Commentary: NASA must fight the forgetting -
Jim Oberg
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16830696/
Commentary
By James Oberg
NBC News space analyst
Special to MSNBC
Updated: 6:10 p.m. CT Jan 26, 2007
In post-disaster attempts to make sense, and impart meaning, to the fire,
many
said that it "taught lessons" and inspired the space team to better
workmanship.
The sacrifice, so they said, made Apollo safer, and probably prevented an
even
greater catastrophe later during actual moon missions. Historians agree that
this was, in fact, a consequence of the disaster - but there are still
differences of opinion as to whether such a disaster was the only way to
achieve
such ends.
Neil Fraser
> Commentary: NASA must fight the forgetting -
>
> in the control center building. It was an alcove that workers passed
> by on a daily basis, an appropriate place for a reminder.
It might be effective to have four displays next to each other. One
for Apollo 204, one for Challenger, one for Columbia, and one empty.
That might send a stronger message.
Brad Guth
news:1169921664.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
> It might be effective to have four displays next to each other. One
> for Apollo 204, one for Challenger, one for Columbia, and one empty.
> That might send a stronger message.
They'll need more than one empty display, especially if going to the
moon via another unproven fly-by-rocket lander that fails to incorporate
any such momentum reaction wheels, and otherwise not incorporating
enough shielding against the local gamma and hard-X-ray TBI dosage.
Even via 100% earthshine, it's not going to be all that moonsuit
end-user friendly for accommodating much usable time of EVA exposures if
any, and via daytime it's going to double roast and/or TBI whatever from
more than one direction, and that's not to mention avoiding whatever
pesky micro-meteorite or larger speck of incoming flak has your name on
it.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
news:45bb5a1f$0$28132$4c36...@roadrunner.com
That first Apollo-01 fire should never have happened, nor should their
pad safety engineer and of his entire family have been lethally
terminated along with having destroyed all of his job specific
documentations. The known physics, science and expertise of workmanship
of that day should have easily prevented such a lethal fiasco.
In other words, there should have been red flags all over the place as
of days and weeks if not months prior to that launch.
Commentary: NASA must fight the forgetting
"Neil Fraser" <neil....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169921664.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
> It might be effective to have four displays next to each other. One
> for Apollo 204, one for Challenger, one for Columbia, and one empty.
> That might send a stronger message.
I'm afraid they'll need more than one empty display, especially if going
to the moon via another unproven fly-by-rocket lander that fails to
incorporate any such momentum reaction wheels, and otherwise not
incorporating enough shielding against the local gamma and hard-X-ray
TBI dosage.
Even via 100% earthshine (offering more than sufficient terrain
illumination), it's simply not going to be all that moonsuit end-user
friendly for accommodating much usable time of EVA exposures if any, and
via daytime it's going to double roast and/or TBI whatever from more
than one direction, and that's not to mention avoiding whatever pesky
micro-meteorite or larger speck of incoming flak that has your name on
it.
-
Unfortunately, by way of all believable accounts, it seems we haven't
quite gotten ourselves around to walking on our physically dark and
nasty moon. Therefore we have no such direct hard science of where our
somewhat salty moon was derived from, do we.
>fivedoughnut:
>Like, they're gonna take snaps facing the sun"
As you and others of your kind damn well know they actually did, and lo
and behold it looked exactly like a studio array of xenon lamps, along
with atmospheric affects. Of course their unfiltered lens (other than a
polarising element which should have made their artificial and otherwise
guano moon surface record as somewhat darker) and with lens shade as
typically utilized, plus the matter of fact that there supposedly was no
atmosphere would have permitted a fairly close to sun look-see, but
since most of the dark vacuum of space wasn't imposing a problem, and
the obvious fact that Venus wasn't actually near the critical FOV of
including our sun as of A11, A14 and A16, was it.
"get your pityful excuse for a head outta the dry-ice bucket numbskull
.... Anyhows, Earthlight abounded in mission time during the long lunar
night; wouldn't exactly melt the ol' camera film would it? oh molecule
minded one."
We see that you're being a silly naysay boy, or rather another Third
Reich minion to that status quo mindset of your's, arnt you. When the
cards and cold hard facts are down on the table, it's you that doesn't
accept those regular laws of physics, nor have you folks accepted the
replicated science of others, including those of Kodak. NASA's
infomercial science and of their hypology and/or buttology is all that
you've got to work with, and sadly it just isn't good enough any more,
is it.
