[TowerTalk] spider balls.. they work

[Keith Dutson]

>How does NASA define "safe"? How does NASA define "works"?
 
LOL!  Can't help but think of Bill Clinton and his infamous definition
statement regarding Monica.
 
Keith
 
  _____  

From: david jordan [mailto:wa3gin at erols.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 10:45 AM
To: Tom Rauch
Cc: keith at dutson.net; TowerTalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] spider balls.. they work


Hi Tom,

It all depends on how one defines "works"!  One could ask the same question
of tooth paste, chlorinated water, bacterial hand washing soap, vitamins,
cancer treatments, and most other products. 

How can lightning risk management be anything more than subjective views and
marketing?  My personal view is if mother nature wants to screw with
anything man made mother nature will have her way with ease. Regarding NASA,
they bought the devices. They must have thought they would work when they
purchased the devices. Did NASA get snookered?  Maybe! Maybe their
expectations were marketed. Reducing the risk and eliminating the risk are
two very different things.
Also I seem to remember NASA saying on numerous occasions that the space
shuttle was safe, usually after each massive failure in safety.  How does
NASA define "safe"? How does NASA define "works"?  I think the discussion is
beating a dead horse at this point. It's not black or white in my view with
regard to the effectiveness of methods designed to reduce the risk of
occurrences that may lead to a direct lightning strike. 

The spider balls concept is a fascinating one.  I'm sure there are at least
two strong opinions on whether they things "work" or not, depending on your
definition. 

Only the creator of the planet knows for sure, and he/she might decide that
just to make it interesting the damn things will work some of the time but
not all of the time!

73,
dave
wa3gin

Tom Ranch wrote:


NASA uses these devices extensively at it's launch 
<snippety>