IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution
Jim Oberg
Rather than hurried improvisation, saving the crew of Apollo 13 took years
of preparation
By Stephen Cass [IEEE website has many illustrations and sidebar essays]
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/wonews/apr05/0405napola.html
13 April 2005-"Houston, we've had a problem."
Thirty-five years ago today, these words marked the start of a crisis
that nearly killed three astronauts in outer space. In the four days that
followed, the world was transfixed as the crew of Apollo 13-Jim Lovell, Fred
Haise, and Jack Swigert-fought cold, fatigue, and uncertainty to bring their
crippled spacecraft home.
But the crew had an angel on their shoulders-in fact thousands of
them-in the form of the flight controllers of NASA's mission control and
supporting engineers scattered across the United States.
To the outsider, it looked like a stream of engineering miracles was
being pulled out of some magician's hat as mission control identified,
diagnosed, and worked around life-threatening problem after life-threatening
problem on the long road back to Earth.
From the navigation of a badly damaged spacecraft to impending carbon
dioxide poisoning, NASA's ground team worked around the clock to give the
Apollo 13 astronauts a fighting chance. But what was going on behind the
doors of the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston-now Lyndon B. Johnson Space
Center-wasn't a trick, or even a case of engineers on an incredible lucky
streak. It was the manifestation of years of training, teamwork, discipline,
and foresight that to this day serves as a perfect example of how to do
high-risk endeavors right.
Many people are familiar with Apollo 13, thanks to the 1995 Ron Howard
movie of the same name. But as Howard himself was quick to point out when
the movie was released, it is a dramatization, not a documentary, and many
of the elements that mark the difference between Hollywood and real life are
omitted or altered. For this 35th anniversary of Apollo 13, IEEE Spectrum
spoke to some of the key figures in mission control to get the real story of
how they saved the day.
etc
Derek Lyons
>IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution
>
>Rather than hurried improvisation, saving the crew of Apollo 13 took years
>of preparation
>By Stephen Cass [IEEE website has many illustrations and sidebar essays]
>
>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/wonews/apr05/0405napola.html
Well worth reading, but little not long since discussed here. (The
views of the LM guys are however well worth reading, as we've heard
less from them than from the CSM guys.)
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Scott Hedrick
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:425e0331...@supernews.seanet.com...
>(The
> views of the LM guys are however well worth reading, as we've heard
> less from them than from the CSM guys.)
Didn't you see Apollo 13? The LM guys are goofy doofuses, either bad
bastards back in Mission Control, or math-deficient hicks in the spacecraft.
Mike Flugennock
<din...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> bastards back in Mission Control, or math-deficient hicks in the spacecraft...
...as opposed to E2M, which depicts the LM guys as a band of noble genius
buccaneers living on the edge, and the LM as "engineering with soul". I
wonder, in all the ALSJ transcripts, there isn't at least one instance in
each of those missions where the crew didn't bid some sentimental farewell
to the LM.
Still, it's been a while since I've seen "Apollo 13", so I can't really
argue whether or not the LM guys in MC, or the LMP himself, were portrayed
badly.
--
"All over, people changing their votes,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
___________________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <7lv43nn0c5-19...@192.168.1.3>):
> Still, it's been a while since I've seen "Apollo 13", so I can't really
> argue whether or not the LM guys in MC, or the LMP himself, were portrayed
> badly.
They were not. The Grumman corporate guy (a "suit") in MC was
portrayed as a weasel. Haise was portrayed very sympathetically -
arguably Bill Paxton's best performance since Private Hudson the space
Marine in "Aliens" ("Game over, man! Game over!")
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.angryherb.net>
Sy Liebergot
Jim O is a dear and respected friend and I appreciate him posting the
IEEE Spectrum story. It's one of the rare times that the LM Flight
Controllers have some of their stories told. IMHO I believe Stephen
Cass did a wonderful job squeezing this story down to the imposed 3,000
word limit.
Sy Liebergot "Apollo EECOM: Journey Of A Lifetime"
[urlwww.apolloeecom.com[/url]
--
Sy Liebergot
Stuf4
> > http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/wonews/apr05/0405napola.html
> Jim O is a dear and respected friend and I appreciate him posting the
> IEEE Spectrum story. It's one of the rare times that the LM Flight
> Controllers have some of their stories told. IMHO I believe Stephen
> Cass did a wonderful job squeezing this story down to the imposed
3,000
> word limit.
I would be very interested to hear how you feel about that article's
repeated use of the word "explosion".
I have a hunch that Balok would have objected.
~ CT
Sy Liebergot
Stuf4 Wrote:
> From Sy Liebergot:--
> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/wonews/apr05/0405napola.html--
> -
> Jim O is a dear and respected friend and I appreciate him posting the
> IEEE Spectrum story. It's one of the rare times that the LM Flight
> Controllers have some of their stories told. IMHO I believe Stephen
> 3,000-
> word limit.-
>
> I would be very interested to hear how you feel about that article's
> repeated use of the word "explosion".
>
> I have a hunch that Balok would have objected.
>
>
> ~ CT
The word "explosion appears 19X.
Explosion
1. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and
often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually
with the release of gases.
2. A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure.
3. The loud, sharp sound made as a result of either of these actions.
What's your point? It was indeed an explosion.
Balok was an alien.
--
Sy Liebergot
Stuf4
Au Contraire, my understanding of the facts is that it was not an
explosion. Consider the quote that Cass himself provides in that IEEE
Spectrum article:
...
"there was a dull but definite bang-not much of
a vibration though...just a noise," said Apollo's 13's
commander, Lovell, afterward.
And here are some pertinent quotes from NASA's official "REPORT OF
APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD" (http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch1.pdf) that
have been posted:
"It is now clear that oxygen tank no. 2 or its associated tubing
lost pressure integrity because of combustion within the tank,
and that effects of oxygen escaping from the tank caused the
removal of the panel covering bay 4 and a relatively slow leak
in oxygen tank no. 1 or its lines or valves."
"After the relatively slow propagation process ... took
place, there was a relatively abrupt loss of oxygen tank no. 2
integrity. About 69 seconds after the pressure began to rise, it
reached the peak recorded, 1008 psia, the pressure at which the
cryogenic oxygen tank relief valve is designed to be fully open.
Pressure began a decrease for 8 seconds, dropping to 996 psia
before readings were lost."
"27. Findings
a. The pressure relief valve was designed to be fully open at
about 1000 psi.
b. Oxygen tank no. 2 telemetry showed a pressure drop from
1008 psia at 55:54:45 to 996 psia at 55:54:53, at which time
telemetry data were lost.
Determination
This drop resulted from the normal operation of the pressure
relief valve as verified in subsequent tests."
>From p5-22, http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch5.pdf
____
Loss of O2 due to "normal operation of the pressure relief valve"
contrasts sharply with the standard story that "the tank exploded"...
Or as Cass writes on the sidebar of his article:
The resulting fire sent pressures within the tank through the
roof, and the tank blew up.
(http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/wonews/apr05/0405napolasb1.html)
I hope we can find agreement about the facts of the nature of the
Apollo 13 tank failure so that we can move forward to discussing the
ramifications of those facts. I don't know enough about the story of
those tanks to know the exact details, but I haven't ruled out the use
of Corbomite in the manufacturing...
~ CT
Derek Lyons
>I hope we can find agreement about the facts of the nature
>of the Apollo 13 tank failure
No, we will not agree with your attempts to re-define the English
language.
