Sign in to follow this  
Tom Allensworth

NASA Disrcepancies you wwon't see on CNN - Yet

Recommended Posts

My Own research of course. Follow Closely now. I am 100% Serious, and I am not trolling, so please don't flame me, as I believe I am on to something here.***********************************ET = External TankLWT = Light Weight TankSLWT - Super Light Weight Tank***********************************I was involved in a thread on flightsim here:http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID2/4703.htmlIn that Thread, I screwed up and called the ET (External Tank) An External Tank Booster. I was promptly corrected and I fixed it.Anyway, that led to further speculation on my part regarding the ET, which is Manufactured by Michoud, a Lockheed Martin Company.http://www.lockheedmartin.com/michoud/et/et_index.htmlAnyway the ET used on this mission was an older model, called a LWT. The Newer ones started flying in 1998, and are 7500 Pounds Lighter and are designated SLWT. (The SLWT's weigh in 7500 lbs lighter than LWT's and 17,500 lbs. from the original.)You can see the designation numbers here from Michouds website:http://www.lockheedmartin.com/michoud/et/s...flight_info.pdfHere is the breakdown of ET's according to missions flown.STS-107 ET-93STS-113 ET-113STS-112 ET-115STS-111 ET-113STS-110 ET-114STS-109 ET-112STS-108 ET-111STS-105 ET-110STS-104 ET-109And there are 8 other shuttle missions that used higher ET Numbers. You have to go back to STS-99, ET-92 for a prior flight which was launched on February 1, 2000. Here is why this may be relevent. In the fs thread, we talked about the sprayed on insulation, and I was theorizing about it when thinking this ET was a newer, 7500 Pond Lighter SLWT.I was wrong. But That is what NASA said in its Press Kit for this flight, which you can read here:http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-107On Page 18, it says:"External Tank ET93-A Super Light Weight Tank"On Page 142, The Press Kit describes SLWT and not LWT.So what did I do.I emailed Michoud, a contractor who makes the ET's, and asked them.They Replied back to me by email with this:"ET-93 was a LWT. It was delivered to NASA Nov. 2, 2000"Except they spelled delivered wrong, and I corrected that.I will not disclose the names of people I corresponded with, so Don't ask.The Info matches the delivery dates of 11/2/2000, and the on-dock date of 12/20/2000.I also have sent emails to NASA to inquire about this, along with my condolences.Here are my questions.1) Is the reported weights in the Shuttle Press Kit correct, or 7500 Pound too light, which is the difference in weight between the LWT and the SLWT.2) Will the Insulation sprayed on the ET degrade over a period of 2 years such that it will break off on Launch. (Which it appears has happened)3) Why did they even use a LWT, since the newer SLWT have been used since 1998.4) If the insulation did not fall off the ET, It would not have damaged the Wing, hence potentially no disaster.Folks, I am absolutely serious about this and have spent all morning researching this.Here is what The news is currently reporting:"The report said that a foam insulation patch about 7 inches by 30 inches in size popped off the fuel tank about 80 seconds after Columbia had left its launch pad, Readdy said. NASA engineers spotted the peeling insulation on high-speed cameras that recorded Columbia's launch."Tell Me where my Theory is wrong.Regards,JoeHere is my new sig...You Like it? :-lol :-lol.http://home.attbi.com/~sonar5/sig1.jpg.Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002..Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Interesting thoughts Joe. I am guessing that NASA will be some time before they answer you as I am sure they are all being pushed and pulled to the max at this time. Your thoughts do hold some interesting points though. Keep us posted as to what else if anything you find out.http://www3.telus.net/midget_ice/Radar_small.gifThis ain't no game kid!http://www3.telus.net/midget_ice/Radar_small.gifhttp://www3.telus.net/midget_ice/dansig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Hi:Interesting questions that are posted. I am sure that NASA along with external and internal investigation, and even Congressional investigation will find out what happened and correct it. There is just too much speculation going right now. News today, speculated that there was a tile failure going on, perhaps due to the gash in the wing. Who knows. I wait to see what happens. I think that NASA will be very frank with the public and I also think the President also indicated that also. Let's wait and see, and keep our hearts and prayers on those who lost their love ones and the families and also the whole NASA family that needs support right now.Charles

