|
Posted by George Evans on July 5, 2006, 6:17 pm
Please log in for more thread options
in article eptia25g2j0gnls4ac4ru6q9okd3pftec9@4ax.com, Fred J. McCall at
fmccall@earthlink.net wrote on 7/3/06 1:00 PM:
show/hide quoted text
>
> :in article 1151884166.980129.200840@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Bob Haller
> :at hallerb@aol.com wrote on 7/2/06 4:49 PM:
> :
> :> George Evans wrote:
> :>> in article 1151183112.130246.11800@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com, Bob
> Haller
> :>> at hallerb@aol.com wrote on 6/24/06 2:05 PM:
> :>>
> :>>
> :>>> Lets see Griffin overruled the engineers......
> :>>
> :>> Well, someone's got to overrule you worry warts sometimes. You guys are
> half
> :>> of the picture. The other half have the balls.
> :>>
> :> George the ones with the balls launched boith challenger and columbia.
> :> Is that what you want:(
> :
> :Of course not. What I notice is that the ones with the balls also launched
> :the other 113 successful flights. I bet on each one of those at least one
> :engineer wet his pants.
>
> It's easy to be ballsy when it's not your nuts on the chopping block.
>
> Managers don't fly in the thing. How many astronauts are there
> because they've got an MBA? How many of them are engineers?
Two thoughts. First, managers "fly" a lot more than engineers in the sense
of nuts on a chopping block. Second, I notice that a number of the
astronauts on STS-121 have had test pilot experience including the MS's.
George Evans
|
|
Posted by George Evans on July 2, 2006, 5:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options
in article 1151033225.008322.195150@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, Bob Haller
at hallerb@aol.com wrote on 6/22/06 8:27 PM:
show/hide quoted text
> So shuttle lifts off normally foam loss noted about the time a ascent
> abort is called. Shuttle for whatever reason must reenter immediately.
> Perhaps a low fuel sensor failure? were flying with that problem still
> questionable.
>
> so upon reentry we lose another vehicle and crew.
>
> So how does griffin justify flying with contiuning foam loss?
>
|
|
Posted by George Evans on July 2, 2006, 5:34 pm
Please log in for more thread options in article 1151033225.008322.195150@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, Bob Haller
at hallerb@aol.com wrote on 6/22/06 8:27 PM:
show/hide quoted text
> So shuttle lifts off normally foam loss noted about the time a ascent
> abort is called. Shuttle for whatever reason must reenter immediately.
> Perhaps a low fuel sensor failure? were flying with that problem still
> questionable.
>
> so upon reentry we lose another vehicle and crew.
>
> So how does griffin justify flying with contiuning foam loss?
I was laughing so hard I forgot to write anything.
Bob, you can't possibly drive on the freeway! Especially with PASSENGERS in
the car! Think how many times you have risked peoples lives, just to get
something to eat across town! Oh, the shame. Was the risk really worth it,
Bob?
George Evans
|
|
Posted by Bob Haller on July 2, 2006, 5:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options sure make funnies about me, it doesnt matter. what matters to griffin
isnt safe flying, its if we donmt get flying we cant finish the station
and congress will cut the money and end the shuttle, politically bush
already hammered by lots of bad decisions doesnt want to see jobs lost
in key congressional districts, control of congress is dicey at best.
no use making it worse.
nasa is a political agency all about jobs money prestige and power.
science is near dead last on its priorties.:(
think what you like the bush white house had a say iun wether to fly or
not......
|
|
Posted by Malcolm Bacchus on July 3, 2006, 1:50 pm
Please log in for more thread options hallerb@aol.com (Bob Haller) wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> *Date:* 2 Jul 2006 14:59:25 -0700
>
> sure (sic) make funnies about me, it doesnt (sic) matter.
> what (sic) matters to griffin (sic) isnt (sic) safe flying,
> its (sic) if we donmt (sic, bis) get flying we cant (sic)
> finish the station and congress will cut the money and end the shuttle
Why bother to say this. We know that on your definition of "safe", safe
flying doesn't matter to Griffin. On your definition of "safe", the
shuttle would probably never fly again. NASA and almost everybody else
who knows anything about it, has a different definition of "safe".
On that basis, the shuttle is as safe as it is going to be, the crew
accept it, NASA management accepts it, and it will fly. Do learn to
accept a little risk in your life.
show/hide quoted text
> science is near dead last on its priorties (sic).:(
Strangely enough, NASA isn't just about science. If it was, we wouldn't
have gone to the moon. If it was, having gone to the moon we probably
wouldn't have stopped then. NASA is about Aeronautics and Space and as
that is funded by the American tax payer via Congress, it is about
taxes, money and politics as well. Isn't that surprising?
show/hide quoted text
> think what you like the bush white house had a say iun wether to fly
> or not......
I'm not even sure what would mean in English, so I can't comment.
Certainly the shuttle doesn't fly in bad weather.
Malcolm B
|
| 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
> :in article 1151884166.980129.200840@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Bob Haller
> :at hallerb@aol.com wrote on 7/2/06 4:49 PM:
> :
> :> George Evans wrote:
> :>> in article 1151183112.130246.11800@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com, Bob
> Haller
> :>> at hallerb@aol.com wrote on 6/24/06 2:05 PM:
> :>>
> :>>
> :>>> Lets see Griffin overruled the engineers......
> :>>
> :>> Well, someone's got to overrule you worry warts sometimes. You guys are
> half
> :>> of the picture. The other half have the balls.
> :>>
> :> George the ones with the balls launched boith challenger and columbia.
> :> Is that what you want:(
> :
> :Of course not. What I notice is that the ones with the balls also launched
> :the other 113 successful flights. I bet on each one of those at least one
> :engineer wet his pants.
>
> It's easy to be ballsy when it's not your nuts on the chopping block.
>
> Managers don't fly in the thing. How many astronauts are there
> because they've got an MBA? How many of them are engineers?