Summary and Editorial
It's too bad our relationship has ended on such an acrimonious note.

Could I have done things better? Shure. In retrospect one can always find a better way to do things. Perhaps it would have been better to just 'go allong with the program' and not defend the charges against me as I had been advisedto do by some of my friends, or I could have turned in my project sooner, but what happened is what happened. I attempted an apology for any problems caused by my posting on the Above Top Seceret site, but it seemed to carry little weight. It seemed to me that only accepting Dennis's position that I was the cause of "outing" the secret project, that wasn't a seceret, was the only way to reconsile, which I was not prepaired to do.

In reviewing all of this it seems to me that Dennis is one of those people who cannot be wrong. As it is impossible to be right all the time, at some point he will be wrong. When found to be in the wrong this type of person will then demonizes the other person and distort the facts to make them look correct while everyone else involved then becomes wrong.

On the other hand, I realize that no matter what I may "know" or how much I value my opinion, I have found on numerous ocasions that I have been clearly proven wrong on both technical and philosophical belief's. This has caused me to take a low key approach to things and not to argue issues beyond a few exchanges. Fearing that I may well be proven wrong, I try to find some reference to support or refute my claim. This is because I want to solve the problem irregardless of whether my point of view is correct or not. Most engineers will prefer to argue for hours rather than to take a few minutes and put two wires together under a scope probe to find out which asertion is true.

To give you an idea of how this works and to support my claim that Dennis is unable to have a civil disagreement without resorting to personal attacks and that he cannot seem to relate facts and events accurately, I submit the following:

The entire post is here: (Link)

Dennis is speaking:

I did not differentate between control and non control.

Our business model is based around the docking of our system with a functional GEO comsat. By definition that means that they are under control.

To capture a spacecraft not under control is a whole nuther ballgame and not what we would do, at least at the beginning of the business as there is little money to be made from such a business, unless it failed in the middle of a group of operating birds and was on the way to a collision.

The shuttle used the "Stinger" for the comsats that was inserted into the apogee motor by a crewperson on the end of the robitc arm. Then the arm maneuvered the bird into the cargo bay. The comsats that I remember during the Shuttle operation were all actually operational birds with their control systems at least under minimal operational conditions.

That wild and wacky Pierre Thuot used his hands to capture Intelsat VI in 1992 when the robotic attachments failed to achive capture.

Technically the Shuttle capture via the robotic arm was via telepresence, not via autonomous operation and therefore does not match the definition of what the Kurs/Progress/Soyuz docking to ISS does.

The point of commonality with STS and comsats is that the comsats have no features that adapt them to be captured, either actively or passively even though they were functional.
Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 11, 2007 04:09 PM

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 11, 2007 04:09 PM

Sorry no Dennis.

You dont recall things correctly. There are some significant errors (history doesnt seem to be your thing!)

"The shuttle used the "Stinger" for the comsats that was inserted into the apogee motor by a crewperson on the end of the robitc arm"

I dont think so. I think that this was done for Westar and Palapa by EVA crewmen on the "backpack"/jetpack EMU whatever you want to call it. At home I have a very nicely framed photo of Joe Allen doing just that with his signature.

"That wild and wacky Pierre Thuot used his hands to capture Intelsat VI in 1992 when the robotic attachments failed to achive capture."

Sorry no.

There was no "robotic" attachment, just the capture bar that Pierre held in his hand. It failed, twice or three times...I cant recall. EAch time putting "rates" onto the vehicle.

The capture was done by three EVA crewman in the payload bay (first and only time that was done) with Dan Brandensien doing some masterful flying putting the three crewman between the spinning bird.

Again I have a rather nice sign photo at home of the event.

History doesnt seem to be your thing, including space history Dennis (sorry couldnt not take the shot you left yourself wide open).

Hopefully your space model is not based on the faulty information you have presented...

(all in good fun!)

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 06:42 PM

Dennis.

Just continuing on, from memory...the Leasat was nabbed by OX completly by hand...again another picture signed at home.

I think that the only "sats" the robot arm has tagged who were free flyers... are Solar Max, Hubble and the Spartan.......

Unless there really was that secret DoD mission...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 06:44 PM

Oler

You are still such a moron.

Here is from Pierre's mission. (hint I know him)

The capture required three EVAs: a planned one by astronaut Pierre J. Thuot and Richard J. Hieb who were unable to attach a capture bar to the satellite from a position on the RMS; a second unscheduled but identical attempt the following day; and finally an unscheduled but successful hand capture by Pierre J. Thuot and fellow crewmen Richard J. Hieb and Thomas D. Akers as Commander Daniel C. Brandenstein delicately maneuvered the orbiter to within a few feet of the 4.5 ton communications satellite. An ASEM structure was erected in the cargo bay by the crew to serve as a platform to aid in the hand capture and subsequent attachment of the capture bar.

*******

A capture bar is a robotic element you moron. I don't have the time to refute all of your crap.

Oh, how is that trailer park of yours doing?
Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 12, 2007 07:38 AM

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 12, 2007 07:38 AM

LOL

a "capture" bar is not a robotic element, when the main "capture" was done by three space suited astronauts.

They caught it with their "hands" Dennis.

Face it Dennis, you got everything wrong about yoru post.

You dont know history...The robotic arm did not capture the Palapa and Westar satellites...

Sorry.

Have fun. I enjoy teaching!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 12, 2007 11:55 AM