1237a5ae9ed2
tech



Hello Mike - 

MR> --- on the topic of "Columbia's 'computers'" 

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

MR> An engineer or technician will not intentionally set out to
MR> do shoddy work. 

If you were to preface this with "A _qualified_ ..." I would
agree. 

MR> It's when management saunters in with the big picture,
MR> deadlines, and politics that elements might be overlooked. 

It has been my life experience that short-cuts are the life's
blood of management but with no knowledge of the consequences
to haunt them when they sleep. 

MR> You're simply neglecting what amount of pressure a 200
MR> billion dollar budget places on them and how they will
MR> rationalize their decisions accordingly. 

If a management decision was that the life of my cat was
unimportant and my cat died as a result and we were alone on an
island I would choke them till they passed out revive them and
then rip their hearts out. If it was a loved one, friend, or
co-worker whom I had known for any length of time I would do
worse. 

Money is not a factor in the equation of life and death for me.
I understand that it is for other people and they should pray
we never cross swords over it or that I am old and they are
young. 

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

MR> Realize you've just described a politician to a "T". 

Yes, I know and it is a source of great sorrow to me every day
of my miserable life as their flunky. 

MR>> I dispute your contention that because the shuttle is old
MR>> makes it unsafe. 

CA>> Stresses on the airframe cause micro-fine cracks that
CA>> spread. Especially when super-heated and super-cooled. 

MR> Nah, they use xray and ultrasound technology to check for
MR> that these days. The shuttles are routinely overhauled and
MR> airframes checked. The shuttles are kept in an as new
MR> condition at all times. 

As a master mechanic in the metal working trades I tend to see
this as an exercise in futility. 

CA>> One airliner was found to have broken in half because of
CA>> square passenger windows introducing cracks that
CA>> eventually weakened the airframe in the middle of the
CA>> plane. 

MR> The shuttle has square windows... so you think that's what
MR> did it in? 

If the shuttle has square windows it's another indication they
are behind the times and not really paying enough attention to
their 'craft' (aerospace design?). No I don't think the windows
did in the shuttle. When the day comes one of the others snaps
in half you can email me an apology though. 

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

MR> I can see how this might be but don't forget too that the
MR> work tends to go through a bidding process and usually
MR> awarded to the lowest bid. 

This was a QC issue. QC is supposed to exist at the
contractor's end and again when the materials/parts are
received at NASA. There are additional levels of QC for just
installing and testing the parts and probably others I'm not
even aware of. The people fired had the responsibility to
verify that _all_ levels of QC were being performed properly -
their decision that it was not cost 5 of them their jobs and
the others recanted. 

CA>> you're saying it was too old but from a different
CA>> direction. You don't see that part of your 'argument' do
CA>> you? 

MR> Hey, bug off! You're trying to undermine my argument out of
MR> spite.  

Sorry. 

CA>> The space shuttle is too big. We hardly use it's capacity
CA>> _ever_. Many of the so-called projects could be automated
CA>> and sent up for less money on an unmanned orbiter. [. . .] 

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

MR> Each shuttle launch costs about 1 billion dollars.
MR> Certainly a lot more science could have been had for the
MR> same money. So I agree it's a white elephant to a point but
MR> it's needed for a lot of reasons least of which are the
MR> spinoffs. 

What spinoffs can you cite recently? Within the last decade
even? 

MR> Realize that 1 billion dollars doesn't just go up in smoke,
MR> it paid people's jobs, but much more importantly kept an
MR> infrastructure capability alive. 

So you're saying that while innocent children and the elderly
starve to death, freeze to death, and live like animals we need
a welfare for the middle class that we disguise as our 'space
program'? 

I disagree. 

>
>        ,                                        ,
>      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