https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/ 198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
That's a very jaundiced and negative view. Firstly, they weren't in
space when they died; they were at 46000 feet, which was below the operational height of Concorde.
On that subject, the only fatal crash of Concorde took place just after take-off almost 25 years after it started service. By your criterion, supersonic flight would have been blamed for the crash, and its purpose deemed unnecessary, even though the accident had nothing to do with supersonic flight, or perhaps even flight itself. Those Wright Brothers
have a lot to answer for!
It is human nature to explore, even at the extremes. Where would America
be if it wasn't for the Vikings, Columbus, and others like them?
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X >>
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
That's a very jaundiced and negative view. Firstly, they weren't in
space when they died; they were at 46000 feet, which was below the >operational height of Concorde.
On that subject, the only fatal crash of Concorde took place just after >take-off almost 25 years after it started service. By your criterion, >supersonic flight would have been blamed for the crash, and its purpose >deemed unnecessary, even though the accident had nothing to do with >supersonic flight, or perhaps even flight itself. Those Wright Brothers
have a lot to answer for!
It is human nature to explore, even at the extremes. Where would America
be if it wasn't for the Vikings, Columbus, and others like them?
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X >>
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
Of course most folks here don’t really think that we have any purpose here >either.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/ 198217661XOf course most folks here donÂ’t really think that we have any purpose
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
here either.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources
that could truly help.
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared about power, money, and politics. The investigations after the disaster, the
same. A few very brave engineers runined their careers to literally
shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was dying of cancer.
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
Of course most folks here donÂ’t really think that we have any purpose here >> either.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources
that could truly help.
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared
about power, money, and politics. The investigations after the
disaster, the same. A few very brave engineers runined their careers
to literally shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was
dying of cancer.
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:17:12 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/ >198217661XOf course most folks here don?t really think that we have any purpose >>>here either.
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources
that could truly help.
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared about
power, money, and politics. The investigations after the disaster, the
same. A few very brave engineers runined their careers to literally
shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was dying of cancer.
What did the venerable Feynman have to do with this?
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/ 198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
That's a very jaundiced and negative view. Firstly, they weren't in
space when they died; they were at 46000 feet, which was below the >>operational height of Concorde.
Dead is dead. Optimistically, they died instantly but probably not.
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/ >198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
That's a very jaundiced and negative view. Firstly, they weren't in
space when they died; they were at 46000 feet, which was below the >>>operational height of Concorde.
Dead is dead. Optimistically, they died instantly but probably not.
I would guess it must have been very much like being exposed to a nuclear >blast. So basically frazzled to death over several seconds. Not nice.
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/ >>198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
That's a very jaundiced and negative view. Firstly, they weren't in >>>>space when they died; they were at 46000 feet, which was below the >>>>operational height of Concorde.
Dead is dead. Optimistically, they died instantly but probably not.
I would guess it must have been very much like being exposed to a
nuclear blast. So basically frazzled to death over several seconds. Not >>nice.
The crew may have been alive when the cabin hit the water. The recovery
of the remains and the forensics was grim. I'm shocked that NASA ever
flew another shuttle.
The tiles and the SRBs and the external tanks and the engines were all
known hazards. Columbia was the nail in the coffin.
Two shuttles out of five were lost. NASA estimated that the loss rate
would be 1 in 100,000 flights.
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom ><cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/ >>198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
That's a very jaundiced and negative view. Firstly, they weren't in >>>>space when they died; they were at 46000 feet, which was below the >>>>operational height of Concorde.
Dead is dead. Optimistically, they died instantly but probably not.
I would guess it must have been very much like being exposed to a nuclear >>blast. So basically frazzled to death over several seconds. Not nice.
The crew may have been alive when the cabin hit the water. The
recovery of the remains and the forensics was grim. I'm shocked that
NASA ever flew another shuttle.
The tiles and the SRBs and the external tanks and the engines were all
known hazards. Columbia was the nail in the coffin.
Two shuttles out of five were lost. NASA estimated that the loss rate
would be 1 in 100,000 flights.