Share this post


Link to post

The title of this post seems to imply some kind of cover-up. Not sure where you're going with this, but I don't see any cover-up. If you saw Mr. Dittemore's briefing Sunday afternoon, he addressed several of your questions:It was indeed a lightweight tank that flew on STS-107. Not sure about the discrepancy on the NASA website, but I would imagine nothing more than oversight or carelessness by a data entry clerk.7500 lbs lighter sounds about right for the SLWT. Why was this tank flown? Simple. It was available, flightworthy, and suited this mission profile. You've got to realize, the SLWT was developed by LockMart exclusively for International Space Station (ISS) missions. These missions are higher altitude with higher payload weights, and trimming inert weight from the vehicle is the only way to accomplish this. We looked at several weight saving measures on the SRBs as well, but the SLWT ended up being the biggest contributor to the weight savings. That's not to say there's anything whatsoever wrong with the LWT. The LWT has flown a great majority of shuttle missions, before ISS construction started, and it has done very well. There were still two flightworthy LWT's in the inventory, and since this was NOT an ISS mission there was no reason not to use one. I don't know the current cost of an ET, but I'm sure it's many millions of dollars. I don't think the taxpayers would appreciate throwing them away just because they're not the latest and greatest technology. There's nothing wrong with the LWT's.To question a single ET's flightworthiness because it's two years old is meaningless. You need to go back and look at the age of all 100+ tanks at the time they flew. I think you'll find that two years is pretty typical, some more and some less. The SRBs that I'm involved with are usually around that age. Our NASA contract requires us to certify a 5-year shelf life on the SRB solid rocket motor and all components that go into it. I don't have access to LockMart's contract, but I'd be surprised if they don't have the same requirement.I'm not disputing that a piece of foam separated from the ET. That's one of the few facts that's emerged so far. I'm just saying that there's no basis to blame it on the tank pedigree.Finally, saw this comment on the flightsim thread:Maybe we should look at another location for launches. Maybe Edwards would be better...Don't think so. I assume you mean Vandenberg, as it is a launch site and Edwards is not. Aside from the fact that Vandenberg is not at a good latitude for equatorial orbits (the only kind that the shuttle flies), a launch from Vandenberg, or Edwards for that matter, would violate the most basic tenent of range safety. Instead of launching over water, where an accident is relatively harmless to the folks on the ground, your flight path would be over the entire continental United States. Not wise with many millions of pounds of liquid and solid propellents. Assuming a successful launch, you've still got the problem of external tank disposal. The tank break up into pieces on reentry, but those pieces do survive and hit the ground. Currently the impact point is somewhere in the Indian Ocean, depending on the orbital inclination. I can't pinpoint the exact location, but launching from the west coast may drop the tank somewhere on Europe, Africa, or Asia. Not good for international relations.Dan

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Dan,Very valid points. I am not in any way suggesting a coverup. This was an accident.But I am still sticking with the ET on this one.Even the last mission the Columbia flew had a SLWT.I disagree with NASA'a news conference today. Not sure if you saw it, but he stated he was comparing the debris to STS-112.The closest comparison, IMHO, for debris would have to be with STS-50, which was also Columbia, and took off in June of 1992. he stated this as well at the press conference.It had ET-50 delivered on 10/31/1988 and on-dock 1/27/1992.Same Shuttle, although it does not state whether it used a LWT, it most likely did.Columbia last flew in March of 2002 (STS-109) with a SLWT, meaning it had 7500 lbs. less of an External Tank, thus allowing more payload. That mission was a Hubble Maintenance Mission.The comparison of STS-112 Atlantis (The debris comparison by NASA) Should not have been done as this was a different lighter shuttle, and a Lighter External tank. (A newer SLWT).Can you compare a tire going flat on a Michelin to a Goodyear.Two totally different designs.2 different shuttles2 different External TanksPossbly same Insulation, however Michouds site states they use a different spray technique on the newer SLWT.Now, it still has to be ascertained whether the sprayed on insulation process is different, and Michoud says it is, and different amounts are sprayed on the tanks at a different thickness. Folks, all I am saying as this. NASA has been very forthcoming, but come to your own conclusions as well.Their press conferences have already made mistakes in accuracy, and the Press is giving them passes, maybe because they don't realize this.The Tank may have been flightworthy, but why didn't they use a SLWT, like they have with all missions since 2000?I looked at the wreported weights of each mission for comparison. And I think we can assume that different weights will cause different vibrations, and launch and landing configurations.STS-107 Columbia LWTShuttle Liftoff Weight = 452,842Orbiter/Payload Liftoff Weight = 263,701Orbiter/Payload Landing Weight = 232,788STS-112 Atlantis SLWTShuttle Liftoff Weight = 452,146** Orbiter/Payload Liftoff Weight = 256,917Orbiter/Payload Landing Weight = 201,476**(Discrepancy in press kit states 4,521,463) Most Likely another error.Very similar takeoff weights which would be likely, but entirely different configurations from a physics standpoint.I look at it the same way I do when I fly. The Aircraft acts entirely different when I am flying alone Vs. When I fly with my wife and 2 children. Different weights, different physics.With the launch location. Someone had mentioned the humidity in Florida, so I suggested looking at different sites, although your explanation certainly does make sense. I did not look into the reasons for lunch site selection.Regards,JoeHere is my new sig...You Like it? :-lol :-lol.http://home.attbi.com/~sonar5/sig1.jpg.Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002..Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post

I do recall hearing that the SLWT was used over the LWT for this mission. It was on the news all weekend. The commentators were explaining there was the mistake in the press kit, but it was an older generation of ET that was used. >STS-107 Columbia LWT >Shuttle Liftoff Weight = 452,842 >Orbiter/Payload Liftoff Weight = 263,701 >STS-112 Atlantis SLWT >Shuttle Liftoff Weight = 452,146>Orbiter/Payload Liftoff Weight = 256,917 STS-112 was a ISS construction mission. The ISS was in a far higher orbit than the one STS-107 reached - more fuel and weight required to get up there. So much so that perhaps the SLWT's benefits were required.Given that most ISS missions will require most, if not all of the shuttle's lifting power, NASA is probably "reserving" the SLWT's for those - eek out as many lifting pounds as possible. Because this mission was lifting to a far lower altitude, it was an opportunity to use the LWT. Sure it was heavier than the others, but the weight costs didn't matter for this flight. If it was the tank shedding insulation/ice which was the cause (of tile damage), I don't think the particular TYPE of tank should be the concern... rather, the construction quality of the one that flew. As we know, both the SLWT and LWT are airworthy - but perhaps this individual one had a flaw. Perhaps shedding insulation is "normal", and the tiles it struck were somehow loose or weaker than normal? The variables are aplenty. Good luck theorizing,-Greg Germ

Share this post


Link to post

>Very valid points.>Apparently not, since you ignored most of them.>>It had ET-50 delivered on 10/31/1988 and on-dock 1/27/1992. >>Same Shuttle, although it does not state whether it used a >LWT, it most likely did. >Most likely? I'm surprised with all your research you didn't notice that the SLWT didn't fly until 1998, coincident with the start of ISS construction. The SLWT wasn't even on the drawing board in 1988.>>Can you compare a tire going flat on a Michelin to a >Goodyear. >I have no idea what you mean by this. But the tire analogy is good. If you're going high-speed driving on the autobahn, on a hot day, you use tires that are rated for those conditions. If you're driving to the nearest 7-11 for a six pack, you can use cheaper, heavier tires, with the same margin of safety.>>Their press conferences have already made mistakes in >accuracy, and the Press is giving them passes, maybe because >they don't realize this. >This is a HUGE insult to a very capable, decent man. You've chosen to ignore Mr. Dittemore's statement that preceeds each briefing. He's chosen to share information as it becomes available, recognizing that this is a dynamic process and things can and do change as the investigation progresses. He's stated that very clearly multiple times. That's the nature of accident investigations. Until you become involved in one yourself, I'd suggest you not throw rocks at people that are working around the clock to get to the bottom of this. Would you prefer the alternative? NASA could choose to not say anything until all the data and evidence is collected, verified, and cast in stone. That point is still some months away. Of course, then you and Braun and the rest would be screaming cover-up and conspiracy.>>I looked at the wreported weights of each mission for >comparison. And I think we can assume that different weights >will cause different vibrations, and launch and landing >configurations. >Of course they do. I hope you don't think that the thousands of NASA and contractor people involved in the shuttle program are too stupid to not take into account the vehicle mass properties, orbit altitude/inclination, and hundreds of other variables when they certify each and every flight.>>The Tank may have been flightworthy, but why didn't they use a SLWT,>like they have with all missions since 2000?What part of my first reply was not clear on this? I'll repeat it once more:The LWT has flown a great majority of shuttle missions, before ISS construction started, and it has done very well. There were still two flightworthy LWT's in the inventory, and since this was NOT an ISS mission there was no reason not to use one. I don't know the current cost of an ET, but I'm sure it's many millions of dollars. I don't think the taxpayers would appreciate throwing them away just because they're not the latest and greatest technology. There's nothing wrong with the LWT's.There MAY have been a problem with this particular tank. (I can assure you that LockMart employees are working around the clock to dig up every detail of the manufacturing process and materials that went into this particular tank.) Based on this single occurrence, you're indicting a component that has flown successfully for almost 20 years. You need to do some reading on statistical process control and learn the difference between common cause variation and special cause variation, because you're confusing the two.Dan

Share this post


Link to post

EDIT:Dan, Make sure to read this thread too. I don't know how much more evidence you need as this information is all from NASA, and Michoud.I am further convinced more and more. Thanks, Braun. :-)http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...orum=DCForumID6END EDIT:********************************Dan,I actually read every word, I did not ignore anything.Did you read every word of every link I provided?The LWT is version #2, the SLWT is version #3. The reference had nothing to do with SLWT, the reference had to do with the earlier version. I am very well aware when the SLWT first flew, and if you read my links, you actually would have noticed I acknowldeged that. Sheesh... :-hmmmI am very aware of when they were built. From delivery date to on-dock date.Sorry, you were not able to comprehend the tire analogy, so I will explain it in more detail.A Michelin Tire is not the same as a Goodyear tire, they are designed differently.The Atlantis and Columbia are two entirely different Shuttles, weight and all, designed differently. They have common parts, but the design is different than Columbia. Surely, you can agree with that. can't you?The LWT used on STS-107, and the SLWT used on STS-112 are two entirely different external tanks, different alloys used on the Liquid OXygen and the Liquid Hydrogen tank, and the SLWT is 30% Stronger, and 5% less dense. (The SLWT's use weldalite, a new alloy made by the Mfg.)So, Did you read all the links, Dan?And I never said he wasn't a decent and capable man, I just believe the press is asking the wrong questions here.FACT- NASA has been inaccurate in its Press Releases concerning this mission. I showed that.You may not like it, but I paid for that shuttle, and I have every right to question anything I want on it.And I don't think anyone at NASA is stupid. Decisions were made, and I believe I have enough information to come to a conclusion in my mind. You may disagree with it, but it is my opinion and I cannot be wrong in what I believe.So answer me this Dan. Why can NASA speculate on the same theory I am writing about and I can't? Does NASA have any more rights than I do to question my tax dollars?I believe it is my duty to question anything my Tax dollars pay for. That is my responsibility, and I take it seriously.I believe in it so much, I have already talked to people at Fox news in LA, Chicago, and New York. And they were appreciative of the Information I provided.You see Dan, I don't just talk, I take action when I deem it appropriate.You Said:"Of course they do. I hope you don't think that the thousands of NASA and contractor people involved in the shuttle program are too stupid to not take into account the vehicle mass properties, orbit altitude/inclination, and hundreds of other variables when they certify each and every flight."Nope, not stupid, nor am I, IMHO. You see Dan, I am not Stupid eneough to believe every word that comes out of TV from anyone with agenda's. There were obviously mistakes made, and we need to acknowledge them, fix them, and move on like the families requested.People's attempts to silence me and others will not happen. I will push this as far as I can Go, and I have also been in contact with my legislators as well. And you can bet Congress will have their hearings as well. That is what I pay for, and that is why I vote.You Said:"What part of my first reply was not clear on this? I'll repeat it once more:"I just disagree. It is my position that NASA considering debris falling from a ET to be a maintenance issue instead of a safety issue is wrong. NASA knew debris has been falling off of Et's before this. Thay should have eliminated this.I can't wait to see the reports on insulation that Michoud discloses. I think that is where a lot of this investigation will lead to.IMHO, It is not only a defect in this tank, but a defect in more than one tank. You now have three missions where debris from Michoud Tanks have fallen off.STS-107 fatalSTS-112STS-50You Said:" Based on this single occurrence, you're indicting a component that has flown successfully for almost 20 years."Only Successful in the fact that up to now, no shuttle has crashed on re-entry. But we may have a different definition of successful.That component, (the ET's) Have not been successful IMHO, because they have done damage before. NASA considers that damage acceptable. I do not consider it acceptable for my tax dollars. I hope that makes sense to you on my position.NASA may consider it a maintenance issue as they tried to dismiss it Saturday and Sunday. That changed Monday AFternoon with the press conference. Did you see the entire thing on C-Span, or NASA-TV, as the networks did not carry the whole event.Your other statement:"There's nothing wrong with the LWT's."I disagree, and I think there is something very wrong with the LWT's. Talk about a broad statement. Have you seen all the research and can you provide documantation that there is nothing wrong with the LWT's. That LWT and its design process has cost the lives of 7 brave heroes. And you simply want to dismiss it by stating ther eis nothing worng with the LWT's. You really need to think about that statement Dan.You may disagree, but in my mind I am satisfied with my conclusions thus far. It is fluid and can change, but I believe I have read enough and done enough research to come to a logical conclusion.We'll find out eventually if I was right or wrong, huh?JoeLinks:Michoud Shuttle Flight ET Info: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/michoud/et/s...flight_info.pdfExternal Tank Info:http://www.lockheedmartin.com/michoud/et/description.htmSTS-107 Shuttle Press Kithttp://www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-107Thread Links:BBC Shuttle News Video:http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID2/4711.htmlShuttle Damage:http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID2/4703.htmlNASA Discrepancies you won't see on CNNhttp://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID2/4712.htmlHere is my new sig...You Like it? :-lol :-lol.http://home.attbi.com/~sonar5/sig1.jpg.Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002..Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post

