Question RE landings
Chris Manteuffel
intervention? I know that the Apollo astronauts trained to be able to
land their craft without computers, but the shuttle is more complex
and computers were better when it was designed. Do shuttle
pilots/commanders train on the sim for losing the fifth computer,
(AIUI they have four computers, if one disagrees with the others it is
shut down, if that happens twice they bring up the fifth computer,
which has different programming, to abort the mission) or is that an
unsurvivable failure?
Chris Manteuffel
History, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant,
which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly
fools. - Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary
Tom
requirements are too complex for human control. They've tried failing
the computers in simulators and the shuttle immediately spirals out of
control and does a Lawn Dart....
Jorge R. Frank
>
> If all computers fail they're completely SOL... The guidance
> requirements are too complex for human control. They've tried failing
> the computers in simulators and the shuttle immediately spirals out of
> control and does a Lawn Dart....
More to the point, the hand controllers and most of the flight deck
switches have *no* direct connection to the aerosurfaces/RCS jets; they
go entirely through the computers. So even if the pilots were capable
of hand-flying the thing, they couldn't, because their controls would be
dead.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
Tom
>
> << If all computers fail they're completely SOL... The guidance requirements
> are too complex for human control. They've tried failing the computers in
> simulators and the shuttle immediately spirals out of control and does a Lawn
> Dart... >>
>
> talking about? For that matter, what phase was the original question about?
> I've "flown" sims with crews where they've manually flown the orbiter
> (following reentry, of course) through the S-turns, all the way down to the HAC
> and landing.
Mostly the entry phase down to transonic. But, they are not "manually"
flying the orbiter. They are instructing the computer where to maneuver
the orbiter instead of the computer figuring it out itself. They do not
directly control the orbiter.
For instance, at about the mach 20 point, if the commander commands a
right roll the orbiter actually commands a left yaw - the side effect of
which is falling off on the right wing. The commander is merely telling
the computer "I want to go here" and the computer figures out which
surfaces to move to get there. This dynamically changes with speed,
angle of attack, and altitude and is too complex and subtle for a human
to be able to control.
>
> Now, of course, that was with GNC operable; they are essentially following the
> "bugs". Maybe I am unclear on what the original poster meant by "intervention".
> Obviously, w/o GNC it's a tough task, but they can theoretically fly the
> orbiter without direct GNC computer intervention (control).
>
> Andy
>
> These are my opinions and I couldn't care less if my employers disagree
Lynn Killingbeck
>
> << If all computers fail they're completely SOL... The guidance requirements
> are too complex for human control. They've tried failing the computers in
> simulators and the shuttle immediately spirals out of control and does a Lawn
> Dart... >>
>
> Tom, I'm not clear on what you're saying here. What phase of flight are you
> talking about? For that matter, what phase was the original question about?
> I've "flown" sims with crews where they've manually flown the orbiter
> (following reentry, of course) through the S-turns, all the way down to the HAC
> and landing.
>
> "bugs". Maybe I am unclear on what the original poster meant by "intervention".
> Obviously, w/o GNC it's a tough task, but they can theoretically fly the
> orbiter without direct GNC computer intervention (control).
>
> Andy
>
> These are my opinions and I couldn't care less if my employers disagree
Quoting from the original post:
Do shuttle
pilots/commanders train on the sim for losing the fifth computer,
==============================================
(AIUI they have four computers, if one disagrees with the others it is
shut down, if that happens twice they bring up the fifth computer,
which has different programming, to abort the mission) or is that an
unsurvivable failure?
If _all_ _five_ _computers_ are lost, so is the vehicle, crew, and just
about anything it happens to hit on the ground. Shuttle is a fly-by-wire
design. There is no ropes-and-pulleys backup. Loss of all five computers
is catastrophic. The flight phase is irrelevant, once the SRB ignite.
The stuff given in the original about bringing up the fifth computer
is not right, though. Loss of two of the primary computers does not
necessarily mean a switch to the backup (unless flight rules have
changed in the years I've been away from this).
Lynn Killingbeck
Andy
Chris Manteuffel
><< If all computers fail they're completely SOL... The guidance requirements
>are too complex for human control. They've tried failing the computers in
>simulators and the shuttle immediately spirals out of control and does a Lawn
>Dart... >>
>
>Tom, I'm not clear on what you're saying here. What phase of flight are you
>talking about? For that matter, what phase was the original question about?
>I've "flown" sims with crews where they've manually flown the orbiter
>(following reentry, of course) through the S-turns, all the way down to the HAC
>and landing.
I was referring to after the re-entry period. My recollection was that
they'd done that with one of the OV-100 tests, turned off the
computers to see if they could land the thing w/out it. I had
forgotten that they were fly-by-wire, and so they'd need some sort of
computer to make it work.
Justin Wigg
news:3897ab87...@news.erols.com...
> I was referring to after the re-entry period. My recollection was that
> they'd done that with one of the OV-100 tests, turned off the
> computers to see if they could land the thing w/out it. I had
> forgotten that they were fly-by-wire, and so they'd need some sort of
> computer to make it work.
There was no OV-100. I presume you're thinking of Enterprise OV-101.
You're right about the GPC's - they did not perform any in-flight shutdowns
that I know of. However, didn't 101 have a few hydraulic instead of
fly-by-wire controls?
--
Dogs believe they are human. | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
Cats believe they are God. | Reply to: justi...@yahoo.com
- Unknown | http://www.geocities.com/~justinwigg
Jorge R. Frank
>
> The stuff given in the original about bringing up the fifth computer
> is not right, though. Loss of two of the primary computers does not
> necessarily mean a switch to the backup (unless flight rules have
> changed in the years I've been away from this).
No, you're right. Two primary computers (i.e. control of two strings)
is still the minimum requirement.
(For the uninitiated: The shuttle's computers communicate with
flight-critical equipment over eight data buses. These buses are divided
into four pairs called "strings." During ascent and entry, each of the
four primary (PASS) computers commands one string. Since two strings
are required for control, two primary computer failures can be
tolerated, assuming there are no failures elsewhere. If the backup
(BFS) computer is engaged, it immediately takes command of all four
strings.)
Andy
the orbiter instead of the computer figuring it out itself. They do not
directly control the orbiter >>
No, I understand that. I wasn't sure what he meant by "intervention", but it's
clear now...
Thanks,
Abdy
Mary Shafer
> Andy wrote:
> >
> > << If all computers fail they're completely SOL... The guidance requirements
> > are too complex for human control. They've tried failing the computers in
> > simulators and the shuttle immediately spirals out of control and does a Lawn
> > Dart... >>
The Orbiter is FBW, so without the computers there's no connection
between the pilot input and the control surfaces. However, the
re-entry can be hand-flown (and was) with the FCS providing the usual
augmentation. Although normally the re-entry profile is flown by the
FCS, with the pilot hands-off, down to just before the HAC, it's
possible to let the autoland function land the airplane, making the
entire re-entry automatic or to hand-fly the entire re-entry so long
as the FCS is providing augmentation and the FBW is connecting the
inputs to the control jets and surfaces.
> > Tom, I'm not clear on what you're saying here. What phase of flight are you
> > talking about? For that matter, what phase was the original question about?
> > I've "flown" sims with crews where they've manually flown the orbiter
> > (following reentry, of course) through the S-turns, all the way down to the HAC
> > and landing.
>
> Mostly the entry phase down to transonic. But, they are not "manually"
> flying the orbiter. They are instructing the computer where to maneuver
> the orbiter instead of the computer figuring it out itself. They do not
> directly control the orbiter.
After the first S-turn on STS-1, the entire re-entry was hand-flown
through STS-4, at which point the FCS was rewritten (and the e-seats
removed). John Young took over the flying when the sideslip meter
pegged and stayed pegged for several seconds, meaning that the limit
had been exceeded. This happened because L_YJ was about half the size
predicted and the wrong sign and not even the extremely robust FCS
could deal with that much error. Cf Iliff & Shafer, "Extraction of
Stability and Control Derivatives From Orbiter Flight Data", NASA
TM-4500, June, 1993.
Starting with STS-5, the re-entry was flown automatically by the FCS
down to just before the HAC, about Mach 1 or 2. It hasn't been
hand-flown since STS-4 and probably won't be unless the primary FCS
fails and the Orbiter is in reversionary mode or using the backup FCS.
It takes two or three (n-1, to be precise, where n is the number of
primary FCS computers) computer failures to go to a reversionary mode,
I believe, and all primary FCS computers have to fail to go to the
backup FCS.
> For instance, at about the mach 20 point, if the commander commands a
> right roll the orbiter actually commands a left yaw - the side effect of
> which is falling off on the right wing. The commander is merely telling
> the computer "I want to go here" and the computer figures out which
> surfaces to move to get there. This dynamically changes with speed,
> angle of attack, and altitude and is too complex and subtle for a human
> to be able to control.
Rolling into and out of the energy-management maneuver was supposed to
be automatic throughout the program, but wasn't at the beginning.
These days, the pilot takes control of the airplane somewhere around
Mach 1 or 2, shortly before the HAC. From then on, the airplane is
hand-flown. The FCS offers the usual SAS or CAS augmentation, but all
inputs are initiated by the pilot, unlike the pre-programmed re-entry
profile, which is flown by the FCS, with the pilot hands-off.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@spdcc.com please
Andy
I always love Mary's descriptions :-).
Thanks Mary!
Andy
Mary Shafer
> << After the first S-turn on STS-1, the entire re-entry was hand-flown >>
>
> I always love Mary's descriptions :-).
If I had a better memory and a lot more nerve, I'd post John Young's
actual remarks when he saw that sideslip needle peg at four degrees
for three or four seconds. I'll see if my co-author can remember what
John had to say in the post-flight debrief (and if I can make it
public). Everyone was pretty excited about exceeding the sideslip
limit because it meant that the stagnation point (i.e. hot spot) moved
off the nosecap, after all.
This sideslip was more than twice the sideslip predicted. It also
took a minute for the FCS to damp out the oscillation, showing how
robust the FCS design was. Incidentally, the velocity was 24,300 fps
and qbar was 12 psf. Apparently, the area around the nosecap wasn't
instrumented, as we didn't mention any temperatures associated with
this excursion.
The reason L_YJ was wrongly predicted was because the flow field
around the side-jet exhaust was not as expected because it couldn't be
properly simulated in the wind tunnel. At high altitudes, the vehicle
angle of attack is about 40 deg, causing flow separation on the upper
surface of the wing. When the RCS side jets are fired, the exhaust
enters this separated flow region and pressurized th volume defined by
the wing upper surfaces and the flow-separation wake boundaries.
There are similar overpredictions, for the same reason, for the
up-and-down-firing jets used for pitch and roll commands at low
dynamic pressures. Cf Iliff and Shafer, "Space Shuttle Hypersonic
Aerodynamic and Aerothermodynamic Flight Research and the Comparison
to Ground Test Results", NASA TM-4499, June, 1993, which has a good
bibliography that will point the interested reader to more detailed
explanations.
Dan Parker
Mary Shafer <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:u0zotij...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov...
> After the first S-turn on STS-1, the entire re-entry was hand-flown
> removed). John Young took over the flying when the sideslip meter
> pegged and stayed pegged for several seconds, meaning that the limit
> had been exceeded. This happened because L_YJ was about half the size
> predicted and the wrong sign and not even the extremely robust FCS
> could deal with that much error. Cf Iliff & Shafer, "Extraction of
> Stability and Control Derivatives From Orbiter Flight Data", NASA
> TM-4500, June, 1993.
For the first-year grad students among us, what's L_YJ?? :-)
--Dan---Parker--
^ |
| |
------------------
(First controls midterm tomorrow afternoon!!!)
Reed Snellenberger
>
> If I had a better memory and a lot more nerve, I'd post John Young's
> actual remarks when he saw that sideslip needle peg at four degrees
> for three or four seconds. I'll see if my co-author can remember what
> John had to say in the post-flight debrief (and if I can make it
> public). Everyone was pretty excited about exceeding the sideslip
> limit because it meant that the stagnation point (i.e. hot spot) moved
> off the nosecap, after all.
Thanks for posting this (if you can) -- it's sort of the "unseen" story for
most people, but I think it's interesting...
I wonder whether this had anything to do with how jazzed Young appeared to
be during his post-landing walkaround...
Reed Snellenberger
Mary Shafer
> Mary Shafer <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:u0zotij...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov...
> > After the first S-turn on STS-1, the entire re-entry was hand-flown
> > through STS-4, at which point the FCS was rewritten (and the e-seats
> > removed). John Young took over the flying when the sideslip meter
> > pegged and stayed pegged for several seconds, meaning that the limit
> > had been exceeded. This happened because L_YJ was about half the size
> > predicted and the wrong sign and not even the extremely robust FCS
> > could deal with that much error. Cf Iliff & Shafer, "Extraction of
> > Stability and Control Derivatives From Orbiter Flight Data", NASA
> > TM-4500, June, 1993.
>
> For the first-year grad students among us, what's L_YJ?? :-)
Why, it's rolling moment due to yaw jet. I can tell you didn't track
down the reference, which explains it all in excruciating detail,
originally keyed in in LaTeX by yours truly, who managed to get
tangled up in the layers of subscripts more than once. It's quite
amazing how odd something can look if just one closing command is
omitted. Some of those equations were almost funny, they were so bad
when I made a tiny omission. Then there's trying to put subscripted
variables into figure captions, which involved using \box, if I recall
correctly (I've tried to put it out of my mind, but I'm working on an
expanded version of the hypersonic aerothermodynamics paper now and
can't really ignore this).
There are some extra terms in the B matrix (of course you remember
x-dot = A x + B u, the state-space form) because the Orbiter has an
RCS for use where q-bar is too low for the aerodynamic control
surfaces to work. The orbiter has up- and down-firing jets for roll
and pitch control, plus yaw jets for yaw, and the ensuing roll,
control. The up- and down-firing jets were only used at the beginning
of the re-entry, with the yaw jets used down to where the aerodynamic
surfaces worked. The aerodynamic surfaces were used throughout the
re-entry, but the tremendous scatter and large error bounds of the
control effectiveness derivatives make it clear that they weren't
doing much at the beginning of re-entry.
Mary Shafer
> Mary Shafer <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:u0ln51k...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov...
> >
> > If I had a better memory and a lot more nerve, I'd post John Young's
> > actual remarks when he saw that sideslip needle peg at four degrees
> > for three or four seconds. I'll see if my co-author can remember what
> > John had to say in the post-flight debrief (and if I can make it
> > public). Everyone was pretty excited about exceeding the sideslip
> > limit because it meant that the stagnation point (i.e. hot spot) moved
> > off the nosecap, after all.
> Thanks for posting this (if you can) -- it's sort of the "unseen"
> story for most people, but I think it's interesting...
I feel very privileged to have worked on the Orbiter from the inside,
even as little as I did. When I started at Dryden, working as a
summer hire while I was in college, we were flying the X-15 and
lifting bodied and people were very kind in making sure I got to see
what was happening, so I was lucky to see the forerunners to the
Orbiter as well as the Orbiter.
> I wonder whether this had anything to do with how jazzed Young
> appeared to be during his post-landing walkaround...
Bouncy and ebullient, wasn't he? I always put it down to him having a
tiny, niggling doubt that it would really work the way it was supposed
to, as demonstrated by that first energy-management S-turn, so that by
landing it he'd triumphed. There's also a certain pure pleasure in
survival, which the pilots of successful first flights often
demonstrate.
I really admire John Young; he's a real golden arm pilot and
everything you'd want in a test pilot--smart, understands the
engineering, knows the difficulties, trusts the engineers, and has a
tremendous sense of humor. I worked with him on a couple of in-flight
simulation programs where we were trying to improve the Orbiter flying
qualities and it was always a pleasure.
Dana Holland
> I really admire John Young; he's a real golden arm pilot and
> everything you'd want in a test pilot--smart, understands the
> engineering, knows the difficulties, trusts the engineers, and has a
> tremendous sense of humor. I worked with him on a couple of in-flight
> simulation programs where we were trying to improve the Orbiter flying
> qualities and it was always a pleasure.
This thread reminds me of one a little while back where the question was
asked as to whether Young still flys. Don't know about the T-38s, but
the current issue of JSC Roundup (on their website) has a photo and an
article about the open house at White Sands Test Facility - it says that
John demonstrated the shuttle approaches in the STA for them.
Jorge R. Frank
>
> << My God, you might as well be speaking Swedish! :-) >>
>
> Hej nu, kan du talar på svenska?
Umm... "I have a twelve-inch penis?" *
--
JRF (it's getting late...)
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
*-note to the humorless - that was a John Candy line from Splash when he
and Eugene Levy were trying to sneak by the Swedish guard to get to the
mermaid...
yeah, I know it's pathetic to have to explain your jokes on Usenet, but
this is what it's come to...
Justin Wigg
<snip>
> There are some extra terms in the B matrix (of course you remember
> x-dot = A x + B u, the state-space form) because the Orbiter has an
> RCS for use where q-bar is too low for the aerodynamic control
> surfaces to work. <snip>
My God, you might as well be speaking Swedish! :-)
--
Have you ever imagined a | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
world with no hypothetical | Reply to: justi...@yahoo.com
situations? - George Carlin | http://www.geocities.com/~justinwigg
Andy
Hej nu, kan du talar på svenska?
Justin Wigg
--
Have you ever imagined a | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
world with no hypothetical | Reply to: justi...@yahoo.com
situations? - George Carlin | http://www.geocities.com/~justinwigg
Andy <as...@aol.comxnospamx> wrote in message
news:20000206222439...@ng-da1.aol.com...
Julian
>
>Hej nu, kan du talar på svenska?
>
PLEASE, no more 'discussions' between experts on non-American/English
languages!
--
Regards
Julian
Melbourne, Australia
Justin Wigg
news:389E4FB3...@ibm-pc.org...
> Umm... "I have a twelve-inch penis?" *
Jorge! I'm shocked! I always thought you were such a *nice* boy... :-)
Greg D. Moore
Justin Wigg wrote:
>
> Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote in message
> news:389E4FB3...@ibm-pc.org...
>
> > Umm... "I have a twelve-inch penis?" *
>
> Jorge! I'm shocked! I always thought you were such a *nice* boy... :-)
Well, that's what all the women say about him....
But can he pound a 6" spike through a board with it.
Andy
Umm... "I have a twelve-inch penis?" *
--
JRF (it's getting late...) >>
WAY too late! Good lord, man, where did that come from? :-)
John Beadles
>
> Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote in message
> news:389E4FB3...@ibm-pc.org...
>
>
Hey Jorge! Boy, you got those guys fooled!
heh heh heh...
Jorge R. Frank
>
> << > Hej nu, kan du talar på svenska?
