Dan C wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:31:56 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

You were wrong about the importance of the sensor, as I've been saying all
along. Not sure why you can't see that. It was important enough to the
NASA engineers to scrub the launch entirely. Why your definition of
"important" doesn't recognize that fact is beyond me. Toodle-do.

I never said it wasn't "important", only that it wasn't
"critical"--there's a difference.

You didn't say that? How about this direct quote of yours from a few
posts back:

My intent was the reverse...because it is one of four redundant
systems in a backup system, this particular sensor isn't all that
important...

How's that?

Great job of taking my comment out of context and interpreting it as you
wanted, rather than for what it says...as well as ignoring what I just
wrote before.

That was in direct response to your contention that the single sensor
failure would, by itself, cause an immediate and catastrophic failure of
the shuttle. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't that critical.

You haven't provided anything that counters that announcement which was
made on national news...

You mean the one that you discounted as the words of a "breathless
news-babe" or something to that effect?

Actually, if you had read what I wrote carefully rather than with the
preconceived notion that you had to counter whatever I wrote, you would
have realized I was talking of two separate news accounts--the first
being the initial announcement after the first launch window scrub where
the emphasis was on the disaster just barely avoided, and the second the
announcement after the NASA news conference that they (NASA) were
prepared to launch w/ the single sensor non-operational. The problem in
the second report was that the "news-babe" was primed to gush over how
this was violating procedure and how that was the "rush-to-launch"
mentality rather than explaining the how and why of the subject safety
system and how the particular sensor fits into that.

What I discounted was the conclusion the "breathless news-babe"'s
story'a spin made that the failure of the single sensor was an
immediate catastrophic failure of the mission. The problem is that
many, as yourself, were (and apparently still are) totally misinformed
as to the fundamental issue and the safety of the mission.

I understand how you could draw the conclusion you have based on the
reporting, I'm simply trying to show you the fact that what was
reported, while not exactly incorrect wasn't the whole story and, in
fact, was designed to elicit the type of response you made rather than
to educate. I believe this is done mostly in order to "hype" the
broadcast but is also a result of most reporters not having a clue about
science and technology.

If you can't keep your facts straight, or even remember what you said a
day or so ago, what's your point in continuing this? How about you just
be quiet now, and go play with your erector set. ...

I remember precisely what I've said and it has been consistent that
the failure of the single sensor is not as big a deal as the news
media generally (mis-)reported. The difficulty has been that you have
consistently chosen to interpret what I've written out of context and to
read into it what you want for me to have said...

The point in continuing is to try to educate to hopefully provide you
a better appreciation of what the issue really was...the problem appears
to be that you're more interested in defending your position than in
finding out the truth.

I wasn't able to find an actual transcript of the NASA conference, but
here's how it was reported by a national news service which does reflect
what I actually saw on the news conferen. And, this is the only place
I've seen the extra description of how the redundant system actually
functions.

Begin quote
NASA had the paperwork ready to go in case the equipment trouble
reappeared and the space agency's managers decided to press ahead with
the launch with just three of the four fuel gauges working. ...

The fuel gauges are designed to prevent the main engines from running
too long or not long enough, in case the fuel tank is leaking or some
other major breakdown occurs. ...

Only two gauges, or sensors, are needed to do the job. But ever since
NASA's return to space in 1988, the space agency has decreed that all
four have to work to proceed with launch.
End quote

The complete AP story is at

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../space_shuttle


Maybe you can build a rocket ship.

Actually, I designed/built/started-up power nuclear reactors, not
rockets...

HTH...