This is getting fun.Until the last couple hours you were arguing, with no logic to back it up, that somehow the SLWT is "good" and the LWT is "bad." To quote from flightsim.com yesterday:I am stating right now I think the fault is with the LWT. (ET)If they would have used a SWLT, a newer version instead of the 2 year old ET, maybe the insulatin would not have fallen off.Now, when presented with a new twist (the changed foaming process) that you weren't aware of, the smoking gun of LWT vs. SLWT has been replaced by the changed foaming process. Welcome to the world of accident investigation. Things are seldom as they first appear.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi dan,You said:"This is getting fun."I'm glad you think this is fun. That disturbs me.I was aware of the change in the foam process yesterday. It is right on Michouds web site, under the ET Link, as well as at NASA's links.The Insulation debris is the cause. They should have eliminated it altogether somehow, someway. They knew it was a problem, it has caused damage before. Whether it was a single LWT defect or the whole design from the beginning on all tanks is an evolving process.They need to quit talking about the tiles and concentrate here.So, Your ascertation that the changed foam process is a new twist. I disagree. I knew they changed that when I first read it at their site yesterday.It is in my links, dan.And I can theorize as well. I used the WORD MAYBE, so take my words as they are written, not out of context, and if you still need help with my context, post the words, and kindly ask what I meant. It would be appreciated.If they used a SLWT, the weights and vibrations may very well have been different.And another screw up. The guy on the press conference right now just said it is only the third occurence of it. WRONG.STS-50STS-86STS-87STS-112STS-107That is at least 5 debris reports from official sources in my links.Regards,Joe

Share this post


Link to post

>This is getting fun. Indeed. I'm going to get some popcorn. Nice rebuttals, Dan. Straight and to the point with no smoke screens.

Share this post


Link to post

>>I'm glad you think this is fun. That disturbs me.>Um, I was referring to this thread. Nothing more and nothing less. What exactly is disturbing about being constructively challenged?>>I used the WORD MAYBE, so take my words as they are written, not out of context, and if you still need help with my context, post the words, and kindly ask what I meant. It would be appreciated.>I'm aware you used the WORD MAYBE. I know this because I included it in the quote. Here's your chance. What did you mean?>>I knew they changed that when I first read it at their site yesterday.>Sorry. My mistake. I didn't catch where you mentioned that. I'm just going by your reply to Braun several hours ago:Thanks, Braun, you have reinforced my beliefs with this additional info.

Share this post


Link to post

More Tile damage with info:Ok, List of Tile damage on lift-off according to Michouds website and NASA Disclosure, at least for now, unless something else is released by NASA or Michoud.STS-1 ET-1 Columbia 4/12/81 ETAll or part of 16 orbiter tiles were lost and148 others damaged during the mission.STS-3 ET-3 Columbia 3/22/82 ETThirty-six orbiter tiles and portionsof 19 others were lost during the mission.STS-27 ET-23 Atlantis 12/2/1988 LWTAtlantis sustained extensive tile damageon liftoff primarily due to debris from thesolid rocket boosters.STS-86The STS-86 mission revealed a similar damage patternbut to a much lesser degree than STS-87. The STS-86tile damage was accepted ruled as an unexplainedanomaly because it was a night launch and did notprovide the opportunity for the photographic evidence theSTS-87 mission did. A review of the records of theSTS-86 records revealed that a change to the type offoam was used on the external tank.From: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.htmlNOT DISCLOSED BY MichoudSTS-87Columbia sustained extensive tiledamage during launch.ALSO:The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and thenumber, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundredand eight (308) hits were counted during the inspection, one hundredand thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hitsmeasured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up toone and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of thetile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached.Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from theColumbia because they were irreparable. The inspection revealedthe damage, now the "detective process" began.From: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.htmlSTS-112Disclosed by NASA at Press Conference- Not disclosed by Michoud on website.STS-107Self-ExplanatoryHope This Helps,JoeHere is my new sig...You Like it? :-lol :-lol.http://home.attbi.com/~sonar5/sig1.jpg.Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002..Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Dan,I realize it is a lot to follow and I do appreciate you taking the time to both read it, and contribute discussion. :-)With the MAYBE, the context is that with a different weight, a different tank, th eoutcome may be different. Shelf life may also be a factor.The last time they flew a LWT was back in 2000. Nothing but SLWT until STS-107, and they flew SLWT's on non ISS missions as well.That was what I was striving for, I apologize for not being clearer.As for being constructively challenged. I enjoy any discussion on valid points. My facts still stand. I have made some errors, acknowledged them as I come across, and do realize this is not a 2 day excersize.As to you being sorry. Thanks and no problem. I just prefer to be asked about the context rather than just dismissed in my writings. I try to clarify when I can, and I ask others the same when I am not sure of the context.Half of the problems on boards are due to people assuming words out of context instead of asking for a clarification, IMHO.BTW- Did you see the last news conference, and my additional info on tile damage from piror missions. I would like to know what you think, and please take a moment to read the page from the NASA engineer regarding STS-86 and STS-87This Page:http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.html(It is the One Braun found in the other thread.)Regards,Joe

Share this post


Link to post

>Care to contribute or are you here for another reason? I believe that I contributed when I acknowleged Dan's excellent rebuttals. Sorry if that somehow irritated you, or did not live up to what your definition of a contribution should be. Perhaps you should define your idea of a "contribution." >have a life, If by that, you are offering something similar to yours, I decline, but thanks anyway!

Share this post


Link to post

edam,Nope, I never said it irritated me. Don't assume, please.Nor did I say define my definition of contribution.I never said it did or did not live up to my definition.You seem to be taking my words out of context.So please keep to the topic as stated and if you want to have a different conversation, email me or use the forum system to contact me.Edit:I sent you a message through the forum system as well.End Edit:Have a day,Joe.Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002..Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post

Of course, then you and Braun and the rest would be screaming cover-up and conspiracy.Clearly an argument that has lost all sense of direction, therefore you choose to resort to Ad-Hominen attacks. But instead of attacking only your debater, you choose to include meDan...can you provide me with one good reason why you mentioned my name in this context other than you could not think of anything germane or useful to your argument to retort to Sonar's postSaddened...btThe person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi:Perhaps this topic should close. There are just too may factors right now no one knows. We are speculated here with theories ect of what may have happened. Why not wait and see what happens. I know that between NASA internal and external and Congressional hearings ect the public will get the information and we will know what the causes may have been. Why not wait abit. Let people remember those brave people that lost their lives, and leave speculation out of the pictures for awhile. Charles

