Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
Pat Flannery
"....Columbia’s crew died within seconds after Mission Control lost
signals from the shuttle.
“The destruction of the crew module took place over a period of 24
seconds beginning at an altitude of approximately 140,000 feet,” the
report said. Death was attributed to blunt trauma and loss of oxygen.
A final video from inside the crew compartment, just minutes before the
breakup, showed that three crew members were not wearing the pressure
suits, gloves and helmets prescribed for re-entry. However, this
oversight “did not affect their chances of survival,” the report said..."
What's this about no pressure suits? I assumed that donning pressure
suits was required under flight rules for reentry...had things gotten so
completely lax at NASA that behavior that Wally Schirra got jumped on
for in Apollo 7 was now considered acceptable? Considering the heating
and aerodynamic forces that the Shuttle encounters during reentry,
wasn't there a thought that nonfatal damage could still lead to loss of
pressurization in the crew compartment- or that heating could lead to
fire, or release of toxic gasses by overheated equipment or leaking nose
RCS propellant supplies? Did this dangerous crew practice also occur on
other post-Challenger flights during reentry? Frankly, if correctly
reported, this is the single most disturbing thing I've heard to date
regarding the loss of Columbia....
Pat
Rand Simberg
<fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>What's this about no pressure suits? I assumed that donning pressure
>suits was required under flight rules for reentry
And under what realistic failure mode would their having pressure
suits on have saved them?
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Jorge R. Frank
> I was absolutely flabbergasted to read this on MSN
>
> "....Columbia’s crew died within seconds after Mission Control lost
> signals from the shuttle.
> “The destruction of the crew module took place over a period of 24
> seconds beginning at an altitude of approximately 140,000 feet,” the
> report said. Death was attributed to blunt trauma and loss of oxygen.
> A final video from inside the crew compartment, just minutes before the
> breakup, showed that three crew members were not wearing the pressure
> suits, gloves and helmets prescribed for re-entry. However, this
> oversight “did not affect their chances of survival,” the report said..."
>
> What's this about no pressure suits? I assumed that donning pressure
> suits was required under flight rules for reentry...
Read it again, but carefully this time, Pat.
"...not wearing the pressure suits, gloves AND helmets..."
(emphasis mine)
While you're at it, you might want to hunt down the cockpit video again.
They were all wearing their suits. Looks like they hadn't put their gloves
on yet, but the video ends about twelve minutes before the accident.
> Frankly, if correctly
> reported, this is the single most disturbing thing I've heard to date
> regarding the loss of Columbia....
Surely that's a facetious statement. There were plenty of other things in
the report that I found far more disturbing than the fact that the crew was
slow in donning equipment that wouldn't have saved them anyway.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Doug...
IIRC, the cockpit video shows several of the crew putting on gloves near
the end, and I don't recall any of them on the flight deck who weren't
wearing their helmets. They may not have had the visors down and locked,
but they had the helmets on.
I think the conclusions of the board also reflect the state in which the
bodies were recovered. You could probably tell whether or not a crewman
was completely suited based on the remains of the body and the suit.
As for the Apollo 7 debacle, the only reason that particular crew was
highly encouraged to wear their PGAs during entry was that they were on
the maiden flight of a new spacecraft. IIRC, the only other Apollo crew
who entered while suited was the Apollo 15 crew, and that came as a
result of the Soyuz 11 accident, which occurred just a month prior to
Apollo 15. Dave Scott's crew got to climb into their PGAs for *all* pyro
events, including the SIM bay door jett. But, for example, in the Apollo
8 debrief, they talk about how they took off their suits after TLI,
stowed them, and never once got them back out for the rest of the flight.
Including entry.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup | dvan...@mn.rr.com
Derek Lyons
>Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in news:3F4C446...@daktel.com:
>
>> Frankly, if correctly reported, this is the single most disturbing thing I've heard
>> to date regarding the loss of Columbia....
>
>Surely that's a facetious statement. There were plenty of other things in
>the report that I found far more disturbing than the fact that the crew was
>slow in donning equipment that wouldn't have saved them anyway.
What we are looking at here Jorge is patterns. Management wasn't
following the rules, flight controllers were not either, and now it
seems the astronauts as well?
This is a very sick system we are looking at here, and the illness
runs deeper than just management.
D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to o...@io.com, as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
Herb Schaltegger
derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
> >Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in news:3F4C446...@daktel.com:
> >
> >> Frankly, if correctly reported, this is the single most disturbing thing
> >> I've heard
> >> to date regarding the loss of Columbia....
> >
> >Surely that's a facetious statement. There were plenty of other things in
> >the report that I found far more disturbing than the fact that the crew was
> >slow in donning equipment that wouldn't have saved them anyway.
>
> What we are looking at here Jorge is patterns. Management wasn't
> following the rules, flight controllers were not either, and now it
> seems the astronauts as well?
>
> This is a very sick system we are looking at here, and the illness
> runs deeper than just management.
>
> D.
I agree, Derek. I remember watching the reentry video some months ago
and noting how Husband (I think it was) had to remark to the others to
basically quit fooling around. He also (IIRC) reminded everyone to get
their gloves on and so forth. I remember thinking two specific things
at the time: first, he seemed a bit tense. Having never watched
another reentry video, however, I have no basis of comparison. The
second thought I had at the time was that the mission commander
shouldn't *have* to remind folks to get their gloves on or to quit
fooling around.
I realize of course that none of that made one iota's difference in the
ultimate outcome.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
>And under what realistic failure mode would their having pressure
>suits on have saved them?
>
>
>
Any loss of crew cabin pressure or contamination of crew cabin
atmosphere, and a loss of crew cabin pressure requires only a small hole
anywhere in the exterior of the crew cabin, and could reasonably be
caused by minor damage that would not in itself lead to vehicle loss
(for instance it could occur after the main reentry heating phase while
the orbiter was still at very high altitude). Leaking RCS propellants
could enter the cabin (just ask the ASTP crew) at low altitudes when
interior/exterior pressure equalization occurs- which is why NASA sends
out the sniffer truck with the safety suited crew on it before the
astronauts leave the orbiter.
