eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (01/30/86)
The following commentary is not unique to the net, but can be found in the print, the airwaves, and the wires: > (4) NASA isn't helping things by keeping quiet,... > If NASA takes too long the media could get unruly. > > (6) ... . Hard facts will be scarce for a while,... > sucking all sorts of speculation, accusation and justification into > public view. The second comment says it all. This is not like the Apollo fire where there was lots of evidence. I am tired of everybody beginning to say, "It's clear . . ." when it is `clear' to me that many people do not know what they are talking about. We have a penant for causality and determinism. We have all seen a single set of footage and have picked up on little artifacts. Important pieces of information are missing and what might appear to be a `cause' might in reality be an after effect of something greater yet unseen. Grand-stand post-mortems only contribute to rumors, and we (in NASA) have heard many. Someone on the net might summarize known facts, some one else might collect summarize and check off implications (neither of these should be in NASA) without the redundant replication. I cannot comment on the various speculations, but so long as we remember that they are just speculations and remember to eliminate them, we will avoid Zapruder (sp) based analysis. Certainly, we are in a damage control mode. We will have to await Mr. Weinburger's comments after the retoric has died down. With that, I bid you adieu. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/01/86)
> The following commentary is not unique to the net, but can be > found in the print, the airwaves, and the wires: > > I am tired of everybody beginning to > say, "It's clear . . ." when it is `clear' to me that many people do not > know what they are talking about. We have a penant for causality and > determinism. We have all seen a single set of footage and have picked up > on little artifacts. Important pieces of information are missing > and what might appear to be a `cause' might in reality be an after > effect of something greater yet unseen. I agree with Gene on this completely. I've been quite disappointed with the quality of the information coming across the net on the disaster. With few exceptions, they seem to break down into three categories: o initial reactions: "The Challenger blew up today. At this point there don't seem to be survivers" -- I can understand the sentiment, but four days after the fact, net-propogation means I'm still seeing them outdated or incorrect information and all. o "Let's rename net.columbia" -- May I ask what this accomplishes? Renaming a group is a non-trivial operation on this network, it usually takes months to get things straight, and I'm not sure it is a reasonable thing to do based on a short term emotional reaction. IF people spent the time they took writing these kinds of messages and wrote messages to their senators or the president, maybe the NASA budget would have a better chance of being set at a level where they can accomplish things. o "I've watched the videotape, and it seems to me..." -- A lot of immediate experts have watched the tapes and have solved all of mankinds problems. Hell, I watched the video tapes as well, and I certainly didn't see stuff that obvious. The people who BUILT the thing watched the tapes, and it doesn't seem like they say it, either. Let's tone down the backseat quarterbacking a bit and try to work with facts, shall we? One of the things I've noticed is that a lot of writers seem to lack perspective on the shuttle. It isn't just a large plane, folks. I was lucky enough to be able to visit an open-house with the Enterprise years ago, and until you've seen that thing, you simply can't imagine what it is like. Imagine tires larger than you are. Imagine a cargo bay large enough to swallow a Greyhound bus with room to spare. Imagine putting this on a 15 story building full of gasoline and riding it to the stars. Until you've been near a shuttle and come to grips with the size, the complexity, and the majesty, I don't see how anyone can look at a videotape and understand it. I cried years ago from the overwhelming grace of the Enterprise, and I cried again this week when Challenger went down. These comments are not from one that doesn't care, but from someone who thinks its time to start looking forward again. Let's learn from mistakes, not dwell on them. I've been a long time (but silent) supporter of the space program. The shuttle crash brings home the fact that NASA has been starved for funds since the Nixon reign. I've decided it is time to stop my silent approval, and start working to get NASA what I feel it deserves. If you approve of the space program, I suggest you do, too. I'm putting together letters that will go to the President, my elected representatives in the senate and the house, the head of NASA, and whoever else I decide ought to see a copy, demanding not only a continuation of NASA funding, but a ramp up to make space a commercially viable place for industry. I'm also considering putting away my long standing problems with the L5 society and supporting them in their support of the Space program. The Space foundation is another thing I'm looking at. It is my opinion that now is a critical time in the space program. Reagan has come out in favor of continued space funding, but there are many who feel that NASA's money can be much better spent on things like food stamps (i.e., direct benefits that get them re-elected). Those that favor space will need all the support they can get. I suggest we give it to them, and leave the discovery of the cause of the disaster and the solution to that problem where it belongs -- with the experts. chuq -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq FidoNet: 125/84 My uncle told me all of this. It must be true, because I know my uncle, and he is as honest as me.
carroll@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/04/86)
<- I agree totally. I think NASA is the most concerned and the most qualified to deal with this, so I'll wait for them to figure it out.