earle@oblio.DEC (Re-entrant list structures alter DNA) (02/03/86)
2-3-86 10:52AM I agree with the person who was talking about the speculation on the net. I was ready to read some interesting IN DEPTH notices from PEOPLE IN THE KNOW who work with NASA as contractors or for NASA. Those have been few and far between (probably because they were off researching the problem). I should have commented on the 31st about this but I am doing it now because I had hoped it would subside a little and it hasn't to a great extent. Don't most of the speculators realize that they will mostly be proved wrong? If the only information available to you was the TV and newsprint media I don't think you will have any particular insight into the problem because you have NO data from the mission itself. I wouldn't dare comment on it because I will mostly likely be embarrased, as those of you are already, by speculating on opinions of the ONE AND ONLY video of the trajedy. By the time most of you read an article on the net it can be 2 or more days old. This net, to me, is NOT TV. The net is more like a magazine (weekly, biweekly) in its timeliness. It is more deserved of in depth discussions AFTER THE PROBLEM HAS been resolved. By the time I got most of the post-mournfull articles on the 'probable cause' of the accident, it was this Sunday and the chief administrator (title could be wrong) of NASA had already appeared on the morning news programs giving and educated guess of what happened. Most of you will know alot more by the time you read this and will know that most of the speculation was absolutely wrong. You 'speculators' should realize that in a week things TOTALLY unknown to you will change things. Just today the President said that the space program, NASA, will get billions more (hopefully) in spending. People are NOT calling for the shuttle and NASA breakup. DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER A MAJOR TRAJEDY LIKE THIS! And that in a couple of days it will blow over into more constructive critisism (sp.)?! I think most of the kids I have seen and talked to where more optimistic and hopefull than most of the reactions I have read. I think it is sad that alot of people are soooo short sided...do you really think a year from now people will not have a greater determination because of this. Shortsidedness is such a waste of human thought sometimes...and my modem. George Earle DECVAX!DECWRL!RHEA!OBLIO!EARLE disclaimer....disclaimer....disclaimer....
brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell) (02/04/86)
In article <883@decwrl.DEC.COM>, earle@oblio.DEC writes: > > I agree with the person who was talking about the speculation on the net. I > was ready to read some interesting IN DEPTH notices from PEOPLE IN THE KNOW > who work with NASA as contractors or for NASA. Those have been few and far > between (probably because they were off researching the problem). Probably because most of them aren't on the net. And if they are/were, the management and NASA would probably really frown on premature comments (official or unofficial) from its employees. > Don't most > of the speculators realize that they will mostly be proved wrong? > You 'speculators' should realize that in a week things TOTALLY unknown to you > will change things. > I wouldn't dare comment on it because I will mostly > likely be embarrased, as those of you are already, by speculating on... Yes, the speculators realize they may be wrong. When they are wrong, they are probably not grievously embarrased. I personally am not afraid of making mistakes. I make them all the time. > ...you have NO data from the mission itself. ... Here's where I sort of agree with you. Yes, the initial "Challenger exploded" messages got old. These should have been posted with a local distribution to ensure timeliness. I enjoyed the messages with high information content. All two or three of them. I disliked the messages with no information content. All two or three of them. (the ones concerning net.sf-lovers comes to mind. So does this one.) But, I was not offended by the conjectural messages. I like to see discussions of this sort. I thought most were quite intelligent and plausible. I guess it comes down to having a newsgroup consisting of only pure proven fact vs. one that supports discussions. (If you take the former option net.columbia will probably be combined with net.space, since the net traffic will be so low. We can go ahead and get rid of net.religion and net.ai while we're purging the net.) Finally, I hope this nears the end of the discussion. Not that I want to have the last word, but that net.columbia is for the space shuttle, not for usenet theory. Brian H. Powell UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!brian ARPA: brian@sally.UTEXAS.EDU U.S. Mail: Southwestern Bell P.O. Box 5899 345-0932 Austin, TX 78763-5899 AT&T (512) 345-0932