Shuttle Security?
Ron
SECURITY".
Such as?????
R
Dan Foster
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/11/24/space.security.ap/index.html
I'm sure there's a lot more other measures than are being reported.
-Dan
David Findlay
> Recent news blurb said that shuttle is being launched with "UNPRECEDENTED SECURITY".
>
> Such as?????
We could tell you, but we'd have to kill you.
David
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Ron" <ron...@no.spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e4lM7.6102$Kc2.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Recent news blurb said that shuttle is being launched with "UNPRECEDENTED
> SECURITY".
>
The keys to the ignition are no longer stored under the floor mats.
> Such as?????
>
>
> R
>
>
Edward Lyons
Ron <ron...@no.spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e4lM7.6102$Kc2.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> SECURITY".
>
> Such as?????
A platoon of Space Marines in the cargo bay.
(Just lime "Moonraker"!)
8-)
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
Rollo Tomasi
up to anything?
"Ron" <ron...@no.spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e4lM7.6102$Kc2.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Julian Bordas
They are now behind the sun visor.
--
Julian
I heard if you play the Windows XP CD backwards, you'll get a satanic message.
But more frightening is that if you play it forward, it installs Windows XP!
NB replace the nospam with a dot to send emails.
Chris Schumacher
wrote:
Abdul the janitor no longer allowed to take his smoking break on the
launching pad. They also won't allow him to get his Al Qaeda
newsletter through company mail anymore.
Seriously though, who cleans up the shuttle between missions?
-==Kensu==-
LooseChanj
news:3C02FAC4...@team.telstra.com...
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
> > The keys to the ignition are no longer stored under the floor mats.
>
> They are now behind the sun visor.
Actually, I believe they've installed one of those number keypads.
--
If $vendor wants to improve the quality of their products, they could
try cutting down their developers' drug dosages, but if that's not
possible they should at least make sure they're all on the same drugs.
--Darren Tucker
H. McDaniel
I heard all of the astronauts will have to launch blindfolded except for the
pilot and co-pilot.
-McDaniel
H. McDaniel
> Miss Cleo and other TV psychics contacted by NASA to find out if anyone is
> up to anything?
Now, you'd be surprised what the government pays for. I'm not saying they get
nothing in return for their money. But you'd be surprised.
-McDaniel
Rollo Tomasi
"Security is tight as NASA counts down toward a launch of space shuttle
Endeavour.....Forecasters say rain or thunderstorms could delay the
launch...."
Congrats to the American media for breaking THAT story wide open!
David Findlay
Has there ever been a launch that hasn't been delayed? They don't need to
keep the planned date a secret, because that date will definately change.
David
M Behnke
Threat
By Broward Liston
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force will throw up a
40-mile no-fly zone around the space shuttle Endeavour on launch day
and back that up with enough fire power to assure a "safe and secure''
launch, a senior space wing officer said on Tuesday.
Endeavour is set to rocket off its seaside launch pad at 7:41 p.m. on
Thursday, the first shuttle launch since the attacks of Sept. 11, and
no flight in the 40-year history of human space flight has been
accompanied by such a show of force, sources said.
That would include the Cold War-era moon missions and the celebrated
return to orbit of U.S. space hero John Glenn in 1998.
"We are assuring a safe and secure launch on Thursday night. This is an
unprecedented level of effort,'' said Air Force Col. Samuel Dick, vice
commander of the 45th Space Wing at Patrick Air Force Base. ``Whatever
comes up, we'll be prepared.''
Both the military and NASA (news - web sites) remain quiet when asked
about what kind of firepower is likely to back up that claim, but sources
have said they will include F-16 fighter jets, Apache attack helicopters,
surface-to-air missiles and armed ships at sea.
Dick would not say whether a credible threat had been made against the
shuttle, which is bound for the International Space Station (news - web
sites) on a 10-day mission. But he said part of the security concern arose
because many of the hijackers who slammed commercial airliners on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon (news - web sites) on Sept. 11 killing
nearly 4,000 people had lived in Florida.
The restricted air space around the Kennedy Space Center (news - web
sites)'s launch complex 39-B will include a 30 mile limit where no general
aviation will be allowed from 1:45 a.m. to 8:45 p.m.
Ten miles beyond that aviation will be restricted to planes with proper
transponder codes and flight authorizations. Commercial flights to and from
Orlando International Airport, which is just on the outskirts of the
restricted
zone, will not be restricted but they will only fly along the edges of the
zone
and security at the airport will be increased, the Air Force said.
Maritime activity, both commercial and recreational, will be restricted
within
a three-mile limit, officials said.
The authorization to use deadly force was implicit in the Air Force plan, but
Dick would not discuss what he termed ''rules of engagement.'' Since Sept.
11 authorization to shoot down aircraft has been the prerogative of the
military.
The thousands of tourists and local space enthusiasts who normally watch
launches from the beaches, shorelines and causeways controlled by NASA
and the Air Force will be turned away for this launch.
The spaceport is currently under its second highest level of alert, the
highest ever for a launch. If it were to move to the ``Delta'' level, the
launch would be scrubbed, NASA said.
Space-agency officials said they were happy to have the support provided
by the Air Force and other military and law-enforcement branches.
"It's been incredibly well orchestrated,'' said Dave King, chief of shuttle
operations at the Kennedy Space Center.
Endeavour and its flight crew of four astronauts will carry a new three-man
crew to the orbiting space station and return with the three current crew
members. It also carries more than two tons of provisions and scientific
hardware for the crew and station.
Jorge R. Frank
news:pan.2001.11.28.0...@yahoo.com.au:
> Has there ever been a launch that hasn't been delayed?
Depends on how far back you count delays. There have been several flights
that launched on the first attempt, on launch dates set months earlier,
most recently STS-100. It launched on April 19, 2001, the same launch
date it had a year earlier when the Zvezda launch date was fixed at July
12, 2000. Of course, it slipped several times before that, whenever Zvezda
was delayed.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Hallerb
>"We are assuring a safe and secure launch on Thursday night. This is an
A ATTEMPT to attack the shuttle wether its successful or not would likely be a
terrorist victory.
Sad what the world has come to....
JF Mezei
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance, how close to the PAD
would these helicopters be allowed fly ? less than a kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or
very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away would they be
required to be ?
Gareth Slee
news:20011128164124...@mb-mm.aol.com...
> Sad what the world has come to....
Lot's of other countries have suffered terrorism for years...
Welcome to the real world :-(
--
Gareth Slee
LooseChanj
news:3C0561D4...@videotron.ca...
> If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance, how close to the
PAD
> would these helicopters be allowed fly ? less than a kilometre ? 1-5 kmn
or
> very far away ?
>
> and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away would they be
> required to be ?
Do you really expect those questions to be answered?
Edward Lyons
Nothing to do with launch, per se, but take a look at:
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=apache_
011128a_02.jpg&cap=Apache%20helicopter%20gunships%20patrol%20the%20Kennedy%2
0Space%20Center%20in%20anticipation%20of%20the%20launch%20of%20shuttle%20End
eavour%20on%20Nov.%2029,%202001
(Sheesh! You would think they could come up with a shorter URL!!!)
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
JF Mezei
> Do you really expect those questions to be answered?
I was not asking whether there are planes and helicopters around. This is
publc knowledge,. CNN showed then live on TV yesterday. And they also keep
mentioning the 30 nautical mile no-fly zone. This is public knowledge.
However, this does not apply to the military who are there to enforce that
no-fly zone.
My question was not "security" related but rather "safety" related. How close
does NASA allow the military to fly their helicopters to the shuttle (at the
pad or while it is being rolled out to the pad).
Since military pilots are trained to do stunts (as opposed to commercial
pilots trained not to do stunts), I would think that a military pilot would be
perfectly capable of hovering a few metres above the shuttle while it is being
moved to allow occupants to constantly scan the area. But somehow, I doubt
that NASA would really want a helicopter to be so close to such a valuable asset.
So my question still stands: how close does NASA allow the military
helicopters to the shuttle during roll out, while it is unfueled at the pad
and once it is fueled.
Similarly, during liftoff, how close to its predicted flight path can
helicopters or chase planes be to film the event ?
LooseChanj
> Similarly, during liftoff, how close to its predicted flight path can
> helicopters or chase planes be to film the event ?
Or take action against your comrades' nefarious plans? IOW, information
such as you requested would be highly valuable in making said plans.
JF Mezei
> > Similarly, during liftoff, how close to its predicted flight path can
> > helicopters or chase planes be to film the event ?
>
> Or take action against your comrades' nefarious plans? IOW, information
> such as you requested would be highly valuable in making said plans.
Again, you misunderstand. That area is closed off to anyone but NASA approved
crafts such as military helicopters. Even prior to Sept 11, there was a no-fly
zone that was enforced. But inside the no-fly zone there is still activity in
the air, right ?
I was marely asking from a *safety* perspective, how close to the shuttle at
the pad would an approved helicopter would be allowed. Lets time travel to
before Sept 11 if that makes you feel more comfortable since it has no bearing
on the added security measures that were added since then.
For instance, if NASA TV were to want to film an IMAX sequence from a
helicopter, how close to the shuttle/pad would it be allowed to get ?
Remember that this is well inside the no-fly zone, so it is not a security
related question since any non-approved craft would be intercepted/shot
down/beamed to area 51/whatever well before it got that close to the shuttle.
LooseChanj
> Again, you misunderstand. That area is closed off to anyone but NASA
approved
> crafts such as military helicopters. Even prior to Sept 11, there was a
no-fly
> zone that was enforced. But inside the no-fly zone there is still
activity in
> the air, right ?
No, you're just dense. For failing to see how your questions could in any
way be anything but sweet little innocent ones. Well, they could.
rk
> LooseChanj wrote:
>> > Similarly, during liftoff, how close to its predicted flight
>> > path can helicopters or chase planes be to film the event ?
>>
>> Or take action against your comrades' nefarious plans? IOW,
>> information such as you requested would be highly valuable in
>> making said plans.
>
> Again, you misunderstand. That area is closed off to anyone but
> NASA approved crafts such as military helicopters. Even prior to
> Sept 11, there was a no-fly zone that was enforced. But inside the
> no-fly zone there is still activity in the air, right ?
>
> I was marely asking from a *safety* perspective, how close to the
> shuttle at the pad would an approved helicopter would be allowed.
> Lets time travel to before Sept 11 if that makes you feel more
> comfortable since it has no bearing on the added security measures
> that were added since then.
The last time I checked, time travel was not real.
> For instance, if NASA TV were to want to film an IMAX sequence from
> a helicopter, how close to the shuttle/pad would it be allowed to
> get ?
I believe that personnel from NASA TV could probably ask the
appropriate US Government officials that question if they needed to
know that information.
> Remember that this is well inside the no-fly zone, so it is not a
> security related question since any non-approved craft would be
> intercepted/shot down/beamed to area 51/whatever well before it
> got that close to the shuttle.
I suggest that you send your questions directly to the appropriate US
Government officials and you/it will receive the appropriate level of
attention.
I also suggest that at best your questions are innappropriate.
That is just my personal opinion.
--
rk
Just an OldEngineer
JF Mezei
> I believe that personnel from NASA TV could probably ask the
> appropriate US Government officials that question if they needed to
> know that information.
Excuse me ? Forget Sept 11 for a moment. I would doubt very much that it would
be some government body that decides how close a helicopter on official
business would be allowed to get to the shuttle/pad FOR SAFETY REASONS.
If you do not know the difference between safety and security, I suggest you
learn about it before you ridicule me.
This has nothing to do with what has happened after September 11. After Sept
11, it is who has access to the area that has changed and how that is strictly
enforeced. am asking about normal SAFETY measures for people and helicopters
that have legitimate business to be on the site and what sort of safe distace
they must keep from the shuttle in order to ensure that no
accident/collision/whatever happens should the helicopter lose control, a big
gust of wind etc etc etc.
This question is no different than one asking about whether technicians must
first ground themselves prior to entering the shuttle to prevent any static
discharge, or what safety measures are in place to prevent someone from
slipping and falling from the structures etc etc.
SAFETY != SECURITY
rk
>> I believe that personnel from NASA TV could probably ask the
>> appropriate US Government officials that question if they needed
>> to know that information.