>so that we can move forward to discussing the ramifications
>of those facts.
The ramifications are well known. We have no need of your usual
attempts to twist reality.
>I don't know enough about the story of those tanks to know the
>exact details, but I haven't ruled out the use of Corbomite in
>the manufacturing...
Try reading the accident reports.
Stuf4
>From Derek Lyons:
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote:
> >I hope we can find agreement about the facts of the nature
> >of the Apollo 13 tank failure
>
> No, we will not agree with your attempts to re-define the English
> language.
>
> >so that we can move forward to discussing the ramifications
> >of those facts.
>
> The ramifications are well known. We have no need of your usual
> attempts to twist reality.
>
> >I don't know enough about the story of those tanks to know the
> >exact details, but I haven't ruled out the use of Corbomite in
> >the manufacturing...
>
> Try reading the accident reports.
If anyone can show me where in the accident reports it states that the
tank exploded, I would greatly appreciate it.
~ CT
Scott Hedrick
"Sy Liebergot" <Sy.Lieber...@spacebanter.com> wrote in message
news:Sy.Lieber...@spacebanter.com...
> What's your point? It was indeed an explosion.
Sy, ol' chap, you're dealing with Stuffie- the presence of a point in his
diatribe would be nothing more than a distraction.
You'll save a great deal of time and effort adding him to a killfile. Reason
only works on someone inclined to be reasonable.
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <1114564508.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
> If anyone can show me where in the accident reports it states that the
> tank exploded, I would greatly appreciate it.
Knowing how much you enjoy semantics, etymology and semiotics, perhaps
you should devote a little study to the meaning and colloquial usage of
"Usenet troll" instead. :-/
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Stuf4
>> What's your point? It was indeed an explosion.
>
> Sy, ol' chap, you're dealing with Stuffie- the presence of a point in
his
> diatribe would be nothing more than a distraction.
>
> You'll save a great deal of time and effort adding him to a killfile.
Reason
> only works on someone inclined to be reasonable.
We wouldn't want to confuse anyone with *facts*, now would we.
~ CT
OM
<herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>Knowing how much you enjoy semantics, etymology and semiotics, perhaps
>you should devote a little study to the meaning and colloquial usage of
> "Usenet troll" instead. :-/
...Which brings us to a public service announcement that hasn't been
needed around here for a while. Newbies, please add "Stuff4" and
whatever his current e-mail address is to your killfiles. CT is
nothing but a troll, and if you've got the stomach to google his
posts, you'll find he's a former Lockmart contractor who's disgruntled
about his position in life and employment, and seeks to take his
hatred of his lack of status out on us. Just send the lying little
bastard to killfile hell and don't respond to his drivel in the
future. We'll be better off for it.
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
<din...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>You'll save a great deal of time and effort adding him to a killfile. Reason
>only works on someone inclined to be reasonable.
...Ease off Sy, kids. I advised him regarding CT this afternoon. He's
already taken care of it, so let's just drop the thread and let
Stuffie wank by himself once again.
Stuf4
> Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>>> If anyone can show me where in the accident reports it states that
the
>>> tank exploded, I would greatly appreciate it.
>
>> Knowing how much you enjoy semantics, etymology and semiotics,
perhaps
>> you should devote a little study to the meaning and colloquial usage
of
>> "Usenet troll" instead. :-/
>
>
> 1. To release mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy by the
> sudden production of gases in a confined space: The bomb
> exploded.
> 2. To burst violently as a result of internal pressure.
>
> From the Apollo 13 Review Board (Cortright Commission)
>
> The relatively sudden, and possibly violent, event associated
> with loss of integrity of the oxygen tank no. 2 system could
> have ruptured a line to oxygen tank no. 1, or have caused a
> valve to leak because of mechanical shock.
>
> Etc.
This is exactly the issue. Where is the evidence that the tank's "loss
of integrity" was a violent explosion? For example, consider the info
from Finding #31 (p5-24, http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch5.pdf):
"...the body-mounted linear accelerometers in the command module, which
are sampled at 100 times per second, began indicating spacecraft
motions. These disturbances were erratic, but reached peak values of
1.17g, 0.65g, and 0.65g in the X, Y, and Z directions, respectively,
about 13 milliseconds before data loss."
"... These disturbances were reactions resulting from failure and
venting of the oxygen tank no. 2 system and subsequent separation and
ejection of the bay 4 panel."
If anyone reads this report and arrives at the definitive conclusion
that the O2 tank exploded, I'd like to know how you got there. As I've
stated on this forum many moons ago, I learned this information by
talking face-to-face with a person who was a key member of this
investigation board having a solid background in chemistry and physics.
I still have my notes from those lengthy discussions.
~ CT
Stuf4
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:56 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
><dine...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>You'll save a great deal of time and effort adding him to a killfile.
Reason
>>only works on someone inclined to be reasonable.
>
> ...Ease off Sy, kids. I advised him regarding CT this afternoon. He's
> already taken care of it, so let's just drop the thread and let
> Stuffie wank by himself once again.
...or maybe he recognizes that as a key person involved with this
incident, he is in a great position to clear up popular misconceptions.
~ CT
Stuf4
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:55:23 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >Knowing how much you enjoy semantics, etymology and semiotics,
perhaps
> >you should devote a little study to the meaning and colloquial usage
of
> > "Usenet troll" instead. :-/
>
> ...Which brings us to a public service announcement that hasn't been
> needed around here for a while. Newbies, please add "Stuff4" and
> whatever his current e-mail address is to your killfiles. CT is
> nothing but a troll, and if you've got the stomach to google his
> posts, you'll find he's a former Lockmart contractor who's
disgruntled
> about his position in life and employment, and seeks to take his
> hatred of his lack of status out on us. Just send the lying little
> bastard to killfile hell and don't respond to his drivel in the
> future. We'll be better off for it.
If I was disgruntled about my position in life and employment, I don't
see why I would continue doing what I'm doing and having so much fun at
it. And I probably wouldn't have gone to the Open House last Saturday
to peruse the space center and see my friends in Max-Q performing...
Also on Saturday I was visiting with one of NASA's most experienced
astronauts at his beautiful lakeside house.
These are all tidbits that I have little interest in dwelling on.
There are much more engaging topics beside my personal career or social
life. How bout focusing on facts at hand regarding Apollo 13?
(I'm suggesting that we discuss space history here at this space
history forum.)
~ CT
Stuf4
> Xxxxxi wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> That note wasn't for you.
Encryption is one alternative available for those who desire to post in
public while reaching an exclusive audience.
~ CT
Stuf4
interesting quote from Steve Hirshorn posted a decade ago, after saying
that he had thoroughly investigated the incident as a Shuttle Flight
Controller responsible for EECOM stuff:
"The tank didn't exactly explode, but the
heat degraded the structural properties of the tank dome and it failed,
causing an explosive decompression of the tank."
The title he chose for the thread was:
"Facts on Apollo 13 Explosion"
Link to the full thread:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/browse_frm/thread/dcebbfe243813f3e/6b46c5d127d6fe41#6b46c5d127d6fe41
I'm guessing that you know Steven.
~ CT
Derek Lyons
>(I'm suggesting that we discuss space history here at this space
>history forum.)
The rest of us *are* discussing space history.
*You* are bragging about what you (supposedly) have done, and are
indulging in your usual penchant for attempting to redirect the
discussion away from actual facts and into your twisted world where
you attempt to redefine language and reality.
