Re: Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

[LooseChanj]

On or about Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:52:15 GMT, Rand Simberg > made the sensational claim that:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:41:50 -0700, in a place far, far away,
> "Charleston" > made the phosphor on
> my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>One in 999 is what NASA is shooting for in the next
>>generation space shuttle. That is a far cry from the joke set for the
>>current orbiter fleet which was about one in a million.
>
> Do you have any cite for that nonsense?

The bowl of alphabits he had for breakfast, no doubt.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Charleston]

"LooseChanj" > wrote in message
. com...
> > "Charleston" > wrote:
> >
> >>One in 999 is what NASA is shooting for in the next
> >>generation space shuttle. That is a far cry from the joke set for the
> >>current orbiter fleet which was about one in a million.
> >
> > Do you have any cite for that nonsense?

Notice I did not write CRV....

> The bowl of alphabits he had for breakfast, no doubt.

Start here, and over the next few weeks I'll bring you up to speed on the
rest if you are serious. The document below sustains as realistic, most of
the arguments I have made here recently.

Special note to Bob Haller:

Please really read the document below. Your questions have generally been
fair if not redundant at times. Perhaps many here don't see the future as
you would like to see it, but your ideas are more in line with where NASA
would like to be than many who post here. I hope you take some solace on
NASA's thoughts on acceptable flight safety risks in the future. I urge you
to research "human rating requirements" in the future to answer some of the
questions you have that go unanswered here. Then perhaps you can educate
those who live in today, but can not see tomorrow.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PG_8705_0002_&page_name=main

Now go away looschanj and come back when you know what you are talking
about. You too, Rand. I was going to post this later, but I have
personally posted enough of the concepts in the above referenced document
(and numerous other NASA documents, hint, hint) to demonstrate that the
ignorance on this thread is not mine.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Charleston]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:29:38 -0700, in a place far, far away,
> "Charleston" > made the phosphor on
> my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>
>http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PG_8705_00
02_&page_name=main
> >
> >Now go away looschanj and come back when you know what you are talking
> >about. You too, Rand.
>
> I'm quite familiar with that document. I fail to see your point in
> posting it.

And that is why you fail. Your arguments are inconsistent with that
document among others. I can not help it if you do not see this fact. I
will guess then that you have also seen the 0.999 for LEO number as well and
reject it too. There is no further point in discussing this issue with you.

Good day. Have the last word if that makes you feel better. BTW, the 0.999
number is no longer on the web AFAIK.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[LooseChanj]

On or about Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:34:55 GMT, Rand Simberg > made the sensational claim that:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:29:38 -0700, in a place far, far away,
> "Charleston" > made the phosphor on
> my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PG_8705_0002_&page_name=main
>>
>>Now go away looschanj and come back when you know what you are talking
>>about. You too, Rand.
>
> I'm quite familiar with that document. I fail to see your point in
> posting it.

I fail to see his point in adressing me, I've had his Maxson ass killfiled from
the day he returned.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Charleston]

"LooseChanj" > wrote in message
om...

> I fail to see his point in adressing me, I've had his Maxson ass killfiled
from
> the day he returned.

It's simple your response was worse than his. Limiting your post to SSH is
a bit cowardly as well. You two embarassed yourselves and don't even
realize that you did so.


--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Charleston]

"LooseChanj" > wrote in message

> I fail to see his point in adressing me, I've had his Maxson ass
killfiled from the day he returned.
>
It's simple your response was worse than his. Limiting your post to SSH is
a bit cowardly as well. You two embarassed yourselves and don't even
realize that you did so.

Oops corrected group posting deleted by looschanj.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Charleston]

"steve podleski" > wrote in message
...
>
> Rand Simberg >
> > > "Charleston" > > >>One in 999 is
what
> NASA is shooting for in the next
> > >>generation space shuttle. That is a far cry from the joke set for the
> > >>current orbiter fleet which was about one in a million.
> > >
> > > Do you have any cite for that nonsense?
>
> When I worked for Martin Marietta on the external tank during the early
> 80's, I remember reading some documents that gave some extremely low
> probabilities (it may have been 1 in a million or less) of failure of the
> shuttle system that seemed ridiculously low even to a neophyte engineer.

You did qualify that with engineer (not manager) which is important. Really
Rand the number is 1 in 100,000.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC