Re: Columbia Investigators Criticize NASA for Botched Photography During Shuttle Launch

[edward ohare]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:51 GMT, Jay > wrote:


>The evaluation "was hampered by lack of high-resolution, high-speed
>cameras," the investigators said in a statement.


This is irrelevant criticism. Its already been shown that knowing the
extent of the problem would not have prevented the accident.



>The board expects to release its final report by the end of the month.


I sure hope this excerpt isn't the best recommendation they could come
up with.

[Paul F. Dietz]

edward ohare wrote:

>>The evaluation "was hampered by lack of high-resolution, high-speed
>>cameras," the investigators said in a statement.
>
> This is irrelevant criticism. Its already been shown that knowing the
> extent of the problem would not have prevented the accident.

Bull****, Ed. Even if the photography had not prevented the loss of the
shuttle and crew, it would have been invaluable in determining the cause
of the accident. And it's not at all clear it couldn't have saved the crew.
If it had led to prompt inspection that had revealed the gravity of the situation,
the astronauts might have been rescued.

Paul

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
(Hallerb) wrote:

> >
> >This is irrelevant criticism. Its already been shown that knowing the
> >extent of the problem would not have prevented the accident.
> >
>
> Theres no way to know that for sure. Atlantis might have been rushed to
> flight.

"There's" not "Theres" (contraction of "There is"); "might have" not
"might of"

And no, not safely. You ought to know that by now as much as that idea
has been banged around here since February 1.

> Other alternatives could of been looked at.

"Could have" not "could of"; Bob, your hindsight accuity is 20/20.
Amazing!

> In any case the familys could of at least said goodbye........

"Families" not "familys"; "could have" not "could of"; and my god, how
maudlin and melodramatic do you have to be? Are you on any kind of
medications? If not, why not?

> In any case plans for stranded orbiters should be made NOW, and not put off
> till another disaster occurs

What makes you think such plans are not now being made?

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[edward ohare]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:09:19 -0500, "Paul F. Dietz" >
wrote:

>edward ohare wrote:
>
>>>The evaluation "was hampered by lack of high-resolution, high-speed
>>>cameras," the investigators said in a statement.
>>
>> This is irrelevant criticism. Its already been shown that knowing the
>> extent of the problem would not have prevented the accident.
>
>Bull****, Ed. Even if the photography had not prevented the loss of the
>shuttle and crew, it would have been invaluable in determining the cause
>of the accident.


Seems like they've gotten it pretty close without the pics. Y'know
the deal about a pic being worth a thousand words? Well, I think
having the affected piece in your hand is worth a thousand pics.

It seems sufficient debris was recovered to allow for a good
investigation.


> And it's not at all clear it couldn't have saved the crew.
>If it had led to prompt inspection that had revealed the gravity of the situation,
>the astronauts might have been rescued.


How? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was acknowledged here there
was no rescue mechanism in place. Please correct me if I'm wrong (not
that I doubt you will! <G>).

[Paul F. Dietz]

edward ohare wrote:

>>Bull****, Ed. Even if the photography had not prevented the loss of the
>>shuttle and crew, it would have been invaluable in determining the cause
>>of the accident.
>

> Seems like they've gotten it pretty close without the pics. Y'know
> the deal about a pic being worth a thousand words? Well, I think
> having the affected piece in your hand is worth a thousand pics.

Perhaps it would have saved time, provided more details, and increased
the confidence that the correct cause had been identified and the proper
fixes applied.

Saving time is not to be dismissed -- it costs billions of dollars a year
to maintain the shuttle infrastructure, so even a small savings in time
would pay for a lot of photographic equipment.

And they are *not* going to be able to say precisely how the RCC was
damaged. Knowing that would have helped them add reinforcements, or
provide data for design of future vehicles.


> How? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was acknowledged here there
> was no rescue mechanism in place. Please correct me if I'm wrong (not
> that I doubt you will! <G>).

You're wrong. If they had known early enough they could have rushed
Atlantis into space fast enough to have had a good chance of saving the
crew. This has been covered in the press.

Paul

[Diane Wilson]

In article >, says...
> edward ohare wrote:
>
> > How? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was acknowledged here there
> > was no rescue mechanism in place. Please correct me if I'm wrong (not
> > that I doubt you will! <G>).
>
> You're wrong. If they had known early enough they could have rushed
> Atlantis into space fast enough to have had a good chance of saving the
> crew. This has been covered in the press.

Along with a good chance of losing two shuttles and crews, instead of
one.

