STS-114 Astronaut Charles Camarda removed from leading the MMT

Less than a week until launch and STS-114 Astronaut, Charles Camarda,
is removed from leading the Mission Mannagement Team.

Blogger who knocked on his door,

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...he_shuttl.html

Chronical story, with Blogger's help,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4004817.html

E-Mail,
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21113

Makes you wonder if he's getting the same "Purple" desk that John Young
got after the Challenger accident.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Ok now we have dissenting engineers being moved along fired or having
to effectively quit.

The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.

I for opne think NASA should be disbanded for such gross incompetence!

The management hats will see the agency disbanded...

Bob Haller wrote:
Ok now we have dissenting engineers being moved along fired or having
to effectively quit.

The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.

I for opne think NASA should be disbanded for such gross incompetence!

The management hats will see the agency disbanded...

Now we need just ONE astronaut to back out due to family pressure...

that will help a lot

Less than a week until launch and STS-114 Astronaut, Charles Camarda,
is removed from leading the Mission Mannagement Team.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...he_shuttl.html

Mmmm.

Is there a rule (or a tradition) that MMT decisions must be unanimous?

If the lesson of Challenger is "don't overrule the people who actually
know what is going on", perhaps the current lesson is "don't get into
a situation where the default decision is always to not fly and any
one person always can (and does) call for another study and another
however months of engineering tweaks"?

Of course, whether that is an accurate summary does depend on various
things including what the risks are and whether the CSCS (station
sheltering) plan is credible or wishful thinking.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:46:36 -0700, Bob Haller wrote:



The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.


No, just losing the shuttle program which is going away 2010 anyway. The
other stuff would go on.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:08:05 -0700, wrote:


Bob Haller wrote:
Ok now we have dissenting engineers being moved along fired or having
to effectively quit.

The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.

I for opne think NASA should be disbanded for such gross incompetence!

The management hats will see the agency disbanded...

Now we need just ONE astronaut to back out due to family pressure...


No, I believe NASA usually has backup astronauts ready to go. Wouldn't one
of the backup astronauts fly in his place? Anyway why would an astronaut
back out? His statistical risk for just one flight isn't all that high.


--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

In article .com,
(Bob Haller) wrote:

*From:* "Bob Haller"
*Date:* 27 Jun 2006 06:46:36 -0700

Ok now we have dissenting engineers being moved along fired or having
to effectively quit.

And quite right too. Have you never heard of the idea of "collective
responsibility"? It is this - you put your views into the discussion
and argue your case as well as you can. If the majority decision goes
against you, you either accept the decision and work with it or get out.
Every organisation I have ever worked for has adopted this approach.

What alternative do you suggest? That every disruptive element is
allowed to continue disrupt until they get their way?

You are determined to look at everything in a negative light. I have no
idea why. Be positive for a change. Americans used to be good at that.

Malcolm B

If something BAD occurs do you really believe congress the president
and the american public will support funding a moon mars program if we
cant safely run a LEO shuttle?

Futhermore overiding the engineers is a excellent way to look REALLY
STUPID. Given the CAIB stomping on NASA over safety what do YOU think
the next board will have to say about it

Craig Fink wrote:



The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.




No, just losing the shuttle program which is going away 2010 anyway. The
other stuff would go on.



I don't think it would; the Moon program was Griffin's baby, and he his
reputation is riding on this next flight in particular as he signed off
on it.
If the Shuttle does suffer major damage or is lost, then I think that's
probably it for NASA's manned space program; they just won't look
competent to handle a new program if they can't even handle the Shuttle.

Pat

I don't think it would; the Moon program was Griffin's baby, and he his
reputation is riding on this next flight in particular as he signed off
on it.
If the Shuttle does suffer major damage or is lost, then I think that's
probably it for NASA's manned space program; they just won't look
competent to handle a new program if they can't even handle the Shuttle.

Pat

Pat this is one we agree on.

Fly against the advice of top shuttle engineers, will result in the end
of US manned space flights for a LONG time.

Might be best as it would leave private industry to do the job!