Share this post


Link to post

>>Dan...can you provide me with one good reason why you >mentioned my name in this context other than you could not >think of anything germane or useful to your argument to >retort to Sonar's post >No problem. Your "look at the difference" thread. I'll probably get accused (again) of quoting out of context, but I thought this sentence summed up that thread:NASA is telling everything, up front, right away, and keeping us all in the loop as evidence mounts...NTSB has yet to do anything similar with AA587, and arguably, TWA800.It's not much of a stretch to assume that if the reverse was true, i.e. NASA was remaining silent for a period of months, we would once again start to see conspiracy and cover-up theories.>Of course, then you and Braun and the rest would be >screaming cover-up and conspiracy. >Speaking of quoting out of context, you're learning well too. If you had bothered to quote the whole paragraph, instead of the last sentence only, a clarification probably wouldn't have been needed.Dan

Share this post


Link to post

This is a HUGE insult to a very capable, decent man. You've chosen to ignore Mr. Dittemore's statement that preceeds each briefing. He's chosen to share information as it becomes available, recognizing that this is a dynamic process and things can and do change as the investigation progresses. He's stated that very clearly multiple times. That's the nature of accident investigations. Until you become involved in one yourself, I'd suggest you not throw rocks at people that are working around the clock to get to the bottom of this. Would you prefer the alternative? NASA could choose to not say anything until all the data and evidence is collected, verified, and cast in stone. That point is still some months away. Of course, then you and Braun and the rest would be screaming cover-up and conspiracy.There Dan...I quote the whole paragraphI ask you again, two questions now:1. What does this paragraph above have to do with me other than your use of my name to make an Ad-Hominen Attack?2. What does my comparison of NTSB response to the public vs. NASA response to the public have to do with your use of my name to make an Ad-Hominen Attack?Lastly: It's not much of a stretch to assume that if the reverse was true, i.e. NASA was remaining silent for a period of months, we would once again start to see conspiracy and cover-up theories. is patently flawed as a valid argument, but another excellent example of what?...you guessed it. Ad-Hominen.Get off my back Dan...take your argument to Sonar, but don't bring it to me. And btw, I DO know how Accident Investigations work, having been involved in a total of 4, two NTSB, two USAF.All due respect,bt

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Charles,A reasoned reponse, but I disagree.NASA is speculating openly, and I am too.I paid for that Shuttle, and I have every right to question anything about its program so that others don't lose their lives.NASA is accountable to me as a taxpayer, and I am also concerned.Best example is todays press conference. Yesterday, people were complaining about me linking External Tanks, saying it does not happen too often.Then this afternoon, NASA says it only happened 3 times.I proved it has happened at least (7) Seven times as released by their own PUBLIC websites. Of course, just like the Shuttle Press Kits that were wrong about what kind of External Tank was used, I guess this could be just another minor mistake.I don't think so. The days of remaining silent on issues is dead. I am just confident enough to speak up and do something about it. And hopefully many others are too. The Next few days will tell. But so far, I have been pretty spot on, IMHO.This topic is fluid, and getting complex, yet coming to a conclusion very quickly.Regards,Joe

Share this post


Link to post

>And btw, I DO know how Accident Investigations work, having been involved in a total of 4, two NTSB, two USAF.I'm sure you do. Um, where have I ever said that you did not?I'd be more than happy to "get off your back." This thread has long outlived its value.

Share this post


Link to post

Joe:I don't rush to judgement on this subject as I have no knowledge of all the complexities involved in space flight. Yes, the theory is turning towards the external tank playing a role in this. I will have to wait and see. There are just so many factors here that remain open. Time will tell what happened. Look at the last Space Shuttle disaster. I think it took nearly two years, I may be wrong with this. The conclusion is that the o rings were at fault. It seems to me there is a rush to judgement absent any real evidence to point too. There is a danger there. Why not wait and see? This thread should close now as it really does not serve any purpose other than everyone speculating.Charles

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this