Re: WHAT WILL NASA SAY???

[Fred Garvin]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:52:37 -0400, Hallerb wrote:

> If a future shuttle has a serious problem, it makes a low orbit but is
> unable to deorbit? Unable to reach ISS, its destination its stuck in a
> low decaying orbit but the crew will die before reentry.
>
> Sadly it will also be a hazard to whoever is in its reentry footprint of
> debris. Fear of this causes chaos with people trying to flee the area.
> Lives are lost.General panic disrupts lives and the economy too:(
>
> After the clean up it becomes clear this loss was also preventable if
> they could of gotten some spare parts to the stranded shuttle in time.
>
> This was looked at for Columbia but not acted on.
>
> How will you nasa explain this oversite?
>
> Lets remember IF we had known Columbia had a problem and had a emergency
> fast launch capability a power pod would of been sent up for electricity,
> and other essentials. This would of been followed by atlantis to return
> the crew and very possibly a emergency repair kit we may have saved the
> orbiter too.
>
> Granted we had neither, but we are now clearly aware such a situation can
> occur.
>
> Call me names, knock my grammar and spelling, say plonk, whatever it does
> NOT atter what you post here.
>
> But how will NASA explain such a thing?



*PLONK*

(I've had enough of this moron.)

[Eddie Trimarchi]

The idea that every single possible outcome should be foreseen and catered
for in advance is ludicrous. As problems happen, solutions are formed to
stop the same thing happening again. This is called progress.

The boneheads sit back and watch progress have a hiccup and shout "It never
should have happened" when in reality it's all just a part of progress. It's
so important that people are willing to give their lives fully knowing the
risks. What will Nasa say? They will say something appropriate at the
time.With every disaster comes a new understanding of the deficienies and
another step towards remedying it. Onward and upward!

I for one am fully accepting of the idea that I may be killed by a piece of
space debris at any moment. Life is dangerous, it could be a plane ....Will
you now post.... WHAT WILL QUANTAS SAY??? I might get hit by a bus tomorrow
should I post...WHAT WILL THE BUS COMPANY SAY???

Death is a part of life that we have to learn to live with. And if you
haven't worked it out already, I think NASA are doing a great job. I have
them to thank for some of the most inpirational human events I have
witnessed in my lifetime. I suspect the same applies to you, but it could be
just wishful thinking...
--

Regards,

Eddie Trimarchi
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.astroshed.com
http://www.fitsplug.com

"Hallerb" > wrote in message
...
> If a future shuttle has a serious problem, it makes a low orbit but is
unable
> to deorbit? Unable to reach ISS, its destination its stuck in a low
decaying
> orbit but the crew will die before reentry.
>
> Sadly it will also be a hazard to whoever is in its reentry footprint of
> debris. Fear of this causes chaos with people trying to flee the area.
Lives
> are lost.General panic disrupts lives and the economy too:(
>
> After the clean up it becomes clear this loss was also preventable if they
> could of gotten some spare parts to the stranded shuttle in time.
>
> This was looked at for Columbia but not acted on.
>
> How will you nasa explain this oversite?
>
> Lets remember IF we had known Columbia had a problem and had a emergency
fast
> launch capability a power pod would of been sent up for electricity, and
other
> essentials. This would of been followed by atlantis to return the crew and
very
> possibly a emergency repair kit we may have saved the orbiter too.
>
> Granted we had neither, but we are now clearly aware such a situation can
> occur.
>
> Call me names, knock my grammar and spelling, say plonk, whatever it does
NOT
> atter what you post here.
>
> But how will NASA explain such a thing?

[Dale]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:32:42 GMT, "Eddie Trimarchi" > wrote:

<snipped a bit>

>Life is dangerous, it could be a plane ....Will
>you now post.... WHAT WILL QUANTAS SAY???

LOL :) BTW, isn't Quantas the only major airline that has never
had a fatality?


>Death is a part of life that we have to learn to live with. And if you
>haven't worked it out already, I think NASA are doing a great job. I have
>them to thank for some of the most inpirational human events I have
>witnessed in my lifetime. I suspect the same applies to you, but it could be
>just wishful thinking...

I think NASA could do alot better, and I hope that they feel the same way.
But yes to the latter part- I can't imagine what my view of the world would
be now had I not grown up with the race to the moon. Pretty bleak, I fear.

Dale

[Dale]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:57:41 +0000 (UTC), Dan Foster > wrote:

>QANTAS (Queensland And Northwest Territory Aerial Services) has had
>a crash-free half century ;) But they did have a crash when they were
>named QANTAS Empire Airways which had a DHA-3 Drover turboprop plane
>crash into the Gulf of Huan while approaching Lae on July 6, 1951.
>Seats 6-7... on that flight, all 7 didn't make it.

Still an enviable record. Thanks for the spelling correction on their name.
My "oz.net" ISP is in Seattle, USA- not Australia :)

Dale

[Dan Foster]

In article >, Dale > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:32:42 GMT, "Eddie Trimarchi" > wrote:
>
>>Life is dangerous, it could be a plane ....Will
>>you now post.... WHAT WILL QUANTAS SAY???

> LOL :) BTW, isn't Quantas the only major airline that has never
> had a fatality?

QANTAS (Queensland And Northwest Territory Aerial Services) has had
a crash-free half century ;) But they did have a crash when they were
named QANTAS Empire Airways which had a DHA-3 Drover turboprop plane
crash into the Gulf of Huan while approaching Lae on July 6, 1951.
Seats 6-7... on that flight, all 7 didn't make it.

-Dan

[Dale]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:07:40 GMT, "Eddie Trimarchi" > wrote:

>Personally I think Queensland deserves two letters in the acronym, but
>perhaps we should revert to the correct spelling :)
>
>I don't want to spoil they're fatality record, so let's hope I get hit by
>Virgin flight!

Yeah, that's pretty much every guy's dream, isn't it?? :)

Obviously way past my bedtime,
Dale

[Eddie Trimarchi]

Personally I think Queensland deserves two letters in the acronym, but
perhaps we should revert to the correct spelling :)

I don't want to spoil they're fatality record, so let's hope I get hit by
Virgin flight!
--

Regards,

Eddie Trimarchi
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.astroshed.com
http://www.fitsplug.com

"Dan Foster" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dale >
wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:32:42 GMT, "Eddie Trimarchi"
> wrote:
> >
> >>Life is dangerous, it could be a plane ....Will
> >>you now post.... WHAT WILL QUANTAS SAY???
>
> > LOL :) BTW, isn't Quantas the only major airline that has never
> > had a fatality?
>
> QANTAS (Queensland And Northwest Territory Aerial Services) has had
> a crash-free half century ;) But they did have a crash when they were
> named QANTAS Empire Airways which had a DHA-3 Drover turboprop plane
> crash into the Gulf of Huan while approaching Lae on July 6, 1951.
> Seats 6-7... on that flight, all 7 didn't make it.
>
> -Dan

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, Hallerb wrote:
> If a future shuttle has a serious problem, it makes a low orbit but is unable
> to deorbit? Unable to reach ISS, its destination its stuck in a low decaying
> orbit but the crew will die before reentry.
>
> Sadly it will also be a hazard to whoever is in its reentry footprint of
> debris. Fear of this causes chaos with people trying to flee the area. Lives
> are lost.General panic disrupts lives and the economy too:(
>
> After the clean up it becomes clear this loss was also preventable if they
> could of gotten some spare parts to the stranded shuttle in time.
>
> This was looked at for Columbia but not acted on.
>
> How will you nasa explain this oversite?
>
> Lets remember IF we had known Columbia had a problem and had a emergency fast
> launch capability a power pod would of been sent up for electricity, and other
> essentials. This would of been followed by atlantis to return the crew and very
> possibly a emergency repair kit we may have saved the orbiter too.
>
> Granted we had neither, but we are now clearly aware such a situation can
> occur.
>
> Call me names, knock my grammar and spelling, say plonk, whatever it does NOT
> atter what you post here.

"Plonk" being a term worthy of any self-respecting teenybopper. :)

Seriously, these are good questions, and the fact that they've been
asked before makes them no less valid. I hope you keep asking them,
regardless of the noise-making on here.

Steve

[jeff findley]

(Hallerb) writes:
>
> If a future shuttle has a serious problem, it makes a low orbit but is unable
> to deorbit? Unable to reach ISS, its destination its stuck in a low decaying
> orbit but the crew will die before reentry.

Exactly what sort of failure would lead to this situation? The
shuttle has two OMS pods. Each pod not only has an OMS engine that
can do the de-orbit on its own, but smaller RCS engines that can be
used as a backup. These same engines could be used to raise the orbit
if necessary. Each OMS pods has its own fuel/oxidizer tanks as well.
There is multiple redundancy built into these systems, for good
reason.

