 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / December 2005NASA budget option: Retire Atlantis
December 15, 2005 NASA budget option: Retire Atlantis BY JOHN KELLY FLORIDA TODAY The immediate retirement of one shuttle orbiter, Atlantis, is among the options being discussed to solve a $3 billion to $6 billion shortfall in NASA's space shuttle budget. Members of Congress from states with shuttle-related jobs are pressing President Bush to provide NASA with extra money needed to fly 19 planned shuttle missions. But in a letter to the president, the Congressional leaders say the White House Office of Management and Budget is headed toward giving NASA at least $3 billion less than needed. The letter says that would mean immediate retirement of one shuttle orbiter, Atlantis. 19 flights to what? 12 tops? this budget cut, talked about before would reduce the workforce to one shift, and a max of 3 launches per year, with no ability to add any additional flights. this budget of atrtrition, will at some point just kill the program. might be a good thing but better to have a clean kill. stretching it out just wastes more bucks. meanwhile the iraq mess is at half a trillion bucks, and climbing. >19 flights to what? 12 tops? this budget cut, talked about before would >reduce the workforce to one shift, and a max of 3 launches per year, >with no ability to add any additional flights. Why? Look at the number of days between flights for each Orbiter and average them. It's big, but if you then drop the OMDP spans, the numbers show operational average number of days between flights (in the post-Challenger era) of almost exactly 180 days, across the fleet. So that's an automatic four flights per year, and some of that 180 is caused by the long wait for ISS in 1998-99 padding the numbers. But in real service, the Orbiters have done three flights per year many times, and four flights in 53 weeks twice in the last decade. I'd say 5-6 flights per year is not unlikely. Witness: Atlantis: 16 Sep 96 (STS-79), Jan 97 (STS-81), May 97 (STS-84), 25 Sep 97 (STS-86) Columbia: 19 Nov 96 (STS-80), Apr 97 (STS-83), Jul 97 (STS-94), 19 Nov 97 (STS-97) Discovery: Jun 98 (STS-91), Oct 98 (STS-95), and May 99 (STS-96) Oct 00 (STS-92), Mar 01 (STS-102), and Aug 01 (STS-105) Endeavour: Apr 94 (STS-59), Sep 94 (STS-68), and Mar 95 (STS-67) Sep 95 (STS-69), Jan 96 (STS-72), and May 96 (STS-77) Brian ahh the earlier story of this budget cut guts the workforce to just ONE shift, and that sets the max flights per year of 3 tops. just taking a orbiter out of flying saves little, its the underlying workforce reduction that saves bucks and limits the number of flights one shift, no nites weekends, just one shift of workers Bob, you're "ahh"s a quite annoying. Can you please cut that out? Consider it because you're going to like what I have to hear. If they decide to retire Atlantis, I say screw it...just cancel the whole damned program. I want the shuttle to fly until 2020. I'm proud ever time I see a launch and landing, and I'm proud that fellow Americans say "damn the danger" and go anyway. But if they're going to start messing around by RETIRING an orbiter to save money, then f*ck it. The CEV is never going to be built, the shuttle will be dead, and we'll have no manned space program. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I miss Dan Goldin. Mark, NASA has ONLY themselves to blame! If management hadnt screwed up columbia, the shuttle wouldnt be shut down. >Mark, NASA has ONLY themselves to blame! If management hadnt screwed up >columbia, the shuttle wouldnt be shut down. One of the rare times I agree with Bob... Brian But ESAS is still insane. http://cosmic.lifeform.org >>Mark, NASA has ONLY themselves to blame! If management hadnt screwed up >>columbia, the shuttle wouldnt be shut down. > >One of the rare times I agree with Bob... Then you are both willfully ignorant. It wasn't just the managers that screwed up Columbia, (and Challenger), it was the working level engineers too. D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL 9. Derek Lyons Dec 16, 3:03 am show options Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle From: fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:03:02 GMT Local: Fri, Dec 16 2005 3:03 am Subject: Re: WTF? Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Brian Thorn <bthor...@cox.net> wrote: >>Mark, NASA has ONLY themselves to blame! If management hadnt screwed up >>columbia, the shuttle wouldnt be shut down. >One of the rare times I agree with Bob... Then you are both willfully ignorant. It wasn't just the managers that screwed up Columbia, (and Challenger), it was the working level engineers too. D. IT WAS MANAGEMENT! Managers set the tone! Hey dont bug us with triubles, just keep to the schedule! Whereas.... If theres ANYTHING of concern bring it to us, so it can be worked. NASA culture was set by schedule driven managers, to keep to the schedule.... safety investigation clearly showed this >>>Mark, NASA has ONLY themselves to blame! If management hadnt screwed up >>>columbia, the shuttle wouldnt be shut down. >> >>One of the rare times I agree with Bob... > >Then you are both willfully ignorant. Call us names all you want, and I've very often had to fight the urge to call Bob names, but this time I think you're way off base, and he's dead on (the stopped