5 million developing a state-of-the-art computer that would
instantaneously detect component failures in flight and automatically cut off
engines before inadvertent -- and potentially catastrophic -- shutdowns could
occur.

The computer also would automatically throttle back engines if internal
temperatures or pressures threatened to trigger a component failure.
Additionally, it would allow the engine to continue operating if faulty sensor
readings made an engine susceptible to a shutdown.

Project cost estimates escalated from $55 million to $179 million before the
effort was postponed for lack of money.


Heat shield fraught with peril

The Feb. 1 Columbia disaster is being blamed on shuttle wing-panel damage that
allowed hot gasses to penetrate the ship, triggering its destruction over east
Texas. All seven astronauts aboard were killed.

Still, other problems remain with the shuttle's patchwork heat shield, a
delicate network of thermal blankets, hardened carbon panels and more than
20,000 individual heat-resistant tiles.

Together, the thermal armor protects shuttles and their crews from intense heat
encountered during atmospheric re-entry.

Florida Today's analysis found evidence that superhot gases burned through the
heat shield and damaged the structure beneath it on at least 20 missions before
Columbia's ill-fated flight.

In three cases, hot gases penetrated the front edge of shuttle wings -- the
same type of failure that doomed Columbia and its five-man, two-woman crew.

Fragile thermal tiles also have dropped off orbiters after they were poorly
bonded or struck by debris in flight.

Ice and other debris have hit shuttles' heat shields during all 113 launches.
The resulting damage has included scars, melting and even holes in underlying
structure.

Superhot gasses blew past wing panels on NASA's second and fifth shuttle
missions -- both of them Columbia flights -- in November 1981 and November
1982, respectively.

Improper installation of a seal between wing panels allowed hot gasses to flow
into the left wing of shuttle Atlantis during a fiery atmospheric re-entry in
May 2000.

Sistership Discovery returned from a 1985 mission with "significant structural
damage." Hot gases melted parts of one of its wing flaps, which help maneuver
the shuttle through a safe re-entry and landing.

At least twice, plasma penetrated tiles covering landing gear wells, buckling
the aluminum doors.

And the carbon-composite panels that protect shuttle wings were damaged by
launch debris or micrometeorite strikes on at least nine flights between April
1991 and March 2001.

NASA long has considered tile damage a maintenance problem, but never a safety
concern. Studies commissioned by the agency question that rationale.

The 1995 NASA contractor study says failure of the heat shield represents 15
percent of the risk of disaster on any given mission.

In 1990 and 1994, two university professors said that the risk is higher for
certain tiles. The researchers said NASA should pay close attention to tiles
that run between the nosewheel and main landing gear doors. They get hit more
often by debris and cover critical systems.

They also said the orbiter's survival with missing tiles in the past was "good
fortune."

"Similar losses in different locations could have been far more costly," the
1990 study said.

Columbia accident investigators have recommended more rigorous inspection of
shuttle wing panels and toughening the tiles. They also want NASA to reduce the
debris slamming into the heat shield during launch.

NASA is already at work on the $800,000 panels. Engineers are working on new
heat-resistant tiles that will be less vulnerable to damage, although NASA has
not committed to widespread replacement of the existing tiles.

But some still question whether the agency is investing enough in shuttle
safety upgrades.



The dangerous road ahead

Space station cost overruns and uncertainty over how long the shuttles would
fly have conspired to postpone critical upgrades.

Richard Blomberg, former chairman of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel,
said dwindling budgets forced NASA to be shortsighted in its approach to
improving a space vehicle designed in the 1970s.

"Every cent they had, just about, was going into meeting short-term
requirements with Band-Aid solutions," he said.

With no replacement vehicle in sight, NASA decided to fly the shuttles through
2020 instead of the planned retirement in 2012. An agency study last year
showed it would cost an extra $8.7 billion to upgrade the fleet and fly it
safely for that long.

NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said last month the shuttles will never be
completely safe. It's impossible, he said, to identify and eliminate every
potential problem.

"I'm not confident that we can ever erect a procedure, a process, a system, a
capability to detect every single thing that could possibly pose a risk to
operations," O'Keefe said.

"It is not humanly possible. We will not ever be able to achieve perfection at
this. We'll strive to it. We'll do our best to achieve it. But I'm confident we
will never attain it. I think I'm just being a realist on this point."

[Charleston]

"Hallerb" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory2A5725A.htm
>
> Yes I know your tired of me. Well get over it!

Well I am not tired of you Bob, like it matters though:-(

<snip ad>

> By John Kelly and Todd Halvorson
> FLORIDA TODAY
>
> CAPE CANAVERAL -- Leaking toxic rocket fuel triggered a fire during a
shuttle
> landing.

The STS 9 information was pretty well covered by AvWeek back in 83. What
was not well covered was that the OMS pods were not used again until
Challenger STS 51-L. Now that Columbia has been lost, all of her is gone.
I don't know if Columbia was flying with Challenger's OMS pods. Obviuosly
if true then all of Challenger is gone also. Sorry if this sounds a little
depressing, but it is for me in a sentimental sort of way.

> Sensor failures prompted perilous engine shutdowns.

STS 51-F. Nothing new there.

> Hot gases burned through the shuttle's heat shield during atmospheric
re-entry,
> even before the Columbia disaster.

Okay that repeats this week's story. It was a bit if a shock, though given
Dittemore's first statement following the accident.

> Florida Today uncovered serious lurking problems with high-risk shuttle
systems
> whose failure could destroy another ship and kill astronauts.

If you just did a search of the Aerospace Safety Advsiory Panel Reports and
their minutes, you'd pick up quite a lot.

> A review of more than two decades worth of NASA documents revealed the
systems
> most likely to cause another disaster are the shuttle's auxiliary power
units,
> heat-shield components and liquid-fueled main engines.

I alluded to this issue just yesterday.

> Potential failures within those three systems alone represent 75 percent
of the
> catastrophe risk that is accepted each time the shuttle flies, internal
NASA
> studies show.

This statement is inconsistent with the NASA reports on "Space Shuttle
Program Safety and Supportability Upgrades" to which Jorge has tied how best
to spend safety upgrade money--at least what I have been given.

See attachment 2 of this document:
http://legislative.nasa.gov/hearings/gregory4-18.pdf

So I would be curious to what the Florida Today is talking about. If true,
it would certainly make it clear that something is either quite mixed up at
NASA or the Florida Today.

> The Columbia Accident Investigation Board is urging NASA to put more
effort
> into ferreting out and fixing apparent and hidden hazards within the three
> remaining shuttles. The agency now plans to fly the ships until at least
2020.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/9123main_2020_assessment.pdf

> "We feel that if you're going to continue to fly this thing for twice as
long
> as it's already flown, there has to be an aggressive program out there
looking
> for what we call the 'unknown unknowns,' " board chairman Harold Gehman
said at
> a public hearing.

See above link, kind of a Homer Simpson like "doh".

> "In other words, you've got to look for trouble."

It goes a little farther than looking for trouble, it includes anticipating
trouble IMO.

> By almost all accounts, NASA's shuttle is the most complex flying machine
ever
> built.

<snip>

> One of the most troublesome then and now: the auxiliary power units, or
APUs.
> They provide the hydraulic power needed to steer the shuttles' main
engines
> during launch and control the wing flaps, wheels and brakes during
landing.

> Power units: The greatest threat
>
> The auxiliary power units are dangerous because they are powered by a
highly
> toxic, corrosive and flammable rocket fuel called hydrazine.
>
> Three of them are crammed into the rear-engine compartment where leaks of
the
> nasty fuel can spawn fires and wreak other havoc.
>
> NASA engineers have long targeted the hydrazine-powered APUs for
replacement
> with ones that would run on electricity.

<snip>

> Finishing them "would eliminate the single largest risk to orbiter flight
> safety," former astronaut Michael McCulley told Congress in September
2001. At
> the time, McCulley was chief operating officer of shuttle contractor
United
> Space Alliance. This year, he was made the company's CEO.

Okay here is a Congressional hearing review.

> The power unit upgrade remains high on NASA's list of crucial shuttle
safety
> improvements.
>
>
> Perilous engine problems persist
>
> The more obvious danger is in the shuttles' three main engines.
>
> A 1995 NASA contractor study showed that more than one-third of the risk
of a
> catastrophe on any shuttle mission could be traced to dozens of potential
> engine failures.
>
> Florida Today's review uncovered at least 170 in-flight problems involving
> main-engine components, including defects with sensors designed to detect
> engine troubles.
>
> There also have been at least 84 more problems with the maze of plumbing
that
> delivers explosive liquid propellants from the giant external fuel tank to
the
> three engines.
>
> The agency's 1995 study cited 20 scenarios most likely to destroy a
shuttle and
> kill its astronauts. Ten involved the failure of engine components --
broken
> turbines, weak welds in critical structures or other problems that could
cause
> premature shutdown of engines.

This predates the SIAT report so its not a valid document to report on.
Frankly it is a bit unfair to NASA. They should have used the SIAT report
to more accurately reflect where NASA is today on the SSME's.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/shuttle_assess.html

<snip>

> Heat shield fraught with peril
>
> The Feb. 1 Columbia disaster is being blamed on shuttle wing-panel damage
that
> allowed hot gasses to penetrate the ship, triggering its destruction over
east
> Texas. All seven astronauts aboard were killed.
>
> Still, other problems remain with the shuttle's patchwork heat shield, a
> delicate network of thermal blankets, hardened carbon panels and more than
> 20,000 individual heat-resistant tiles.
>
> Together, the thermal armor protects shuttles and their crews from intense
heat
> encountered during atmospheric re-entry.
>
> Florida Today's analysis found evidence that superhot gases burned through
the
> heat shield and damaged the structure beneath it on at least 20 missions
before
> Columbia's ill-fated flight.

Now this is disturbing. Hell the "orbiter" had a tick in her eye if she
winked that much and NASA missed its significance? Isn't the TPS a
criticality 1 issue?

> In three cases, hot gases penetrated the front edge of shuttle wings --
the
> same type of failure that doomed Columbia and its five-man, two-woman
crew.
>
> Fragile thermal tiles also have dropped off orbiters after they were
poorly
> bonded or struck by debris in flight.
>
> Ice and other debris have hit shuttles' heat shields during all 113
launches.
> The resulting damage has included scars, melting and even holes in
underlying
> structure.
>
> Superhot gasses blew past wing panels on NASA's second and fifth shuttle
> missions -- both of them Columbia flights -- in November 1981 and November
> 1982, respectively.
>
> Improper installation of a seal between wing panels allowed hot gasses to
flow
> into the left wing of shuttle Atlantis during a fiery atmospheric re-entry
in
> May 2000.
>
> Sistership Discovery returned from a 1985 mission with "significant
structural
> damage." Hot gases melted parts of one of its wing flaps, which help
maneuver
> the shuttle through a safe re-entry and landing.
>
> At least twice, plasma penetrated tiles covering landing gear wells,
buckling
> the aluminum doors.

****. This is bad, very bad. It reflects no serious effort to track and
identify potential criticality 1 showstoppers.

> And the carbon-composite panels that protect shuttle wings were damaged by
> launch debris or micrometeorite strikes on at least nine flights between
April
> 1991 and March 2001.
>
> NASA long has considered tile damage a maintenance problem, but never a
safety
> concern. Studies commissioned by the agency question that rationale.

> The 1995 NASA contractor study says failure of the heat shield represents
15
> percent of the risk of disaster on any given mission.

They were told. Knowledge raises the bar of NASA management responsibility,
the question is how far?

> In 1990 and 1994, two university professors said that the risk is higher
for
> certain tiles. The researchers said NASA should pay close attention to
tiles
> that run between the nosewheel and main landing gear doors. They get hit
more
> often by debris and cover critical systems.

We have seen reports like these too.

> They also said the orbiter's survival with missing tiles in the past was
"good
> fortune."

I'd like to see that report, it reminds me of Feynman's line;

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

Rereading Feynman's report in its entirety, you can see what has happened
since 1986.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

<snip>

> But some still question whether the agency is investing enough in shuttle
> safety upgrades.

Hey they talked to me. ;-)

> Richard Blomberg, former chairman of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory
Panel,
> said dwindling budgets forced NASA to be shortsighted in its approach to
> improving a space vehicle designed in the 1970s.

Jorge, care to comment on this comment? I'd say Congress and the President
need a mirror if they want to know where some of the blame lies. Wouldn't
it be interesting if the CAIB actually pointed out that Congress mismanaged
NASA's budget?

> "Every cent they had, just about, was going into meeting short-term
> requirements with Band-Aid solutions," he said.

And we laugh at the Russian's program?

> With no replacement vehicle in sight, NASA decided to fly the shuttles
through
> 2020 instead of the planned retirement in 2012. An agency study last year
> showed it would cost an extra $8.7 billion to upgrade the fleet and fly it
> safely for that long.

Yep, they are stuck in 1972.

> NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said last month the shuttles will never be
> completely safe. It's impossible, he said, to identify and eliminate every
> potential problem.

