shuttle columbia

[dmspilot00]

I guess you have the right to be offended if you want, but flywithastick presents a logicaly consistent argument

No he doesn't. Go back and read my post. His argument is based on made-up facts and guesses. The tank was the old design. The "new" tank he is talking about was not even used on this mission. So it is an invalid argument and offensively so, because he is blaming a group of people for events which did not happen!

Or are youy saying it is offensive purely because it chalenges something you believe and you don't want to consider that what you believe may not necessarily be right??

This a bunch of totally irrelevent B.S. but the answer is no. I called it offensive because environmentalism played absolutely no part considering the tank design for this mission was the old one, a design first used in 1983. Even if they had used a new tank I am sure it was NASA's own choosing because they wanted to save weight and utilize technology that is not 20 years old.

Learn to read the whole post next time and spell
CHALLENGES
LOGICALLY

 

[flywithastick]

No he doesn't.

This a bunch of totally irrelevent B.S. but the answer is no.

I didn't make any of it up, pal. I just repeated what I heard on a national radio program about an hour before. If they retract their story, I'll post a correction. Until then, I stick with my story.

 

[surfnole]

Since we are into speculation, do you think someone could have inspected the shuttle with a telescope? Not that they could have done anything about it.

If we can read a license tag with a satellite from outer space, don't you think there would be a telescope on earth capable of checking out damage?

 

[EagleRJ]

Old tank- new foam

There are usually underlying political decisions that can be blamed for any accident resulting from a design failure. Look at the Challenger accident. The solid rocket boosters did not have to be built in segments- they could have been built on site as a single piece. The segmented design had never been tried before, and engineers warned that there would be problems with the o-rings sealing the joints. The boosters had to be segmented because the winning bidder, Morton Thiokol, had manufacturing facilities in Louisiana and couldn't move them to Florida in one piece. That was a political and economic decision, and it ended up costing us dearly on 1/28/86.

The external tank used to launch Columbia was one of the older, heavier ones, but it had the new environmentally-friendly insulation applied to it. Time will tell what role the new foam played in the disaster, but engineers have said that there have been retention problems ever since they switched.

 

[dmspilot00]

Sorry--I stand corrected concerning the tank. So, although it was an old tank it had new insulation on it. However, only time will tell what happened.

Still, these statements are inappropriate:
"a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement"
"The extremists pushing bunk science and emotional policies called the environmental whackos carry the blame."

So according to you we would reject new technology and Boeing would still be cranking out 727s and 737-200s because they were "effective."

I realize there are some inane people out there who call themselves environmentalists, and it's a shame, but that does not mean that all people concerned with the environment are "emotional" and "scientifically sparse." I guess then we should just pollute all we want and not worry about how toxic the environment becomes.

You also can't go around throwing blame at people based on pure speculation.

----------------------------------------------------

As I understand it the Challenger disaster happened after repeated warnings from Thiocal not to launch in temperatures less than 50 degrees (it was 38 that day, icicles had even formed on the launch pad). Thiocal told NASA that doing so would result in a disaster and severe loss of human life. So ultimately it would have been the fault of NASA. Saying the cause was because of the manufacture technique is like saying the cause of a 737 structural failure after doing aerobatics is Boeing's fault for not building them strong enough to do aerobatics, or that getting your hand burned when you put it in flame is the flame's fault for being so hot.

 

[TXCAP4228]

No he doesn't. Go back and read my post. His argument is based on made-up facts and guesses. The tank was the old design. The "new" tank he is talking about was not even used on this mission. So it is an invalid argument and offensively so, because he is blaming a group of people for events which did not happen!

This a bunch of totally irrelevent B.S. but the answer is no. I called it offensive because environmentalism played absolutely no part considering the tank design for this mission was the old one, a design first used in 1983. Even if they had used a new tank I am sure it was NASA's own choosing because they wanted to save weight and utilize technology that is not 20 years old.

Sorry--I stand corrected concerning the tank. So, although it was an old tank it had new insulation on it. However, only time will tell what happened.

Well, I could add more but there's no need.

Learn to read the whole post next time and spell
CHALLENGES
LOGICALLY

I should read the whole post? And in any case you are critizing my spelling? I am typing fast. Don't you suppose you might come up with something more germane?

Or is it more your speed to attack the messenger if you don't like the ideas that are presented? You may have just gone a long way to support what flywithastick said.

In any case, a couple of posts later you say some things worthy of comment.

Still, these statements are inappropriate:
"a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement"
"The extremists pushing bunk science and emotional policies called the environmental whackos carry the blame."

So according to you we would reject new technology and Boeing would still be cranking out 727s and 737-200s because they were "effective."

