 |
 | 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 / July 2006Playing the odds.
this quote from Mike Griffin the supposed responsible adminstrator of NASA. Since when did flying move into las vegas? if theres a accident griffin can stand by his boss the incompetent president and watch nasa get dismembered, frever gutted of man in space, is it really worth risking the agency? I would of supported this launch if the crew size had been cut to 2 or 3 and just take stuff to iss a small crew could unload. GRIFFINS QUOTE FROM FLORIDA TODAY! You're not gonna like this, and I'm sure I'm not going to like how it sounds in print, but we are playing the odds," NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said" How many times are you going to make the same comment without understanding what the Administrator was saying? Once was too many. I presume if the shuttle crashes (and we all hope it won't) you will say "told you so" but if it is successful you won't say "I was wrong to criticise Griffin", you will just say "he was lucky". Isn't is great to be in a win-win situation when you don't have to take responsibility for decision-making. Malcolm > How many times are you going to make the same comment without > understanding what the Administrator was saying? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Malcolm Hey we flew with eroding O rings... We flew with foam debris damage and partial wing burn thrus.... Its fine till someone dies... ISS isnt up to 9 crew staranded there and the supposed rescue shuttles tank is WATERLOGGED! > Its (sic) fine till someone dies... It probably absolutely fine _after_ they die as well. Space is a risky business. You need to learn to accept risk and make it a positive factor rather than the reverse. Your nation would never have got to the moon with your degree of risk-adverseness. In fact, your nation would not have been founded in the first place with that level of risk-adverseness. > ISS isnt (sic) up to 9 crew staranded (sic) there and the supposed rescue shuttles (sic) tank is WATERLOGGED! So what, even if it were true? The risk of something going wrong is within the realms of acceptable risk. Malcolm B >> ISS isnt (sic) up to 9 crew staranded (sic) there and the supposed > rescue shuttles (sic) tank is WATERLOGGED! > > So what, even if it were true? The risk of something going wrong is > within the realms of acceptable risk. This is one more reason I killfiled Bbo Hallreb. In addition to being cowardly and stupid, he's either a liar or has zero reading comprehension or retention. I told him just two days ago that ISS was capable of supporting a crew of 9 for 81 days, with normal exercise, while the rescue flight can be turned around in 47 days. And by the way, the "waterlogged" tank has already been dried out.  SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > >> ISS isnt (sic) up to 9 crew staranded (sic) there and the supposed > > rescue shuttles (sic) tank is WATERLOGGED! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > JRF Why no news that the waterlogged tank is fine? If the current shuttle has serious foam loss, what will prevent it from effecting the rescue shuttle? your demeaniung comments are very similiar to those BEFORE coulumbia when I asked about a shuttle stuck at station. beyond which shouldnt nasa top off all tanks before attempting launch again?> that O2 might be very useful in a emergency.. >> How many times are you going to make the same comment without >> understanding what the Administrator was saying? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ISS isnt up to 9 crew staranded there and the supposed rescue shuttles > tank is WATERLOGGED! Hey, even if we hadn't done anything about the O-rings or the foam ramps, the odds in favor of success would be better than 50:1. So pick your quivering carcass up off the floor and lay some money down on success. George Evans >How many times are you going to make the same comment without >understanding what the Administrator was saying? How many times will you respond to Bbo without understanding he's an idiot who will merely repeat himself, and that continuing to reply to him makes *you* look like an idiot? D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL ceryinally a RESCUE shuttle should be one that CAN FLY? Now just how do you get the water out of the foam in 30 days or less while the orbiter is being processased and taken to the pad. meanwhile you have 9 astronauts stranded on a station that barely limps along as is. now doubt 3 would be returned by soyuz almost imnmediately leaving 6 stranded with no way off at all till a soyuz or shuttle arrives. but a major foam loss the type that strands a crew will prohibit another shuttle launch risk for meaningful reward is one thing but the head of the agency saying playing the odds:( That will make a excellent sound bite with a crew stranded..... makes nasa look really stupid "Bob Haller" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in news:1151771313.581850.300790 @p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com: > Now just how do you get the water out of the foam in 30 days or less > while the orbiter is being processased and taken to the pad. You bake it out. > now doubt 3 would be returned by soyuz almost imnmediately I wonder if they could stuff a few more in? > I wonder if they could stuff a few more in?\\ I doubt it soyuz is tight Op Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:03:41 -0700, schreef Bob Haller: >> I wonder if they could stuff a few more in?