So, others and I'm right about the entire hocus-pocus Apollo thing, as
otherwise you'd have easily told us and otherwise as having that nifty
3D interactive simulator have shown us village idiots exactly where
Sirius, Venus and a few other pesky items that were within the DR of
their Kodak film were situated, and of how supposedly stealth/invisible
those items were to such an unfiltered Kodak eye, as of at least
throughout missions A11, A14 and A16. Of course, being the pagan
born-again heathen liars that you are, means that you and your kind
can't afford to accommodate such truths.
BTW; Parts of Earth per given grain of Kodak film wasn't nearly as
Kodak moment bright of an item as per easily including Venus that shines
somewhat unavoidably towards violet as viewed from space. As I'd said
before, there's roughly an impressive 3000 j/m2 of 470 nm that's coming
right back at you.
Oddly nothing of local moon stuff or of anything brought along for the
Apollo ride was the least bit reactive to all of that available UV/a, as
though being xenon lamp spectrum illuminated while on that certain guano
island we both know about. Even the blue of our american flags was
rather oddly subdued, and white was simply white, as though having been
xenon lamp spectrum illuminated. Those are actually pretty neat optical
and film tricks with an unfiltered camera that's loaded with such better
than human eye spectrum sensitive film.
In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2, not to mention having those local gamma and
pesky hard-X-rays via secondary/recoil to deal with. At any one time,
it was technically impossible for any such EVA not to be continually
surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2, and of course from such a
nearby orbit there's nothing but the physically dark and TBI dosage
nasty moon to look at for as far as the DNA/RNA frail eye could see from
being 100+ km off the deck, and that's one hell of a solar/cosmic and
secondary/recoil worth of TBI exposure, wouldn't you say?
Obviously the regular laws of physics and of using honest math, or much
less actual replicated science from Kodak none the less, isn't allowed
within the sacred hocus-pocus realm of any NASA/Apollo ruse of the
century, as an ongoing cold-war sting upon humanity for all it was worth
at the time of two such superpowers lying each of their perpetrated
cold-war butts off. Gee whiz folks, besides our having lost all of
those precious decades, how many spare trillions of our hard earn loot
were those decades worth?
nightbat
Jim Oberg wrote:
nightbat
Jim, unfortunately that's present reality due to the always
penny wise pound foolishness of the political voting purse holding and
Nasa bureaucracy mission budget constraints. The safety of the Space
Team however should always be utmost paramount including proper
evaluated space vehicle design for always being able to > mission bring
them back safely home. Having to foolishly depend on or wait for tragedy
to implement adequate and proper back up equipment, design, or safety
measures is no way to go, for one astronauts life is more important then
all the combined nuts and bolts or secured pension of any Congressmen.
If you want to play it safe exploratory mission budget restraint cheap,
go robots, but if you want it done, "proper hands on", applied right,
don't go dutch with astronauts life's.
ponder on,
the nightbat
Captain of the Astronomy Earth Glow Star Science Team
Art Deco
So you are an expert at risk analysis, frootbat?
>
> ponder on,
> the nightbat
> Captain of the Astronomy Earth Glow Star Science Team
Hahahahahahahahahah, I'm sure Jim Oberg is impressed with your
"credentials", frootbat.
--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
Jonathan
The lesson that must be remembered is to have a goal
for Nasa that strikes a balance between pure research
and the needs of society. As Neil Armstrong reminded us
in his speech quoted below.
Forgetting that lesson means a weak goal that steadily
loses support. Causing budget issues to build and
compromises to mount.
With Apollo they compromised out of a sense of urgency
of the tremondous potential achievements.
With the Vision the compromises will be a result
of apathy.
One is worth dying for, the other isn't.
s
Joint Meeting of the Two Houses of Congress to Receive the
Apollo 11 Astronauts
Congressional Record
Tuesday, September 16, 1969
"Several weeks ago I enjoyed the warmth of reflection on the
true meanings of the spirit of Apollo. I stood in the highlands
of this Nation, near the Continental Divide, introducing to
my sons the wonders of nature, and pleasures of looking for
deer and for elk. In their enthusiasm for the view they frequently
stumbled on the rocky trails, but when they looked only
to their footing, they did not see the elk. To those of you
who have advocated looking high we owe our sincere
gratitude, for you have granted us the opportunity to see
some of the grandest views of the Creator.
To those of you who have been our honest critics, we also
thank, for you have reminded us that we dare not forget
to watch the trail." Neil Armstrong
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11CongressJOD.html
Jim Oberg
> for Apollo 204, one for Challenger, one for Columbia, and one empty.