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
Of course most folks here donÂ’t really think that we have any purpose here >>> either.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources
that could truly help.
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared
about power, money, and politics. The investigations after the
disaster, the same. A few very brave engineers runined their careers
to literally shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was
dying of cancer.
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
Of course most folks here donÂ’t really think that we have any purpose here
either.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources
that could truly help.
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared
about power, money, and politics. The investigations after the
disaster, the same. A few very brave engineers runined their careers
to literally shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was
dying of cancer.
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For >> the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The
Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes become circular and self-referential.
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that
means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought
the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly >>>>>> story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
Of course most folks here donÂ’t really think that we have any purpose here
either.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources >>>> that could truly help.
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared
about power, money, and politics. The investigations after the
disaster, the same. A few very brave engineers runined their careers
to literally shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was
dying of cancer.
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For >>> the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The >>> Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large
organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes
become circular and self-referential.
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become
particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that
means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought
the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more tragic.
Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology.
;)
Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so highly.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On 6/10/2024 2:34 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly >>>>>>> story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
Of course most folks here donÂ’t really think that we have any purpose here
either.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources >>>>> that could truly help.
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared
about power, money, and politics. The investigations after the
disaster, the same. A few very brave engineers runined their careers >>>>> to literally shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was
dying of cancer.
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For >>>> the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The >>>> Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large
organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes >>> become circular and self-referential.
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become
particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that
means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought >>> the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more >> tragic.
Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her
research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she
presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology.
;)
Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so >> highly.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
" In retelling how the decision unfolded through the eyes of the
managers and the engineers, Vaughan uncovers an incremental descent into
poor judgment, supported by a culture of high-risk technology. She
reveals how and why NASA insiders, when repeatedly faced with evidence
that something was wrong, normalized the deviance so that it became acceptable to them."
I guess I'm not grasping from the summary of the Vaughan book how its conclusions greatly differ from the conclusions of Feynman et al.
On 6/10/2024 11:11 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
" In retelling how the decision unfolded through the eyes of the
managers and the engineers, Vaughan uncovers an incremental descent into >>> poor judgment, supported by a culture of high-risk technology. She
reveals how and why NASA insiders, when repeatedly faced with evidence
that something was wrong, normalized the deviance so that it became
acceptable to them."
I guess I'm not grasping from the summary of the Vaughan book how its
conclusions greatly differ from the conclusions of Feynman et al.
Maybe if you read the book, you’ll understand. The conclusions could hardly >> be more different, given the basic facts of the case. Boisjoly et al. and >> the Rogers commission are only a fraction of the story.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I was able to at least find a summary, 620 pages about a disaster I'm
barely old enough to remember is a tall ask at this time.
<https://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/The%20Challenger%20Launch%20Decision_1.pdf>
I think I somewhat understand the thrust of the argument, that nobody in >management really believed themselves to be taking risks of the kind the >public later perceived them to have been taking.
There was no particular person who was actively like "Welp there's
probably a decent chance the crew won't make it but we're going anyway >because if we don't <some easily enumerable bad thing will happen>", the >consequences to everyone involved were far too high to ever be actively >cavalier.
They had their processes and they followed the processes. Yeah Thiokol >engineers balked when asked about this particular launch but I expect
they balked relatively regularly it's no skin off their ass to say "no
go", but at the end of the day as a NASA-person your job is to fire
rockets with people on them from time to time, either have a manned
space program or don't. Can always find reasons not to launch.
" In retelling how the decision unfolded through the eyes of the
managers and the engineers, Vaughan uncovers an incremental descent into
poor judgment, supported by a culture of high-risk technology. She
reveals how and why NASA insiders, when repeatedly faced with evidence
that something was wrong, normalized the deviance so that it became
acceptable to them."
I guess I'm not grasping from the summary of the Vaughan book how its
conclusions greatly differ from the conclusions of Feynman et al.
Maybe if you read the book, you’ll understand. The conclusions could hardly be more different, given the basic facts of the case. Boisjoly et al. and the Rogers commission are only a fraction of the story.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
Of course most folks here don’t really think that we have any purpose here >> either.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources
that could truly help.
