Opportunity, the second Mars Explorer Rover is on the surface andtransmitting!

In article , (Brian Tung) wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:
On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

Jeepers wrote:
Cite?

Assuming by "orbiter" he means the shuttle, a figure of about that
magnitude was mentioned in Feynman's book, What Do You Care What Other
People Think? It has a whole section devoted to his work on the
Challenger disaster, including NASA management's intransigence on the
matter of the shuttle's reliability.

Brian Tung

It was also mentioned as a "gut feeling" by NASA personell, WITHOUT
study or actual risk assessment, back in 1996.


The risk acessment number has fluctuated between 1 in 78 to 1 in 145.

the reality is 2 in 113

I'd support another 70 missions, AND I'd volunteer to be onboard.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article , (Brian Tung) wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:
On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

Jeepers wrote:
Cite?

Assuming by "orbiter" he means the shuttle, a figure of about that
magnitude was mentioned in Feynman's book, What Do You Care What Other
People Think? It has a whole section devoted to his work on the
Challenger disaster, including NASA management's intransigence on the
matter of the shuttle's reliability.

Brian Tung

It was also mentioned as a "gut feeling" by NASA personell, WITHOUT
study or actual risk assessment, back in 1996.


The risk acessment number has fluctuated between 1 in 78 to 1 in 145.

the reality is 2 in 113

I'd support another 70 missions, AND I'd volunteer to be onboard.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article , (Brian Tung) wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:
On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

Jeepers wrote:
Cite?

Assuming by "orbiter" he means the shuttle, a figure of about that
magnitude was mentioned in Feynman's book, What Do You Care What Other
People Think? It has a whole section devoted to his work on the
Challenger disaster, including NASA management's intransigence on the
matter of the shuttle's reliability.

Brian Tung

It was also mentioned as a "gut feeling" by NASA personell, WITHOUT
study or actual risk assessment, back in 1996.


The risk acessment number has fluctuated between 1 in 78 to 1 in 145.

the reality is 2 in 113

I'd support another 70 missions, AND I'd volunteer to be onboard.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I think the number was even higher, something like 25,000:1. I haven't
read Feynman's book in some time, but I believe the engineer doing the
original calculations got a number less than 50:1. This was not
satisfactory to his manager who doubled the number, possibly justifying
it to himself that doing so would be within the bounds of an
"engineering estimate," and this multiplication happened all the way up
the chain.

The Challenger disaster happened because the management at both NASA and
Morton-Thiokol ignored the advice of their own engineers not to permit a
launch.

The Apollo 1 fire happened under similar circumstances, when a manager
overrode objections to over-pressurizing the capsule with pure Oxygen.

The Columbia appears to be more of the same.


In article , (Brian Tung) wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:
On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

Jeepers wrote:
Cite?

Assuming by "orbiter" he means the shuttle, a figure of about that
magnitude was mentioned in Feynman's book, What Do You Care What Other
People Think? It has a whole section devoted to his work on the
Challenger disaster, including NASA management's intransigence on the
matter of the shuttle's reliability.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

I think the number was even higher, something like 25,000:1. I haven't
read Feynman's book in some time, but I believe the engineer doing the
original calculations got a number less than 50:1. This was not
satisfactory to his manager who doubled the number, possibly justifying
it to himself that doing so would be within the bounds of an
"engineering estimate," and this multiplication happened all the way up
the chain.

The Challenger disaster happened because the management at both NASA and
Morton-Thiokol ignored the advice of their own engineers not to permit a
launch.

The Apollo 1 fire happened under similar circumstances, when a manager
overrode objections to over-pressurizing the capsule with pure Oxygen.

The Columbia appears to be more of the same.


In article , (Brian Tung) wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:
On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

Jeepers wrote:
Cite?

Assuming by "orbiter" he means the shuttle, a figure of about that
magnitude was mentioned in Feynman's book, What Do You Care What Other
People Think? It has a whole section devoted to his work on the
Challenger disaster, including NASA management's intransigence on the
matter of the shuttle's reliability.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

I think the number was even higher, something like 25,000:1. I haven't
read Feynman's book in some time, but I believe the engineer doing the
original calculations got a number less than 50:1. This was not
satisfactory to his manager who doubled the number, possibly justifying
it to himself that doing so would be within the bounds of an
"engineering estimate," and this multiplication happened all the way up
the chain.

The Challenger disaster happened because the management at both NASA and
Morton-Thiokol ignored the advice of their own engineers not to permit a
launch.

The Apollo 1 fire happened under similar circumstances, when a manager
overrode objections to over-pressurizing the capsule with pure Oxygen.

The Columbia appears to be more of the same.


In article , (Brian Tung) wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:
On top of all this they claimed the odds of disaster were something like
one in ten thousand per orbiter.

Jeepers wrote:
Cite?

Assuming by "orbiter" he means the shuttle, a figure of about that
magnitude was mentioned in Feynman's book, What Do You Care What Other
People Think? It has a whole section devoted to his work on the
Challenger disaster, including NASA management's intransigence on the
matter of the shuttle's reliability.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Sam Wormley wrote:

In more ways than you'll ever know Bob.

Do be so kind as to list some of these ways I will never know.

Bob Kolker

Sam Wormley wrote:

In more ways than you'll ever know Bob.

Do be so kind as to list some of these ways I will never know.

Bob Kolker

Sam Wormley wrote:

In more ways than you'll ever know Bob.

Do be so kind as to list some of these ways I will never know.

Bob Kolker

Ron Kihara wrote:


The Columbia appears to be more of the same.

NASA hasn't changed a bit. Whenever an engineer brings up a safety issue
that interferes with a do or die launch the engineer is told - do shut
up- or your career will die. They have been doing this for going on 20
years.

Bob Kolker