MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

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

"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. "

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983751.asp?cp1=1

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************

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

Oh, if the station is damaged or lost or crew injured the agency will be
destroyed for AGAIN not heeding the warnings.

It should of been built to be unmanned without problems. After all the cost
shouldnt it be at least as good as skylab and MIR?

NASA is afraid that once unmanned it might get closed permanetely which might
not be all that bad.

If all the money thats spent on shuttle ISS were redirected into a new launch
system we might be far ahead and out of lEO

Hold onto your hats.

Be sure you are sitting down.

I've looked at the documents (see www.nasawatch.com) and the
countermeasures, and the hazard predictions, and it seems to me that the
process worked like I wish it had pre-Feb-1.

I think the NASA team did it right this time -- stood up and raised
objections, and found credible ways of addressing the issues.

Not to say there aren't a whole range of threats to ISS functioning -- but
polyehtylproponalthaline contamination isn't near the top of the list.

Sorry, I'm trying to do 'net research and paint the house at the same time:
Which documents? I see the readiness reviews:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10741
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10740 (hmmm---Bonnie Dunbar
still has a job?)

The Washington Post story cites a number of complaints, including defective
or inoperable environmental monitoring equipment, a defribillator which
might explode if used, etc.---the consequences of "extremely limited
resupply". As a result:

" TWO OFFICIALS responsible for health and environmental conditions on the
space station refused to approve the launch of the new crew, instead signing
a dissent that warned about "the continued degradation" of the environmental
monitoring and health maintenance systems and exercise equipment vital to
the astronauts' well-being."

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************

"James Oberg" wrote in message
...

Hold onto your hats.

Be sure you are sitting down.

I've looked at the documents (see www.nasawatch.com) and the
countermeasures, and the hazard predictions, and it seems to me that the
process worked like I wish it had pre-Feb-1.
---clip---

We just had a telephone press conference with NASA medical folks and Bill
Gerstenmeier. I started sympathetic to the decision to go, with the proviso
of heightened alertness to potential contamination. By the end of the hour,
when I asked a tough question about when do they decide to pack it in and
come home, based on what criteria indicating contamination approaching
dangerous levels, I got blah-blah about 'experienced astronauts' who could
judge for themselves how safe the station was -- as if it was going to be
left up to the flight crew to decide. A doctor said they would watch for
"the level of symptomology when it begins to impact performance" -- that is,
when it's so bad the crew can't stand it any more. I was appalled and
dismayed. There doesn't appear to be ANY real medical plan of how to detect
contamination levels based on crew medical symptoms (sense of smell/taste,
headache, itchiness, vision problems, breathing difficulties, etc. -- they
just rely on the 'medical judgment' of the Flight Surgeon -- who is often a
future astronaut-wannabe) or use such detection to make the choice to shut
down the station. I am a lot more worried about the decision now, than I was
an hour ago.

JimO



wrote in message
m...
Sorry, I'm trying to do 'net research and paint the house at the same
time:
Which documents? I see the readiness reviews:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10741
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10740 (hmmm---Bonnie Dunbar
still has a job?)

The Washington Post story cites a number of complaints, including
defective
or inoperable environmental monitoring equipment, a defribillator which
might explode if used, etc.---the consequences of "extremely limited
resupply". As a result:

" TWO OFFICIALS responsible for health and environmental conditions on
the
space station refused to approve the launch of the new crew, instead
signing
a dissent that warned about "the continued degradation" of the
environmental
monitoring and health maintenance systems and exercise equipment vital to
the astronauts' well-being."

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************

"James Oberg" wrote in message
...

Hold onto your hats.

Be sure you are sitting down.

I've looked at the documents (see www.nasawatch.com) and the
countermeasures, and the hazard predictions, and it seems to me that the
process worked like I wish it had pre-Feb-1.
---clip---

The least they could have done was send canaries.

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************

"James Oberg" wrote in message
...