> "I'm not confident that we can ever erect a procedure, a process, a
system, a
> capability to detect every single thing that could possibly pose a risk to
> operations," O'Keefe said.

True, but if safety is given the budget it deserves, it can be made close to
an order of magnitude safer. That might be enough to make it to 2020 with
three potential museum pieces still intact.

> "It is not humanly possible. We will not ever be able to achieve
perfection at
> this. We'll strive to it. We'll do our best to achieve it. But I'm
confident we
> will never attain it. I think I'm just being a realist on this point."

"Nothing works perfectly", Richard Feynman said that in 1986.

Daniel

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Charleston" > wrote in
news:fHgQa.11280$zy.8099@fed1read06:

> "Hallerb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory2A5725A.htm
>>
>> Richard Blomberg, former chairman of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory
>> Panel,
>> said dwindling budgets forced NASA to be shortsighted in its approach
>> to improving a space vehicle designed in the 1970s.
>
> Jorge, care to comment on this comment? I'd say Congress and the
> President need a mirror if they want to know where some of the blame
> lies. Wouldn't it be interesting if the CAIB actually pointed out
> that Congress mismanaged NASA's budget?

I would agree with it, at least partially. The pressure to reduce the
shuttle budget in the 90's forced a harsher prioritization of upgrades than
would otherwise have been necessary, resulting in some items being dropped
off the list. Bringing the Russians into the space station program didn't
help, because the 51.6 degree inclination required by the Russians resulted
in shuttle upgrades being focused on performance enhancement, not safety.
Subsequently, the shuttle budget was repeatedly raided to cover ISS cost
overruns.

NASA should bear part of the blame, however. Some of the major upgrades
such as electric APUs were cancelled due to cost overruns exceeding 300-
400%. So NASA has a major problem estimating the cost of upgrades, and
preventing overruns. Part of this is due to the lack of standardized
accounting, which IFMP will hopefully address (though not without growing
pains, as we are seeing).

But part is also due to how projects are budgeted and managed. The project
manager is only nominally in charge of the project; the money actually
flows through the center directors. So the project manager has little
control over how many people are working the project and where the money
goes. If I were king/dictator, I'd centralize both authority and
accountability with the project managers, including personnel decisions,
and give them sufficient accounting tools to actually track where the money
is going. That will add some necessary rigor and discipline to the process.

Of course, this is not my original idea - the IMCE (Young Committee) made
exactly the same findings and recommendations two years ago with regard to
ISS budget overruns. The same problem exists in the shuttle program, of
course. And NASA has made some important baby steps in this direction. But
fully implementing this will not be easy; the field centers have a large
amount of political clout and can be expected to resist strongly.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[ElleninLosAngeles]

> Actually, a lot of us were hoping *you* would get over it. Between you and
> your incessant whining about risk, Maxson and his incessant delusions, and
> the jerk who keeps cluttering up the newsgroup with forged e-mails,
> s.s.shuttle is totally worthless. As is your opinion about risk and
> spaceflight.
>
> -Kim-

Some of us are tired of people beating up on Hallerb and others. No
one's opinion is "worthless" in my eyes. This is what open newsgroups
are about - everyone gathering together and discussing. Everyone
should be welcomed. If you think they are idiots, etc. you'd be a
better person if you kept it to yourself.

[Hallerb]

>
>You will eventually learn that not only are some opinions worthless,
>some are actually less than worthless, i.e. rather than add nothing to
>the discussion they actually *detract* from it.

Well I TRIED to discuss what nasa would do if a shuttle got stuck at station
BEFORE coilumbia.

Told dont worry will not happen overreacting.

YEAH SURE:(

[John Maxson]

Giganews hosts/posts Bob Mosley's ongoing abuse for
Illuminati Online, and the abuse is getting steadily worse.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
> On 14 Jul 2003 10:57:43 -0700,
> (ElleninLosAngeles) wrote:
>
> >Some of us are tired of people beating up on Hallerb and others.

>You either venture forth an *informed* opinion, or be prepared
> to get your head handed to you on a platter after your ass has
> been flamed to cremation. No ifs, ands or buts
> about that one, kid. It's the way it's worked for years, and if it
> worked any other way the sci groups would be filled with nothing but
> bozo posts, MUFON moron babblings, Keely faux physicists, and above
> all that some asswipe psychotic like John Maxson would be moderating
> the entire heirarchy.

[Charleston]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
et...
> ElleninLosAngeles wrote:
> > Some of us are tired of people beating up on Hallerb and others. No
>
> You and who else?

Me. He is certainly better than those who are abusive and ill-mannered. I
don't recall him ever being mean to anyone else. His posts are on topic and
if you don't like them you don't have to respond. He can mumble to himself.
It does not hurt anyone.

[Kim Keller]

"ElleninLosAngeles" > wrote in message
om...
> Some of us are tired of people beating up on Hallerb and others.

So you outweigh those of us who are tired of Haller's gnashing of teeth,
self-righteous indignation and wailing at the Moon? Get real. I've tolerated
Haller in silence for quite some time now, but I finally found it necessary
to put my opinion into words. That's what usenet is all about.

So now we get to be tired of each other. Happy? Thanks. Bye.

-Kim-

[ElleninLosAngeles]

John Maxson and Hallerb seem to be here to stay, so it seems rather
useless to go and on about how you don't like their posts. I don't see
why people continue to bitch about whatever misspelled, crazy ideas
they put forth after saying they are going to killfile them and ignore
them. I think it would be a better Usenet world if they were ignored
rather than flamed - half the posts on here just dissolve into a back
and forth trade of insults. Not interesting to me. Maybe it is to you.

[Mike Speegle]

In news:ElleninLosAngeles > typed:
> John Maxson and Hallerb seem to be here to stay, so it seems rather
> useless to go and on about how you don't like their posts. I don't see
> why people continue to bitch about whatever misspelled, crazy ideas
> they put forth after saying they are going to killfile them and ignore
> them. I think it would be a better Usenet world if they were ignored
> rather than flamed - half the posts on here just dissolve into a back
> and forth trade of insults. Not interesting to me. Maybe it is to you.

<shrug>

Welcome to Keyboard Anarchy (TM) :-/
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[LooseChanj]

On or about 14 Jul 2003 20:14:53 -0700, ElleninLosAngeles > made the sensational claim that:
> John Maxson and Hallerb seem to be here to stay, so it seems rather
> useless to go and on about how you don't like their posts.

I don't. I just pretend they aren't here. I wish more people would adopt that
strategy, it would make the **** much easier to step around by virtue of there
being much less of it to avoid.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Hallerb]

>half the posts on here just dissolve into a back
>and forth trade of insults. Not interesting to me. Maybe it is to you.