> That might send a stronger message.
Excellent idea, thank you.
The Astronaut Memorial Foundation 'wall of honor' has
stull mostly-blank tiles -- prepared for new names.
Totorkon
On Jan 27, 5:52 pm, "Jonathan" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Jim Oberg" <job...@houston.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:45bb5a1f$0$28132$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> > Commentary: NASA must fight the forgetting -
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16830696/
>
> > CommentaryThe lesson that must be remembered is to have a goal
The 'greatest adventure' had two things that no program can ever have
again, atleast not in the same measure.
First, it was a first. The first footprint on another planetary body
(the moon was originally one of the seven wanderers). Even mars is
likely to be seen as a second place landing on another airless,
lifeless, barren rockscape. Neil, Buzz and maybe Glenn are probably
the only astronauts that an average folk could name. The shuttle and
ISS never came close to generating popular heros.
Second, it was understood, emotionaly, that there was no second place
in 'the greatest game'. It was 'root, root, root for the home team',
if we don't win, the communists will. National news, and models on
the shelves of drug stores, covered each technological leap. Even
twenty years later it served as Reagan's unspoken SDI trump card.
Sound sience might determine that this could only be a bluff, but it
and Afganistan did push the USSR to fold.
I don't know that any vision can again generate that kind of child
like excitement, but that should be the aim.
Brad Guth
news:snTuh.34380$Ts.2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net
We're damn good liars, arnt we. What more can you possibly expect?
(we're the best darn liars in town, and damn proud of it, as we even
have a born again LLPOF of a resident warlord as our president)
Brad Guth
news:1169958676.4...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com
> I don't know that any vision can again generate that kind of child
> like excitement, but that should be the aim.
That's damn good, that nifty little part about our perpetrated cold war
"child like excitement", not to mention all of the spendy collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent to boot.
Got any more zingers?
Jonathan
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:741b14a6df487e4b80c...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:snTuh.34380$Ts.2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net
>
> We're damn good liars, arnt we. What more can you possibly expect?
> (we're the best darn liars in town, and damn proud of it, as we even
> have a born again LLPOF of a resident warlord as our president)
President Bush isn't that good at it. Even President Nixon
kept an approval rating above 50% during an unpopular war.
Watergate sent it down into the 20's. Bush is down there with
post-watergate Nixon, which means the people have convicted
him of doing ...something... corrupt.
Any given person may be fooled. But collectively, the
electorate sees through b.s. the way a warm knife
cuts through butter.
Brad Guth
> President Bush isn't that good at it. Even President Nixon
> kept an approval rating above 50% during an unpopular war.
> Watergate sent it down into the 20's. Bush is down there with
> post-watergate Nixon, which means the people have convicted
> him of doing ...something... corrupt.
>
> Any given person may be fooled. But collectively, the
> electorate sees through b.s. the way a warm knife
> cuts through butter.
But there's apparently an unlimited supply of that butter, and the
supposed knife of truth may not be quite long enough to cut entirely
through that much butter.
Perhaps we should start off with simply cutting through his LLPOF
pecker, whereas then he can live out his pathetic life as a eunuch
within that spendy 104 acre anti-Muslim shrine to big-oil and global
energy domination that we're constructing in Baghdad.
Derek Lyons
If you need such a constant reminder - give up and turn in your
resignation. You've already lost the battle the minute you put the
memorials on the wall.
Seriously.
Accidents are going to happen. People are going to die. Sometimes by
accident, sometimes by complacency and carelessness. You learn from
it, you grow up, and you move on.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Jeff Findley
"nightbat" <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote in message
news:715af$45bbb4fe$46e3a6b0$17...@COMTECK.COM...
>
> Jim, unfortunately that's present reality due to the always penny
> wise pound foolishness of the political voting purse holding and Nasa
> bureaucracy mission budget constraints. The safety of the Space Team
> however should always be utmost paramount including proper evaluated space
> vehicle design for always being able to > mission bring them back safely
> home. Having to foolishly depend on or wait for tragedy to implement
> adequate and proper back up equipment, design, or safety measures is no
> way to go, for one astronauts life is more important then all the combined
> nuts and bolts or secured pension of any Congressmen. If you want to play
> it safe exploratory mission budget restraint cheap, go robots, but if you
> want it done, "proper hands on", applied right, don't go dutch with
> astronauts life's.
