MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

Dear Haller,

You were recently seen feeding a troll on this thread. If you continue to
do so, it will pollute this thread and it will quickly degrade to nothing

I stand by my statement. At this point shuttle is a research vehicle! A very
risky one at that. Barb, and I have met her should fly. But not at this time.

Its not about her. Its about nasa going back to PR flights. Barb is one of
those.

I dont want to see another teacher in space die. Thats what she really is.
Teacher in space, with a astronaut job in case she dies. Before Columbia many
felt flying was safe. I think we all got a wake up call that its very risky.

I will reduce my posting oin this. Although people call me a troll for my
safety concerns BEFORE cloumbia.

BTW I support fully Barb getting a seat on the soyuz. since it appears somewhat
safer and yhas launch boost escape.

Stuf4 wrote:

From Hallerb:
I shudder at the effect of another generation watching more deaths of
teachers in space.

Crew should be test pilots ONLY!

Strange to think of all of Christa's and Barbara's old students who
now have kids of their own. I wonder if these parents will have them
watch live TV to see the latest teacher-in-space blast off.



Hi CT,

We are all born into the world inocent and ignorant. Nothing is certain in
life execpt one thing. If we live long enough each and every one of us must
confront our own physical mortality. Usually, during the ages that a child
is in grades K-12. To each of us this reality come in a different form,
whether it is a relative or hero, every parent and every child must work
through this one certainty in life. It is how we work through these tragic
event that effects how the child will handle this event in the future, as
it will occur over and over again if the child has a long life.

To me, it seems that NASA has done exactly the wrong thing after the
Challenger Accident. Instead of explaining risks and rewards, and an
individual's right to accept these risk in life to do the things that they
believe are important, they pulled back from the frontier.

Barbara Morgan believe that what she is doing is important and is willing
to take the risk.

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

http://www.spacekids.com/astronauts/morgan_000714.html

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

Craig Fink

Hallerb wrote:


Dear Haller,

You were recently seen feeding a troll on this thread. If you continue to
do so, it will pollute this thread and it will quickly degrade to nothing

I stand by my statement. At this point shuttle is a research vehicle! A
very risky one at that. Barb, and I have met her should fly. But not at
this time.

Its not about her. Its about nasa going back to PR flights. Barb is one of
those.

I dont want to see another teacher in space die. Thats what she really is.
Teacher in space, with a astronaut job in case she dies. Before Columbia
many felt flying was safe. I think we all got a wake up call that its very
risky.

I will reduce my posting oin this. Although people call me a troll for my
safety concerns BEFORE cloumbia.

BTW I support fully Barb getting a seat on the soyuz. since it appears
somewhat safer and yhas launch boost escape.

But it is about her. She has made a choice and wishes to fly and teach in
space. It's a mutual arrangement with NASA where both parties should
receive something from the deal. NASA has already received much of their
end of the bargain, while she has not. They have already had 18+ years of
PR without paying for it. I can't see NASA receiving any PR by buying her a
ticket on a Soyuz, it's not going to happen.

Personally, I'd like to see the US return to Capitalism wrt to space, then
NASA could purchase her a ticket to the Space Station on a US built
commercial vehicle. That's not likely to happen either. NASA is a
government monopoly on human space travel in this country, and that is how
they like it. Funding depends on the "Disney World" (visitor's center)
generated "Buck Rogers" glorification of the astronaut corps. No Buck
Rogers, no Bucks. Allowing private enterprise and commercial space travel
endangers this gravy train.

But as far as Barbara Morgan is concerned, the choice to fly is hers and
hers alone, and I support her choice and her acceptance of the risk
involved, whatever it is, no matter how bad NASA management might have been
or continues to be. Or, no matter how bad or unsafe the Shuttle might be,
it's her choice to accept the risk if she wants to.

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/f...2002-036.shtml

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

Craig Fink

20 million people were killed last year by drunk drivers. How was
simply being out on the street worth that? I just think way too much
is being made of seven people who died doing a job they volunteered
for. I doubt they would want us to pull back from space and quit. They
were not quitters.
--
Gene Seibel
http://pad39a.com - Who valued life more highly, the aviators who
spent it on the art they loved, or these misers who doled it out like
pennies through their antlike days? I decided that if I could fly for
ten years before I was killed in a crash, it would be a worthwhile
trade for an ordinary lifetime. Charles Lindbergh



Gene Seibel wrote:
I shudder at the effect on young minds, with no interest in space,
science, exploration, or anything else that challanges their mind, of
watching thousands of murders on TV during their lifetime. They need
to know that SOMETHING is worth dying for, and it's not a pair of
Nikes.