Also how are you supposed to use the bail-out pole if you aren't fully
suited up? If an SR-71 pilot flew a mission sans pressure suit, the Air
Force would have court-martialed him; and the Shuttle is exposed to far
more severe conditions than a Blackbird's flight during it's
reentry....have "mission rules" become "mission suggestions"?
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>While you're at it, you might want to hunt down the cockpit video again.
>They were all wearing their suits. Looks like they hadn't put their gloves
>on yet, but the video ends about twelve minutes before the accident.
>
And they showed the video last night on History Channel...at the point
they aren't wearing gloves, the crew is watching the beginning of plasma
formation outside the cockpit windows...and as we now know, the wing
structure is beginning to be damaged, and pieces are beginning to be
shed from the Orbiter.
>
>
>
>>Frankly, if correctly
>>reported, this is the single most disturbing thing I've heard to date
>>regarding the loss of Columbia....
>>
>>
>
>Surely that's a facetious statement. There were plenty of other things in
>the report that I found far more disturbing than the fact that the crew was
>slow in donning equipment that wouldn't have saved them anyway.
>
>
>
To me though, that slow donning was emblematic of the whole situation
that led to the loss of Columbia; a failure to go "by the book" at every
phase of the whole operaton....when mission rules state that you should
be fully suited up at X minutes before reentry, you should be suited up
by that time- not around that time.
When mission rules require that the ET has zero shedding of insulation
during ascent, that should mean zero shedding....not popcorn sized
chunks are acceptable- but suitcase sized ones aren't.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Doug... wrote:
>
>I think the conclusions of the board also reflect the state in which the
>bodies were recovered. You could probably tell whether or not a crewman
>was completely suited based on the remains of the body and the suit.
>
Trying to be as delicate as possible about this...some of the bodies
were found very far from the crashed cockpit area, and in a badly burned
and dismembered state...it is not unusual for passengers falling from an
disintegrating airliner at cruising altitude to spin so quickly when
they are falling toward the ground that both clothing and limbs are
stripped from them be centrifugal force.
>
>As for the Apollo 7 debacle, the only reason that particular crew was
>highly encouraged to wear their PGAs during entry was that they were on
>the maiden flight of a new spacecraft. IIRC, the only other Apollo crew
>who entered while suited was the Apollo 15 crew, and that came as a
>result of the Soyuz 11 accident, which occurred just a month prior to
>Apollo 15. Dave Scott's crew got to climb into their PGAs for *all* pyro
>events, including the SIM bay door jett. But, for example, in the Apollo
>8 debrief, they talk about how they took off their suits after TLI,
>stowed them, and never once got them back out for the rest of the flight.
>Including entry.
>
>
>
But wearing pressure suits was one of the (few) safety changes made
after Challenger in regards to the crew's survival...and if it's a
mission rule, then you should obey it to the letter. Being fully suited
up during Columbia's disintegration wouldn't have made an iota of
difference in regards to the crew's survival chances...but it would be
an extra thing to have in your corner if less severe incidents occurred
during reentry; and if it only up's the survival chance by say 5% in
regards to such scenarios, then it's worth the bother in my opinion. And
it is a mission rule.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
>What we are looking at here Jorge is patterns. Management wasn't
>following the rules, flight controllers were not either, and now it
>seems the astronauts as well?
>
>This is a very sick system we are looking at here, and the illness
>runs deeper than just management.
>
>
>
What it reminds me of again and again is dirigible flight in the 20's
and 30's- only the Germans had any luck with safe long-term operations;
as they were the only ones who understood that everything has to be done
to a near-perfect standard in all phases of operation; from design,
through construction, to maintenance, crew training, and operational
safety rules...any error in any of these areas (especially with hydrogen
as the lifting agent) would lead to inevitable disaster in routine
operations...both the Shuttle and Zeppelins share a basic fragility,
that is not fault-tolerant in any phase of their operations.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>
>I realize of course that none of that made one iota's difference in the
>ultimate outcome.
>
>
>
What exactly are the odds that two people would both use turn of phrase
with "iota" in it in regards to the Columbia's loss in such quick
succession? (I wrote mine before I read Herb's) This can mean only one
thing ...Herb Schaltegger and I are both IDENTICAL CLONES from the same
zygote mass that was brought to Earth from Canopus 6! Physically linked
by those cybernetic centipedes that live up our noses, as were revealed
in the Sci-Fi Channel's "Taken" miniseries (by the Well-Known,
Fellow-Traveling, Knee-Jerk, Alien-Hugging Cyborg known as Steven
Spielberg!) to the foolishly misled Muto-Monkey Blood-Bags of Sol 3!
WELL, the plot- like Venusian Fire Woman Genital Excretions- thickens!
And we must now turn our
far-more-sensitive-to-infrared-emmisions-than-any- Earth-mammel eyes
(all 24 of them) toward Hungary...to see if that Puppet Of The
Pleiadins, Tamas Feher, has yet received the subspace hyperlight
activator signal from his Pleone-worshipping masters, and will wind up
that Atlantian artifact that he has mistaken for an ancient Greek alarm
clock (in his Terracentric foolishness)...releasing ZOOGY- the Dog Of A
Thousand Leashes- from his submerged crypt under the Isle Of Santorini,
to once again play havoc with the Earth's dimensions; and call all of
the Secret Tibetan Dog-Masters into Grand Convocation on the slopes of
Vesuvius; from there to lead the Spartacus-like uprising of all the
Canis-Not-Now-So-Domesticus in the world against their masters, thereby
returning the Earth to the wretched control of ELLEN BARKUS- High
Priestess Of The Dog Star!
And after that...things are going to get really interesting, as Homo Sap
gets his at the end of a rolled up copy of the Siriusan Human Lover
magazine...before his nose is unceremoniously rubbed in the mess he's
made of history, and he has to spend the night in the humanhouse, before
heading for the humanarian- and his well-deserved neutering, on the morrow.
Pat
Andrew Gray
>
>
> Doug... wrote:
>
>>
>>I think the conclusions of the board also reflect the state in which the
>>bodies were recovered. You could probably tell whether or not a crewman
>>was completely suited based on the remains of the body and the suit.
