Re: Ronald Reagan mostly responsible for the space shuttle challenger tragedy. Gotta beat those Ruskies

From: LaDonna Wyss (hpywife927_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/18/04 

Date: 17 Jun 2004 23:05:10 -0700

"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@KILLALLSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<orrAc.48802$Kd5.30875@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
> "LaDonna Wyss" <hpywife927@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4821518f.0406170500.55f07ec5@posting.google.com...
> > I HATE like you-know-what to be a NASA apologist
> > here
>
> But you're so *good* at being an apologist- just ask Betty!
>
> > Forget for a moment
> > about o-rings and other theories. IT WAS TOO COLD!!!
>
> At the time, there was no data that it was too cold to launch, and without
> such data that would not have been a good reason to cancel the launch. What
> *would* have been a good reason, and in fact was the reason why some
> engineers pushed for the cancellation, was that there was no data (not even
> test data) that supported launches under the existing temperature
> conditions. In short, it's not that there was no data against it, it was a
> bad idea to launch because there was no data *for* it. If, for example, it
> was humidity and not temperature that was the issue, there would rightfully
> have been less concern, because humidity hadn't shown itself to be a factor.
> There *was* data showing the effects of differing temperatures, but there
> was none for as low as the temperature was that morning. Perhaps it's the
> engineer in my soul, but with the launch conditions outside of the known
> range of success, if the boring eggheads had been in charge, Challenger
> would still be flying. Whoever said "take off your engineering hat and put
> on your management hat" should have been forced to personally crawl from
> whereever he said that to the home of each of the relatives of the
> astronauts and personally deliver an apology. Something you might seriously
> consider spending some time contemplating, LaToya, is that changing hats
> doesn't change the data. *That* is why we ask for verifiable references. We
> want to see the data *without* your spin. A refusal to consider the evidence
> against the preferred result then killed people, and in your case, it makes
> you look like a kook.
>
> >Like it or not, Challenger is on NASA.
>
> And some of it was on the beach, and some of it was in the water, and some
> of it is on the sea floor...

You have just proven beyond question your stupidity. Protocol is
there for a reason. It is not up to anyone at NASA to decide whether
or not he "doesn't know" it's too cold. PROTOCOL SAID IT WAS TOO
COLD! Protocol says don't launch, you DON'T LAUNCH! (Don't tell me
YOU were the dimwit who made that call?)
LaDonna

Relevant Pages