I insult no one, and am only trying to bring same sane discussion of the risks
and what can be done to minimize them.

Sure we all know people will die:(

But shouldnt we have enough backup capacity to save the life, and perhaps
vehicle of one stranded in orbit?

Or is it better to just write them off as dead?

[Jan C. Vorbrüggen]

> >Some of us are tired of people beating up on Hallerb and others.
> ...And you're seriously in the minority here, too.

Oh come off it. The majority just has more sensibility than you have,
and ignores your idiot gut reactions to trolls and others that push
your buttons as well as they can. You're as much a problem for a group
than Maxson - in fact, for some time you were a larger problem, because
once in a while you _do_ have something readable to say, and it takes
a lot of work to pick that out of all the other drivel you post.

But except for this egregious nonsense that caught my eye, I've given
up on you, Columbia FAQ or not.

Jan

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >,
ElleninLosAngeles wrote:
> John Maxson and Hallerb seem to be here to stay, so it seems rather
> useless to go and on about how you don't like their posts. I don't see
> why people continue to bitch about whatever misspelled, crazy ideas
> they put forth after saying they are going to killfile them and ignore
> them. I think it would be a better Usenet world if they were ignored
> rather than flamed - half the posts on here just dissolve into a back
> and forth trade of insults. Not interesting to me. Maybe it is to you.

Do I detect a voice of sanity in here? I've only been reading in this
group for a few days, but it seems as if far more than half the
threads end up as a trade of insults. Not even original insults. The
net effect is that of a group of very insecure people with very
limited intellect.

I have no idea why I thought a group called "sci.space.shuttle" would
deal with the topic of the space shuttle, but that's what I'm
interested in learning more about.

To those (few) of you who manage to post in a polite manner,
regardless of your opinions, I salute you. To those only interested in
demonstrating your "superiority" through pre-adolescent name-calling,
I can only say that it's not working. Attacking a "wild" theory by
calling someone a nutcase, whacko, troll, fill-in-the-blank, only
demonstrates your inability to rationally rebut the theory. If that's
your thing, have at it.


Steve

[HOST Comp JimS]

>half the posts on here just dissolve into a back
>and forth trade of insults. Not interesting to me.

Me neither.

Unfortunately it's an inherent problem with unmoderated
discussion groups, and it's a shame as it drives people away.

Jim

[OM]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:59:49 -0000, Stephen Stocker >
wrote:

> Attacking a "wild" theory by
> calling someone a nutcase, whacko, troll, fill-in-the-blank, only
> demonstrates your inability to rationally rebut the theory. If that's
> your thing, have at it.

....The one thing that those with the "do-gooder" mentalities towards
the cranks, crackpots and trolls tend to forget is that 99% of the
time they don't have to actually deal with those they're defending.
They usually pop in, see someone getting their ass jumped, and then
fail to evaluate the situation before letting the urge to play
"defender of the underdog" take over their sanity.

....Believe it or not, the regulars around these groups have extensive
experience in what's real and what's not, and have a pretty damn good
sense of detection with regards to whether a "wild theory" is being
presented by a looney toon or not. The key determining factor, without
question, is how well the nutball responds to any form of peer review
and/or requests for proof and/or clarification of specific points.
With one exception, in every single theory tossed out to the
sci.space.* hierarchy in the past two years (*) that has been
classified as being totally bogus and without merit, the theorists
have responded either with "**** you! What do you know?" and/or "The
proof is in my book. Send me $$$ and you can read it for yourself"
and/or "Jesus in my belly is my proof!" and/or something to the
equivalent of "mimsy were the borgoroves, which can be seen right here
in this picture of Mar...er...Venu...er...this frozen cheese pizza!"

The sole exception? Geo Abrate's "Lost Cosmonauts" crusade. We know
he's wrong, the data from behind the Rusted Curtain shows this, but he
maintains his stance and he does so without being a total dickwad
about it. As a result, he's gained a lot of respect around here,
including quite a bit from me. Doesn't mean we accept his theories by
one iota, but we accept *him* as not being a total psychotic as most
whacko theorists have proven themselves to be.

Bottom Line: Before you jump into a flamefest and defend someone being
flamed for pushing a totally bull**** theory and refusing to accept
the results of rational peer review, do some research on the topic, do
a google on the entire thread, and make sure you're not about to stick
your foot in your mouth and our feet up your ass for defending someone
who's obviously due for a nice stay in a rubber room at the local
funny farm.

(*) And while it didn't at first, this now includes Tom Wheeler's
"that latch is a breach!" theory, clearly now in nutter category
status.


--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[John Maxson]

Giganews posts/hosts Bob Mosley's abuse for Illuminati Online.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:27:03 GMT,
> LooseChanj > wrote:
> >On or about 14 Jul 2003 20:14:53 -0700, ElleninLosAngeles
> > made the sensational claim that:
>>
> >> John Maxson and Hallerb seem to be here to stay, so it seems
> >> rather useless to go and on about how you don't like their posts.
> >
> >I don't. I just pretend they aren't here. I wish more people would
> >adopt that strategy, it would make the **** much easier to step
> >around by virtue of there being much less of it to avoid.
>
> ...Which is why I killfiled Bob Haller months ago, and did the same
> on Sunday for every single troll & flame thread on the sci.space
> groups. I'm also about to do the same to -this- thread as well, and
> have already done so to one "Please don't pick on the demented"
> bimbo - guess who? - and didn't even bother with the other since
> he rarely posts anyway.
>
> ...And you know what'll be funny about all this? The same twits will
> still be blaming *me* for all the troll postings by Maxson, Erskine,
> Haller and even Rhonda.
>
> Yeah, well, ****'em. And the "do-gooder" attitudes they rode in on :-P
>
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
> poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:25:40 GMT, Bruce Palmer
> wrote:

>Stephen Stocker wrote:
>> Do I detect a voice of sanity in here? I've only been reading in this
>> group for a few days, but it seems as if far more than half the
>
>You might have lurked for more than "a few days" to figure out what's
>been going on in here for literally *years*. There _are_ well-known
>wackos in the sci.space hierarchy that deserve every bit of abuse that
>gets tossed their way. You would have discovered this for yourself if
>you ahd bothered to spend a few minutes wih Google.

....Actually, I practiced what I preached, and googled on Stephen.
Seems he's one of those who's totally against compulsary public
schooling and corporal punishment. At the same time, I came across a
post where he actually decries someone doing an anti-NASA troll post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22lpar%40par1.net%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=vegsf0msr4gi61%40corp.supernews.com&rnum=9

....Hypocricy, anyone?