clock phenomenon.) >It wasn't just the managers that screwed up Columbia, (and >Challenger), it was the working level engineers too. Huh? It was engineers saying "we need to take a better look at this" and management blew them off. Remember, 107 wasn't just another foam popcorning event, it was the largest ascent impact ever witnessed. Just as with Challenger, management demanded engineers prove there was a problem instead of they themselves getting the data to prove there wasn't one. Why no one is in jail for that, I'll never understand. Brian > it was the largest ascent impact ever witnessed. I could see it clearly even watching the launch on CNN. > Why no one is in jail for that, I'll never understand. Accidents happen. http://cosmic.lifeform.org >>>>Mark, NASA has ONLY themselves to blame! If management hadnt screwed up >>>>columbia, the shuttle wouldnt be shut down. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to call Bob names, but this time I think you're way off base, and he's >dead on (the stopped clock phenomenon.) It's not calling names, its stating simple facts. Too many people have spent too long on these groups blaming [NASA] management for everything - it blinds them to the complexities of reality. >>It wasn't just the managers that screwed up Columbia, (and >>Challenger), it was the working level engineers too. > >Huh? It was engineers saying "we need to take a better look at this" >and management blew them off. Remember, 107 wasn't just another foam >popcorning event, it was the largest ascent impact ever witnessed. The problem was - by the time they were saying that, it was far too late. Foam had been shedding (not popcorning, shedding) and tiles being damaged since STS-1, and not *ONE* engineer ever stood up and 'dammit, we have a problem here'. The engineers kept writing reports that gave the impression the managers wanted - the system worked, and no (expensive) fixes (with potentially long downtime) were needed, just maintenance. >Just as with Challenger, management demanded engineers prove there was >a problem instead of they themselves getting the data to prove there >wasn't one. Just as in Columbia, the engineers had ample data that there was a problem. The specs are in plain black and white; "NO leakage, NO burnthrough" and "NO impacts on tile or RCC". Despite leakage, despite impacts, despite ongoing out of specification operations - there is no documentary evidence that any engineer made any attempt to clearly inform management of the risks. Management makes its decisions based on what the engineers tell them, among other things admittedly, and the engineers in both instances stood essentially mute. Until it was too late. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL <Just as in Columbia, the engineers had ample data that there was a problem. The specs are in plain black and white; "NO leakage, NO burnthrough" and "NO impacts on tile or RCC". Despite leakage, despite impacts, despite ongoing out of specification operations - there is no documentary evidence that any engineer made any attempt to clearly inform management of the risks. > derek> Derek OBVIOUSLY you missed the flight where the wing nearly burned thru, years before Columbia! > <Just as in Columbia, the engineers had ample data that there was a > problem. The specs are in plain black and white; "NO leakage, NO [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Derek OBVIOUSLY you missed the flight where the wing nearly burned > thru, years before Columbia! Wha? -A.L. >>Huh? It was engineers saying "we need to take a better look at this" >>and management blew them off. Remember, 107 wasn't just another foam >>popcorning event, it was the largest ascent impact ever witnessed. > >The problem was - by the time they were saying that, it was far too >late. Nonsense. After the 112 foam incident, the Shuttle should have been grounded. Instead, they settled right back into the pre-Challenger trap of 'well, we've gotten away with it this long, so we'll get away with it until next year or the year after when we can implement a fix. This was management incompetence pure and simple. And it was far from too late, they had a fighting chance to launch Atlantis and go get the 107 crew. NASA management wouldn't even consider such possibilities. >Just as in Columbia, the engineers had ample data that there was a >problem. The specs are in plain black and white; "NO leakage, NO >burnthrough" and "NO impacts on tile or RCC". A management decision to waive that requirement on every single flight . >Despite leakage, >despite impacts, despite ongoing out of specification operations - >there is no documentary evidence that any engineer made any attempt to >clearly inform management of the risks. It sure makes it hard when management won't give them the data they need (no satellite images of Columbia's wing, no spacewalk to peek over the side of the payload bay and look...) >Management makes its decisions based on what the engineers tell them, Hoo boy! You MUST be in management somewhere, Derek... Ever heard the phrase "the buck stops here?" Evidently in your world, it's "the buck stops... over there somewhere." Brian >> Management makes its decisions based on what the engineers tell them, > > Hoo boy! You MUST be in management somewhere, Derek... I can't speak for Derek but I'm in management (albeit