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <1114568155....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
> We wouldn't want to confuse anyone with *facts*, now would we.
While you're researching the semiotics of "Usenet troll", add "irony"
to your list of topics to consider further.
Stuf4
>
> The previous message was intended for everyone but you.
>
> This message is intended solely for you.
I would be glad to continue an exchange with anyone willing to discuss
facts about Apollo 13. (An insult-free exchange is preferred.)
~ CT
Stuf4
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >(I'm suggesting that we discuss space history here at this space
> >history forum.)
>
> The rest of us *are* discussing space history.
>
> *You* are bragging about what you (supposedly) have done, and are
> indulging in your usual penchant for attempting to redirect the
> discussion away from actual facts and into your twisted world where
> you attempt to redefine language and reality.
The facts regarding the nature of the Apollo 13 tank rupture have been
presented. If you would like to discuss space history, perhaps you'd
like to expand on your previous contributions:
"The ramifications are well known."
"Try reading the accident reports."
~ CT
Stuf4
> Xxxxi wrote:
>
> > Also on Saturday I was visiting with one of NASA's most experienced
> > astronauts at his beautiful lakeside house.
>
> > These are all tidbits that I have little interest in dwelling on.
> > There are much more engaging topics beside my personal career or
social
> > life.
>
Again, insults are not necessary. I would like to see this thread
regain focus on the topic at hand: The Apollo 13 situation.
~ CT
Stuf4
> > We wouldn't want to confuse anyone with *facts*, now would we.
>
> While you're researching the semiotics of "Usenet troll", add "irony"
> to your list of topics to consider further.
If anyone does not agree with the facts as presented, it would be
excellent to see more facts to help us reach a complete story about
Apollo 13. I for one am not satisfied with the version that is
popularly accepted (now even espoused by the technically reknown
I-triple-E).
~ CT
Scott Hedrick
"rk" <stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns964548...@216.196.97.136...
> Xxxxi wrote:
>
> > Also on Saturday I was visiting with one of NASA's most experienced
> > astronauts at his beautiful lakeside house.
>
> > These are all tidbits that I have little interest in dwelling on.
> > There are much more engaging topics beside my personal career or social
> > life.
>
Well, I supposed that might be worse than his copier needing more paper :)
Scott Hedrick
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42704a0...@supernews.seanet.com...
> *You* are bragging about what you (supposedly) have done
While at the same time proving unable to provide the least bit of verifiable
evidence to support any of those claims.
Derek, why haven't you killfiled Stuffie?
Also, how's GMail working for you?
Stuf4
> "rk" <stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote
> > Xxxxi wrote:
> >
> > > Also on Saturday I was visiting with one of NASA's most
experienced
> > > astronauts at his beautiful lakeside house.
> >
> > > These are all tidbits that I have little interest in dwelling on.
> > > There are much more engaging topics beside my personal career or
social
> > > life.
> >
> > OK, so his stuffed toilet needed fixin'.
>
> Well, I supposed that might be worse than his copier needing more
paper :)
A quote to consider here:
"If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets
even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven played music, or Shakespeare
wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of
heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper
who did his job well."
(MLK's sentiments can be extended to plumbers as well as EECOMs.)
~ CT
OM
<din...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>Derek, why haven't you killfiled Stuffie?
...My sentiments exactly. Five years of his trolling, and he's proven
nothing but the fact that he's a contemptable, despicable, worthless
waste of human corpulence *and* bandwidth.
Stuf4
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:35:11 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> <din...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
> >Derek, why haven't you killfiled Stuffie?
>
> ...My sentiments exactly. Five years of his trolling, and he's proven
> nothing but the fact that he's a contemptable, despicable, worthless
> waste of human corpulence *and* bandwidth.
What is being written off in this thread as "trolling", I happen to see
as solid facts, as documented in the official mishap report. I'm not
aware of a single place where that report concludes that the O2 tank
exploded. References provided indicate otherwise.
...and to regain perspective on how non-catastrophic the failure was,
let's recall that Lovell had thought that the disturbance was caused by
one of his crewmates goofing off.
I for one vote that we all stop calling the incident an explosion.
(For anyone who feels otherwise, please provide supporting evidence.)
~ CT
Derek Lyons
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:42704a0...@supernews.seanet.com...
>> *You* are bragging about what you (supposedly) have done
>
>While at the same time proving unable to provide the least bit of verifiable
>evidence to support any of those claims.
>
>Derek, why haven't you killfiled Stuffie?
I actually killfile few trolls - someone must occasionally take them
to task to remind newer readers who should be killfiled. (And I'm
afraid more than a few may have killfiled OM due to his ah...
colorful posting style.)
>Also, how's GMail working for you?
Not too bad, it's been hard to get used to it as the interface is
quite different than Yahoo!.
OM
wrote:
>I actually killfile few trolls - someone must occasionally take them
>to task to remind newer readers who should be killfiled. (And I'm
>afraid more than a few may have killfiled OM due to his ah...
>colorful posting style.)
...Their inability to distinguish between my postings and that of an
obvious troll is their fault *and* their problem, not mine.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...Their inability to distinguish between my postings and that of an
>obvious troll is their fault *and* their problem, not mine.
>
>
Completely unrelated, but did WalMart ever get you the video of the car
going up in flames? I'd really like to see that. :-)
Everybody gets bitten by CT once, as sort of an initiation rite of entry
to the newsgroup. He no doubt noted that there were new people showing
up recently, and decided he had fertile ground on which to spread a
little of his BS. In fact, has anyone noticed that just like 2001's HAL
and IBM, there is an alphabetical relationship between BS and CT? :-D
Pat
OM
wrote:
>Completely unrelated, but did WalMart ever get you the video of the car
>going up in flames? I'd really like to see that. :-)
...I was afraid you were going to bring that up. The camera pointing
towards the car didn't get a good view as the car was out of frame
enough that the only thing it got was the smoke as it filled the
parking lot. Then the fire truck pulled up and blocked everything
else.
...Incedentally, the pictures are now online on OMWorld:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld
...Click on the Photo Gallery button to get to the main Gallery page,
and surf from there.
...Of course, my blog is online too, along with some initial
commentary about last weekend's JSC Open House. Enjoy!
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <1114664364.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
> OM wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:35:11 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
>> <din...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Derek, why haven't you killfiled Stuffie?
>>
>> ...My sentiments exactly. Five years of his trolling, and he's proven
>> nothing but the fact that he's a contemptable, despicable, worthless
>> waste of human corpulence *and* bandwidth.
>
> What is being written off in this thread as "trolling", I happen to see
> as solid facts, as documented in the official mishap report. I'm not
> aware of a single place where that report concludes that the O2 tank
> exploded. References provided indicate otherwise.
References provided to usage of the English language prove you're up
to your usual games with regard to semantics and etymology. Grow up
and stop trolling.
> ...and to regain perspective on how non-catastrophic the failure was,
> let's recall that Lovell had thought that the disturbance was caused by
> one of his crewmates goofing off.
He thought someone was cycling the cabin repress valve, didn't he? A
loud, banging sound to be sure.
> I for one vote that we all stop calling the incident an explosion.
You're out-voted.
> (For anyone who feels otherwise, please provide supporting evidence.)
>
Done by others already. Grow up.
