Never mind the shuttle crash, the real threat is the CAIB report

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
}If you're unconvinced, that's up to you, but what I said was not
}evasive. I consistently meant "always" versus "not always". *Every*
}manned spaceflight project, either Russian or American, since Apollo
}has fallen to bad management.
}Skylab seemed to work out pretty well.

Yeah, it worked out so well that they didn't care to do it again.

}Did the Soviet space program have "bad management"?

Do you want to discuss Almaz, Mir, or something else?
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:22:25 +0100, Cardman
wrote:

Ah I knew it was somewhere, but have they really got enough salt mines
to store all that oil?

Evidently, you have no comprehension of the size of the United States.
See comparison in size below.

We in the UK have our own oil in the North Sea.

We in the US have considerable oil resources in the Gulf of Mexico,
Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska.

Holy Simple History Batman. You do realize there's a lot more than this to
it. In fact it involves, you guessed it, OIL.

Naturally. Not long now before this evil stuff runs out. :-]

The earliest estimates (from the Greens and others) say 35 years from
now.

Ok, so it was a bad idea for Iraq to do that, but you have to wonder
how much Kuwaiti oil played a part. Then these days the U.S has
"freed" the oil in Iraq for the benefit of the people, but no sign of
those weapons of mass destruction yet.

Iraq is a huge country to search, nearly twice the size of your UK,and
the job isn't easy with radicals running around throwing grenades at
you.

USA: 9,629,091 sq.km.
Iraq: 437,000 sq. km.
UK: 244,820 sq. km.

Once Saddam is confirmed dead and the Iraqis believe it, people will
come out of the woodwork to tell us where the WMD is buried. The man
terrorised his people for decades, and they're not going to believe
he's truly gone until they see his rotting carcass on TV.

Brian

Cardman wrote:

And they have nothing to do with "...those ground fires."


I am still doubtful, when coal is a little hard to get burning on its
own. Add some oil though and you will have your underground fire in no
time.

So you can just imagine the US Army packing thousands of oil drums
into a coal mine, then it is "whoops" some soldier dropped a match.

And you evidence for this is... what?

Underground coal fires are almost impossible to put out even after *decades*.
Why should you need oil to get them going?

Paul
who just drove through the ghostly remains of Centralia, PA,
and is sure noone would ever store oil there

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
In other statements, O'Keefe has stressed that NASA will fully comply
(or exceed) all the recommendations of the CAIB report, and cautioned
NASA workers not to get defensive or argumentative about the report's
findings, saying that any time spent fighting the CAIB is time wasted
that could better be spent getting ready for return-to-flight.

He did say that too, but when he referred to the report as a "nasty
piece of writing", he was confirming resentment more than he was
quelling it. He's biasing NASA employees against the report before
they even see it.

I can see how someone would get that impression, especially if they read
that quote absent from any context and made absolutely no effort to learn
what the context was.

I have a hard time seeing how someone would get that impression from
reading all the press accounts of O'Keefe's speaking tour (he's speaking at
all the NASA centers, and each one usually draws at least two articles in
the press). The "nasty" comments got quite a lot of press, but so did his
other comments that I mentioned my previous reply.

I do not see how any honest person would get that impression from watching
the speeches in their entirety (you *did* know each one was broadcast on
NASA TV, right?) I watched the entire JSC speech and listened to most of
the GSFC speech. O'Keefe has a speaking style many consider odd: he repeats
himself quite a bit. To a student of oratory he can come off as rambling,
but to a student of instructional techniques his intent is clear - if he
wants you to remember something, he'll repeat it, and if he thinks
something is very important, he'll repeat it over and over. The impression
I came away with (and, I think, anyone who attended the speeches would have
gotten), was this:

"The tone of the report will be nasty, as will the press coverage that will
follow. How we conduct ourselves in the face of that is crucial to the
future of the agency. The recommendations in the report are important
regardless of the tone in which they are presented. It is important to have
a positive attitude and not get defensive. We will not just follow the
letter and spirit of the recommendations, but exceed them. If we do so, we
will come out of this a stronger and better agency than we were before."

Of course, the press articles on the speeches don't convey quite the same
message as the above, but that's because (surprise! surprise!) they quoted
O'Keefe selectively, and did not mention when he repeated points for
emphasis.

And of course, your interpretation of the speeches doesn't convey quite the
same message as the press articles, because (surprise! surprise!) you
quoted them selectively and based your interpretation on that.

--
JRF

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

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:40:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On or about Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:57:09 GMT, Brian Thorn made the sensational claim that:
Once Saddam is confirmed dead and the Iraqis believe it, people will
come out of the woodwork to tell us where the WMD is buried. The man
terrorised his people for decades, and they're not going to believe
he's truly gone until they see his rotting carcass on TV.

The same way they saw him walking amongst them in the streets?

No, in a different way. Now that Qusay and Uday are dead (there's
some kind of pig latin joke in those names, somewhere), people are
starting to believe that we're serious, and not going away. Up until
then, they still had to make a bet as to whether or not they'd survive
ratting him out.

At some point (we may not be quite there yet, but I suspect we're
close) there will be a tipping point at which people will feel safe to
come forward. Certainly once Saddam's gone, they'll be much more
comfortable to do so, not only telling us where the WMDs are buried,
but where his remaining supporters are as well.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article , Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
In other statements, O'Keefe has stressed that NASA will fully comply
(or exceed) all the recommendations of the CAIB report, and cautioned
NASA workers not to get defensive or argumentative about the report's
findings, saying that any time spent fighting the CAIB is time wasted
that could better be spent getting ready for return-to-flight.

He did say that too, but when he referred to the report as a "nasty
piece of writing", he was confirming resentment more than he was
quelling it. He's biasing NASA employees against the report before
they even see it.

I can see how someone would get that impression, especially if they read
that quote absent from any context and made absolutely no effort to learn
what the context was.

I have a hard time seeing how someone would get that impression from
reading all the press accounts of O'Keefe's speaking tour (he's speaking at
all the NASA centers, and each one usually draws at least two articles in
the press). The "nasty" comments got quite a lot of press, but so did his
other comments that I mentioned my previous reply.

I do not see how any honest person would get that impression from watching
the speeches in their entirety (you *did* know each one was broadcast on
NASA TV, right?) I watched the entire JSC speech and listened to most of
the GSFC speech. O'Keefe has a speaking style many consider odd: he repeats
himself quite a bit. To a student of oratory he can come off as rambling,
but to a student of instructional techniques his intent is clear - if he
wants you to remember something, he'll repeat it, and if he thinks
something is very important, he'll repeat it over and over. The impression
I came away with (and, I think, anyone who attended the speeches would have
gotten), was this:

"The tone of the report will be nasty, as will the press coverage that will
follow. How we conduct ourselves in the face of that is crucial to the
future of the agency. The recommendations in the report are important
regardless of the tone in which they are presented. It is important to have
a positive attitude and not get defensive. We will not just follow the
letter and spirit of the recommendations, but exceed them. If we do so, we
will come out of this a stronger and better agency than we were before."

I've largely steered clear of this subject, but feel I should note
that my impression of O'Keefe has been that of a man who is
conscientious about his job and not prone to mince words.

Your comments about selective quoting by the media are also true.
There's nothing exactly new about that. I don't know who, in lower
management positions, may try squirm out of what they can only see as
a tight spot, but I have the strong feeling that O'Keefe's a straight
shooter.

Somehow, of all the NASA people I've seen interviewed, he's the one
that I half-expected to say "We goofed", or something very close to
it. In a sense, I guess he's done precisely that.

Steve

"Cardman" wrote in message
...

I am still doubtful, when coal is a little hard to get burning on its
own. Add some oil though and you will have your underground fire in no
time.

Considering the salt mines are near the coal mine fires....


So you can just imagine the US Army packing thousands of oil drums
into a coal mine, then it is "whoops" some soldier dropped a match.

Umm, you really think they use drums? There's a reason they use salt mine.


Anyway, the U.S is indeed very touchy over the oil, when its whole
society depends on it.

As is most of Europe and Japan. Any major industrial nation depends
greatly
upon oil.

Yes, but no one depends on it as much as the US does. As you do not
even have sidewalks between your towns, where also everyone drives
just about everywhere including the local shop.

Right, some depend on it more than others. Try Japan. Try several European
countries.

As for sidewalks between towns... you do realize the SIZE of this country?
We've got states that it can take 8+ hours to drive through.



We in the UK have our own oil in the North Sea.

And we have Alaska, Texas, the Gulf of Mexico and several others. Right now
it's cheaper to get it from other nations, but not impossible to get it
locally if we wanted.



Ok, so it was a bad idea for Iraq to do that, but you have to wonder
how much Kuwaiti oil played a part. Then these days the U.S has
"freed" the oil in Iraq for the benefit of the people, but no sign of
those weapons of mass destruction yet.

Of course Kuwaiti oil had something to do with it. They were slant drilling
into Iraqi reserves after all. :-)



Anyway, the good news is that the Iraqi People can now have a
McDonalds and Pepsi, under the US oil for cheese burger scheme. ;-]

Cardman.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

No, in a different way. Now that Qusay and Uday are dead (there's
some kind of pig latin joke in those names, somewhere), people are

Ha! I considered that, too. I just can't remember how pig latin words are
constructed.

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:
He did say that too, but when he referred to the report as a "nasty
piece of writing", he was confirming resentment more than he was
quelling it. He's biasing NASA employees against the report before
they even see it.
....
I have a hard time seeing how someone would get that impression from
reading all the press accounts of O'Keefe's speaking tour

I read a representative sample of the press accounts, and since
you are taking a stand on the context, here it is, quoting
from the Orlando Sentinel:

"We're going to get hammered, but we're going to come out
stronger. That has to be our mind-set -- if we take it personally and
are defensive about it, it's going to be really, really difficult
to work with," O'Keefe said. "Our history has always been that we
confront those problems; we confront those challenges."

That is exactly consistent with your summary from memory. And all of
this does support your main contention: O'Keefe wants everyone to comply
with the CAIB report; there is no defiance here. But I also stand by
what I said: He seems geniunely offended by this report, even though
it isn't finished yet, and he is also portraying the report, and not
the shuttle crash, as the "challenge".

Both by this excerpt and your characterization, it comes across as an "eat
your bitter lima beans" speech. But the CAIB report is not intended as
a plate of lima beans. Rather it is meant as an emergency insulin shot,
for a diabetic who has fallen off the regimen.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:57:09 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:22:25 +0100, Cardman
wrote:

Ah I knew it was somewhere, but have they really got enough salt mines
to store all that oil?

Evidently, you have no comprehension of the size of the United States.

The size of the US and volume of Salt Mines are two different factors.

We in the UK have our own oil in the North Sea.

We in the US have considerable oil resources in the Gulf of Mexico,
Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska.

I see.

Holy Simple History Batman. You do realize there's a lot more than this to
it. In fact it involves, you guessed it, OIL.

Naturally. Not long now before this evil stuff runs out. :-]

The earliest estimates (from the Greens and others) say 35 years from
now.

And I am sure that the oldest and most tapped oil fields have already
ran dry, but lets not forget that as more second and third world
countries become developed, then that demand on oil will grow.

Well 2038 here we come...

Ok, so it was a bad idea for Iraq to do that, but you have to wonder
how much Kuwaiti oil played a part. Then these days the U.S has
"freed" the oil in Iraq for the benefit of the people, but no sign of
those weapons of mass destruction yet.

Iraq is a huge country to search,

Ever thought about using technology? As it is not like they have to
personally turn over every rock.

