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

MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 30th 03, 02:43 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Ads
  #62  
Old September 30th 03, 07:57 AM
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \s\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

On 28 Sep 2003 11:39:41 -0700, (Stuf4) wrote:

From Michael Grabois:
On 25 Sep 2003 20:52:33 -0700,
(Stuf4) wrote:

From crew photo caption:

"The core group for the next shuttle mission renames unchanged: from
left, Soichi Noguchi, commander Eileen Collins, Steve Robinson and Jim
Kelly. But the three other slots have been emptied to to make room for
those with specialized skills needed for the flight's new
responsibilities."


Of course, the other three slots were emptied because the Expedition 7 crew (or
at least 2/3 of them) are already on the Space Station and 114 won't be a crew
rotation mission, YOU STUPID ****!


As with the original caption in question, I am having difficulty
following the logic behind that statement (amidst the anger). Please
check your facts.


OK, let's check the facts.

1. "STS-114 was to have been the seventeenth station flight (ULF1). It would
have carried the Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and carried out a
crew rotation (replacing the ISS EO-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit
with the Malenchenko, Kaleri, and Lu."
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts114.htm

2. Because the shuttle was unavailable, the EXP-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin,
and Pettit took a Soyuz down.

3. Because the shuttle was unavailable, Malenchenko and Lu launched on a Soyuz
and became the EXP-7 crew. Kaleri will fly on a later mission.

Thus, the other three slots on STS-114 (Collins, Kelly, Robinson, and Noguchi
remain on the mission) opened up to whoever will be assigned.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?


My understanding is that crew size for -114 is being limited due
primarily to safety concerns.


Whatever it is, you don't understand. At least two crewmembers will be added to
the 114 crew (at least one experienced EVA and one RMS crewmember).

Let's not forget that in the aftermath
of -51L, NASA didn't fly anything more than a crew of 5 until the
1990s!

In launch order:

STS-61A - Crew of 8 (incl civilian PS x3)
STS-61B - Crew of 7 (incl civilian PS x2)
STS-61C - Crew of 7 (incl member of Congress)
STS-51L - Crew of 7 (incl schoolteacher)

STS-26 - Crew of 5
STS-27 - Crew of 5
STS-29 - Crew of 5
STS-30 - Crew of 5
STS-28 - Crew of 5
STS-34 - Crew of 5
STS-33 - Crew of 5
STS-32 - Crew of 5
STS-36 - Crew of 5
STS-31 - Crew of 5
STS-41 - Crew of 5
STS-38 - Crew of 5

NASA didn't launch a crew larger than 5, nor was another civilian
payload specialist launched into orbit until *13* flights (!) after
Challenger.

There was no space station to confuse the issue back then.


In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut."

Let's look at what the manifest would have been post-51L, and the number of
crewmembers for those with full crews assigned:

61E Astro 1 7 crew (payload became 7-crew STS-35;
original crew moved to STS-28 and 35)
61F Ulysses 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-41;
original crew moved to STS-26)
61G Galileo 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-30;
original crew moved to STS-30)
61H comm sat 7 crew (payload cancelled; some of
original crew moved to STS-29)
62A DOD 7 crew (DOD payload; most of
original crew moved to STS-27)
61M TDRS 6 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-26?;
original crew disbanded)
61J HST 5 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-31;
original crew moved to STS-31)
61N DOD 6 crew (DOD payload; most of
original crew moved to STS-28)
61I LDEF 6 crew (payload retrieve moved to STS-32;
original crew disbanded)
61K EOS/ATLAS 8 crew (payload became STS-45; some of
original crew moved to STS-45)

That's an average of 6 crew per flight. The larger crews were reduced
post-Challenger because the missions were cut back from the "let's do
everything" to "let's do one thing" and they didn't need as many crewmembers.
As the pre-Challenger backlog emptied out, they were able to do the longer
research missions that required Payload Specialists and bigger crews.

For you to simply quote the number of crewmembers without context is
disingenuous - and par for the course for you.

What was that about "lies, damn lies, and statistics"?

