Re: Discovery Makes A Fine Flight Up


"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96A0BB7E25298jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:fcLFe.17797$aY6.3413@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >
> > "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:Xns969FEC1E631D0jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> news:IvAFe.9550$oZ.4894@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The ET Cam rocks.
> >> >
> >> > And from a purely non-cool point, i.e. safety/engineering, it's too
> >> > bad it took Columbia to introduce something like this.
> >> >
> >> > Imagine if we had had this on previous flights.
> >>
> >> Hmm? We had one on STS-112, two flights before Columbia.
> >
> > Flights Jorge. Flights. As in a regular part of the program.
> >
> > Please don't pull a Rand here.
>
> You're nitpicking, Greg. The contract for the STS-112 camera included more
> cameras (at least four, IIRC).

No, I'm not. I'm the one that made the original comment. I know what I
meant.

You're the one nitpicking.

This is a feature that the stack should have had MUCH earlier in the
program... like ideally day 1 (though given the mass differences between
cameras then and today that might have been hard.)

I'm more annoyed at Congress for nickel and diming the whole program to
death. I'm assuming (and yes, this is an assumption) that there's a lot
more forms of data NASA would have loved to collect over the years had they
had the budget to implement them (like leading edge impact detection, etc.)

It's a two way street when it comes to asking for and receiving money, but
given how Congress reacts to disasters is a shame. They say no to many
things until something happens. (no, I'm not saying they said no
specifically to cameras, because I don't know if/when NASA asked, but the
fact that it took to STS-112 to get something like this into the program is
a shame.)


>
>
> --
> JRF
>
> Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
> check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
> think one step ahead of IBM.


.