>I'm plonking you for a month. Nothing personal, but you need to get a
>clue before you come in here - or anywhere on usenet for that matter -
>and start preaching about the behavior of others after observing for
>only "a few days".

....As I said in the previous post, this seems to be the fallacy of the
majority of these "do-gooder" and WOAH types. They see someone getting
their asses flamed off, and instead of stopping long enough to
research whether they brought it on themselves or not, they get on
their high horse and start defending the poor dog who's not under but
rabid.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[John Maxson]

Giganews posts/hosts Bob Mosley's abuse for Illuminati Online.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:59:49 -0000,
> Stephen Stocker > wrote:
>
> > Attacking a "wild" theory by
> > calling someone a nutcase, whacko, troll, fill-in-the-blank, only
> > demonstrates your inability to rationally rebut the theory. If that's
> > your thing, have at it.
>
> ...The one thing that those with the "do-gooder" mentalities towards
> the cranks, crackpots and trolls tend to forget is that 99% of the
> time they don't have to actually deal with those they're defending.
> They usually pop in, see someone getting their ass jumped, and then
> fail to evaluate the situation before letting the urge to play
> "defender of the underdog" take over their sanity.
>
> ...Believe it or not, the regulars around these groups have extensive
> experience in what's real and what's not, and have a pretty damn good
> sense of detection with regards to whether a "wild theory" is being
> presented by a looney toon or not. The key determining factor, without
> question, is how well the nutball responds to any form of peer review
> and/or requests for proof and/or clarification of specific points.
> With one exception, in every single theory tossed out to the
> sci.space.* hierarchy in the past two years (*) that has been
> classified as being totally bogus and without merit, the theorists
> have responded either with "**** you! What do you know?" and/or "The
> proof is in my book. Send me $$$ and you can read it for yourself"
> and/or "Jesus in my belly is my proof!" and/or something to the
> equivalent of "mimsy were the borgoroves, which can be seen right here
> in this picture of Mar...er...Venu...er...this frozen cheese pizza!"

[John Maxson]

Bob Mosley actively promotes the abuse of others via
his organized clique, the HORS.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Bruce Palmer > wrote in message
et...
> Stephen Stocker wrote:
>
> > Do I detect a voice of sanity in here? I've only been reading in this
> > group for a few days, but it seems as if far more than half the
> ...
>
> You might have lurked for more than "a few days" to figure out what's
> been going on in here for literally *years*. There _are_ well-known
> wackos in the sci.space hierarchy that deserve every bit of abuse that
> gets tossed their way. You would have discovered this for yourself if
> you ahd bothered to spend a few minutes wih Google.
>
> I'm plonking you for a month. Nothing personal, but you need to get a
> clue before you come in here - or anywhere on usenet for that matter -
> and start preaching about the behavior of others after observing for
> only "a few days".
>
> *PLONK*
>
> --
> bp
> Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, OM wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:59:49 -0000, Stephen Stocker >
> wrote:
>
>> Attacking a "wild" theory by
>> calling someone a nutcase, whacko, troll, fill-in-the-blank, only
>> demonstrates your inability to rationally rebut the theory. If that's
>> your thing, have at it.

Before I forget the points of your other post (*very* short memory),
yep, you've learned something about me, an easy thing to do since I'm
not into false identities and the like. Seems somewhat self-defeating
to stand up for something while hiding behind a shield of anonymity.

Regarding the anti-NASA troll post (or whatever it was), I *hope* it
wasn't hypocritical. It began with the same sort of thing I'm talking
about here. "You Pathetic Lunatics!" somehow sounds precisely the same
as "That nutcase whacko and his discredited theory!". After that, who
knows what (if anything) it actually *said*?

> ...The one thing that those with the "do-gooder" mentalities towards
> the cranks, crackpots and trolls tend to forget is that 99% of the
> time they don't have to actually deal with those they're defending.
> They usually pop in, see someone getting their ass jumped, and then
> fail to evaluate the situation before letting the urge to play
> "defender of the underdog" take over their sanity.

You have a point. But in eight years of browsing through various
Usenet groups at long intervals, I see the same thing. It doesn't even
seem to matter what the subject is.

I hope I don't sound like I'm defending anyone, for the most part I
can't even tell what anyone believes! Yes, I've seen a few people
here, posting the same thing over and over, which in my opinion wasn't
worth reading even once. But so what? I don't consider it worth the
bother, so I don't bother. Yet I know that some in here really have
something worthwhile to say (again, IMO), if I could get past what, at
first glance, only looks like more of the same.

> ...Believe it or not, the regulars around these groups have extensive
> experience in what's real and what's not, and have a pretty damn good
> sense of detection with regards to whether a "wild theory" is being
> presented by a looney toon or not. The key determining factor, without
> question, is how well the nutball responds to any form of peer review
> and/or requests for proof and/or clarification of specific points.
> With one exception, in every single theory tossed out to the
> sci.space.* hierarchy in the past two years (*) that has been
> classified as being totally bogus and without merit, the theorists
> have responded either with "**** you! What do you know?" and/or "The
> proof is in my book. Send me $$$ and you can read it for yourself"
> and/or "Jesus in my belly is my proof!" and/or something to the
> equivalent of "mimsy were the borgoroves, which can be seen right here
> in this picture of Mar...er...Venu...er...this frozen cheese pizza!"


I have no reason to disbelieve you, and even in the time I've been
reading in here, as noted above, I've seen things which strike me as
highly bizarre. Once again, how do I differentiate between the "What
do you know?" of those who aren't interested in much of anything
except annoying people, and the "What do you know?" of someone with a
genuine interest in the given subject, someone who's normal high level
of intelligence has been obscured by a need to use the same tactics?

Taking that a step further, if I suggest that perhaps the shuttle
could have been saved by little green men from Mars, using their
light-speed rescue craft (no, I wasn't thinking of suggesting that),
does that make me a nutcase, or just woefully ignorant of the subject
(which, basically, I am)?

> The sole exception? Geo Abrate's "Lost Cosmonauts" crusade. We know
> he's wrong, the data from behind the Rusted Curtain shows this, but he
> maintains his stance and he does so without being a total dickwad
> about it. As a result, he's gained a lot of respect around here,
> including quite a bit from me. Doesn't mean we accept his theories by
> one iota, but we accept *him* as not being a total psychotic as most
> whacko theorists have proven themselves to be.

OK, I didn't read far enough. This at least partially answers my
question, and I'm glad to hear that there *is* at least one with whom
you disagree yet respect. Believe me, that's more than I've seen!