>
> Excuse me ? Forget Sept 11 for a moment. I would doubt very much
> that it would be some government body that decides how close a
> helicopter on official business would be allowed to get to the
> shuttle/pad FOR SAFETY REASONS.
OK, let's put down September 11th "for a moment." Who would you
suggest that NASA TV ask "how close to the shuttle at the pad would an
approved helicopter would be allowed."
I think they "could probably ask the appropriate US Government
officials." Perhaps NASA. Perhaps the FAA. Perhaps the military.
Perhaps the US Government security people. Those are the names that
pop into my minor league mind.
Then again, why are you so interested in the details of how close NASA
TV can get to the Shuttle in a helicopter?
> If you do not know the difference between safety and security, I
> suggest you learn about it before you ridicule me.
I did not ridicule you; you seem rather defensive.
> This has nothing to do with what has happened after September 11.
> After Sept 11, it is who has access to the area that has changed
> and how that is strictly enforeced. am asking about normal SAFETY
> measures for people and helicopters that have legitimate business
> to be on the site and what sort of safe distace they must keep from
> the shuttle in order to ensure that no accident/collision/whatever
> happens should the helicopter lose control, a big gust of wind etc
> etc etc.
>
> This question is no different than one asking about whether
> technicians must first ground themselves prior to entering the
> shuttle to prevent any static discharge, or what safety measures
> are in place to prevent someone from slipping and falling from the
> structures etc etc.
>
> SAFETY != SECURITY
I believe that most people would say that there is a difference on ESD
protection and the distance that helicopters and military aircraft are
flying to a Space Shuttle and that your analogy is a poor one. That is
just my personal opinion.
Since military pilots are trained to do stunts (as opposed
to commercial pilots trained not to do stunts), I would think
that a military pilot would be perfectly capable of hovering
a few metres above the shuttle while it is being moved to
allow occupants to constantly scan the area.
I may not have your level of expertise in this area -- in fact I have
none -- but I believe that if there is poor security one can not be
assured of a good level of safety. That is just my personal opinion.
Jorge R. Frank
> rk wrote:
>> I believe that personnel from NASA TV could probably ask the
>> appropriate US Government officials that question if they needed to
>> know that information.
>
> Excuse me ? Forget Sept 11 for a moment. I would doubt very much that
> it would be some government body that decides how close a helicopter on
> official business would be allowed to get to the shuttle/pad FOR SAFETY
> REASONS.
>
> If you do not know the difference between safety and security, I
> suggest you learn about it before you ridicule me.
You may safely assume that NASA has thoroughly coordinated with DoD how
close its helicopters and fighter planes and other unspecified assets may
get to the pad during launch. That is a safety issue.
You may also safely assume that no one in their right mind will post, in a
public forum, exactly what that distance is. That is a security issue.
> This has nothing to do with what has happened after September 11.
It has everything to do with September 11.
> This question is no different than one asking about whether technicians
> must first ground themselves prior to entering the shuttle to prevent
> any static discharge, or what safety measures are in place to prevent
> someone from slipping and falling from the structures etc etc.
It is completely different. The knowledge of technicians' safety
procedures would in no way be useful to a terrorist trying to destroy the
shuttle. Knowledge of the deployment patterns of the DoD craft protecting
the shuttle would be very useful.
Again, suffice to say that NASA and DoD have thoroughly studied the issue
and have issued appropriate instructions to their pilots. However, that
information will not be given to you, in a public forum or otherwise,
because you have no need-to-know.
And that is all I have to say on this issue.
Steve Wachowski
> Again, you misunderstand. That area is closed off to anyone but NASA approved
> crafts such as military helicopters. Even prior to Sept 11, there was a no-fly
> zone that was enforced. But inside the no-fly zone there is still activity in
> the air, right ?
>
> I was marely asking from a *safety* perspective, how close to the shuttle at
> the pad would an approved helicopter would be allowed. Lets time travel to
> before Sept 11 if that makes you feel more comfortable since it has no bearing
> on the added security measures that were added since then.
JF,
I've got to agree with the others here. Regardless of the context you're
questions are in the answers still have security implications. I don't
think you're going to get anyone to answer them here. Remember the old
phrase "loose lips sink ships".
Steve Wachowski
KSC OPF-3 Tech
Brian Thorn
<garet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Lot's of other countries have suffered terrorism for years...
>Welcome to the real world :-(
Never heard about the Murrah Building or the 1993 WTC attack, I take
it...
Brian
Brian Thorn
<jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>rk wrote:
>> I believe that personnel from NASA TV could probably ask the
>> appropriate US Government officials that question if they needed to
>> know that information.
>
>Excuse me ? Forget Sept 11 for a moment. I would doubt very much that it would
>be some government body that decides how close a helicopter on official
>business would be allowed to get to the shuttle/pad FOR SAFETY REASONS.
>
>If you do not know the difference between safety and security, I suggest you
>learn about it before you ridicule me.
Damn, JF, you REALLY are missing the point. Consider your question
from another perspective:
TERRORIST A: "If we impersonate a NASA-TV cameraman, can we get close
enough to the launch pad to throw grenades on the External Tank? How
close would the patrol helicopters be to us?"
TERRORIST B: "I don't know, let's go on the internet and ask..."
In other words, JF, you aren't going to get any answers, so shut the
hell up.
Brian
JF Mezei
> I've got to agree with the others here. Regardless of the context you're
> questions are in the answers still have security implications. I don't
> think you're going to get anyone to answer them here. Remember the old
> phrase "loose lips sink ships".
If Sept 11 hadn't occured, would ithave been a reasonable question to ask ?
To me, whether a helicopter is allowed to get within 500m or 5 metres from the
shuttle doesn't make much of a difference from a security point of view,
especially when the security perimeter is publicly published at 30 nautical
miles. I am not asking to discuss whatever security is is force to ensure that
no unauthorized craft enters that no-fly zone.
How long will it take before normal discussions can resume ?
For the record, I witnessed a helicopter hovering over the antenna on top of
an office tower in Sydney in may 1999 when they were shooting Mission
Impossible II and it was extremely impressive how the pilot was able to keep
the chopper so close that you think its rotor would chop the antenna and so
steady you thought it was a mockup that was attached there (until you'd see it
move away and fly away a few minutes later). The day before, they had
helicopters flying under the sydney harbour bridge to shoot a helicopter
chasing a speed boat. All of these break a whole bunch of safety rules and are
strincty forbidden, but Tom Cruise, being married to an australian icon (at
the time) pulled a lot of weight with the money he was spending for the movie
and got all those restrictions lifted for that movie.
So since NASA has control over its airspace, I would assume that the rules for
those allowed to fly inside are designed with military/highly experienced
pilots in mind and do allow much stuff that would not be allowed by the FAA.
This is why I had asked about how close NASA would allow authorized
helicopters to the pad/shuttle with proper authorisations.
I guess I'll have to wait for the paranoiya to tone down before asking again.
Perhaps when airports will again allow nailclippers on board aircraft, I'll
know that the paranoya will have gone down sufficiently.
rk
> Steve Wachowski wrote:
>> I've got to agree with the others here. Regardless of the context
>> you're questions are in the answers still have security
>> implications. I don't think you're going to get anyone to answer
>> them here. Remember the old phrase "loose lips sink ships".
>
> If Sept 11 hadn't occured, would ithave been a reasonable question
> to ask ?
>
> To me, whether a helicopter is allowed to get within 500m or 5
> metres from the shuttle doesn't make much of a difference from a
> security point of view, especially when the security perimeter is
> publicly published at 30 nautical miles. I am not asking to discuss
> whatever security is is force to ensure that no unauthorized craft
> enters that no-fly zone.
>
> How long will it take before normal discussions can resume ?
Like toilet paper allocations?
> For the record, I witnessed a helicopter hovering over the antenna
> on top of an office tower in Sydney in may 1999 when they were
> shooting Mission Impossible II and it was extremely impressive how
> the pilot was able to keep the chopper so close that you think its
> rotor would chop the antenna and so steady you thought it was a
> mockup that was attached there (until you'd see it move away and
> fly away a few minutes later). The day before, they had
> helicopters flying under the sydney harbour bridge to shoot a
> helicopter chasing a speed boat. All of these break a whole bunch
> of safety rules and are strincty forbidden, but Tom Cruise, being
> married to an australian icon (at the time) pulled a lot of weight
> with the money he was spending for the movie and got all those
> restrictions lifted for that movie.
>
>
> So since NASA has control over its airspace, I would assume that
> the rules for those allowed to fly inside are designed with
> military/highly experienced pilots in mind and do allow much stuff
> that would not be allowed by the FAA. This is why I had asked about
> how close NASA would allow authorized helicopters to the
> pad/shuttle with proper authorisations.
You can assume whatever you wish, of course.
> I guess I'll have to wait for the paranoiya to tone down before
> asking again. Perhaps when airports will again allow nailclippers
> on board aircraft, I'll know that the paranoya will have gone down
> sufficiently.
When the Twin Towers get knocked down, the Pentagon gets hit and
severely damaged, when about 5,000 civilians get murdered, when another
plane went down (destination not known), when there are biological
attacks taking place, when two embassies get bombed, when the Twin
Towers got bombed (early '90s), when housing for troops in Saudi Arabia
gets blown up, when a warship suffers major damage in port and close to
20 dead, it is not called "paranoia."
From http://www.dictionary.com:
par·a·noi·a (pr-noi)
n.
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of
persecution with or without grandeur, often
strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2.Extreme, irrational distrust of others.
It's called war.
JF Mezei
> TERRORIST A: "If we impersonate a NASA-TV cameraman, can we get close
> enough to the launch pad to throw grenades on the External Tank? How
> close would the patrol helicopters be to us?"
ANY TERRORIST: if we can get on a helicopter that is allowd to go inside the
no-fly zone, whether the helicopter is allowed within a kilometer or 5 meters,
we can shoot at the tank and destroy it.
It is a PUBLIC FACT that helicopters and jets fly close enough to the shuttle
to destroy it with weapons. The jets were shown and heard on CNN on thursday
morning while Miles O'brian was discussing the desision to scrub the launch
due to the progress problem.
Perhaps you should accuse Mr O'Brian of jeoperdizing security by revealing
that jets and helicopters abound near the shuttle ?
I have not asked what measures are taken to ensure crews on the crafts are
authenticated, now where those planes and helicopters take off from now what
measures are taken to allow only authenticated crafts inside the perimeter etc
etc etc. Besides, I wouldn't expect NASA employees to know the details of such
measures. They should know only as much as is necessary for them to get to
work and execute their work.
But I would expect employees to have seen how close helicopters would have
been alowed to the shuttle during normal times for various PAO or other
purposes. And since the shuttle landing facility is nearby, I would expect
that any pilot allowed to operate out of that runway would also have clear
rules on safe operating limits near the pads when they play with their jets or
when they use the shuttle trainer.
Chuck Stewart
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote in
news:3C0859B7...@videotron.ca:
<snip for brevity>
JF, they could:
Ground all flights within a 50 mile radius of the pad with a carrier
battle group handy to enforce the lockdown.
Send in 3 infantry divisions to cut off all land access
And deploy a sonar net and a squadron of attack subs in the water.
... all with orders to annihilate any suspected intruder on the day
of the launch.
Feel better?
:)
NASA people are used to giving answers when people ask questions...
in matters concerning spaceflight.
But the security aspects of Nasa have _never_ been "on the table"
for discussion.
Yes, people could discover things they needed to know, and people
could find out more on their own... but the info never comes
officially from Nasa.
So:
(pay attention here :)
If the people at the port have been officially told _not_ to
discuss anything that involves security, what would you expect
them to do?
In this matter you are coming across as being short-sighted...
bordering on unreasonable.
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Steve Wachowski
> If Sept 11 hadn't occured, would ithave been a reasonable question to ask ?
No, it would not. Details of security policies are not discussed,
particularly with people that have no need to know.
> To me, whether a helicopter is allowed to get within 500m or 5 metres from the
> shuttle doesn't make much of a difference from a security point of view,
> especially when the security perimeter is publicly published at 30 nautical
> miles. I am not asking to discuss whatever security is is force to ensure that
> no unauthorized craft enters that no-fly zone.
You've read the publicly published info, and that's all you're going to
get. I'm sorry you can't grasp the fact that the info you ask for has
security implications.
> How long will it take before normal discussions can resume ?