I just don't see how you get into the situation you describe. You
remind me of the type of person who would refuse to wear their
seat belt while driving in Arizona. Why? Because you might
accidentally drive into a large body of water and be unable to escape
the sinking car due to the seat belt getting stuck.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[Hallerb]

>
>Exactly what sort of failure would lead to this situation? The
>shuttle has two OMS pods. Each pod not only has an OMS engine that
>can do the de-orbit on its own, but smaller RCS engines that can be
>used as a backup. These same engines could be used to raise the orbit
>if necessary. Each OMS pods has its own fuel/oxidizer tanks as well.
>There is multiple redundancy built into these systems, for good
>reason.
>
>I just don't see how you get into the situation you describe. You
>remind me of the type of person who would refuse to wear their
>seat belt while driving in Arizona. Why? Because you might
>accidentally drive into a large body of water and be unable to escape
>the sinking car due to the seat belt getting stuck.
>
>Jeff
>--
>Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
>If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
>

Even Roger B, retired FDO says theres lots of ways a shuttle could get
stranded.

Perhaps he would like to list some?

[Roger Balettie]

"Hallerb" > wrote:
> Even Roger B, retired FDO says theres lots of ways a shuttle
> could get stranded.

Did I? Huh... don't remember that.

> Perhaps he would like to list some?

Nah... can't really think of many off the top of my head, sorry!

Redundancy is a wonderful thing.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Roger Balettie" > wrote in message
...
> "Hallerb" > wrote:
> > Even Roger B, retired FDO says theres lots of ways a shuttle
> > could get stranded.
>
> Did I? Huh... don't remember that.

Hmm, I think either you or Jorge did mention if about 5 extremely unlikely
events all occurred at the exact right moment things might go bad.

I think that included dual OMS failure, meteor strike, valve failure and a
few other unrelated items.


>
> > Perhaps he would like to list some?
>
> Nah... can't really think of many off the top of my head, sorry!
>
> Redundancy is a wonderful thing.

Ayup.


>
> Roger
> --
> Roger Balettie
> former Flight Dynamics Officer
> Space Shuttle Mission Control
> http://www.balettie.com/
>
>

[Hallerb]

>
>Nah... can't really think of many off the top of my head, sorry!
>
>Redundancy is a wonderful thing.
>
>Roger
>--

I think I saved your comment, I will look around for it.

[Roger Balettie]

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" > wrote:
> "Roger Balettie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Hallerb" > wrote:
> > > Even Roger B, retired FDO says theres lots of ways a shuttle
> > > could get stranded.
> >
> > Did I? Huh... don't remember that.
>
> Hmm, I think either you or Jorge did mention if about 5 extremely unlikely
> events all occurred at the exact right moment things might go bad.
>
> I think that included dual OMS failure, meteor strike, valve failure and a
> few other unrelated items.

Sure... five or six simultaneous failures later.... ;)

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

[Terrence Daniels]

"jeff findley" > wrote in message
...
>snip unlikely situation

I hate to tell you this, but my father saw a guy drown in the desert. He was
on the flightline at Luke AFB watching a low & slow pass by a B-57 when the
Canberra lost an engine and bellied in. The plane impacted at the edge of an
artificial reservoir; the nose broke off and sank in the water while the
fueselage was still on dry ground. It's unlikely but it has happened at
least once!

Of course, there was no point in Martin extensively re-designing the nose of
the Canberra to be watertight with a rescue system. The real problem was the
propensity for one or both engines to shut down at low speeds.

SO HOW DO WE KEEP THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN???

WILL CANBERRAS EVER BE SAFE?????? GROUND THE FLEET!

FIRE THE MANAGERS

;)

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> I hate to admit this, but one of my personal fears has always been
> that the Bay Bridge would collapse as I was driving across it. I
> wasn't there, but some of it did collapse in the Loma Prieta
> earthquake and people did fall off of it. However, the presence or
> absence of seat belts and electric windows had no effect on their
> survival.

Having seen the press coverage of that earthquake, I'd be a lot more
worried about driving on the Bat Bridge and having the upper deck fall
down on top of me. I *might* survive plunging off the bridge into the
Bay, but my chances are a lot worse if a few hundred tons of roadway
crushes my car into a new shape about five inches high...

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> Having seen the press coverage of that earthquake, I'd be a lot more
> worried about driving on the Bat Bridge...

Damn typoes! No, not the bridge that leads into Gotham City from the
Batcave. Bay Bridge, that's what it is... *sigh*...

--
Do not meddle in the affair of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |

[Eddie Trimarchi]

> <I think NASA are doing a great job.
>
> Right. And you probably thought the guards did a great job at
> Auschwitz too.

Well, that's some mighty powerful logic skills you're displaying there.

Ok, let's suppose that there was no Nasa. Would we be better off?

--

Regards,

Eddie Trimarchi
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.astroshed.com
http://www.fitsplug.com

"Joseph Trollkin" > wrote in message
news:am9obmNvbGQ=.e21196e066e3c8d016b25bfbb4ce9d2d @1059527466.cotse.net...
> <I think NASA are doing a great job.
>
> Right. And you probably thought the guards did a great job at
> Auschwitz too.
>
>
> Eddie Trimarchi wrote:
>
> > The idea that every single possible outcome should be foreseen and
> catered
> > for in advance is ludicrous. As problems happen, solutions are formed
> to
> > stop the same thing happening again. This is called progress.
> >
> > The boneheads sit back and watch progress have a hiccup and shout "It
> never
> > should have happened" when in reality it's all just a part of
> progress. It's
> > so important that people are willing to give their lives fully
> knowing the
> > risks. What will Nasa say? They will say something appropriate at the
> > time.With every disaster comes a new understanding of the deficienies
> and
> > another step towards remedying it. Onward and upward!
> >
> > I for one am fully accepting of the idea that I may be killed by a
> piece of
> > space debris at any moment. Life is dangerous, it could be a
> plane ....Will
> > you now post.... WHAT WILL QUANTAS SAY??? I might get hit by a bus
> tomorrow
> > should I post...WHAT WILL THE BUS COMPANY SAY???
> >
> > Death is a part of life that we have to learn to live with. And if you
> > haven't worked it out already, I think NASA are doing a great job. I
> have
> > them to thank for some of the most inpirational human events I have
> > witnessed in my lifetime. I suspect the same applies to you, but it
> could be
> > just wishful thinking...
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Eddie Trimarchi
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > http://www.astroshed.com
> > http://www.fitsplug.com
> >
> > "Hallerb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > If a future shuttle has a serious problem, it makes a low orbit but
> is
> > unable
> > > to deorbit? Unable to reach ISS, its destination its stuck in a low
> > decaying
> > > orbit but the crew will die before reentry.
> > >
> > > Sadly it will also be a hazard to whoever is in its reentry
> footprint of
> > > debris. Fear of this causes chaos with people trying to flee the
> area.
> > Lives
> > > are lost.General panic disrupts lives and the economy too:(
> > >
> > > After the clean up it becomes clear this loss was also preventable
> if they
> > > could of gotten some spare parts to the stranded shuttle in time.
> > >
> > > This was looked at for Columbia but not acted on.
> > >
> > > How will you nasa explain this oversite?
> > >
> > > Lets remember IF we had known Columbia had a problem and had a
> emergency
> > fast
> > > launch capability a power pod would of been sent up for
> electricity, and
> > other
> > > essentials. This would of been followed by atlantis to return the
> crew and
> > very
> > > possibly a emergency repair kit we may have saved the orbiter too.
> > >
> > > Granted we had neither, but we are now clearly aware such a
> situation can
> > > occur.
> > >
> > > Call me names, knock my grammar and spelling, say plonk, whatever
> it does
> > NOT
> > > atter what you post here.
> > >
> > > But how will NASA explain such a thing?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[David M. Palmer]

In article >, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

> When I asked my husband, the former Midwesterner, why we never got
> cars with electric windows, he said it was because you could go off a
> bridge into a river, your window motors would short out, and you
> couldn't get out of the car.

There are car safety tools that consist of a sharp-pointed hammer for
shattering the window, a seatbelt cutter in case the buckle jams, and a
mounting bracket for your dash.
http://www.midnightpass.com/sosemresaha.html

If it saves your life just one time, it's worth it.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

[Charleston]

"jeff findley" > wrote:
> (Hallerb) writes:

> > >I just don't see how you get into the situation you describe. You
> > >remind me of the type of person who would refuse to wear their
> > >seat belt while driving in Arizona. Why? Because you might
> > >accidentally drive into a large body of water and be unable to escape
> > >the sinking car due to the seat belt getting stuck.
> >
> > Even Roger B, retired FDO says theres lots of ways a shuttle could get
> > stranded.

The unlikely happens, just not very frequently;-)

> > Perhaps he would like to list some?