1) The only reason you give for the statements being inappropriate is that we would reject new tech. You provide no other reason....
2) Flywithastick presupposes that were using safer and more effective tech and went to something else for emotional and not technological reasons. He states this in his premise. So on its face your argument is not legitimate....
3) The analogy you make is not appropriate to the situation because improvements made to the 727's and 737's wer due to better and safer technology and not made for emotional reasons.

You have made a hasty conclusion and then drawn an unsupported anaolgy.


You then say that you can't throw blame around based on speculation. Naturally I have a couple of responses to that too.
1) I think he is saying that IF this is the result then it will be a case of environmentalism gone wrong.
2) He establishes a premise sufficiently that it meets a prima facie burden.

You don't have the right to squelch his opinion just because you don't like his conclusion. If what he said is so wrong then it ought to be easy for you to respond to it instead of attacking the message itself (or the messenger).... or my spelling....

 

[dmspilot00]

I did give more than one reason but like last time you took the post out of context and did not read the whole thing. This is the reason I "attacked" YOUR message (and your spelling while I was at it, to establish that not only can you not read but cannot spell either).

flywithastick presents that the foam falling off the shuttle is automatically the "whacko environmentalists' " fault. We do not know who's decision it was to change the foam, or why that decision was reached. Flywithastick does not present it as a possiblity or hypothesis, but as a true fact. Further he is saying that since the foam falling off may have caused the accident, then the environmentalists may be blamed for the loss of seven lives.

"If this theory [of the foam impact causing the accident] stands, here's a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement d@mning effective existing processes & systems for little or no benefit *and* possibly killing humans in the process. "

I would also like to know how just because a newer technology is more environmentally friendly automatically means that it was hastily implimented by wacko environmentalists. Sticking to aviation examples, 737-600s are more environmentally friendly than 737-200s, does that mean that it was the hippie extreme environmentalists that got Boeing to redesign it? I think not.

The 737-600 is safer as well. Did NASA have any reason to believe that the new foam insulation was less safe? Did the whacko environmentalists say that "we don't care if its dangerous, we want more enviro-friendly foam!"?

 

[flywithastick]

these statements are inappropriate:
"a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement"

I stand by my statements based upon the assumption that the current theory holds.

So according to you we would reject new technology and Boeing would still be cranking out 727s and 737-200s because they were "effective."

Let's compare the cost versus the benefit. In the case of Boeing building airliners, the benefit was worth the cost. With the foam insulation, I can't help believe that the environmental impact from applying foam to a few tanks, in a shop environment, would be worth any minimal threat to the reliability of the shuttle.

I realize there are some inane people out there who call themselves environmentalists, and it's a shame, but that does not mean that all people concerned with the environment are "emotional" and "scientifically sparse."

No - you're right. But the extremism just doesn't stop. I'm sick of it. I enjoy fishing & swimming in lakes, creeks and the ocean, hiking and biking in the woods and breathing clean air as much as anyone. But when the whackos place the beaches off limits at Camp Pendleton for some bird who's northernmost range overlaps the camp and prevents our Marines from practicing beach landings, that's stupid.

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020424/53340.html

I guess then we should just pollute all we want and not worry about how toxic the environment becomes.

That's a foolish statement, not helping your side of the argument. Kind of like what the dems said about republicans wanting to kill people as a result of their policies. How about just weighing the cost vs. the benefit. Unchecked environmentalism can be every bit as damaging to our way of life as unchecked polution.

Even if it was the fault of radical extremists you still can't go around throwing blame at people based on pure speculation.

Why not... this is a general discussion board. Or am I not being tolerant and diverse enough in my thinking?!

*** TEXCAP... maybe I should just let you handle this debate!!! thanks.

Happy flying

 

[TXCAP4228]

I did give more than one reason but like last time you took the post out of context and did not read the whole thing. This is the reason I "attacked" YOUR message (and your spelling while I was at it, to establish that not only can you not read but cannot spell either).

whatever.

flywithastick presents that the foam falling off the shuttle is automatically the "whacko environmentalists' " fault. We do not know who's decision it was to change the foam, or why that decision was reached. Flywithastick does not present it as a possiblity or hypothesis, but as a true fact. Further he is saying that since the foam falling off may have caused the accident, then the environmentalists may be blamed for the loss of seven lives.

"If this theory [of the foam impact causing the accident] stands, here's a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement d@mning effective existing processes & systems for little or no benefit *and* possibly killing humans in the process. "

So you say that Fly presents this as a FACT instead of as a theory, when he actually called it a theory??

How compelling.

I'm not persuaded.

I would also like to know how just because a newer technology is more environmentally friendly automatically means that it was hastily implimented by wacko environmentalists. Sticking to aviation examples, 737-600s are more environmentally friendly than 737-200s, does that mean that it was the hippie extreme environmentalists that got Boeing to redesign it? I think not.

The 737-600 is safer as well. Did NASA have any reason to believe that the new foam insulation was less safe? Did the whacko environmentalists say that "we don't care if its dangerous, we want more enviro-friendly foam!"?

The 737-600 is newer and better tech that is supportable for reasons other than (I will quote fly here)

impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement d@mning effective existing processes & systems for little or no benefit

In order for your analogy to hold, the adoption of the 737-600 would have to be based on emotional and scientifically (I have to reread this lest I develop bruises from your criticism of my spellin')sparse reasons. Since the 737-600 is both cheaper to perate, safer, and newer tech, I'd say your analogy fails completely.

dms, I hope you notice I am not attacking yoy (oops, there goes my spellin' again), I am disagreeing with you. You, however, seem content to attack me. Its ok, I am not bruised yet.

Hey fly, I hope you don't think I am stealing your thunder... I'll butt out if you want.

 

[flywithastick]

Hey fly, I hope you don't think I am stealing your thunder... I'll butt out if you want. [/B]

Rock and roll, buddy!! you're doing better than me!

 

[dmspilot00]

"In order for your analogy to hold, the adoption of the 737-600 would have to be based on emotional and scientifically (I have to reread this lest I develop bruises from your criticism of my spellin')sparse reasons. Since the 737-600 is both cheaper to perate, safer, and newer tech, I'd say your analogy fails completely"

OF COURSE my analogy fails according to you because that was NOT my analogy, but the TOTAL OPPOSITE of my analogy!

I SAID just because the new foam is environmentally friendly does NOT mean it was implimented by wacko environmentalsts for emotional and scientifically spare reasons. It could be it was merely better technlogoy that NASA wanted to use--just like how the 737-600 is better technology, it happens to be it is more enviromentally friendly, and it was not developed because of wacko environmentalists for emotional and unscientific reasons.

I said "I would also like to know how just because a newer technology is more environmentally friendly automatically means that it was hastily implimented by wacko environmentalists. Sticking to aviation examples, 737-600s are more environmentally friendly than 737-200s, does that mean that it was the hippie extreme environmentalists that got Boeing to redesign it? I think not. " Now where do see me say that the 737-600 was developed because of emotional etc. reasons?

In order to argue against a point I make, you first must be able to read, write, and understand the English language. You are attempting to argue against a point that I did not make; a point that you mistakenly think I'm trying to make.

flywithastick treated the following as THEORY:
The foam stiking the wing caused the shuttle to disintegrate.

flywithastick treated the following as FACT:
The type of foam was changed because of wacko extreme environmentalism.

He DOES NOT present the type of foam being changed because of environmentalism as a theory, but as fact. He presents the foam striking the wing causing the accident as a theory. Therefore, he presents as fact, not theory, that if the foam striking the wing caused the accident then environmentalism is to blame!

You haven't interpreted a single thing I have said so far correctly.

 

[TXCAP4228]

OF COURSE my analogy fails according to you because that was NOT my analogy, but the TOTAL OPPOSITE of my analogy!

I SAID just because the new foam is environmentally friendly does NOT mean it was implimented by wacko environmentalsts for emotional and scientifically spare reasons. It could be it was merely better technlogoy that NASA wanted to use--just like how the 737-600 is better technology, it happens to be it is more enviromentally friendly, and it was not developed because of wacko environmentalists for emotional and unscientific reasons.

Ok, the extent of what you said was:

So according to you we would reject new technology and Boeing would still be cranking out 727s and 737-200s because they were "effective."

It looks to me like you're trying to go back and make it say something other than the exact words you wrote to begin with. I think my interpretation of those words is fair.

I said "I would also like to know how just because a newer technology is more environmentally friendly automatically means that it was hastily implimented by wacko environmentalists. Sticking to aviation examples, 737-600s are more environmentally friendly than 737-200s, does that mean that it was the hippie extreme environmentalists that got Boeing to redesign it? I think not. " Now where do see me say that the 737-600 was developed because of emotional etc. reasons?

You said this in a later post. I guess you were trying to go back and reframe your analogy. Fine.

In order to argue against a point I make, you first must be able to read, write, and understand the English language. You are attempting to argue against a point that I did not make; a point that you mistakenly think I'm trying to make.

