Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:11:18 GMT, "Peter Smith"
wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote...

Mary Shafer wrote:

If you're not doing stupid things, you're not doing any things.


Wouldn't that make a great motto in Latin? :-D

"Ad astra per st00pida."

....How about "Ad Astra Per Pat"?

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote in message
...
in article , at
wrote on 7/1/04 8:52 AM:

Okay, one more post.

Adopting the perceived tactics of the enemy merely escalates hostilities.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, LaDonna.
Use your killfile. Stick to the issues. Either that or your behavior is
more
reprehensible than the behavior you're trying to correct.

rl

delurk

Damn, but you've been missed. Good to see you back.

James

lurk

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
...And wearing nothing but a nightie or a bathrobe too, I bet :-P

Rhonda if DeLand, Mary if D.C...

On 2004-07-01, Pat Flannery wrote:


Herb Schaltegger wrote:



I sent you an email yesterday, too, Pat. Did you get it?


Off to the spam control area I shall go.
(510 spam messages and 336 virus containing emails later)
That felt good!
Was this the one about the Gmail?
I get my mail account as part of my internet service, so I can't see any
real advantage in this setup.

Maildrop.

As it stands, I'm surrently operating... uh... three mailboxes. One
employers, family, friends have, I use for online transactions, a
mailing list or two, but really nothing "public" (it's not published on
usenet, f'rex). The total spamload on this is, at a guess, the sort of
load I got in about 1996-7; probably single-digits-per-month, most of
the time.

This is the only one that actually gets onto my machine. The other two
are webmail services; one from Hotmail, one from Gmail - the address
I use on Usenet redirects to these, and it means I have a handy
high-capacity mailbox to get all the junk - but I read it daily, so
nothing critical tends to get missed. And anecdotally, the gmail spam
filters are much more effective than the Hotmail ones ;-)

Virtually everything I get that is spam or viral goes to a safe,
seperate webmail service, with nice chunky filters on it... it's rather
efficient to maintian more than one mailbox, I find. YMMV, as always g

[For simplicity's sake, I'm transitioning from hotmail to gmail, so it's
simpler than it looks - or will be, soon]

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote:

This is the only one that actually gets onto my machine. The other two
are webmail services; one from Hotmail, one from Gmail - the address
I use on Usenet redirects to these, and it means I have a handy
high-capacity mailbox to get all the junk - but I read it daily, so
nothing critical tends to get missed. And anecdotally, the gmail spam
filters are much more effective than the Hotmail ones ;-)


Our service uses an automated spam remover which is highly effective; I
get around one spam message to my mailbox per day, which is something I
can handle- the rest get sent over to the spam control system where they
are held for two weeks before being erased; there I can go through them
two hundred at a time and look for anything of interest.
Unfortunately, the virus infected ones can only be gone through ten at a
time at the moment, so that gets a bit time consuming.

Pat

Andrew Gray wrote:
Maildrop.

As it stands, I'm surrently operating... uh... three mailboxes. One
employers, family, friends have, I use for online transactions, a
mailing list or two, but really nothing "public" (it's not published on
usenet, f'rex). The total spamload on this is, at a guess, the sort of
load I got in about 1996-7; probably single-digits-per-month, most of
the time.

This is the only one that actually gets onto my machine. The other two
are webmail services; one from Hotmail, one from Gmail - the address
I use on Usenet redirects to these, and it means I have a handy
high-capacity mailbox to get all the junk - but I read it daily, so
nothing critical tends to get missed. And anecdotally, the gmail spam
filters are much more effective than the Hotmail ones ;-)

Virtually everything I get that is spam or viral goes to a safe,
seperate webmail service, with nice chunky filters on it... it's rather
efficient to maintian more than one mailbox, I find. YMMV, as always g

[For simplicity's sake, I'm transitioning from hotmail to gmail, so it's
simpler than it looks - or will be, soon]

One of my favorite tools is spamgourmet. You set it up so that incoming
email is forwarded to your real email address. Then when you need to
give someone your email address and you're worried about them spreading
it around (or selling it), you give them a virtual email address instead
of your real one. Everything sent to that virtual address gets
forwarded to your real address (and it's formatted normally, not as a
typical "forwarded" email). For a time. The beauty is that each
virtual address is only good for a limited number of uses. After that
you can re-load the virtual address so it will forward more emails, or
let it expire into oblivion taking all the spam sent to it along for the
ride.

