Re: Belated look at the OSXhints April Fool's front page

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

Point is, this ain't something that's limited to NASA and
recent decades - it's ingrained in US culture, somehow. And I
don't even know what it is that `it' might be.

No, it is ingrained in all culture.

Don't be ridiculous. You haven't the foggiest idea what aspect of the
culture I'm talking about for one thing; and for another, this sort of
thing is different in different cultures.

ok, well if I haven't got any idea what aspect of culture is, there is
not much more point discussing it.

Only if you have no interest in learning.

No, I have no interest in getting in another pointless argument.

That's a good excuse for closing your mind. I must remember it.

Good plan.

[snip]

I just don't think that all things considered, it is as dangerous as
you would think.

It's 2 catastrophes in 121 flights. That's very dangerous.

The shuttle is known to be very dangerous - mostly because of the solid
fuel boosters, and the thin skin over the Al alloy airframe.

Those are two specific weaknesses of the design - well known, horribly
dangerous. Both have caused catastrophic disasters, and I was worried
about both design defects way, way back.

Given these flaws, it really should have been given a proper powered
crew escape vehicle to deal with catastrophic failure - but they even
left that out, a feature of all the previous manned launchers.

Getting it yet?

Ahh - here I see the 'Getting it yet' or why don't you just say 'Oi
retard, are you listening to what I am saying'.

Because that's not what I mean. You have made a big mistake in
comprehension at this point.


ok, I will play your game briefly, so what can 'Getting it yet' mean in
a way that isn't designed to be an insult? Leave apart for a minute that
by your definition, an insult is anything that the person reading takes
as an insult, but from your point of view, what does it mean?

Yes, i know what you are saying, and I can accept your points that the
space shuttle is quite dangerous, but going into space is not a routine
thing,

The point is that with the Space Shuttle, it was *meant* to turn into
that, it was meant to be about 1000 times more reliable (yes, that
figure) than anything else so it *WAS* routine.

So why does it matter whether it was supposed to be 1000 times more
reliable? I didn't think we were talking about what was supposed to be,
I thought this was about what they are?

so I don't think it is that dangerous considering what an
exceptionally dangerous thing it is.

<puzzled>

But it's not a fundamentally dangerous thing to do, any more than flying
in an airliner is.

Of course it is fundamentally more dangerous than flying an airliner.
You have to reach escape velocity, fly round in a near vaccum exposed to
radiation filtered by the atmostphere and a large amount of floating
objects, then return at exactly the right angle to not burn up in the
atmosphere.

Under what basis can you possibly say that it is no more dangerous than
flying an airliner, which has none of those things to contend with, even
though the shuttle also has to cope with all the things the airliner has
to contend with.

I am sorry, there is no logic in that whatsoever.

The US manned space programme showed that going into space could be made
safe - right up until they designed the Space Shuttle, which is very
dangerous due to specific design problems:

1) Solid fuelled boosters
2) No launch escape system designed in
3) A thin skin over an Al alloy airframe.

Those three lacks have all killed crews. No other US manned space
launcher has killed anyone. No other US manned space launcher suffered
from the three design defects I list above.

So what?

you are just going over the same arguments again and again. Seeing as I
understood perfectly what you were saying the first time, why do you
think that repeating the same points again and again is going to get
anywhere. Is that a sensible way to argue?

You can repeat the same things as many times as you want, I am not
arguing that people have been killed, I am not arguing that the space
shuttle is the best design possible.

So I think we will have to leave this bit. I don't agree with you, and
even if you say it again I am still not.

Tell you what, you can rant about me having a closed mind, and how
everyone is stupid etc etc if it makes you happy.

There was something on saying one in eight people climbing everest die.
That is a lot more dangerous.

All people who climb Everest die, along with every multi-cellular living
creature we know about.

Ooh very clever. Yes, I forgot to say 'while they were there'. Almost
like saying, ooh, I don't know, about the american air force during the
first world war or something.

Your whit is cutting.


I am not ignoring this fact. I am just dissagreeing with you. I really
wish you would learn the difference.

I wish you would learn that I am often right.


I know you are often right. I wish you would accept that you are also
often very wrong.

And I wish you would stop
making this wildly inaccurate assessments of me: your arrogance in this
is quite revolting. You cannot judge me remotely reliably; as far as I
can tell, you just plain get it wrong every time, and refuse to accept
you might be in error. Just blinkered arrogance on your part is what it
looks like to me.

Obviously it does. And you know how it looks to me.