>>
>
> Trying to be as delicate as possible about this...some of the bodies
> were found very far from the crashed cockpit area, and in a badly burned
> and dismembered state...it is not unusual for passengers falling from an
> disintegrating airliner at cruising altitude to spin so quickly when
> they are falling toward the ground that both clothing and limbs are
> stripped from them be centrifugal force.
FWIW, there's a reference in the report (can't remember where, pdf's on
another machine) to the cause-of-death of the crew; it mentions that the
knowledge that some weren't wearing gloves was arrived at by the teams
working on the bodies, or at least that's how I read it...
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Jorge R. Frank
news:3f4eeb7f...@supernews.seanet.com:
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
>>Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in
>>news:3F4C446...@daktel.com:
>>
>>> Frankly, if correctly reported, this is the single most disturbing
>>> thing I've heard to date regarding the loss of Columbia....
>>
>>Surely that's a facetious statement. There were plenty of other things
>>in the report that I found far more disturbing than the fact that the
>>crew was slow in donning equipment that wouldn't have saved them
>>anyway.
>
> What we are looking at here Jorge is patterns. Management wasn't
> following the rules, flight controllers were not either, and now it
> seems the astronauts as well?
I agree, but that's orthogonal to my point. Pat said "this is the single
most disturbing thing" he's heard about Columbia. Do you agree with him?
I've barely skimmed the report, and this issue is already out of my
personal top five list of things to be disturbed about. By the time I read
it thoroughly, it'll probably be out of my top 50.
Jorge R. Frank
>>>Frankly, if correctly
>>>reported, this is the single most disturbing thing I've heard to date
>>>regarding the loss of Columbia....
>>
>>Surely that's a facetious statement. There were plenty of other things
>>in the report that I found far more disturbing than the fact that the
>>crew was slow in donning equipment that wouldn't have saved them
>>anyway.
>>
> To me though, that slow donning was emblematic of the whole situation
> that led to the loss of Columbia;
Fine, you *and* Derek want to evade the question of whether you really
consider this issue to be the "single most disturbing thing" you've heard
about Columbia. I'll ask the question in a different way: Do you really
consider the crew putting on their gloves late during entry to be more
disturbing than:
1) the fact that NASA knew about the ET foam shedding problem since 1981,
but never considered it important enough to ground the fleet to fix?
2) the fact that NASA never performed foam impact testing on the RCC before
deciding to live with the foam shedding problem?
3) the fact that, due to the lack of foam impact testing, the Debris
Assessment Team had to use a software tool to analyze a foam strike that
was far outside the database to which the tool was validated?
4) the fact that the MER manager's presentation of the Debris Assessment
Team's conclusions to the Mission Management Team systematically downplayed
all the team's uncertainties regarding the validity of said conclusions?
5) the fact that the MMT was unaware that three separate teams were
requesting imaging, and in cancelling one of them, inadvertently cancelled
all three?
6) the manner and extent to which the crew was notified of the foam strike?
> a failure to go "by the book" at
> every phase of the whole operaton....when mission rules state that you
> should be fully suited up at X minutes before reentry, you should be
> suited up by that time- not around that time.
I suppose you consider Schirra's failure to wear his helmet during Apollo
7's entry to be more disturbing than the Apollo 1 fire?
Doug...
says...
I can see the point of both earlier posters, that safety protocols had
become so lax that fairly important things like donning your PGA and
sealing it up on schedule was something that was never enforced or even
fairly monitored.
However, I also see your point, Jorge. The PGA issue was very reflective
of culture problems, but so are all the points you raised. And the
points you raised are far more serious in potential catastrophic results
than whether or not you've got your helmet and gloves on on-time.
A lot of people have raised the question as to whether the Columbia
disaster could have happened on Gene Kranz's or Chris Kraft's shift, and
the general consensus is that Kranz and Kraft were no more superhuman
than the current flight directors. I will bring up the possibility that,
just perhaps, you would at least have seen imaging and more follow-up on
the foam strike problem had Mad Don Arabian still been managing the MER.
The MER is where the troubleshooting ought to begin; when Arabian ran it,
the managers did whatever Mad Don said they needed to do to diagnose and
quantify the problem.
So, here's to finding another Mad Don Arabian to run the MER in the
future...
Rand Simberg
<dvan...@mn.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>A lot of people have raised the question as to whether the Columbia
>disaster could have happened on Gene Kranz's or Chris Kraft's shift, and
>the general consensus is that Kranz and Kraft were no more superhuman
>than the current flight directors. I will bring up the possibility that,
>just perhaps, you would at least have seen imaging and more follow-up on
>the foam strike problem had Mad Don Arabian still been managing the MER.
I don't necessarily want to join the crowd in scapegoating Linda Ham,
but seriously, can you imagine Glynn Lunney or Gene Kranz in this
scenario?
"He deflected concerns about wing damage and failed to investigate the
adequacy of the engineering analysis because -- as he told reporters
-- he did not feel competent to do so."
Jorge R. Frank
news:3f9e647f....@news.west.earthlink.net:
> On 28 Aug 2003 01:10:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Doug..."
><dvan...@mn.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
>>A lot of people have raised the question as to whether the Columbia
>>disaster could have happened on Gene Kranz's or Chris Kraft's shift,
>>and the general consensus is that Kranz and Kraft were no more
>>superhuman than the current flight directors. I will bring up the
>>possibility that, just perhaps, you would at least have seen imaging
>>and more follow-up on the foam strike problem had Mad Don Arabian
>>still been managing the MER.
>
> I don't necessarily want to join the crowd in scapegoating Linda Ham,
> but seriously, can you imagine Glynn Lunney or Gene Kranz in this
> scenario?
>
> "He deflected concerns about wing damage and failed to investigate the
> adequacy of the engineering analysis because -- as he told reporters
> -- he did not feel competent to do so."
I certainly can't imagine Lunney or Kranz tolerating the flawed in-flight
decision-making process you describe above. But I could imagine them being
involved in the flawed *pre-flight* decision-making process, because they
*were*. Both were in charge of shuttle mission operations (Kranz on the
NASA side, Lunney on the Rockwell side) during the era when management "got
comfortable" with the foam-shedding problem.
