"The Hole in NASA's Safety Culture".

[James Oberg]

"The Hole in NASA's Safety Culture".

http://www.msnbc.com/news/936070.asp?0cv=CB20

(Been traveling -- wrote it Monday, it was posted tuesday, but
couldn't get word out until
I got home today)

[James Oberg]

"rk" > wrote in message
> Did you witness the test?

No, I had some friends there and talked with them a few minutes after the
dramatic shot.

[Hallerb]

>The Hole in NASA's Safety Culture".

Wonder how many OTHER critical systems have received this same treatment?

This should be looked at BEFORE a return to flight.

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Hallerb > typed:
> > The Hole in NASA's Safety Culture".
>
> Wonder how many OTHER critical systems have received this same
> treatment?
>
> This should be looked at BEFORE a return to flight.

And I suppose you think it's NOT being done?
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Dosco Jones]

"Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
...
> In news:Hallerb > typed:
> > > The Hole in NASA's Safety Culture".
> >
> > Wonder how many OTHER critical systems have received this same
> > treatment?
> >
> > This should be looked at BEFORE a return to flight.
>
> And I suppose you think it's NOT being done?
> --
> Mike


I don't think bob can think and type at the same time.

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Dosco Jones > typed:
> "Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In news:Hallerb > typed:
> > > > The Hole in NASA's Safety Culture".
> > >
> > > Wonder how many OTHER critical systems have received this same
> > > treatment?
> > >
> > > This should be looked at BEFORE a return to flight.
> >
> > And I suppose you think it's NOT being done?
> > --
> > Mike
>
>
> I don't think bob can think and type at the same time.

That and the only facts he gets are from the news and we all know
how goddam *accurate* them reeeporters are. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Hallerb]

>
>The problem is to KEEP it fixed as years pass.

Well after Challenger the long downtime gave time for a top to bottom safety
review.

Posters here appear to want to fly ASAP!

Jim do you think the RCC should be redesigned to be more robust?

[Mike Speegle]

In news:James Oberg > typed:
> "Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
> news:bel705$6c70f$1@ID-
> > That and the only facts he gets are from the news and we all
> > know how goddam *accurate* them reeeporters are. ;-)
>
> I resemble that remark....

You excepted, of course. I actually thought of a disclaimer to you
when I wrote that, but I figured you would understand. I wish more
reeeporters took the care you do to "get it right."

> Actually, the 'culture' is fixed now -- it GOT fixed Feb 1.
>
> The problem is to KEEP it fixed as years pass.

I *certainly* hope so. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.
Rec.Skiing.Alpine.Moderated is up and working! Join in!

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Jorge R. Frank > typed:
> "Mike Speegle" > wrote in
> news:beleie$6h74m$1@ID- 130573.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > In news:James Oberg > typed:
> > > "Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
> > > news:bel705$6c70f$1@ID-
> > > > That and the only facts he gets are from the news and we all
> > > > know how goddam *accurate* them reeeporters are. ;-)
> > >
> > > I resemble that remark....
> >
> > You excepted, of course. I actually thought of a disclaimer to
> > you when I wrote that, but I figured you would understand. I wish
> > more reeeporters took the care you do to "get it right."
>
> I'd except Bill Harwood as well.

Sorry, not familiar with him or his work. ???
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Mike Speegle" > wrote in news:beles8$6b7f0$1@ID-
130573.news.uni-berlin.de:

> In news:Jorge R. Frank > typed:
>> "Mike Speegle" > wrote in
>> news:beleie$6h74m$1@ID- 130573.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> > In news:James Oberg > typed:
>> > > "Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
>> > > news:bel705$6c70f$1@ID-
>> > > > That and the only facts he gets are from the news and we all
>> > > > know how goddam *accurate* them reeeporters are. ;-)
>> > >
>> > > I resemble that remark....
>> >
>> > You excepted, of course. I actually thought of a disclaimer to
>> > you when I wrote that, but I figured you would understand. I wish
>> > more reeeporters took the care you do to "get it right."
>>
>> I'd except Bill Harwood as well.
>
> Sorry, not familiar with him or his work. ???

CBS, and spaceflightnow.com.

--
JRF

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

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Jorge R. Frank > typed:
> "Mike Speegle" > wrote in
> news:beles8$6b7f0$1@ID- 130573.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > In news:Jorge R. Frank > typed:
> > > "Mike Speegle" > wrote in
> > > news:beleie$6h74m$1@ID- 130573.news.uni-berlin.de:
> > >
> > > > In news:James Oberg > typed:
> > > > > "Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:bel705$6c70f$1@ID-
> > > > > > That and the only facts he gets are from the news and
> > > > > > we all know how goddam *accurate* them reeeporters are. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I resemble that remark....
> > > >
> > > > You excepted, of course. I actually thought of a
> > > > disclaimer to you when I wrote that, but I figured you would
> > > > understand. I wish more reeeporters took the care you do to
> > > > "get it right."
> > >
> > > I'd except Bill Harwood as well.
> >
> > Sorry, not familiar with him or his work. ???
>
> CBS, and spaceflightnow.com.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for his byline. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Heartbreak]

"Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
...
> In news:Jorge R. Frank > typed:
>---clip---
> > I'd except Bill Harwood as well.
>
> Sorry, not familiar with him or his work. ???
> --
> Mike

Bill Harwood is a "CBS News space consultant ", often cited elsewhere.