  #63  
Old October 1st 03, 01:54 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

From Michael Grabois:

As with the original caption in question, I am having difficulty
following the logic behind that statement (amidst the anger). Please
check your facts.


OK, let's check the facts.

1. "STS-114 was to have been the seventeenth station flight (ULF1). It would
have carried the Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and carried out a
crew rotation (replacing the ISS EO-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit
with the Malenchenko, Kaleri, and Lu."
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts114.htm

2. Because the shuttle was unavailable, the EXP-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin,
and Pettit took a Soyuz down.

3. Because the shuttle was unavailable, Malenchenko and Lu launched on a Soyuz
and became the EXP-7 crew. Kaleri will fly on a later mission.

Thus, the other three slots on STS-114 (Collins, Kelly, Robinson, and Noguchi
remain on the mission) opened up to whoever will be assigned.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?


....I'd say that we're both on the same page so far.

My understanding is that crew size for -114 is being limited due
primarily to safety concerns.


Whatever it is, you don't understand. At least two crewmembers will be added to
the 114 crew (at least one experienced EVA and one RMS crewmember).


I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or
more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom
behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on
-114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary
risk.

There is a reason why STS-1 only put the lives of 2 astronauts at
risk. And there's a reason why NASA scaled back from their crew size
of 7 (/8) after -51L.

Let's not forget that in the aftermath
of -51L, NASA didn't fly anything more than a crew of 5 until the
1990s!

In launch order:

STS-61A - Crew of 8 (incl civilian PS x3)
STS-61B - Crew of 7 (incl civilian PS x2)
STS-61C - Crew of 7 (incl member of Congress)
STS-51L - Crew of 7 (incl schoolteacher)

STS-26 - Crew of 5
STS-27 - Crew of 5
STS-29 - Crew of 5
STS-30 - Crew of 5
STS-28 - Crew of 5
STS-34 - Crew of 5
STS-33 - Crew of 5
STS-32 - Crew of 5
STS-36 - Crew of 5
STS-31 - Crew of 5
STS-41 - Crew of 5
STS-38 - Crew of 5

NASA didn't launch a crew larger than 5, nor was another civilian
payload specialist launched into orbit until *13* flights (!) after
Challenger.

There was no space station to confuse the issue back then.


In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut."


You are now insulting me for providing cold facts that anyone can
easily verify.

Let's look at what the manifest would have been post-51L, and the number of
crewmembers for those with full crews assigned:

61E Astro 1 7 crew (payload became 7-crew STS-35;
original crew moved to STS-28 and 35)
61F Ulysses 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-41;
original crew moved to STS-26)
61G Galileo 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-30;
original crew moved to STS-30)
61H comm sat 7 crew (payload cancelled; some of
original crew moved to STS-29)
62A DOD 7 crew (DOD payload; most of
original crew moved to STS-27)
61M TDRS 6 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-26?;
original crew disbanded)
61J HST 5 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-31;
original crew moved to STS-31)
61N DOD 6 crew (DOD payload; most of
original crew moved to STS-28)
61I LDEF 6 crew (payload retrieve moved to STS-32;
original crew disbanded)
61K EOS/ATLAS 8 crew (payload became STS-45; some of
original crew moved to STS-45)

That's an average of 6 crew per flight. The larger crews were reduced
post-Challenger because the missions were cut back from the "let's do
everything" to "let's do one thing" and they didn't need as many crewmembers.
As the pre-Challenger backlog emptied out, they were able to do the longer
research missions that required Payload Specialists and bigger crews.

For you to simply quote the number of crewmembers without context is
disingenuous - and par for the course for you.


I don't see what can be construed as disingenuous about adding hard
facts to this discussion. The facts I offered are irrefutable.
Anyone is free to draw their own conclusions from the raw data of crew
sizes from those 16 missions.


What was that about "lies, damn lies, and statistics"?


I posted -data-. When you start crunching an average of actual data
(let alone an average of predicted non-event data) then you are
venturing into the realm of -statistics-.


