Re: Delta IVH - this can't make Seattle happy . . .

From: Herb Schaltegger (herb.schaltegger_at_gmail.com.invalid)
Date: 12/23/04 

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:21:08 -0600

In article <41d01ec9.2358253@supernews.seanet.com>,
 fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

> Despite Herb's comments elsewhere about spin, Damon has the
> right of it. A test flight need not be 100% succesful in order to be
> a succesful test flight. That's why we fly test flights.

Except that it's not just "a" test flight, it's the only test flight
scheduled. And it was added at DoD's insistence before trusting the
booster with a real payload, not because Boeing's people thought it
would be needed. If this was a good, old fashioned 1950s/60s era test
program with a substantial series of flight tests of varying
complexity and differing objectives, I wouldn't really care all that
much because it would not be a serious shortfall in the program as a
whole.

But it's not such a test program - that was the only test of a booster
whose developer didn't really think required a test at all - typical
1990's/2000's corporate America hubris at its finest. And Collins'
remarks are still spin and still corporate/government bull***
double-talk. In a highly-anticipated, highly-watched test flight, the
booster failed in it's ultimate objective. Until the reason or
reasons for that are understood, Dan Collins should have simply said,
"Well, we don't quite understand the nature of the failure but we're
working on it. We'll get back to you in a few days, hopefully, after
we've analyzed trajectory data and the telemetry." And left it at
that. 

-- 
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Wow! This is like saying when engineers get involved, harmonic 
oscillations tear apart bridges." 
   ~Hop David
<http://www.angryherb.net>