The warnings and objections are real. Note however there was not a NOGO on
the flight, only the increment and the return flight (manifest). The med-ops
folks (CHeCs, TEPC, TVIS, etc) have a low priority on manifest, to obtain a
higher priority their equipment must be declared by them to have a higher
criticality. However when it is declared to have a higher criticality then
it must also pass a more rigorous design review (MTBF analysis, MTTR, etc).
The trade-off is that if the equipment is mission critical then it must be
shown that it will work. A casual examination of the the documentation on
NASA watch shows that the med-ops declared criticality matches the
equipment's operability.


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Once again, it's clear that NASA can't buy a clue:


Not even remotely.

"However, in what some medical personnel described this week as a
chilling
echo of the decision-making leading up to the Columbia space shuttle
disaster, arguments in favor of scrubbing the latest crew replacement
mission and temporarily shuttering the space station were overruled by
managers concerned with keeping the facility occupied. "

Fascinating how you swallow 'warnings' without the slightest bit of
skepticism.

Are these objections real? Or are the docs crying wolf to cover their
asses in the off chance that something does go wrong?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.