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared
about power, money, and politics. The investigations after the
disaster, the same. A few very brave engineers ruined their careers
to literally shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was
dying of cancer.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 01:43:37 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/10/2024 11:11 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
" In retelling how the decision unfolded through the eyes of the
managers and the engineers, Vaughan uncovers an incremental descent into >>>> poor judgment, supported by a culture of high-risk technology. She
reveals how and why NASA insiders, when repeatedly faced with evidence >>>> that something was wrong, normalized the deviance so that it became
acceptable to them."
I guess I'm not grasping from the summary of the Vaughan book how its
conclusions greatly differ from the conclusions of Feynman et al.
Maybe if you read the book, youÂ’ll understand. The conclusions could hardly
be more different, given the basic facts of the case. Boisjoly et al. and >>> the Rogers commission are only a fraction of the story.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I was able to at least find a summary, 620 pages about a disaster I'm
barely old enough to remember is a tall ask at this time.
<https://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/The%20Challenger%20Launch%20Decision_1.pdf>
I think I somewhat understand the thrust of the argument, that nobody in
management really believed themselves to be taking risks of the kind the
public later perceived them to have been taking.
There was no particular person who was actively like "Welp there's
probably a decent chance the crew won't make it but we're going anyway
because if we don't <some easily enumerable bad thing will happen>", the
consequences to everyone involved were far too high to ever be actively
cavalier.
They had their processes and they followed the processes. Yeah Thiokol
engineers balked when asked about this particular launch but I expect
they balked relatively regularly it's no skin off their ass to say "no
go", but at the end of the day as a NASA-person your job is to fire
rockets with people on them from time to time, either have a manned
space program or don't. Can always find reasons not to launch.
The Thiokol engineers said not to launch below 56 degrees F, or the
SRB o-rings wouldn't seal. The temp was 19 that morning.
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
So about as reliable a statistic as their figures for historical CO2 in
the atmosphere, then.
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For >>> the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The >>> Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large
organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes
become circular and self-referential.
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become
particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that
means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought
the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more tragic.
Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology.
;)
Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so highly.
On 10/06/2024 19:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For >>>> the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The >>>> Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large
organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes >>> become circular and self-referential.
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become
particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that
means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought >>> the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more >> tragic.
I'm still inclined to believe that the suits pressured the engineers
into compliance with something that they were deeply uncomfortable with
- namely launching when the ambient temperature was so far below the
norm in Florida. They had a nationwide TV tie in and VIPs to impress.
The show must go on...
So they got a lot more of a spectacle than they had bargained for.
Likewise with the Columbia disaster where they essentially refused to
call in a favour off the military imaging kit operators that could have looked at the vehicle's leading edge for signs of damage.
That time they convinced themselves that because it (foam impacts) had happened before with no ill effects it would be OK again this time. ISTR
an intern was tasked with the first impact analysis. It did get
escalated but not far enough up the hierarchy to make a difference.
HST mirror by PE also suffered from a painstakingly exact measurement
process that created a fabulously smooth polished mirror using very sophisticated methods but precisely figured to the wrong shape.
These things happen due to human fallibility and plain bad luck. The
backup Kodak mirror was correct in every detail but never flew.
Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her
research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she
presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology.
;)
Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so >> highly.
ISTR at least one Morton Thiokol engineer was begging them not to launch
with it so cold but was over ruled by more senior people in the end.
Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space.
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any more...
On 10/06/2024 19:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For >>>> the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The
Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large
organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes >>> become circular and self-referential.
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become
particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that
means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought >>> the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more >> tragic.
I'm still inclined to believe that the suits pressured the engineers
into compliance with something that they were deeply uncomfortable with
- namely launching when the ambient temperature was so far below the
norm in Florida. They had a nationwide TV tie in and VIPs to impress.
The show must go on...
So they got a lot more of a spectacle than they had bargained for.
Likewise with the Columbia disaster where they essentially refused to
call in a favour off the military imaging kit operators that could have >looked at the vehicle's leading edge for signs of damage.
