Re: Shuttle Humor, Risk Estimation
On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 03:01 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: The biggest question there is why didn't they inspect it? Seems very bizarre, since that's what they did in the past. That's what they _reported_ later that they did in the past...there certainly was no public announcement that Keyhole satellites were being tasked to look at the shuttle tiles. One might assume that they did in fact look at the tiles this time around, noted the damage, reported to Admiral Poindexter the toast conclusion, and that was that. Had the landing gone OK, we would have been hearing about how NASA had verified that little damage had occurred. Now, it's we didn't have a chance to look, but even if we had, there was nothing anyone could do, so we didn't look. (Of course, there is _much_ they could have done, including coming in at a more westerly landing site, either Edwards or White Sands. Or, with about 10 days of advance notice, Atlantis could have been ready for launch and rendezvous to take the crew off, and perhaps even to transfer fuel to let Columbia go into a higher parking orbit until repairs could be arranged.) But the ostrich was strutting and now NASA is dying. --Tim May Dogs can't conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat. --David Honig, on the Cypherpunks list, 2001-11
Re: Shuttle Humor, Risk Estimation
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 04:28:10PM -0800, Eric Murray wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:01:41PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: The biggest question there is why didn't they inspect it? Seems very bizarre, since that's what they did in the past. All the KH-71s were busy mapping Iraq's oil fields and photographing Saddam's nose hairs. Yeah, but most pilots, if they suspected an even semi-serious breach of their craft's integrity, *AND* had the ability to fairly safely send someone outside to have a looksee, wouldn't hesitate a moment before doing so. They've been delayed by weather in landing far longer than that would take. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Shuttle Humor, Risk Estimation
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:01:41PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: The biggest question there is why didn't they inspect it? Seems very bizarre, since that's what they did in the past. All the KH-71s were busy mapping Iraq's oil fields and photographing Saddam's nose hairs. Eric
Re: Shuttle Humor, Risk Estimation
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: Yeah, but most pilots, if they suspected an even semi-serious breach of their craft's integrity, *AND* had the ability to fairly safely send someone outside to have a looksee, wouldn't hesitate a moment before doing so. They've been delayed by weather in landing far longer than that would take. I heard this afternoon on NPR that NASA reported one of the engines was on full blast attempting to correct for high drag on the left side. Add this to the high wheel temp before sensor loss - the landing gear was down. The Columbia had just gotten the new glass cockpit, all new computers. I bet there was a bug in the code someplace that lowered the landing gear and didn't report it via normal channels. On an airplane lowering your landing gear early isn't that big a deal. But at mach 18 it's pretty serious. No way to inspect for that when your instruments don't report what your equipment is doing. I bet it's a combination of minor problems, with a bit in a rom going bad maybe. As the Major said, chalk one up for Allah. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Shuttle Humor, Risk Estimation
Has anyone run their psychosocial simulators on what happens when Osama claims responsibility? Would he try this? What numbers do you get for the US pop's reaction? According to a friend from Ft.Meade, the Oyster (a massive parallel machine) is now at point 96, which means that it can emulate 96% of US population with accuracy 0.9 Current results indicate that in the case of osamming the shuttle there will be no change in those 42% who oppose the war, only a slight improvement of fervor in the 37% of those who approve, and gaining some 3% of the undecided. Moving from 37% to 40% is usually not considered worthwhile, especially since gullibility is already receding, and there is a 40% risk for the opposite conversion in 4% of the undecided.
Re: Shuttle Humor, Risk Estimation
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:06:02PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: It's easier to just say Allah is on his side and this is proof :-) Well? Even if they could *prove* total accident, the serendipity of the whole shows the hand of Allah -- Eve of war, Israeli colonel who bombed the Iraqi nuke plant, etc. Most people recognize accidents, and the connection between takeoff and missing tiles is too obvious to dismiss as *the* primary cause. Whether it's true or not remains to be seen. The biggest question there is why didn't they inspect it? Seems very bizarre, since that's what they did in the past. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