Normal discussion has resumed, you wouldn't have gotten an answer to
that question prior to September 11 either.
> For the record, I witnessed a helicopter hovering over the antenna on top of
SNIPS
> and got all those restrictions lifted for that movie.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> So since NASA has control over its airspace, I would assume that the rules for
> those allowed to fly inside are designed with military/highly experienced
> pilots in mind and do allow much stuff that would not be allowed by the FAA.
> This is why I had asked about how close NASA would allow authorized
> helicopters to the pad/shuttle with proper authorisations.
It doesn't matter why you asked the question. Why can't you comprehend
that these questions are related to security issues? Or that the
seemingly innocent answers could fill in the last missing piece of the
puzzle for someone that had less than honorable intentions?
> I guess I'll have to wait for the paranoiya to tone down before asking again.
> Perhaps when airports will again allow nailclippers on board aircraft, I'll
> know that the paranoya will have gone down sufficiently.
Don't bother asking again. You'll get the same answers for the same
reasons.
Brian Thorn
<jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>I guess I'll have to wait for the paranoiya to tone down before asking again.
>Perhaps when airports will again allow nailclippers on board aircraft, I'll
>know that the paranoya will have gone down sufficiently.
Having already been told by essentially everyone else in this thread
that the information which you seek could be used by terrorists, if
you ask this question again, I for one will be forwarding your request
to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.
This is not a threat. This is simply caution in a time of war.
Brian
JF Mezei
> When the Twin Towers get knocked down, the Pentagon gets hit and
> severely damaged, when about 5,000 civilians get murdered,
The oficial count is closer to 3500 now. Many duplicates and "false missing"
people. (people originally reported as missing but not removed when they
showed up).
> when another
> plane went down (destination not known), when there are biological
> attacks taking place, when two embassies get bombed, when the Twin
> Towers got bombed (early '90s), when housing for troops in Saudi Arabia
> gets blown up, when a warship suffers major damage in port and close to
> 20 dead, it is not called "paranoia."
Not to belittle the Sept 11 horror, but life must go on and you, as a nation,
should not succomb to what the terrorists want. The terrorists won because
they were able to instill terror and fear in the american psyche with the USA
media blowing things oiut of proportions.
When the government prohibits metal knives for meals on planes but does not
prohibit metal forks, when the government prohibits nail clippers but not
pens, when two months after the event, they still prohibit cars from getting
near some airports without a thoughrough search, and now when we can't even
discuss flying regulations inside KSC, I say that the terrorists have won.
When your government detains citizens or visitors without any accusations
simply because of their association with a religion or ethnic names, and when
your government sends letters to thousands of such people asking them to
report to the FBI for some questions, and when the government decides that
anyone it judges to be associated with terrorists can be given a mock military
trial without public scrutiny, then I say that the terrorists won. Such
actions were, in the past, worthy of inclusion in hollywood movies when they
prortrayed very nasty dictatorships or the greatest evil of them all, the
soviet union.
I now understand how it was possible for north american government to do
similar stuff to the japanese during the second world war. With the people
scared shitless, they will allow their own government to take actions which
would normally be totally unacceptable.
When Canada declared the war measures act in 1970 because of two people being
kidnapped by québec separatists, initially it was seen as cautious action. But
it was soon realised that they had blown this way out of proportions and
handled people in a way similar to what the USA is doing now and this came
back to haunt the government. To this day, many quebeckers have not forgiven
Jean Chrétien for having signed the war measures act in 1970 and won't vote
for him during federal elections, hence the existence of the protyest vote
party called "bloc québécois".
adding new measures to control entry into KSC increases security. But removing
the static video images of the launch pad and white room on the web doesn't do
anything except make NASA look paranoid. If NASA wants to provide an image
that it has taken action to protect its assets, it should take reasonable
actions and not take silly actions. Those silly actions, similar to banning
nailclippers on planes remove credibility to the organisation's skills at
improving security.
remember that a lot of what is happening is being done in the hopes of
providing the image that the government is doing something. adding armed
military at airport is supposed to improve security. Yeah, sure. Dumbo was
able to walk down some stairs at atlanta and go unchallenged. What the
government doesn't realise is that those same stupid measures keep reminding
people of the insecurity of it all and the excessive delays at airports are
what are really hurting air travel, not the fear of another attack.
Steve Wachowski
SNIPS
> remember that a lot of what is happening is being done in the hopes of
> providing the image that the government is doing something. adding armed
> military at airport is supposed to improve security. Yeah, sure. Dumbo was
> able to walk down some stairs at atlanta and go unchallenged. What the
> government doesn't realise is that those same stupid measures keep reminding
> people of the insecurity of it all and the excessive delays at airports are
> what are really hurting air travel, not the fear of another attack.
You know JF, I really don't think we need to be lectured by you. Your
questions and complaining are completely out of line. Enough already,
okay?
Robert Dale
removing
> the static video images of the launch pad and white room on the web
doesn't do
> anything except make NASA look paranoid. If NASA wants to provide an image
The pad is sitting right there in several viewpoints at
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
- Rob
rk
> rk wrote:
>> When the Twin Towers get knocked down, the Pentagon gets hit and
>> severely damaged, when about 5,000 civilians get murdered,
>
> The oficial count is closer to 3500 now. Many duplicates and "false
> missing" people. (people originally reported as missing but not
> removed when they showed up).
OK, so you appear to think it really wasn't much of a problem, then.
>> when another
>> plane went down (destination not known), when there are biological
>> attacks taking place, when two embassies get bombed, when the Twin
>> Towers got bombed (early '90s), when housing for troops in Saudi
>> Arabia gets blown up, when a warship suffers major damage in port
>> and close to 20 dead, it is not called "paranoia."
>
> Not to belittle the Sept 11 horror, but life must go on and you, as
> a nation, should not succomb to what the terrorists want. The
> terrorists won because they were able to instill terror and fear in
> the american psyche with the USA media blowing things oiut of
> proportions.
[ snip anti-US babble ]
I see you feel that the terrorists won; many people would disagree with
your opinion and express it differently -- that is, they pissed the USA
off quite severely. You can follow up on this point in some other
forum.
Now, the questions are:
1. Why do you wish to know about Shuttle security details?
2. Why do you ask here?
3. Why do you not ask NASA or other US Government officials?
4. Why, when you do not get your answers, you persistently
ask over and over and try to justify your questions with
ridiculous analogies? I give, as examples of ridiculous
analogies your equating ESD precautions with the flight
rules of military aircraft; another, which was in your
last babble, was equating somehow the privacy of Shuttle
security information to the internment of the Japanese
during WW II.
What can we conclude from these questions and your actions?
A. You are a terrorist.
B. You have sympathies with the terrorists.
C. You wish to make contact with terrorists.
D. You are an idiot.
There may be other possible conclusions; I could not find any.
Now, Brian Thorn posted his point of view, which you chose to ignore:
Having already been told by essentially everyone else
in this thread that the information which you seek
could be used by terrorists, if you ask this question
again, I for one will be forwarding your request
to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.
This is not a threat. This is simply caution in a time
of war.
I can not disagree with BT's point of view.
If you don't like that, we have, excerpted from a press release in this
forum:
Air Force Space Command News Service
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 30, 2001
AF ensures security for Shuttle
Courtesy of 45th Space Wing Public Affairs
This is the first shuttle launch since the terrorist
attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that
killed about 3,900 people.
In what has been described as the highest security
to ever accompany a U.S. space shot, the 45th Space
Wing, headquartered at nearby Patrick Air Force Base,
Fla., and other Department of Defense agencies
supporting this launch have put a security plan into
effect that both protects both a vital national space
asset and a symbol of America's greatness, according
to Col. Sameul Dick, 45th SW vice commander.
During a pre-launch press conference at NASA earlier
this week, Dick couldn't elaborate on specific security
measures, but gave repeated assurances that the wing,
Air Force and other DOD agencies are up to any
challenge or potential terrorist threat presented.
"The threat is terrorism and the terrorists have
already demonstrated a capability and desire to
attack national symbols of the United States," he said.
Now, I think Brian's post was reasonable.
I think the Press Release is reasonable.
I, personally, as a US citizen, do not consider your persistent
questions about Shuttle security details to be reasonable.
Please let me know which applies to you: A, B, C, or D?
Interim Books
<jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>rk wrote:
>> I believe that personnel from NASA TV could probably ask the
>> appropriate US Government officials that question if they needed to
>> know that information.
>
>Excuse me ? Forget Sept 11 for a moment. I would doubt very much that it would
>be some government body that decides how close a helicopter on official
>business would be allowed to get to the shuttle/pad FOR SAFETY REASONS.
>
Oh? Since when did NASA cease being a goverment body?
D.
-------
Visit our search engine! http://www.interimbooks.com/pagescout/
-------
Interim Books | 322 Pacific Ave | Bremerton, WA | 98337
fair...@hurricane.net | (360) 377-4343 | http://www.interimbooks.com/
john_thomas_maxson
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca>
wrote in message news:<3C078F60...@videotron.ca>...
> My question was not "security" related but rather "safety" related.
If your question is strictly safety related, it seems to me that you
might be interested in past procedures employed by NASA for its own
helicopters, chase planes, and pilots.
> Similarly, during liftoff, how close to its predicted flight path can
> helicopters or chase planes be to film the event ?
If you are interested in knowing some information about NASA's
airborne cameras for Mission 51-L, I can supply some unclassified data
obtained via the FOIA. I presume (from other HELO video which I have
reviewed) that the 51-L setup was fairly typical of pre-51-L launches.
In addition, earlier this year I spoke to the NASA helicopter pilot
who was first on the scene to try to rescue the Challenger astronauts.
He gave me permission to share some of his insight from that launch on
this forum.
Just reply stating that this is the kind of thing you'd like to know
and I will make a follow-up post.
John Maxson - www.mission51l.com
Kian-Tat Lim
rk <stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote:
> 1. Why do you wish to know about Shuttle security details?
I do not agree that the question "how close could an
authorized flying vehicle come to the Shuttle on the launch
pad on, say, April 15, 1998?" is a question about "Shuttle
security details."
Regardless, RK also quoted the following item:
> During a pre-launch press conference at NASA earlier
> this week, Dick couldn't elaborate on specific security
> measures
It appears that others, who presumably are not
"terrorists," also want to know about Shuttle security details.
It is common for all kinds of people to want to know all kinds
of things about how the government operates.
> 2. Why do you ask here?
Because there are some people here who might reasonably
be expected to know the answer, and, if not, there are many people
here who might reasonably be expected to speculate with some
degree of accuracy, or at least enumerate the relevant parameters
and considerations. I don't see informed speculation as being
out of bounds for this group, though RK has often appeared to take
a stand against it.
> 3. Why do you not ask NASA or other US Government officials?
Most of us do not have ready, timely access to such,
particularly if, like JF Mezei, not a US resident. In addition,
if a discussion of relevant factors is desired rather than a
pure factual response, this newsgroup is likely a better forum.
> equating somehow the privacy of Shuttle
> security information to the internment of the Japanese
> during WW II.
I do not believe that JF Mezei equated these two.
To my understanding, he felt that the secret military tribunals,
the indefinite detainment of petty criminals (apparently based on
ethnicity or religion), and the official questioning of foreigners
based on name or country of origin were similar to, if not equal
in severity to, the interment of the Japanese. Whether this
similarity is correct is probably not a matter for this group.
> 4. Why, when you do not get your answers, you persistently
> ask over and over
This, I do not understand.
--
Kian-Tat Lim, ktl...@ktlim.com, UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-
JF Mezei
> The pad is sitting right there in several viewpoints at
> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
Thanks, they must have just put it back on today.
JF Mezei
> OK, so you appear to think it really wasn't much of a problem, then.
I never said that,. I believe I used the word HORROR to describe what happened
on sept 11. I was only correcting the estimate of lost lives which is much
lower than had originally been anticipated. Above a certain number, it really
doesn't change anything to the horror or the disaster. And even the lowered
number is well above that limit.
> 1. Why do you wish to know about Shuttle security details?
I never asked for SECURITY details. Only about safety at the pad, and even
specified that pre-sept-11 information would be fine since to me, the
questions I have asked are independant from the security threath.
> 2. Why do you ask here?
Because folks in washington are not likely to know how close to the shuttle
any plane would be allowed under controlled/approved circumstances. Folks at
KSC or PAO would know how close a helicopter would be allowed to fly to film
the shuttle for instance.
