Posted on 02/11/2003 5:20:37 PM PST by ex-Texan
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:49 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Federal scientists are looking for evidence that a bolt of electricity in the upper atmosphere might have doomed the space shuttle Columbia as it streaked over California, The Chronicle has learned.
Investigators are combing records from a network of ultra-sensitive instruments that might have detected a faint thunderclap in the upper atmosphere at the same time a photograph taken by a San Francisco astronomer appears to show a purplish bolt of lightning striking the shuttle.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836319/posts?page=51#79
Lightening can do some VERY strange stuff--but we don't know that it DIDN'T glitch some of the electronics. It may be that such a glitch is why NASA is focussing in this direction. WAY too early to draw conclusions
to what I said: “They are dismissing the most obvious suspect out of hand,…”
------------------------------------
I can’t believe I have to go though grammar lessons for you to see the meaning of the word “dismissing”, which I intentionally and carefully selected.
There is only a little difference in the spelling between “dismissing” and “dismissed” but there is a huge difference in meaning.
I didn't use the past tense "dismissed" as you inferred (Neither did I say that anything was “completely” done on the matter of dismissing the foam, or I would have used the word “dismissed”).
“Dismissing” = present participle completing the present progressive verb “are Dismissing”. Present participles complete progressive verbs. The progressive verb in this case is "are dismissing".
The word “dismissing” refers to a present process by NASA. If I intended to say it was "completely ruled out" as you thought I meant, I would have said "dismissed".
--------------------------
Typically, there are a few steps when an attempt is made to execute the unwarranted dismissing process in an accident investigation such as this for the foam.
Step 1) Cast doubts about the subject of foam. (done - February 5th, 2003)
Step 2) Based only on the unwarranted doubts cast by these self-serving "experts", you make heavy cuts into the money and effort earmarked for foam investigation in the failure analysis.
Step 3) With limited funds directed at foam investigation, have low level personnel perform only rudimentary tests, write non-consequential reports, and cite "no-prior evidence" on the subject.
Step 4) In the final report, announce that: “In our investigations on foam, we found no evidence to support the theory that foam was the primary cause of failure."
Step 5) Infer the conclusion: "...therefore NASA management was not in any way responsible for the loss of vehicle."
When I did failure analysis, there were people who would do almost the same thing NASA officials are attempting (the progressive verb) now before they were taken to the mat for substantiation.
jlogajan, since you won't refrain from injecting personal insults or invective hyperbole into an otherwise rational discussion of merit, I am telling you right now to not make any more posts addressed to me, about me, referring to me, or quoting me.
Bawhahaha, get over yourself.
You sir, are a hypocrit. You are calling NASA management both incompetent and involved in a criminal coverup. You have implicated Mr. Dittmore by name -- essentially calling him a liar and a murderer.
Your basis for this is -- nothing at all. Just your paranoid rants. And for some reason we're suppose to give you better treatment than you're giving these other folks?
Dream on, sparky.
PROBLEM: Failure to Communicate.
SYMPTOMS: misunderstanding the grammar inherent in big words like “dismissing”, still making directed posts after repeated requests not to, not understanding the failure analysis process, confusing word meanings such as incompetent, using hyperbole, and the illogical progression of thought, etc.
Not being satisfied that I had enough data, I also went and read your prior 20 or so posts on FR
After careful consideration of all the evidence, I realized that I, yes ME, was the source of the problem. It was my fault:
ROOT CAUSE OF PROBLEM: I have been writing way above your level of comprehension!
Conclusion: IT’S MY FAULT!! (You should be happy now.)
So in an effort to simplify my words – and making the third attempt here, let’s see if I can make this simple enough for your comprehension.
DON’T POST TO ME OR ABOUT ME.
The official final report cited faulty booster rocket O-rings and the media dutifully reported it with no questions asked, which is a total joke. If you operate equipment outside of their design parameters, it isn't the fault of the equipment or the designer when it fails. The real cause of the Challenger accident was gross mismanagement. The NASA brass does not want that to be the cause of Columbia's loss, too. That's why they're trying to find a magic bullet to blame the accident on.
When NASA implies that meteor collisions and sprites are more likely causes than the big piece of insulation that was filmed hitting the wing that failed later, what does that tell you?
Yes, they did actually. NASA dismissed the foam hitting the left wing during launch as a cause. They recanted after people started asking questions that NASA couldn't answer.
Maybe you should read this before throwing accusations: NASA Still Considering Foam Launch Damage
Whatever you say Captain Queeg.
Or what, you'll hold your breath and turn blue?
In the movie The Caine Mutiny, Captain Queeg trys to relive his discovery of a duplicate key to the food locker -- which was his high point in life, but obviously, not meaningful to anyone else. Well, the Challenger non-cover up is being replayed in all these new Captain Queegs who think they've found another duplicate key ...
So put down your conspiracy theories and back away...
Reasons:
1. The picture shows lightning below the clouds--Columbia was above any possible clouds at this point.
2. The lightning appears to be striking the GROUND--Columbia was at very high altitude.
For the record, this is the third of three definitions of the word DISMISS as given by Webster's dictionary: (bold print added by me)
3 a : to reject serious consideration of b : to put out of judicial consideration
Maybe DISMISS has a different, specialized meaning in your line of work, but I'd interpret your statement that “They are dismissing the most obvious suspect out of hand,…” to mean exactly the same thing as the phrase "They are not seriously considering the most obvious suspect...".
All I'm saying is that NASA is considering other possibilities along with the foam insulation strike, and that their calculations so far have suggested that the foam insulation could not have caused "loss of vehicle", as NASA describes the event. Eventually, perhaps, NASA will be able to reconcile the chain of events that destroyed the shuttle with a wing strike during launch. But until they can do so, the only responsible course of action is to consider any and all possibilities. You seem to be suggesting that NASA should say "Hey, we have videotape of this foam insulation striking the wing, and despite the fact that we can't predict a damage level remotely close to that required to cause breakup of the shuttle during re-entry, we should just pin the blame on that and move on." I certainly hope that's not standard practice in the failure analysis game.
NASA has nothing to gain by covering up the true cause of the disaster (even if it was the foam insulation) because they will be blamed (wrongly, I might add) by the public regardless of the true cause. Unless and until the space program is given an unlimited budget, there will always be a certain level of risk associated with space exploration, and things like this will unfortunately happen from time to time.
NASA engineers and the independent panel investigating the Columbia accident will run through a range of possible causes, but that 2.6-pound chunk of foam that dislodged from the tank and struck Columbia's left wing 81 seconds into flight remains an obvious suspect. Even if it turns out not to be the "root cause," the accident has already forced NASA managers to reassess the blanket dismissal of insulation as a potential hazard.
Looks like I'm a minority of one regarding the relevance of "dismiss" regarding this investigation, though that article seems to be referring to NASA's opinion of insulation as a general hazard as opposed to a cause of this particular event.
That statement, while technically true, is not an accurate representation of the reality of the Challenger disaster. The company that supplied the O-rings designed them specifically for use within a range of temperatures specified by NASA. Prior to its final launch, Challenger had been sitting on the launch pad at ambient temperatures below the low functional temperature of the O-rings. For whatever reason (launch window closing, bad press, etc.) NASA decided to go ahead and launch despite the objections of the O-ring supplier, who warned of an O-ring failure due to out-of-spec temperatures.
The real cause of the Challenger explosion was NASA ignoring its own temperature guidelines for a shuttle launch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.