Rand Simberg
Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>I certainly can't imagine Lunney or Kranz tolerating the flawed in-flight
>decision-making process you describe above. But I could imagine them being
>involved in the flawed *pre-flight* decision-making process, because they
>*were*. Both were in charge of shuttle mission operations (Kranz on the
>NASA side, Lunney on the Rockwell side) during the era when management "got
>comfortable" with the foam-shedding problem.
Well, Glynn wasn't really involved with Shuttle issues at Rockwell.
He was in charge of new business.
Jorge R. Frank
news:MPG.19b7115e9...@news-server.mn.rr.com:
> I can see the point of both earlier posters, that safety protocols had
> become so lax that fairly important things like donning your PGA and
> sealing it up on schedule was something that was never enforced or
> even fairly monitored.
Of course it's important, but such incidents of laxness have been occurring
at NASA since the 1960s, many of them have been discussed at length in
sci.space.history, and *never* *once* did Pat Flannery express that he was
"disturbed" by them. Examples include:
- Wally Schirra not wearing his helmet during the Apollo 7 entry
- Story Musgrave standing up throughout a shuttle entry
- Dick Scobee not locking his harness during the 51L ascent
But suddenly he thinks that the 107 crew being slow putting on their gloves
is the "single most disturbing thing" he's heard about Columbia? Give me a
fucking break! None of the earlier incidents contributed to an accident,
and neither did the 107 crew's.
> However, I also see your point, Jorge. The PGA issue was very
> reflective of culture problems, but so are all the points you raised.
Thank you. I might add that if the PGA issue is reflective of a culture
problem, it is a problem that has existed throughout NASA's history, per
the examples above. It isn't something that gradually crept in over time.
> And the points you raised are far more serious in potential
> catastrophic results than whether or not you've got your helmet and
> gloves on on-time.
Exactly. And we must consider that crews don't always disobey safety rules
because they're lax about safety; sometimes they do so because they think
the rule is wrong. The shuttle ACES suits are only rated up to 100 kft
altitude, so they're not terribly useful early during entry. And the gloves
and helmet cause reach-and-visibility constraints that could impede the
crew in dealing with some types of contingencies. So some astronauts could
legitimately feel safer delaying the helmet and gloves until they're a
little closer to the suit's spec limit. That doesn't make it *right* - if
you think the rule is wrong, don't just break it, propose a rule change -
but it is understandable. Schirra's incident falls into this category as
well.
> So, here's to finding another Mad Don Arabian to run the MER in the
> future...
Agreed!
Jorge R. Frank
> On 28 Aug 2003 02:40:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
> Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>I certainly can't imagine Lunney or Kranz tolerating the flawed
>>in-flight decision-making process you describe above. But I could
>>imagine them being involved in the flawed *pre-flight* decision-making
>>process, because they *were*. Both were in charge of shuttle mission
>>operations (Kranz on the NASA side, Lunney on the Rockwell side)
>>during the era when management "got comfortable" with the
>>foam-shedding problem.
>
> Well, Glynn wasn't really involved with Shuttle issues at Rockwell.
> He was in charge of new business.
Sorry, I should have specified Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company, not
Rockwell International. Lunney certainly was involved with shuttle issues
at RSOC.
Derek Lyons
>consider this issue to be the "single most disturbing thing" you've heard
>about Columbia.
Pay attention Jorge, I never claimed it was any such thing. Those are
Pat's words.
Derek Lyons
>On 28 Aug 2003 01:10:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Doug..."
><dvan...@mn.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>way as to indicate that:
>
>>A lot of people have raised the question as to whether the Columbia
>>disaster could have happened on Gene Kranz's or Chris Kraft's shift, and
>>the general consensus is that Kranz and Kraft were no more superhuman
>>than the current flight directors. I will bring up the possibility that,
>>just perhaps, you would at least have seen imaging and more follow-up on
>>the foam strike problem had Mad Don Arabian still been managing the MER.
>
>I don't necessarily want to join the crowd in scapegoating Linda Ham,
>but seriously, can you imagine Glynn Lunney or Gene Kranz in this
>scenario?
Easily, because they, like the rest of the Apollo era controllers,
were only human, and not the demi-gods of recent popular perception.
In recent discussions on .history and .shuttle several instances of
them taking questionable actions have been shown.
Rand Simberg
Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> Well, Glynn wasn't really involved with Shuttle issues at Rockwell.
>> He was in charge of new business.
>
>Sorry, I should have specified Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company, not
>Rockwell International. Lunney certainly was involved with shuttle issues
>at RSOC.
Oh, you meant at USA, before he retired.
Rand Simberg
derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>I don't necessarily want to join the crowd in scapegoating Linda Ham,
>>but seriously, can you imagine Glynn Lunney or Gene Kranz in this
>>scenario?
>
>Easily, because they, like the rest of the Apollo era controllers,
>were only human, and not the demi-gods of recent popular perception.
>In recent discussions on .history and .shuttle several instances of
>them taking questionable actions have been shown.
The issue isn't taking questionable actions. The issue is saying,
well, what she said. Even if they weren't competent to assess the
analysis, I can't imagine them admitting it...
;-)
Jorge R. Frank
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>>Fine, you *and* Derek want to evade the question of whether you really
>>consider this issue to be the "single most disturbing thing" you've
>>heard about Columbia.
>
> Pay attention Jorge, I never claimed it was any such thing. Those are
> Pat's words.
Fair enough. I apologize for lumping the two of you together.
LooseChanj
made the sensational claim that:
> I was absolutely flabbergasted to read this on MSN
I was utterly flabbergasted to read in the CAIB report about the damage on
STS-50. (I *think* that's the right flight.) And the 112 bipod loss as well.
Nobody thought to ask what's the *worst* place a piece of foam could hit?
And what would it do?
Also, the scheduling pressure, and the Feb 2004 node 2 date. I know it's easy
to say now, but I've had the feeling over the past few years that we were
"due" for something like this. Apollo 1 to Challenger is roughly (ok VERY
roughly) equal to Challenger to Columbia. The shuttle program was in the
midst of enormous pressure from ISS requirements. Maybe we should step back
and take a deep breath, and look for *anything* we weren't paying enough
respect to. I even had a poster idea, three years ago...a picture of the
Challenger breakup with the caption "What's the worst that could happen?"
I suppose that's pretty tasteless, but it's the attitude NASA needs to adopt
if it doesn't want to go through this again.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here
Jorge R. Frank
> On 28 Aug 2003 03:10:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
> Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>> Well, Glynn wasn't really involved with Shuttle issues at Rockwell.
>>> He was in charge of new business.
>>
>>Sorry, I should have specified Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company,
>>not Rockwell International. Lunney certainly was involved with shuttle
>>issues at RSOC.
>
> Oh, you meant at USA, before he retired.
USA-Houston is basically RSOC post-1996, so yes. Though he *was* at RSOC
for several years before it became USA.
Rand Simberg
Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>>>> Well, Glynn wasn't really involved with Shuttle issues at Rockwell.
>>>> He was in charge of new business.
>>>
>>>Sorry, I should have specified Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company,
>>>not Rockwell International. Lunney certainly was involved with shuttle
>>>issues at RSOC.
>>
>> Oh, you meant at USA, before he retired.
>
>USA-Houston is basically RSOC post-1996, so yes. Though he *was* at RSOC
>for several years before it became USA.
Well, my only experience with him was when I worked for him in Downey,
before I left ten years ago (almost to the day...)
I've had little contact since then, other than a couple meetings on
Shuttle privatization (which seems like a bad joke now) and a couple
phone conversations since he retired.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>Fine, you *and* Derek want to evade the question of whether you really
>consider this issue to be the "single most disturbing thing" you've heard
>about Columbia. I'll ask the question in a different way: Do you really
>consider the crew putting on their gloves late during entry to be more
>disturbing than:
>
>1) the fact that NASA knew about the ET foam shedding problem since 1981,
>but never considered it important enough to ground the fleet to fix?
>
>2) the fact that NASA never performed foam impact testing on the RCC before
>deciding to live with the foam shedding problem?
>
>3) the fact that, due to the lack of foam impact testing, the Debris
>Assessment Team had to use a software tool to analyze a foam strike that
>was far outside the database to which the tool was validated?
>
>4) the fact that the MER manager's presentation of the Debris Assessment
>Team's conclusions to the Mission Management Team systematically downplayed
>all the team's uncertainties regarding the validity of said conclusions?
>
>5) the fact that the MMT was unaware that three separate teams were
>requesting imaging, and in cancelling one of them, inadvertently cancelled
>all three?
>
>6) the manner and extent to which the crew was notified of the foam strike?
>
Yes I do... and for the following simple reason: all of the above were
the results of bureaucratic bumbling and the desire to keep the mission
schedule moving forward in an undefended program... they could have
fixed the problems but it would have taken both time and money to
accomplish (a _lot_ of time and money to completely fix the shedding
foam ET problem...and we still don't know how to do that one.) but the
pressure suit problem could have been solved by the commander saying
"Sit the hell down, and put on your goddamned gloves! That's an order!".
>
>
>
>>a failure to go "by the book" at
>>every phase of the whole operaton....when mission rules state that you
>>should be fully suited up at X minutes before reentry, you should be
>>suited up by that time- not around that time.
>>
>>
>
>I suppose you consider Schirra's failure to wear his helmet during Apollo
>7's entry to be more disturbing than the Apollo 1 fire?
>
Schirra had a good reason not to want his helmet on...he didn't want to
puke into it, and possibly choke to death on his own vomit. Columbia's
crew just didn't get around to properly suiting up for reentry in
time....and that shows slackness on their part, and on the part of
Mission Control in allowing that situation to occur. It is reminiscent
of some of the screw-ups that plagued the Soviet/Russian space program;
although after Soyuz 11 I'll bet they are very careful to make sure that
all of their cosmonauts are fully pressure-suited before reentry...so
when did we get slacker than the Soviets? If mission rules say you do
it, you do it.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
>"He deflected concerns about wing damage and failed to investigate the
>adequacy of the engineering analysis because -- as he told reporters
>-- he did not feel competent to do so."
>
>
>
This visit to Bizzaro-World NASA brought to you by Tangy! "Not Taste
Like Real Orange Juice!"
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>ed.
>>
>>
>
>Of course it's important, but such incidents of laxness have been occurring
>at NASA since the 1960s, many of them have been discussed at length in
>sci.space.history, and *never* *once* did Pat Flannery express that he was
>"disturbed" by them.
>
Are you stating that I am not disturbed? Did you read some of the
replies to my posts on sci.space.history? I can get you hundreds of
unbiased opinions that I should be locked away; and the key put under
the eternal guardianship of Doctor Strange.
>Examples include:
>
>- Wally Schirra not wearing his helmet during the Apollo 7 entry
>- Story Musgrave standing up throughout a shuttle entry
>- Dick Scobee not locking his harness during the 51L ascent
>
>But suddenly he thinks that the 107 crew being slow putting on their gloves
>is the "single most disturbing thing" he's heard about Columbia? Give me a
>fucking break! None of the earlier incidents contributed to an accident,
>and neither did the 107 crew's.
>
Yes...I didn't say it was the single most disturbing thing that _you_
had heard about the Columbia accident; or that it was the single most
disturbing thing _about_ the Columbia accident; I said it was the single
most disturbing thing that _I_ had heard about the Columbia accident....
and By God Jorge, I demand the simple God-Given right of all Americans
to decide what I find disturbing! "Bjork revealed to be Alien-Elf
hybrid!"? Not disturbing! "Japanese whaling vessel sunk by Kraken!"?
Ho-hum! "318 American troops in Iraq killed by Genie!"? Happens every
day! Now _disturbing_ is a whole other ball of wax...like getting to
see the interviews with Anna Nicole Smith's relatives in "Dark Roots-
The Unauthorized Biography of Anna Nicole Smith" on VH-1....and having
it suddenly occur to me that....by Texan standards, both Lyndon
Johnson's and George Bush's families were normal in both behavior and
genetic makeup... and _that_ was the thought that chilled me to the
bone...as I realized that...just like Godzilla...Texas is always going
to be out there somewhere...waiting to wreak havoc; and all of our
weapons are probably going to be as impotent as Bob Dole in trying to
prevent that from happening again.