Stuf4
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:59:24 -0500, Stuf4 wrote
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:35:11 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> >> <din...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Derek, why haven't you killfiled Stuffie?
> >>
> >> ...My sentiments exactly. Five years of his trolling, and he's
proven
> >> nothing but the fact that he's a contemptable, despicable,
worthless
> >> waste of human corpulence *and* bandwidth.
> >
> > What is being written off in this thread as "trolling", I happen to
see
> > as solid facts, as documented in the official mishap report. I'm
not
> > aware of a single place where that report concludes that the O2
tank
> > exploded. References provided indicate otherwise.
>
> References provided to usage of the English language prove you're up
> to your usual games with regard to semantics and etymology. Grow up
> and stop trolling.
I happen to consider this point to be critical to space history. If
the tank did explode, why didn't the Review Board just say so? Is this
really a semantics game? Then why were they playing it back in 1970?
There are hundreds of references in popular literature that will tell
you that the tank exploded. But the Review Board, if they believed
this, was amazingly cryptic in communicating that simple statement:
The tank exploded.
> > ...and to regain perspective on how non-catastrophic the failure
was,
> > let's recall that Lovell had thought that the disturbance was
caused by
> > one of his crewmates goofing off.
>
> He thought someone was cycling the cabin repress valve, didn't he? A
> loud, banging sound to be sure.
>
> > I for one vote that we all stop calling the incident an explosion.
>
> You're out-voted.
That would depend on how heavily one weights the official word from the
Apollo 13 Review Board.
> > (For anyone who feels otherwise, please provide supporting
evidence.)
> >
>
> Done by others already. Grow up.
The most substantial statement I've seen here is:
"It was indeed an explosion."
If anyone has voiced compelling support for that position, I have yet
to see it. And if we've run out of ideas from the official report, I
would gladly consider other sources.
> --
> Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin,
1759
> <http://www.individual-i.com/>
What I've seen of that website looks excellent, including this quote:
"This icon - the Individual-i - represents the rights of the
individual.
It represents the right to privacy and anonymity in the information
age."
~ CT
Scott Hedrick
> Now, you were the one who introduced claims of and bragging about
"visiting
> with one of NASA's most experienced astronauts ..." and you have made lots
of
> ambiguous claims/brags over the years, which are unverifiable. So you can
> either back that claim up or not -- it's your topic.
Since Stuffie saw fit to bring it up, *privacy* is not an issue. All Stuffie
has to do to gain some credibility is *provide the name of the astronaut in
question* and *information regarding the date and time of the visit*. If in
fact you had a conversation with this astronaut on the subject at hand and
offered any meaningful contribution to the conversation, the astronaut in
question should remember you. If he was at the designated time and place but
doesn't remember you, then it's clear that, at best, you were a fanboy
hoping to absorb some of the aura of being an astronaut and had no real
conversation. Note that a "Hi, who do I make this out to?" does not
constitute a real conversation or even *notice* from the astronaut in
question.
Stuffie, who did you talk to? Where? When?
If you won't answer, then it's yet another lie on your end. I can actually
document my meeting with Tom Stafford in 1992, where I engaged in a real
conversation with him (and got some autographs as well). After 13 years
(savor the irony!) I wouldn't expect him to remember. What, did this guy
visit your high school or something?
Stuf4
> "rk" <stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote
> > Now, you were the one who introduced claims of and bragging about
If you're going to start of with the premise that I am lying, then I
don't see much point in trying to convince you otherwise. Kinda like
spending lots of energy with the folks who believe that NASA is lying
about going to the Moon.
Now I find it curious to see the level of effort put into this thread
to provide support for the position that the A13 tank exploded.
I've had excellent talks with Jim Lovell. Now I could spend my energy
in trying to prove that I did, by mailing photos of me with him or
showing my neat Moon globe that both he and his wife were nice enough
to sign, highlighting the location of "Mt Marilyn". I have actually
met face to face with several members of this forum on repeated
occasions and I have even shared personal photos of some of the fun
stuff I've done. But it wasn't for the purpose of proving anything.
If this forum was to learn that my job entails working side-by-side
with astronauts and that I am friends with many of them, having
relationships that go back to long before they became astronauts, even
as far back to being school classmates, then what would that change?
It has no effect whatsoever on the validity of the facts presented
about Apollo 13.
I find it a sad statement about how this forum operates that there is
little focus on the space history issue that has been raised. I am
imagining that there are more than a few members who have actually
decided to read the report of the Review Board to discover for
themselves the scarcity of the use of the word explosion. Instead of
voicing agreement, the strategy becomes a turn to ad hominem attacks.
I have seen this type of thing happen so many times here...
~ CT
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
>Stuffie, who did you talk to? Where? When?
>
>If you won't answer, then it's yet another lie on your end. I can actually
>document my meeting with Tom Stafford in 1992, where I engaged in a real
>conversation with him (and got some autographs as well). After 13 years
>(savor the irony!) I wouldn't expect him to remember. What, did this guy
>visit your high school or something?
>
>
The whole thing smacks of the Judica-Cordiglia brothers meeting with
that NASA official they couldn't seem to remember the last name of at
the NASA "Blossom Hill" facility that didn't exist.
Although, intriguingly, there was a grade school of that name in the
vicinity...so you might be on the something here. :-)
Pat
OM
wrote:
>The whole thing smacks of the Judica-Cordiglia brothers meeting with
>that NASA official they couldn't seem to remember the last name of at
>the NASA "Blossom Hill" facility that didn't exist.
...You know, the irony of it all is this: Geo's spent years trying to
sell the J-C brothers' scam, and now he's trying to do the same for
the Shroud of Turin. Both scams are affiliated with persons whose
initials are J and C.
Too bad Johnny Cochran is dead, because he could have represented Geo
after he appeared on the Johnny Carson show and got into a fist fight
with a steroid-blized Jose Canseco...
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...You know, the irony of it all is this: Geo's spent years trying to
>sell the J-C brothers' scam, and now he's trying to do the same for
>the Shroud of Turin. Both scams are affiliated with persons whose
>initials are J and C.
>
>
Wait a minute... James...the brother of Jesus! Ziggy H. Christ...His
vanished uncle! Marti Magdalene... His missing sister in law!
It's time for "The Lost Messiahs Website"!
>Too bad Johnny Cochran is dead, because he could have represented Geo
>after he appeared on the Johnny Carson show and got into a fist fight
>with a steroid-blized Jose Canseco...
>
>
It's kind of like Superman and that "LL" thing, isn't it? :-\
Pat
OM
<stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote:
>Stuf4 wrote:
>
>> (I'm suggesting that we discuss space history here at this space
>> history forum.)
>
>(Please start, it will be a nice change after the years you have abused this
>forum)
...Rich, you guys always jump my shit when the topic of ***n *****n
and his b*****d ***s, ***l and *****l are addressed in my own specific
ways. How about you killfiling this particular little troll once and
for all? Enough is enough.
OM
<stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote:
>> I've had excellent talks with Jim Lovell.
>
>Ooooh, name dropping so more.
...This implies two things:
1) "talks" is plural.
2) "plural" implies that Jim Lovell just might know who CT really is.
...So, anyone wish to contact Jim directly and see if he can come up
with a list of names of those he's discussed these topics with on more
than one occasion? That should help us either:
a) Narrow down who CT really is, thus facilitating efforts to have him
banned from usenet by Google Groups, his ISP, and anyone else foolish
enough to give him access.
b) Prove once and for all he's a fraud with documentation that can be
simply posted here on a regular basis so the newbies can see who needs
to be killfiled.