We just had a telephone press conference with NASA medical folks and Bill
Gerstenmeier.
---clip---
A doctor said they would watch for
"the level of symptomology when it begins to impact performance" -- that
is,
when it's so bad the crew can't stand it any more. I was appalled and
dismayed.
---clip----
JimO

James Oberg wrote:


We just had a telephone press conference with NASA medical folks and Bill
Gerstenmeier. I started sympathetic to the decision to go, with the
proviso of heightened alertness to potential contamination. By the end of
the hour, when I asked a tough question about when do they decide to pack
it in and come home, based on what criteria indicating contamination
approaching dangerous levels, I got blah-blah about 'experienced
astronauts' who could judge for themselves how safe the station was -- as
if it was going to be left up to the flight crew to decide. A doctor said
they would watch for "the level of symptomology when it begins to impact
performance" -- that is, when it's so bad the crew can't stand it any
more. I was appalled and dismayed. There doesn't appear to be ANY real
medical plan of how to detect contamination levels based on crew medical
symptoms (sense of smell/taste, headache, itchiness, vision problems,
breathing difficulties, etc. -- they just rely on the 'medical judgment'
of the Flight Surgeon -- who is often a future astronaut-wannabe) or use
such detection to make the choice to shut down the station. I am a lot
more worried about the decision now, than I was an hour ago.

JimO


Calm down, I've got a bag of charcoal, who do I send it to for launch on
the next resupply mission. If they only have a very limited payload that
can be sent to ISS right now, what should they send? A bunch of repair
sensors so the Doctors on the ground can watch thing degrade? Or, a bunch
of spare charcoal filters, so when the astronauts start to notice a smell,
they can change the filters?

For most things, it should be up to the flight crew, God gave them a
wonderful sensor to detect odors, it's called a nose.

Another thing I notice on the NASA Watch web site, is that they are worried
about resupply water contaminating the potable water supply. This begs the
question: What, they have no water treatment facilities onboard?

The make these wonderful ozonators for the home use. O3 is wonderful stuff,
if used properly.

http://www.braintuner.com/ozonators.htm

Maybe they should give these Doctors 20 or 30 lbs of payload on the next
resupply flight and we can all see what they decide to send. Sensors, or
ozonators and filters?

Craig Fink

"Craig Fink" wrote in message
link.net...
James Oberg wrote:


There doesn't appear to be ANY real
medical plan of how to detect contamination levels based on crew medical
symptoms (sense of smell/taste, headache, itchiness, vision problems,
breathing difficulties, etc. -- they just rely on the 'medical judgment'
of the Flight Surgeon -- who is often a future astronaut-wannabe) or use
such detection to make the choice to shut down the station. I am a lot
more worried about the decision now, than I was an hour ago.

JimO


The make these wonderful ozonators for the home use. O3 is wonderful
stuff,
if used properly.

http://www.braintuner.com/ozonators.htm

Maybe they should give these Doctors 20 or 30 lbs of payload on the next
resupply flight and we can all see what they decide to send. Sensors, or
ozonators and filters?

Craig Fink

Easy answer Craig - 20 lbs of aspirin

gb

James Oberg wrote:
dangerous levels, I got blah-blah about 'experienced astronauts' who could
judge for themselves how safe the station was -- as if it was going to be
left up to the flight crew to decide.

I am surprised at your reaction. In the past, it was often said that NASA
tried to micromanage every crewmember's movements down to bowel movements.
Now, deprived of their so powerful sensors, the ground managers will finally
have to rely on crewmember's intelligence and judgements.

I feel far more comfortable about crewmembers being given decision power over
whether to stay or not than have some civil servants on the ground look at
some powerpoint chart to decide to stay or not.

Now, something I don't quite get. So, the americans have lost their eyes on
crew member's bowel movements. But how much Russian equipment still functiosn
to detect anomalies in air, water and crew health ?

In a submarine, do they monitor crewmembers to the same extent that they do on
ISS ?

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.