|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents
From Dave Fowler:
(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. Crying about being abused? How can you know that my comment was not bragging about using abusive Spanish Inquisition techniques myself? It appears that you and I both have a solid grasp on the individual level of abuse each of us is responsible for. 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. I've already cited pre/post-51L crew size. STS-1 is another safety focal point. Consider how many flights flew with a crew of 2 and how slowly NASA built confidence to increase the crew size to 7 (/8). It will be interesting to see how post-107 crew sizes will build in size over time. I'm not saying that it is impossible for a crew of 7 to fly on STS-114. The point is that NASA is showing indications that -114 crew size will be scaled back and that fits with past experience. And as previously noted, consider how ISS crew size was scaled back and how the members chosen were both unmarried with no children. 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. Making such a point once and then moving on would fit mature discussion. Continual hounding harrassment does not. Also, if I were the one who pointed out info on internal documents that turned out to be inaccurate, I would be diligent to follow that up by posting a correction promptly after learning about it. 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. (Here you have passed on an opportunity to add solid evidence to back up your position, and instead choose to insult once again.) 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. Just today I posted a correction to a view I posted yesterday. My understanding had been that the minimum number of CMGs required for attitude stabilization was 3. I posted the conflicting info that only 2 are required soon after I found it. That's not abuse, that's pointing out your pathetic passive-aggressive tactics. I'm not sure what is meant by your use of the term "passive-aggressive", but it's easy for me to recognize the masses here who use *aggressive-aggressive* tactics. ~ CT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents | James Oberg | Space Shuttle | 106 | October 24th 03 04:45 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
NASA: Gases Breached Wing of Shuttle Atlantis in 2000 | Rusty Barton | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 10th 03 01:27 AM |