> 4. Why, when you do not get your answers, you persistently
> ask over and over and try to justify your questions
Because of accusation such as yours which try to portray me as a terrorist
seeking information on how I could possibly plan an attack on the shuttle. I
only try to explain over and over again to people like you who refuse to try
to understand that the question I have asked had nothing to do with the
security threath. If I had asked the same question prior to sept 11, I
probably would have gotten a straight simple answer without being accused of
being a terrorist.
> What can we conclude from these questions and your actions?
> A. You are a terrorist.
Another example of your baseless accusations. If I ask you how close to a CPU
chip a bundle of high voltage wires are allowed to be routed before the
magnetic fields of the wires affect the CPU, will you be accusing me of
planning a terrorist attack ?
I simply asked how close to the shuttle any flying aircraft is allowed to
approach for SAFETY reasons to ensure that such a craft doesn't damage in any
way the shuttle. But it is pointless to ask because the paranoia results in
my being accused of being a terrorist.
Heck, I am surprised you aren't calling for Kim Keller's web site to be taken
offline since it might provide plenty of information on how to compromise the
shuttle's integrity.
> Having already been told by essentially everyone else
> in this thread that the information which you seek
> could be used by terrorists,
So is the information provided by CNN, and as was posted here, by the
military's own press release bragging about its security measures. How come I
am accused of being a terrorist while they are not ?
> again, I for one will be forwarding your request
> to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Be my guest. If it means an all expenses paid trip to washington or KSC where
the weather is better, then why not ? Be be warned that my government will
require a commitment that I be given a fair trial with no chance of death
penalty prior to agreeing to extradition, and will also want a reasonable
proof that I am a suspected terrorist for asking a technical question about
shuttle operations in a technical newsgroup.
JF Mezei
> If your question is strictly safety related, it seems to me that you
> might be interested in past procedures employed by NASA for its own
> helicopters, chase planes, and pilots.
Exactly. You worded it much better than I could have.
> Just reply stating that this is the kind of thing you'd like to know
> and I will make a follow-up post.
At this point in time, you would also be accused of being a terrorist, and RK
would call the FBI and get you incarcerated with no charges for a few months.
Clearly the wound hasn't begun to heal in the usa, so it is best to let it
heal some because people are stll so touchy about stuff.
rk
>> 2. Why do you ask here?
>
> Because folks in washington are not likely to know how close to the
> shuttle any plane would be allowed under controlled/approved
> circumstances. Folks at KSC or PAO would know how close a
> helicopter would be allowed to fly to film the shuttle for
> instance.
First, why do you want to know how close planes fly to the Shuttle?
Secondly, where did the "folks in Washington" come into this? Are
there only two places in the world where knowledge is found, Washington
and the Internet? [someone insert snappy comment about finding
knowledge in Washington].
And why not ask the officials in Florida, KSC PAO? That would seem to
make sense.
>> 4. Why, when you do not get your answers, you persistently ask
>> over and over and try to justify your questions
>
> Because of accusation such as yours which try to portray me as a
> terrorist seeking information on how I could possibly plan an
> attack on the shuttle.
No, I accused you of nothing. Many people have told you that your
questions appear to be innappropriate. Indeed, even people from KSC.
But you continue to ask questions. Remember, I gave you four letters
to choose from, you may pick which one; nothing that you fail to supply
an E, for example, tells me I'm on the right track here.
> I only try to explain over and over again to
> people like you who refuse to try to understand that the question I
> have asked had nothing to do with the security threath.
That's what you say; but you offer no explanation of that at all.
> If I had
> asked the same question prior to sept 11, I probably would have
> gotten a straight simple answer without being accused of being a
> terrorist.
Show some work of how you can say "probably." Are you just making that
up?
>> What can we conclude from these questions and your actions?
>> A. You are a terrorist.
>
> Another example of your baseless accusations.
It's not an accusation. It is a possibility to consider. Indeed, you
offer no information to suggest that it isn't true, so it remains a
possibility.
> If I ask you how
> close to a CPU chip a bundle of high voltage wires are allowed to
> be routed before the magnetic fields of the wires affect the CPU,
> will you be accusing me of planning a terrorist attack ?
Poor analogy, again. I'm not sure what high voltage wires near a CPU
have to do with the price of eggs. Of course, why do you want to put
high voltage wires near a CPU?
> I simply asked how close to the shuttle any flying aircraft is
> allowed to approach for SAFETY reasons to ensure that such a craft
> doesn't damage in any way the shuttle.
And a great number of people, including a person from KSC, told you
that it is an innappropriate question. Yet you continue to seek this
information.
It doesn't matter why you asked the question. Why can't
you comprehend that these questions are related to security
issues? Or that the seemingly innocent answers could fill
in the last missing piece of the puzzle for someone that had
less than honorable intentions?
> I guess I'll have to wait for the paranoiya to tone
> down before asking again. Perhaps when airports will
> again allow nailclippers on board aircraft, I'll
> know that the paranoya will have gone down sufficiently.
Don't bother asking again. You'll get the same answers
for the same reasons.
Steve Wachowski
KSC OPF-3 Tech
> But it is pointless to ask
> because the paranoia results in my being accused of being a
> terrorist.
It is pointless to ask as you have no need to know and have not
expressed any need to know. It is also pointless to ask for the
reasons given by Steve, above. You do not seem to take no for an
answer.
Now, I have no idea what the answers to your questions are, I don't
care what the answers to your questions are, and I would never
publically ask the questions that you are asking if I did have a need
to know that information as that would be foolish.
> Heck, I am surprised you aren't calling for Kim Keller's web site
> to be taken offline since it might provide plenty of information on
> how to compromise the shuttle's integrity.
How?
Beside, I trust Kim Keller's judgement as he has displayed good
judgement.
>> Having already been told by essentially everyone else
>> in this thread that the information which you seek could be
>> used by terrorists,
>
> So is the information provided by CNN, and as was posted here, by
> the military's own press release bragging about its security
> measures. How come I am accused of being a terrorist while they are
> not ?
Another false argument; all information is not the same. The release
by the military was released by the responsible officials. You are not
a responsible official. You also refuse to ask the responsible
officials for the information and continue to seek it in a public
forum.
Why?
If there is no problem with the information, then the responsible
people will give it to you. The people here don't think your questions
are responsible; neither do I.
>> again, I for one will be forwarding your request to the
>> United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.
>
> Be my guest.
First, you oversnipped out of context and I did not say that. Another
one of you false arguments. And you expect anyone to trust you?
> If it means an all expenses paid trip to washington or
> KSC where the weather is better, then why not ? Be be warned that
> my government will require a commitment that I be given a fair
> trial with no chance of death penalty prior to agreeing to
> extradition, and will also want a reasonable proof that I am a
> suspected terrorist for asking a technical question about shuttle
> operations in a technical newsgroup.
Poor attempt at comedy; don't quit your day job.
rk
>> 3. Why do you not ask NASA or other US Government officials?
>
> Most of us do not have ready, timely access to such,
> particularly if, like JF Mezei, not a US resident. In addition,
> if a discussion of relevant factors is desired rather than a
> pure factual response, this newsgroup is likely a better forum.
E-mail addresses are widely available over the www for information from
NASA. Are you stating that you don't think that JFM has access to e-
mail and the www?
Also note that there are restrictions against sending certain
information across international borders from the US. If the military
spokesman do not wish to give more specifics [see press release] then I
would suggest sending the information without a waive to the export
control laws, if it is not in the public domain, would be wrong [at
best].
>> 4. Why, when you do not get your answers, you persistently ask
>> over and over
>
> This, I do not understand.
Me neither. He was told by many people, including people from KSC,
that his questions were innappropriate. Yet he continues.
[ rk shrugs ]
JF Mezei
> Me neither. He was told by many people, including people from KSC,
> that his questions were innappropriate. Yet he continues.
Yes, KSC. The people who, after having published a launch time for STS-108
decided to widthdraw that information from the net even thought it would be
fairly easy to compute from other sources since the orbit of the ISS is public
knowledge. They would have had to widthdraw all sources of TLEs from public
servers so that you couldn't know the position of the ISS to deduct the launch
time. Well, they realised this and made the launch time public again.
This is the same KSC people who decided that it was a security risk to have
those web-cams show the stack at the pad, who just today realised it wasn't a
security risk and put those views back on.
I expected technical participants in a technical newsgroups to be able to rise
above the hot air generated by all the paranoia and feel free to discuss
technical issues as was the case in the past.
What has changed are security issues, access to the site and certain schedules
not revealed (such as the roll out).
So, if in the past it was perfectly normal to ask technical questions about
the roll out, would it now have been totally inappropriate to ask the same
questions ? If I had asked "how close can a NASA car get to the mobile
transporter while it is moving", I probably would have gotten a straight
annswer prior to Sept 11, but since then I would have been labeled a terrorist
trying to find out ways to destroy the shuttle.
I haven't asked about specifics of access control, nor about frequency of
flights over the site, type of aircraft used etc etc. I asked about stuff that
has existed well before the Sept 11 events.
If safety limits were modified as a result of sept 11 (for instance, PAO no
longer allowed to fly a chopper to film the stack), then a consiencious person
would have responded with something such as "prior to sept 11, a chopper would
be allowed with special permissions to approach to within X metres of the
stack, but since sept 11, I am not sure what the new rules are".
That would not have had any appearance of breaching any security and yet would
have provided a professional technical answer without any need for emotions or accusations.
rk
[ snip new "arguments" ]
JF Mezei originally wrote:
CNN says that there will be unprecedented security
for the launch.
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance,
how close to the PAD would these helicopters be
allowed fly ? less than a kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or
very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far
away would they be required to be ?
You never stated why you want this information and what it would be
used for. I no longer care to ask this as you evade the issue.
You have established a pattern of persistently asking for this
information despite being told that by many group members that it is
innappropriate at best.
I shall end with a replay of a segment of part of another group
member's post:
Again, suffice to say that NASA and DoD have thoroughly
studied the issue and have issued appropriate instructions
to their pilots. However, that information will not be
given to you, in a public forum or otherwise, because you
have no need-to-know.
And that is all I have to say on this issue.
--
rk
Just an OldEngineer
Brian Thorn
<jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>Clearly the wound hasn't begun to heal in the usa, so it is best to let it
>heal some because people are stll so touchy about stuff.
JF, do you really think you're helping your cause by joining forces
with the Maxson lunatics? Think carefully.
Brian
Brian Thorn
wrote:
> I do not agree that the question "how close could an
>authorized flying vehicle come to the Shuttle on the launch
>pad on, say, April 15, 1998?" is a question about "Shuttle
>security details."
And you are very seriously mistaken.
Brian
JF Mezei
> JF, do you really think you're helping your cause by joining forces
> with the Maxson lunatics? Think carefully.
Since I have been labeled terrorist, what have I got to lose ? RK gave me 4
choices, 3 of which were making me a terrorist, and the second is admitting I
am an idiot. I guess if I side with Maxson, that gives RK the answer to his question.
Since any technical discussion about the shuttle can be interpreted as someone
wanting information which might be used by terrorists, I guess that any
discussions here are pointless until the USA becomes a bit more realistic
about the security measures needed and stops seing terrorists whenever someone
asks a question that they don't think they should have the information.
Curiosity died in the USA on sept 11 if anyone with any level of curiosity is
labeled terrorist because he/she asked a question. Imagine how quickly the FBI
would pounce on me if I ever asked how tall the sears tower was. I would
probably be put to jail without trial if I ever asked in a engineering
newsgroup what is the heaviest truck that the Golden Gate bridge was designed
to carry.
Perhaps sent to the chair as soon as I would post a question on what FAA rules
the goodyear blimp operates under when it hovers over stadiums to take aeral
shots of a game.
What's next ? putting stealth coating on the underside of the ISS and painting
the top of the shuttle black so that they cannot be seen from the ground ? You
never know, I might decide to throw some rocks at them as they fly over montreal.
I think that what NASA should do is to reactivate vandenburg and put one
shuttle there and one shuttle at KSC and not tell anyone which of the two
shuttles would actually take off. Get Hollywood look-alikes to fill the spot
of the crewmembers on the decoy shuttle and do the rest exactly as if it were
going to launch. Heck, they could put "Enterprise" to good use and use that
one as a decoy and change its name to match that of the real orbiter.