...In the meantime...Rich? Just killfile the dogsucking troll and put
him out of our misery, please?
Stuf4
> OM wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:12:02 -0500, rk
> > <stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Stuf4 wrote:
> >>
> >>> (I'm suggesting that we discuss space history here at this space
> >>> history forum.)
> >>
> >>(Please start, it will be a nice change after the years you have
abused
> >>this forum)
> >
> > ...Rich, you guys always jump my shit when the topic of ***n *****n
> > and his b*****d ***s, ***l and *****l are addressed in my own
specific
> > ways. How about you killfiling this particular little troll once
and
> > for all? Enough is enough.
>
>
> Well, s/h/it is doing the usual insulting away and slamming from the
> chickenshit shadow of anonymity (see .shuttle).
I note the distinction btwn being anonymous vs using a pseudonym. I
note also the irony in that "ct" is a two letter pair from the
alphabet. Examples of other two letter pairs are "rk", "om" etc.
Regarding the need for privacy in the information age, excellent info
can be found at this site promoted by Herb:
<http://www.individual-i.com/>
> I spent a few minutes
> researching his latest "injustice against humanity" and it was easily
> disproved in < five minutes. S/h/it knows that I know -- so looks
like we're
> done here with this "issue." Sounds to me like s/h/it just couldn't
cut the
> mustard and is bitter and angry at others who could for his/her/its
own
> failure. Probably no problem with cheese though. :-)
I note here the lack of substance in this attempt at rebuttal of key
points presented.
Regarding the sentiments of bitterness and anger, one way that such
unhealthy feelings are communicated is through the use of insults,
degradation and profanity.
> --
> rk, Just an OldEngineer
> "These are highly complicated pieces of equipment almost as
complicated as
> living organisms. In some cases, they've been designed by other
computers. We
> don't know exactly how they work."
> -- Scientist in Michael Crichton's 1973 movie, Westworld
An interesting tangent to this Westworld quote is that the sequel,
titled "Futureworld" was filmed at JSC during the lull between
Apollo-Soyuz and Shuttle. If you really want to have fun at JSC, sneak
down into the tunnels and run around like they do in the movie!
For a tangent to the tangent, Futureworld costar, Blythe Danner, had
her daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow, a few years before the release of the
film. So one might imagine that Gwyneth was nursed at JSC.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming...
~ CT
Stuf4
> > I would be glad to continue an exchange with anyone willing to
discuss
> > facts about Apollo 13. (An insult-free exchange is preferred.)
>
> Fact: Cortright says it exploded. (Too bad)
An excellent way to substantiate that statement would be to provide a
specific reference. This thread has a notable absence of any direct
quote of Cortright using that word.
~ CT
Stuf4
> >> From dictionary.com -- explode:
> >>
> >> 1. To release mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy by the
> >> sudden production of gases in a confined space: The bomb
> >> exploded.
> >> 2. To burst violently as a result of internal pressure.
> >>
> >> From the Apollo 13 Review Board (Cortright Commission)
> >>
> >> The relatively sudden, and possibly violent, event associated
> >> with loss of integrity of the oxygen tank no. 2 system could
> >> have ruptured a line to oxygen tank no. 1, or have caused a
> >> valve to leak because of mechanical shock.
> >>
> >> Etc.
> >
> > This is exactly the issue. Where is the evidence that the tank's
"loss
> > of integrity" was a violent explosion? For example, consider the
info
> > from Finding #31 (p5-24, http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch5.pdf):
> >
> > "...the body-mounted linear accelerometers in the command module,
which
> > are sampled at 100 times per second, began indicating spacecraft
> > motions. These disturbances were erratic, but reached peak values
of
> > 1.17g, 0.65g, and 0.65g in the X, Y, and Z directions,
respectively,
> > about 13 milliseconds before data loss."
> >
> > "... These disturbances were reactions resulting from failure and
> > venting of the oxygen tank no. 2 system and subsequent separation
and
> > ejection of the bay 4 panel."
> >
> > If anyone reads this report and arrives at the definitive
conclusion
> > that the O2 tank exploded, I'd like to know how you got there. As
I've
> > stated on this forum many moons ago, I learned this information by
> > talking face-to-face with a person who was a key member of this
> > investigation board having a solid background in chemistry and
physics.
> > I still have my notes from those lengthy discussions.
>
> More unverifiable babble.
>
> Provide the name of the person who you spoke with and the notes.
The position I've presented has been thoroughly supported by direct
quotes from the official NASA report. Links have been provided so that
anyone can examine their findings and conclusions for themselves. My
notes from discussions with that board member are all consistent with
what is published in that report.
Subsequent discussions that I've had with Jim Lovell, Gene Kranz, Chris
Kraft and others give me little to support this position as expressed
by the Review Board. And that's the whole point. The board said one
thing, but the popular story told by most everyone else paints a
distinctly different picture.
> I have notes from a discussion with Cortright.
If you'd like to share any addition information that was not published
in the report, I'd be glad to take that into consideration.
~ CT
Pat Flannery
rk wrote:
>
>
>>I have actually
>>met face to face with several members of this forum on repeated
>>occasions and I have even shared personal photos of some of the fun
>>stuff I've done. But it wasn't for the purpose of proving anything.
>>
>>
>
>And this paragraph also proves nothing other than you are evasive and
>~Constantly ~Trolling.
>
>
>
Hey...wait a second- this is something we can check on.
Who's met CT?
I haven't.
Anybody else here who has or hasn't?
Pat
Stuf4
I have met with at least five members of this forum. Came close to
meeting with another while traveling out of state.
Now as a follow up question...
Who is interested in pursuing the space history issue at hand?
~ CT
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
>
> >>From Herb Schaltegger:
> >> > We wouldn't want to confuse anyone with *facts*, now would we.
> >>
> >> While you're researching the semiotics of "Usenet troll", add
"irony"
> >
> >> to your list of topics to consider further.
> >
> > If anyone does not agree with the facts as presented,
>
> Cortright does not agree with you. I would not, however, refer to
your
> postings as "facts."
That word was used in reference to specific direct quotes provided from
the official report. (Links provided.)
Now while it is clear to me that certain people here have voiced
disagreement, I have yet to see inconsistency about this matter in the
offical report.
> > it would be
> > excellent to see more facts to help us reach a complete story about
> > Apollo 13. I for one am not satisfied with the version that is
> > popularly accepted (now even espoused by the technically reknown
> > I-triple-E).
>
> Your satisfaction is your own issue. Perhaps you ought to seek help?
If I saw the popular version of the story to be accurate, then I
wouldn't have this issue of dissatisfaction. Now if I felt that I had
some obligation to go around correcting people's misconceptions, then I
would feel the need to seek help to get that job done.
But that is not my purpose in these posts. I am not out to change
anyone's minds. My goal here is to share information with anyone who
may find that useful. I have consistently supported anyone's choice to
reject anything that I share. And for everyone who presents a view
that does not fit with my own, that gives me my own opportunity for
growth.
~ CT
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...Rich, you guys always jump my shit when the topic of ***n *****n
>and his b*****d ***s, ***l and *****l are addressed in my own specific
>ways. How about you killfiling this particular little troll once and
>for all? Enough is enough.
>
>
Did you ever meet CT?
I never met CT.
Would we _know_ if we met CT?