What I see is not that you are /disagreeing/ with me: you are rejecting
what I claim out of hand, refusing to address points I might make, and
simply asserting that you are right and I am wrong.

I am not simply asserting that you are wrong. I am saying that you are
making valid points about what you are saying, but that in the concept
of the argument, it doesn't matter.

There is no way you can state that the apollo program is more reliable
than the space shuttle. The data is just not available. It did 9 manned
flights. You have the data on manned space flight, how many of those
flights did the people survive through to good luck?

The first manned flight certainly did.

You claim that the Space Shuttle is `pretty good' despite the fact that
it's *PROVEN* 1000 less reliable than claimed

It wasn't my claim that it is 1000 times safer.
I am claiming that it is pretty good, because I don't think that 1/100
is bad (yes, I know it is 2 in 121, but we haven't got to 200 yet).
I am not on NASAs management, so I don't have to justify the safety
case.

defects that put the crew at excessive risk compared to *ALL* previous
US manned launcher designs, and has in fact killed more people than any
other manned launcher in history - for no reason other than the
particular safety defects that I have mentioned.

*AND* the fact that no other US manned space launcher has had anywhere
near the use of the shuttle.
You can claim how safe the others were, but there is simply not enough
data to show it to be the case. You are playing with far too small
figures to show.

You have refused to address those facts: all you do is repeat your
mantra that the Space Shuttle is pretty good.

I am not refusing to address those facts. For a start they are not
actually facts.

Where is your evidence for this claim? How can it stand against the
points I present?

What claim?

You have made no attempt to address any of the points I've made - you've
closed your mind to reason, refused to enter into discussion, and just
keep claiming that the Space Shuttle's good regardless of any point I
might make.

As far as I'm concerned, I've presented the points which prove beyond
all reasonable doubt that the Space Shuttle's a pile of crap.

It doesn't though. It is beyond your reasonable doubt. You are going on
the flawed premise that space travel is fundamentally safe, and I don't
believe it is.


Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the solid fuel boosters are a
really bad idea - it's bloody Werner von Braun you're ignoring on this
point, and do you really think it's sensible to do so?

I am not ignoring that fact either. I am just not convinced of the
dangers. I really wish you would learn to tell the difference.

So you're not convinced of the dangers, even though almost all other
manned launchers have launched with dead engines and no trouble -
because they're designed to do so - and the Space Shuttle is designed to
explode if it suffers a solid fuel booster failure and has in fact
exploded under those circumstances?

Yes? The space shuttle is 'designed to explode'?

So some people sat round a table and said 'we must make sure that when
something goes wrong with the engines it explodes', and when they were
doing the testing they checked to ensure it exploded when something went
wrong, and didn't approve it for use until they had proved that it would
explode when something went wrong?

So other than your say so (which is all you have presented anyway), can
you point me to a reference to where the 'designed to explode' design
spec is please?

When you can prove this, I am happy to accept all your other points.

Fact: the Space Shuttle is the manned launcher most likely to blow up.

I find no proof of that.

Fact: it's the *ONLY* US manned launcher without a launch escape system.

OK, I will take your word for that.

That doesn't convince you it's dangerous? - well, what the hell possibly
could, then?

I accept it is dangerous. It is a space vehicle, and I always said they
were dangerous. It is you that things it is the same as driving a bus.

The failure rate is huge, not 1/100 as you claim but 2/121 - nearly
twice as bad as your claim.

Well, yes, when dealing with low numbers the statistics can be easily
skewed. By your own figures, 1 in 17 apollo crews were burned to death
on the ground. That doesn't sound that good.

You're missing the point here: I'm talking about the performace of
manned space launchers, not comparing the safety of the overall
development programmes.

I see your point, I accept your point, I just disagree with it. ok?

You do not see my point as far as I can tell.

Who knows what you can tell. You seem to have dificulty understanding
anyone.

I see that you have
rejected my point out of hand because it disagrees with your established
ideas.

No, I reject your point out of hand because you have not proved
anything, you just keep saying them over and over getting louder and
more abusive.

You're suffering from a fossilised brain, you are. Or so it
seems to me.

Yes, well how things seem to you appear to be a very odd view of the
world.


Lets leave it at that. Any further discussion would involve you calling
me mad.

<shrug> I'd much rather you attempted to understand.

Why - you will not believe I understand until I agree with you. You are
arguing about the subtle details, where as I am disagreeing with the
whole core of the argument.

There is no way to say, it has delivered more people into space than all
the manned launchers operated by NASA hasn't it?