And if NASA truly is as paranoid as it appears, perhaps it will review its
thinking on Palmdale. Having a shuttle "parked" in a backup site would be
wise. If I decide to launch a rocket from my bicycle while I ride near Cocoa
beach and destroy the KSC buildings that house the shuttle during its
processing, at least they would have one remaining shuttle in Kalifornia.
rk
> Since I have been labeled terrorist, what have I got to lose ? RK
> gave me 4 choices, 3 of which were making me a terrorist, and the
> second is admitting I am an idiot.
[ snip ]
I am sorry, you are not being accurate.
I asked:
What can we conclude from these questions and your actions?
And then presented 4 possible conclusions. Indeed, I did not say that
there were no other conclusions:
There may be other possible conclusions; I could not find
any.
Now, you could have given us a 5th possible conclusion, explaining your
actions, why you wanted the information that many people have told you
is not appropriate for either your or this form, and what you would do
with it. But you did not.
What conclusion should we draw from that?
LooseChanj
> Curiosity died in the USA on sept 11 if anyone with any level of
curiosity is
> labeled terrorist because he/she asked a question. Imagine how quickly
the FBI
> would pounce on me if I ever asked how tall the sears tower was.
Again and again you fail to see the point. I explained how the information
you seek could be helpful to anyone planning an attack on the shuttle. You
still see nothing wrong with your question, and you claim your motives are
merely curiosity. Do you still maintain your question should be answered,
in a public forum, with terrorists possibly lurking? If so, would you be
willing to give such terrorists helpful information as a side-effect of
satisfying your own curiosity?
Add comments if you wish, but please answer yes/no to each question.
Why don't you ask how close air traffic was allowed to the twin towers and
the Pentagon before Sept 11? That would be a more appropriate analogy than
any of the tripe you've suggested.
--
If $vendor wants to improve the quality of their products, they could
try cutting down their developers' drug dosages, but if that's not
possible they should at least make sure they're all on the same drugs.
--Darren Tucker
rk
> Since any technical discussion about the shuttle can be interpreted
> as someone wanting information which might be used by terrorists,
Uh, where did this come from? Clearly not from anything that I read in
this forum.
Or is it just more of your intellectual dishonesty to make "your point"
and justify your questions which most people in this forum feel are
innappropriate.
Now, perhaps I missed where it was said that "any technical discussiona
bout the shuttle can be interpreted as someone wanting information
which might be used by terrorists" so if you could please prove that
claim it would help us all out.
[ snip anti-US rant ]
Now, I believe it is improper to ask certain questions in this forum.
Security questions, for one, and many posters have explained why this
is innappropriate. Also, any information that would violate the
various export control laws and regulations. There have always been
limits as to what is discussed here and any responsible engineer
follows them. As I am an engineer in US aerospace I follow them. You
should not expect people here to violate either common sense for safety
and security or the law.
Now, along with your persistent questions about matters that many
people state can effect Shuttle security, you do have a history of
probing for information related to Shuttle security, being told now,
and then persistently making your case, as you do here. This is not
the first time we've seen this behavior. Indeed, your behavior has
alarmed one group member to the point where he has openly told you that
he is considering referring you to the FBI.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: JF Mezei (jfmezei...@videotron.ca)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-25 15:10:11 PST
"Kim E. Keller" wrote:
Endeavour arrived in the transfer aisle yesterday afternoon, several
hours late and amid heavy security precautions. KSC's Huey
flew armed top cover, while tripod-mounted weapons were ready
within sandbag bunkers mounted on flatbed trailers.
Has day-to-day work changed much ? Was security changed significantly
for day-to-day work, or only for the very visible stuff ?
=========================================================
From: Kim E. Keller (keke...@cfl.rr.com)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-25 17:04:29 PST
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3BD88F9D...@videotron.ca...
Has day-to-day work changed much ? Was security changed
significantly for day-to-day work, or only for the very visible
stuff ?
I'd rather not discuss security beyond what I've already written.
--
Kim Keller
Forward Shop, Orbiter Flight Systems
Fraternal Order of the Pad Rat
http://www.geocities.com/kimekeller
=========================================================
From: JF Mezei (jfmezei...@videotron.ca)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-25 23:13:28 PST
gcash wrote:
I hope the security doesn't get in the way, but I'm certainly
glad to hear folks are taking the necessary steps to keep the
shuttle safe. I sleep a little better now, thanks.
Yes, I agree that it is an irreplaceable and extremely valuable and
visible target, and a very fragile one on the pad with a gazillion tons
of fuel attached to it as well as 2 very large fire crackers.
And it is normal to expect to have some form of security which would
prevent attacks on the vehicle while it is so vulnerable.
Same applies to the buildings which house the shuttle.
I was just wondering if, once inside the security perimeter, stuff
would have changes much for employees's day to day activities.
For instance, if they have helicopters "protecting" the shuttle while
it is being moved from VAB to the pad, it doesn't really affect much.
But if the additional security forces schedules to be changed to move
the shuttle only
during wee hours of the morning, then it has impacts on a lot of
people. I was just wondering if there had been changes which affected
the actual processing/scheduling of the shuttle.
I realise that one may not be at liberty to say WHAT changes were made.
But wouldn't it be ok to say whether the additional security has
affected the day-to -day operations/scheduling or whether they are just
there to add
protection ?
=========================================================
From: Steve Wachowski (swach...@cfl.rr.com)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-26 03:00:03 PST
JF Mezei wrote:
I realise that one may not be at liberty to say WHAT changes
were made. But wouldn't it be ok to say whether the additional
security has affected the day-to -day operations/scheduling or
whether they are just there to add protection ?
No, it wouldn't. As paranoid as it may seem, any little "insignificant"
detail may indeed be "significant" to somebody that has an aganda.
Steve Wachowski
KSC OPF-3 Tech
======================================================
From: John Beaderstadt (be...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-26 03:40:48 PST
JF Mezei wrote:
I realise that one may not be at liberty to say WHAT changes
were made. But wouldn't it be ok to say whether the additional
security has affected the day-to -day operations/scheduling or
whether they are just there to add protection ?
Probably not. What if any plan involves infiltrating the site, rather
than a frontal assault?
The WTC attacks were by all accounts several months/years in planning.
An attack on KSC in general and STS in particular would also take a
considerable amount of planning and staging, and we don't know how far
along a plot may be at this particular moment nor, for that matter, how
an attack is to be carried out. Just the bare knowledge that SOP has
been altered by security changes could tell the plotters that they have
to delay until the changes are known; knowing that SOP has not changed,
OTOH, could give them the green light to proceed as planned.
Loose lips sink ships.
===========================================================
From: Douglas Ellison (mai...@douglasellison.co.uk)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-26 05:57:13 PST
"John Beaderstadt" <be...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3BD93DAB...@mindspring.com...
JF Mezei wrote:
I realise that one may not be at liberty to say WHAT
changes were made. But wouldn't it be ok to say whether
the additional security has affected the day-to -day
operations/scheduling or whether they are just there
to add protection.
Probably not. What if any plan involves infiltrating the site,
rather than a frontal assault?
I read a rather entertaining Novel called "Storming Intrepid" that was
based on this very premise - it's all a little erre now
Doug
===============================================================
From: rich (ro...@127.0.0.1)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-26 06:07:08 PST
JF Mezei wrote:
I realise that one may not be at liberty to say WHAT changes
were made. But wouldn't it be ok to say whether the additional
security has affected the day-to -day operations/scheduling or
whether they are just there to add protection ?
Not that I'd attribute any such behavior to you, but a determined
intelligence gathering operation is built upon hundreds of people
asking just such innocuous questions.
============================================================
From: John Beaderstadt (be...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-26 06:28:22 PST
rich wrote:
Not that I'd attribute any such behavior to you, but a
determined intelligence gathering operation is built
upon hundreds of people asking just such innocuous
questions.
Or just surfing the net, seeing if they might pick up the odd comment.
If someone really were looking for odd scraps of info about STS
security, lurking in this and the other space groups just might be a
good idea.
============================================================
From: JF Mezei (jfmezei...@videotron.ca)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-26 14:05:57 PST
rich wrote:
Not that I'd attribute any such behavior to you, but a
determined intelligence gathering operation is built upon
hundreds of people asking just such innocuous questions.
Didn't CNN show some of the increased security meaures for staff to
enter the KSC complex ?
I guess I'll just have to watch NASA TV and read some NASA press
releases to see if they mention any changes to operations due to
additinal security measures.
===========================================================
From: John Beaderstadt (be...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: In the trenches - Oct. 24
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-10-27 04:34:58 PST
JF Mezei wrote:
Seriously though, any hacking into the NASA systems these days
would probably be taken very seriously...
These days? Was there ever a time they didn't take it seriously?
JF Mezei
> Again and again you fail to see the point. I explained how the information
> you seek could be helpful to anyone planning an attack on the shuttle.
Your explanation was not convincing. Mereley stating that such information
could be helpful to terrorists does no explain why it would be helpful.; And
this is where there is a huge difference in mentality. Some see no problem in
discussing possible terrorist scenarios while other prefer to keep everything
obscure and secret in the hopes that the terrorists won't get any ideas.
I have news for you, the terririss do get ideas, and if you don't discuss
them, you end up with the WTC disaster for which the USA had never really prepared.
Discussing the specific security measures taken at a site is what is a no-no.
You don't want to reveal how many guards there are for the perimeter, how
often they survery the permieter, how many planes/helicopters are involved,
how many ships, and what sort of identity is required to be allowed inside the
various perimeters/areas of the complex.
You may not wish to discuss the launching of a missile to blow up the shuttle,
but a terrorists will know exactly what the range of his missiles are and will
know how far from the shuttle he can be to achieve his goal. Whether you
discuss this or not makes no difference.
You should note that after TWA800, there were quite a few discussions on
missiles hitting the shuttle with various tidbits made public on the type of
missile that would have been needed to reach that altitude. And nobody
discussing this theory was labeled a terrorist.
> merely curiosity. Do you still maintain your question should be answered,
> in a public forum, with terrorists possibly lurking?
Yes, because they won't make a difference to a terrorist. My question would
not make any difference to a terrorist who would manage to enter the perimeter
in a military helicopter and use the helicopter's weapons to destroy the
shuttle from much further away than he would be allowed to approach anyways.
The security is not how close you can get to the shuttle, it is the
establishement of a no-fly zone that spans some 30 nautical miles and it is
ensuring that the military crews who are allowed inside to patrol the complex
and ensure the no fly zone can be trusted (eg: proper authentication of their ids).
Revealing how a military person is authenticated to be allowed to board a
helicopter that has clearance to enter the no fly zone would be breaking
security. But once the helicopter has entererd the perimeter, that helicopter
must accomplish his SECURITY duties while abiding with SAFETY regulations that
have been in place since before.
I was not asking whether all military helicopters allowed inside the perimeter
had the same clearance to approach the stack. I was only asking how close NASA
would allow a properly authenticated/authorized craft to get to the shuttle.
Not asking what the authentication/authorization process is, nor what security
measures might be taken fduring such an exercise.
Perhaps the military would accompany a NASA PAO helicopter during a fly-by so
it could be shot down the second it deviates from the course. That is security
related and I didn't ask for that.
> If so, would you be
> willing to give such terrorists helpful information as a side-effect of
> satisfying your own curiosity?
Please show how such information would give terrorists any information that
might give them an advantage. Oh, I forgot, you're affraid to discuss any
terrorist scenarios. (hint: look at the movie "Contact" and you'll see that a
terrorist need not be in a helicopter). How come Hollywood wasn't sued for
giving terrorists ideas when it released that movie ?
> Why don't you ask how close air traffic was allowed to the twin towers and
> the Pentagon before Sept 11?
Don't need to, this was public knowledge. Both were very near to commercial
airways. Anyone who has ever landed at LGA will tell you how close to the
buildings the planes did get. And anyone who ever landed at Hong Kong's old
Kai Tak airport will tell you how close a commercial airlines was allowed to
get to tall buildings. Perhaps not with a precise measurement, but a definite measurement.
Brian Thorn
<jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> JF, do you really think you're helping your cause by joining forces
>> with the Maxson lunatics? Think carefully.
