Failure ...

I have been "quoted" by the local netkook (who can't spell) who wrote,
"Berndt sez Failure is an option".

Of course I didn't say that. Failure is not an option. Failure is a fact of
life. Almost 100 years of powered flight have shown we can't build an
aircraft that doesn't crash. We can't build a car that guarantees the safety
of its occupants in a crash. We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.
Failure is a fact of life, and we ought to be thankful that there are those
who will gladly stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them
and risk everything. We are where we are today in aviation because somebody
pushed the flight envelope to expand our knowledge envelope. Some gave their
lives in doing so and taught us even more about aircraft safety, or metal
fatigue, or instability, or complacency, or oversight, etc.

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote:

We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.

The submarine community will be surprised to learn that... G

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Anyone who says "failure is not an option", does not completely understand
the problem. Al


"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
I have been "quoted" by the local netkook (who can't spell) who wrote,
"Berndt sez Failure is an option".

Of course I didn't say that. Failure is not an option. Failure is a fact
of
life. Almost 100 years of powered flight have shown we can't build an
aircraft that doesn't crash. We can't build a car that guarantees the
safety
of its occupants in a crash. We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.
Failure is a fact of life, and we ought to be thankful that there are
those
who will gladly stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them
and risk everything. We are where we are today in aviation because
somebody
pushed the flight envelope to expand our knowledge envelope. Some gave
their
lives in doing so and taught us even more about aircraft safety, or metal
fatigue, or instability, or complacency, or oversight, etc.

Jon

On 2003-09-11, Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jon Berndt" wrote:

We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.

The submarine community will be surprised to learn that... G

D.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH! Perfect logic, and that's almost as
bad as some of the things I come up with! LOL.

Steve

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:52:29 -0500, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.

....This is true. In anticipation of a Derek Lyons retort, I submit
that a sub is not a ship, but a boat.


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

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

"Jon Berndt" wrote:

We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.

...This is true. In anticipation of a Derek Lyons retort, I submit
that a sub is not a ship, but a boat.

The submariners call it a "boat" and not a "ship".

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:52:29 -0500, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.

...This is true. In anticipation of a Derek Lyons retort, I submit
that a sub is not a ship, but a boat.

'Boat' is a slang term when referring to submarines. Were it an
actual 'boat' (as the Navy terms such things) it would not have a hull
number, a CO, or have 'USS' in front of the name it wouldn't have.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In message , Derek Lyons
writes
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:52:29 -0500, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.

...This is true. In anticipation of a Derek Lyons retort, I submit
that a sub is not a ship, but a boat.

'Boat' is a slang term when referring to submarines. Were it an
actual 'boat' (as the Navy terms such things) it would not have a hull
number, a CO, or have 'USS' in front of the name it wouldn't have.

In that case, why does General Dynamics have an Electric Boat Division?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:52:29 -0500, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.

...This is true. In anticipation of a Derek Lyons retort, I submit
that a sub is not a ship, but a boat.

'Boat' is a slang term when referring to submarines. Were it an
actual 'boat' (as the Navy terms such things) it would not have a hull
number, a CO, or have 'USS' in front of the name it wouldn't have.

Has that changed?

All PT Boats had a hull number and a CO (but they obviously did not have a
USS or a name).

Granted, PT Boats are no more, but I don't know about River boats, etc.

(and as I recall, not an USN vessels are USS, correct? (like support
vessels?)





D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:3f6884fc.3132722
@supernews.seanet.com:

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:52:29 -0500, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

We can't build a ship that doesn't sink.

...This is true. In anticipation of a Derek Lyons retort, I submit that
a sub is not a ship, but a boat.

'Boat' is a slang term when referring to submarines. Were it an
actual 'boat' (as the Navy terms such things) it would not have a hull
number, a CO, or have 'USS' in front of the name it wouldn't have.

D.

The origin of the term "boat" when referring to a submarine is from the
german "unterseeboote"(sp) or "under sea boat" (literal translation), the
famous "U-boat" of WWI and WWII.

BTW, the proper term for someone that serves on submarines (phonetically
*******ized for clarity) is submareener. The term sub-"mare"-ener refers
to a substandard sailor. At least that's how it was when I rode boats.

--
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
...\RUN\DOS\RUN