Balettie Turns Prelaunch Senate Warning into "Grandstanding"

From: Roger Balettie )
Subject: 51-L question
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-03-18 21:42:10 PST


"Daniel" wrote:
The following answer is mine alone. This is very hard for me
to write. I sharply disagree with my father about much of what
he wrote in his book *Betrayal of Mission 51-L*.

Good for you. Your credibility level just went *way* up IMHBCO.

Subsequently, in March 1986, John Maxson was terminated by
Lockheed Space Operations Company (LSOC) for *talking to
the press*.

I know, at JSC, we were told *EXPLICITLY* not to "talk to the press". There
is good reason for that. In March of 1986, the investigation of the Rogers
Commision was still ongoing. To have NASA or contractor personnel talking
to the (at the time rather rabid) press corps could possibly undermine the
investigation.

If your father spoke when he had been explicitly instructed *not to*, then
his employment termination was justified. This wasn't a case of "whistle
blowing" to the press, it was a case of "grandstanding" during an active
accident investigation.

Ask Paul about the confidentiality of police sources during an active
investigation. If he "spoke to the press" about a criminal case in his
jurisdiction while it was under investigation, he'd probably face severe
disciplinary reactions, up to and including termination.

I'm almost 99.99% positive John Maxson had been instructed not to talk to
the press, as NASA told Lockheed and all the other contractors the same
thing.

This is *no conspiracy*... please don't make it into one.

He lost his lawsuit against this huge corporation as most
whistleblowers do.

Can you provide court documentation numbers? I'd like to see the facts for
myself to determine (in my mind) whether the case was valid, rather than
assuming Mr. Maxson was justified or not in his lawsuit. Your comments tend
to imply that there is no doubt as to the truth.

Again, given the history and without verifiable facts, I do hope you'll
understand we are rather skeptical of accepting "trust me" claims on this
subject.

wrong. Unless you have been around NASA you can not understand what the
NASA code of silence is like.

Daniel... have *YOU* "been around NASA" yourself, or are you basing this
statement on your father's recount? If the latter, please understand that
his point of view is *EXTREMELY* biased, and is tough to take at face value.

Roger, you will understand this better soon I think.

What do you mean by this, Daniel?

NASA's own actions in 1980-1983 prove that they knew what
to do about crew escape in a Challenger-like accident.

Daniel... do you honestly wish us to believe that NASA had the opportunity
and resources to create a "Challenger-like Accident"-survivable crew module
and purposely chose *NOT* to?

********.

Take a look at any of the pre-STS design concepts... why did they
change/evolve into what we have today? *FUNDING*... or the lack thereof.

Congressional budgets stripped NASA of the original Shuttle designs, forcing
compromises, etc. This is history.

To imply that NASA actively took steps to *NOT* provide safety for the crew
is rediculous and intellectually lacking in reason. The events leading up
to and including 28 January 1986 were an exercise in poor management,
oversight, and decision making. To imply that there is anything close to a
sinister cover-up is absolutely ludicrous.

IMO NASA had the motive of embarrassment and concern that the Shuttle
program might not survive if the truth came out.

See. This is where conspiracy theories *always* fall apart. There is
absolutely *NO WAY* that a "secret" of this magnitude could possibly be
kept, given the size of the program and the number of people involved.

It will be easy for others to say that what I have just stated is standard
conspiracy theory protocol and I accept that.

Um... yeah!

Roger
=============================
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://members.aol.com/ramjetfdo/