That time they convinced themselves that because it (foam impacts) had >happened before with no ill effects it would be OK again this time. ISTR
an intern was tasked with the first impact analysis. It did get
escalated but not far enough up the hierarchy to make a difference.
HST mirror by PE also suffered from a painstakingly exact measurement
process that created a fabulously smooth polished mirror using very >sophisticated methods but precisely figured to the wrong shape.
These things happen due to human fallibility and plain bad luck. The
backup Kodak mirror was correct in every detail but never flew.
Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her
research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she >> presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology.
;)
Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so
highly.
ISTR at least one Morton Thiokol engineer was begging them not to launch
with it so cold but was over ruled by more senior people in the end.
Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am >inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our >robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space.
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any more...
ISTR at least one Morton Thiokol engineer was begging them not to launch
with it so cold but was over ruled by more senior people in the end.
Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space.
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any more...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 01:43:37 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/10/2024 11:11 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
" In retelling how the decision unfolded through the eyes of the
managers and the engineers, Vaughan uncovers an incremental descent into >>>> poor judgment, supported by a culture of high-risk technology. She
reveals how and why NASA insiders, when repeatedly faced with evidence >>>> that something was wrong, normalized the deviance so that it became
acceptable to them."
I guess I'm not grasping from the summary of the Vaughan book how its
conclusions greatly differ from the conclusions of Feynman et al.
Maybe if you read the book, you’ll understand. The conclusions could hardly
be more different, given the basic facts of the case. Boisjoly et al. and >>> the Rogers commission are only a fraction of the story.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I was able to at least find a summary, 620 pages about a disaster I'm
barely old enough to remember is a tall ask at this time.
<https://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/The%20Challenger%20Launch%20Decision_1.pdf>
I think I somewhat understand the thrust of the argument, that nobody in
management really believed themselves to be taking risks of the kind the
public later perceived them to have been taking.
There was no particular person who was actively like "Welp there's
probably a decent chance the crew won't make it but we're going anyway
because if we don't <some easily enumerable bad thing will happen>", the
consequences to everyone involved were far too high to ever be actively
cavalier.
They had their processes and they followed the processes. Yeah Thiokol
engineers balked when asked about this particular launch but I expect
they balked relatively regularly it's no skin off their ass to say "no
go", but at the end of the day as a NASA-person your job is to fire
rockets with people on them from time to time, either have a manned
space program or don't. Can always find reasons not to launch.
The Thiokol engineers said not to launch below 56 degrees F, or the
SRB o-rings wouldn't seal. The temp was 19 that morning.
On 6/11/2024 10:58 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
ISTR at least one Morton Thiokol engineer was begging them not to
launch with it so cold but was over ruled by more senior people in the
end.
Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am
inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that
our robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into
space.
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any
more...
The shuttle was a dual-use vehicle, it could've made a formidable weapon
in a pinch. The Soviets thought so, at least.
On 10/06/2024 8:05 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
So about as reliable a statistic as their figures for historical CO2 in
the atmosphere, then.
Not really. We've been observing the CO2 level in the atmosphere
continuously since 1958 and Manua Loa wasn't NASA.
The entirely independent Cape Grim observatory got going in 1976 - it's
run by Australia's CSIRO
https://capegrim.csiro.au/
and presents much the same story. It's southern hemisphere rather than northern hemisphere so that the annual fluctuation isn't as big.
NASA estimate of how many shuttles' they'd lose were just that - they
dated back to before they'd lost any.
You objections to the thoroughly reliable climate data involve your
demented conspiracy theory which has everybody involved in taking the published the measurements consistently lying to the public for more
than sixty years.
Nobody even thought that anyone would bother until around 1990, when
global warming hit statistical significance, and the fossil carbon
extraction industry woke up the threat to their long term cash flows.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:55:21 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/06/2024 8:05 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
So about as reliable a statistic as their figures for historical CO2 in
the atmosphere, then.
Not really. We've been observing the CO2 level in the atmosphere
continuously since 1958 and Manua Loa wasn't NASA.