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

--
Gene Seibel
http://pad39a.com/
Because I fly, I envy no one.


[snip all after]

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).

--
-Andrew Gray

From Craig Fink:
Stuf4 wrote:

Strange to think of all of Christa's and Barbara's old students who
now have kids of their own. I wonder if these parents will have them
watch live TV to see the latest teacher-in-space blast off.

We are all born into the world inocent and ignorant. Nothing is certain in
life execpt one thing. If we live long enough each and every one of us must
confront our own physical mortality. Usually, during the ages that a child
is in grades K-12. To each of us this reality come in a different form,
whether it is a relative or hero, every parent and every child must work
through this one certainty in life. It is how we work through these tragic
event that effects how the child will handle this event in the future, as
it will occur over and over again if the child has a long life.

To me, it seems that NASA has done exactly the wrong thing after the
Challenger Accident. Instead of explaining risks and rewards, and an
individual's right to accept these risk in life to do the things that they
believe are important, they pulled back from the frontier.

Barbara Morgan believe that what she is doing is important and is willing
to take the risk.

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

http://www.spacekids.com/astronauts/morgan_000714.html

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, Craig. I'm glad to
see NASA preparing to fly Barbara Morgan, though my level of
enthusiasm pales in comparison to yours!

I'm ok with Barbara waiting until 2005, especially if NASA uses that
extra time to give her a safer ride.


~ CT

From Michael Grabois:
On 25 Sep 2003 20:52:33 -0700, (Stuf4) wrote:

From James Oberg:
Don't miss this 'insider document' report.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/970180.asp?0dm=C25AT

From crew photo caption:

"The core group for the next shuttle mission renames unchanged: from
left, Soichi Noguchi, commander Eileen Collins, Steve Robinson and Jim
Kelly. But the three other slots have been emptied to to make room for
those with specialized skills needed for the flight's new
responsibilities."


~ ~ ~ Rub text with lemon juice to reveal the non-PC caption ~ ...

"But the three other slots have been kept empty to minimize the number
of funerals in case NASA overlooked something else."

Man, you really had to work at being THIS big an asshole.

Of course, the other three slots were emptied because the Expedition 7 crew (or
at least 2/3 of them) are already on the Space Station and 114 won't be a crew
rotation mission, YOU STUPID ****!

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

My understanding is that crew size for -114 is being limited due
primarily to safety concerns. Let's not forget that in the aftermath
of -51L, NASA didn't fly anything more than a crew of 5 until the
1990s!

In launch order:

STS-61A - Crew of 8 (incl civilian PS x3)
STS-61B - Crew of 7 (incl civilian PS x2)
STS-61C - Crew of 7 (incl member of Congress)
STS-51L - Crew of 7 (incl schoolteacher)

STS-26 - Crew of 5
STS-27 - Crew of 5
STS-29 - Crew of 5
STS-30 - Crew of 5
STS-28 - Crew of 5
STS-34 - Crew of 5
STS-33 - Crew of 5
STS-32 - Crew of 5
STS-36 - Crew of 5
STS-31 - Crew of 5
STS-41 - Crew of 5
STS-38 - Crew of 5

NASA didn't launch a crew larger than 5, nor was another civilian
payload specialist launched into orbit until *13* flights (!) after
Challenger.


There was no space station to confuse the issue back then.


~ CT

(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.

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.

DF

On 28 Sep 2003 19:03:55 GMT, ojunk (Dave Fowler)
wrote:

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

Dude, just put him in your killfile. He's nothing but a troll and not
worth the time.

From Michael Grabois:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:05:10 -0400, "Lynndel Humphreys"
wrote:

Capcom (guess they don't use that term anymore --anyway) needs to put the
astronauts (cosmonauts) beddie bye reading old fables beginning with
Chicken Little, Better than the wake up calls.

The person in MCC who talks with the crew is still called "Capcom" based on
historical precedent, even if there's no capsule anymore.

It's interesting to observe OSP morphing into "OSC":
http://www.ospnews.com/photos/OSP_il...ion2_HiRes.jpg

So this particular NASA abbreviation is like bellbottoms: wear it
long enough and someday it will come back into fashion.


~ CT