Er, Uh, Kinda important

Page 3 of 3  
Dan C wrote:

Because they also said after evaluation that if it were to happen again during the next (now just completed) launch sequence that it alone would not be sufficient cause for another scrub among other reasons. Those other reasons I've previously outlined.
I never said it wasn't "important", only that it wasn't "critical"--there's a difference.
You haven't provided anything that counters that announcement which was made on national news...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:31:56 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

You didn't say that? How about this direct quote of yours from a few posts back:

How's that?

You mean the one that you discounted as the words of a "breathless news-babe" or something to that effect?
If you can't keep your facts straight, or even remember what you said a day or so ago, what's your point in continuing this? How about you just be quiet now, and go play with your erector set. Maybe you can build a rocket ship.
--
If you\'re not on the edge, you\'re taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan C wrote:

Great job of taking my comment out of context and interpreting it as you wanted, rather than for what it says...as well as ignoring what I just wrote before.
That was in direct response to your contention that the single sensor failure would, by itself, cause an immediate and catastrophic failure of the shuttle. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't <that> critical.

Actually, if you had read what I wrote carefully rather than with the preconceived notion that you had to counter whatever I wrote, you would have realized I was talking of two separate news accounts--the first being the initial announcement after the first launch window scrub where the emphasis was on the disaster just barely avoided, and the second the announcement after the NASA news conference that they (NASA) were prepared to launch w/ the single sensor non-operational. The problem in the second report was that the "news-babe" was primed to gush over how this was violating procedure and how that was the "rush-to-launch" mentality rather than explaining the how and why of the subject safety system and how the particular sensor fits into that.
What I discounted was the conclusion the "breathless news-babe"'s story'a spin made that the failure of the <single> sensor was an immediate catastrophic failure of the mission. The problem is that many, as yourself, were (and apparently still are) totally misinformed as to the fundamental issue and the safety of the mission.
I understand how you could draw the conclusion you have based on the reporting, I'm simply trying to show you the fact that what was reported, while not exactly incorrect wasn't the whole story and, in fact, was designed to elicit the type of response you made rather than to educate. I believe this is done mostly in order to "hype" the broadcast but is also a result of most reporters not having a clue about science and technology.

I remember <precisely> what I've said and it has been consistent that the failure of the <single> sensor is not as big a deal as the news media generally (mis-)reported. The difficulty has been that you have consistently chosen to interpret what I've written out of context and to read into it what you want for me to have said...
The point in continuing is to <try> to educate to hopefully provide you a better appreciation of what the issue really was...the problem appears to be that you're more interested in defending your position than in finding out the truth.
I wasn't able to find an actual transcript of the NASA conference, but here's how it was reported by a national news service which does reflect what I actually saw on the news conferen. And, this is the only place I've seen the extra description of how the redundant system actually functions.
<Begin quote> NASA had the paperwork ready to go in case the equipment trouble reappeared and the space agency's managers decided to press ahead with the launch with just three of the four fuel gauges working. ...
The fuel gauges are designed to prevent the main engines from running too long or not long enough, in case the fuel tank is leaking or some other major breakdown occurs. ...
Only two gauges, or sensors, are needed to do the job. But ever since NASA's return to space in 1988, the space agency has decreed that all four have to work to proceed with launch. <End quote>
The complete AP story is at
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050725/ap_on_sc/space_shuttle

Actually, I designed/built/started-up power nuclear reactors, not rockets... :)
HTH...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:44:55 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

Nice try at backing out... I didn't snip that out of the middle of a sentence or anything. It is a direct and complete quote of what you said.

My conclusions are drawn on much more than the national news reporting. In fact that is not even a factor in my conclusions.

I don't need you to "educate" me. I have much more first hand knowledge available to me than you do, I can assure you.

I don't care what's in a conference or a news service. Apparently we both know that it's just fluff for the masses. I have the accurate information, thank you very much.

You say that in the past tense. Chernobyl, perhaps? TMI?
--
If you\'re not on the edge, you\'re taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan C wrote:

Yes it is exactly what I wrote and it is exactly what I intended--but it was in context to the contention you raised of an imminent disaster and you'll note the emphasis on the <single> sensor (as opposed to the functionality of the system). That's significantly different than implying I said the functionality of the system was unimportant or that the sensor was of no importance.
....

