 |
 | 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 / September 2003MEDS Glass Cockpit Led to Death of Columbia Crew (One Gaping Hole in the CAIB Report)
A popular poster available from NASA is the one showing the shuttle's modern glass cockpit. Whenever I look at this image: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-101/lores/jsc2000e10522.jpg ...I feel a sickening reminder of how this glass cockpit led to the death of the seven Columbia astronauts. Gehman's group worked diligently over seven months to deliver a statement that NASA lacked adequate funding for safe shuttle operations. This is a seriously flawed conclusion. NASA was given 10 figures worth of money to improve the shuttle - well over a billion dollars. The problem that proved fatal was that NASA prioritized glitz over safety. Here is a .pdf of a 1997 GAO report on shuttle upgrades: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98021t.pdf Page 6 highlights the four most costly upgrades, including over $200 million to fund a snazzy glass cockpit. What was NASA doing pumping so much money into an upgrade that had questionable value with regards to safety? What was Congress doing in approving NASA's wish list? How is it that priorities got so backwards that safety took a back seat to "flash"? Consider this feeble justification for the MEDS upgrade: _____ ...Gregory, who piloted space shuttle mission STS-67 in 1995 and also helped evaluate MEDS from a pilot's perspective. Most astronauts entering the space shuttle for the first time, find the experience to be a step backwards. "The flight instruments are very reminiscent of the 60s and 70s technology," Gregory says. "When MEDS was first being developed...the shuttle pilots were older pilots...used to the steam gauges. "Today, new shuttle commanders and pilots are used to the glass cockpits of the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s, which they have flown either as operational or test pilots. This [upgrade] is bringing them back to what is familiar to them." _____ (From http://www.defensedaily.com/reports/avionics/previous/nov99/11spaceshutle.htm) So with MEDS making the top four with regards to cost, consider the upgrades that didn't make the cut. Years before STS-107, NASA had designed a more robust replacement for WLE RCC to counter: "...the risk of a catastrophic puncture of an Orbiter wing leading edge..." A simple Googling of [WLE MMOD] will take you straight to the webpage that NASA keeps available (MMOD stands for Micro-Meteoroid Orbital Debris). The quote above is taken from this page: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/upgrades/wle.html This site (last updated on "04/07/02") offers lots more info on this upgrade that got cancelled: _____ Solution: Design being implemented provides additional insulation (Nextel 440 fabric) behind the Inconel foil for WLE panels 5-13. Initial Operation Date: Phase II Upgrade OV-102 STS-103 (12/2/99) OV-103 STS- 97(4/8/99) OV-104 STS-92 (1/14/99) OV-105 STS-96 (12/9/98) _____ So why did Hal Gehman and his group not bother to highlight this fact? A thorough investigation would have criticized this misappropriation of MEDS at the expense of safety. A tragic irony is that Willy McCool had a leading role in the MEDS upgrade. Here is a photo of him working at SAIL, the Shuttle Avionics Integration Lab (designated as OV-095): http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/press/meds/meds12b.jpg Here's a page listing shuttle program goals: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/upgrades/goals.html Nowhere do I see a goal of "keeping up with the Jones's" triple-7 style, as Bill Gregory seems to justify the cost. But it is brutally evident that what was sacrificed at the expense of the decision to implement MEDS was: "Goal 1: Fly Safely". NASA had gotten plenty of money to fly the shuttle safely. That money was not spent wisely. ~ CT I'd tend to think that there is more justification to be found for MEDS than the one you cite, which indeed is feeble. Two points I remember: it became increasingly difficult and costly to maintain the original display equipment; and the new devices allow more information to be presented in more easily perceptible form, required for the additional tasks in building ISS. > Solution: Design being implemented provides additional insulation > (Nextel 440 fabric) behind the Inconel foil for WLE panels 5-13. I doubt that this modification would have made much of a difference in the STS-107 scenario - it is directed at the much smaller damage caused by orbital debris. Jan From Jan Vorbrüggen: > I'd tend to think that there is more justification to be found for MEDS > than the one you cite, which indeed is feeble. Two points I remember: it > became increasingly difficult and costly to maintain the original display > equipment; and the new devices allow more information to be presented > in more easily perceptible form, required for the additional tasks in > building ISS. MEDS was pitched as an upgrade that enhanced safety. But I'm not aware of evidence that the old cockpit was a significant threat to safety. I certainly don't see justification as the fourth most costly upgrade. The bottom line is clear to me that MEDS was funded because it was glamorous. > > Solution: Design being implemented provides additional insulation > > (Nextel 440 fabric) behind the Inconel foil for WLE panels 5-13. > > I doubt that this modification would have made much of a difference in > the STS-107 scenario - it is directed at the much smaller damage caused > by orbital debris. I would like to think that those involved in designing the upgraded wing leading edges were aware of the foam impact problem. The CAIB report has a clear graph showing the history of impacts throughout the program. The data did not emphasize orbital debris impacts. The graph, as I remember it, focused on the problem of foam impacts. ~ CT > From Jan Vorbrüggen: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The bottom line is clear to me that MEDS was funded because it was > glamorous. Troll, go run away and hide, back to your cave. The sun is rising From Julian Bordas <julianbordas@nospamyoubastards.iprimus.com.au>: > > MEDS was pitched as an upgrade that enhanced safety. But I'm not > > aware of evidence that the old cockpit was a significant threat to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Troll, go run away and hide, back to your cave. The sun is rising (I am sure that we are all capable of mature interaction here.) ~ CT >>Troll, go run away and hide, back to your cave. The sun is rising > > (I am sure that we are all capable of mature interaction here.) So when will start? From Julian Bordas: > >>Troll, go run away and hide, back to your cave. The sun is rising > > > > (I am sure that we are all capable of mature interaction here.) > > So when will start? I set this goal from the first day I joined this forum years ago. I have never insulted any member here, no matter how irate they may get over opinions that I have shared. I make a solid commitment to uphold respect for all. If this is adopted as a forum standard then this can serve as fertile ground for excellent discussion. ...and that's one lesson that can be taken from fertilizer. Even if it looks like a pile of crap, you can plant a seed that can grow in a healthy manneur (manner/manure). So I personally have no problem if someone here is spouting manure. I know how to avoid stepping in the cowpies. It's the crows that I'm concerned about. ~ CT >I set this goal from the first day I joined this forum years ago. I >have never insulted any member here, no matter how irate they may get >over opinions that I have shared. You insult our intelligence on a daily basis. >I make a solid commitment to uphold respect for all. You fail utterly with respect to this commitment. >If this is adopted as a forum standard then this can serve as fertile >ground for excellent discussion. This was a forum standard long before you arrived, and continues to this day. But it only applies to those willing to engage in open and substantive debate. But is does not apply to individuals like yourself who believe prevarications, evasions, and semantic games equate to open and substantive debate. D.  SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. From Derek Lyons: > >I set this goal from the first day I joined this forum years ago. I > >have never insulted any member here, no matter how irate they may get > >over opinions that I have shared. > > You insult our intelligence on a daily basis. (An actual quote would go a long way toward establishing validity of this statement. Key point here: -feeling- insulted is not the same as having an insult directed at you.) > >I make a solid commitment to uphold respect for all. > > You fail utterly with respect to this commitment. If I am made aware of any such instance, I will be quick to offer an apology. Making amends for mistakes is part of this commitment I strive to uphold. ~ CT >From Derek Lyons: >> >I set this goal from the first day I joined this forum years ago. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >this statement. Key point here: -feeling- insulted is not the same >as having an insult directed at you.) Key point here: You lack comprehension of the English language if you parse 'insulting out intelligence' as 'making a personal insult'. >> >I make a solid commitment to uphold respect for all. >> >> You fail utterly with respect to this commitment. > >If I am made aware of any such instance, Try almost any reply you have made in this newsgroup over the last 24 hours. Try your repeated evasions and prevarications when faced with valid criticisms of your theories. >I will be quick to offer an apology. Making amends for mistakes is part of >this commitment I strive to uphold. Despite having instances pointed out to you many times, you have yet to offer an apology or in any way make amends. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >>I will be quick to offer an apology. Making amends for mistakes is part of >>this commitment I strive to uphold. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > D. Amazing. You prefer, and seem to assume that most people prefer "he's a fuckwit" to an opinion offered about the mentality which caused the Columbia disaster. Even in the usenet world, that's bizarre. Steve > >>I will be quick to offer an apology. Making amends for mistakes is part of > >>this commitment I strive to uphold. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a fuckwit" to an opinion offered about the mentality which caused the > Columbia disaster. Even in the usenet world, that's bizarre. No Steve, we prefer an opinion that can be backed with facts and that is not offered in an inflammatory manner. > Steve >> >>I will be quick to offer an apology. Making amends for mistakes is part > of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No Steve, we prefer an opinion that can be backed with facts and that is not > offered in an inflammatory manner. I can understand that. I really didn't see the thread as inflammatory, but I also know that opinions can affect people (including me) that way, even if it wasn't the intent. It's strange, this doesn't seem so far removed from my speculations on precisely what is meant by the "NASA culture". That term, to me, seems to define a symptom rather than a disease. Steve > Amazing. You prefer, and seem to assume that most people prefer "he's > a fuckwit" to an opinion offered about the mentality which caused the > Columbia disaster. Even in the usenet world, that's bizarre. We prefer opinions based on facts and present in a mature manner over imflammatory and misleading theories based on assumptions. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. > So I personally have no problem if someone here is spouting manure. I > know how to avoid stepping in the cowpies. It's the crows that I'm > concerned about. You mean like the post that started this whole thread? Wait, that was you. Remember, you can't polish a turd. Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) writes: > So I personally have no problem if someone here is spouting manure. ...Because you're used to not only spouting it yourself, you're sleeping in it as well. Killfile this little bastard, kids. Please. OM Signature"No bastard 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 bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr From Jeff Findley: > > So I personally have no problem if someone here is spouting manure. I > > know how to avoid stepping in the cowpies. It's the crows that I'm > > concerned about. > > You mean like the post that started this whole thread? Wait, that was > you. Remember, you can't polish a turd. I don't see how it falls into a "crow" category. I can understand if you think that the connection is a "turd", but then all everyone need do is sidestep it. How many people went up in arms when Homer Hickam compared the shuttle program to Vietnam? Was he rebuked for making a "trolling" commentary? Inviting a "flamewar"? He voiced an opinion. There were key points that I didn't agree with, but I didn't get *angry* at him. So Homer compares the shuttle to Vietnam. I have a problem with seeing the connection. I've offered a connection from MEDS. I'd say that this is much more direct than Vietnam. I'd also say that there is much less emotional tie to MEDS than there is to Vietnam bloodshed. Yet look at how this forum reacts. If we can handle Homer's opinion, I'd say that we are capable of handling an opinion on MEDS. ~ CT > From Jeff Findley: > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > So Homer compares the shuttle to Vietnam. I have a problem with > seeing the connection. He offered an opinion. > I've offered a connection from MEDS. I'd say that this is much more > direct than Vietnam. I'd also say that there is much less emotional > tie to MEDS than there is to Vietnam bloodshed. Yet look at how this > forum reacts. You offered an opinion using inflammatory words and claimed it was a fact. If you fail to see the difference, then I'm surprised. > If we can handle Homer's opinion, I'd say that we are capable of > handling an opinion on MEDS. An opinion yes. But given your history of making outrageous claims as facts, often using inflammatory language, and offering few facts to actually support your claims and also of ignoring experts in the field who in some cases worked on systems you were making incorrect claims about, it's no wonder you have the reputation you do. Funny, but had the Subject been somethiing like: "NASA's priorities on safety" rather than what it was, you might have kept a few more listeners. Sort of the reverse of Jerry McGuire. You didn't have us at Hello, you lost us at "...Led to Death..." > ~ CT From Greg Moore: > > From Jeff Findley: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > If you fail to see the difference, then I'm surprised. How ironic to see all the profanity, insults and vulgarity directed at me... followed up with criticism that *I* am the one using inflammatory words. And I would be interested to know just which facts are being questioned here. Those were official websites that were referenced. If you are referring to the conclusion that improved WLEs would have survived the SOFI impact, this point was thoroughly addressed early on in this thread. > > If we can handle Homer's opinion, I'd say that we are capable of > > handling an opinion on MEDS. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sort of the reverse of Jerry McGuire. You didn't have us at Hello, you lost > us at "...Led to Death..." If we care about finding out what led to the death of the crew, I see no reason to freak when someone points out the role that MEDS, or any other contributing cause, had in that. ~ CT > From Julian Bordas: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have never insulted any member here, no matter how irate they may get > over opinions that I have shared. No, you just insult folks who aren't here, like veterans, etc. > I make a solid commitment to uphold respect for all. If this is > adopted as a forum standard then this can serve as fertile ground for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ~ CT From Greg Moore: > "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote in message > > From Julian Bordas: > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No, you just insult folks who aren't here, like veterans, etc. Here too, a quote would go a long way toward establishing validity of such a statement. I remember being misunderstood on many ocassions. ~ CT > From Greg Moore: > > "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Here too, a quote would go a long way toward establishing validity of > such a statement. I remember being misunderstood on many ocassions. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=drug+veterans+group:sci.space.*+author:stuf4&h l=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=2cf0acb0.0205301213.43c98ff%40posting.g oogle.com&rnum=1 You are the Humpty Dumpty of this newsgroup. You can wiggle all you want, but you know as well as anyone else that the connotaions associated with "drug pushers". I really don't have time to play your "find Stuffie's posts and then have him wiggle on definitions" today. You purposely use your words in an inflammatory way and then feign surprise that others are upset by them. That by the way is part of the definition of a troll. > ~ CT >> From Greg Moore: >> > "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > but you know as well as anyone else that the connotaions associated with > "drug pushers". Nevertheless, his statement was truthful, namely that *some* veterans are drug pushers. In any number of contexts, that's no surprise to anyone. Yet the person replying claims that "He (CT) thinks that *all* veterans are drug pushers. Quite a leap. > I really don't have time to play your "find Stuffie's posts and then have > him wiggle on definitions" today. > > You purposely use your words in an inflammatory way and then feign surprise > that others are upset by them. Sentences constructed in such a way as to grab attention are a common tactic. Whether one finds them "inflammatory" is an individual perception. This is a problem I have with the epithets flung at John Maxson. The statement that some who believe in unpopular conspiracy theories are "bastards" is no doubt true. The blanket statement that *all* who believe in them are is a different story, or that an individual whose posts are unpopular is a "bastard" simply betrays ignorance. > That by the way is part of the definition of a troll. Usenet is full of rather unimaginative lingo, meaningless to many of us. Which is one reason I rarely use it. Steve > > You purposely use your words in an inflammatory way and then feign surprise > > that others are upset by them. > > Sentences constructed in such a way as to grab attention are a common > tactic. Whether one finds them "inflammatory" is an individual > perception. The use of such tactics to advance an argument approaches an admission that it cannot stand on its own merit. From Paul Blay: > > > You purposely use your words in an inflammatory way and then feign surprise > > > that others are upset by them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The use of such tactics to advance an argument approaches an admission that > it cannot stand on its own merit. The subject line was offered as a statement of fact and it was hard followed up with hard evidence. I'd say that this subthread debating "tone" instead of the hard facts stands as evidence of diversion away from the essence of the argument: MEDS was funded. WLE debris impact strenghthening wasn't. WLE debris impact killed Columbia's crew. It's that simple. Put whatever title you feel comfortable with on it. If there is an error in the facts provided or the logic in reaching the conclusion, I'm all for focusing in on that. ~ CT [snip] > MEDS was funded. > WLE debris impact strenghthening wasn't. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ~ CT How about... "X" was funded WLE debris impact strenghthening wasn't. WLE debris impact killed Columbia's crew. Ergo, "X" Led to Death of Columbia Crew. Insert anything funded by NASA for "X". Or, given that this is a National Program directly funded by the Gov't., insert any government funded program for "X". From stmx3: > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If there is an error in the facts provided or the logic in reaching > > the conclusion, I'm all for focusing in on that. > How about... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > National Program directly funded by the Gov't., insert any government > funded program for "X". I seem to remember this angle being covered early on in this thread. The point was that MEDS cost a huge sum of money, while offering little improvement (dollar for dollar) to safety. That is why the 'X' being isolated is the $200+million MEDS upgrade. If someone were to point out another huge expenditure in the program that was unnecessary or unwise, I might agree to wrapping that into a composite-X. A key aspect of this criticism is directed toward Hal Gehman's conclusion that NASA wasn't given enough money to fly the shuttle safely. MEDS (and whatever else we might point out) stands as proof that NASA *was* given plenty of money. ~ CT > From Paul Blay: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It's that simple. Put whatever title you feel comfortable with on it. It's certainly not a valid Aristotelian logical statement by any means. A was F B was !F B resulted in C There's no link of A to B let alone C. > If there is an error in the facts provided or the logic in reaching > the conclusion, I'm all for focusing in on that. Let me try this. Repaving of a section of local Interstate was Funded. WLE debris impact strenghthening wasn't. WLE debris impact killed Columbia's crew. Using your own logic (thank you for boiling it down to the nitty gritty, saves me the work of having to do it) The repaving of a local interstate near me led to the death of Columbia Crew. > ~ CT From Greg Moore: > > The subject line was offered as a statement of fact and it was hard > > followed up with hard evidence. I'd say that this subthread debating > > "tone" instead of the hard facts stands as evidence of diversion away > > from the essence of the argument: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > It's that simple. Put whatever title you feel comfortable with on it. > It's certainly not a valid Aristotelian logical statement by any means. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's no link of A to B let alone C. The link from A to B is that F is a constraint. F is the funding bucket that holds the letters. A is a *big* letter and takes up lots of room in the bucket. All the letters fit, but then a problem occurs when the large bucket gets traded for a smaller bucket (at the risk of confusing things even more, the larger bucket was grabbed by the letters "ISS"). So this is the link from A to B. I was mistaken for stating, "It's that simple." As stated early on, the issue is complex. I'll try again to put the argument in basic terms: - NASA recognized a need to improve shuttle safety. - NASA engineered a group of upgrades. - Congress, agreeing with NASA's need for a safer shuttle, provided adequate funding for these upgrades. - More money was needed to fund Station. - Shuttle upgrade funding was pilfered to help pay for Station. - Certain upgrades were forced to be eliminated. - Among the upgrades being considered, MEDS offered low safety improvement for high dollar cost. - WLE MMOD offered questionable safety improvement for lower dollar cost. - MEDS got funded. - WLE MMOD did not get funded. - Had MEDS not been funded, WLE MMOD could have been funded instead. - WLE debris impact led to the death of Columbia crew - Strengthened WLEs had an improved chance of surviving the foam impact. Therefore: - MEDS led to the death of Columbia's crew. ...and to recap the two key criticisms from this argument: - Funding MEDS over WLE MMOD indicates lack of prioritization for safety. - Deficiency in CAIB conclusion that shuttle safety was not adequately funded. > > If there is an error in the facts provided or the logic in reaching > > the conclusion, I'm all for focusing in on that. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The repaving of a local interstate near me led to the death of Columbia > Crew. If that local interstate was funded with money earmarked with the expressed interest of improving astronaut safety, and it could be shown that the repaving did little to improve astronaut safety... If the potholes in the road weren't that big a threat to those astronauts who used the road, or that the road was only used by astronauts in extremely unlikely cases three failures deep of reliable primary roads and communications to their cars to direct them to completely adequate alternate roads... If it can be shown that canceling the interstate repaving would have made funds available to proceed with the WLE strengthening upgrade... Then in that case, I would agree with the conclusion that the repaving let to death. And every time I happened to drive down that stretch of highway that had been repaved unnecessarily, I would be reminded of the tragic loss that was totally avoidable. ~ CT > From Greg Moore: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > bucket that holds the letters. A is a *big* letter and takes up lots > of room in the bucket. No it is not. You are just trolling. Where is the evidence to support your wild and apocryphal ideas? From Julian Bordas: > > From Greg Moore: <snip> > >>A was F > >>B was !F [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where is the evidence to support your wild and apocryphal ideas? If your conclusion is that my argument is insincere ("trolling"), I don't see how it would be productive to continue. ~ CT Again, the whole argument falls down because of the fact that the WLE improvement that was contemplated would have improved the chances to survive a MMOD hit, but not a FOD hit as Columbia suffered. Thus, already the premise is incorrect. Had there been improvements on ET foam sheeding, early diagnosis of the effects of FOD hits during flight, etc. - all the improvements being done now - that had been contemplated but not done because of MEDS, you might have a point. But it is precisely a major finding of the CAIB report that such improvements were _not_ contemplated - this being an organizational, not technical failure of NASA. Jan From Jan Vorbrüggen: > Again, the whole argument falls down because of the fact that the WLE > improvement that was contemplated would have improved the chances to survive > a MMOD hit, but not a FOD hit as Columbia suffered. Thus, already the premise > is incorrect. Examination of the need for stronger WLEs would reveal the history of damage done to the WLEs. And this would show that the vast majority of damage was occurring from SOFI impact. I'll repost a snapshot of the foam impact situation as of 1997: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/katnik/sts87-12-23.html Excerpt: ------ STS-87 is Home! The Post-Flight Inspection Begins by Greg Katnik December 23, l997 STS-87 rolled to a stop...the extent of damage at the conclusion of this mission was not "normal." ... During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the external tank. ... Foam cause damage to a ceramic tile?! That seems unlikely, however when that foam is combined with a flight velocity between speeds of MACH two to MACH four, it becomes a projectile with incredible damage potential. The big question? At what phase of the flight did it happen and what changes need to be made to correct this for future missions? ... It was determined that during the ascent, the foam separation from the external tank was carried by the aerodynamic flow and pelted the nose of the orbiter and cascaded aft from that point. Once again, this foam was carried in a relative air-stream between MACH two and MACH 4! ... As this investigation continues, I am very comfortable that the questions will be answered and the solutions applied. ------ Obviously, the strengthened WLE solution was never applied. It had been canceled. > Had there been improvements on ET foam sheeding, early diagnosis of the > effects of FOD hits during flight, etc. - all the improvements being done > now - that had been contemplated but not done because of MEDS, you might > have a point. But it is precisely a major finding of the CAIB report that > such improvements were _not_ contemplated - this being an organizational, > not technical failure of NASA. * Side note: A point of technicality is that FOD stands for "Foreign Object Damage". I don't see how parts of your own vehicle hitting your own vehicle qualifies as "foreign". If we want to use a catchy acronym here, a more accurate one might be DOD. * Pressing forward... Jan, if you click the link above and read the full article, you'll see that it ends with: "As this investigation continues, I am very comfortable that the questions will be answered and the solutions applied. In fact, some of the solutions are already in progress. At present the foam on the sides of the tank is being sanded down to the nominal minimum thickness. This removes the outer surface, which is tougher than the foam core, and lessens the amount of foam that can separate and hit the orbiter." So, Jan, not only were fixes contemplated, they were being *applied*. My guess is that Hal and his gang unearthed this information on Week 1. How this info got "re-earthed" is a puzzle I will leave for those who are open to considering arguments much more complex than the one presented in this thread. ~ CT >> > You purposely use your words in an inflammatory way and then feign surprise >> > that others are upset by them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The use of such tactics to advance an argument approaches an admission that > it cannot stand on its own merit. Oh, it may be interpreted that way, but it's common in many posts. I personally don't consider it inflammatory, just my perception. Steve From Greg Moore: <snip> > > > No, you just insult folks who aren't here, like veterans, etc. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but you know as well as anyone else that the connotaions associated with > "drug pushers". Here your "concrete example" has been self-relegated to "connotations". I've known more than a few doctors who have been upfront in telling me that their job is to push drugs. And you may also know about the courtroom trial that occurred subsequent to this post where the use of these drugs by pilots in the cockpit was a major focal point. > I really don't have time to play your "find Stuffie's posts and then have > him wiggle on definitions" today. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That by the way is part of the definition of a troll. The problem I've identified is ignorance. Some members here don't know the difference between, say, stability versus control. So when it gets pointed out to them, they feel "insulted". Some members here are ignorant to the fact that otherwise-illegal drugs get pushed onto aviators (astronauts included) so when they are informed, such facts are hard to "swallow". And many here may not have been aware of the plan to upgrade WLEs. They may not have been aware of how much MEDS actually cost. They can't see the connection so they totally reject the *idea* of a connection. We have seen this time and time again in posts that I've offered to this forum. Regardless of how much evidence I offer in proof of these views, there is so much ignorance and prejudice that the "brick wall" has demonstrated its resilience. Consider the hundreds of attacks levied at me for highlighting how human spaceflight was driven by the nuclear threat. Explicit words were cited from a private conversation between JFK and Webb. My words aren't offered to be inflammatory. Just because a connection can't be grasped doesn't necessarily mean that its not there. ~ CT > Some members here don't > know the difference between, say, stability versus control. So