1) Ok, here we go again with attacking me. One of these years I might get a bruise (oh no). Ok, Professor dmspilot, since you are holding yourself out as a higher standard, please go back and reread this sentence: "Now where do see me say that the 737-600 was developed because of emotional etc. reasons?" Are you missing a pronoun anywhere? I thought that was funny. I would never bring up something like that but you opened the door. Don't worry, I don't think it reflects on you personally. I just keep thinking about something I learned as a child - those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, or something like that.
2) It took you two or three posts to even make a real argument so you will pardon me if you only now make your position clear. You might consider that it is the responsibility of the speaker (or the typer in this case) to make his or her position clear from the beginning. If I misunderstod your position all along then you have to take some responsibility for that.

flywithastick treated the following as THEORY:
The foam stiking the wing caused the shuttle to disintegrate.

flywithastick treated the following as FACT:
The type of foam was changed because of wacko extreme environmentalism.

He DOES NOT present the type of foam being changed because of environmentalism as a theory, but as fact. He presents the foam striking the wing causing the accident as a theory. Therefore, he presents as fact, not theory, that if the foam striking the wing caused the accident then environmentalism is to blame!

You haven't interpreted a single thing I have said so far correctly.

Well, if I was interpreting incorrectly before then then so are you on this. Show me where Fly held the reason for the change as anything other than part of the theory. My whole problem started with you running off (seemingly) half-cocked and jumping all over him in defense of environmentalism without bothering to support what you said - as if I should just accept your position as dogma no matter what. After some number of posts I am starting to see your point of view, but I still think you are trying to say that what fly wrote is something other than what he said it was - a theory.

dms, didn't we agree about something on some other thread recently? Dude, I am not out for a flame war or out to get you. I am also not attacking you even though you are attacking me. Take a deep breath and count to ten, huh?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by flywithastick:
Heard today on Rush...

Good god! Seven people are dead...and you guys are debating the safety of the National Space Transportation System based on something on Rush Limbaugh?

 

[EagleRJ]

Uh oh.

Here we go....

 

[Typhoon1244]

Uh oh. Here we go....

Well I'm sorry, but I think it's silly for people to be flaming each other over an investigation into which none of us has any real insight.

Try to imagine sitting there, watching the autopilot work. The dull orange glow outside the windshield isn't frightening at all. In fact, it's rather pleasant. What isn't pleasant is that high-frequency vibration that's been coming and going for the last three minutes. Now it's constant...and increasing. Maybe you talk about it, maybe you don't. You're fifteen minutes out when the vibration increases to a violent tremor. Caution and warning tones begin to sound. You're still trying to process the situation when the ship begins a rapid roll and yaw to the left...then the world comes apart. A wrenching shock, maybe a bright flash, and the ship is tumbling sideways. You hardly have time to think about what might come next before all the displays go blank, and you feel the overwhelming rush of decompression. Then overwhelming noise, a lurch that dislocates shoulders...and suddenly you're free and blind in an eleven-thousand knot slipstream...it doesn't last long...

When I think about what happened Saturday, the bickering and posturing that happens on this forum becomes less than insignificant.

Still, I guess we all have to deal with this our own way...

"Can't we all just get along...?"

 

[flywithastick]

Good god! Seven people are dead...

and that's sad for their families and friends. But what does it have to do with a debate about one of the worlds most complex and interesting failure analyses?

and you guys are debating the safety of the National Space Transportation System based on something on Rush Limbaugh? [/B]

sure didn't hear anything about this new insulation system on mainstream media. Actually I heard it from Roger Hedgecock, and was confirmed by a board member above. Sorry I didn't get *your* approval on the content and source of my post!

 

[dmspilot00]

I don't know what happened but the only points I was trying to make were:

1. Don't stereotype
2. If NASA decided to change their type of insulation, and the new insulation happens to be "environmentally friendly," then that should not automatically mean that some wacko extremist environmentalists were responsible.

And I do not see any reason why the points 1 and 2 above need to be backed up because they are pretty common sense. Why would I need to write a point-by-point persuasive essay on why one should not "jump to conclusions and blame an entire group of people for a fatal accident"?

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Rush?

I gotta side with Typhoon here...we're making assumptions because of the unsupported comments of a radio show guy?

--before you flame me guys, lets be fair, Rush did not offer any source for his opinion and I have not heard that particular bent anywhere in the "Mainstream" media (including Fox News, which at times appears to the right of Rush!).

as an aside and to lighten things a bit, I heard a different theory by one of Phil Hendry's guests, but it might be a bit off....

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Rush?

I gotta side with Typhoon here...we're making assumptions because of the unsupported comments of a radio show guy?

By will Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 4, 2003; Page A15

But political pressures may also have contributed to the foam's tendency to break away at launch. A change in the foam's formulation, instigated in 1997 as part of NASA's effort to use more environmentally friendly chemicals, was considered a possible cause of a sudden increase in the amount of foam breaking off that year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21034-2003Feb3.html

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Post

I stand corrected Fly. Seems as if that covers both ends of the political spectrum as well...rare when the Post and Limbaugh agree on something--may be a world record!