> You missed my point. Sure, something like that could happen, as a
> chain of several, unlikely, simultaneous, multiple failures.

If you believe the Roger's Commission report then you had a series of
multiple failures (some simultaneously) that occurred over a period of 73
seconds, any one of which if it had not happened, may have prevented the
accident. If you go back less than 24 hours there is another whole bundle
of rapid fire sequential failures which happened.
>
> And, you could run your car into a large body of water in Arizona and
> die because you couldn't get your seat belt off. For this to happen
> you'd have to:
>
> 1. Find a large body of water in Arizona. It's possible to do so,
> but it's not very likely to happen in practice. Arizona is a big
> state, and large bodies of water are few and far between.

Lake Mead, Colorado River, there are more than you may realize.

> 2. Find a large body of water where it's possible to accidentally
> drive a car into it. You've got to avoid things like guard rails and
> the like.

Lake Mead, Colorado River.

> 3. Something has to happen to either you or the car to make it
> accidentally drive into the water. You've got to have a heart attack,
> fall asleep at the wheel, have a front tire blow out and cause loss of
> control. Any of these is unlikely, in and of itself, but for this to
> happen at just the right moment to send you off the road and into the
> body of water is even more unlikely.

Jessica Savitch, a rising NBC news reporter was killed when she drove her
Volvo into a canal and could not get out because her power windows shorted.
She died while to trying to break the rear window out IIRC.

> 4. Now, we're assuming the car is in the water and you can't get your
> seat belt off.

See above.

> The last item, taken in isolation is something that may be likely to
> happen. However, to get there, the first three unlikely events have
> to happen in the correct sequence, in rapid succession. The odds of
> this happening are so absurd that any reasonable person wouldn't even
> think of such a scenario.

Challenger was one in 35 at the time, happened on 25 though and yes that is
very absurd in a way. That is why when they do happen there is public
interest.

> My point is that, for the shuttle, you're asking NASA to handle a
> situation that is vanishingly unlikely. They've already built in lots
> of redundancy into the propulsion systems that can be used for deorbit
> or orbital reboost. You're asking us to believe it is likely that all
> of this would fail simultaneously and leave the crew stranded in a
> rapidly decaying orbit.

Stranger things have happened.

> If you believe all of this, you should stop wearing your seat belt
> while driving in Arizona so you won't accidentally drown. Either
> that, or admit that you're logic is fatally flawed.

If you play the safer odds, sometimes you still lose. To take the lesser
odds (no seat belts in this instance) seems like fatally flawed logic.
Being from Las Vegas, Nevada, I owe my paychecks to people who take those
bad odds 365/24/7.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Barbara Needham]

David M. Palmer > wrote:

> There are car safety tools that consist of a sharp-pointed hammer for
> shattering the window, a seatbelt cutter in case the buckle jams, and a
> mounting bracket for your dash.
Mine only had velcro mountings and it fell off already. It's in the
glove compt. now. better than nothing but not recommended.

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:49:14 -0600, "David M. Palmer"
> wrote:

> In article >, Mary Shafer
> > wrote:
>
> > When I asked my husband, the former Midwesterner, why we never got
> > cars with electric windows, he said it was because you could go off a
> > bridge into a river, your window motors would short out, and you
> > couldn't get out of the car.
>
> There are car safety tools that consist of a sharp-pointed hammer for
> shattering the window, a seatbelt cutter in case the buckle jams, and a
> mounting bracket for your dash.
> http://www.midnightpass.com/sosemresaha.html
>
> If it saves your life just one time, it's worth it.

First you have to have water in your rivers. And water on your
lakebeds, too. Then a tool like that might be worthwhile.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot

[dave schneider]

"Charleston" > wrote in with:
[...]
> Jessica Savitch, a rising NBC news reporter was killed when she drove her
> Volvo into a canal and could not get out because her power windows shorted.
> She died while to trying to break the rear window out IIRC.

Well, the "escape tool" mentioned by another poster (mine's uner the
driver's seat, and I think I picked the one that can shut off the
household gas valve after an earthquake) is an inexpensive way to
improve success in this situation. Are there inexpensive ways to
improve success for an ATO that can't deorbit due to multiple failures
of the existing redundant systems? (I suddenly had an image of the
RMS being used to hurl payloads in the direction of travel -- damn
that "how rockets work" thread!)

[...]
>
> If you play the safer odds, sometimes you still lose. To take the lesser
> odds (no seat belts in this instance) seems like fatally flawed logic.
> Being from Las Vegas, Nevada, I owe my paychecks to people who take those
> bad odds 365/24/7.