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX

[ElleninLosAngeles]

In James Oberg's piece:
"But there was a hole in the logic big enough for Death to enter.
There was no test data to support the happy assumptions of armorlike
RCC panel invulnerability. Nobody who reviewed the study's results,
all the way to the top, noticed this."

Likewise, it's been reported that on the final MMT foam review, Jan.
24, no actual Boeing reports were brought in. Rather, the issue was
addressed with a quick nod around the room, started by Linda Ham, that
the foam was not a safety of flight issue and was not something that
needed to be dealt with further. Furthermore, in the released emails
from concerned engineers, one of the men who initially helped give
Linda Ham a presentation on the Boeing analysis, making use of the
Crater software, commented that he felt they had misled her by not
being forceful enough in explaining that this was not all the data
they needed to look at - they had left out some of the scarier
scenarios such as foam hitting the wheel well that Crater predicted as
loss of crew and vehicle. So it's unclear if anyone at NASA ever saw,
or demanded to see, a full Boeing report, including raw data, graphs,
etc. It's strange to me that at a place with so much scientific
history (NASA) people didn't seem concerned with reviewing raw data.
They should know that it's the interpretation of the data that's very
critical.

[Bruce Palmer]

ElleninLosAngeles wrote:

> In James Oberg's piece:
> "But there was a hole in the logic big enough for Death to enter.
> There was no test data to support the happy assumptions of armorlike
> RCC panel invulnerability. Nobody who reviewed the study's results,
> all the way to the top, noticed this."
>
> Likewise, it's been reported that on the final MMT foam review, Jan.
> 24, no actual Boeing reports were brought in. Rather, the issue was
> addressed with a quick nod around the room, started by Linda Ham, that
> the foam was not a safety of flight issue and was not something that
> needed to be dealt with further. Furthermore, in the released emails
> from concerned engineers, one of the men who initially helped give
> Linda Ham a presentation on the Boeing analysis, making use of the
> Crater software, commented that he felt they had misled her by not
> being forceful enough in explaining that this was not all the data
> they needed to look at - they had left out some of the scarier
> scenarios such as foam hitting the wheel well that Crater predicted as
> loss of crew and vehicle. So it's unclear if anyone at NASA ever saw,
> or demanded to see, a full Boeing report, including raw data, graphs,
> etc. It's strange to me that at a place with so much scientific
> history (NASA) people didn't seem concerned with reviewing raw data.
> They should know that it's the interpretation of the data that's very
> critical.

Those Boeing presentations certainly raised more questions than they
answered. Any managers that didn't notice that are prime candidates for
civil service rehab.

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

[Terrell Miller]

"James Oberg" > wrote in message
. ..


> Actually, the 'culture' is fixed now -- it GOT fixed Feb 1.
>
> The problem is to KEEP it fixed as years pass.

did it stay fixed after Challenger? Nope.

--
Terrell Miller


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

[Charleston]

"Terrell Miller" > wrote in message
.. .
> "James Oberg" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>
> > Actually, the 'culture' is fixed now -- it GOT fixed Feb 1.
> >
> > The problem is to KEEP it fixed as years pass.
>
> did it stay fixed after Challenger? Nope.

It is hard to make something unbreakable and then there is Timex.

Daniel

[jeff findley]

(Hallerb) writes:
>
> Well after Challenger the long downtime gave time for a top to bottom safety
> review.
>
> Posters here appear to want to fly ASAP!

You seem to assume that everyone at NASA is sitting on their hands,
waiting for the CAIB to issue its final report. They're doing no such
thing. They are doing a "top to bottom safety review", partially
guided by the CAIB's initial findings.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[jeff findley]

(ElleninLosAngeles) writes:
> It's strange to me that at a place with so much scientific
> history (NASA) people didn't seem concerned with reviewing raw data.
> They should know that it's the interpretation of the data that's very
> critical.

You're assuming that NASA managers (like pointy haired managers
everywhere) would know what they were looking at when presented with
raw data. Managers typically don't have time to look at the raw
data anyway, it would make them late for their next meeting...

Seriously though, it's up to those engineers attending such a meeting
to present the data in such a way that the managers are pretty much
forced to make the right decision. Of course, if the engineers turn
out to be wrong later, they're the ones in trouble, often with the
very managers that perform their performance reviews every year.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.