>
>Since I have been labeled terrorist, what have I got to lose ? RK gave me 4
>choices, 3 of which were making me a terrorist, and the second is admitting I
>am an idiot. I guess if I side with Maxson, that gives RK the answer to his question.
You've jumped to the wrong conclusion. I do not believe you are a
terrorist, I believe you are an idiot (on this matter, anyway).
However, if you continue to demand answers to KSC security questions,
I will have no choice but to presume you have an interest in eluding
KSC security, and I will notify the FBI and NASA of what I consider a
possible security threat to the Space Shuttle.
>Since any technical discussion about the shuttle can be interpreted as someone
>wanting information which might be used by terrorists, I guess that any
>discussions here are pointless until the USA becomes a bit more realistic
>about the security measures needed and stops seing terrorists whenever someone
>asks a question that they don't think they should have the information.
Your guess is wrong. It should be noted that the only person who has
spoken up in your defense is the nutcase who believes in a massive
conspiracy behind the Challenger disaster. And you claim *we* are
paranoid?
>Curiosity died in the USA on sept 11
Nonsense. I'm curious how close the patrol helicopters can get to the
Shuttle too. But unlike you, I realize that this is information that
could put the Shuttle, astronauts, and pad crew in jeopardy, so I and
others have told you that it is ill-advised to discuss this publicly
and that you won't get an answer here.
>if anyone with any level of curiosity is
>labeled terrorist because he/she asked a question. Imagine how quickly the FBI
>would pounce on me if I ever asked how tall the sears tower was.
Your analogy is ludicrous. You are not asking "how tall is the Space
Shuttle", you're asking "how close can somebody get to the Space
Shuttle?" You would not be considered a threat by asking "how tall is
the Sears Tower", but suspicion would be raised if you asked "how many
security people are in the Sears Tower" or "how close can a truck get
to the Sears Tower before it is inspected." That you fail (or refuse)
to understand that is simply sad.
>Perhaps sent to the chair as soon as I would post a question on what FAA rules
>the goodyear blimp operates under when it hovers over stadiums to take aeral
>shots of a game.
These (blimps and banner-towing planes) have been banned from flying
over stadiums since September 11, by the way. Ever read the book or
see the movie "Black Sunday"?
Brian
LooseChanj
> Your explanation was not convincing. Mereley stating that such
information
> could be helpful to terrorists does no explain why it would be helpful.;
And
> this is where there is a huge difference in mentality.
"Or take action against your comrades' nefarious plans?" That is how such
imformation could be helpful.
> You may not wish to discuss the launching of a missile to blow up the
shuttle,
> but a terrorists will know exactly what the range of his missiles are and
will
> know how far from the shuttle he can be to achieve his goal. Whether you
> discuss this or not makes no difference.
Exactly. And knowing exactly how far away any vehicles are allowed is
information which would be highly desirable to you.
> Yes, because they won't make a difference to a terrorist.
> Please show how such information would give terrorists any information
that
> might give them an advantage. Oh, I forgot, you're affraid to discuss any
> terrorist scenarios.
Once again: knowing how far authorized vehicles are allowed is but one
piece of information terrorists would like to know. It would figure into
their plans, if only to give them an idea of a "clear zone" from which they
could take their shot without worry of being discovered or challenged.
(I'd say that's both discussing a scenario as well as showing you how that
information might give them an advantage.)
I ask you again: Are you willing to give any possible terrorists lurking
here that information?
Dave Michelson
>
> Your explanation was not convincing....
How about this one?
It's simply bad manners to attempt to force others to share information
when they tell you in certain terms that they feel uncomfortable doing
so.
--
Dave Michelson
dmich...@ieee.org
rk
> LooseChanj wrote:
>> Again and again you fail to see the point. I explained how the
>> information you seek could be helpful to anyone planning an attack
>> on the shuttle.
>
> Your explanation was not convincing. Mereley stating that such
> information could be helpful to terrorists does no explain why it
> would be helpful.; And this is where there is a huge difference in
> mentality. Some see no problem in discussing possible terrorist
> scenarios while other prefer to keep everything obscure and secret
> in the hopes that the terrorists won't get any ideas.
>
> I have news for you, the terririss do get ideas, and if you don't
> discuss them, you end up with the WTC disaster for which the USA
> had never really prepared.
>
> Discussing the specific security measures taken at a site is what
> is a no-no.
Then why do you ask for specific information repeatedly and
insistently?
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle Security?
CNN says that there will be unprecedented security for
the launch.
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance,
how close to the PAD would these helicopters be allowed
fly ? less than a kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away
would they be required to be ?
And why do you refuse to ask the proper authorities for this
information?
David
wrote:
Okay, I have delurk and speak up here, This is not a matter of
security per se. KSC already has a closed air space, except for
military or NASA Operations. So the question of how close an aircraft
can get to the shuttle, is not necessary an issue of security but of
safety.
Let's roll back the clock to the last shuttle launch. How close would
NASA allow a aircraft to the shuttle, without fear of some transient
electronic glitch triggering a pyro device and other explosive
ordnance. There has to be operational rule here.
We don't need to talk about this issue in todays terms. The question
is, in a sense, not out of line. But if the answer lies in a technical
manual that is public knowledge, then it should be okay to release.
Any information that is produced before 9/11 should be fine. If you
are uncomfortable posting on here, do it privately with the invidual.
But to call anyone a terrorist simply because they have a thirst for
knowledge is wrong.
Let's use some common sense here. Just like Disney is checking
Driver's licenses at their gates to their resorts. Can someone tell
me, what good this does by looking at my license? Does having a
Florida Driver's license make me not a terrorist? Or am I to give that
the renta cop on the gate knows by name all terrorist in the world?
DOubt it.
Sorry if I ruffled any feathers here, but I needed to vent this.
Thanks and we now return to your regularly scheduled posts.
David
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>Okay, I have delurk and speak up here, This is not a matter of
>security per se. KSC already has a closed air space, except for
>military or NASA Operations. So the question of how close an aircraft
>can get to the shuttle, is not necessary an issue of security but of
>safety.
Always good to see a lurker step out of the shadows and join a
discussion, but you are ignoring JF's original request, the one that
he has been persistent in attempting to have answered for him here...
On Wednesday, 28 November, JF asked the following question...
CNN says that there will be unprecedented security for the launch.
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance, how close
to the PAD would these helicopters be allowed fly ? less than a
kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away would they
be required to be ?
So JF is not asking how close *he* could get to the pad (with the
well-reported closed airspace, this is a non-issue) he is asking how
far away the SECURITY teams are. Such information would be highly
desirable to any potential terrorist attempting to disrupt a Shuttle
launch. This is a security issue, plain and simple.
Brian
rk
> On 2 Dec 2001 02:27:28 GMT, rk <stel...@nospamplease.erols.com>
> wrote:
>
>>JF Mezei wrote:
>>
>>> Since I have been labeled terrorist, what have I got to lose ? RK
>>> gave me 4 choices, 3 of which were making me a terrorist, and the
>>> second is admitting I am an idiot.
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>I am sorry, you are not being accurate.
>>
>>I asked:
>>
>> What can we conclude from these questions and your actions?
>>
>>And then presented 4 possible conclusions. Indeed, I did not say
>>that there were no other conclusions:
>>
>> There may be other possible conclusions; I could not find any.
>>
>>Now, you could have given us a 5th possible conclusion, explaining
>>your actions, why you wanted the information that many people have
>>told you is not appropriate for either your or this form, and what
>>you would do with it. But you did not.
>>
>>What conclusion should we draw from that?
>
>
> Okay, I have delurk and speak up here, This is not a matter of
> security per se. KSC already has a closed air space, except for
> military or NASA Operations. So the question of how close an
> aircraft can get to the shuttle, is not necessary an issue of
> security but of safety.
No, you are incorrect. JFM asked about the location of the security
teams:
CNN says that there will be unprecedented security for the launch.
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance, how close
to the PAD would these helicopters be allowed fly ? less than a
kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away would
they be required to be ?
JFM opened the discussion by talking about the unprecedented security
and then proceeded to ask about rules for helicopters providing aerial
surveillance.
To me, that seems to be a matter of security; that's my opinion and
that of most of the people in this forum, including KSC personnel.
Now, of course, he refuses to explain why he wants specific information
on helicopters providing surveillance for the launch with
"unprecendented security" and in particular from t-9 minutes to launch.
> Let's roll back the clock to the last shuttle launch. How close
> would NASA allow a aircraft to the shuttle, without fear of some
> transient electronic glitch triggering a pyro device and other
> explosive ordnance. There has to be operational rule here.
I'm sure there is; JFM is asking specific information about helicopters
providing surveillance for this launch and operational rules. I
consider that innappropriate; that's just my personal opinion.
> We don't need to talk about this issue in todays terms.
But his questions are about this launch, in today's terms, and the
rules for helicopters providing surveillance for a launch with
'unprecedented security.'
> The
> question is, in a sense, not out of line. But if the answer lies in
> a technical manual that is public knowledge, then it should be okay
> to release.
That's a pretty big if. I am unaware that flight rules, with specific
distances, for helicopters providing surveillance for unprecedented
security are in the public domain, available for export outside of US
borders. Now, if it is publicly available, then JFM could show that.
My opinion is doubtful that that is the case but he is free to show
that that specific information is in the public domain, available for
export. He has failed to do so up to this point.
> Any information that is produced before 9/11 should be fine.
That is an incorrect assumption. Just reading the newspapers we find
many cases where publicly available information is no longer readily
available, i.e., utilities, etc. Many people disagree with you.
> If
> you are uncomfortable posting on here, do it privately with the
> invidual.
Perhaps JFM should ask the authorities his questions; he apparrently
refuses to do so. Why is that?
Sending out information to him that is innappropriate is innappropriate
either in public forums or via private communications. Since I don't
have the information that he wants, I have no "need-to-know", it's not
an issue. If I did have it I wouldn't send it to him anyways since it
would be innappropriate at best.
> But to call anyone a terrorist simply because they have a thirst
> for knowledge is wrong.
He was not called a terrorist; please read more carefully.
Also, many people told him his questions were innappropriate yet he
persists.
A bit over a month or so ago he also asked many probing questions about
KSC security, was repeatedly told no, it was not appropriate, and
didn't back off then, either. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
see a bit of a pattern here. ;-)
A 'thirst for knowledge' doesn't sound bad; but remember, he's asking
about specific operational details of surveillance helicopters for a
launch with unprecedented security. That sounds a bit worse. He is
also specifically interested in operational aspects from T-9 minutes to
launch; why?
> Let's use some common sense here. Just like Disney is checking
> Driver's licenses at their gates to their resorts. Can someone
> tell me, what good this does by looking at my license? Does having
> a Florida Driver's license make me not a terrorist? Or am I to give
> that the renta cop on the gate knows by name all terrorist in the
> world? DOubt it.
Poor analogy. A better one would be asking about locations of fighter
planes flying CAP over US cities (see AW&ST).
> Sorry if I ruffled any feathers here, but I needed to vent this.
No problem, none at all.
> Thanks and we now return to your regularly scheduled posts.
Perhaps discussions about toilet paper allocations? ;-)
> David
john_thomas_maxson
wrote in message news:<3C095F03...@videotron.ca>...
> john_thomas_maxson wrote:
> > If your question is strictly safety related, it seems to me that you
> > might be interested in past procedures employed by NASA for its own
> > helicopters, chase planes, and pilots.
>
> Exactly. You worded it much better than I could have.
>
> > Just reply stating that this is the kind of thing you'd like to know
> > and I will make a follow-up post.
>
> At this point in time, you would also be accused of being a terrorist, and RK
> would call the FBI and get you incarcerated with no charges for a few months.
I'm not at all worried about that.
Stan Nelson, the now-retired helicopter pilot who was first on the
scene to rescue the Challenger crew if possible, calls The Betrayal of
Mission 51-L the best book he's read on the disaster.
My offer still stands.
JTM
JF Mezei
> I will have no choice but to presume you have an interest in eluding
> KSC security, and I will notify the FBI and NASA of what I consider a
> possible security threat to the Space Shuttle.
Please be my guest. You would do a lot of good for you nation by pointing how
how paranoid it has become and how free speech has been thwarted outside of
its own jurisdiction. Sicne I have a foreign sounding name, the FBA is bound
to take your information quite seriously and demand my extradition. The
foreign media will have a field day with the USA trying to imprison someone
for asking a simple question on the internet.