Never mind the number of people: count the number of flights.

OK, counting the number of flights. The space shuttle has made more
manned launches than any other manned launcher hasn't it?

Yep - it was *claimed* to be 1000 times more reliable than any of them.
It's *proven* less reliable than any of the others.

And I am not arguing that it is less reliable than it was claimed to be.
It was a stupid claim.
It has had more accidents than any of the others, but it has done so
many more flights, I see no way that I can say whether it is less
reliable.

Okay, so let's accept your proposition that the Space Shuttle's a superb
piece of work.

It's great: it fails to meet its safety design spec by *THREE ORDERS OF
MAGNITUDE*.

See that is the thing.. While ranting about how I don't undestand what
you are saying, you clearly don't understand what I have said either.

I am not claiming and have never claimed that it is 1000 times safer
than anything else.

It's about that much more expensive to operate as it was meant to be,
too.

But still cheaper than the alternatives.


It's great because it explodes if it suffers an engine failure on
launch, which no other manned launcher will do and which the Space
Shuttle has done.

It's great because the crew can't get out when it's in trouble - unlike
all the other manned US launchers.

It's great because a single failure in its huge and very fragile heat
shield can cause the loss of the vehicle on re-entry - which can happen
to no other manned re-entry vehicle and has in fact happened to the
Space Shuttle.

It's great that those two catastrophic failure modes - which the Space
Shuttle is unique amongst manned launchers in suffering from - it's
great because those two fundamental design weaknesses have in fact
killed two crews.

It's really safe and great - what more proof do we need?

The proof that if you erect enough straw men you can knock them down all
in one go?

My main point is that the Saturn V launches all went off perfectly -
/despite many engine failures/ it always got there.

Yes, all 9 of them

*Despite many engine failures* is the relevant point here. One Shuttle
launch - only one - has suffered an engine failure. It exploded.

That is the point.

If your launcher cannot fly into orbit with an engine out, it's not safe
enough to carry people and that's that - the Space Shuttle fails this
test.

Huh? you are saying that apollo could fly into orbit with an engine out?
Are you really saying this?

The Space Shuttle had one engine failure and exploded.

yes, apart from the 120 where it didn't.

Indeed - and when the engine failed, it exploded killing the crew.

Yes, and 120 times it didn't.

They
had no chance: not even a launch escape system as fitted to *all*
previous US manned launchers.

and could they have worked?


Space truckers!

No, that's Ace Garp and friends in 2000 A.D. Inspired by Deep Purple's
song in part, IIRC.

I think you mean Space Cowboys - a great film, on the shelf behind me,
but what the ***'s it got to do with anything right here&now?

Thats the one, although maybe not if you say it is a great film!

But yes, too old. John Glenn went up for historic reasons, not because
nasa are in the habit of sending pensioners up.

John Glenn went up because he could - he was a senator, and he wanted to
go into space again and pulled it off, the lucky ***. Sod any
official reaons given: the real reason was he wanted to go again and had
the influence to pull it off. Undue use of his senatorial position?
Probably - but good luck to him, sez I.

The point is that there's no reason someone in their 70s can't fly into
space, and you're nothing like that old, so you're not too old.

I am, considering I am not and never will be a US senator and will never
have the power to persuade people to take me.

So what?

So without that I am not getting into space.

Probably i am also less fit in my 40s than he is in his 70s!

So what?

Are you telling me you'd be unable to survive 3G for a few minutes, even
without training?

I am sure I could.

Plus I would have to be
a US citizen, and I didn't want that when I lived there, I sure don't
want it now.

<puzzled> Who says you have to be a US citizen? I'd never really
wanted to be a US astronaut or Soviet cosmonaut - the jobs are horrible.

You have to be a US astronaut to get up in the US program.

So what?

That is the only current option for getting into space.

And inside 20 years, we'll see orbiting space hotels - unless Robert
Bigelow (aka D.D. Harriman) snuffs it first. Then the same thing on the
moon. Within our life expectancy, there will be human habitation on the
moon, so I predict.

Yeh right. Like the flying cars they promised within 10 years on
tommorows world in the 70s.

[snip]

I am happy with them. They look nice, they are nice and roomy inside,
they make a good noise,

They make a bloody awful racket, I hate the noise of helicopters with a
deep and abiding passion (cops at night is mostly why), and they've got
no business flying: they're just silly flying food mixers, so there.

I like the sound. Which is good, as it is a pretty common sound. Between
that and the sound of chavs, it is about the most common sound around
here.
I know which one I prefer.

