|
Posted by Bob Haller on June 24, 2006, 2:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options
nasa and griffin are confident that continued grounding means end of
program lost jobs...
so they are doing their best at risking more lives
|
|
Posted by Malcolm Bacchus on June 24, 2006, 3:26 pm
Please log in for more thread options
hallerb@aol.com (Bob Haller) wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> *Date:* 24 Jun 2006 11:31:34 -0700
>
> nasa and griffin are confident that continued grounding means end of
> program lost jobs...
And your evidence for this unfounded assertion is?
show/hide quoted text
> so they are doing their best at risking more lives
In the first instance this is rubbish. If they _were_ doing their best
at risking more lives they would have launched months ago. They didn't,
so your statement is factually wrong.
In the second instance, you are still living in your unrealistic world
where nobody is ever allowed to take any risks. How much work do you
want them to do before you would say "they are risking no lives at all"?
How do you want them ever to assess that?
Would you ever be confident of saying "There is no risk whatever that I
will die when I leave my house"? Not that there is a 0.00000001% but NO
chance? If you would not be confident of saying that however can you
ask NASA officials to say the same of the shuttle?
Or do you actually accept SOME level of risk?
Malcolm B
|
|
Posted by Bob Haller on June 24, 2006, 5:05 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Malcolm Bacchus wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> hallerb@aol.com (Bob Haller) wrote:
> > *Date:* 24 Jun 2006 11:31:34 -0700
> > nasa and griffin are confident that continued grounding means end of
> > program lost jobs...
> And your evidence for this unfounded assertion is?
> > so they are doing their best at risking more lives
> In the first instance this is rubbish. If they _were_ doing their best
> at risking more lives they would have launched months ago. They didn't,
> so your statement is factually wrong.
> In the second instance, you are still living in your unrealistic world
> where nobody is ever allowed to take any risks. How much work do you
> want them to do before you would say "they are risking no lives at all"?
> How do you want them ever to assess that?
> Would you ever be confident of saying "There is no risk whatever that I
> will die when I leave my house"? Not that there is a 0.00000001% but NO
> chance? If you would not be confident of saying that however can you
> ask NASA officials to say the same of the shuttle?
> Or do you actually accept SOME level of risk?
> Malcolm B
Lets see Griffin overruled the engineers......
ISS may not be up to keeping the 7 + 2 astronauts alive for a extended
period
extra soyuz arent available in stock to return the crew
If we havent fixed the shuttle after over 2.5 years and 8 billion bucks
what makes anyone think a 30 day fix will be available? The rescue
mission sounds nice but isnt effective.
griffin hasnt cut the number of shuttle crew to make stranding more
survivable
atlantis rescue shuttles tank appears waterlogged, minor ding caused
water leakage from foam.
nasa hasnt addressed the abort scenario, where the shuttle launches OK
suffers foam damage but must deorbit immediately.could see the same end
as columbia.
this launch is foolhardy, but theres a good chance one day there will
be a movie about the disaster. by then nasa and manned space will have
been gutted from the agency...
limited risk is one thing, this is just nuts.
|
|
Posted by Malcolm Bacchus on June 24, 2006, 6:36 pm
Please log in for more thread options So what level of risk would you accept?
If you had one engineer who, in order to protect his job, would never
allow the shuttle to fly again, would you not overrule him?
Leadership isn't about waiting until all your sub-ordinates agree. It
is about leading. It is about making decisions.
You've not yet said anything about your criteria for when you would
allow a launch; all you have done is criticise the decisions made. So
answer my question, what level of risk would you accept?
Malcolm B
|
|
Posted by Malcolm Bacchus on June 24, 2006, 6:36 pm
Please log in for more thread options show/hide quoted text
> Lets see Griffin overruled the engineers......
His job, if he thinks it right
show/hide quoted text
> ISS may not be up to keeping the 7 + 2 astronauts alive for a
> extended period
"May not", so what? Accept some risk they may die.
show/hide quoted text
> extra soyuz arent available in stock to return the crew
Ditto
show/hide quoted text
> If we havent fixed the shuttle after over 2.5 years and 8 billion
> bucks
> what makes anyone think a 30 day fix will be available? The rescue
> mission sounds nice but isnt effective.
Again, so what? Accept some risk that the crew may die.
... and so on for all your "points"
show/hide quoted text
> limited risk is one thing, this is just nuts.
No. That is your opinion, based your idea of "limited" risk, which
clearly means such a limited level of risk that the shuttle may never
fly again. But why is your idea of "limited" risk better than
Griffin's? Or the astronauts?
I could equally say "prudence is one thing, but Haller's idea of
prudence is just nuts - he'd never get out of bed".
Please justify the level of limited risk you find acceptable and why it
is better than Griffin's or the astronauts.
Malcolm B
(PS Do think about using apostrophes and full stops, it would make your
postings much easier to read.)
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | STS-121 ascent abort mode boundaries? | June 29, 2006, 11:44 pm |
| Astronauts in the ascent | July 21, 2006, 9:24 am |
| to abort or not to abort | July 28, 2005, 9:09 pm |
| abort or not to abort | July 29, 2005, 1:31 pm |
| STS-51-F (the ATO abort).. | April 23, 2008, 2:39 pm |
| TAL abort questions | July 16, 2005, 11:56 pm |
| RTLS Abort | May 18, 2006, 10:14 am |
| 41-D abort video | June 17, 2006, 8:10 am |
| STS-51F Pad Abort video? | November 24, 2008, 10:38 am |
| Re: Abort with Truss in Cargo Bay?? | September 13, 2006, 5:54 pm |
|
XML Sitemap
>
> nasa and griffin are confident that continued grounding means end of
> program lost jobs...