A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Managers" cleared the shuttle???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 18th 06, 03:39 AM posted to sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Managers" cleared the shuttle???

Space shuttle set for July 1 lift-off

Nasa managers cleared the shuttle for lift-off even though
the agency’s top safety officer and its lead engineer
objected, officials said on Saturday.



"Managers" cleared the shuttle???

Engineers and Safety people did not???

Uh, wasn't this the same stupid **** that
brought down the Challenger in 1986???

We have lost 2 out of 5 shuttles

One more and America's manned space program is done

I wonder if those Guvment "Managers' were politically
correct but incompetent Black Females like the one who said
no to the Columbia picture in orbit that may have spotted
the wing damage??

Ads
  #2  
Old June 18th 06, 05:01 AM posted to sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Managers" cleared the shuttle???

Spouting the concepts that any body is better or smarter than anybody
else based on skin color or sex only demonstrates your ignorant
perspective of the human race and the universe as a whole, as billions
of people of both sexes and many different colors have discovered and
invented the devices your using to spread you trash. Your white
supremacist rantings need to be confronted directly and challenged for
their illogic and belligerence, and so without being hypocritical why
don't you use only white male discovered, manufactured and maintained
ways of spreading your de-evolved thinking. Otherwise acknowledge the
contributions of billions of people throughout history that have done,
and are doing more for the human and many other species on this planet
than your de-evolved being.


Huhwhatduh? wrote:
Space shuttle set for July 1 lift-off

Nasa managers cleared the shuttle for lift-off even though
the agency's top safety officer and its lead engineer
objected, officials said on Saturday.



"Managers" cleared the shuttle???

Engineers and Safety people did not???

Uh, wasn't this the same stupid **** that
brought down the Challenger in 1986???

We have lost 2 out of 5 shuttles

One more and America's manned space program is done

I wonder if those Guvment "Managers' were politically
correct but incompetent Black Females like the one who said
no to the Columbia picture in orbit that may have spotted
the wing damage??


  #3  
Old June 18th 06, 01:14 PM posted to sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Managers" cleared the shuttle???

Nasa managers cleared the shuttle for lift-off even though the
agency's top safety officer and its lead engineer objected,
officials said on Saturday.


There's a more detailed account at
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts121/060617july1/
including some lengthy quotes from Griffin.

I would say that Griffin is guilty of some sloppy and wishful
thinking. For example, saying "I believe that our models are quite
conservative" (which is not reassuring unless you know something about
how conservative) or "we have 113 flights (sic) with this vehicle with
these ice-frost ramps under our belt" (we got away with it until now,
so it must not be a problem).

In some more defensible statements, he points to dealing with a foam
impact via "repair, launch on need, extended safe haven on the
station, asking our Russian partners for help, maybe some or all of
the above". I guess my question is whether we have some reasonable
confidence that one of those things will work. There doesn't seem to
be a clear idea of which of those options would be the one to go with.
But it does seem to be important to Griffin's thinking - he feels he
is risking a shuttle this way ("programmatic risk"), not risking a
crew.

I also would say there is something positive in Griffin's comments,
and that is accepting that there is risk. At some level, people in
the shuttle program have always known that there is risk (much greater
than, say, flying in a commercial or general aviation aircraft), but I
don't recall it being acknowledged as openly or publicly as this
before.
  #4  
Old June 19th 06, 02:42 AM posted to sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Managers" cleared the shuttle???

Jim Kingdon wrote in
news
Nasa managers cleared the shuttle for lift-off even though the
agency's top safety officer and its lead engineer objected,
officials said on Saturday.


There's a more detailed account at
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts121/060617july1/
including some lengthy quotes from Griffin.

I would say that Griffin is guilty of some sloppy and wishful
thinking. For example, saying "I believe that our models are quite
conservative" (which is not reassuring unless you know something about
how conservative) or "we have 113 flights (sic) with this vehicle with
these ice-frost ramps under our belt" (we got away with it until now,
so it must not be a problem).


I suppose you could say that, but you'd be misquoting Griffin. He never
said or even implied that the IFRs "must not be a problem" - just that it's
not as *big* a problem as the word "probable" means in NASA's risk matrix.
NASA defines "probable" as "expected over the life of the program", in
other words, P 0.5 over the remaining 16-19 flights. Regardless of just
*how* conservative the models are, that can't even be close - if it were,
there simply shouldn't be any orbiters left by now, since P 0.5 over 16-
19 flights equates to 3 hull losses over 114 flights.

I also would say there is something positive in Griffin's comments,
and that is accepting that there is risk. At some level, people in
the shuttle program have always known that there is risk (much greater
than, say, flying in a commercial or general aviation aircraft), but I
don't recall it being acknowledged as openly or publicly as this
before.


I agree - and that's another data point that says he's not saying that the
IFR's "must not be a problem."

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 1 June 1st 06 04:57 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 May 2nd 06 06:35 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 1st 06 10:33 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 2 November 2nd 05 11:57 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.