1237a5ac02a2
tech



Hello Mike - 

--8<--cut 

CA>> Engineers who know the design, construction, and QC on a
CA>> project is flawed and remain silent so that it costs other
CA>> people their lives "aren't at fault" since their own
CA>> self-interest to not have to find another job takes
CA>> precedent over human life? 

MR> Quite obviously you have absolutely no notion of what
MR> happens to whistle blowers, do you? 

Yes I do but is self-interest reason enough to allow people to
die? 

MR> You have no inkling about the internal politics at play in
MR> government agencies, do you? I've worked in the government
MR> at various offices, seen first hand what goes on, and
MR> developed an appreciation for the intricacies of department
MR> politics. 

I have also worked for the government seen first hand what goes
on and have absolutely _no_ appreciation for the "intricacies
of department politics". That's why I'm not there anymore. In
my universe we call the people you describe lying arrogant
incompetent wastes of space. 

--8<--cut 

MR> Look here, Charles, I dispute your contention that because
MR> the shuttle is old makes it unsafe. There are even older
MR> airplanes capable of flying quite safely. 

Stresses on the airframe cause micro-fine cracks that spread.
Especially when super-heated and super-cooled. One airliner was
found to have broken in half because of square passenger
windows introducing cracks that eventually weakened the
airframe in the middle of the plane. 

MR> The real problem with the shuttle is that it required a
MR> massive support organisation that was in place during the
MR> Apollo era but has now mostly vanished due to budget cuts. 

The 'real' recent problem is that when NASA's QC people warned
them that there were serious problems with their QC they fired
five of them to shut the rest up and hired 'younger' persons
with a 'fresh outlook'. Fresh outlook meaning no experience. ;-) 

NASA has not been actively seeking to train and promote from
within where the experienced people are and has done just about
as much as anyone could do to ruin a high-tech operation. 

MR> The people who actually drew the blueprints are now retired
MR> or even passed away. The shuttle wasn't supposed to have 2
MR> SRB's and an external tank. This was a micky mousing with
MR> the original plan and this has now in fact cost 14 lives.
MR> That's the real root of the problem! 

The above sounds as though you're saying it was too old but
from a different direction. You don't see that part of your
'argument' do you? 

The space shuttle is too big. We hardly use it's capacity
_ever_. Many of the so-called projects could be automated and
sent up for less money on an unmanned orbiter. The lady from
India who died had to push three buttons. That was her reason
for being there. 

There have been alternate designs for manned vehicles that are
newer designs, lighter, and could be used when human passengers
are required. This has been a cash-cow and not a scientific
endeavor for many many years. 

>
>        ,                                        ,
>      o/      Charles_Angelich  - DOS Ghost       \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >  www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/  < \   __\__
 

___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/

--- Maximus/2 3.01