You can't point the finger only at Congress and the Administration. You've
also got to point the finger at the NASA Administrator and at NASA
management in general. Management sets the "safety culture". How many
times has management put the engineers in a position to prove that the
vehicle is unsafe to fly when they should be put in a position to prove it's
safe to fly?
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Quaoar
There are many industries that have far worse health and safety records
than does NASA; but all, including NASA, have proved that H&S is a
product of the history of death and injury incidents that have over time
become 'commonplace'.
As an example, the US petroleum refining industry has a history of death
and injury that had been historically justified by "this is a dangerous
industry". It remained a dangerous industry until some horrendous
industrial accidents that killed and injured hundreds during the
1970s-1980s, involving both industry employees and the general public.
OSHA was subsequently authorized to promulgate regulations that forced
the petroleum industry to perform rudimentary risk analyses, with
standard documentation and signatories from managements and engineering
participants, for all mechanical and process changes.
When this rudimentary risk management program was initiated, managements
were faced with the reality of their self-deceit with the "dangerous
industry" theories that they had operated under for decades. Petroleum
refining remains a dangerous business, but the obvious
engineering-induced dangers are being mitigate, one hopes.
This is the same as NASA's 'flight is a dangerous business' theory that
NASA management adopted without a second thought since, historically, it
*was* a dangerous business for those in the cockpits. The US government
had nothing to do with it.
Tens of billions of dollars have been spent under the umbrella of
"dangerous business" with nary a whimper from NASA or its contractors.
Had NASA or its contractors raised the issue in a significant way,
health and safety would have moved up from the bottom of the list to
near the top, and both the executive and legislative branches of
government would have adopted the revised viewpoint without argument.
The reality of health and safety practices in world-wide heavy industry
has proved that it takes a strong external bat to bring change to those
who make policies in these industries to improve health and safety
practices. It might derive from human history when hunting for meat was
"dangerous business", but was accepted since providing food was more
important to society than was the individual risk of death or injury.
The "dangerous business" meme is ingrained in the human psyche.
Q
nightbat
Quaoar wrote:
nightbat
You're welcome and keep up the new improved safety Team mission
record. Nasa isn't the oil business, it's about the added extreme
dangers of conquering space and beyond. Therefore always renew, replace,
and design ship renovate, with crew safety paramount first fully when
reserve timely mission design humanly possible.
at your service,
Captain nightbat
Bill Haught -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
How about building war memorials and dedicating walls for names as fast as
possible, one for Iraq, and another for the next war. That might send a
stronger message
Eric Chomko
Let me suggest that space cannot be conquered anymore than the earth
can be conquered. Perhaps this is a nit that I'm picking, but
exploring and exploiting space is actually the goal as space is not an
enemy. Language is important especially if goals are to be set and
progress made.
Conquer terrorism and explore space.
Eric
>
> at your service,
> Captain nightbat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Henry Spencer
Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>...Management sets the "safety culture". How many
>vehicle is unsafe to fly when they should be put in a position to prove it's
>safe to fly?
Careful here. You *can't* prove it's safe to fly. Not possible, because
there's no such thing as absolute safety. The most you can realistically
ask of people is that adequate resources have been assigned to dealing
with risks, that known risks have been assessed and (where practical
within available resources) mitigated, and that reasonable precautions
have been taken against unknown risks. If you tell people you want them
to "prove it's safe", what you are really telling them is that honest
discussion and evaluation of risks is forbidden, that management insists
on hearing comforting lies instead.
At what point you say "that's enough, let's fly" *is* fundamentally and
inescapably a management decision, not an engineering one. Perfection is
unattainable; someone with an eye on objectives and resources must decide
when to stop, when you have reached the point of diminishing returns or
even negative returns. If the decision is being left to the engineers,
that is itself a sign of management failure -- typically, it means that
risk assessment is not being done honestly and systematically enough to
give anyone (management or engineer) a clear view of the situation. (That
also implies a high probability that resources are not being used wisely,
since nobody has enough information to set priorities properly.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <3c0c5$45be1332$927a2cda$31...@FUSE.NET>,
>Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>>...Management sets the "safety culture". How many
>>times has management put the engineers in a position to prove that the
>>vehicle is unsafe to fly when they should be put in a position to prove it's
>>safe to fly?
>
>Careful here. You *can't* prove it's safe to fly.
Yes, "safe" is a dangerous word. There is no absolute safety, short
of the grave. But the word is thrown around a lot in this business as
though there is.