This may be more complex than I thought... we don't even know if CT is
male or female, do we?
We don't even know if CT is _human_ or not...that dog that's been
hanging around your neighborhood... that could be CT!
Maybe the person...or thing... posting as "James Oberg" is _really_ CT....
WE COULD _ALL_ BE CT!
WE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE HUMAN ANYMORE!!
WATCH THE SKIES!!! KEEP WATCHING THE SKIES!!!!
Pat
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
>
> >>From Scott Hedrick:
> >>> What's your point? It was indeed an explosion.
> >>
> >> Sy, ol' chap, you're dealing with Stuffie- the presence of a point
in
> >> his diatribe would be nothing more than a distraction.
> >>
> >> You'll save a great deal of time and effort adding him to a
killfile.
> >> Reason only works on someone inclined to be reasonable.
> >
> > We wouldn't want to confuse anyone with *facts*, now would we.
>
The most significant fact I've seen presented in rebuttal thus far is
the one you provided in quoting the Review Board:
The relatively sudden, and possibly violent, event associated
with loss of integrity of the oxygen tank no. 2 system could
have ruptured a line to oxygen tank no. 1, or have caused a
valve to leak because of mechanical shock.
I don't take that as factual support for an unqualified position that
the tank exploded. What I see the board saying here is that it is
*possible* that the tank exploded. (And I find it significant to note
that they selected words other than -explode-.)
~ CT
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
>
> >>From Sy Liebergot:
> >> >
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/wonews/apr05/0405napola.html
> >
> >> Jim O is a dear and respected friend and I appreciate him posting
the
> >> IEEE Spectrum story. It's one of the rare times that the LM Flight
> >> Controllers have some of their stories told. IMHO I believe
Stephen
> >> Cass did a wonderful job squeezing this story down to the imposed
> >> 3,000 word limit.
> >
> > I would be very interested to hear how you feel about that
article's
> > repeated use of the word "explosion".
> >
> > I have a hunch that Balok would have objected.
>
> I have a hunch that Cortright would not have objected.
Balok operated his spaceship singlehandedly. In such a situation it is
critical to distinguish between an explosion occuring within your
vessel versus a less catastrophic type of failure occurring.
Cortright faced a situation where many people were involved. Certain
members of that team were responsible for knowing the designed-in
failure modes of the O2 tank, among other systems. Having thoroughly
studied the matter, Cortright's folks went on record regarding the
nature of that failure. If Cortright himself "would not have
objected", we need not rely on any hunches. We have that record
readily available for all to examine.
In my own examination, I have yet to find his consent to the
unconditional view that the tank exploded.
~ CT
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
<snip>
> > If you're going to start of with the premise that I am lying, then
I
> > don't see much point in trying to convince you otherwise.
>
> unverifiable claims, not backing them up, and then evading attempts
to verify
> them. I note that that long and established history continues. You
are
> history.
Consider the references offered to back up the main point I've
presented in this thread alone. Hard quotes from an official
investigation were presented and the vast majority of response to that
has been *noise*. THAT is what I see as typical of these sci.space
interactions.
> However, your "brush with greatness" and "insider information" type
of remarks
> have increased in frequency and magnitude. It is a trend.
For this topic, there is certain information that I wanted Sy Liebergot
to know about me.
I knew very well how it would be received by others here.
> > Kinda like
> > spending lots of energy with the folks who believe that NASA is
lying
> > about going to the Moon.
>
> Yes, discussing topics with you is similar to discussions with those
folks,
> although those folks will point to specifics that can be discussed
and do not
> twist words, abuse the English language, and make unverifiable and
insulting
> claims.
The point was that if a mind is closed, pursuing the goal of opening
that mind will typically result in lots of wasted effort.
> > Now I find it curious to see the level of effort put into this
thread
> > to provide support for the position that the A13 tank exploded.
>
> The level of effort to refute your claims about that was not high
since it did
> not take much effort.
>
> Most of your words are evasions and tangents so you should not expect
the bulk
> of the conversation to be on other topics, with respect to you.
Ironic that I see your comments here to be tangential because I have
yet to see a single statement that refutes the position that's been
presented.
> > I've had excellent talks with Jim Lovell.
>
> Ooooh, name dropping so more.
>
> Then again, from past experience it is known that one must parse your
> Clintonian sentences.
I fail to see how the mention of meetings with Jim Lovell gets
discounted as name dropping. I hope it's not just me who happens to
see him as a significant figure in the Apollo 13 saga.
> So it would be accurate to interpret your sentence as follows:
>
> I've had excellent talks with Jim Lovell in my fantasies.
>
> This is not inconsistent with your sentence and can be a true
statement. It
> is also consistent with Occam's Plunger.
I've had talks with him one-on-one. I asked questions. He gave
answers.
(For whatever this may or may not be worth to you.)
> > Now I could spend my energy
> > in trying to prove that I did, by mailing photos of me with him or
> > showing my neat Moon globe that both he and his wife were nice
enough
> > to sign, highlighting the location of "Mt Marilyn".
>
> No, you could spend a trivial amount of energy in doing so, there is
no need
> to spend your energy, implying all of it to do so. Yet you refuse to
do so,
> it appears, and that would be less energy than talking about how much
energy
> it would take. By refusing to verify your claim but claiming you
have the
> secret verification, you make yourself consistent with your history
as
> ~Constantly ~Trolling or as Pat has notices, or Right-Shift (BS).
If you prefer to believe that I have never met nor seen the man, I'm
totally fine with that. It does nothing to invalidate the argument
presented about O2 tank failure modes. This is the topic that I am
most interested in right now.
An added bonus in analyzing the official report is that it is written
in plain English. No letter shift decoding required!
> > I have actually
> > met face to face with several members of this forum on repeated
> > occasions and I have even shared personal photos of some of the fun
> > stuff I've done. But it wasn't for the purpose of proving
anything.
>
> And this paragraph also proves nothing other than you are evasive and
> ~Constantly ~Trolling.
How curious that I am taken to be the one who is acting evasively.
>From where I sit, I find myself making a strong effort to continually
bring the focus of these thread branches back to the original topic of
O2 tank failure.
> > If this forum was to learn that my job entails working side-by-side
> > with astronauts and that I am friends with many of them, having
> > relationships that go back to long before they became astronauts,
even
> > as far back to being school classmates, then what would that
change?
>
> Ooooh, another implied brush with greatness. You really feel the
need to
> brag. Do your [imagined] astronaut friends know you brag about
knowing them
> on the internet? What do your [imagined] astronaut friends say about
this?
I'm sure that all astronauts are well aware that they have friends who
talk about knowing them. The types of people who have a problem with
this are probably the ones who refuse to take the job in the first
place.
> The brackets around "imagine" may most likely be deleted; you imagine
things
> all of the time and write them down here.
I have lots of stories that I could be sharing here, but I obviously
temper that with the level of hostility that this forum is known for.
> This forum may or may not learn that information; it is irrelevant to
being
> true or not. See, we know how to read your ~Clintonian ~Trolls.
Again, if you want to reject everything I've posted, I totally support
your decision.
> > It has no effect whatsoever on the validity of the facts presented
> > about Apollo 13.
>
> The facts are well established.
>
> Your claims are not well established, not established at all, and you
refuse
> to provide data to verify your claims. You do provide ~Clintonian
~Trolls,
> however.
Should you choose to reject the statements of the Review Board as
provided, I totally support your decision there as well.