But you can drive over a chav using a large truck if you want. Hard to
do that to a helicopter when it's in the air.

Yes, but the apache has a huge amount of firepower and effective air to
citroen saxo weapons.

In any case helicopters are a valid thing to exist in the universe,
unlike chavs.

No argument there.

All decent folk should be permitted a licence to hunt and kill any
Burberry-baseball-cap wearer - as well as their partners, parents, and
progeny. Wipe 'em out. The world will improve without 'em.

You don't need to hunt them. You just need to sit there and get them as
the go past.
In fact you can just go down and sit in asda carpark.

[snip]

OK, they are ridiculously expensive to run and they cant go over 270
miles/hour,

Not a lot of them can go anything like that speed, can they?

No, most of them top out around 200mph.

<eyes wide> Really? A lot faster than I'd thought.

Lynx and apaches are over 200, merlin just under, seaking quite a bit
less, but that is pretty old.

I got the speed record wrong, it
is 249 miles an hour by the lynx, just below the theoretical maximum
helicopter speed.

I thought it was something like that. If it's the same record as I'd
heard about, they totally wrecked the engine while setting it. Sod the
fancy rotor blades - they had them, but I'm told what mostly got the
high speed was over-stressing the power plant.

(I knew a bloke who worked for RR at Leavesden at about the time)

I think the fancy rotor blades were very important. Engines are engines
really, you either get them from GE or RR, and it isn't a technical
decision, it is a purely political decision (if you are selling to the
left side of the world you use GE, if you sell them in the UK you use
RR, and if you sell them to anyone else, you use the cheapest).
Don't know why really - they are all american either way.


but there is a reasuring feeling when you are walking into
work watching the air ambulance take off. Funny the difference between
the pilots. The air-ambulance comes in and out so fast compared to the
others.

Not much of a surprise, all things considered.

I find it suprising. You would think the military helicopters would come
in fast too.

No I wouldn't, because the book tells 'em `don't do that unless...' - is
what I'd guess.

You would be very suprised then. They are much more 'well, you aren't
supposed to do it like that but you know the helicopter can take it'.

Contrary to what you see in the movies, people do walk out of helicopter
crashes.

The test pilots take their time. That is to be expected.

The other way round to the one I'd expect - I'd expect them to be very
direct about what they did.

No, they have all the time in the world.

[snip]

There is no risk of me suffering a panic attack while controlling
machinery - none at all. It's human interactions and things like that
that are the problem.

What happens if the two are combined?

<puzzled> I'm not capable of operating machinery and engaging someone
in conversation - it's one or the other, assuming the machinery is of
the type where operating it does take some sort of concentration and
skill.

I was refering to instruction.

[snip]

I know many bikers whos judgement I
trust, but I wouldn't go on the back of them. There is no situation
where any other form of transport woudn't be better (even the space
shuttle).

1) Nothing else available.

2) A pressing need to travel *now* - that'd do it, surely?

I have never had a need enough.

It's easy to imagine a situation that might meet my spec, though.

If it is less than a couple of miles I
would be happy to walk,

If there were no factors getting in the way.

more than that I could get some other type of
transport (even a coach would be better).

I specified `nothing else available'.

You did. It would have to be a really desparate situation for me to go
on the back of a bike. Never understood why so many people didn't object
to being on the back of my bike.

(I worry myself at times, on the motorway mostly. I do filtering
using a touch of slow riding technique - and when I'm doing that
past solid 70mph motorway lanes, I have to tell myself to stop it.
One mistake and you're dead. Actually, that's not true in my
case: it'd take three mistakes, but you get the idea. The problem
is that I've got 23 years' experience by now, I think, and in all
that time with all the accidents I've had, I've never ever had a
spill at any sort of speed so I've got this suicidal circuit
inside my head that thinks I can't make a mistake in such
situations. I know that's wrong, you know that's wrong, everyone
knows that's wrong - but I have to remind myself sometimes.)

I know exactly what you mean. I did dispatch riding in london.

Not me. I just commuted.

I did that too.

And ain't it grand, when it's not raining. I've pottered down Upper
Street, Islington rather often - and one day felt /so/ smug as I 90mpg'd
passed the entirely `stopped along with the rest of the traffic-jam'
Aston Martin Big Green Gorgeousness.

Used to be. I just got out of the habit when I went to the states.

[snip]

Rowland.
(the one with the clean driving licence and insurance no-one's ever
claimed off, ever)

Same here


--
Woody

www.alienrat.com
.