Note that if YOU were really smart and if YOU really though that divulging the
answer would have been a true security risk, you would have simply read the
question and not responded.
If this had been a true SECURITY risk, an experienced security expert would
have simply answered with pre-sept 11 info with a note that this may or may
not have chnaged since then and be done with it without bring any attention to
it. It is by making all sorts of false accusations and threathening to call
the FBI that YOU are causing a security risk by pointing out that this is a
very sensitive issue which is telling potential terrorist that this is an area
to investigate since NASA is very insecure about this topic.
> Nonsense. I'm curious how close the patrol helicopters can get to the
> Shuttle too. But unlike you, I realize that this is information that
> could put the Shuttle, astronauts, and pad crew in jeopardy, so I and
> others have told you that it is ill-advised to discuss this publicly
> and that you won't get an answer here.
Again, please explain why disclosing SAFETY information which applies to
properly authorized crafts that are allowed and have legitimate business
inside the no-fly zone would jeoperdize security. Just stating that it does
does not explain why.
> Your analogy is ludicrous. You are not asking "how tall is the Space
> Shuttle", you're asking "how close can somebody get to the Space
> Shuttle?"
No, i am asking how close can a duly authorized pilot get to the shuttle. I am
not asking what the pilot must go though to get such authorization and what
steps there are to ensure that only authorized people are allowed inside the
secured zone.
> You would not be considered a threat by asking "how tall is
> the Sears Tower", but suspicion would be raised if you asked "how many
> security people are in the Sears Tower" or "how close can a truck get
> to the Sears Tower before it is inspected."
How tall is sears tower might be considered by paranoids as a threat since it
would tell you at what altitude you would have to be to hit it properly. Yet
the height of the building has been public long enough that it is impossible
to remove from dictionaries etc etc. So any attempt to hide this already
public information is pointless and results in discrediting the organisation
that attempts to hide it.
As far as "how close can they get", this is publicly defined and was shown on
TV for the sears tower. They has setup barriers etc etc around the building.
And the NASA equivalent has also been defined publicly: 30 nautical miles
around for flying aircraft. I never asked about how many security people or
how many planes are involved. Just asked what rules NASA imposed on the
military and on its own people whenever they fly inside the perimeter.
I never asked HOW they got into the perimeter. But since the TV networks have
shown planes and helicopters flying inside the perimeter, it is clear that the
30-nm no-fly zone does not apply to a certain number/type of crafts who are
authorized to enter. Once they are inside, they must abide by NASA defined
SAFETY rules to ensure the SAFETY of the shuttle (and perhaps crews on the
service structure, you wouldn't want the wind from a helicopter to blow
someone off the fixed service structure).
How many times must I repeat this before you even attempt to understand what I
am asking instead of threathening to call the FBI because you think I am
consantly asking how to penetrate the perimeter ?
> These (blimps and banner-towing planes) have been banned from flying
> over stadiums since September 11, by the way. Ever read the book or
> see the movie "Black Sunday"?
Yes, but prior to sept 11, there must have been rules that allow those blimps
and helicopters to break FAA regulations for the purposes of such games.
Furthermore, please note that NASA has imposed a 30 nautical mile but still
allows some crafts inside that perimeter. I never asked what was involved in
getting such crafts approved to get inside. I only asked about safety measures
once they are inside. i even specificed that information dating from before
Sept 11 which may or may not have changed since then.
Note that I witnessed a helicopter hanging feet from an antenna on the roof of
an office tower. It was piloted by stunt pilots for the purposes of shooting a
movie. Oh, and another helicopter was hovering very close to it so it could
pan the camera for the various scenes.
Under normal commercial aviation rules, this would not be permitted. But under
special circumstances, this is allowed. Hollywood does that all the time. And
I have to assume that NASA has ist own rules once inside its own airspace
which will allow the shuttle pilots to perform stunts with the shuttle
trainers, and NASA PAO to shoot movies, and of course, the military to provide
security. And there are chase planes that are neraby during a shuttle launch,
as well as when it lands, correct ? Oh, I forget, this is probably also no
longer permitted to discuss such operations.
JF Mezei
> Once again: knowing how far authorized vehicles are allowed is but one
> piece of information terrorists would like to know. It would figure into
> their plans, if only to give them an idea of a "clear zone" from which they
> could take their shot without worry of being discovered or challenged.
Yeah sure. How many cameras are pointed at the shuttle pad constantly ? And
considering that the military has setup a "fence" that keeps planes 30nm miles
away, then any intruder plane would be detected soon after they break the 30nm
limit, which is VERY VERY VERY far away from any NASA defined SAFETY limits
around the shuttle.
Besides, I would assume that whenever a helicopter approaches the stack for
legitimate business (such as PAO filming, of a crew inspecting the structure
etc etc), then mission control would be aware of it presence, and if some
craft shows up unannounced, they would know right away something is wrong).
I am not talking about commandos walking on the ground and having jumped
fences to penetrate the compound. I am talking about legitimate NASA approved
aircraft approaching the pad on official business with most probably lost of
paperwork to pre-approve that "flight".
I am not asking about what it takes to become a legitimate NASA approve craft
with permission to approach the shuttle. That would be a security question.
JF Mezei
> It's simply bad manners to attempt to force others to share information
> when they tell you in certain terms that they feel uncomfortable doing
> so.
This is no longer an issue of forcing people to provide the information. It is
a question of people accusing me of being a terrorist because I asked a
question which they see as a terrorist-security related question while I only
want the safety related information which would have been in plane well before
sept 11.
LooseChanj
> Please be my guest. You would do a lot of good for you nation by
> pointing how how paranoid it has become and how free speech has
> been thwarted outside of its own jurisdiction.
This sounds disturbingly like "Gee whiz, can't you take a joke?".
Dave Michelson
>
> This is no longer an issue of forcing people to provide the information. It is
> a question of people accusing me of being a terrorist because I asked a
> question which they see as a terrorist-security related question while I only
> want the safety related information which would have been in plane well before
> sept 11.
JF,
They reacted as they did because you pushed too hard. If you back off
now, and express regret for making them feel uncomfortable by your
persistence, they'll probably slap you on your virtual back, tell you
that there are no hard feelings, and invite you for a virtual beer (or
similar virtual beverage).
--
Dave Michelson
dmich...@ieee.org
JF Mezei
> So JF is not asking how close *he* could get to the pad (with the
> well-reported closed airspace, this is a non-issue) he is asking how
> far away the SECURITY teams are. Such information would be highly
> desirable to any potential terrorist attempting to disrupt a Shuttle
> launch. This is a security issue, plain and simple.
Hood spin mr Thorn. I asked about ANY crafts, and even provided the NASA PAO
for filming purposed. I even specifioed in al ter post that I was not
interested in current stuff, but stuff dating from before sept 11.
Furthermore, if NASA invotes the military to patrol its own grounds, surely
NASA will be giving those pilots some guidelines on safe flying near the
shuttle to ensure that there is no interference/damage with it. the
helicopters may be on a security duty, but they must still follow safety rules.
If CNN hadn't shown the planes that passed near the pad, the argument of the
"void" between the security "fence" at the 30nm circle around the complex
might have been valid since perhaps the military only patrolled a narrow band
around the perimeter and never got close to the pad itself, so a plane that
got through the "fence" might have an easy ride all the way to the shuttle to
start the fireworks.
But as it stands, it is public knowledge that the military patrols near enough
the stack that there can be no "voids" where there is no surveillance. Whether
they are allowed 1km, 500m or 5 metres from the stack doesn't change much in
their ability to survey the grounds to ensure there are no intruder. But
SAFETY issues may define how close they can get to the pad.
And it is perfectly possible that there might be a standard minimum distance
for "general" flying near the shuttle, and a reduced perimeter for special
operations with qualified pilots with special authorizations (for instance a
close fly by for nasa pao purposes).
rk
This is simply not true.
A. No one called you a terrorist.
B. It is not true that you only want the safety
related information which would have been in place
well before September 11th.
Indeed, it appears that you are being dishonest or very mistaken here
as you specifically asked about security arrangements for the upcoming
launch:
CNN says that there will be unprecedented security for the launch.
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance, how close
to the PAD would these helicopters be allowed fly ? less than a
kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away would
they be required to be ?
Your attempt at Clintonism (misleading, confusing statements, and
attacking others) simply does not work here.
JF Mezei
> No, you are incorrect. JFM asked about the location of the security
> teams:
Oh, that is a good one. Didn't know this was a comedy newsgroup mr RK. I
asked about SAFETY limits that NASA has setup inside its airspace. I would
assume than any helicopter or plane that is authorized to fly inside of NASA
airspace would have to abide by such rules whether they are military
performaing security duty or PAO doing some filming, or astronauts doing some
training or testing the wind/weather prior to a launch.
rk
> Brian Thorn wrote:
>> So JF is not asking how close *he* could get to the pad (with the
>> well-reported closed airspace, this is a non-issue) he is asking
>> how far away the SECURITY teams are. Such information would be
>> highly desirable to any potential terrorist attempting to disrupt
>> a Shuttle launch. This is a security issue, plain and simple.
>
> Hood spin mr Thorn. I asked about ANY crafts, and even provided the
> NASA PAO for filming purposed. I even specifioed in al ter post
> that I was not interested in current stuff, but stuff dating from
> before sept 11.
No spin from Mr. Thorn here. You were quite clear in asking about
security arrangements for the upcoming flight where there will be
"unprecendented security":
CNN says that there will be unprecedented security for the launch.
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance, how close
to the PAD would these helicopters be allowed fly ? less than a
kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away would
they be required to be ?
[ snip ]
Again, you fool no one by falsely accusing Mr. Thorn of spinning.
rk
No, there was no joke intended here. You stated:
CNN says that there will be unprecedented security for the launch.
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance, how close
to the PAD would these helicopters be allowed fly ? less than a
kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away would
they be required to be ?
So you are aware of the "unprecendented security" and wish to know how
far away helicopters providing aerial surveillance would have to be,
including the period from T-9 minutes to launch.
You were not talking about "any helicopter or plance" but "helicopters
to provide aeral [sic] surveillance."
Again, you fool no one by wrongly attacking people.
john_thomas_maxson
in this thread) extrapolates threats from inoccuous, self-defensive
nuances.
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca>
wrote in message news:<3C098D37...@videotron.ca>...
> Brian Thorn wrote:
> > JF, do you really think you're helping your cause by joining forces
> > with the Maxson lunatics? Think carefully.
>
> Since I have been labeled terrorist, what have I got to lose ? RK gave me 4
> choices, 3 of which were making me a terrorist, and the second is admitting I
> am an idiot. I guess if I side with Maxson, that gives RK the answer to his question.
... ... ...
LooseChanj
> I am not talking about commandos walking on the ground and having jumped
> fences to penetrate the compound.
And the information you request would be highly valuable to such a
commando.
> I am not asking about what it takes to become a legitimate NASA approve
> craft with permission to approach the shuttle. That would be a security
> question.
Again, your words:
"CNN says that there will be unprecedented security for the launch.
If they use helicopters to provide aeral surveillance, how close
to the PAD would these helicopters be allowed fly ? less than a
kilometre ? 1-5 kmn or very far away ?
and during the last 9 minutes and launch , how far away would
they be required to be ?"
I now consider you a liar.
Brian Thorn
<jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>Brian Thorn wrote:
>> I will have no choice but to presume you have an interest in eluding
>> KSC security, and I will notify the FBI and NASA of what I consider a
>> possible security threat to the Space Shuttle.
>
>Please be my guest. You would do a lot of good for you nation by pointing how
>how paranoid it has become and how free speech has been thwarted outside of
>its own jurisdiction.
As you wish.
Brian
VASSILIS PREVELAKIS
> Shuttle too. But unlike you, I realize that this is information that
> could put the Shuttle, astronauts, and pad crew in jeopardy, so I and
> others have told you that it is ill-advised to discuss this publicly
> and that you won't get an answer here.
Well, the information was out in the Internet anyway, while you were
all wasting your time arguing about it, I found the answer in a German
web site. Its 750m unless something happens (I am not sure what because
my German is not great) and then they can go up to 500m. I am not sure
why the distance is given in meters. Perhaps its because of the German
translation or perhaps NASA is trying to switch over to metric,
probably the former.
