Dan C wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:00:31 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

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...

Your intent (and you) are wrong.

How can you demonstrate that other than personal belief? I do not
believe I am wrong based on what NASA said in the news conference that I
saw and their announced decision to fly w/o it...if you have factual
information you can reference that shows an error in what I have said,
I'd be happy to reconsider.

You'll be happy to reconsider what, exactly?

Whatever you can show that shows that my assessment of the function of
the sensor in question was in error...

That the sensor isn't
important? If it wasn't, why was the mission scrubbed two weeks ago?

Because it came up during countdown and the failure was unexplained and
they were unable to either explain it or fix it in time...

Also, the sensor was working this morning, there was no "decision to fly
without it".

Actually if you watched the press conference last night, you will have
seen them say they were planning on doing just that. At least one of
the three major networks featured the "story" on both their 6 (5 Central
) and 11 o'clock news that NASA was going to "break their own
rules"...of course, it was presented as a major bureaucratic blunder
by a breathless news-babe who had absolutely no clue as to what she was
reading...

... Discovery is now in space, let's just leave it at that.

Well, you're the one who claimed I was wrong--I'm simply asking you
provide a factual basis for that claim...

Description of a cartoon in our local paper:

Guy at NASA is seated at a desk, talking on the phone. Beside him, a radio
is playing. The balloon over the radio says, "Hello, this is Click and
Clack the Tappett Brothers. We have a caller from Florida ..........."

Steve

Anyone taking any bets that this shuttle landing gets the most news
coverage since the first landing?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050727/D8BJECR80.html

Oh well. I guess the media will have something to talk about for the
next week or so.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:20:12 -0700, SteveB wrote:

Description of a cartoon in our local paper:

Guy at NASA is seated at a desk, talking on the phone. Beside him, a radio
is playing. The balloon over the radio says, "Hello, this is Click and
Clack the Tappett Brothers. We have a caller from Florida ..........."

I don't get it.

Also since you didn't quote anything, I have no idea what you are
referring to.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

"Dan C" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:20:12 -0700, SteveB wrote:

Description of a cartoon in our local paper:

Guy at NASA is seated at a desk, talking on the phone. Beside him, a
radio
is playing. The balloon over the radio says, "Hello, this is Click and
Clack the Tappett Brothers. We have a caller from Florida ..........."

I don't get it.

Also since you didn't quote anything, I have no idea what you are
referring to.


Heeeeeeeere's yer sign!

The thread is about a fellow who wrote in and asked about how to fix a gas
gauge on a space shuttle motor.

HTH.

Steve

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:44:18 -0700, SteveB wrote:

The thread is about a fellow who wrote in and asked about how to fix a gas
gauge on a space shuttle motor.

Another ****ing doofus with a 3rd grade education, trying to be a
comedian. Go back to school.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:20:12 -0700, SteveB wrote:

Description of a cartoon in our local paper:

Guy at NASA is seated at a desk, talking on the phone. Beside him, a radio
is playing. The balloon over the radio says, "Hello, this is Click and
Clack the Tappett Brothers. We have a caller from Florida ..........."

I don't get it.
....

Why am I not surprised????

BTW, what was I wrong about? You going to answer that?

"Dan C" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:44:18 -0700, SteveB wrote:

The thread is about a fellow who wrote in and asked about how to fix a
gas
gauge on a space shuttle motor.

Another ****ing doofus with a 3rd grade education, trying to be a
comedian. Go back to school.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951


Sorry, Dan. It's time to say good bye.

Good bye.

Plonk.

Steve

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:09:24 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

I don't get it.

Why am I not surprised????

Because your brain lacks that capacity.

BTW, what was I wrong about? You going to answer that?

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.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

"Dan C" 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.

--

Oh, so you WERE following the conversation, and your reply to my post was
merely an idiotic response to my notation about the Tappett Brothers?

So long, troll boy.