The entirely independent Cape Grim observatory got going in 1976 - it's
run by Australia's CSIRO
https://capegrim.csiro.au/
and presents much the same story. It's southern hemisphere rather than
northern hemisphere so that the annual fluctuation isn't as big.
NASA estimate of how many shuttles' they'd lose were just that - they
dated back to before they'd lost any.
You objections to the thoroughly reliable climate data involve your
demented conspiracy theory which has everybody involved in taking the
published the measurements consistently lying to the public for more
than sixty years.
Nobody even thought that anyone would bother until around 1990, when
global warming hit statistical significance, and the fossil carbon
extraction industry woke up the threat to their long term cash flows.
Sorry, Bill. I've got better things to do than get drawn into another of
your pointless pissing contests.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:58:00 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 19:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For
the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The >>>>> Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large
organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes >>>> become circular and self-referential.
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become
particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that >>>> means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought >>>> the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more >>> tragic.
I'm still inclined to believe that the suits pressured the engineers
into compliance with something that they were deeply uncomfortable with
- namely launching when the ambient temperature was so far below the
norm in Florida. They had a nationwide TV tie in and VIPs to impress.
The show must go on...
So they got a lot more of a spectacle than they had bargained for.
Likewise with the Columbia disaster where they essentially refused to
call in a favour off the military imaging kit operators that could have
looked at the vehicle's leading edge for signs of damage.
That time they convinced themselves that because it (foam impacts) had
happened before with no ill effects it would be OK again this time. ISTR
an intern was tasked with the first impact analysis. It did get
escalated but not far enough up the hierarchy to make a difference.
HST mirror by PE also suffered from a painstakingly exact measurement
process that created a fabulously smooth polished mirror using very
sophisticated methods but precisely figured to the wrong shape.
These things happen due to human fallibility and plain bad luck. The
backup Kodak mirror was correct in every detail but never flew.
Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her
research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she
presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology. >>> ;)
Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so >>> highly.
ISTR at least one Morton Thiokol engineer was begging them not to launch
with it so cold but was over ruled by more senior people in the end.
Big institutions tend to be immoral. Money and power dominate honest engineers.
Remember "Don't be evil" ?
Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am
inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our
robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space.
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any more...
We could have put robots on the moon in 1969. The astronauts were
mostly passive passengers anyhow.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 19:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For
the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The >>>>> Challenger Launch Decision”.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large
organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes >>>> become circular and self-referential.
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become
particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that >>>> means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought >>>> the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more >>> tragic.
I'm still inclined to believe that the suits pressured the engineers
into compliance with something that they were deeply uncomfortable with
- namely launching when the ambient temperature was so far below the
norm in Florida. They had a nationwide TV tie in and VIPs to impress.
The show must go on...
So they got a lot more of a spectacle than they had bargained for.
Likewise with the Columbia disaster where they essentially refused to
call in a favour off the military imaging kit operators that could have
looked at the vehicle's leading edge for signs of damage.
That time they convinced themselves that because it (foam impacts) had
happened before with no ill effects it would be OK again this time. ISTR
an intern was tasked with the first impact analysis. It did get
escalated but not far enough up the hierarchy to make a difference.
HST mirror by PE also suffered from a painstakingly exact measurement
process that created a fabulously smooth polished mirror using very
sophisticated methods but precisely figured to the wrong shape.
These things happen due to human fallibility and plain bad luck. The
backup Kodak mirror was correct in every detail but never flew.
Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her
research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she
presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology. >>> ;)
Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so >>> highly.
ISTR at least one Morton Thiokol engineer was begging them not to launch
with it so cold but was over ruled by more senior people in the end.
Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am
inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our
robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space.
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any more... >>
Read the book if you have the chance.
Space exploration has little value outside its cultural impact.
On 12/06/2024 2:11 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am
inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our
robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space.
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any
more...
Read the book if you have the chance.
Space exploration has little value outside its cultural impact.
And this will continue to be true until we find something interesting.
The nature of exploration is that we don't know what we will find until
we find it.
Residents of Australian find it perfectly sensible that people kept
poking around the Pacific until Cooke found Australia and mapped enough
of it to suggests that it might be worth establishing a colony there.