> > I find it a sad statement about how this forum operates that there
is
> > little focus on the space history issue that has been raised.
>
> The space history non-issue has been dispositioned. The sad part of
this
> forum is your ~Continuous ~Trolling.
I am voicing objection to this self-proclaimed disposition. There is a
minimum of one member of this forum who dissents from the popular
version of the Apollo 13 story. If you want to reject that dissent as
"trolling", I'm fine with that as well.
> > I am
> > imagining
>
> And there he goes again! Imagine away!! You're funny.
>
>
>
> > that there are more than a few members who have actually
> > decided to read the report of the Review Board to discover for
> > themselves the scarcity of the use of the word explosion.
>
> So what? You are making a lot of noise -- more than the explosion in
fact! --
> about a non-issue.
I have thus far withheld my main points about the Apollo 13 incident.
> > Instead of
> > voicing agreement, the strategy becomes a turn to ad hominem
attacks.
>
> Instead of providing verification for your claims, you turn to
~Clintonian
> ~Trolls and lamely "playing the victim."
>
>
> > I have seen this type of thing happen so many times here...
>
> So have we, as you are ... ~Constantly ~Trolling.
My goal here is to help improve our understanding of space history.
Obviously not the most popular goal. It is not uncommon for some to
feel threatened when the status quo is challenged.
~ CT
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <1114845378.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
> The most significant fact I've seen presented in rebuttal thus far is
> the one you provided in quoting the Review Board:
>
> The relatively sudden, and possibly violent, event associated
> with loss of integrity of the oxygen tank no. 2 system could
> have ruptured a line to oxygen tank no. 1, or have caused a
> valve to leak because of mechanical shock.
The (in)famous picture of the SM taken by the A13 crew prior to entry
provides more evidence than all your semiotic, definitional games ever
could.
Do grow up and stop trolling the group.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.individual-i.com/>
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <1114839035....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
> Regarding the need for privacy in the information age, excellent info
> can be found at this site promoted by Herb:
> <http://www.individual-i.com/>
And yet I post using my real name and anyone with access to the web can
figure out I'm for real. What about you, "CT" or "Stuf4" or whatever
else you want to call yourself? For that matter, Rich and Bob are
pretty easy to figure out, too, without a lot of fuss or muss. So why
the cloak and dagger routine, Stuffie? Afraid you'll be found out for
a fraud?
Stuf4
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:30:35 -0500, Stuf4 wrote
> (in article <1114839035....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > Regarding the need for privacy in the information age, excellent
info
> > can be found at this site promoted by Herb:
> > <http://www.individual-i.com/>
>
> And yet I post using my real name and anyone with access to the web
can
> figure out I'm for real. What about you, "CT" or "Stuf4" or whatever
> else you want to call yourself? For that matter, Rich and Bob are
> pretty easy to figure out, too, without a lot of fuss or muss. So
why
> the cloak and dagger routine, Stuffie? Afraid you'll be found out
for
> a fraud?
Would it matter if I was "a fraud"? The term -ad hominem- refers to a
*fallacy* of argument. It appears that this forum is incapable of
logically refuting the argument presented, so instead the vast majority
of posts in this thread have shifted the focus to the person presenting
the argument. Sad to know that this is a sci.space standard.
> --
> Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin,
1759
> <http://www.individual-i.com/>
Let's be clear that individual-i.com advocates "...the right to privacy
and anonymity in the information age."
~ CT
Terrell Miller
>>Hey...wait a second- this is something we can check on.
>>Who's met CT?
>>I haven't.
>>Anybody else here who has or hasn't?
>
>
> I have met with at least five members of this forum.
That's teh equivalent of "I have a list of names"...
Specifically *which* members of ssh?
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty"
-Paul Simon RE: George Harrison
Stuf4
> > The most significant fact I've seen presented in rebuttal thus far
is
> > the one you provided in quoting the Review Board:
> >
> > The relatively sudden, and possibly violent, event associated
> > with loss of integrity of the oxygen tank no. 2 system could
> > have ruptured a line to oxygen tank no. 1, or have caused a
> > valve to leak because of mechanical shock.
>
> The (in)famous picture of the SM taken by the A13 crew prior to entry
> provides more evidence than all your semiotic, definitional games
ever
> could.
What exactly does that picture prove? Check out this photo of the
aftermath of a panel that was blown off the CSM:
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/AS15-88-11974.jpg
There was definite concern about damage that may have been done to this
particular spacecraft, but subsequent to the jarring explosive event,
the Flight Director made the decision to continue the mission. Here's
how the conversation went:
CDR: "[I] felt a little shudder, but not too much."
CDR: "Okay, Houston. ...the fuel cells looked okay. The RCS Bravo
primary talkback went to barber pole and is reset, and otherwise no
reaction in here."
CAPCOM: "Roger... We copy. And we assume you didn't notice any debris
of any kind either."
CDR: "Nothing in particular, [LMP]'s got a visual now."
CAPCOM: "And...just out of interest, we saw a good healthy jolt in our
Doppler data down here during jett time."
CDR: "Gee, that's very interesting because I would say that the jolt in
here was very minor."
(Excerpts taken from:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/a15-stat-perf.htm)
> Do grow up and stop trolling the group.
If there is evidence of any damage to the SPS engine in that photo, I
would appreciate having it pointed out. I've looked and I haven't seen
it. Obviously we have proof that a panel blown off from the CSM, in
and of itself, does not necessitate aborting the mission.
~ CT
Dave Michelson
>
>> I have met with at least five members of this forum.
>
> That's teh equivalent of "I have a list of names"...
>
> Specifically *which* members of ssh?
Terrell,
Do you really expect an answer? He's trolling. You bit. Ignore him.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Stuf4
> Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:30:35 -0500, Stuf4 wrote
> > (in article
<1114839035....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
> >
> >> Regarding the need for privacy in the information age, excellent
info
> >> can be found at this site promoted by Herb:
> >> <http://www.individual-i.com/>
> >
> > And yet I post using my real name and anyone with access to the web
can
> > figure out I'm for real. What about you, "CT" or "Stuf4" or
whatever
> > else you want to call yourself? For that matter, Rich and Bob are
> > pretty easy to figure out, too, without a lot of fuss or muss. So
why
> > the cloak and dagger routine, Stuffie? Afraid you'll be found out
for
> > a fraud?
>
There is a distinction between keeping a secret versus maintaining
privacy. That distinction is found in the audience's need to know. I
am aware of no requirement whatsoever for me to share my legal name on
Usenet (let alone my home address or other personal information like is
done by some at times).
> I'm no coward throwing stones at people while hiding in the shadows
like a
> coward.
I see my actions as -turning stones-. I avoid the use of insults in my
exchanges, regardless of how often stones may be thrown in my general
direction.
And I find it quite ironic to see certain participants of this thread
drop out with no explanation yet I am the one criticized for "hiding".
~ CT
OM
<mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Specifically *which* members of ssh?
...The M***** family, LaToilet, and Bbo Hallr do not count as ssh
members. Not even in a pig's eye.
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
>
> >>Hey...wait a second- this is something we can check on.
> >>Who's met CT?
> >>I haven't.
> >>Anybody else here who has or hasn't?
> >
> >
> > I have met with at least five members of this forum.
>
> That's teh equivalent of "I have a list of names"...
>
> Specifically *which* members of ssh?
