Re: More one NASA management

From: DSCOTT (daVvid_a_scott@email.com)
Date: 02/06/03 

From: daVvid_a_scott@email.com (DSCOTT)
Date: 6 Feb 2003 18:32:18 GMT

johntromaville@aol.com (JohnTromaville) wrote in
<20030206131049.04786.00000136@mb-ce.aol.com>:

>>
>> Its space they had the suits. It only takes rope and courage it
>>was an emergency. They don't need handes they were not cripples.
>>Hell they where the ones who could die. They should at least have
>>been gived an honest chance. Maybe NASA was afraid they might freak
>>out and have a live sex orgy on live TV. Maybe that was there
>>reason to downplay the whole thing to them with out really exaiming the
>>problem. Again if Glen was on there I bet they would have checked.
>
>This is where you show your ignorance of spacemissions.. As far as I can
>tell only one person in the crew (Chawla -Sp?) was trained for EVA. EVA
>is very dangerous and you don't do it lightly. Ok so there was a problem
>but you have to weigh up risks. Oh and you can do A LOT of damage by
>scrambling on the outside of the shuttle with just a rope - remember
>they were not expecting to do an EVA.
>

  I didn't say it was a cake walk. I stated if there life was in
danger it was a possibility. A possiblity they never got the
chance to condsider.

>They were also in the wrong orbit to go to the ISS (as some people have
>sugested going there so the ISS could take a look) - it would probably
>have used up most of their fuel to get there so if they arrived they
>would not get back to earth!! The shuttle was not equiped to dock with
>the ISS and i don't think any of the crew were trained in this VERY
>dangerous manouever anyway.
>

  I never stated they could go to the Space Station. They were never
in the correct orbit for that. However that being said. It does
show another lack of foresight on the failure of current NASA managers.
They didn't plan for any contengencies. If it was in the same orbit
they could go there maybe. But then again they didn't except problems so
why make things easyer to fix when problems occur. Lack of fore sight
is not a plus in my humble opiniun.

>You can't just launch another shuttle like you can a plane or a rescue
>ship. lots of stuff has to be prepared and then you have to wait for a
>window and hope the weather holds off.
>

  They had weeks. They don't even want to find out if it was needed
they should have. You can't say for sure that it couldn't be launched
when lives are in danger some people belive in trying. They didn't even
try.

>As for taking pictures from earth - possible BUT this is very dependant
>on the weather and the sattlelites you have seen pictures taken of are
>in a Geosynchronous orbit to get a picture of shuttle you'd need a

   You don't have the foggest idea what I have seen. And Secondly
do you even realize how far a way a sattlelits in Geosynch orbit
is compared to the shuttle which is magnitudes of distance closer.

>telescope with very fast tracking - i'm not sure if one could do this.
>Besides the shuttle usually orbits with its "topside" facing the earth.
>Maybe a military sattlelite could have been tasked to take some snaps -
>but this would have been fought against because of the cost and even
>then I'm not sure it would be feasible.
>

  You right the one minute of effort to roll the craft may not
be worth it. Are you kidding thats dam easy. The cost of having
the military to do is tival to the cost it cost us not to do it.
Hell people running tracking equipment often track other things
just to keep from being bored so I don't buy that excuse.

>harsh world but I'm not sure there were many options.
>

  Yeah if management sits on its ass and hopes for the best
there are few options.

>Omne thing I've been wondering is if while re-entering the crew knew
>something was going wrong could they have manouvered the craft in such a
>way that it "skipped" off the atmosphere - I know this is possible but I
>wonder if this could have been done or if the shuttle had the wrong
>angle of approach/was too far into the atmosphere.
>
>hard decisions .
>

   They may have had the option available before read the
URL I posted or do a search on Bob Speece before that
news is old and totally gone.

>what we need to do now is make sure it doesn't happen again.
>
>trom
>(BTW what has this to do with sci.crypt?)
>

  It will happen again if NASA white washes and keeps the
same managers. They never learned from 97 and seeing the
guy wave the foam gives me the impression that they will
not learn this time. I did have a tieend to sci.cytpt but
you have to look for it. Also the intellgence levles of many
of the readers in this group may be above normal so why not.

David A. Scott 

-- 
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
 made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CEV Payload
    ... CEV is basic people carrier with some cargo variants to orbit only ... heavy lifter is for BIG LOADS, and frankly I doubt it will ever be more ... Really doesnt matter the entire shuttle derived idea is too high ... operating cost wise, and within 10 years there will be low cost ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... I eventually discovered a set of the ACI Draft version of the ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the first crack in the proposal which I found. ... The argument I heard was that the new LV costs needed to match Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the ... Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Global wireless hotspot
    ... the decision to completely cancel Saturn and go for the Shuttle are ... system using nuclear pulse rockets fueled by cold war weapons. ... You're only counting a fraction of the cost. ... fleet would put up 6,240 metric tons while the Shuttle Fleet puts up ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Foam still a key concern for shuttle launch
    ... As of 2004 nasa had budgeted for $2.2 invested in return to flight ... asaps recommended safety upgrades prior to the sts-107 tragedy. ... The accounting item cost in "property damage" alone ... Item Cost STS 107 Space Shuttle $ 1,076,332,029.00 ...
    (sci.space.policy)