Most the residents of North America with European ancestry would think
much the same about Columbus and his daft misconceptions about the size
of the earth, if they thought about the matter at all.
On 12/06/2024 06:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 12/06/2024 2:11 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am >>>> inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our >>>> robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space. >>>>
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any
more...
Read the book if you have the chance.
Space exploration has little value outside its cultural impact.
And this will continue to be true until we find something interesting.
The nature of exploration is that we don't know what we will find
until we find it.
OTOH we are much better equipped at remote sensing than they were. Our robotics have now reached the point where they can do almost everything
that a man can do and they don't need feeding and air whilst in transit.
They also have multispectral imaging beyond what a human eye can see.
The vacuum of space is an incredibly hostile environment humans are far
too fragile to survive for long without a lot of support.
Sending humans to explore any of the interesting places in our solar
system is doomed to failure.
At best it will be a "Big Brother" reality
TV show with real teeth. John you have been voted out of the spacecraft:
the airlock is over there. You are the weakest link - goodbye.
At worst we would contaminate a pristine unique independently evolved biological environment with terrestrial micro organisms that hitch a
ride with us. A bit like introducing rats or hedgehogs onto remote
islands full of creatures that are unable to deal with such threats.
Residents of Australian find it perfectly sensible that people kept
poking around the Pacific until Cooke found Australia and mapped
enough of it to suggests that it might be worth establishing a colony
there.
Most the residents of North America with European ancestry would think
much the same about Columbus and his daft misconceptions about the
size of the earth, if they thought about the matter at all.
There isn't anywhere remotely habitable that we can see within striking distance at the moment. North pole of the moon might be OK for a small
lunar research base in the same way as we have in Antarctica and the far
side of the moon would be a nice radio quiet spot for radio telescopes
to use frequencies that are impossible from the Earth. That is about it.
Going to Mars with current technologies will merely result in the deaths
of the astronauts that we send. NASA doesn't deliberately set out to do
one way suicide missions (unlike some vocal proponents of manned Mars exploration).
The main purpose of the ISS was to distract redundant Russian rocket scientists away from ICBM design (and I suppose it worked for a while).
Most of the "research" done on that low gravity platform wouldn't pass
muster at a high school science fair. It has fostered international co-operation though - especially during the period where the US had to
rely on Russian space vehicles for transit to and from the ISS.
On 12/06/2024 8:43 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:55:21 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/06/2024 8:05 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
So about as reliable a statistic as their figures for historical CO2
in the atmosphere, then.
Not really. We've been observing the CO2 level in the atmosphere
continuously since 1958 and Manua Loa wasn't NASA.
The entirely independent Cape Grim observatory got going in 1976 -
it's run by Australia's CSIRO
https://capegrim.csiro.au/
and presents much the same story. It's southern hemisphere rather than
northern hemisphere so that the annual fluctuation isn't as big.
NASA estimate of how many shuttles' they'd lose were just that - they
dated back to before they'd lost any.
You objections to the thoroughly reliable climate data involve your
demented conspiracy theory which has everybody involved in taking the
published the measurements consistently lying to the public for more
than sixty years.
Nobody even thought that anyone would bother until around 1990, when
global warming hit statistical significance, and the fossil carbon
extraction industry woke up the threat to their long term cash flows.
Sorry, Bill. I've got better things to do than get drawn into another
of your pointless pissing contests.
Lying about the science evidence demonstrating that climate change is happening is a well-paid commercial activity. You aren't remotely good enough at it to get paid for it, but that doesn't seem to stop you
hoping that you might.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:06:49 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 12/06/2024 8:43 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:55:21 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/06/2024 8:05 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
So about as reliable a statistic as their figures for historical CO2 >>>>> in the atmosphere, then.
Not really. We've been observing the CO2 level in the atmosphere
continuously since 1958 and Manua Loa wasn't NASA.
The entirely independent Cape Grim observatory got going in 1976 -
it's run by Australia's CSIRO
https://capegrim.csiro.au/
and presents much the same story. It's southern hemisphere rather than >>>> northern hemisphere so that the annual fluctuation isn't as big.
