IMPACT

In message , John
Beaderstadt writes
While reading in the bathroom on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:15:42 GMT, I saw
that Phil Wheeler had written:

Hmmm .. "perfectly doable" implies they will achieve 100% of the science
objectives.

All I intended was to explain that salvaging the purpose of the
mission is "perfectly doable," because contamination resulting from
the crash did not necessarily render the plates unreadable.

Given that they went to ludicrous measures using Hollywood stunt pilots
to try and snatch the thing from the air because the samples were so
fragile. And knowing just how devastating general dirt is to ultra trace
analysis I find it hard to believe that they will get all that much
reliable data from what remains of the samples.

No, there isn't. The pieces of the plates exist. The particles the
plates were designed to capture are embedded far more deeply into the
pieces than are the particles of the Utah dessert. The personnel who
are charged with examining the plate pieces know what they are doing.

Salvaging the mission is "perfectly doable." You're just going to
have to live with it.

Salvaging something from the mission is certainly doable. But they would
not have gone to such trouble to try and recover them intact and
isolated if there was not a very good reason to do so.

Or are you saying the bizarre helicopter chase landing was staged mainly
as a promotional stunt?

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

While reading in the bathroom on Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:43:25 +0100, I
saw that Martin Brown had written:

But they would
not have gone to such trouble to try and recover them intact and
isolated if there was not a very good reason to do so.

Did I say there wasn't? Please quote the exact passage and I will
gladly retract it; otherwise, everything I've said, stands.

The purpose of the probe was to collect solar particles and return
them to earth, which has been done. I have never disputed that they
have been returned in less-than-optimum condition, but those particles
are here and in scientists' hands, nonetheless, and can still be
examined.

I quite honestly don't know why so many people are apparently so
anxious to have the experiment declared a total failure. Perhaps it's
just more NASA-bashing.

Or are you saying the bizarre helicopter chase landing was staged mainly
as a promotional stunt?

Again, please cite where I say that the designed recovery method was
either unnecessary or over-engineering.

Bizarre? Mid-air recovery was an accepted technique in the Key Hole
days of the '60s, IIRC. Using Hollywood stunt pilots makes sense,
too, since they are presumably more in-practice than are military
pilots. Actually, calling them "Hollywood stunt pilots" is probably
just media simplification since I understand the men chosen for the
job also fight forest fires and, presumably, are areobaticists as
well. You know, the kind of pilots who get bored flying straight and
level. They sound like perfect choices.

What initially surprised me about it was the use of helicopters rather
than fixed-wing, what with thoughts of the downwash acting on the
parachute.


--------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable."


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

John Beaderstadt wrote:
I quite honestly don't know why so many people are apparently so
anxious to have the experiment declared a total failure. Perhaps it's
just more NASA-bashing.

No, I don't think it's NASA-bashing. I think they are interpreting your
"perfectly doable" as "possible to be done perfectly" (whereas I read it
to mean "no reason work can't be done"). Since it is clear to me that
Phil, at least, is reading "perfectly" differently than you, I must admit
it seems odd to me that you used it again in your previous post.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Brian Tung wrote:

John Beaderstadt wrote:

I quite honestly don't know why so many people are apparently so
anxious to have the experiment declared a total failure. Perhaps it's
just more NASA-bashing.


No, I don't think it's NASA-bashing. I think they are interpreting your
"perfectly doable" as "possible to be done perfectly" (whereas I read it
to mean "no reason work can't be done"). Since it is clear to me that
Phil, at least, is reading "perfectly" differently than you, I must admit
it seems odd to me that you used it again in your previous post.


Weighing in one last time, Brian's interpretation of my statement is
correct. I believe they will manage to acheive maybe 50% of the
intended science return -- maybe more -- and will claim more than they
acheive. And they will spend substantially more dollars than planned to
get even 50%. I take that to be far from perfect.

I am a NASA supporter. However, the UK article was great humor:-)

Phil

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:20:27 GMT, Phil Wheeler
wrote:



Brian Tung wrote:

John Beaderstadt wrote:

I quite honestly don't know why so many people are apparently so
anxious to have the experiment declared a total failure. Perhaps it's
just more NASA-bashing.


No, I don't think it's NASA-bashing. I think they are interpreting your
"perfectly doable" as "possible to be done perfectly" (whereas I read it
to mean "no reason work can't be done"). Since it is clear to me that
Phil, at least, is reading "perfectly" differently than you, I must admit
it seems odd to me that you used it again in your previous post.


Weighing in one last time, Brian's interpretation of my statement is
correct. I believe they will manage to acheive maybe 50% of the
intended science return -- maybe more -- and will claim more than they
acheive. And they will spend substantially more dollars than planned to
get even 50%. I take that to be far from perfect.

I am a NASA supporter. However, the UK article was great humor:-)

Phil

The Brits are quick to try to deflect criticism of their own failed
programs. Getting 50% of results back on a mission
is better than nothing.
-Rich

Richard wrote:


The Brits are quick to try to deflect criticism of their own failed
programs. Getting 50% of results back on a mission
is better than nothing.


Why the jingoism? How many failures have they had vs. NASA? The UK
really has no substantial space presence compared to Russia and the US
and ESA.