when > it gets pointed out to them, they feel "insulted". Like, say, you? SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer "Heisenberg might have been here." ~ Anonymous >> Some members here don't >> know the difference between, say, stability versus control. So when >> it gets pointed out to them, they feel "insulted". > >Like, say, you? ...Aww, poor CT. Don't get mad, Stuffy, just go away. That'll solve *all* your little problems, won't it? OM Signature"No bastard 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 bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr From Herb Schaltegger: > > Some members here don't > > know the difference between, say, stability versus control. So when > > it gets pointed out to them, they feel "insulted". > > Like, say, you? I have lots to learn about lots of topics. For anything inaccurate that I may have stated, I appreciate getting corrected. I gain more from learning than from repeating what I know. ~ CT > From Herb Schaltegger: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that I may have stated, I appreciate getting corrected. I gain more > from learning than from repeating what I know. Same here. And about the time I think I know anything, I find out I'm wrong. :) Steve >From Herb Schaltegger: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I have lots to learn about lots of topics. For anything inaccurate >that I may have stated, I appreciate getting corrected. An utter falsehood. You have yet to acknowledge or incorporate corrections to information you have posted. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. ~CT, the Conspiracy Troll, threatened the group as follows: >I have lots to learn about lots of topics. ...More like lots more bullshit conspiracy theories to spout off and piss everyone else off around here. You're not wanted. Go away, and don't let your a.s get stuck on the doorknob on the way out. OM Signature"No bastard 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 bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr From Derek Lyons: > >From Herb Schaltegger: > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > An utter falsehood. You have yet to acknowledge or incorporate > corrections to information you have posted. The disconnect I see here is the times I am seen to be inaccurate versus the times I recognize an actual inaccuracy. ...the example above of Stab Aug vs. Control, for instance. I stand by the accuracy of everything I stated in that thread, while remaining open-minded to the possibility that *everything* I've stated may be inaccurate. ~ CT >...the example above of Stab Aug vs. Control, for instance. I stand >by the accuracy of everything I stated in that thread, Which does not change the fact that you chose to play semantic games rather than adress the issues. >while remaining open-minded to the possibility that *everything* I've >stated may be inaccurate. An outright lie. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. >Some members here don't know the difference between, >say, stability versus control. Some members play semantic games rather than adress the issues at hand. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. > From Julian Bordas <julianbordas@nospamyoubastards.iprimus.com.au>: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > (I am sure that we are all capable of mature interaction here.) I'd like to think so. At any rate, it's an interesting thread. Steve I'm sorry, but you are talking with the benefit of hindsight, a technology not available to us! The leading edge scheme, for instance, was named after what it was supposed to prevent, namely micro meteorite damage, which I gather has not been a significant problem, so little wonder it was not given a high priority. Now if it had been called foam impact strangthening of leading edge, then two things should have happened, 1 why the hell do we need to do this, fix the bloody foam! and if we fix the foam, do we really need this? The glass cockpit sounds valid to me, as it must save a lot of retraining of how to use equipment, and presumably be easier to actually fly it. So, I say, lets spend the money of hindsight research! :-) Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ From Brian Gaff: > I'm sorry, but you are talking with the benefit of hindsight, a technology > not available to us! This is not hindsight, Brian. I was clear in pointing out the dates listed on that website. WLE MMOD was a specific design to solve a specific *known* problem. (Note similarity to how o-ring burn through was a known problem *prior* to -51L and in that case as well, a new design had already been worked.) > The leading edge scheme, for instance, was named after what it was supposed > to prevent, namely micro meteorite damage, which I gather has not been a > significant problem, so little wonder it was not given a high priority. I submit to you that the threat was known. If you go back and look at Figure 6.1-6 on p127 of CAIBv1, it is clear to me that the emphasis from the history of the program has been on foam shedding. > Now if it had been called foam impact strangthening of leading edge, then > two things should have happened, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > if we fix the foam, do we really need this? A smart decision would be to fix both. > The glass cockpit sounds valid to me, as it must save a lot of retraining of > how to use equipment, and presumably be easier to actually fly it. The transition to MEDS has produced a training *nightmare*. Crews have to learn both systems with positive training on one system translating to negative training on the other. This aspect actually creates a safety *hazard*. I will grant that MEDS brings a huge improvement for the longer term, but the key question is whether this mod will bring about an improvement in shuttle safety that is worth the megabucks investment. The answer I see is a clear resounding "NO". > So, I say, lets spend the money of hindsight research! :-) ~ CT >From Brian Gaff: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >translating to negative training on the other. This aspect actually >creates a safety *hazard*. So tell me... how much experience have you had in training the crews with or without MEDS, that you can flatly state it's a training nightmare? How much time did you spend training the STS-101 crew, the first mission on Atlantis after it had been upgraded? I was there the whole time, I don't seem to recall you on the training team anywhere. >How much time did you spend training the STS-101 crew, the first mission on >Atlantis after it had been upgraded? I was there the whole time, I don't seem >to recall you on the training team anywhere. ...And that's a shame, too. Because it would finally solve the riddle of who this troll really is, so steps could be taken to remove his presence from usenet. OM Signature"No bastard 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 bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr From Michael Grabois: > >The transition to MEDS has produced a training *nightmare*. Crews > >have to learn both systems with positive training on one system [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Atlantis after it had been upgraded? I was there the whole time, I don't seem > to recall you on the training team anywhere. (Your not seeming to recall me might have something to do with the fact that I've never disclosed my identity to this forum.) Anyone on an astronaut training team would know that astronauts get trained on MEDS, pre-MEDS, even Half-MEDS! (...not even counting EMEDS, let alone negative transfer from T-38 flying.) If NASA doesn't recognize this as a training nightmare, I suggest that the issue gets reevaluated. Negative transfer (to use the behavioral sciences term) between "steam gauges" and "glass cockpits" is a typical problem for pilots that reaches far beyond NASA. Consider, for example, a day "at the office" for a pilot at Southwest Airlines... Take your pick: http://www.iflyswa.com/images/photo_gallery/cockpit7.jpg