NASA estimate of how many shuttles' they'd lose were just that - they
dated back to before they'd lost any.
You objections to the thoroughly reliable climate data involve your
demented conspiracy theory which has everybody involved in taking the
published the measurements consistently lying to the public for more
than sixty years.
Nobody even thought that anyone would bother until around 1990, when
global warming hit statistical significance, and the fossil carbon
extraction industry woke up the threat to their long term cash flows.
Sorry, Bill. I've got better things to do than get drawn into another
of your pointless pissing contests.
Lying about the science evidence demonstrating that climate change is
happening is a well-paid commercial activity. You aren't remotely good
enough at it to get paid for it, but that doesn't seem to stop you
hoping that you might.
Nice try, Bill, but I'm not falling for it. I know a barb when I see it
and I'm not getting hooked. Try plying your trade on some other poor sap.
On 13/06/2024 3:11 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:06:49 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 12/06/2024 8:43 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:55:21 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/06/2024 8:05 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
So about as reliable a statistic as their figures for historical
CO2 in the atmosphere, then.
Not really. We've been observing the CO2 level in the atmosphere
continuously since 1958 and Manua Loa wasn't NASA.
The entirely independent Cape Grim observatory got going in 1976 -
it's run by Australia's CSIRO
https://capegrim.csiro.au/
and presents much the same story. It's southern hemisphere rather
than northern hemisphere so that the annual fluctuation isn't as
big.
NASA estimate of how many shuttles' they'd lose were just that -
they dated back to before they'd lost any.
You objections to the thoroughly reliable climate data involve your
demented conspiracy theory which has everybody involved in taking
the published the measurements consistently lying to the public for
more than sixty years.
Nobody even thought that anyone would bother until around 1990, when >>>>> global warming hit statistical significance, and the fossil carbon
extraction industry woke up the threat to their long term cash
flows.
Sorry, Bill. I've got better things to do than get drawn into another
of your pointless pissing contests.
Lying about the science evidence demonstrating that climate change is
happening is a well-paid commercial activity. You aren't remotely
good enough at it to get paid for it, but that doesn't seem to stop
you hoping that you might.
Nice try, Bill, but I'm not falling for it. I know a barb when I see it
and I'm not getting hooked. Try plying your trade on some other poor
sap.
You've gotten well hooked by climate change denial propaganda, and
thrashing around pretending to be sceptical is just more of your futile attempts to evade the point. The barb is deeply embedded. You probably
need a brain implant to get off the hook, and you'd probably reject functional brain tissue as incompatible with your right-wing goof
genome.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 18:06:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2024 3:11 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:06:49 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 12/06/2024 8:43 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:55:21 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/06/2024 8:05 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:47:50 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 08:08:26 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:21:52 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/06/2024 03:42, john larkin wrote:
>You objections to the thoroughly reliable climate data involve your >>>>>> demented conspiracy theory which has everybody involved in taking
the published the measurements consistently lying to the public for >>>>>> more than sixty years.
Nobody even thought that anyone would bother until around 1990, when >>>>>> global warming hit statistical significance, and the fossil carbon >>>>>> extraction industry woke up the threat to their long term cash
flows.
Sorry, Bill. I've got better things to do than get drawn into another >>>>> of your pointless pissing contests.
Lying about the science evidence demonstrating that climate change is
happening is a well-paid commercial activity. You aren't remotely
good enough at it to get paid for it, but that doesn't seem to stop
you hoping that you might.
Nice try, Bill, but I'm not falling for it. I know a barb when I see it
and I'm not getting hooked. Try plying your trade on some other poor
sap.
You've gotten well hooked by climate change denial propaganda, and
thrashing around pretending to be sceptical is just more of your futile
attempts to evade the point. The barb is deeply embedded. You probably
need a brain implant to get off the hook, and you'd probably reject
functional brain tissue as incompatible with your right-wing goof
genome.
Nope. Still not tempted. You need to up your game, Bill.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 365 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:34:13 |
| Calls: | 7,790 |
| Files: | 12,917 |
| Messages: | 5,750,911 |