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...
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
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
If you\'re not on the edge, you\'re taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
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
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
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.
The complete AP story is at
Actually, I designed/built/started-up power nuclear reactors, not
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
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?
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,
G Henslee 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?).
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:34:16 -0700, email@example.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
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...
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. :(
Anyone taking any bets that this shuttle landing gets the most news
coverage since the first landing?
Oh well. I guess the media will have something to talk about for the
next week or so.
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.