http://www.iflyswa.com/images/photo_gallery/cockpit_737_300.jpg Consider these words from a European research report on this issue: "...two year project (1996-1998), initiated and sponsored by the European Commission / Directorate General for Transport. The research has been centred around the transitions of pilots from conventional to more advanced cockpits in terms of automation, the so called "glass" cockpit. The main objective of ECOTTRIS is to improve existing transition training procedures. The research tools to fulfil this objective were the analysis of flight deck designs, tasks, required skills and knowledge, and comparing the findings with existing training practices, and results of accident and incident review to identify problems as well as recommendations to improve pilot performance and safety." "...the process of conversion from conventional to glass cockpit could become easier and safer without too much additional cost..." (From http://www.eca-cockpit.com/reports/ecottris.html) Negative transfer during conversion to glass cockpits has killed people. And if it can kill an airline pilot, I'd say that the shuttle is succeptible as well. It's high time that NASA stepped up to a recognition of known threats. Future ignorance/arrogance within the program will lead to more unnecessary casualties. Michael, for any other crews you are involved with training, when someone warns you about a safety hazard, I suggest that information about *the hazard* is more vital than information about the messenger. ~ CT >Negative transfer during conversion to glass cockpits has killed >people. Evidence please? >Michael, for any other crews you are involved with training, when >someone warns you about a safety hazard, I suggest that information >about *the hazard* is more vital than information about the messenger. Then why don't you provide information about the hazard, rather than spew verbiage that fails to support your claim? (And the messenger is being doubted because his track record indicates a need for healthy skepticism when it comes to his fantasies.) D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. From Derek Lyons: > >Negative transfer during conversion to glass cockpits has killed > >people. > > Evidence please? Snipped: "...two year project...centred around the transitions of pilots from conventional to...the so called "glass" cockpit... comparing the...results of accident and incident review to identify problems as well as recommendations to improve pilot performance and safety." (From http://www.eca-cockpit.com/reports/ecottris.html) This two year study of accident review stands as evidence. > >Michael, for any other crews you are involved with training, when > >someone warns you about a safety hazard, I suggest that information > >about *the hazard* is more vital than information about the messenger. > > Then why don't you provide information about the hazard, rather than > spew verbiage that fails to support your claim? If we can't get on the same page on basic concepts such as -evidence-, it becomes difficult to have progressive discourse. > (And the messenger is being doubted because his track record indicates > a need for healthy skepticism when it comes to his fantasies.) I work hard to provide solid evidence to support my views, and the very next rebuttal comes back requesting evidence. I hope you can understand my frustration in communicating such "fantasies". Regarding "track record", a search of the archives stands to show all the evidence provided in support of views I've promoted here. For just one example, consider how I was repeatedly attacked after simply offering the information that Ilan Ramon was a Payload Specialist! ~ CT >From Derek Lyons: >> >Negative transfer during conversion to glass cockpits has killed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >This two year study of accident review stands as evidence. "Accidents" is a very different word form "death" or "killed". Nowhere in the document cited are any fatal accidents discussed. >> >Michael, for any other crews you are involved with training, when >> >someone warns you about a safety hazard, I suggest that information [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If we can't get on the same page on basic concepts such as -evidence-, >it becomes difficult to have progressive discourse. Agreed, you lack understanding of the meaning of the word "evidence". Extrapolation from a few words in a single report is not evidence, it's opinion. >> (And the messenger is being doubted because his track record indicates >> a need for healthy skepticism when it comes to his fantasies.) > >I work hard to provide solid evidence to support my views, and the >very next rebuttal comes back requesting evidence. I hope you can >understand my frustration in communicating such "fantasies". The rebuttal comes back asking for evidence because you provided your interpretation of one line of a very large report, not evidence. There is a difference. >Regarding "track record", a search of the archives stands to show all >the evidence provided in support of views I've promoted here. Such a search yields an empty page. >For just one example, consider how I was repeatedly attacked after simply >offering the information that Ilan Ramon was a Payload Specialist! Consider the aggressive and inflammatory mode in which you made that statement. *That* is what you were attacked for. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. <snip> >>For just one example, consider how I was repeatedly attacked after simply >>offering the information that Ilan Ramon was a Payload Specialist! > > Consider the aggressive and inflammatory mode in which you made that > statement. *That* is what you were attacked for. I *hope* you're kidding. He was attacked for aggressively stating the Ilan Ramone was a Payload Specialist? Seriously, this is nit-picking in the extreme. He posted a statement that essentially maintains funds were spent in such a way as to neglect a safety issue, leading to the 107 accident. That's obviously true. Why the need to pick apart a relatively simple statement? Steve > <snip> > >>For just one example, consider how I was repeatedly attacked after simply [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I *hope* you're kidding. He was attacked for aggressively stating the > Ilan Ramone was a Payload Specialist? No, it was for basically calling Ramon a killer. (Because he was a former Israeli fighter pilot whose missions included the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear plant in the 80s.) Again, no one would deny that Ramon probably had caused the deaths of others in his role as a military man. It was the language Stuf4's comments were couched in that upset people. > Seriously, this is nit-picking in the extreme. He posted a statement > that essentially maintains funds were spent in such a way as to > neglect a safety issue, leading to the 107 accident. That's obviously > true. Why the need to pick apart a relatively simple statement? Because that's NOT a relatively simple statement. For one things, upgrading to MEDS had been considered a safety issue. Second of all, there's been no evidence given that if NASA had not spent money on MEDS it would have been spent on the RCC. I might as well say that money spent on a cruise missile to target ObL led to the deaths of 7 Astronauts. After all, had the administration had its priorities right, they'd have spent that money on the shuttle rather than ObL. He has not shown cause and effect. Corrolation is not causation. > Steve >> <snip> >> >>For just one example, consider how I was repeatedly attacked after [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Israeli fighter pilot whose missions included the bombing of the Iraqi > nuclear plant in the 80s.) OK, thanks for the clarification. > Again, no one would deny that Ramon probably had caused the deaths of others > in his role as a military man. It was the language Stuf4's comments were > couched in that upset people. In some circles, this non-issue provoked some incredible