in a small office). I used to be a rank-and-file engineer, however, so I have some experience in this sort of thing. Sometimes managers create an environment (a "culture" if you will) that actively encourages participation and raising concerns. Sometimes the opposite. I think the CAIB made it clear which was going on in the shuttle program at the time. Yes, perhaps the engineers should've made more noise. But unless one has worked in a huge engineering maze like that, one has little appreciation for just how hard it is to not only be heard, but be taken seriously. > Ever heard the phrase "the buck stops here?" Evidently in your world, > it's "the buck stops... over there somew There was a maxim that one of my ROTC instructors was fond of: you can delegate authority but NEVER responsibility. I wonder how many people actually agree with that? SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH >>> Management makes its decisions based on what the engineers tell them, >> >> Hoo boy! You MUST be in management somewhere, Derek... > >I can't speak for Derek but I'm in management (albeit in a small >office). Actually, I'm niether in management or rank-and-file. (My experience was in the rank-and-file in the Navy however.) I'm just someone who believes in open analysis and even handed standards. As I wrote elsewhere, folks are so used to blaming management of NASA [today] for various failures and singing the praises of NASA engineers [of the Apollo era], that they are blinded to the complexities of reality. (Oddly enough, the managers of the Apollo era rarely come in for any praise or blame.) >I used to be a rank-and-file engineer, however, so I have >some experience in this sort of thing. Sometimes managers create an >environment (a "culture" if you will) that actively encourages >participation and raising concerns. Sometimes the opposite. I think >the CAIB made it clear which was going on in the shuttle program at the >time. Yes, they did make it clear. >Yes, perhaps the engineers should've made more noise. There is no perhaps about it - they should have. Not doing so is an abrogation of the professional responsibilities and assumes a direct share of the blame for the results of their failures. >But unless one has worked in a huge engineering maze like that, one has >little appreciation for just how hard it is to not only be heard, but be >taken seriously. Yes, it's hard - I've never debated or denied that. But we, as a society, trust engineers to be honest and accurate - the engineers in the Shuttle program were not. >> Ever heard the phrase "the buck stops here?" Evidently in your world, >> it's "the buck stops... over there somew > >There was a maxim that one of my ROTC instructors was fond of: you can >delegate authority but NEVER responsibility. I wonder how many people >actually agree with that? As one of my CO's put it; "If you screw up bad enough, I'm going down. But you won't escape your fair share either". (And I saw that in practice - after both of two different significant incidents, a clean slice was taken from the crew list - starting with the lowest guy on the totem pole and running right up to the CO.) "The buck stops here" is a nice buzzphrase - but in reality it really doesn't. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > But > unless one has worked in a huge engineering maze like that, one has > little appreciation for just how hard it is to not only be heard, but > be taken seriously. And quite often, that means being passionate enough to be willing to annoy and anger people, possibly losing your job in the process. SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen >>>Huh? It was engineers saying "we need to take a better look at this" >>>and management blew them off. Remember, 107 wasn't just another foam [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >with it until next year or the year after when we can implement a fix. >This was management incompetence pure and simple. Provide documentary evidence that after 112, management over rode the engineers recommendations to ground the fleet. >And it was far from too late, they had a fighting chance to launch >Atlantis and go get the 107 crew. NASA management wouldn't even consider >such possibilities. In this reality - there was not even a fighting chance. The rosy scenarios in the CAIB report depend on discerning the damage within hours of the launch, and powering down Columbia as was Odyssey and Aquarius. >>Just as in Columbia, the engineers had ample data that there was a >>problem. The specs are in plain black and white; "NO leakage, NO >>burnthrough" and "NO impacts on tile or RCC". > >A management decision to waive that requirement on every single flight Supported by engineering reports that 'things are not all that bad'. >>Despite leakage, >>despite impacts, despite ongoing out of specification operations - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >need (no satellite images of Columbia's wing, no spacewalk to peek >over the side of the payload bay and look...) A very nice strawman - and utter bullshit. By that time it was, as I said, far too late to 'warn' management of anything. That was the engineers covering their a.ses after years of delinquency. >>Management makes its decisions based on what the engineers tell them, > >Hoo boy! You MUST be in management somewhere, Derek... > >Ever