Pat
Rand Simberg
<fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Are you stating that I am not disturbed?
No one would ever credibly accuse you of that, Pat.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>Fair enough. I apologize for lumping the two of you together.
>
>
>
I am Doctor Doom...he is The Submariner...although both of us have a
score to settle with Reed Richards, we should not be lumped together- as
frankly Frank, saltwater will make my armor rust.
Pat
Pat Flannery
LooseChanj wrote:
>
>Also, the scheduling pressure, and the Feb 2004 node 2 date. I know it's easy
>to say now, but I've had the feeling over the past few years that we were
>"due" for something like this. Apollo 1 to Challenger is roughly (ok VERY
>roughly) equal to Challenger to Columbia. The shuttle program was in the
>midst of enormous pressure from ISS requirements.
>
This problem could be greatly alleviated by making the ISS serve a
useful scientific function....as an artificial reef somewhere in the
South Pacific.
Pat
Chris Jones
> On 28 Aug 2003 17:35:05 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery
> <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
>>Are you stating that I am not disturbed?
>
> No one would ever credibly accuse you of that, Pat.
Good, that's all he's asking.
whatever
> and noting how Husband (I think it was) had to remark to the others to
> basically quit fooling around.
There was a lot of chatter coming from the back seat.....goofing around with
cameras and nattering about the air glow. Maybe they were nervous. More like
just typical females.
The failure to suit up *was* surprising.
The pilots seemed to be trying to be polite to the back seaters, but were a
little tense. The entry is so automated....not much for them to do.
What amazes me is the final flare and touchdown. No biggie except it happens in
a few seconds and there is only one shot. Good thing they have sims. If they
tried to fly the landing like a commercial jet they would roll the thing into a
ball. Do not talk to the pilot on final.
Kevin Willoughby
> On 27 Aug 2003 05:45:00 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery> >What's this about no pressure suits? I assumed that donning pressure
> >suits was required under flight rules for reentry
>
> And under what realistic failure mode would their having pressure
> suits on have saved them?
Soyuz 11?
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@acm.orgNoSpam
Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins
Rand Simberg
Willoughby <ke...@scispace.org.invalid> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >What's this about no pressure suits? I assumed that donning pressure
>> >suits was required under flight rules for reentry
>>
>> And under what realistic failure mode would their having pressure
>> suits on have saved them?
>
>Soyuz 11?
I meant of the Shuttle.
Doug...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I suppose you consider Schirra's failure to wear his helmet during Apollo
> > 7's entry to be more disturbing than the Apollo 1 fire?
>
>
> Schirra had a good reason not to want his helmet on...he didn't want to
> puke into it, and possibly choke to death on his own vomit.
Minor nit -- Schirra and company weren't worried about vomiting. Their
ears were plugged up with nasal congestion, and they were worried about
the change in air pressure as the spacecraft descended causing eardrum
damage. They wanted to be able to grab their noses and blow out to clear
their ears. (If you've ever had to fly with nasal congestion, you know
what I mean.)
The Valsalva device provided to help an astronaut do this (basically a
rubber peg on the helmet ring) isn't effective when both ears are
plugged, since it only lets you close one nostril at a time.
Doug...
Now all we need is Doctor Octupus to round out the party...
Jorge R. Frank
> On 28 Aug 2003 05:05:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
> Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>USA-Houston is basically RSOC post-1996, so yes. Though he *was* at RSOC
>>for several years before it became USA.
>
> Well, my only experience with him was when I worked for him in Downey,
> before I left ten years ago (almost to the day...)
Yeah, I think he came to RSOC shortly after that. For a brief time, he was
VP of RI-Houston, then he helped form USA, then he retired.
Jorge R. Frank
news:3F4E3CB6...@daktel.com:
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>>Of course it's important, but such incidents of laxness have been
>>occurring at NASA since the 1960s, many of them have been discussed at
>>length in sci.space.history, and *never* *once* did Pat Flannery
>>express that he was "disturbed" by them.
>
> Are you stating that I am not disturbed?
Of course not. Your record speaks for itself. I stated that you did not
*express* that you were disturbed by any incident of a crew not wearing
proper protective equipment until 107.
>>Examples include:
>>
>>- Wally Schirra not wearing his helmet during the Apollo 7 entry
>>- Story Musgrave standing up throughout a shuttle entry
>>- Dick Scobee not locking his harness during the 51L ascent
>>
>>But suddenly he thinks that the 107 crew being slow putting on their
>>gloves is the "single most disturbing thing" he's heard about
>>Columbia? Give me a fucking break! None of the earlier incidents
>>contributed to an accident, and neither did the 107 crew's.
>
> Yes...I didn't say it was the single most disturbing thing that _you_
> had heard about the Columbia accident; or that it was the single most
> disturbing thing _about_ the Columbia accident; I said it was the
> single most disturbing thing that _I_ had heard about the Columbia
> accident.... and By God Jorge, I demand the simple God-Given right of
> all Americans to decide what I find disturbing!
And I demand the simple God-given right to decide you're full of BS!
> "Bjork revealed to be
> Alien-Elf hybrid!"? Not disturbing! "Japanese whaling vessel sunk by
> Kraken!"? Ho-hum! "318 American troops in Iraq killed by Genie!"?
> Happens every day! Now _disturbing_ is a whole other ball of
> wax...like getting to see the interviews with Anna Nicole Smith's
> relatives in "Dark Roots- The Unauthorized Biography of Anna Nicole
> Smith" on VH-1....and having it suddenly occur to me that....by Texan
> standards, both Lyndon Johnson's and George Bush's families were
> normal in both behavior and genetic makeup... and _that_ was the
> thought that chilled me to the bone...as I realized that...just like
> Godzilla...Texas is always going to be out there somewhere...waiting
> to wreak havoc; and all of our weapons are probably going to be as
> impotent as Bob Dole in trying to prevent that from happening again.
<bows head in awe>
Bravo, Pat. I hope you don't find it disturbing that I can only take you
seriously when you're not trying to be serious.
Jorge R. Frank
Well, I disagree. The ones I listed materially contributed to an accident
that killed seven people. The one you listed... did not. The commander
reacting the way you would have him would not have solved anything, other
than you being able to say, "at least they died with their gloves on." And
he wouldn't have handled it that way. I knew Rick Husband. Rick Husband
was a friend of mine. And one thing I know about Rick was that he had a
finely honed sense of what was important, and what was not. "Don't sweat
the petty stuff" could have been written by him.
>>>a failure to go "by the book" at
>>>every phase of the whole operaton....when mission rules state that
>>>you should be fully suited up at X minutes before reentry, you should
>>>be suited up by that time- not around that time.
So why didn't you express the same level of disturbance about Schirra,
Musgrave, and Scobee? OK, you did defend Schirra, I'll take care of that
below. But what about Musgrave and Scobee? You *can't* possibly argue you
didn't *know*. What kind of student of space history are you?
>>I suppose you consider Schirra's failure to wear his helmet during
>>Apollo 7's entry to be more disturbing than the Apollo 1 fire?
>
> Schirra had a good reason not to want his helmet on...he didn't want
> to puke into it, and possibly choke to death on his own vomit.
You're exaggerating. Schirra just wanted to be able to blow the snot out of
his nose.
> Columbia's crew just didn't get around to properly suiting up for
> reentry in time....and that shows slackness on their part,
Or maybe it just shows that they know that the suits *won't* *save* them
above 100k ft, and that the reach-and-vis constraints imposed by the gloves
and helmet could actually *impede* them in responding to contingencies
early in entry.
> and on the
> part of Mission Control in allowing that situation to occur.
Mission Control didn't know. That video wasn't downlinked realtime; there
was *no* *way* for them to know.
Pat Flannery
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>And under what realistic failure mode would their having pressure
>>suits on have saved them?
>>
>>
>
>Soyuz 11?
>
>
Don't forget that RCS propellant exposure on ASTP.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Doug... wrote:
>Minor nit -- Schirra and company weren't worried about vomiting. Their
>ears were plugged up with nasal congestion, and they were worried about
>the change in air pressure as the spacecraft descended causing eardrum
>damage.
>
I'm pretty sure I saw an interview with Schirra where he mentioned
vomiting into the helmet....Moonshot?
> They wanted to be able to grab their noses and blow out to clear
>their ears. (If you've ever had to fly with nasal congestion, you know
>what I mean.)
>
>The Valsalva device provided to help an astronaut do this (basically a
>rubber peg on the helmet ring) isn't effective when both ears are
>plugged, since it only lets you close one nostril at a time.
>
>
>
And Cadet Stimpy's has nose goblins all over it...so stay away from
it.... that.....and THE SHINY RED BUTTON!
Ren
Pat Flannery
Doug... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>I am Doctor Doom...he is The Submariner...although both of us have a
>>score to settle with Reed Richards, we should not be lumped together- as
>>frankly Frank, saltwater will make my armor rust.
>>
>>
>
>Now all we need is Doctor Octupus to round out the party...
>
>
>
He unintentionally helped us once in our battle against Richards...we
suckered him into it.
D.D.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>>hem.
>>>
>>>
>>Are you stating that I am not disturbed?
>>
>>
>
>Of course not. Your record speaks for itself. I stated that you did not
>*express* that you were disturbed by any incident of a crew not wearing
>proper protective equipment until 107.
>
>
>
To tell you the truth, I didn't know of any other incidents until you
pointed them out...I mainly study the Soviet program, as opposed to the
American one (this despite the fact that I work around fifty feet from
Rick Hieb's dad's house....)
>
>
>>>Examples include:
>>>
>>>- Wally Schirra not wearing his helmet during the Apollo 7 entry
>>>- Story Musgrave standing up throughout a shuttle entry
>>>- Dick Scobee not locking his harness during the 51L ascent
>>>
>>>But suddenly he thinks that the 107 crew being slow putting on their
>>>gloves is the "single most disturbing thing" he's heard about
>>>Columbia? Give me a fucking break! None of the earlier incidents
>>>contributed to an accident, and neither did the 107 crew's.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes...I didn't say it was the single most disturbing thing that _you_
>>had heard about the Columbia accident; or that it was the single most
>>disturbing thing _about_ the Columbia accident; I said it was the
>>single most disturbing thing that _I_ had heard about the Columbia
>>accident.... and By God Jorge, I demand the simple God-Given right of
>>all Americans to decide what I find disturbing!
>>
>>
>
>And I demand the simple God-given right to decide you're full of BS!
>
I sure was after I downed those thirty homemade rye crackers a couple of
days ago; Ch-rist, they aren't kidding when they talk about roughage! It
was like having a whole gravel pit come out of my anus!
>
>
>
>>"Bjork revealed to be
>>Alien-Elf hybrid!"? Not disturbing! "Japanese whaling vessel sunk by
>>Kraken!"? Ho-hum! "318 American troops in Iraq killed by Genie!"?
>>Happens every day! Now _disturbing_ is a whole other ball of
>>wax...like getting to see the interviews with Anna Nicole Smith's
>>relatives in "Dark Roots- The Unauthorized Biography of Anna Nicole
>>Smith" on VH-1....and having it suddenly occur to me that....by Texan
>>standards, both Lyndon Johnson's and George Bush's families were
>>normal in both behavior and genetic makeup... and _that_ was the
>>thought that chilled me to the bone...as I realized that...just like
>>Godzilla...Texas is always going to be out there somewhere...waiting
>>to wreak havoc; and all of our weapons are probably going to be as
>>impotent as Bob Dole in trying to prevent that from happening again.
>>
>>
>
><bows head in awe>
>
>Bravo, Pat. I hope you don't find it disturbing that I can only take you
>seriously when you're not trying to be serious.
>
>
>
You may sense my power...but I shall deny you the Life Essence!
P E A C E ON E A R T H
U F S
R S
I E
T N
Y C
E
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> You *can't* possibly argue you
>didn't *know*. What kind of student of space history are you?
