"snidely" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Chris Bennetts wrote:
[...]
The loss of the reboost engines is a concerning thing. The cause of the
failure needs to be identified so that any related problems can be
mitigated against. But this is *not* anything like the problems that
caused the loss of Challenger or Columbia.

The comments were a test of whether or not you are thinking - and you
failed by reacting to the emotional content rather than the
engineering or managerial content.

No, the managerial and engineering content is that you start planning
additional tests, making use of the long time you have available before
this *test failure* becomes a critical event.

Certainly thats one view. But my point is that the view that Jim is
espousing is a dangerous one - and one totally unexpected from him.

You start planning, as Jim O noted, testing with Engine 1 only, and
addtitional tests to determine if the Engine 2 cover can be opened. As
a manager, you ask your engineer how long before deorbit, and you draw
a chart on the board with that time as the base bar, and along it the
usuall Gantt chart entries for each new test.

But what you don't do is say "oh, a system has failed, business as
usual mates!". That gets people killed.

You don't conclude you're out of options until all boosting craft are
grounded or inoperable, and all chances to bang on the gizmo with a
hammer have been used up.

Did I say that they were out of options? No, I did not.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL