MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

(Stuf4)

Many serious discussions occur privately behind closed doors with not
so much as a single note taken. Lack of support does not constitute
invalidation. I see no need for withdrawl, let alone harrassment.

You never see the need for any support, logic, rationality or verifiable cites
for any of your wild-ass arguments, so I'm not surprised.

DF

From Dave Fowler:
(Stuf4)

As with the original caption in question, I am having difficulty
following the logic behind that statement (amidst the anger). Please
check your facts.

Please check YOUR facts. And generally speaking, I think many, if not most
people here fail to follow anything that you claim to resemble logic.

I prefer science ruled by reason rather than majority. Arguments
rooted in emotion can trend toward Spanish Inquisition techniques at
the expense of science.

My understanding is that crew size for -114 is being limited due
primarily to safety concerns.

As usual, your understanding is wrong. The current plan is for a crew of 6-7.

If NASA does launch seven astronauts on STS-114, then it will be a
departure from previous strategies of "ramping up" the crew size
(along with the post-51L example cited, safety concerns from the very
beginning of the shuttle program could be discussed).

Whatever the case, I am sure, Dave, that you recall how you chose to
continually harrass me with your "insider information" that Ilan Ramon
was a Mission Specialist in blatant rejection of my position that he
was a PS. If some other member had posted the comment:

"The current plan is for a crew of 6-7."

....we can imagine how such a comment would be rebutted with persistent
harrassment along the lines of:

"If you can't back up your statement with verifiable facts, then
withdraw the
comment."

It's sad enough to see no hesitation in your repeated attacks, but on
top of that you don't even hold your own posts to the "standards" you
demand from others.


I will be glad to reconsider the position I have offered here
regarding STS-114 crew size, but I expect to see more progress
accomplished through reason rather than abuse.


~ CT

Andrew Gray wrote:

In article , jeff findley wrote:

Barbara Morgan isn't an idiot. She's also a NASA astronaut, an actual
Mission Specialist. Unless you want to ban all Mission Specialists
from flying on the shuttle, you'd better re-think your statement.

More to the point, if memory serves she was already assigned to a
mission, sometime last year...

[dig, dig]

STS-118, ISS cargo & assembly flight, assignment made about the same
time (IIRC) they launched the new "Educator Astronaut" program. At time
of assignation, it was due to fly in 2004; current schedule has it
tentatively in mid-2005 (so even if it slips, it'll probably still be in
the next two years).


Yes, the next flight of Columbia wasn't it?

This thread was in response to what appeared to be a "Trial Balloon" sent
up by what appeared to be the Shuttle Program Office. You know leak out
some tentative plans to the media and see how well it floats.

The "Trial Balloon" seemed ok, it's just the payload hanging under the
balloon that's giving off a rather foul stench. Kind of reeks of a payoff
to Sean O'Keefe and the CAIB for a rather favorable report, when compared
to "The Dead Men Orbiting" scenario that the Shuttle Program Office let
"play out" to it's disastrous end. Not really just letting it play out, but
actively working at making it "play out" by working very hard on "Plausible
Deniability" instead of a fix for the Orbiter's wing. Essentially, a reward
for accepting the "Plausible Deniability" act put on by the Shuttle Program
Office and blaming "NASA Culture". Is Ron Dittimore still roaming the halls
of Building 1, spreading his influence on the Shuttle Program?


quote

The opportunity also exists - so far in only low-level discussions - to
include a nonprofessional crewmember who would symbolize NASA's commitment
to flight safety. Various suggestions, ranging from NASA Administrator Sean

O'Keefe himself, to a member of the Gehman Commission that recently issued
its final accident report, have been heard, but the informal proposal has
not reached a serious level.

end quote

It's kind of ironic that this "Trial Balloon" is essentially the same PR
stunt that gave Christa McAuliffe her seat on Challenger, and Barbara
Morgan hers on some future flight. Something that NASA said it wasn't going
to do anymore, so they forced (well maybe not forced) Barbara Morgan to
join the astronaut corps before they would consider honoring their
agreement with her.

This was my feeble attempt at putting the original payload back on the
"Trial Balloon", something that should have been done a long time ago. And,
since it's impossible for Barbara Morgan to fly on the next flight of
Columbia, the next flight of Shuttle would be just as good. Or, even
better, as the next Shuttle flight will be the safest in the years to come.
Everything will be checked twice (probably more), and everyone will be on
their toes working hard to make it the safest, with the memory of Columbia
fresh on their minds. As the flights rate pick up and memories fade, the
slippery slope only gets steeper.

If Sean O'Keefe or the CAIB needs to be rewarded for their good work, it
should be on the last flight of the Shuttle Program, not the next. A last
flight that is made by choice, not by circumstance.

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

Craig Fink

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]

Are you talking about leaving home every morning and getting in your car
to go to work? Picture yourself in the poster holding your child, with
the caption "Are you ready for Daddy to go to work?"

You can't eliminate risk...but you can avoid unnecessary risk.


I would be interested to hear how astronauts convince their families
that doing laps around the planet is *necessary*.

If I were an astronaut and I were saying goodbye to my family just
before launch, I could think of lots of reasons why it will be fun.
Lots of reasons why it will be beneficial. Lots as to why it will be
important.

...but *zero* reasons as to why it would be _necessary_.

*

Examine your own line of work. Suppose you die in a traffic accident on
your way to work. Do you consider that to be a necessary risk? The
supreme sacrifice for your company?

Or do you take it as an accepted risk needed to put food on the table?
If so, you could lessen the risk by moving out to the country, or make
any number of lifestyle changes all geared to minimizing the risk. But
maybe your job is glamorous or cool...maybe you get to associate with
astronauts all the time and that justifies the risks you take.

By extension, the astronauts justify the risk they take for their own
personal rewards. Perhaps it's the fame and notoriety, the prestige,
the chance to experience something that few people on earth will ever
know...

They assume a larger risk than you (or I) to achieve something greater,
and are able to justify it to themselves (and their family). Of course,
I would be incorrect if astronauts are resigning from NASA in droves
following the Columbia accident. I wonder how many mission commanders
turned down the next flight before they settled on Eileen Collins.


Tangentially...

I have a friend who is a Navy test pilot who made the Navy cut and is
preparing for his NASA interview for this next astronaut class. In my
last conversation with him, I chose not to ask him how his family
feels about the whole thing. If he gets selected, I will be very
happy for him. And I hope his family will be as well. And I hope he
has a safe and long career.


Perhaps you should warn him about the dangers of spaceflight or ask him
to receive therapy before he needlessly risks his life.


~ CT

(Stuf4)

I prefer science ruled by reason rather than majority. Arguments
rooted in emotion can trend toward Spanish Inquisition techniques at
the expense of science.

You're trying to deflect attention from your deficiencies by a) changing the
focus of the issue, and b) crying that you're being abused, just because you're
being help to some standards of logic and proof. I'm sure we're all very sad
for you.

If NASA does launch seven astronauts on STS-114, then it will be a
departure from previous strategies of "ramping up" the crew size
(along with the post-51L example cited, safety concerns from the very
beginning of the shuttle program could be discussed).

There is no such doctrine that I am aware of.

Whatever the case, I am sure, Dave, that you recall how you chose to
continually harrass me with your "insider information" that Ilan Ramon
was a Mission Specialist in blatant rejection of my position that he
was a PS.

CB in fact had him tagged as an MS on several internal documents. That is a
fact. The fact that he was always functionally a PS, and eventually flew with
that designation, does not change that fact.

If some other member had posted the comment:

"The current plan is for a crew of 6-7."

...we can imagine how such a comment would be rebutted with persistent
harrassment along the lines of:

"If you can't back up your statement with verifiable facts, then
withdraw the
comment."

It's sad enough to see no hesitation in your repeated attacks, but on
top of that you don't even hold your own posts to the "standards" you
demand from others.

For God's sake, see the Oberg article that this thread began with. He and I
know many of the same people from which this information arose.

And stop being so purposefully dense.

I will be glad to reconsider the position I have offered here
regarding STS-114 crew size, but I expect to see more progress
accomplished through reason rather than abuse.

You have never in the history of this forum reconsidered anything. You just
weasel out of previous stances, ignore that you stated them, or try to change
the subject.

That's not abuse, that's pointing out your pathetic passive-aggressive tactics.

DF

stmx3 writes:

But is what NASA's doing now worth dying for?

It's a free country, so that's the call of the astronauts. If they
don't want to fly, they can always resign.

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

(Hallerb) writes:
And whats thew point of outting a teacher n a development vehicle?

Should teachers be test pilots? Thats what you want??

It's a free country, let the teacher decide. Barbara Morgan refused
to let the Teacher in Space program die. She's now a Mission
Specialist (an astronaut), not just a Payload Specialist (used in the
past by congressman, foreign dignatiries, and etc.).

It's clear what Barbara wants to do. Why do you want to stop her?
Does it really send the wrong message, or are you afraid of the
message?

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

(Hallerb) writes:

I am not a troll just a source of reason. Read the investigation report, its
all about minimizing risks, not adding new ones as exhuibitions.

At this point it's less of an exhibition and more about continuing to
let Mission Specialists fly on the shuttle. This will happen when you
have a crew bigger than two. You only need one Commander and one
Pilot. After that, you start filling the crew with Mission
Specialists. Without them, you can't get much work done on a mission.

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

jeff findley wrote:
stmx3 writes:

But is what NASA's doing now worth dying for?


It's a free country, so that's the call of the astronauts. If they
don't want to fly, they can always resign.

Jeff

I'll agree with that. But what if I rephrase my question:
"Is what NASA's doing worth spending billiones of dollars for?"

From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:

I would be interested to hear how astronauts convince their families
that doing laps around the planet is *necessary*.

If I were an astronaut and I were saying goodbye to my family just
before launch, I could think of lots of reasons why it will be fun.
Lots of reasons why it will be beneficial. Lots as to why it will be
important.

...but *zero* reasons as to why it would be _necessary_.

Examine your own line of work. Suppose you die in a traffic accident on
your way to work. Do you consider that to be a necessary risk? The
supreme sacrifice for your company?

If I was riding a donor cycle without a helmet (or *with*, for that
matter), then yes, that was an unnecessary risk.

If I was driving a car, and that I opted to pay for leather upholstery
instead of anti-lock brakes, then yes again, that was an unnecessary
risk.

There are safer ways to get to work (a necessary activity, for any
self-reliant person).

Or do you take it as an accepted risk needed to put food on the table?

(Again, the mode of transportation chosen is important to take into
consideration.)

If so, you could lessen the risk by moving out to the country, or make
any number of lifestyle changes all geared to minimizing the risk. But
maybe your job is glamorous or cool...maybe you get to associate with
astronauts all the time and that justifies the risks you take.

By extension, the astronauts justify the risk they take for their own
personal rewards. Perhaps it's the fame and notoriety, the prestige,
the chance to experience something that few people on earth will ever
know...

You are arguing matters of degree. I understand your point. Once
again, I'd like to know how an astronaut sells this view to their
family when kissing them goodbye. Consider how distressed John
Glenn's family members were about him taking a "joyride" in the
shuttle.

....and they are all fully grown adults who are no longer dependent on
him.

They assume a larger risk than you (or I) to achieve something greater,
and are able to justify it to themselves (and their family). Of course,
I would be incorrect if astronauts are resigning from NASA in droves
following the Columbia accident. I wonder how many mission commanders
turned down the next flight before they settled on Eileen Collins.

"Something greater". Here is the crux of the argument. Certainly
going four wheeling on the Moon is "something greater". Where you and
I differ here is the risk/benefit ration of LEO flight. It has to be
a great view, for sure.

But please consider all the test pilots who never bother sending NASA
an application because they are *not interested*. It's not worth it
to them. Lot's of fun can be had within the confines of the Earth's
stratosphere.

I've heard a story that an Apollo moonwalker advised his son against
applying to NASA. He said that it's much more fun to just fly jets.
His son became an F-16 pilot (and was married to a woman who flew with
the USAF Thunderbirds).

Tangentially...

I have a friend who is a Navy test pilot who made the Navy cut and is
preparing for his NASA interview for this next astronaut class. In my
last conversation with him, I chose not to ask him how his family
feels about the whole thing. If he gets selected, I will be very
happy for him. And I hope his family will be as well. And I hope he
has a safe and long career.


Perhaps you should warn him about the dangers of spaceflight or ask him
to receive therapy before he needlessly risks his life.

I'm sure his wife is doing plenty of that already.

(And I'm sure that she is also doing her best to represent the
interests of their not yet born children.)


~ CT