> Bottom Line: Before you jump into a flamefest and defend someone being
> flamed for pushing a totally bull**** theory and refusing to accept
> the results of rational peer review, do some research on the topic, do
> a google on the entire thread, and make sure you're not about to stick
> your foot in your mouth and our feet up your ass for defending someone
> who's obviously due for a nice stay in a rubber room at the local
> funny farm.

As I said, my intention is not to defend anyone. I don't *know* anyone
here. And it's nearly impossible to get to know anyone here (as is
true on most of Usenet). Looking up every name in this group on a
search engine would require far more time and ambition than I have.

What possible difference could it make to me if everyone who posts
here labels me a loony, or hopelessly naive, or the world's biggest
asshole? I'm not interested in an analysis of myself by a Usenet
group, I'm interested in learning about the space shuttle's
intricacies. About what went wrong and why.

Likewise, why should I care if some search engine reveals that 35
million people said that you were completely wrong about everything?
I'm more interested in hearing what you say.

I also suppose that I hold a group like this to higher standards than
I would alt.tasteless.jokes or whatever. And that seems a reasonable
expectation. If I'm wrong, then neither I nor this group have lost
anything except a little time. "Flamefests", wherever they occur,
suffer the same problem. They're incredibly *boring*!

> (*) And while it didn't at first, this now includes Tom Wheeler's
> "that latch is a breach!" theory, clearly now in nutter category
> status.

I missed that one completely. Not surprising. Thanks for a reasonable
reply, anyway.

Steve

[Charleston]

"Stephen Stocker" > wrote in message
...

> As I said, my intention is not to defend anyone. I don't *know* anyone
> here. And it's nearly impossible to get to know anyone here (as is
> true on most of Usenet). Looking up every name in this group on a
> search engine would require far more time and ambition than I have.

You got flamed by someone you don't know for complaining about people
flaming other people you don't know, on your very first post, too!
Congratulations you survived and have been baptized in the fire, pun
intended. That's about par for the course and a good a day's work around
here ;-) The singed hair smell will go away in a day or two.

> What possible difference could it make to me if everyone who posts
> here labels me a loony, or hopelessly naive, or the world's biggest
> asshole? I'm not interested in an analysis of myself by a Usenet
> group, I'm interested in learning about the space shuttle's
> intricacies. About what went wrong and why.

So hang around. I hope you walk away knowing more about the Shuttle than
you knew when you started.

Daniel

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Stephen Stocker > typed:

> I also suppose that I hold a group like this to higher standards
> than I would alt.tasteless.jokes or whatever

OMG, I remember the posting to rec.humour that caused someone to
suggest a.t.j back in '89. It was vile, one other co-worker read it
about the same time as I did, we both verbally went "Ewwww" and we never
repeated it ever. It's probably buried back in Henry's tapes and I hope
it never got copied over to Google Groups. Yuck. Ptew.
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, OM wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:27:44 -0000, Stephen Stocker >
> wrote:
>
>> Before I forget the points of your other post (*very* short memory),
>> yep, you've learned something about me, an easy thing to do since I'm
>> not into false identities and the like. Seems somewhat self-defeating
>> to stand up for something while hiding behind a shield of anonymity.
>
> ...Major mistake on your part, which only proves you're new around
> these parts and are clueless: that "hiding behind a handle" bit holds
> absolutely no water with me whatsoever. It makes what *I* have to say
> no less important. If you want to know who I am, there's plenty of
> places to find out. In fact, by reading the Columbia Loss FAQ, you
> have to go to my website, and my base information is there.

Yes, I'm definitely new to sci.space.shuttle. The sad thing is that
it's not much better than anything else on Usenet, to which I'm not
new.

I suppose that, if my purpose in posting is to impress you, it
would be a mistake to mention my views on anonymous posters. However,
I'd hoped that it was clear in my post that, just as I have no
intention of defending anyone, I likewise have no intention of trying
to impress anyone.

> Bottom Line: shove that anti-alias bias, because it'll ruin your case
> with me quicker than anything this side of admitting your're a child
> molester.

That's up to you, as it should be. We all form opinions based on the
tone of the individual's posts, none of which are any more nor less
important than anyone else's.

>> Regarding the anti-NASA troll post (or whatever it was), I *hope* it
>> wasn't hypocritical. It began with the same sort of thing I'm talking
>> about here. "You Pathetic Lunatics!" somehow sounds precisely the same
>> as "That nutcase whacko and his discredited theory!". After that, who
>> knows what (if anything) it actually *said*?
>
> ...In the case of the whackos, who *cares* what they say? It's all
> gibberish, nonsense, and is totally deserving of derision and
> ridicule. Otherwise, the gullible will start believing it as fact
> because it *hasn't* been challenged.

I think you've expressed something better than I was able. When I see
"derision and ridicule" posted under the flag of responsible science,
I'm left wondering just who the "whacko" is. "**** you" doesn't sound
any more scientific when uttered by an engineer than it does when
uttered by a 12 year old.

This also assumes that the rest of us are incapable of detecting
nonsense. I claim a fair amount of ignorance of much which is related
to the shuttle, but I'm not stupid.

>> You have a point. But in eight years of browsing through various
>> Usenet groups at long intervals, I see the same thing. It doesn't even
>> seem to matter what the subject is.
>
> ...Again, you miss the point. You're taking a quick look at the
> situation, and automatically determining that whoever's being
> "attacked" is the one who's the victim. It's the same thing as picking
> up a copy of Milton, reading only the passages dealing with the moment
> when Lucifer is cast into Hell, and then determining that God is the
> bully here and was totally in the wrong.

The "one" who's being attacked? How could I (or anyone else) tell who's
being attacked? It's one big mudslinging contest, which obscures
anything valid which might be buried somewhere in the post.

>> I hope I don't sound like I'm defending anyone, for the most part I
>> can't even tell what anyone believes! Yes, I've seen a few people
>> here, posting the same thing over and over, which in my opinion wasn't
>> worth reading even once. But so what? I don't consider it worth the
>> bother, so I don't bother. Yet I know that some in here really have
>> something worthwhile to say (again, IMO), if I could get past what, at
>> first glance, only looks like more of the same.
>
> ...Perhaps if you did a little reading *before* posting, you might
> have a better clue as to what's going on around here. Google is your
> friend here, and a valuable resource. Use it.

Obviously I have been reading. But what you suggest is the equivalent
of running a background check on everyone in this group. I'm more
interested in what people post, rather than checking to see if they've
ever been involved in a Usenet dispute. Given Usenet's history, if
they've ever posted in a group, they have.

>> Taking that a step further, if I suggest that perhaps the shuttle
>> could have been saved by little green men from Mars, using their
>> light-speed rescue craft (no, I wasn't thinking of suggesting that),
>> does that make me a nutcase, or just woefully ignorant of the subject
>> (which, basically, I am)?
>
> ...First off, we'd have sent you to the FAQ. Then, when you came back
> with a "**** off" attitude, we would have branded you a whacko. And
> yes, suggesting that the Greys, EBEs, or even the Vulcans who are
> observing our every move right at this very moment could have saved
> the crew would have automatically branded you a whacko.

Fair enough.

>> OK, I didn't read far enough. This at least partially answers my
>> question, and I'm glad to hear that there *is* at least one with whom
>> you disagree yet respect. Believe me, that's more than I've seen!
>
> ...And if there were others worthy of respect, you would have seen
> more. Tom Wheeler actually had my respect at first, but he went down
> the path to wackyland that all the other kooks, crackpots, whackos,
> nutballs and psychopaths take when their theories are disproved by
> existing and incontrovertable facts.
>
>> As I said, my intention is not to defend anyone. I don't *know* anyone
>> here. And it's nearly impossible to get to know anyone here (as is
>> true on most of Usenet). Looking up every name in this group on a
>> search engine would require far more time and ambition than I have.
>
> ...Then I recommend that until you find it "worth your time" to invest
> some of that time into getting a grasp on what this group and its
> discussions are about, you remain in lurker mode and, quite frankly,
> keep your mouth shut.

I've never been known for that. :) I'll take people at face value, and
until they give me a reason to do otherwise, I'll listen and offer my
honest opinions.

>> What possible difference could it make to me if everyone who posts
>> here labels me a loony, or hopelessly naive, or the world's biggest
>> asshole? I'm not interested in an analysis of myself by a Usenet
>> group, I'm interested in learning about the space shuttle's
>> intricacies. About what went wrong and why.
>
> ...Then the same applies. Sit back, shut up, listen, and learn. And
> when you think you've got a serious question to ask about this topic,
> do the same again, and *then* post your question.

That is precisely what I've been trying to do. Unfortunately,
"Everybody knows that so-and-so is a whacko" isn't very enlightening,
hence my original post on the subject.

>> Likewise, why should I care if some search engine reveals that 35
>> million people said that you were completely wrong about everything?
>> I'm more interested in hearing what you say.
>
> ...Fine. It's your time to waste. However, rather than waste *our*
> time having the whacko regurgitate his bile, go read what's already
> been posted via google. It *will* save you the headache and
> embarassment that you've already experienced here by jumping in
> without a clue.

By reading more of the same? I haven't experienced any headache or
embarrassment here. If I had, I'd simply have gone somewhere else.
Looking at it another way, I'd much rather hear from everybody,
including those labelled "whacko", and decide for myself. Among other
things, if I ignored everybody labelled a whacko here, by somebody,
it'd be a very silent group.

>> I also suppose that I hold a group like this to higher standards than
>> I would alt.tasteless.jokes or whatever. And that seems a reasonable
>> expectation. If I'm wrong, then neither I nor this group have lost
>> anything except a little time. "Flamefests", wherever they occur,
>> suffer the same problem. They're incredibly *boring*!
>
> ...And that's usually the case to those who aren't in on the flames
> from the beginning. Again, that's the flaw in your entire arguement:
> you jumped in without researching the matter at all. Even a cursory
> look at just a few days postings by Bob Haller and the subsequent
> responses would have clued you in that he's a lost cause. And any and
> all of the Maxson trailer trash can be easily targeted as being
> psychotics from just *one* post.

I'm unfamiliar with Bob Haller, although the name sounds familiar. The
posts I've read by a couple of the Maxons seem thoughtful and
respectful, so I'm really not interested in dismissing them or
insulting them simply because others in this group do so.

>>> (*) And while it didn't at first, this now includes Tom Wheeler's
>>> "that latch is a breach!" theory, clearly now in nutter category
>>> status.
>>
>> I missed that one completely. Not surprising. Thanks for a reasonable
>> reply, anyway.
>
> ...Again, go google. Which probably should be a bumper sticker slogan.

Once more, if he's active here, I'm sure I'll run into some of his
posts, and form my own opinions. If I disagree with him (or you, for
that matter), so what? It couldn't possibly be as much of a waste to
read what anyone has to say as the constant so-called flames.

I think I may have left a false impression, namely that of the naive
newcomer to the internet. I never have approached anything with a "Joe
Cool" bravado simply to impress someone, and I'm unlikely to start
now. I am what I am, no better or worse than anyone else. And right
now, what I am is interested in the space program, with emphasis on
the shuttle and its problems/solutions.

Steve

[Stephen Stocker]

In article <zU2Ra.17687$zy.3457@fed1read06>, Charleston wrote:
> "Stephen Stocker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> As I said, my intention is not to defend anyone. I don't *know* anyone
>> here. And it's nearly impossible to get to know anyone here (as is
>> true on most of Usenet). Looking up every name in this group on a
>> search engine would require far more time and ambition than I have.
>
> You got flamed by someone you don't know for complaining about people
> flaming other people you don't know, on your very first post, too!
> Congratulations you survived and have been baptized in the fire, pun
> intended. That's about par for the course and a good a day's work around
> here ;-) The singed hair smell will go away in a day or two.

Thanks. *g* It's nothing new, sometimes I suspect I post these things
as a test, just to see what the reaction will be. At any rate, it
helps me filter out what doesn't interest me.

>> What possible difference could it make to me if everyone who posts
>> here labels me a loony, or hopelessly naive, or the world's biggest
>> asshole? I'm not interested in an analysis of myself by a Usenet
>> group, I'm interested in learning about the space shuttle's
>> intricacies. About what went wrong and why.
>
> So hang around. I hope you walk away knowing more about the Shuttle than
> you knew when you started.

I appreciate that, and I hope so too. I think I must've seen
*something* interesting in here, or I'd have passed on by! :)

Steve

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Stephen Stocker > typed:

> Yes, I'm definitely new to sci.space.shuttle. The sad thing is that
> it's not much better than anything else on Usenet, to which I'm not
> new.

This group is still suffering from the post Columbia "Oh My God"
syndrome. Been a not very happy past 5 1/2 months. It'll get better
with time. It was before 2/1/03 and it will be after some time has
passed.
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, Mike Speegle wrote:
> In news:Stephen Stocker > typed:
>
>> Yes, I'm definitely new to sci.space.shuttle. The sad thing is that
>> it's not much better than anything else on Usenet, to which I'm not
>> new.
>
> This group is still suffering from the post Columbia "Oh My God"
> syndrome. Been a not very happy past 5 1/2 months. It'll get better
> with time. It was before 2/1/03 and it will be after some time has
> passed.

