RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] shuttle theories

["Heivilin, Jim" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Miller [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] 
> Subject: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] shuttle theories
> 
> Here are excerpts from two new articles about the Columbia 
> disaster. It's encouraging to see that there were warning 
> signs (because it implies that similar future disasters might 
> be avoidable).  It's discouraging to see that nobody heeded 
> the warnings!  --Mike
> 
Such is the nature of being a naysayer or a "killjoy".  

Very interesting information, thanks.  However, ... 

> NASA WAS TOLD IN 1990 ABOUT VULNERABLE TILES
<snip>
> would pose no safety hazard to the orbiter. The insulation is 
> applied as a shaving cream-like foam, but turns hard as a brick. > 
> 
This illustrates one of the things about journalist/journalism that most
angers me.  While I know from other (more reliable) sources that the
insulating foam was exceptionally light, and thus logically couldn't
cause sufficient damage, this analogy may be dangerous.  I can easily
see many people assuming that since it is as hard as a brick it also
*weights* as much as a brick.  

Chatting with Justin he pointed out that comparing it to pumice might
have been a better analogy.  Light and hard.  However I don't think
nearly as many people would have "gotten" that (or know what pumice is)
so it wouldn't have worked "journalistically".  

And so while the analogy might be true, it might also spawn wildly
inaccurate speculation on the part of the "users". 

Jim 

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/