So now you can all stop arguing about this subject and go back to arguing
about Challenger :-)
The whole thread has been nothing but a joke. This sudden anxiety about
security reminds me of the marmelade problem: You wake up one morning
and you find you have run out of marmelade; the jar you thought you had
in the basement is actually the one that sits empty in your cupboard.
So you decide that this will never happen again and you go to the super
market and buy two cases of marmelade. Guess what, in 8 months you find
you are out of marmelade AGAIN! because as you went through the two
cases you got used to always finding lots of marmelade jars in the
basement.
Good security is a long term goal, not a two week diet. Do the KSC
people who post in these newsgroups have a security clearance? If
not then they'd better not have access to sensitive information, if they
do have a security clearance then they *have* access to sensitive
information and they shouldn't be posting anything in these newsgroups.
Alternatively, they could arrange for all their postings to be cleared
by security.
What I am driving at, is that bad guys are not stupid (at least we
cannot afford to think that they are stupid). They will not ask "what
is the combination to the front entrance," they will ask many innocuous
questions and from the answers (or lack of answers) draw their
conclusions. Its not up to the individual to determine which questions
are sensitive and which are OK to answer. By contrast, security
personel have the experience and the motivation to pursue such matters
and (if they are kept informed) to be able to associate questions that
have been asked to different people and perhaps spot a trend or goal.
**vp
rk
> So now you can all stop arguing about this subject and go back to
> arguing about Challenger :-)
Ah, that one is old. I think the toilet paper allocations are the
current interest, although I didn't take part in that conversation, it
looked like the proponent wished to be left alone.
> The whole thread has been nothing but a joke.
Obviously; what is interesting how the individual seeking information
about security will go to such lengths to hide what he is looking for
and justify it, thinking that none of us will remember what he wrote a
day or two ago. This was the strategy, used effectively here in the
US, by the Clinton White House.
> This sudden anxiety
> about security
Actually, I think the response would be quite similar no matter when it
was asked.
> Good security is a long term goal, not a two week diet. Do the KSC
> people who post in these newsgroups have a security clearance? If
> not then they'd better not have access to sensitive information, if
> they do have a security clearance then they *have* access to
> sensitive information and they shouldn't be posting anything in
> these newsgroups. Alternatively, they could arrange for all their
> postings to be cleared by security.
I have no idea what they have; of course, if they told you, they'd have
to ....
> What I am driving at, is that bad guys are not stupid (at least we
> cannot afford to think that they are stupid). They will not ask
> "what is the combination to the front entrance," they will ask many
> innocuous questions and from the answers (or lack of answers) draw
> their conclusions.
Actually, that is a reasonably good description of the individual here.
Count the question marks per day as a metric.
> Its not up to the individual to determine which
> questions are sensitive and which are OK to answer.
Why not? We are all individuals and can make that decision quite
easily in most cases. When it's not easy, I would expect people to
exercise caution and not answer. For example, although I have no
knowledge of this subject, if someone asked me about the position of
surveillance helicopters that are used for security I would think that
question should not be answered. If someone asked what is the budget
for program X, where that number is in the public domain and readily
available over the public internet from official sources, there are no
problems answering that.
> By contrast,
> security personel have the experience and the motivation to pursue
> such matters and (if they are kept informed) to be able to
> associate questions that have been asked to different people and
> perhaps spot a trend or goal.
Yup. Our 'friend' claims to be an expert in security and can make that
decision for us - as a group. Unfortunately, he does not appear to
have that background or a good technical background for many
discussions.
Now, as for spotting trend, I did note how this individual has asked
probing questions about KSC security a month ago also. What does this
mean? Well, either A,B,C, or D or perhaps something else. I do not
know.
Andy
JF is predisposed to asking alot of questions; I think you probably also know
that he is not likely asking the questions for any other reason than to satisfy
his insatiable curiosity, (despite his choice of words in framing the question)
so let's give it, and him, a break, eh?
More serious and specific questions have been asked about "how to damage a
shuttle" than JF's question. Nobody made an issue of it then, so perhaps a
little slack is in order...
This statement by Brian:
>Brian Thorn wrote:
>> I will have no choice but to presume you have an interest in eluding
>> KSC security, and I will notify the FBI and NASA of what I consider a
>> possible security threat to the Space Shuttle.
Is a bit unwarranted. Eight months ago we had a discussion on this group about
what it would take to damage the shuttle on the pad. Here are some of the
statements from that thread:
Henry Spencer:
"Modern heat-seaking SAMs (including, I *think*, the best shoulder-launched
ones) are biased to hit ahead of the heat source, rather than going straight
into it. The better question, as has already been pointed out, is whether the
SAM can *catch* an accelerating rocket. If you launched on a collision course,
it might be possible...[snipped]"
No one asked Henry why he posted this information or questioned his motives.
Allen McDonnell:
"Depends on how fast the STS stack is moving at the time, a SAM fired from the
ground can catch a jet moving at Mach 2 from about 6 miles range, it takes the
STS stack a few seconds to exceed Mach 2, if you were close enough to shoot
before then you would possibly hit it."
No one asked Allen why he posted this information or questioned his motives.
JF Mezei:
"If one were to shoot a bullet through an SRB, wouldn't the biggest danger be
that once fires, some of the fire would escape through the hole, make that hole
bigger and eventually brurn through and cause flames to stray ion the
wrong direction ? (aka: another challenger disaster) ?
*NO ONE ASKED JF why he posted this or questioned his motives*
Jim Mantle:
" The external tank is a different story - a shot to the ET might puncture it.
If empty then there would be no effect (aside from having to roll back to the
VAB and re-stack). But after it's loaded with fuel...[snipped]".
No one asked Jim why he posted this or questioned his motives.
So, obviously everyone is still (or rather, now) a bit sensitive to these kinds
of questions, and I believe you guys understand what each other are saying ,
so let's let it go, eh?
rk, I consider you and I to be friends, so don't mistake this statement for a
flame, but please, leave the politics out. I'm no supporter of Bill Clinton but
your anti-Clinton rhetoric does not advance your cause, and makes you look a
bit petty. It's simply not relevant and I for one am tired of the "did not"
/"did too" debate over Clinton.
R,
Andy
"Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!"
[Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984]
JF Mezei
> Well, the information was out in the Internet anyway, while you were
> all wasting your time arguing about it, I found the answer in a German
> web site. Its 750m unless something happens (I am not sure what because
> my German is not great) and then they can go up to 500m.
Thank you. Much appreciated. it is about what I had expected.
This tells me that a helicopter cannot be used as a tool to fix something on
the towers or stack, or to lift something to the top of the stack etc etc.
Brian Thorn
>So, obviously everyone is still (or rather, now) a bit sensitive to these kinds
>of questions, and I believe you guys understand what each other are saying ,
>so let's let it go, eh?
No, and neither should you. "All that is necessary for evil to succeed
is for good men to do nothing."
Brian
Andy
I'm no less concerned about security. I *do* believe that JF's questions are
innocuous, and undeserving of being labeled suspicious. You've told him he
shouldn't ask and he won't get an answer, but it's silly to threaten to report
him to the FBI when a much more specific thread on ways to kill shuttle was
propogated here in this group with no such action on your part.
LooseChanj
news:20011203125357...@mb-cv.aol.com...
> I *do* believe that JF's questions are innocuous, and undeserving
> of being labeled suspicious.
I agree with the first half of that sentence. I'm not so sure about the
second. But you're right about this thread getting silly. JFM is
exceedingly clue resistant, and many people have talked themselves blue in
the face trying to get him to see the light on many issues. My bad for
even trying.
Brian Thorn
><< No, and neither should you. >>
>
>I'm no less concerned about security. I *do* believe that JF's questions are
>innocuous, and undeserving of being labeled suspicious. You've told him he
>shouldn't ask and he won't get an answer, but it's silly to threaten to report
>him to the FBI when a much more specific thread on ways to kill shuttle was
>propogated here in this group with no such action on your part.
I agree this thread has become pointless, and I'll not post any
further messages on this subject. However, I do not consider security
issues to be "silly" in any way, shape or form, and I am saddened that
even after September 11 there are still people who want to bury their
heads in the sand and pretend there is no threat to America.
I also believe there is a considerable difference between general
security questions ("could a Stinger hit the Shuttle?" -obviously, if
someone has a Stinger he or she probably already knows its
capabilities - note that the question was not "how close would you
have to be to hit the Shuttle with a Stinger?") and specific questions
("how close is security to the launch pad?")
I do not post my "threat" idly. It disturbs me that I must even
consider pointing out this thread to authorities. However, if you do
any reading on the history of modern terrorist activities, you'll find
that essentially all terrorist attacks (bombings, kidnappings,
assasinations, etc.) were preceeded by warning signs that went
ignored.
They won't be ignored anymore. The era of Americans standing idly by
while our adversaries take pot-shots at us ended on September 11.
I suggest checking out this link...
http://www.nv.doe.gov/opsec/pockguide.htm
Brian
Steve Wachowski
>
> Looks kids, this thread is getting to be a bit out of hand. You all know that
> JF is predisposed to asking alot of questions; I think you probably also know
> that he is not likely asking the questions for any other reason than to satisfy
> his insatiable curiosity, (despite his choice of words in framing the question)
> so let's give it, and him, a break, eh?
Agreed!!!!!
Steve Wachowski
KSC OPF-3 Tech
Andy
our adversaries take pot-shots at us ended on September 11. >>
Unfortunately, they were saying the same thing on December 8, 1941.
Again, I pose the [rhetorical] question to all: Where was your indignation with
regard to the discussion (in February) of specific methods of killing the
shuttle?
Had JF shown up out of the blue with no posting history, I wouldn't be
complaining about painting his questions with the brush of suspicion. Having
posted specific, detailed questions ad naseum in this forum, it should have
been obvious that while his questions were perhaps naive, they were clearly
innocuous. The statement "don't ask those questions" should have been a
sufficient answer from this group. The statement "I'm considering reporting
you..." is indicative of a mindset antithetical to the very liberties we hold
dear.
Where do we draw the line? Perhaps we could look to Joe Stalin, or Joe McCarthy
for some guidance on the question?
<<note that the question was not "how close would you
have to be to hit the Shuttle with a Stinger?") and specific questions
("how close is security to the launch pad?")>>
However, there *was* a discussion of whether one could get within range with a
high-powered rifle, allthough I cannot manage to locate the thread.
I'm not flaming you, Brian, just asking that we all maintain some perspective
along with our enhanced state of alert...
James
> No, and neither should you. "All that is necessary for evil to succeed
> is for good men to do nothing."
>
This quote is bizarrely ironic. I am as red-blooded American as they
come, and, yes, I believe shuttle security is top priority. But to
take away the right of free speech - the terrorists have already won.
We must balance wisdom - "loose lips sink ships" - with freedom.
Good men are not doing "nothing" to stop the erosion of rights. They
are taking them away gung-ho.
The rest of it, I will bite my tongue. Don't want to play politics
tonight.
The other James
rk
> Brian Thorn <bst...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
> news:<esdn0ukhbptl661cf...@4ax.com>...
>
>> No, and neither should you. "All that is necessary for evil to
>> succeed is for good men to do nothing."
>
> This quote is bizarrely ironic. I am as red-blooded American as
> they come, and, yes, I believe shuttle security is top priority.
> But to take away the right of free speech - the terrorists have
> already won. We must balance wisdom - "loose lips sink ships" -
> with freedom.
I agree; there must be a good balance. I think it is the opinion of
many of us here that discussing specific security arrangements,
especially when we are now at war with terrorists, was not the right
thing to do under the circumstances; there is no need for that
information.
Of course, "free speech" is not really 100% free. The classic case of
shouting fire in a crowded theater; export control laws that recently
got some of the US aerospace firms in trouble. Englandland has
stricter laws than the USA, I believe, on speech.
We do have the freedom to criticize those who govern us in the US all
we want. And JFM has all the freedom he wants for his negative views
of NASA and the USA.
> Good men are not doing "nothing" to stop the erosion of rights.
> They are taking them away gung-ho.
Exactly.
For instance, In Canada, the House of Commons just passed a bill that
would allow police to designate any area a military zone, remove and
arrest anyone within those boundaries, and can list people as
terrorists and freeze their assests based on secret information.
> The rest of it, I will bite my tongue. Don't want to play politics
> tonight.
Too late, you already did! ;-)