>
>
>
> JRF (it's getting late...) >>
>
> WAY too late! Good lord, man, where did that come from? :-)
Aw, come on, didn't ANYBODY check the asterisk...? :-)
--
JRF
Dave Michelson
>
> Aw, come on, didn't ANYBODY check the asterisk...? :-)
A few of us did :-)
Of course, this all reminds me of a sexual harassment charge that was
leveled by a female graduate student in the late 1980's. It seems that
someone sent her e-mail with a smiley :-) but she and some of her
colleagues *insisted* that the offending emoticon was actually a phallic
symbol. Yep, the halls of academia shook over that one.
-- -o)
Dave Michelson /\\
dmich...@ieee.org _\_v
Jorge R. Frank
>
> "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
> >
> << SNIP >>
> >
> > Aw, come on, didn't ANYBODY check the asterisk...? :-)
> >
>
> Perhaps I have no right to comment since I've only been
> lurking on this NG for a few months. However, asterisk
> or no, I don't think that kind of comment belongs on a
> NG like this that obviously has young children reading it.
Point taken, although I will offer this observation: children old enough
to read newsgroups are also old enough to get into PG-rated movies like
_Splash!_ without their parents. And the line I quoted was hardly the
worst line in the film.
Andy
<< ><< My God, you might as well be speaking Swedish! :-) >>
I wrote that...
>Hej nu, kan du talar på svenska? >>
Hej då!
Barry Megginson
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
>
<< SNIP >>
>
> Aw, come on, didn't ANYBODY check the asterisk...? :-)
>
<< SNIP >>
Perhaps I have no right to comment since I've only been
lurking on this NG for a few months. However, asterisk
or no, I don't think that kind of comment belongs on a
NG like this that obviously has young children reading it.
My $0.02.
Barry Megginson
Julian
>lurking on this NG for a few months. However, asterisk
>or no, I don't think that kind of comment belongs on a
>NG like this that obviously has young children reading it.
Fair criticism, & one I hadn't thought about. We do have a number of younger
people searching out info. Point taken here.
Andy
people searching out info. Point taken here >>
yeah, fair dinkum, mate! :-)
Julian
Do I detect the faintest hint of racial stereotyping going on here??
Andy
Just makin sure we're on the same frequency, here..
Andy
Hmmm, well, I guess I wasn't aware the Australians were actually considered a
race, per se (other than the original ones). Forgive me if I'm mistaken.
And actually, I really like the Aussies. Especially your sheilas
:-)
Barry Megginson
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
>
<< SNIP >>
>
> Point taken, although I will offer this observation: children old enough
> to read newsgroups are also old enough to get into PG-rated movies like
> _Splash!_ without their parents. And the line I quoted was hardly the
> worst line in the film.
>
Like I said, I'm new to this NG and I realize that
people have a right to exchange ideas and to even
have a good time doing it. The comment that I
reacted to certainly wasn't that horrible. It just
seemed a little out of place for what is an international
forum on the Space Shuttle.
Even though some children are old enough to see PG-rated
movies, that doesn't mean that they do. Many parents
of young children set higher standards than those who
defined the movie rating system.
The Internet affords us with anonymity that face-to-
face communication doesn't. I doubt most of the
"questionable" comments would be made if we were all
sitting in someone's living room with a few 8 or 10
year olds and their parents. I would like to think
in a few years, if they share some of my interests,
I can tell my nephews and niece about Internet
newsgroups and be comfortable with them participating.
I didn't want to cause any bad feelings, only to
encourage a little thoughtfulness and encourage the
use of private e-mail for the off topic free expression.
Barry
Mary Shafer
> "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
> >
> << SNIP >>
> >
> > Point taken, although I will offer this observation: children old enough
> > to read newsgroups are also old enough to get into PG-rated movies like
> > _Splash!_ without their parents. And the line I quoted was hardly the
> > worst line in the film.
> >
>
> Like I said, I'm new to this NG and I realize that
> people have a right to exchange ideas and to even
> have a good time doing it. The comment that I
> reacted to certainly wasn't that horrible. It just
> seemed a little out of place for what is an international
> forum on the Space Shuttle.