Steve

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:35:12 -0700, SteveB wrote:

Oh, so you WERE following the conversation, and your reply to my post was
merely an idiotic response to my notation about the Tappett Brothers?

Earlier you said you plonked me. Why are you still responding, you lying
little ****tard piece of ****? **** off and die, dickweed.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:09:24 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

I don't get it.

Why am I not surprised????

Because your brain lacks that capacity.

BTW, what was I wrong about? You going to answer that?

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.

Because they also said after evaluation that if it were to happen again
during the next (now just completed) launch sequence that it alone would
not be sufficient cause for another scrub among other reasons. Those
other reasons I've previously outlined.

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

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

"Dan C" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:35:12 -0700, SteveB wrote:

Oh, so you WERE following the conversation, and your reply to my post was
merely an idiotic response to my notation about the Tappett Brothers?

Earlier you said you plonked me. Why are you still responding, you lying
little ****tard piece of ****? **** off and die, dickweed.


I did, and will again. What are you doing, changing your name hourly so
your idiotic posts will still be seen?

Steve, who hopes this plonk works until DannyBoy changes his name again.

SteveB wrote:
"Dan C" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:35:12 -0700, SteveB wrote:


Oh, so you WERE following the conversation, and your reply to my post was
merely an idiotic response to my notation about the Tappett Brothers?

Earlier you said you plonked me. Why are you still responding, you lying
little ****tard piece of ****? **** off and die, dickweed.



I did, and will again. What are you doing, changing your name hourly so
your idiotic posts will still be seen?

Steve, who hopes this plonk works until DannyBoy changes his name again.



I haven't seen Dan C change his name. He's right. You are a retard.
'scuse me, that was ****tard.

PS: Killfiles are for chicken**** weaklings... Be a she-man like Kanter
and hold your ground.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:37:17 -0700, SteveB wrote:

I did, and will again. What are you doing, changing your name hourly so
your idiotic posts will still be seen?

You ****ing moron. I haven't changed my name. Go back and look if you
have to.

Steve, who hopes this plonk works until DannyBoy changes his name again.

Steve, who is too ****ing stupid to even know how to plonk someone. Go
play in traffic, dingus.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

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?

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?

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. Maybe you can build a
rocket ship.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

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...

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:44:55 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

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...

Nice try at backing out... I didn't snip that out of the middle of a
sentence or anything. It is a direct and complete quote of what you said.

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.

My conclusions are drawn on much more than the national news reporting.
In fact that is not even a factor in my conclusions.

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 don't need you to "educate" me. I have much more first hand knowledge
available to me than you do, I can assure you.

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.

I don't care what's in a conference or a news service. Apparently we both
know that it's just fluff for the masses. I have the accurate
information, thank you very much.

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

You say that in the past tense. Chernobyl, perhaps? TMI?

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:44:55 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

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...

Nice try at backing out... I didn't snip that out of the middle of a
sentence or anything. It is a direct and complete quote of what you said.

Yes it is exactly what I wrote and it is exactly what I intended--but it
was in context to the contention you raised of an imminent disaster and
you'll note the emphasis on the single sensor (as opposed to the
functionality of the system). That's significantly different than
implying I said the functionality of the system was unimportant or that
the sensor was of no importance.

....
I don't need you to "educate" me. I have much more first hand knowledge
available to me than you do, I can assure you.

If you do, you haven't shared any of it, nor even provided any direct
references to it.

Where is there information that indicates either that the AP report
which I posted a link to or that the information I saw on the NASA press
conference shows that I was wrong in asserting that the single sensor
was/is not a cause for an imminent failure and was only an issue in
aborting the first launch because the operational procedures in effect
for that launch were written to require 4/4 logic instead of the prior
2/4?

....
I don't care what's in a conference or a news service. Apparently we both
know that it's just fluff for the masses. I have the accurate
information, thank you very much.

Then you can surely direct me to it so I can then educate myself if, in
fact, what NASA said in an open press conference (which I saw extracts
of) was in error?