|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!! ( MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents)
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!! ( MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents)
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!! ( MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASAShuttle Documents)
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?" |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents
From LooseChanj:
C'mon stuffie...what's with the musical ISP's? Afraid someone will track you down if you stick to one too long? I've never paid any ISP fees in my life. I've always liked the idea of getting broadband into my house. While I have serious reservations regarding AOL business practices, I decided that their offer to set me up with cable broadband for two months at no charge was worth trying out. My expectation was that AOL would not have reformed enough as a company to convince me to stay with them. Assuming that I would terminate AOL after the free trial, my expectation was to then check out alternative broadband ISPs. In the next few weeks, I will need to make a decision on which way to go. I may check out Earthlink next. I've been impressed with what I've seen from them so far. I'm not looking forward to reaching into my wallet for internet service after all these years, but this broadband experience has been excellent so far. I may decide that it is worth paying for. A strong alternative is to use my new 3G cellphone as a modem at no extra cost, with the benefit of being totally mobile with my laptop. I'll probably end up with some combination of cable/cell conectivity. * For anyone who may be critical of the flexibility I have enjoyed, please note that every single Usenet post I have made -without exception- has been through GoogleGroups. From day 1, I have been inspired with how Google has conducted themselves as a company. My impressions are that they uphold the highest standards of conduct for themselves, and I expect that they would carry that over in how they handle Usenet complaints. I have never gotten any feedback from them over the years on anything I've posted. But with the flood of hostility at sci.space, it's easy for me to imagine that dozens of complaints have been filed. My expectation is that all complaints were thoroughly investigated and I would not be surprised to learn that the result of such investigations was a counter-complaint by Google against the ISP of those issuing the complaints. * Google has singlehandedly provided a bedrock foundation for the world-wide web. GoogleGroups has worked for me since its inception as an outstanding service. I have few complaints at all about them. Even when they introduced advertisements, they did so with integrity. The biggest problem I've ever had with them is a problem that started a few days ago. For some reason unknown to me, date/time tags seem to have gotten jumbled and many threads are listed as unavailable. These problems had been noted on another thread, and I posted a response saying that everything seemed to be ok. But then today the same problem was happening again. Knowing the quality of work behind Google, I expect that this problem will be solved soon (if indeed the problem is at Google and not external). ....and if the folks at Google (or any other service I happen to use) have a problem with anything I do, I expect that they will tell me about it. ~ CT |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents
On 28 Sep 2003 11:39:41 -0700, (Stuf4) wrote:
From Michael Grabois: On 25 Sep 2003 20:52:33 -0700, (Stuf4) wrote: 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." 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. OK, let's check the facts. 1. "STS-114 was to have been the seventeenth station flight (ULF1). It would have carried the Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and carried out a crew rotation (replacing the ISS EO-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit with the Malenchenko, Kaleri, and Lu." http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts114.htm 2. Because the shuttle was unavailable, the EXP-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit took a Soyuz down. 3. Because the shuttle was unavailable, Malenchenko and Lu launched on a Soyuz and became the EXP-7 crew. Kaleri will fly on a later mission. Thus, the other three slots on STS-114 (Collins, Kelly, Robinson, and Noguchi remain on the mission) opened up to whoever will be assigned. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? My understanding is that crew size for -114 is being limited due primarily to safety concerns. Whatever it is, you don't understand. At least two crewmembers will be added to the 114 crew (at least one experienced EVA and one RMS crewmember). 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. In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut." Let's look at what the manifest would have been post-51L, and the number of crewmembers for those with full crews assigned: 61E Astro 1 7 crew (payload became 7-crew STS-35; original crew moved to STS-28 and 35) 61F Ulysses 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-41; original crew moved to STS-26) 61G Galileo 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-30; original crew moved to STS-30) 61H comm sat 7 crew (payload cancelled; some of original crew moved to STS-29) 62A DOD 7 crew (DOD payload; most of original crew moved to STS-27) 61M TDRS 6 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-26?; original crew disbanded) 61J HST 5 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-31; original crew moved to STS-31) 61N DOD 6 crew (DOD payload; most of original crew moved to STS-28) 61I LDEF 6 crew (payload retrieve moved to STS-32; original crew disbanded) 61K EOS/ATLAS 8 crew (payload became STS-45; some of original crew moved to STS-45) That's an average of 6 crew per flight. The larger crews were reduced post-Challenger because the missions were cut back from the "let's do everything" to "let's do one thing" and they didn't need as many crewmembers. As the pre-Challenger backlog emptied out, they were able to do the longer research missions that required Payload Specialists and bigger crews. For you to simply quote the number of crewmembers without context is disingenuous - and par for the course for you. What was that about "lies, damn lies, and statistics"? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents
From Michael Grabois:
As with the original caption in question, I am having difficulty following the logic behind that statement (amidst the anger). Please check your facts. OK, let's check the facts. 1. "STS-114 was to have been the seventeenth station flight (ULF1). It would have carried the Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and carried out a crew rotation (replacing the ISS EO-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit with the Malenchenko, Kaleri, and Lu." http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts114.htm 2. Because the shuttle was unavailable, the EXP-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit took a Soyuz down. 3. Because the shuttle was unavailable, Malenchenko and Lu launched on a Soyuz and became the EXP-7 crew. Kaleri will fly on a later mission. Thus, the other three slots on STS-114 (Collins, Kelly, Robinson, and Noguchi remain on the mission) opened up to whoever will be assigned. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? ....I'd say that we're both on the same page so far. My understanding is that crew size for -114 is being limited due primarily to safety concerns. Whatever it is, you don't understand. At least two crewmembers will be added to the 114 crew (at least one experienced EVA and one RMS crewmember). I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on -114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary risk. There is a reason why STS-1 only put the lives of 2 astronauts at risk. And there's a reason why NASA scaled back from their crew size of 7 (/8) after -51L. 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. In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut." You are now insulting me for providing cold facts that anyone can easily verify. Let's look at what the manifest would have been post-51L, and the number of crewmembers for those with full crews assigned: 61E Astro 1 7 crew (payload became 7-crew STS-35; original crew moved to STS-28 and 35) 61F Ulysses 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-41; original crew moved to STS-26) 61G Galileo 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-30; original crew moved to STS-30) 61H comm sat 7 crew (payload cancelled; some of original crew moved to STS-29) 62A DOD 7 crew (DOD payload; most of original crew moved to STS-27) 61M TDRS 6 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-26?; original crew disbanded) 61J HST 5 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-31; original crew moved to STS-31) 61N DOD 6 crew (DOD payload; most of original crew moved to STS-28) 61I LDEF 6 crew (payload retrieve moved to STS-32; original crew disbanded) 61K EOS/ATLAS 8 crew (payload became STS-45; some of original crew moved to STS-45) That's an average of 6 crew per flight. The larger crews were reduced post-Challenger because the missions were cut back from the "let's do everything" to "let's do one thing" and they didn't need as many crewmembers. As the pre-Challenger backlog emptied out, they were able to do the longer research missions that required Payload Specialists and bigger crews. For you to simply quote the number of crewmembers without context is disingenuous - and par for the course for you. I don't see what can be construed as disingenuous about adding hard facts to this discussion. The facts I offered are irrefutable. Anyone is free to draw their own conclusions from the raw data of crew sizes from those 16 missions. What was that about "lies, damn lies, and statistics"? I posted -data-. When you start crunching an average of actual data (let alone an average of predicted non-event data) then you are venturing into the realm of -statistics-. ~ CT |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents
Stuf4 wrote:
I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on -114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary risk. The first mission will have a lot of non-ISS tasks to accomplish to test all the new procedures etc. And then it must perform ISS tasks. The number of crewmembers should be dictated by what needs to be acocmplished and how many people are needed to get all the tasks done in the time limit of a mission. STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size ? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents
From Jack O'Neil:
Stuf4 wrote: I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on -114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary risk. The first mission will have a lot of non-ISS tasks to accomplish to test all the new procedures etc. And then it must perform ISS tasks. The number of crewmembers should be dictated by what needs to be acocmplished and how many people are needed to get all the tasks done in the time limit of a mission. STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size ? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission. STS-114 is more than just post-major mx. It is post catastrophy. As with post-51L, NASA is once again in a position of having to prove competence. If you happened to be the owner of a taxicab business and you had a high frequency of tires falling off your cars followed by rollover or some other incidence of death of all passengers and drivers, there is a definite period of time after such catastrophy when confidence needs to be built back up. (But I'm open to considering alternative explanations as to why NASA scaled back to five member crews post-51L.) ~ 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 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
NEWS: NASA Targets March Launch for Space Shuttle - Reuters | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 8th 03 09:52 PM |
Risks | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 38 | July 26th 03 01:57 AM |
NYT: NASA Management Failings Are Linked to Shuttle Demise | Recom | Space Shuttle | 11 | July 14th 03 05:45 PM |
NASA: Gases Breached Wing of Shuttle Atlantis in 2000 | Rusty Barton | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 10th 03 01:27 AM |