And I am sure that loads of scientists are only happy to spill the big
secret of where the biological and chemical weapons are stored for a
chance of a better life.

Then here we are months later without a smoking gun in sight.

Maybe people should face the fact that maybe there are no WMD, where
then you will see that this is all about getting rid of Saddam who
annoyed someone's daddy.

nearly twice the size of your UK,and
the job isn't easy with radicals running around throwing grenades at
you.

Radicals?

More US propaganda I see. Try you average Iraqi civilian who are
simply very annoyed at the US occupation of their country. As they
know that the more US troops who die the faster they will go away.

Also that would make for one incredibly dumb search. Using
intelligence and technology would soon find it in no time.

USA: 9,629,091 sq.km.
Iraq: 437,000 sq. km.
UK: 244,820 sq. km.

Once Saddam is confirmed dead

Dead? Reports are around that he has been captured, which makes it a
little unjust to now execute him.

and the Iraqis believe it,

The Iraqi people already know that he is gone for good.

people will
come out of the woodwork to tell us where the WMD is buried.

Just offer them lots of money, a new identity, then a place for them
and their family to live in the U.S or elsewhere.

After all two of Saddam's sons were killed for a fairly small amount
of money leading to the intelligence of where they were.

You may need to face the fact that maybe there are no WMD. Or at least
Saddam's personal emergency stocks would have been destroyed long
before this War came about.

Funny how the U.S has crap loads of WMDs. And they have even used them
on civilians once before.

The man terrorised his people for decades,

Welcome to the world of a dictator.

Also most people there would just go on with their lives unaffected,
when it is just a case of avoiding getting in the way of those with
power.

You should also remember that the U.S uses propaganda a lot, when the
truth in Iraq is not how they make out.

The US lie.
The UK lie.
Iraq lies.

Only by listening to all sides can you know the truth.

For example on the day that Iraq TV and Al-Jazeera showed those dead
and captured US soldiers (I saw it as it happened), then the worst
thing I saw that day was not those scenes.

As the worst thing I saw that day was of a little Iraqi girl of about
six years old who had been killed by the US bombings. When they first
showed her she had a towel over her face, but they soon removed it to
show that she died due to fact that the top of her head was completely
blown off.

That received no mention at all on western news stations for obvious
propaganda reasons, when it was all about the US soldiers and how they
could dare show such scenes.

Well I can only say that these western leaders would be dumb if they
did not know that this is just a cultural thing, when the Middle East
stations simply show death and destruction as it happens, when they do
not censor their news.

Yes, this is a more barbaric society, where those most in need of
being locked up are those who are often in power, but that is what the
vast majority of human history has been like until modern times.

Then lets not forget how many people the trade embargo killed, when
the UN oil for food program only came about after it became a problem.

Also you have only to read your own headlines to know that the U.S,
and other countries like my own, are not perfect either. Corruption,
the police beating civilians and some really bad things can happy
while in the care of the government.

Anyway, I have a question for you. As who has killed more Iraqi
civilians; Saddam and his followers, or these military actions lead by
the U.S?

and they're not going to believe he's truly gone until they see his
rotting carcass on TV.

Ever thought that is could just be a US based excuse for not finding
WMD yet?

After all people can see for themselves how things have changed, where
for example people are buying satellite dishes faster than they can be
imported.

And if people hated Saddam as much as the US would like you to
believe, then you would have your WMD by now.

Anyway I am only happy to tell you the truth, when the WMD are indeed
an excuse, when he would be lucky to find them. What this is all about
is that Iraq does not like the US, your president is on his 9/11
crusade against his enemies, where he also hopes that doing this will
solve all those Middle East problems.

So in all he simply wants to make the World a better place, but a lot
of people are sure going to die for him to get his wish.

Yes Iraq is now better off, but the dead and the families of those
dead won't be thanking you. More likely you will pee them off and they
will bring you another 9/11.

Cardman.