heard the phrase "the buck stops here?" Evidently in your world, >it's "the buck stops... over there somewhere." In my world, everyone responsible for Bad Day gets his share of the blame. If you drive a murderer to a murder, knowing full well of the murderers intent, you'll be charged as an accomplice. You still get punished, even if it's not as severe as that meted out to the actual triggerman. D, SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>Just as with Challenger, management demanded engineers prove there was >>a problem instead of they themselves getting the data to prove there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > there is no documentary evidence that any engineer made any attempt to > clearly inform management of the risks. erm, except for the Thiokol and Marshall engineers who expressed extreme reservations during the 51L prelaunch telecon about the ability of the O-rings to seat. KSC management's response was, if you recall, "take off your engineer's hat and put on your manager's hat". > Management makes its decisions based on what the engineers tell them, > among other things admittedly, and the engineers in both instances > stood essentially mute. Until it was too late. and after awhile it becomes painfully obvious to the engineers that there's no use in providing negative feedback to management (and it may in fact be hazardous to the engineers' careers), so they simply stop providing bad news because they know full well it won't do any good at all. In systems analysis this phenomenon is called "production pressure", the utterly classic "we haven't had an accident yet, so the risk is acceptable" handwaving that happens when it's in management's own self-interest to keep the machine operating at full capacity at all times. Other terms for the same phenomenon are "groupthink" "Emperor's new clothes" and "shoot the messenger". Sorry, Derek, but NASA's culture has a well-documented history of actively discouraging information that would create schedule slips and/or extra costs. That was supposed to change after Challenger, and maybe for a couple years it did, but by the early '90s it was back to the same old same old. And we are seeing clear signs that the exact same thing is happening today, a couple years after Columbia. Griffin is having to turn the screws hard to keep that from happening, but frankly I think he's fighting a losing battle. >>>Just as with Challenger, management demanded engineers prove there was >>>a problem instead of they themselves getting the data to prove there [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >O-rings to seat. KSC management's response was, if you recall, "take off >your engineer's hat and put on your manager's hat". Here in the real world, they made no attempt to inform management of the potential risk. What they did do was inform management that they had a bad feeling in their tummies - and that they couldn't explain it. Their apologists have been attempting to make that vague feeling into something it isn't for nearly twenty years now. >> Management makes its decisions based on what the engineers tell them, >> among other things admittedly, and the engineers in both instances [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >hazardous to the engineers' careers), so they simply stop providing bad news >because they know full well it won't do any good at all. In other words, they stop performing the job for which they are paid (to oversee the safety of the astronauts and the preservation of billions of dollars of hardware) and instead become accomplices in covering up failures and problems. Becoming an accomplice means one shoulders a portion of the responsibility. It's as black and white as that. >Sorry, Derek, but NASA's culture has a well-documented history of actively >discouraging information that would create schedule slips and/or extra >costs. That was supposed to change after Challenger, and maybe for a couple >years it did, but by the early '90s it was back to the same old same old. I don't give a rat f.ck about buzzwords like 'culture'. I'm discussing the inaction of real life flesh and blood people, not buzzwords. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>erm, except for the Thiokol and Marshall engineers who expressed extreme >>reservations during the 51L prelaunch telecon about the ability of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Here in the real world, they made no attempt to inform management of > the potential risk. didn't sounds that way to me, they were pretty concise. >>and after awhile it becomes painfully obvious to the engineers that >>there's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > billions of dollars of hardware) and instead become accomplices in > covering up failures and problems. Derek, one thing you forget is that it is simply impossible to reason with someone who is determined to be unreasonable. That is the essence of groupthink: dissenting opinions *get ignored adn marginalized*. It's not the case that a rank-and-file engineeer can just raise a stink about a safety issue. What happens is that, at best, their efforts will just be ignored or rationalized away, and at wost the engineer will be removed from a position where they can even raise a stink in the first place. > Becoming an accomplice means one shoulders a portion