They would have had to *know* within four days of launch, IIRC, to be able
to stretch consumables long enough to wait for Atlantis (and that means no
spacewalks, even for inspection). They would have had to cut a lot of
corners, including safety-related issues, in order to launch Atlantis in
that window. And it would still have been vulnerable to parts failure,
bad weather, etc.

You want to talk about NASA overlooking safety concerns in order to
launch? What would the pressure have been like to launch Atlantis in
the face of almost any safety concern? It would have been go-fever on
steroids. Any manager who said "no" to launching Atlantis under those
circumstances would be run out of town on a rail.

It's just amazing to hear arguments on the one hand that NASA needs
a better culture of safety, at the same time that there are serious
suggestions to rush a launch under such pressure in full view of the
entire world. You can't have it both ways.

Diane

[HOST Comp JimS]

>It's just amazing to hear arguments on the one hand that
>NASA needs a better culture of safety, at the same time
>that there are serious suggestions to rush a launch under
>such pressure in full view of the entire world. You can't
>have it both ways.

You're comparing apples and oranges. A rescue mission isn't
just another routine mission. I think most people would consider
it reasonable to bend some rules and take some additional risks
if it's the only hope of rescuing a crew.

James

[edward ohare]

On 03 Jul 2003 19:35:59 GMT, (HOST Comp
JimS) wrote:

>>It's just amazing to hear arguments on the one hand that
>>NASA needs a better culture of safety, at the same time
>>that there are serious suggestions to rush a launch under
>>such pressure in full view of the entire world. You can't
>>have it both ways.
>
>You're comparing apples and oranges. A rescue mission isn't
>just another routine mission. I think most people would consider
>it reasonable to bend some rules and take some additional risks
>if it's the only hope of rescuing a crew.


How are a few extra camera shots going to let you know -for sure- a
crew is doomed? Its always a guess, sure an educated one, but its
still a guess.

So what if they rushed Atlantis, something went wrong due to the rush
and it was lost, and then having no choice Columbia tried to return.
And made it.

[HOST Comp JimS]

>How are a few extra camera shots going to let you know
>-for sure- a crew is doomed?

It's true that the full extent of the damage might not have been
obvious even with better camera shots. Still, it seems like a
wise precaution for future missions. The more information you
have to base a decision on, the better.


>So what if they rushed Atlantis, something
>went wrong due to the rush and it was lost,
>and then having no choice Columbia tried to
>return. And made it.

Certainly there could be many possible bad outcomes to
any rescue mission.


But even if a rescue missions had
been attempted and failed, I think most people would
still have supported the action, and there would have
been great admiration for the astronauts who risked
their lives attempting the rescue.

[Diane Wilson]

In article >,
says...
>
> But even if a rescue missions had
> been attempted and failed, I think most people would
> still have supported the action, and there would have
> been great admiration for the astronauts who risked
> their lives attempting the rescue.

I rather expect that the criticism, second-guessing, and
backbiting would be far worse than what we've seen with
one shuttle lost.

But I suppose that as long as the astronauts performed
admirably against death-defying odds, the loss of a second
shuttle and risk of loss of the entire manned space program
would be a small price to pay.

[Diane Wilson]

In article >,
says...
> Diane Wilson > writes:
> >
> > It's just amazing to hear arguments on the one hand that NASA needs
> > a better culture of safety, at the same time that there are serious
> > suggestions to rush a launch under such pressure in full view of the
> > entire world. You can't have it both ways.
>
> Some people will take risks themselves in order to save someone else's
> life. Ask any firefighter or other rescue worker. Others will just
> stand by and watch people die.

It's not about who will risk their own necks. It's about people who
will, or will not, risk other people's necks. We're not talking about
lone fighter jocks or soldiers going after their buddies; the situations
are not remotely comparable, in lives risked, in equipment, in missions,
or anything else. What are the limits of risk, anyway?

But back to the question: Do you want NASA to pay more attention to
safety? Do you want to claim permission, in hindsight, to tell them
when they should have broken their own safety standards?

I'm curious: suppose Atlantis had been launched, and also became
stranded in orbit? What would you recommend then? Pop up a third
shuttle to rescue them all? A fourth? Fifth? Sixth?

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Paul F. Dietz" > wrote in
:

> edward ohare wrote:
>
>> How? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was acknowledged here there
>> was no rescue mechanism in place. Please correct me if I'm wrong (not
>> that I doubt you will! <G>).
>
> You're wrong. If they had known early enough they could have rushed
> Atlantis into space fast enough to have had a good chance of saving the
> crew.

"Good chance" is overstating the case considerably. The CAIB directed a
number of extremely optimistic assumptions in NASA's analysis, and a *lot*
of things would have had to line up just right to make it possible.

> This has been covered in the press.

Covered badly, you mean. When the CAIB released the results, they admitted
that the assumptions were optimistic and that the actual odds were very
poor. The press tended to play that down, if they reported it at all.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Brian Gaff" > wrote in
:

> Hmm, I guess most of us here could have come up with these
> recommendations back in march,

Right, and we would have been jumping to conclusions. The CAIB has been
meticulous, as they should be. They do release recommendations as soon as
they come to an internal consensus on them.

> its taken all this time to, I assume,
> make sure, well as sre as anyone can be, that the foam was indeed the
> first event that caused the accident.

Even now, the CAIB is only claiming that the foam is the "most probable"
cause of the accident, not "the cause." "The Cause" will probably never be
known for sure.

> I was surprised to see that no mention of a camera on the fuel tank
> was in the latest recommendations though, is this because the quality
> of the image cannot be guaranteed?

Split into multiple recommendations, I'm sure.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Hallerb]

>>In any case plans for stranded orbiters should be made NOW, and not put off
>>till another disaster occurs
>
>
>I'm sorry... plans should have been made before the first one was
>launched.

I asked about this before columbias accident. Posters here said not necessary,
waste of $$$ and such. Ebven now its not being planned the last I read.

We need a way to get stuff to any stranded orbiter fast, or a moose like
personal return to earth pack for each astronaut.

[Hallerb]

>This whole point is moot. I can't imagine a reality in which an
>Atlantis rescue would have been risked. Even if we'd gotten pictures
>and had a spacewalker's eyeballed report. I just don't think the case
>could have been made. *Now* we can argue maybe it should have been tried.
>During the mission? No way.
>--
>This is a siggy

I seriously doubt nasa would of sat by and JUST watched them die. Storey
Musgrave said it was possible thats good enough for me.

You claim it wouldnt of worked because that makes it look worse for nasa.

[edward ohare]

On 04 Jul 2003 04:57:38 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

>>This whole point is moot. I can't imagine a reality in which an
>>Atlantis rescue would have been risked. Even if we'd gotten pictures
>>and had a spacewalker's eyeballed report. I just don't think the case
>>could have been made. *Now* we can argue maybe it should have been tried.
>>During the mission? No way.
>>--
>>This is a siggy
>
>I seriously doubt nasa would of sat by and JUST watched them die.


When they decided "no big deal" on this foam strike, when they decided
"no big deal" on past foam strikes, when they went 20 years without
making a decision that foam breaking loose was a problem to be solved
(can you imagine -anyone- putting up with parts coming off -any- other
type of vehicle in normal use?) that's exactly what they did. Watched
them die.

[Hallerb]

>
>When they decided "no big deal" on this foam strike, when they decided
>"no big deal" on past foam strikes, when they went 20 years without
>making a decision that foam breaking loose was a problem to be solved
>(can you imagine -anyone- putting up with parts coming off -any- other
>type of vehicle in normal use?) that's exactly what they did. Watched
>them die.
>
>

Oh I agree completely. But a far off it killed someone is very different from
in 12 days the crew will die. Do we deorbit and kill them sooner so the
returning shuttle doesnt break up in a uncontrlled fashion reentry and hurt
people?

[edward ohare]

On 04 Jul 2003 13:37:41 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

>edward ohare wrote

>>When they decided "no big deal" on this foam strike, when they decided
>>"no big deal" on past foam strikes, when they went 20 years without
>>making a decision that foam breaking loose was a problem to be solved
>>(can you imagine -anyone- putting up with parts coming off -any- other
>>type of vehicle in normal use?) that's exactly what they did. Watched
>>them die.
>>
>>
>
>Oh I agree completely. But a far off it killed someone is very different from
>in 12 days the crew will die.


How is it different?

If you think this through, you'll realize in the 12 day scenario, it
means someone was caught unprepared and without options. Someone
decided to wing it and lost.

Now, let me ask again. Who is going to put up with parts falling off
a vehicle in normal use? Boeing? Airbus? Hyundai? Freightliner?
Kawasaki? Chevrolet? Lincoln?

Only NASA.

[DSCOTT]

(Jorge R. Frank) wrote in
>:

>
>Even now, the CAIB is only claiming that the foam is the "most probable"
>cause of the accident, not "the cause." "The Cause" will probably never
>be known for sure.
>
>

While nasa management did there best to hide the cause. But
not having good quality pictures at launch time and by going
out of there way to prevent the engineers from discovering the
true amount of damage. I suspect this lack of proof was by
management design. They all should be fired and new managers
who actually care about the lives of people should be put in
charage.
I suspect the cause is about 99% certain. It would have been
100% certain if the managers did not get in the way of good
engineers.


David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

[Bruce Palmer]

DSCOTT wrote:
> While nasa management did there best to hide the cause. But

It's "their best", moron, and that pales beside the fact that that's not
even a real sentence.

> not having good quality pictures at launch time and by going
> out of there way to prevent the engineers from discovering the
> true amount of damage. I suspect this lack of proof was by

It's "their way", nimrod, and that pales beside the fact that that's not
even a real sentence.

> management design. They all should be fired and new managers
> who actually care about the lives of people should be put in
> charage.

It's "charge", idiot.

> I suspect the cause is about 99% certain. It would have been
> 100% certain if the managers did not get in the way of good
> engineers.

You have a 4th grade grasp of the English language yet you want us to
believe you have an above-average grasp of engineering ethics. What a
maroon.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

[Roger Balettie]

"DSCOTT" > wrote:
> While nasa management did there best to hide the cause.

********.

Putting aside the grammar errors, do you have even *one shred* of evidence
to back up that statement?

If anything, NASA has been extremely forthcoming to the point of putting out
incomplete information that has led to a few premature conclusions.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

[Hallerb]

>
>Putting aside the grammar errors, do you have even *one shred* of evidence
>to back up that statement?
>

Well they did float the orbital debris idea early on while dismissing the foam
strike.

I am sure they would of prefered it was orbital debris.

[Roger Balettie]

"Hallerb" > wrote:
> >Putting aside the grammar errors, do you have even *one shred* of
evidence
> >to back up that statement?
>
> Well they did float the orbital debris idea early on while dismissing the
foam
> strike.

The "orbital debris idea" was one of a number of potential hypotheses. The
*openness* of NASA and the CAIB in presenting these is exactly what I'm
pointing out to you. You keep claiming NASA was hiding evidence, when you
give the example yourself that proves your clucking statement incorrect!

"Irony, thy screenname is hallerb."

> I am sure they would of prefered it was orbital debris.

"would have"

And, based on this response, your answer would be "no", then?

You have no evidence.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

[Hallerb]

>
>And, based on this response, your answer would be "no", then?
>
>You have no evidence.
>
>Roger

Show me where I said they were trying to cover this up?

My point was the management screwed up.Sloppy careless and wreckless.

Of course the investigation is avoiding the whole question is the shuttle ISS a
effective or if nasa should continue them. Although it appears OSP or others
may be recommended for the future.

[Hallerb]

>
>>And, based on this response, your answer would be "no", then?
>>
>>You have no evidence.
>>
>>Roger

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory2A2431A.htm

The shuttle program has a written requirement that the Mission Management Team
meet once a day. In practice, however, the meetings have been less frequent.

Roger when you were a flight controller were such requirements ignored?

[Kees van Reeuwijk]

Hallerb > wrote:

> My point was the management screwed up.Sloppy careless and wreckless.

They most certainly are not `wreckless'. Be careful with sloppy
spelling.

[Terrell Miller]

"edward ohare" > wrote in message
...

> Now, let me ask again. Who is going to put up with parts falling off
> a vehicle in normal use? Boeing? Airbus? Hyundai? Freightliner?
> Kawasaki? Chevrolet? Lincoln?
>
> Only NASA.

ISTR several cases where auto companies sold new cars with known defects.

Then there's Philip Morris.

And a medical products company I interviewed with many years ago, who had to
withdraw an entire line of balloon catheters because, as internal memos
predicted, the balloons kept detaching inside people's arteries. That same
company was slammed by the EPA for repeatedly releasing carcinogens into the
air. Nice folks...

I used to work for a small electronics firm that intentionally dumped their
raw sewage into the pond next door to save on utility bills. Until the EPA
slammed us for it. That same company would take the defective returned
products from one vendor and immediately reship them to another vendor.

Moral of the story: companies get lax all the time about product safety and
reliability, it's not even remotely anything particular to NASA.

--
Terrell Miller


"We pay for love, but the hate comes free"
-Gordon Sumner

[John Gilmer]

> CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. July 1
> Columbia accident investigators Tuesday said NASA botched the
> photographing of the ill-fated launch, and urged the space agency to
> do a better job of filming shuttle liftoffs to detect potentially
> catastrophic problems.

Yeah, right.

Since this isn't the first time part of the external tank insulation came
off (and was documented), perhaps the effort should have concentration on
FIXING the problem rather than adding to the documentation package.

[edward ohare]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:19:31 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
> wrote:


>ISTR several cases where auto companies sold new cars with known defects.


Sometimes problems are discovered after the cars are in production.
Not everything can be perfectly engineered and manufactured. Having
to reroute fuel line because its discovered in use that its too close
to a heat source isn't quite the same thing as having parts fall off
with every use.


>Then there's Philip Morris.


Meaning what? You want warning labels on the shuttles?


>Moral of the story: companies get lax all the time about product safety and
>reliability, it's not even remotely anything particular to NASA.


And those companies pay the price for their laxness, because they must
maintain a good reputation with consumers to be successful. Where
consumers aren't in a position to "vote with their money", as an
example, you can buy an airline ticket but you can't be certain what
kind of aircraft you'll end up on) then their has to be some other
mechanism.

[DSCOTT]

(Bruce Palmer) wrote in
>:

>DSCOTT wrote:
>> While nasa management did there best to hide the cause. But
>
>It's "their best", moron, and that pales beside the fact that that's not
>even a real sentence.
>
>> not having good quality pictures at launch time and by going
>> out of there way to prevent the engineers from discovering the
>> true amount of damage. I suspect this lack of proof was by
>
>It's "their way", nimrod, and that pales beside the fact that that's not
>even a real sentence.
>
>> management design. They all should be fired and new managers
>> who actually care about the lives of people should be put in
>> charage.
>
>It's "charge", idiot.
>
>> I suspect the cause is about 99% certain. It would have been
>> 100% certain if the managers did not get in the way of good
>> engineers.
>
>You have a 4th grade grasp of the English language yet you want us to
>believe you have an above-average grasp of engineering ethics. What a
>maroon.
>
>--

Yes fool thats what I excpet you to belive. I was a member of MENSA
my abilites lie in math and science. Where yours is nit picky
english different humans have different abilities so day maybe
you to will be smart enough to know that.



David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

[Sam Seiber]

Hallerb wrote:
>
> I seriously doubt nasa would of sat by and JUST watched them die. Storey
> Musgrave said it was possible thats good enough for me.

possible!=probable

It is possible to win the lotto too, just not probable.

Sam

[Sam Seiber]

Roger Balettie wrote:
> > I am sure they would of prefered it was orbital debris.
>
> "would have"

Now I think about it, hallerb *refuses* to learn his grammer
lesson here. Why do we think he will try to learn anything
else we post here? I am pretty sure he has choosen not to
be confused by the facts.

Sam

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
Sam Seiber > wrote:

> Now I think about it, hallerb *refuses* to learn his grammer
> lesson here. Why do we think he will try to learn anything
> else we post here? I am pretty sure he has choosen not to
> be confused by the facts.

Ahem . . . "grammar" ;-)

And yes, it's clear Bob Haller is simply a victim of his own fears and
doubts, which he projects upon the newsgroups as some substitute for the
real therapy he so desperately needs.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Sam Seiber]

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> Ahem . . . "grammar" ;-)

I damn near took that kind of hard until I noticed the fancy
punctuation. My reader has no spell checker, but if I am pretty
sure I don't have it right, I do at least look it up at dictionary.com.
But not a bad day for me. I now know how to spell grammAr. Future
posts from me will have it spelled that way.
Who says you can't learn anything here? :-)

Sam

[LooseChanj]

On or about Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:08:54 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gray > made the sensational claim that:
> They'd probably never have launched it. But if they knew early enough,
> they'd quite probably have started the ball rolling.

Oh, I don't doubt they would have started working Atlantis. But my point was
that making the actual case to *launch* would have been impossible.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Charleston]

"Paul F. Dietz" > wrote in message
...
> LooseChanj wrote:
>
> > Oh, I don't doubt they would have started working Atlantis. But my
point was
> > that making the actual case to *launch* would have been impossible.
>
> I don't see how you can say this. IMO, making the case to *not*
> launch would have been politically impossible.

Agreed the politics of the moment would overwhelm all but an Atlantis pad
abort that damages the SSLV. Expectations aside this would have been the
News 24/7 on Fox and CNN. I can see and hear it now--special music, the
flash of the crew photos, the special title "Columbia Marooned" every 5
minutes. Complete with those irritating "Breaking News" flashes featuring
some poor soul at KSC tightening a bolt....

Daniel