~ CT
  #64  
Old October 1st 03, 02:15 AM
Jack O'Neil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

Stuf4 wrote:
I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or
more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom
behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on
-114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary
risk.


The first mission will have a lot of non-ISS tasks to accomplish to test all
the new procedures etc. And then it must perform ISS tasks.

The number of crewmembers should be dictated by what needs to be acocmplished
and how many people are needed to get all the tasks done in the time limit of
a mission.


STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle
programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that
involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size
? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission.
  #65  
Old October 1st 03, 02:25 PM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

From Jack O'Neil:
Stuf4 wrote:
I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or
more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom
behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on
-114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary
risk.


The first mission will have a lot of non-ISS tasks to accomplish to test all
the new procedures etc. And then it must perform ISS tasks.

The number of crewmembers should be dictated by what needs to be acocmplished
and how many people are needed to get all the tasks done in the time limit of
a mission.


STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle
programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that
involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size
? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission.


STS-114 is more than just post-major mx. It is post catastrophy. As
with post-51L, NASA is once again in a position of having to prove
competence.


If you happened to be the owner of a taxicab business and you had a
high frequency of tires falling off your cars followed by rollover or
some other incidence of death of all passengers and drivers, there is
a definite period of time after such catastrophy when confidence needs
to be built back up.

(But I'm open to considering alternative explanations as to why NASA
scaled back to five member crews post-51L.)


~ CT
  #67  
Old October 1st 03, 03:13 PM
stmx3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

Jack O'Neil wrote:
[snip]

STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle
programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that
involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size
? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission.


I thought the CAIB report pointed out that the shuttle should not be
thought of as an "operational vehicle". Rather, it continues to be a
developmental test platform. NASA continues to refine, modify, upgrade
a variety of shuttle systems, in response to failures, degradations,
obsolescence, need to increase safety margins and reliability, etc.

Since it is clearly not "operational", would it not be prudent to
minimize risk to life at least in the first return to flight launch?

Personally, I can see good arguments for both cases and I remain undecided.

  #69  
Old October 2nd 03, 04:42 AM
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

From stmx3:
Jack O'Neil wrote:
[snip]

STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle
programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that
involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size
? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission.


I thought the CAIB report pointed out that the shuttle should not be
thought of as an "operational vehicle". Rather, it continues to be a
developmental test platform. NASA continues to refine, modify, upgrade
a variety of shuttle systems, in response to failures, degradations,
obsolescence, need to increase safety margins and reliability, etc.

Since it is clearly not "operational", would it not be prudent to
minimize risk to life at least in the first return to flight launch?

Personally, I can see good arguments for both cases and I remain undecided.


The way I see it, NASA has sent up a trial balloon. They've "dipped
their toes into the deep end" offering statements to the effect that
two/three others will be added to the crew, while "playing in the
shallow end" taking the STS-114 official crew photo with only the four
of them.

As is probably clear by now, I don't see good arguments for packing
the crew. I'd say that 5 is the most that would be prudent.

....which brings an interesting point regarding all those crews of 5
that NASA has launched. It must have a very interesting psychological
aspect for the one person stuck downstairs all by themself. Entry and
especially launch must be stressful enough when you have other people
to look at. Going it alone staring at a wall must have an extra level
of eerieness to it.


~ CT
  #70  
Old October 2nd 03, 06:14 AM
Dave Fowler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

(Stuf4)

The way I see it, NASA has sent up a trial balloon. They've "dipped
their toes into the deep end" offering statements to the effect that
two/three others will be added to the crew, while "playing in the
shallow end" taking the STS-114 official crew photo with only the four
of them.


And of course, they "way you see it" has little to do with reality.

The STS-114 crew photo was taken before February 1. It has been custom for
ferry crews to have a separate photo from expedition crews.

Do your homework, before playing "in the deep end".

DF


 




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 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 03:33 AM
MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents James Oberg Space Shuttle 106 October 24th 03 04:45 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM
NASA: Gases Breached Wing of Shuttle Atlantis in 2000 Rusty Barton Space Shuttle 2 July 10th 03 01:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.