MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

Craig Fink wrote:
stmx3 wrote:


Craig Fink wrote:

Hallerb wrote:



Barbara Morgan on NBC tonight. She still want's to go, even after an
accident and a disaster. The big difference between then and now, she
knows what buttons to push now, instead of what buttons not to push.


Bad idea if theres another accident. NASA is flying a research vehicle
not a operational vehicle.



Worst idea, what if there is another accident and she hasn't flown yet.
It would really reflect badly on our society. As the song goes, "the land
of the free and the home of the brave."


But *why*? Why do you think she should fly?


I'd really like to see what her lessons are like, what kind of
demonstrations she has and what the interaction with students on the ground
is like. It has great potential, and it'll be interesting to see how it
turns out.


Is it because NASA has
dangled a potential flight in front of her for so long?


No, more because of her quite persistence all these years.


To close the
circle left open from the loss of Christa McAuliffe?


Very much so, I've alway felt she should have flown on STS-26, or at least
been offer a position on the crew.


To show that
teachers belong in space?


That too, and really anyone else who want to have the experience.


To open doors?


Yes...


All of the above?


I agree with you, that it should be treated as a research vehicle, but
Barbara Morgan knows this and is still willing to fly on it. If she is
brave enough to fly, she should be free to do so.

Barabra Morgan in 2004!!!!

Craig Fink



It was your posts about Barbara Morgan that led me to start the
"Relevance of the Educator Astronaut" thread. Unfortunately, it
degenerated (and I'm partially to blame) into something else.

I don't like the "classroom in space" image you portray, although I know
she'll have her plate full with other things. And I would like to think
that sending a teacher to space would open doors for other professions.

I've listed pros and cons elsewhere and had relatively few comments.
Personally, I'm still on the fence, but I do have one foot on the
opposing side from you (expensive, needlessly risky, questionable
benefit, etc.)

But, I appreciate your enthusiasm, your campaign manager style, and all
those exclamation marks!(!!)

In article , stmx3 wrote:

But *why*? Why do you think she should fly? Is it because NASA has
dangled a potential flight in front of her for so long? To close the
circle left open from the loss of Christa McAuliffe? To show that
teachers belong in space? To open doors?

Alternately, because she's - to the best of my knowledge - a perfectly
competent, experienced and qualified member of the astronaut pool who
was assigned to STS-118 before anything happened with Columbia.
Admittedly, she got into the astronaut corps through an unusual
recruitment program, but I honstly fail to see how that's relevant to
put her on a different flight to the one she's been training for,
because someone has a bright idea that there might be PR value in it, or
that someone nebulously "should" be on this flight or that.

[Crew assignments have been shuffled a bit since I last checked, though,
so she might not be flying exactly then. But the point still stands...]

--
-Andrew Gray

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:49:31 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:


Not going to happen in 2004. Barbara's still on 118. The new 114
crewmembers have been named, and Barbara isn't one of them.

NASA must be keeping the news to itself. I've seen nothing about the
new STS-114 (or STS-121) crews in the usual Space news sites this
week.

Brian

From: "serge"

i haven't seen that list
where can i find it
its not on the spaceflight nasa site....

114: Collins, J. Kelly, Noguvhi, Robinson, Camarda, Lawrence, A. Thomas

121: Lindsey, M. Kelly, Fossum, Noriega, plus (at the moment) Exp-10 Padalka,
Fincke, Kononenko

Dave

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:49:31 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Not going to happen in 2004. Barbara's still on 118. The new 114
crewmembers have been named, and Barbara isn't one of them.

NASA must be keeping the news to itself. I've seen nothing about the
new STS-114 (or STS-121) crews in the usual Space news sites this
week.

NASA hasn't announced it yet. Oberg posted a link to the names yesterday on
Alan Boyle's blog:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/750150.asp?0dm=T29BT


--
JRF

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

Andrew Gray wrote in
:

In article , stmx3 wrote:

But *why*? Why do you think she should fly? Is it because NASA has
dangled a potential flight in front of her for so long? To close the
circle left open from the loss of Christa McAuliffe? To show that
teachers belong in space? To open doors?

Alternately, because she's - to the best of my knowledge - a perfectly
competent, experienced and qualified member of the astronaut pool who
was assigned to STS-118 before anything happened with Columbia.
Admittedly, she got into the astronaut corps through an unusual
recruitment program, but I honstly fail to see how that's relevant to
put her on a different flight to the one she's been training for,
because someone has a bright idea that there might be PR value in it, or
that someone nebulously "should" be on this flight or that.

[Crew assignments have been shuffled a bit since I last checked, though,
so she might not be flying exactly then. But the point still stands...]

Right. In particular, a combination of factors (HST flight moving earlier
in the manifest, installation of 3-string GPS on OV-105 pushing back
Endeavour's return-to-flight) could result in the need to move the ISS crew
rotation currently scheduled for 119/15A up to 118/13A.1. In that case, the
three ISS crewmembers would bump the two non-EVA MSes on 118 (Nowak and
Morgan) to 119.

--
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 23 Oct 2003 23:48:35 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Andrew Gray wrote in
:

[Crew assignments have been shuffled a bit since I last checked, though,
so she might not be flying exactly then. But the point still stands...]

Right. In particular, a combination of factors (HST flight moving earlier
in the manifest, installation of 3-string GPS on OV-105 pushing back
Endeavour's return-to-flight) could result in the need to move the ISS crew
rotation currently scheduled for 119/15A up to 118/13A.1. In that case, the
three ISS crewmembers would bump the two non-EVA MSes on 118 (Nowak and
Morgan) to 119.

Not only that, but 3/4 of the crew that was announced for STS-121 (Lindsey, M.
Kelley, and Noriega) had previously been assigned to STS-119:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/sts-119/

Nobody has mentioned that Gernhardt was left off the reassigned crew. Based on
historical precedent, it is in all likelihood due to his familiarity with the
EVA procedures for the S6 array install on 15A. The EV MSs are often assigned
way ahead of the other orbiter crewmembers so they can get early EVA training.
When we see a new STS-119 crew, Gernhardt will be on it along with a new CDR,
PLT, MS, and Expedition crew.

--
Michael R. Grabois # http://chili.cjb.net # http://wizardimps.blogspot.com
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96