From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]


CAIB took seven months (!) to crank out a report that states the
obvious, leaving out key factors that aren't so obvious. Gehman had
little schedule pressure. NASA, too, had little schedule pressure.

How ironic that the investigation concluded that schedule pressure was
a key factor when the STS-107 mission had been slated for launch in
May 2000 (so many slips that the -107 mission got bracketed by STS-113
and STS-114).

That is *not* schedule pressure. The proper term is mismanagement.


(This forum had lengthy discussions questioning the decision to slip
STS-107 under the auspices of flow liner issues.)


~ CT

Did you really read the report? I think the board makes a pretty clear
case of schedule pressure driven by the Node 2 target date. Perhaps
following the STS-112 foam strike, more analysis would have been done to
resolve the issue if managers didn't have a "Countdown to NODE 2 Launch"
screensaver running. Of course, this is speculation.

Also, all events leading to the scheduling slip of 107 were directly
attributable to fleet grounding issues or ISS resupply/crew changeover
issues. You call that mismanagement? Again, I think that was driven by
schedule pressures.

Let's examine the notion of a "clear case of schedule pressure"...

Did Gehman bother to point out that STS-107 was an *unnecessary
mission*? It could have been cancelled outright with no impact to
Station. No sweat for the "line in the sand" (using the term out of
the report). NASA saves money and buys time to work the foam issue.
This was not done.


Other points regarding unwise management calls were hashed out last
summer and these threads can be found by searching the archives for
[flow liner slipped]. But the basic point is that NASA squandered
away months of schedule "slop" with management creating a problem that
hadn't previously existed.


~ CT