Thanks, that does explain a lot, and it's something I hadn't
considered. It's strange that tragedy is what reawakened my interest
in space. I wonder how many, like me, started by looking for
information on the Columbia tragedy and ended up branching out in so
many directions?

I only wish it hadn't been at such a huge cost. :( To give you some
idea of my total lack of interest up to that time, I wasn't even aware
there *was* a shuttle mission in progress.

Steve

[OM]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:11:06 -0000, Stephen Stocker >
wrote:

> The posts I've read by a couple of the Maxons seem thoughtful and
> respectful, so I'm really not interested in dismissing them or
> insulting them simply because others in this group do so.

....Again, go google on them. You'll find the entire family is not
mentally stable. And in case you haven't figured it out, "Charleston"
is a Maxson as well. Best bet is to killfile all three of them and
avoid the hassle.



OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[John Maxson]

Paul Maxson > wrote in message
news:Hu7Ra.62451$GL4.14932@rwcrnsc53...
>
> Steve,
>
> You make good points that others have tried to make in the
> past and failed. All newsgroups have cliques but with this
> one you are either in or out. I haven't seen any lurkers come
> here and be neutral, if so it's rare.

Have you ever wondered if OverSoul lurks here occasionally
these days? He was a huge loss to these sci.space groups.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

[Charleston]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:11:06 -0000, Stephen Stocker >
> wrote:
>
> > The posts I've read by a couple of the Maxons seem thoughtful and
> > respectful, so I'm really not interested in dismissing them or
> > insulting them simply because others in this group do so.
>
> ...Again, go google on them. You'll find the entire family is not
> mentally stable. And in case you haven't figured it out, "Charleston"
> is a Maxson as well. Best bet is to killfile all three of them and
> avoid the hassle.

Try following your own advice before dishing it out to newbies please. As
Edith liked to say:

"Stifle."

Daniel

[Paul Maxson]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> ...Well, well. Look who changed his headers so that he can bypass
> everyone's killfile:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:52:07 GMT, "Paul Maxson" >
> wrote:
>
> >Snipped for brevity,
>
> ...ah, and then you post twice as much, poorly formatted, with even
> poorer grammar.
>
> <PLONK>
>
> ...I suggest everyone else do the same once again. Killfiles are your
> friend. Use them.
>
>
> OM


I would much rather have 'poorer grammar' than lack of social skills Bob.
FYI I didn't change anything ATT did with their transition.exe program
everyone
using ATT Broadband was forced to download when Comcast bought ATT.
Why is everything so sinister with you?

Everything I said and you snipped remains true and I didn't alter any header
info.

Also FYI using any news reader worth half a grain of salt you can filter
by name don't try and be coy. I still use Paul Maxson so you shouldn't have
had
to do the replonk. You just had to try and get the last word in while
attempting
to discredit me. However anyone using ATT Broadband knows better and you
simply
made yourself look stupid.


If you stuck to your plonks and performed them correctly the world would be
a better place.

Paul Maxson

[John Maxson]

How many children do you have, Mosley, "abzero?"

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:35:27 -0000,
> Stephen Stocker > wrote:
>
> > But the oft-repeated "Just killfile 'em" in this group is either
> > seldom used or used incorrectly.
>
> <PLONK>
>
> ...So much for that one. Amazing how someone can become
> a Maxson sock puppet so easy. Guess the Rev. Jim Jones'
> techniques work over usenet as well.
>
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
> poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:35:27 -0000, Stephen Stocker >
wrote:

> But the oft-repeated "Just killfile 'em" in this group is either
> seldom used or used incorrectly.

<PLONK>

....So much for that one. Amazing how someone can become a Maxson sock
puppet so easy. Guess the Rev. Jim Jones' techniques work over usenet
as well.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Tim Kozusko]

Mike Speegle > wrote in message
...

> Welcome to Keyboard Anarchy (TM) :-/

I like that, nice one!

[John Maxson]

Giganews (Gigabews?) proudly presents Bob Mosley's
constant abuse (not news) for Illuminati (?) Online.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)



OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:55:18 -0400, "Rick C" >
> wrote:
>
> >And given that you insinuated OM was in on it as well, of course he'd
want
> >OM to know the actions he's taken.
>
> ...And of course, by now if it *had* been me all along, I would have
> admitted to it *and* dared Alan to do something about it.
>
> But instead, I just put him back into Killfile Hell with the Maxsons,
> where hopefully they won't breed too quickly with each other...
>
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
> poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr

[ElleninLosAngeles]

From Stephen Stocker:
"**** you" doesn't sound
any more scientific when uttered by an engineer than it does when
uttered by a 12 year old."

Good point!

From Stephen Stocker:
"But the oft-repeated "Just killfile 'em" in this group is either
seldom used or used incorrectly. I guess it makes it easier to find an
excuse to gripe. *sigh*"

I soooooo agree.

[John Maxson]

Giganews (Gigabews?) proudly presents Bob Mosley's
constant abuse (not news) for Illuminati (?) Online.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)



OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:21:17 -0700, Scott Lowther
> > wrote:
>
> >OM wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:08:00 -0600, OM
> >> <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:39:00 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>He and Roman Polanski are looking mighty similar these days.
> >> >
> >> >...What? The shyster had a pregnant wife butchered by the Maxson
> >> >family too?
> >>
> >> ...****. Talk about a freudian typo. I meant *Manson* family, dammit.
> >
> >Suuuuuuurrrrrrre ya did, ya lyin' *******.
> >;P
>
> ...For once, that one *was* a freudian. I truly, truly meant "Maxson".
> Honest!
>
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
> poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >,
ElleninLosAngeles wrote:
> From Stephen Stocker:
> "**** you" doesn't sound
> any more scientific when uttered by an engineer than it does when
> uttered by a 12 year old."
>
> Good point!
>
> From Stephen Stocker:
> "But the oft-repeated "Just killfile 'em" in this group is either
> seldom used or used incorrectly. I guess it makes it easier to find an
> excuse to gripe. *sigh*"
>
> I soooooo agree.

Thanks. Reading this made me wince, though. I wish I'd found a way to
phrase it less crudely.

Steve

[Jorge R. Frank]

Dan Foster > wrote in
:

> I believe I read somewhere that the centers were
> now migrating to a single financial/project management software system
> to better integrate with and track and account for various projects'
> expenses. Long overdue but certainly most welcomed in my opinion.

Right - it's called the Integrated Financial Management Program (IFMP).
It's having some growing pains.

> Was that one of the results of the IMCE recommendations?

Absolutely.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.