\\ > > I doubt it soyuz is tight Quite so. And I was wondering, are NASA astronauts trained to handle and land a Soyuz? Otherwise, a Russian commander/pilot must always be present (if it even can be done by one person). That would mean only two of the stranded space shuttle crew can be saved each time. > And I was wondering, are NASA astronauts trained to handle and land a > Soyuz? Otherwise, a Russian commander/pilot must always be present (if it > even can be done by one person). NASA ISS crew members are trained as Soyuz Flight Engineers. A number of ESA astronauts are qualified as Soyuz Return Commanders who can perform undocking, re-entry and landing with an FE on board. Normal Soyuz crew has a Commander and an FE, I'm not aware of any qualified Commanders who are not from the former USSR, and there are also a very small number of Rescue Commanders trained to fly single handed. Anthony > "Bob Haller" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in news:1151771313.581850.300790 > @p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You bake it out. Is there an oven large enough? > > now doubt 3 would be returned by soyuz almost imnmediately > > I wonder if they could stuff a few more in? Not w/o killing them. As it is, each person flying in a Soyuz needs a custom seat liner. There's room for only three. In such a emergency the ALL at ISS would be considered stranded:( so 2 shuttle and one ISS crew off first.... Can soyuz deorbit by remote control? Of course the whole problem there arent any extra soyuz in stock for fast use... unless the US or russia has a black secret program with a manned vehicle that could retrieve the crew.... doing so and then the public knowledge its availble might save the US a ton of money devloping a vehicle that already exists:) Might be a GOOD thing, shuttle does death plunge in pacfic, we build heavy lifter and go back to moon and mars "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in news:s6Cpg.1251$ye3.83@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: > Is there an oven large enough? Yeah, the Florida sun. > As it is, each person flying in a Soyuz needs a custom seat liner. Isn't that more important for blast off? Neon Knight <none@none.net> wrote in news:Xns97F3DE91449719knightofneon20@ 216.196.97.136: > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in > news:s6Cpg.1251$ye3.83@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Isn't that more important for blast off? Nope, more important for landing, especially if the braking rockets fail (as they have done occasionally). SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > risk for meaningful reward is one thing but the head of the agency > saying (sic) playing the odds Same thing. Do you understand what "playing the odds" means? Malcolm B > Same thing. Do you understand what "playing the odds" means? > > Malcolm B Yeah, challenger managers played the odds on cold teperatures and lost... Columbia managers played the odds not worrying about foam loss and even a partial wing burn thru, and didnt bother imaging the orbiter while in orbit, heck why bother having the daily mettings? we have people traveling:( so how many playing the odds do you want to do:( > > Same thing. Do you understand what "playing the odds" means? > > > > Malcolm B > > Yeah, challenger managers played the odds on cold teperatures and > lost... No, the Challenger managers played the odds, but the dice were loaded. They really didn't have a fair idea of the actual odds. Or rather, they were outright ignoring them. Griffen has a far better idea of the odds. So he's making a better informed decision. > Columbia managers played the odds not worrying about foam loss and even > a partial wing burn thru, and didnt bother imaging the orbiter while in > orbit, heck why bother having the daily mettings? we have people > traveling:( > > so how many playing the odds do you want to do:( > *From:* "Bob Haller" <hallerb@aol.com> > *Date:* 1 Jul 2006 09:28:33 -0700 > > ceryinally a RESCUE shuttle should be one that CAN FLY? What is a "ceryinally" ? Malcolm B > *From:* fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) > *Date:* Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:57:18 GMT [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > idiot who will merely repeat himself, and that continuing to reply to > him makes *you* look like an idiot? I assumed everybody who wasn't interested has kill-filed the whole thread. I suggest you do. I'm enjoying myself having de-kill-filed it for the time being and need something to do whilst watching the launch. I'm not sure that makes me look like an idiot although I agree it shows me as somebody with time on my hands. I've even scored the odd hit before now elsewhere by running trolls into the ground - although I admit that that was when I was ill and had nothing else to do. You _do_ know how to kill file threads, don't you? Malcolm B > this quote from Mike Griffin the supposed responsible adminstrator of > NASA. Since when did flying move into las vegas? When do you think it left Las Vegas? > if theres a accident griffin can stand by his boss the incompetent > president and watch nasa get dismembered, frever gutted of man in > space, > > is it really worth risking the agency? Another disaster would not kill space exploration. It's people like you, who try to convince people that space travel should already be safe, who do the real damage. George Evans > Another disaster would not kill space exploration. It's people like you, who > try to convince people that space travel should already be safe, who do the > real damage. > > George Evans NASA will lose manned space for at least a generation... if you cant trust nasa with the shuttle what makes you think they will fund moon mars? >> Another disaster would not kill space exploration. It's people like you, who >> try to convince people that space travel should already be safe, who do the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trust nasa with the shuttle what makes you think they will fund moon > mars? I would continue to pay. I trust NASA. George Evans >> Another disaster would not kill space exploration. It's people like you, who >> try to convince people that space travel should already be safe, who do the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trust nasa with the shuttle what makes you think they will fund moon > mars? And secondly, do you think private industry is going to have a perfect safety record? Have you heard about test pilots? George Evans > *From:* "Bob Haller" <hallerb@aol.com> > *Date:* 2 Jul 2006 19:30:03 -0700 > NASA will lose manned space for at least a generation... if you > cant (sic) trust nasa with the shuttle what makes you think they > will fund moon mars (sic)? You see, despite being told, you are doing it again. You really are part of the problem you know. If you want to kill off space travel you are going the right way about it. Malcolm B It wouldnt be my call.... With tight budgets, terrorism, then add nasa stupidity if they lose another vehicle after over riding the engineers. just what do you think will happen? nasa doesnt have a lot of support as is, more deaths will only make that worse.... it would be different if nasa was really doing something.... besides average joe on the street does not appear to want to go back to moon or mars:( |
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
|
©2010 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.