>
> Even though some children are old enough to see PG-rated
> movies, that doesn't mean that they do. Many parents
> of young children set higher standards than those who
> defined the movie rating system.
I understand your concern, but I don't feel that every place in the
world has to be made safe for young children. Let's keep a few places
where grownups can be grownups.
A child who manages to find and read sci.space.shuttle is unlikely to
be a young child. Rather, such a child is undoubtedly old enough to
have heard remarks much more risque than the one that triggered your
call for purity and child safety.
> The Internet affords us with anonymity that face-to-
> face communication doesn't. I doubt most of the
> "questionable" comments would be made if we were all
> sitting in someone's living room with a few 8 or 10
> year olds and their parents.
It's not our problem if young children escape parental control and
sneak into a place for grownups. This isn't a space for 8-year-old
children, as is evidenced by the adult vocabulary and the freedom some
feel to make such remarks as the one to which you objected. What we
might say if a few 8 or 10-year-olds were hiding behind the couch in
the living room is more like what we say here.
> I would like to think
> in a few years, if they share some of my interests,
> I can tell my nephews and niece about Internet
> newsgroups and be comfortable with them participating.
Then don't suggest newsgroups for grownups until your nephews and
niece are grown up enough to participate. Expecting every utterance
to be censored as if young children were present is as unlikely of
fulfillment as is expecting complex issues to be explained at the
level a young child could understand.
Besides, if a young child is truly innocent, the risque references
will fly right over the child's head, not understood. It's only when
children know what things refer to that the references have meaning.
Until then, it's just noise. (I was a very precocious reader and read
a lot of adult books, but much of the "adult" content had no meaning,
being so unrelated to my understanding that I ignored it; it certainly
didn't corrupt me.)
Barry Megginson
Mary Shafer wrote:
<< SNIP >>
> Then don't suggest newsgroups for grownups until your nephews and
> niece are grown up enough to participate. Expecting every utterance
Who is it that determined that USENET is only for
adults? For that matter, who determined that it
is adult to use such language? As far as I know,
NG's that are "adult" are supposed to be in the
"alt" group.
Still, I understand that I have no right to set
standards. I just wanted to suggest a little
consideration for others. I guess with some,
their right to be vulgar (adult) is more
important than civility.
My $0.02.
Barry Megginson
Jim Mantle
Markus Mehring wrote:
>
> No, "alt" is an acronym for "alternative", meaning a less official
> alternative to the more official and administratively tight Big8 groups.
Actually, it's a shortform for Anarchists, Lunatics and Terrorists
Jim
Your Name Here
>Perhaps I have no right to comment since I've only been
>lurking on this NG for a few months. However, asterisk
>or no, I don't think that kind of comment belongs on a
>NG like this that obviously has young children reading it.
Apparently you haven't been on Usenet too long, either. If parents don't want
their kids exposed to such comments, they should restrict their kids' access to
the Net instead of expecting the rest of the world to dumb things down to the
level of young children.
While they're at it, they should probably remove them from school and lock them
in a closet, since they're bound to encounter things that are far worse than
anything that's been said in this newsgroup. Somehow, I doubt there are too
many young children reading the newsgroup anyway.
--
For e-mail replies, change the utx$v$ to utxsvs
Jim Mantle
Don't forget to sell the TV as well.
I agree with one aspect of the original complaintant's message, in that
maintaining a level of decorum is a good idea (like not telling
rude/explicit jokes at the Sunday dinner table). However, the reason to
maintain that decorum in this newsgroup should not be to protect
children's sensitive minds, but rather, simply to maintain the decorum
because that's a Good Thing in itself (and one beneficiary of this will
be the child thang...).
Now, let's let this thread die... a bird goes up in 18 hours.... Much
more interesting.
Jim
Richard Ireson
Regards
Richard
Jim Mantle <mantle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:38A35044...@sympatico.ca...