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