of the > responsibility. It's as black and white as that. not an accomplice, Derek. >>Sorry, Derek, but NASA's culture has a well-documented history of actively >>discouraging information that would create schedule slips and/or extra [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > discussing the inaction of real life flesh and blood people, not > buzzwords. Then you need to spend a bit more time learning how those real life flesh and blood people actually behave. Life is not black and white, never has been and never will be. That is especially the case in large organizations that have been around for awhile. Miller's Second Law states that the longer an organization exists and the bigger it grows, the less concerned it is with its original purpose and the more concerned it is with simply maintaining its own existence. Post-A11 NASA is a classic example of that. nasalacks a clear purpose, give them a real goal and enough bucks to do the job and they could do wonderful things. today the lack both, and are more concerned with holdiong onto jobs >Derek, one thing you forget is that it is simply impossible to reason with >someone who is determined to be unreasonable. That is the essence of >groupthink: dissenting opinions *get ignored adn marginalized*. No, I have never forgotten it. You keep repeating the buzzwords because they re-inforces your belief that their was no fault on the part of the engineers. It's a lot easier than thinking and *much* easier than shaking ones beliefs. I have nothing but utter contempt for individuals who blame the 'group' for their own action or lack thereof. >It's not the case that a rank-and-file engineeer can just raise a stink >about a safety issue. What happens is that, at best, their efforts will just >be ignored or rationalized away, and at wost the engineer will be removed >from a position where they can even raise a stink in the first place. So f.cking what? When lives and billions of dollars of virtually irreplaceable hardware are at stake, it's then OK to 'go with the flow' because you will be ignored or fired? Bullshit. >> Becoming an accomplice means one shoulders a portion of the >> responsibility. It's as black and white as that. > >not an accomplice, Derek. Failing to make the effort to stop the crime makes one an accomplice when one is aware in advance of the crime. Either the engineers knew and failed to make the effort, and are thus worthy of contempt - or they were so ignorant they were unaware, and are thus worthy of contempt. There is no middle ground. >>>Sorry, Derek, but NASA's culture has a well-documented history of actively >>>discouraging information that would create schedule slips and/or extra [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Then you need to spend a bit more time learning how those real life flesh >and blood people actually behave. I'm quite aware of how they behave. Awareness, in my case and unlike yours, does not constitute acceptance. >Life is not black and white, never has been and never will be. ROTFLMAO. Then why do you separate management and engineers into black and white hats? >Miller's Second Law states that the longer an organization exists and the >bigger it grows, the less concerned it is with its original purpose and the >more concerned it is with simply maintaining its own existence. So f.cking what? That has nothing to do with the behavior of the engineers and managers in question. (*Especially* since the continued existence of the organization hinges on things like the Challenger and Columbia accidents not happening in the first place!) You've repeated your mantra's to yourself so many times, you've forgotten that the words once held meaning. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL <snip overcaffeinatedd rant from several weeks ago> >>Miller's Second Law states that the longer an organization exists and the >>bigger it grows, the less concerned it is with its original purpose and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > existence of the organization hinges on things like the Challenger and > Columbia accidents not happening in the first place!) nope, doesn't work that way. What would get NASA's amnned space program shut down wouldn't be an LOCV incident, but extensive downtime to *prevent* said accident from occurring in the first place. Do a Google on "production pressure" or just go buy a copy of "Normal Accidents" > You've repeated > your mantra's to yourself so many times, you've forgotten that the > words once held meaning. ahem >Do a Google on "production pressure" or just go buy a copy of "Normal >Accidents" I've read Normal Accidents, and I've followed the discussions on schedule pressure here post Columbia. Niether has any bearing on the culpability of the shuttle program engineers. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL I agree with a lot of what you said. But note the discussion on page 125 of the CAIB report where they did wish to make the foam from -112 an "in flight anomaly" which would have stopped future launches and see what people in what positions weakened it to an "action item" which allowed the launches to continue. What's interesting is that in the third paragraph of that section is that the CAIB "wondered" as to the rationale for this; why didn't they simply ask the people involved? Note from the text that this change to an "action item" was not routine. <CAIB> This was inconsistent with previous practice, in which all other known bipod foam-shedding was designated as In-Flight Anomalies. </CAIB> -- rk >>>>>Mark, NASA has ONLY themselves to blame! If management hadnt >>>>>screwed up columbia, the shuttle wouldnt be shut down. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > D. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people." -- From Skunk Works by Ben Rich and Leo Janis > Mark, NASA has ONLY themselves to blame! If management hadnt screwed up > columbia, the shuttle wouldnt be shut down. Bob, you are an idiot. You don't even deserve to respond to a person like Mark. You don't have the slightest clue about what he just poured out of his heart. If you cared about American's as much as you supposedly care about astronauts you would shut your mouth. BTW, the Iraq revolution is going very well. As revolutions go the cost, in money and lives is quit low. For heaven's sake, don't you know what democracy costs? When dictators and their organizations need to be put down it requires blood.....spilt on the ground.......lots of blood. Dictators don't step down just because a group like the UN ask them to, that's why we call them dictators. They have to be PUT down. Thank God we still know how to do it -- and in this case do it for others -- others who are appreciating it more and more, if you're paying attention. George Evans <Bob, you are an idiot. You don't even deserve to respond to a person like Mark. You don't have the slightest clue about what he just poured out of his heart. If you cared about American's as much as you supposedly care about astronauts you would shut your mouth. BTW, the Iraq revolution is going very well. As revolutions go the cost, in money and lives is quit low. For heaven's sake, don't you know what democracy costs? When dictators and their organizations need to be put down it requires blood.....spilt on the ground.......lots of blood. Dictators don't step down just because a group like the UN ask them to, that's why we call them dictators. They have to be PUT down. Thank God we still know how to do it -- and in this case do it for others -- others who are appreciating it more and more, if you're paying attention. George Evans > You think the war has gone well??? Over a 100,000 iraquis dead, 2500 or so american troops? this is good progress? let me clue you in, the rest of the area does NOT want democracy, and is supporting the terrorists. All those kings and dictators DONT WANT DEMOCRACY! Sure Iraq had another election, what makes you think all is well? clearly bush went in without enough troops and resources, like armored vehicles, and body armor. bush ignored warnings from his joint chiefs, about not enough troops, and in fact fired those who warned him. >> Bob, you are an idiot. You don't even deserve to respond to a person like >> Mark. You don't have the slightest clue about what he just poured out of his [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Over a 100,000 iraquis dead, 2500 or so american troops? this is good > progress? What other revolution has cost fewer lives? You are a little naive when it comes to political struggle. > let me clue you in, the rest of the area does NOT want democracy, and is > supporting the terrorists. All those kings and dictators DONT WANT DEMOCRACY! Of course they're fighting against the revolution, it means their end. > Sure Iraq had another election, what makes you think all is well? Who said *ALL* is well? The election went well as far as participation by all groups. Most groups apparently are excited about the future prospects of their country. NBC reported two nights ago that unemployment had been cut in half and average income has increase by 100 times so that average citizens are able to afford luxury items that were not affordable before the war. Yes, they also reported that terrorists had dragged all the teachers out of a school and executed them, but things like that are not going to continue for long before the people become infuriated with the perpetrators or such acts. > clearly bush went in without enough troops and resources, like armored > vehicles, and body armor. So? Maybe that was a mistake. Wars are full of mistakes. > bush ignored warnings from his joint chiefs, about not enough troops, and in > fact fired those who warned him. That's his prerogative. Personally, I think it was better to blitz them and I think many historians will eventually agree. George Evans > <Bob, you are an idiot. You don't even deserve to respond to a person > like [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > is supporting the terrorists. All those kings and dictators DONT WANT > DEMOCRACY! Neither did imperial Japan. We turned Japan into a democracy by bombing every large and medium sized city in their country, killing 672,000 (est.) Japanese civilians, including two nuclear bombs, occupying their country for SEVEN years and foisting on them a constitution that AMERICA wrote for them. BTW, if Japan had not surrendered even after Nagasaki, the U.S. would have continued to build more atomic bombs and would have obliterated even more of the Japanese nation. But we would have still foisted democracy on whoever survived. You can accomplish a whole lot if you have the will to do it. SignatureSteven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. <snip> >> You think the war has gone well??? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > civilians, including two nuclear bombs, occupying their country for SEVEN > years and foisting on them a constitution that AMERICA wrote for them. And our child is happy and healthy and doing well. And he helps around the house. Actually the boy is able to beat dear old dad at some things. We should be proud. George Evans <And our child is happy and healthy and doing well. And he helps around the house. Actually the boy is able to beat dear old dad at some things. We should be proud. George Evans > EXCELLENT! One day he may be conbscripted and sent away to fight a war without the recources to win:( perhaps get killed, because the president who himself never served in a war, but finagled deferments decides its a good idea:( Its happened TWICE, vietnam and now Iraq. Now BEFORE you spout the volunteer army line... Answer me this, enlistments are down, will this war help or hurt future recruiting? >>And our child is happy and healthy and doing well. And he helps around >>the house. Actually the boy is able to beat dear old dad at some things. We [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >president who himself never served in a war, but finagled deferments >decides its a good idea:( That's a pretty tasteless response, Bob. >Answer me this, enlistments are down, will this war help or hurt future >recruiting? I'm beginning to hope there's a special draft, just for you. Dale <EXCELLENT! One day he may be conbscripted and sent away to fight a war >without the recources to win:( perhaps get killed, because the >president who himself never served in a war, but finagled deferments >decides its a good idea:( That's a pretty tasteless response, Bob. >Answer me this, enlistments are down, will this war help or hurt future >recruiting? I'm beginning to hope there's a special draft, just for you. Dale > THINK WHATEVER YOU WANT ABOUT MY POST! Nevertheless the FACT remains, this war, that has issues may hurt future recruiting making a future draft necessary! So his child might one day be drafted! Such questions will haunt us long after bushes presidency is history. How many here think THIS WAR will help future recruiting? > <EXCELLENT! One day he may be conbscripted and sent away to fight > a war [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > How many here think THIS WAR will help future recruiting? I see you have a new topic to drone on endlessly about. Now, as far as your "facts," consider these: Army recruiting tops new goals By Rowan Scarborough, THE WASHINGTON TIMES December 13, 2005 The Army has exceeded recruiting goals in the first two months of this fiscal year, reversing a trend that had some Iraq critics saying the armed services branch was "broken." The Pentagon yesterday said the Army signed up 5,856 recruits in November, 5 percent above its goal. It previously announced the Army also exceeded its target in October, the first month of the 2006 fiscal year. The Army has that hit its recruiting mark for six straight months, a promising development for the Bush administration. President Bush's critics had cited the Army's failure to achieve its recruiting goals in fiscal 2005 as proof that the war in Iraq is breaking the force. -- end excerpt -- What I find stunning and will be a stain on the USA is your lack of literacy, as you must have been a child that was left behind. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people." -- From Skunk Works by Ben Rich and Leo Janis <snip> > How many here think THIS WAR will help future recruiting? Bob, those of us who played with G. I. Joes sign up. The others, like you, who played with Barbies, don't. War is good for recruitment. George Evans I played with JI joes till my I watched the older kids graduate HS then off to vietnam and die, or perhaps worse come back maimed physically and mentally for life. We LOST VIETNAM, and will ultimately lose Iraq, the only question is how many more die before we give up? Incidently I graduated HS in 1975, it was a close thing. Did you know the bush adminstration DROPPED recruit goals since they felt it impossible to fill the original numbers.So NOW they reach the goals, it LOOKS BETTER PR WISE! thats why the guard and stop loss is being used so heavily. according to news reports the troop numbers will drop after the first of the year, since its impossible to maintain them at 150,000 long term. it hurts morale, with troops having rotated 4 and 5 times. the familys are suffering. > I played with JI joes till my I watched the older kids graduate HS > then off to vietnam and die, or perhaps worse come back maimed [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 150,000 long term. it hurts morale, with troops having rotated 4 > and 5 times. the familys are suffering. Clearly it's tough; do you expect it to be a piece of cake? Also note that the goals are reduced since retention rate is higher than targeted with 108% of it's target for active duty and 102% for the Reserve and 104% for the National Guard. Additionally, the Army is 13,000 stronger than it was at 9/11, 4+ years ago. Now, if they were getting less than 50% of their goals it would be quite a different story. Active duty recruitment is at 92% of the initial target. Now, please take your dribble and political agenda elsewhere as this is the Shuttle newsgroup. I'm sure your high school graduation was a close thing, as you state. Frankly, I dont see how you did graduate. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people." -- From Skunk Works by Ben Rich and Leo Janis > Also note that the goals are reduced since retention rate is higher > than targeted with 108% of it's target for active duty and 102% for the > Reserve and 104% for the National Guard. Additionally, the Army is > 13,000 stronger than it was at 9/11, 4+ years ago. Now, if they were > getting less than 50% of their goals it would be quite a different > story. Active duty recruitment is at 92% of the initial target. Numbers can lie, yanno. How do those percentiles compare to previous years, and do they measure the same targets? I've heard reports of soldiers' enlistments being unvoluntarily extended, would the veracity of such reports figure into those numbers? SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen >> Also note that the goals are reduced since retention rate is >> higher than targeted with 108% of it's target for active duty and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reports of soldiers' enlistments being unvoluntarily extended, > would the veracity of such reports figure into those numbers? I did a bit of searching but have read in a number of different places that overall the military was doing OK with retention and recruitment with the Army having some trouble. These numbers are more or less consistent with that. Then again, in the Clinton years, the pilots were getting worn out and retention was poor. Pilot training is neither inexpensive or quick. Now, back to shuttle ... Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people." -- Kelly Johnson, as quoted in _Skunk Works_ > I played with JI joes till my I watched the older kids graduate HS then > off to vietnam and die, or perhaps worse come back maimed physically > and mentally for life. We LOST VIETNAM, and will ultimately lose Iraq, > the only question is how many more die before we give up? JI Joes? Is that what they were called in Canada? It's guys like you who caused us to lose Vietnam. And now you are trying to cause us to lose Iraq. But this time you aren't going to win. Iraq has their own government now and things are looking good in spite of you. We should be able to leave soon, this time with our heads held high. George Evans > <And our child is happy and healthy and doing well. And he helps around the > house. Actually the boy is able to beat dear old dad at some things. We [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Answer me this, enlistments are down, will this war help or hurt future > recruiting? Bob, you are quite an entertaining fellow. Thanks for the laugh. I was talking metaphorically about Japan. It wouldn't be very useful in war since we don't let the boy play with big guns yet. Another thing--and this brought the greatest enjoyment--by any chance do you look like this-----> :( I hope you do, because I still chuckle each time I picture you perched on a water lily at a pond at the cape near the launch pads, wondering when the insufferable racket will finally be finished. George Evans > to save money, then f*ck it. The CEV is never going to be built, the shuttle > will be dead, Correct. They are welfare programs for aerospace workers. > and we'll have no manned space program. Not really correct. The US will have no socialist monopoly space program, but lots of private concerns will be sending people into space. >ahh the earlier story of this budget cut guts the workforce to just ONE >shift, and that sets the max flights per year of 3 tops. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >one shift, no nites weekends, just one shift of workers Okay. But it seems to me there should be some middle ground cost savings of closing down one of the three OPFs and the workflow needed for one third of the fleet. Or are there really only two OPF crews and they just divide their time between three Orbiters? Brian > December 15, 2005 > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > NASA at least $3 billion less than needed. The letter says that would > mean immediate retirement of one shuttle orbiter, Atlantis. Looking back at U.S. manned spaceflight programs. None finished the way they were first planned. Hardware was even made for most of the missions listed below and they were still cancelled. Mercury: MR-5, MR-6?, MA-10, MA-11, MA-12 flights were all cancelled. Gemini: GT-13, GT-14 and GT-15 were all cancelled before manned flights began. The orders for their Titan II boosters (#13, #14 and #15) were cancelled July 30, 1964. Apollo: AS-205/AS-208 (Saturn IB dual launches of manned AS-205 and unmanned LM AS-208), AS-18, AS-19, AS-20 moon landing missions were all cancelled. Skylab: Skylab B and its three manned flights were all cancelled. It looks like the Shuttle program will follow the same path. Rusty yeah politics kills most programs, certinally the case with apollo. killed to save money, and perhaps cut risks a little mercury and gemini though were cancelled to get on with the new program, as the old one kinda became obsolete as it flew. perhaps that describes shuttle, obsolete, sadly with no immediate replacement. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.