Ahh, now I get it ....
<http://www.mtcharlestonhotel.com/images/mapp.jpg>

And betting that no one will cross the yellow line and hit you head on
while you're looking for that body of water fits right with getting
rich at the slot machines.

/dps

[Bruce Palmer]

Eddie Trimarchi wrote:
>><I think NASA are doing a great job.
>>
>>Right. And you probably thought the guards did a great job at
>>Auschwitz too.
>
>
> Well, that's some mighty powerful logic skills you're displaying there.
>
> Ok, let's suppose that there was no Nasa. Would we be better off?
>

Let's see.... he Godwins in 1, his nickname contains "Troll" and YOU
want to engage him in debate? I'm plonking *YOU* instead of him because
no one can possibly be this stupid.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

[Eddie Trimarchi]

I just asked a simple question. I'm genuinely interested in his answer.

Whether you approve or not means Jack **** to me.

--

Regards,

Eddie Trimarchi
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.astroshed.com
http://www.fitsplug.com

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
et...
> Eddie Trimarchi wrote:
> >><I think NASA are doing a great job.
> >>
> >>Right. And you probably thought the guards did a great job at
> >>Auschwitz too.
> >
> >
> > Well, that's some mighty powerful logic skills you're displaying there.
> >
> > Ok, let's suppose that there was no Nasa. Would we be better off?
> >
>
> Let's see.... he Godwins in 1, his nickname contains "Troll" and YOU
> want to engage him in debate? I'm plonking *YOU* instead of him because
> no one can possibly be this stupid.
>
> --
> bp
> Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003
>

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> Paramedics can wax pretty eloquent over the harm this belief in fires
> causes. Passers-by will drag injured victims from perfectly safe
> vehicles without any regard for neck and spine stabilization, for
> example, on the "gotta get him out of there before the whole thing
> blows up".

TV shows definitely make it worse. Try watching a lot of "rescue" dramas
with trained paramedics.

(or ride with an EMT while you drive by kids on bikes w/o helmets and the
like. :-)

Every EMT I know is a definite Darwinist. :-)

>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
> Anonymous US fighter pilot

[jeff findley]

Mary Shafer > writes:
>
> Paramedics can wax pretty eloquent over the harm this belief in fires
> causes. Passers-by will drag injured victims from perfectly safe
> vehicles without any regard for neck and spine stabilization, for
> example, on the "gotta get him out of there before the whole thing
> blows up".

This is another point that our resident "chicken little" doesn't get.
Implementing changes and introducing more hardware on the shuttle to
deal with situations that are vanishingly likely to happen does more
harm to the program than good.

Luckily, astronauts are typically smart enough to spot such behavior.
This is the reason that ESA astronauts were opposed to ejection seats
on Hermes. They'd offer little benefit for too few possible abort
situations and they would have eaten up quite a bit of weight, time,
and money. Measured risk is something that people like test pilots
and astronauts have to take.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[starman]

Mary Shafer wrote:

>
> You know, it occurs to me that the production and sale of this tool
> may be pandering to people who see too many action movies and watch
> too much action TV. If you believe what you see on the screen, you
> have been brainwashed into being sure that your vehicle will explode
> into a huge orange fireball after all but the slightest accident.

I've also noticed that helicopters in the movies usually explode in a
fireball. As you know, the fuel 'tanks' of modern helicopters are really
flexible bladders that are made to survive crashes without leaking. Not
to mention that the vast majority of heli's don't even use gasoline as a
fuel these days.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[dave schneider]

(dave schneider) wrote in with the quip
>
> Ahh, now I get it ....
> <http://www.mtcharlestonhotel.com/images/mapp.jpg>

Or maybe you prefer
<http://clients.mapquest.com/cgi-bin/mqmapgen_v4.0?GEOdata=f4%28w72%24e9-l67%3btj%7cxg08a9.fu%28%3d2ndyrnh.fc%284,he%3ba%3b to%7crx.drw%3b7%3bk1li%28a72%24HQJNdhmn%3b8%3br2dm wjWIK%3bli%24.gv%28azldz2%3be8%7c.9u80qu1%3beb%7cn %245g-9.gj%280,3bhlh%28lqrwdxv%3bu,ykq%7cn94yl&client=11582>
>
> And betting that no one will cross the yellow line and hit you head on
> while you're looking for that body of water fits right with getting
> rich at the slot machines.
>
> /dps