It's very convenient as well. These virtual email addresses are created
_on_the_fly_ so once it's set up you don't have to go through a big
hassle to use them. You just make them up as you go along. It's like
having a free lifetime supply of temporary email addresses!

It may not be everyone's cup of tea but from their statistics page it
has prevented tens of thousands of spam turdlets from entering my inbox
over the last few years.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

OK, I can't tell from this particular page WHO posted the part of this
message I'm about to answer, so I apologize for not knowing where it
came from, but here goes:
You're right. "Adopting the perceived tactics of the enemy merely
escalates hostilities." I try to refrain, but sometimes I try to amuse
myself to keep from throwing the monitor across the room! lol
I'll try harder. :-)
LaDonna

wrote in message
...
I apologize for not knowing where it
came from

In that case, you have a *lot* of apologizing to do.

In article , bp201
@optonline.net says...
One of my favorite tools is spamgourmet.

That's a new one for me. Thanks.

For certain uses, www.mailinator.com is even easier.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

Doug... wrote in message ...
In article ,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy... _facility.org says...
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:14:55 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

Actually, I was rebutting the assertion made by LaDonna that the RCS
thrusters actually fired during the test.

...What gets me is that she actually thinks that anyone would fire any
sort of reaction engine that produces such toxic gasses in a
semi-enclosed environment such as the area around the CM during the
plugs-out test.

Actually, I *think* that what scott and his followers are referring to
is a Service Module RCS hot-fire. IIRC, even on Block I capsules, they
never did a hot fire on the CM's RCS until fairly shortly before
separating from the SM.

snip

Bottom Line: The RCS fuel is nasty stuff, and there's no way in
****ing hell that it would have been tested on the ground as LaDip****
or "scott" claims it was. In fact, the tanks weren't even fueled up
that far in advance of the launch, which was still, IIRC, almost a
month away. Even if they were, doing a test firing like that would
have a) been hazardous if not fatal to the Pad Crew, and b) would have
contaminated at best the entire White Room and adjacent work areas.

Remember, though, that what was later called the "wet CDDT" (the full
dress rehearsal of the countdown, including propellant loading, etc.)
had just been completed on AS-204 a few days prior to the fatal Plugs-
Out Test. (The Schirra crew was inside CSM 012 for portions of that
earlier test.) If I'm not mistaken, the wet CDDT included the fueling
of all the booster and spacecraft systems (including the CSM's
cryogenics, the SPS propellants and the RCS propellants). I know that,
once you loaded the hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide fuels, you had a finite
remaining lifetime of the propulsion systems, since the fuels were
corrosive to the seals. What I'm not at all certain of is whether or
not the SPS and RCS tanks were emptied and re-filled between the CDDT
and the actual launch. The cryogenics were definitely emptied and later
refilled -- does anyone have a definitive answer for the SPS and RCS
tanks?

The point is that the RCS tanks were indeed filled for the earlier wet
CDDT, and that they *may* have still been filled during the Plugs-Out
Test. But since they weren't going to retract the White Room or the
access platforms for the Plugs-Out Test, but still wanted to exercise
the procedures for the hot fire test, the RCS was disabled and the hand
controllers wired into an RCS response simulator for the Plugs-Out Test.
Since the S-11 switch and the hand controllers (among other things) all
fed into the wiring that was redirected to the response simulator, there
is *absolutely* no way that any manipulation of them could *possibly*
have caused any response of any kind back in the SM.

Doug


Doug, you've alleged with an authoritative air of certainty that "the
RCS was disabled and the hand controllers wired into an RCS response
simulator for the Plugs-Out Test." If you expect us to believe this,
surely you owe us a detailed and responsible explanation of the
electrical route followed by the crew commands to/from this "RCS
response simulator," stating precisely where it was located relative
to the crew and the CM umbilical.

John Maxson