"The Most Mollycoddled Mission"

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4269835

"SIGHS of relief all round greeted the touchdown of STS 114, as the
latest space-shuttle flight is known to the cognoscenti. In truth, this
was the most mollycoddled mission in NASA's history, so if anything
serious had gone wrong with it the agency would probably not have
emerged intact from the wreckage. Now, although there are still doubts
about whether there will ever be an STS 115, the show can go on. And
the next act, expected within a few days-or weeks at most-will be
the unveiling of detailed plans for a return to the moon."

I rarely hear that word, "mollycoddle." Apparently it means to be
overprotective and indulgent toward. Who can imagine a reason for NASA,
Lockheed, and its partners to engage in such pampering? Some will say
it's only the "Kranz approach," but most know better.

Challenger's Ghost

Some people round here are never satisfied it seems.

Brian
" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4269835

"SIGHS of relief all round greeted the touchdown of STS 114, as the
latest space-shuttle flight is known to the cognoscenti. In truth, this
was the most mollycoddled mission in NASA's history, so if anything
serious had gone wrong with it the agency would probably not have
emerged intact from the wreckage. Now, although there are still doubts
about whether there will ever be an STS 115, the show can go on. And
the next act, expected within a few days-or weeks at most-will be
the unveiling of detailed plans for a return to the moon."

I rarely hear that word, "mollycoddle." Apparently it means to be
overprotective and indulgent toward. Who can imagine a reason for NASA,
Lockheed, and its partners to engage in such pampering? Some will say
it's only the "Kranz approach," but most know better.

Challenger's Ghost

Brian Gaff wrote:
Some people round here are never satisfied it seems.

You're a case in point. It didn't take you long to start complaining
that you couldn't hear any familiar voices during Discovery's reentry.

Some of us expected it.

Challenger's Ghost

Hang on, hardly a conspiracy, to play safe after what happened last time. In
any case, as far as I could hear, the chat we did not hear was not the
circuit that we heard on Columbia, if you see what i mean. It was more local
chat. I've heard earlier Shuttles, and the issues being expressed during re
entry on Columbia were unusual
..
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


" wrote in message
oups.com...

Brian Gaff wrote:
Some people round here are never satisfied it seems.

You're a case in point. It didn't take you long to start complaining
that you couldn't hear any familiar voices during Discovery's reentry.

Some of us expected it.

Challenger's Ghost

How can I see what you mean when I have heard nothing, and when you and
most others refer to every post I make as a conspiracy theory.
Regardless, suppression of all voice communications intended for public
consumption was a most unusual measure, for what by law is supposed to
be an open space agency. By playing safe, do you refer to a fear that
the Discovery crew might have come across as less than stoic?

Challenger's Ghost (maybe it's the handle)

Brian Gaff wrote:
Hang on, hardly a conspiracy, to play safe after what happened last time. In
any case, as far as I could hear, the chat we did not hear was not the
circuit that we heard on Columbia, if you see what i mean. It was more local
chat. I've heard earlier Shuttles, and the issues being expressed during re
entry on Columbia were unusual.

"Mollycoddled" is the wrong word - diligent is a better word. That's
reporting for you......

Name who the "most" are please - cheers.

Bash wrote:
"Mollycoddled" is the wrong word - diligent is a better word. That's
reporting for you......

No, "diligent" would have meant conducting a WCDT and FRF the first
time Discovery was rolled out to the pad, since this was advertised as
a "test flight." It also would have meant planning for Edwards as the
primary landing sight.

Name who the "most" are please - cheers.

A majority, more than 50 percent, those not easily conned, those with a
lick of sense, those not "born yesterday." Do you get the idea?

Cheers back at you.

Challenger's Ghost

No, "diligent" would have meant conducting a WCDT and FRF the first
time Discovery was rolled out to the pad, since this was advertised as
a "test flight." It also would have meant planning for Edwards as the
primary landing sight.

Obviously the finding of the CAIB were insufficient in your eyes. I
take it that was an opinion being voiced.

Name who the "most" are please - cheers.

A majority, more than 50 percent, those not easily conned, those with a
lick of sense, those not "born yesterday." Do you get the idea?

Not really since you have generalised here are unable to cite any names
or have brought other evidence to back your assertion. The question
is, can you?

Sincerely,
Bash

Bash wrote:

The question is, can you?

Feel free to conduct your own poll here, if you like. That should give
you names, if you don't like the classes I enumerated.

Gareth Slee and others have had some success with polls; but when I
tried one some years back, Paul Blay told me it was inappropriate. Both
are your fellow countrymen, I think.

Challenger's Ghost

One of the more motley trolls I have ever seen.