If you do, you haven't shared any of it, nor even provided any direct references to it.
Where is there information that indicates either that the AP report which I posted a link to or that the information I saw on the NASA press conference shows that I was wrong in asserting that the <single> sensor was/is not a cause for an imminent failure and was only an issue in aborting the first launch because the operational procedures in effect <for that launch> were written to require 4/4 logic instead of the prior 2/4?
....

Then you can surely direct me to it so I can then educate myself if, in fact, what NASA said in an open press conference (which I saw extracts of) was in error?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan C wrote:

Because snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com is a lying pos.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
Why would I lie about using Linux?
I switched from Solaris to Red Hat Linux hard core since release 5.2 I have had to use Solaris, QNX, and a little HP-UX since then but I generally use Linux whenever I have a choice. Three of my last four laptops have been IBMs (and I didn't pay for the Dell) because they are well supported by Linux. I use Google Groups because it portable.
Hope this helps, William
G Henslee wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan C wrote:

That's spineless Americans. NASA also does an atrocious job of communicating that the goal isn't to have the least failures but instead to have the most success. I have NEVER heard anyone from NASA or a congressman or the president make remarks to that effect. They also do a poor job of managing expectations. They need to come out and say they expect things to blow up from time to time and that doesn't indicate a problem with the way NASA is doing business. They should stop apologizing when something does blow up. I don't apologize to a tenant when a roof develops a leak. I fix it and move on.

It is a matter of long term national security. Many Americans alive today have never been in a major war (WWII, etc). They simply don't see how it could happen, but it could. Countries fight with each other. This has been going on for a long time and I don't see an end in sight. "Lately" the country with some combination of the most advanced technology and the biggest military always wins. China has a significantly larger population than us. We need to stay far ahead of them technologically. If we are always ahead, we are always safe. No one knows who will be fighting who in the future. Saddam Hussein was once a good guy, now he is a bad guy. Why do Americans believe we could not be at war with China 30 years from now? I am not forecasting a war with China in 30 years any more than I could forecast the weather, but I am quite certain it will one day rain again.

I agree that the American public is the root problem. I think the generation that could have changed who the American public is missed the boat. I don't see a way out. Welfare recipients are vastly out birthing two income families. Our only hope is that something drastic will come along and rock the boat and we'll luck into a better situation. Perhaps illegal immigrants from Mexico will change the voter population and make productive change but based upon the corruption Mexicans vote for in Mexico I don't think so.

What newsreader should I use? I am glad at least a tiny fraction of my tax dollars go to EE's to do something (defense contractor?).

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com, 7/26/2005, 3:34:16 AM, wrote:

I am not a Linux user but may I make a suggestion for Pan? http://pan.rebelbase.com /
--
"I miss. I miss. I miss. I make."
Seve Ballesteros describing his four-putt at Augusta\'s No. 16 in 1988.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:34:16 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com wrote:

You clearly don't have a good grip on reality. Whether you like it or not, idealism isn't reality. If you honestly believe that managing an apartment building is anything even similar to managing a space shuttle program, you are very much delusional. I have a feeling our conversation on this matter is nearly over.

We *ARE* far ahead of them technologically, and will be for any foreseeable future. You don't think America's technology progress is indicated only by how many space shuttles we launch, do you? Wake up.

Assuming you are using Windoze, I believe Forte Agent is the most widely used newsreader. If you do indeed use Linux... (?), I prefer Pan.
--
If you\'re not on the edge, you\'re taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan C wrote:

No, it would have been one bad input to a logic-voting system...
It also is in a safety system, not the primary operating system apparently...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

IOW, it ain't nearly as big a deal as all the news-babes are trying to breathlessly tell us it is...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:46:21 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

It's big enough to keep the NASA administrators and engineers from going ahead with a launch. Perhaps they know more than you do?
--
If you\'re not on the edge, you\'re taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan C wrote:

Well, as of last night they were planning on going ahead irregardless of this sensor...it was listening to them yesterday evening that provided the information I had about the fact this is the redundant safety system and only 1-in-4 in it...not exactly an irreplaceable piece of data...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Hurray!
I am heartened to hear this.
Thanks for letting us know Duane.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com" wrote:

Yeah, this whole episode has been a nauseating display of totally inept reporting exemplifying how little comprehension the news media has of what any piece of even remotely technical information means in the first place and of trying to manufacture an episode from what is, essentially, a non-event in the second. :(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan C wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anyone taking any bets that this shuttle landing gets the most news coverage since the first landing?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050727/D8BJECR80.html
Oh well. I guess the media will have something to talk about for the next week or so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.