At least one person I've met with has posted at least one comment to
sci.space about how laughable all these off-target criticisms of my
background are. I'd be glad to share a link to that comment in a
private email.
Now for anyone who would like to discuss issues about Apollo 13, I
would be very glad to do that publicly. SSH stands for
sci.space.history after all.
~ CT
Stuf4
> If there is evidence of any damage to the SPS engine in that photo, I
> would appreciate having it pointed out. I've looked and I haven't
seen
> it. Obviously we have proof that a panel blown off from the CSM, in
> and of itself, does not necessitate aborting the mission.
...more importantly in this case, A15/16/17 stand as proof that a panel
blown off does not, in and of itself, preclude the successful use of
the SPS engine or RCS thrusters.
~ CT
Pat Flannery
Terrell Miller wrote:
>
> That's teh equivalent of "I have a list of names"...
>
> Specifically *which* members of ssh?
Well, that's obvious... five of the lurkers of course.
You don't think they want their names bandied about, do you?
Their privacy must be respected. :-D
Pat
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <1114884294.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
> ..more importantly in this case, A15/16/17 stand as proof that a panel
> blown off does not, in and of itself, preclude the successful use of
> the SPS engine or RCS thrusters.
In the absence of the explosion of a cryogenic tank, of course. Need a
little context, Stuffie.
That qualifies as your last "d'uh" comment in my book.
<PLONK>
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <1114884036.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> At least one person I've met with has posted at least one comment to
> sci.space about how laughable all these off-target criticisms of my
> background are. I'd be glad to share a link to that comment in a
> private email.
Yeah, just a new twist on "the lurkers support me in email." :-/
If it was a publicly-posted comment to a Usenet group, post the link to
it publicly. Jeez, you can be difficult, can't you?
Pat Flannery
Dave Michelson wrote:
>
> Terrell,
>
> Do you really expect an answer? He's trolling. You bit. Ignore him.
>
I still want to see that list of card-carrying Capitalists in the State
Department.
This little Pinko Pixie Prevaricator hasn't produced that either.
"Yes" or "no" CT?
YES OR NO?
Don't wait for the translation! :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...The M***** family, LaToilet, and Bbo Hallr do not count as ssh
>members. Not even in a pig's eye.
>
>
Guth.
Pat
Dave Michelson
Heh. I would be satisfied with someone banging him on the head with a
shoe :-D
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Scott Hedrick
"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
in message news:4t16719p1gdjrhslv...@4ax.com...
>How about you killfiling this particular little troll once and
> for all? Enough is enough.
I killfiled Stuffie because I didn't want to see his nonsense. Some folks
who know better insist on quoting him. If they would just kill(file) him, I
wouldn't have to see his nonsense. I killfiled Windy because he insisted on
quoting Betty's Spawn, well after even he acknowledged it was pointless to
even try to have a discussion with "scott".
Until Stuffie starts producing verifiable information that acually supports
his claims, kill(file) him.
Scott Hedrick
> Stuf4 wrote:
>> I learned this information by
> > talking face-to-face with a person who was a key member of this
> > investigation board having a solid background in chemistry and physics.
> > I still have my notes from those lengthy discussions.
With those notes, it shouldn't be too hard to produce a verifiable name.
Scott Hedrick
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:1176c22...@corp.supernews.com...
> Did you ever meet CT?
> I never met CT.
> Would we _know_ if we met CT?
I did some work on my lawn recently. When I picked up a rock there was a
slug underneath it. I didn't get the slug's name- perhaps that's what
Stuffie considers a "meeting".
Scott Hedrick
> Stuf4 wrote:
> >> > We wouldn't want to confuse anyone with *facts*, now would we.
There is *absolutely no danger* that *you* will do so, since there's no
danger that *you* will ever produce any.
Scott Hedrick
> Stuf4 wrote:
> > If you're going to start of with the premise that I am lying, then I
> > don't see much point in trying to convince you otherwise.
I'm *not* starting with the premise you are lying. I'm saying that, if you
don't produce the name of the astronaut you spoke to and enough information
about the time, place and subject of the conversation so that the astronaut
in question can recall the conversation *and* verify that it proceeded as
you claim, *then* you'll be lying.
THe burden is on *you* to produce the name and conversation information. Why
are you finding it so difficult to provide this information? Since *you*
brought up the conversation and used it in a manner intended to give you
some credibility, *you* have eliminated privacy as an excuse for failing to
provide the information. It should be trivially easy for you to provide the
name of the astronaut you spoke to and enough information about the
conversation that the astronaut in question can recall it.
Stop whining, and back up your claim.
I spoke to Tom Stafford in early November, 1992, when he visited Gauss &
Sons Jewelers (who are still in business) at the Oaks Mall in Gainesville,
Florida. He was in town to promote Omega watches. At the time I talked to
him, I was one of four people, including him, in the room. I got a bit of
face time, an autographed picture and two SpaceShots cards signed- one of
the Apollo 10 group, and another of the Apollo 10 CSM in orbit around the
moon. He says he likes that shot because he took it. I asked him about an
"Abort-to-Surface" option, and while he laughed, it was obvious that he'd
been asked the question several times before. He had no regrets about not
landing, and he was never tempted, because he knew his ship simply could not
do it. After 13 years, and after asking the usual fanboy questions, I
wouldn't expect Tom Stafford to remember the conversation. I *do* regret
failing to take a camera, and not having enough imagination to buy a
disposable one. A few days later, there was a car show in Tampa which had a
Space Station Fred mockup on display, as well as other space doodads,
including a nicely done shuttle model on a rotating post, as well as a
Hummer (where I laughed at the exposed gears on the drive wheels, imagining
how long they would last driving through the sands of Iraq). Unfortunantly,
I've lost the microtape I made at the time, before I had a chance to dictate
it.
There's an example of the conversation I had with a real astronaut, *by
name*. Let's see you do likewise.
Pat Flannery
rk wrote:
>
>
>That is not ironic in my opinion. The secret for "rk" is that -- now sit down
>so this doesn't shock you too badly -- is that I go by two names, a first one
>and a last one, and use the first letter of each of them. Secret mystery
>solved!
>
>
Yes, CT... rk's real name is of course RadioKopf, just as OM's is OmniMind.
Yours is of course CockTease.
>And you're wrong again! This seems to happen a lot.
>
>It was not an attempt at rebuttal.
>
>And you presented no key points.
>
>And you're still an anonymous coward.
>
>
Don't you talk about CockTease that way! :-)
Pat
Rhonda Lea Kirk
"OM"
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_fac
ility.org> wrote in message
news:naq071h8i8n4ofugs...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:35:11 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> <din...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
> >Derek, why haven't you killfiled Stuffie?
>
> ...My sentiments exactly. Five years of his trolling,
and he's proven
> nothing but the fact that he's a contemptable,
despicable, worthless
> waste of human corpulence *and* bandwidth.
Dave Michelson
> Not "him", OM. "Her."
Rhonda,
OK, I'll bite. What's the deal?
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
OM
wrote:
>Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> Not "him", OM. "Her."
>
>OK, I'll bite. What's the deal?
...I suspect Rhon's implying that CT is female.
Andrew Gray
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 09:02:25 GMT, Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> Not "him", OM. "Her."
>>
>>OK, I'll bite. What's the deal?
>
> ...I suspect Rhon's implying that CT is female.
They teach 'em these subtle literary nuances real good in Texas, I see...
--
-Andrew Gray
andre...@dunelm.org.uk