comments, including some by so-called antiwar people who were *glad* that seven people were killed. The reasoning was that (apart from Ramone) they all had something to do with NASA, therefore they must have had something to do with the military, and for some reason never made clear, they all should've died! That caused me to distance myself from one online group very quickly. Sorry for the off-topic rant, but that still sends me up the wall. And it was worse after seeing the crew of Columbia talking about their wishes for world peace. Maybe it was partially PR, but it was also nice to see people doing something positive in the world. Steve From Steve Stocker: > >> <snip> > >> >>For just one example, consider how I was repeatedly attacked after [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > OK, thanks for the clarification. First off, the point I was raising was in reference to a separate set of interactions about Ilan Ramon. Also, Greg's words here ("calling Ramon a killer") stand in contrast to what I actually said. If a view received with distortion gets repeated with that same distortion, the "clarification" cannot serve to clear the original misunderstanding. > > Again, no one would deny that Ramon probably had caused the deaths of others > > in his role as a military man. It was the language Stuf4's comments were > > couched in that upset people. Here again, it may have been another case where the conclusion I presented was too wide a step for some people to follow. Diversions aside, the basic view that was shared was that Ilan Ramon was a questionable choice for the purposes of promoting ideals of advanced science and harmonious international relations. Perhaps the most fitting closure to that chasm of opinions can be found in Ilan Ramon's own words: "Well, personally I think it's very, very peculiar to be the first Israeli up in space. Especially because of my background." (From his official NASA interview at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/crew/intramon.html) When NASA flies a teacher, that demonstrates the Congressionally-backed value of education. When NASA flies a scientist, that demonstrates the Congressionally-backed value of research. My criticism was pointed directly at the values the US government chose to promote in selecting a combat fighter pilot who wasn't a scientist. NASA provides evidence that Ilan himself actually *agreed* with this criticism. > In some circles, this non-issue provoked some incredible comments, > including some by so-called antiwar people who were *glad* that seven [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > clear, they all should've died! That caused me to distance myself from > one online group very quickly. (The crew did have something to do with the military. All were military officers except for KC.) > Sorry for the off-topic rant, but that still sends me up the wall. And > it was worse after seeing the crew of Columbia talking about their > wishes for world peace. Maybe it was partially PR, but it was also > nice to see people doing something positive in the world. It is sad to see anyone wishing death or suffering onto anyone else. But I can also see how orbital wishes for world peace can ring hollow coming from military officers who have dropped bombs in your back yard. With the first Israeli astronaut to orbit the Earth, the irony of Columbia breaking apart overhead "Palestine" was not lost on the Arab community (perhaps a few US policymakers contemplated this bizarre coincidence as well). The Arab News headline story on Feb 2nd was titled: Israeli, US astronauts die in shuttle blast over Palestine'. ~ CT > From Steve Stocker: >> > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > combat fighter pilot who wasn't a scientist. NASA provides evidence > that Ilan himself actually *agreed* with this criticism. I'm not surprised. Just more politics. >> In some circles, this non-issue provoked some incredible comments, >> including some by so-called antiwar people who were *glad* that seven [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (The crew did have something to do with the military. All were > military officers except for KC.) I know, as are most astronauts. >> Sorry for the off-topic rant, but that still sends me up the wall. And >> it was worse after seeing the crew of Columbia talking about their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > community (perhaps a few US policymakers contemplated this bizarre > coincidence as well). It is sad to celebrate the death of those doing something positive in the world. But if I'd heard it *from* the Arab community, I'd never have said anything, for the very reason you mention. This was from a few would-be spokespersons for (as I recall) the Iraqi people, specifically. Strangely (or perhaps not), those actually living in the Arab lands were far less vocal, at least in online groups to which I belong. > The Arab News headline story on Feb 2nd was titled: Israeli, US > astronauts die in shuttle blast over Palestine'. Yes, I remember it well, and it's hard to *not* empathize with those who've had bombs wiping out their entire families. Which is not the same as agreeing with what they say, only that, in their place, I'd probably feel the same way. Steve > Second of all, there's been no evidence given that if NASA had not spent > money on MEDS it would have been spent on the RCC. And I as I pointed out to him earlier, it is exceedingly unlikely (actually, more like impossible) that a swatch of Nextel fabric in the cavity behind the RCC would have made a rat's a.s worth of difference in the face of a 10" penetration to RCC panel 8 and CT/Stuffie knows it. Ergo, his subject line is usenet trolling, pure and simple. In fact, his entire premise is just more hot air. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer "Heisenberg might have been here." ~ Anonymous >Ergo, his subject line is usenet trolling, pure and simple. In fact, >his entire premise is just more hot air. Not entirely. It does point out NASAs departure from safety upgrades and back bunering them forever. If another accident occurs one of these put offs may be the cause. > >Ergo, his subject line is usenet trolling, pure and simple. In fact, > >his entire premise is just more hot air. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If another accident occurs one of these put offs may be the cause. It's NASA's fault that these weren't funded? Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. >It's NASA's fault that these weren't funded? > >Jeff Yes.management needed to have the balls to stand up and say we cant continue to fly safely at this funding level. Rather than Dan Gs please cut my budget more FBC will do it! From Herb Schaltegger: > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr@greenms.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cavity behind the RCC would have made a rat's a.s worth of difference in > the face of a 10" penetration to RCC panel 8 and CT/Stuffie knows it. I reserve such judgement of the actual impact resistance of the WLE MMOD upgrade until I see actual test data. > Ergo, his subject line is usenet trolling, pure and simple. In fact, > his entire premise is just more hot air. (Disagreement with a person's argument does not necessarily constitute invalidation, let alone a "trolling" intent in its offering.) ~ CT > From Herb Schaltegger: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (Disagreement with a person's argument does not necessarily constitute > invalidation, let alone a "trolling" intent in its offering.) A few here have a weird idea of what constitutes "trolling", but to each his own. Steve From Derek Lyons: > >> >Negative transfer during conversion to glass cockpits has killed > >> >people. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "Accidents" is a very different word form "death" or "killed". > Nowhere in the document cited are any fatal accidents discussed. I agree that 'accident' does not necessarily mean 'fatality'. But you don't need too big a magnifying glass to read between these lines and see that... Airplane + Accident = Death ...unless we are to hold that this two-year study was funded with the goal of reducing the incidence of pilots getting hangnails and papercuts and such. > >> >Michael, for any other crews you are involved with training, when > >> >someone warns you about a safety hazard, I suggest that information [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Extrapolation from a few words in a single report is not evidence, > it's opinion. *Anything* that points to the conclusion can serve as evidence. It is obvious to me that a well documented two-year study on how transition to glass cockpits is causing accidents serves as solid evidence of fatalities. It may not explicitly use the words "death" or "fatality", but such a fact does not negate its validity as evidence. If you were to say that the report gives no _proof_, then I might see that as a valid argument. The important distinction here is the difference between -evidence- and -proof-. (Also to be distinguished from -facts- and -opinions-.) > >> (And the messenger is being doubted because his track record indicates > >> a need for healthy skepticism when it comes to his fantasies.) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interpretation of one line of a very large report, not evidence. > There is a difference. If it is proof you want, I'd say that it would be easy to find specifics on fatal crashes. > >For just one example, consider how I was repeatedly attacked after simply > >offering the information that Ilan Ramon was a Payload Specialist! > > Consider the aggressive and inflammatory mode in which you made that > statement. *That* is what you were attacked for. If any statement is presented with anger or hatred, then I would agree that it is inflammatory. But for a group to rise up in anger when responding to subjective opinions that are offered in non-abusive words, then I would fault *the group* for the subsequent "inflamation". ~ CT >From Derek Lyons: >> >> >Negative transfer during conversion to glass cockpits has killed [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >I agree that 'accident' does not necessarily mean 'fatality'. But you >don't need too big a magnifying glass to read between these lines I did not ask you to read between the lines. I asked you for evidence. >and see that... > >Airplane + Accident = Death Sometimes, not always. >...unless we are to hold that this two-year study was funded with the >goal of reducing the incidence of pilots getting hangnails and >papercuts and such. Or maybe it was funded to reduce to reduce the large number of accidents and incidents that *don't* involve fatalities that commercial aviation sees each year. >> >> >Michael, for any other crews you are involved with training, when >> >> >someone warns you about a safety hazard, I suggest that information [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >*Anything* that points to the conclusion can serve as evidence. An utter and complete falsehood. >It is obvious to me that a well documented two-year study on how transition >to glass cockpits is causing accidents serves as solid evidence of >fatalities. It's obvious to you because you lack critical thinking skills. > It may not explicitly use the words "death" or >"fatality", but such a fact does not negate its validity as evidence. It completely negates it's validity as evidence that deaths occured because of training problems, because it involves an assumption on your part. >If you were to say that the report gives no _proof_, then I might see >that as a valid argument. The important distinction here is the >difference between -evidence- and -proof-. For all your claims of willingness to acknowledge error and to provide support for your claims, we see here boldly that you are an outright liar. When asked to support your claim that training problems on the transition from steam gauges to glass cockpits have caused deaths, you waffle and play semantic games, and resort to mysticism. In short, anything but evidence to support your conclusion. >> >> (And the messenger is being doubted because his track record indicates >> >> a need for healthy skepticism when it comes to his fantasies.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >If it is proof you want, I'd say that it would be easy to find >specifics on fatal crashes. The please provide them. You have made a claim, now do as you claim you do, and supply the supporting data. Or stand exposed to the world as a liar. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. From Derek Lyons: > >*Anything* that points to the conclusion can serve as evidence. > > An utter and complete falsehood. ev·i·dence: "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence&r=67) Derek, I snipped out everything else to focus on just this. It exposes the foundation of our disconnect in miscommunication. I have the reference you asked for to show proof of hundreds of aircraft incidents with explicit fatalities that the study was based on. It was available for me to find just as it was available for you or anyone else to find. I'm not sure what good it would do for me to post it. It would be tedious to have to explain the meaning of simple words from that link. Solid evidence (note def.) was given to show that planes were crashing and people were dying because of problems with transition from old-style cockpits to glass cockpits. If you cannot see this from looking at that report, I don't see how I can take the argument to any further level of elucidating the link between MEDS getting funded to Columbia's crash. We must walk before we can run. I am suggesting that for the time being, we focus the topic of this subthread on the definition of the word "evidence". I have spooned over the dictionary definition of the word. You have rejected this as "utter and complete falsehood". I have supported my position with a concrete verifiable reference. If you wish to maintain your "falsehood" position and would like to offer your logic in reaching that position, I would be glad to give you feedback. ~ CT >From Derek Lyons: >> >*Anything* that points to the conclusion can serve as evidence. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Derek, I snipped out everything else to focus on just this. You snipped everything out to play semantic games rather than provide something that supports your claim. >I have the reference you asked for to show proof of hundreds of aircraft >incidents with explicit fatalities that the study was based on. Then provide the reference material. >I'm not sure what good it would do for me to post it. It would support your position. >Solid evidence (note def.) was given to show that planes were crashing >and people were dying because of problems with transition from >old-style cockpits to glass cockpits. If you cannot see this from >looking at that report, I don't see how I can take the argument to any >further level of elucidating the link between MEDS getting funded to >Columbia's crash. The report does not mention fatal accidents or fatal crashes even once. >We must walk before we can run. I am suggesting that for the time >being, we focus the topic of this subthread on the definition of the >word "evidence". I have spooned over the dictionary definition of the >word. You have rejected this as "utter and complete falsehood". I'm not playing your semantic games. I'm asking you to provide references that support your claim. >I have supported my position with a concrete verifiable reference. You have done no such thing. >If you wish to maintain your "falsehood" position and would like to offer >your logic in reaching that position, I would be glad to give you >feedback. It's very simple Stuffie. You claim to always provide references when asked. Yet, in this thread I have asked your for references multiple times, and you waffle and prevaricate and do everything but do as you say you do. D. SignatureThe 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 om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message