>
The kind that studies Commie and Nazi rockets and stuff like that...I
always had a soft spot for the bad guys- want to know how many W.W.II
American and British airplane models I have? ZIP! Wanna know how many
Luftwaffe jet and rocket unbuilt aircraft projects models I have? 34!
Everybody else has Phantoms and Eagles; I'll have none of that...I've
got 28 model Soviet jets! I've got Queen Victoria in the clutches of
one of my two Martian War Machines, and the hooting bastard is going to
squeeze till she pops like a little black mourning dressed balloon! I've
got a Skylab...and three Salyuts to keep an eye on the Capitalist Stooge
Station in case it tries anything funny. Everybody else has their Apollo
Astronaut Action Figure...I've got a Kzinti Warrior standing on the
blood-soaked body of a Earth trooper it has just disemboweled with a
really big knife...
I'm the guy who tore the head off of the Johnny Quest figure and turned
it into Alexei Leonov... and my model of Dr. Zin's Robot Spy danced with
delight as I did it!
Everybody else has a cross up on the wall....I've got a statue of Cthulhu.
My heroes have always been villains! I'm right there in spirit every
time James Mason gets that loopy look in his eyes and takes the Nautilus
full tilt into that guano transport vessel! I was the one hoping that
the voice telling Luke to "Let go...trust your feelings" was really
Vader on a Magic Microphone; and that there would be one fewer planet,
dominatrix ice princess, and faggy gold robot and in the Rebel Alliance
inside of the next 30 seconds!
Gotta go...it's time to feed the Hydra his nine Hydrox Cookies....I'm
really hoping that Peter Jackson throws everybody a curve ball, and has
Frodo keep the ring, hurl Sam into the Cracks of Doom, and eat Gollum...
that would be choice...remind me to tell you about my alternate ending
for the movie "Titanic" sometime...
Pat
Doug...
>
> <snip>
>
> Everybody else has their Apollo
> Astronaut Action Figure...I've got a Kzinti Warrior standing on the
> blood-soaked body of a Earth trooper it has just disemboweled with a
> really big knife...
Kzinti don't generally need the help of a knife to disembowel something
as small and puny as a human being. Their claws are usually sufficient.
They don't take the time to draw steel; normally they just scream and
leap...
Doug...
>
>
> Doug... wrote:
>
> >Minor nit -- Schirra and company weren't worried about vomiting. Their
> >ears were plugged up with nasal congestion, and they were worried about
> >the change in air pressure as the spacecraft descended causing eardrum
> >damage.
> >
> I'm pretty sure I saw an interview with Schirra where he mentioned
> vomiting into the helmet....Moonshot?
"Moonshot" was the worst abomination, both as a book and a documentary,
ever considered, much less produced, about the Apollo program. They had
people record "new" air-to-ground communications for the TV show, among
other things.
I wouldn't take anything I saw on that particular show as valid, period.
However, Schirra *might* have discussed the problem of vomiting in a
space helmet in a different context, and the producers edited it in to
make it appear he was talking about his own flight. Those producers have
a great future with the Fox Network, I think...
Pat Flannery
Doug... wrote:
>Kzinti don't generally need the help of a knife to disembowel something
>as small and puny as a human being. Their claws are usually sufficient.
>They don't take the time to draw steel; normally they just scream and
>leap...
>
>
>
The battle happened out on the plain....the Kzinti shot a glancing blow
at the Earth soldier's helmet with a laser rifle, to stun him... and
then attacked...but he had underestimated his opponent, who was a member
of the elite corps that wear the "Hellfire" tattoo, and are trained to
kill Kzin with their bare hands- although his face was badly burned by
the spall of the laser hit on his helmet's visor he managed to get four
explosive pistol shots of at the Kzin as he approached at full speed;
three of these struck the Kzin's "gelpack" armor plates and their
miniature shaped charge's energy were dispersed by it...the forth shot
only grazed the Kzin's right side and caused little damage...realising
now that he faced a formidable opponent, the Kzin drew his blade, as
there was honor in killing one's near-equal, and the Earther should not
be slain like a prey animal... with one powerful stroke, the single-
molecular edged knife cleaved through the pressure suit and titanium
mail reinforcement under it, splitting the man from right shoulder blade
to breastbone, and felling him instantly... but it was now time to be
sure...the claws ripped open the left arm of the suit to reveal the
hellfire tattoo...these ears, and that arm would be worth keeping! He
wouldn't by "Patrol Searcher 265" for ever! He was on his way to making
a name for himself!
Pat
(I'm sending you a jpg of the diorama by the way- the Kzinti armor was
fun to design; it's built over a 12" G.I. Joe figure as a mannequin; the
Earth Soldier is built over a 10" Silver Surfer figure. Both were done
with Sculpy and Epoxy putty with details from the parts box.)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"whatever" <al_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vkrr5tk...@corp.supernews.com...
> What amazes me is the final flare and touchdown. No biggie except it
happens in
> a few seconds and there is only one shot. Good thing they have sims. If
they
> tried to fly the landing like a commercial jet they would roll the thing
into a
> ball. Do not talk to the pilot on final.
On my recent helicopter ride, when I got on board the pilot said there was
no talking over the intercom during take-off and landing.
I figured I didn't need to be told twice... afterall, I really didn't want
to experience what a carrot in a food processor experiences. :-)
>
>
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:3F4EE20E...@daktel.com...
I suppose that's better than twisting his arms into it.
Just remember, Forwarned is half an octopus.
>
> D.D.
>
Pascal Bourguignon
That's a good idea: let's lift to outerspace in helicopters! More
serriously, perhaps we should put the passengers' cabins closer to the
motors in the shuttle, to remind them how serrious their situation is :-)
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Kent Betts
> I've barely skimmed the report, and this issue is already out of my
> personal top five list of things to be disturbed about. By the time I read
> it thoroughly, it'll probably be out of my top 50.
I was shocked to read that some of the astronauts had not suited up
for re-entry. It shows a casual attitute toward a basic safety
precaution. Even airliners depressurize sometimes. I am assuming
that they suit up to protect themselves against this event. The goofy
chatter was strange, too, But hey it's their party. If the suits
don't serve much purpose then I stand corrected.