OPINION (Oberg): "Post-Columbia NASA hunkers down"

OPINION (Oberg): "Post-Columbia NASA hunkers down"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/943305.asp?0dm=C219T

Officials’ view of shortcomings is a bad omen for future clash



(photo) Linda Ham, who led Columbia’s Mission Management Team.and Philip
Engelauf, the mission operations representative on the team, meet the press
at an impromptu roundtable Tuesday.



OPINION

By James Oberg

NBC NEWS SPACE ANALYST

HOUSTON, July 23 — NASA spaceflight operations officials argued
Tuesday that the loss of the space shuttle Columbia was nobody’s fault, and
that they couldn’t have done anything wrong because of their pure
intentions. They couldn’t think of anything they did wrong, but they also
promised to do better in the future.

These comments come as part of NASA’s hunkering down in anticipation
of being seriously skewered by the report now being written by the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board. The group, often referred to as the Gehman
Committee after the retired admiral who chairs it, has already issued its
technical explanation of the loss of Columbia and its seven astronauts on
Feb. 1. The main thrust of their other report, due for release by the end of
August, will be how NASA’s culture allowed the disaster to happen.

The impromptu press roundtable at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in
Houston was organized to discuss documents that the space agency had just
released that morning. These were transcripts of meetings of the Mission
Management Team, the group that provides day-to-day decisions during human
space missions. The tapes had been made in January and transcribed in the
first week of February, and after six months NASA had gotten around to
releasing them to the public.

The NASA official in charge of the Mission Management Team meetings
was Linda Ham, an experienced flight control engineer and flight director.

Along with fellow Mission Control Center management representative
Philip Engelauf and flight director Leroy Cain (who had been on duty during
the Columbia descent on Feb. 1), Ham answered questions from reporters
during the half-hour roundtable.

ASSESSING THE DATA

Discussion centered on the critical juncture on Jan. 24, eight days
into the flight, when contractor engineers presented the results of their
studies of the potential damage of the foam impact during launch. They had
correctly estimated the size of the piece and its mass, and had mapped out
possible impact points on the wing, including what investigators now say was
the actual point of impact.

They had also properly used both computer models and flight experience
data to assess the damage to be expected on the fragile thermal tiles, and
concluded that there might be significant tile damage that would require
repair before the shuttle could be launched again — but no “burn-through,”
and no “safety-of-flight” issue. Hindsight validated these assessments.

But when it came time to assess the hazard of foam impact on the
special high-temperature leading-edge panels — the reinforced carbon-carbon,
or RCC — they had no test data, no analysis tools, no database of flight
experience. So they just guessed. They assumed it would be OK. And NASA
officials — particularly Linda Ham, who was in charge of that meeting — let
them get away with it.

Their presentation had stated that the RCC panels were even stronger
than tiles because of the “relative softness of [foam].” Thus they concluded
that “RCC damage [is] limited to [loss of] coating based on soft [foam].”
The conclusion wasn’t based on any analysis or actual testing — NASA had
never done any foam impacts on RCC. The engineers just guessed that foam,
being soft, couldn’t — even at 500 mph (800 kilometers per hour) — hurt the
quarter-inch-thick (5-millimeter-thick) RCC panels.

Unlike the shuttle’s tiles, which are supported under their entire area
by aluminum skin, the RCC panels were supported only by bolts at their
corners.

VETERANS VENT THEIR OUTRAGE

Old-timers from Apollo days have privately expressed outrage at this
misjudgment, and at Ham’s (and all other officials’) acquiescence to the
guess.

“Kraft or Kranz would never have let it go by,” one of them told
MSNBC.com by e-mail, referring to the legendary Apollo-era flight directors
Christopher Kraft and Gene Kranz. “They would have demanded to know on what
basis this impact was considered safe — or demanded a way to determine
whether there was any damage or not.”

But the new generation of officials at NASA disclaimed any
responsibility for requiring such proof.

“None of us felt that the analysis was faulty,” Ham said Tuesday. “We
do rely on the systems experts. That is the way that we operate.”

Early in July, directed by the Gehman Committee, NASA finally
conducted a test of real foam against real RCC panels. Under conditions
simulating the actual ascent of Columbia on Jan. 16, the impact blew a
foot-wide hole in the leading edge of the front left wing. A hole of that
size was completely adequate to account for the subsequent destruction of
the shuttle 16 days later.

The Apollo veterans do not allege that officials should have known in
advance that such fatal damage had occurred on this flight. They do point
out that the traditional NASA safety culture — assume the worst until you
have rigorously proven that it’s safe — would have at the very least
demanded that officials make efforts to assure themselves that no such
damage had actually been done. Instead, they simply and conveniently assumed
that such damage was impossible.

Even at Tuesday’s roundtable, the officials saw nothing wrong in their
decisions. “I don’t believe anyone is at fault for this,” said Ham.

Engelauf and Cain agreed: Their decisions were based on “the best
available data and analysis at the time.” Engelauf specifically blamed the
engineers who did the analysis: “On this particular case, I don’t think the
problem was we didn’t do the analysis or didn’t take notice of the foam. I
think we got the wrong answer on the analysis,” he said.

The officials also said they thought it was important that they had
good intentions and tried hard. “Well, it goes without saying that we were
all trying to do the right thing,” Ham said. “Nobody wanted to do any harm
to anyone. Obviously, nobody wants to hurt the crew.”

Engelauf went further, bristling at an imagined insult. “It’s
unconscionable to me that people can attribute to the members of the MMT or
the flight control team or the rest of the folks during these missions
anything other than the best of intentions,” he said. “These are people of
good conscience doing everything in their power to get the right answers.
This is what we do for a living.

“We lost the crew and we lost the vehicle,” he conceded, “... but it
is not because of lack of good intent or lack of effort on anybody’s part.
.... It’s really difficult to me to attribute blame to any individual
personalities or people. We can find mistakes in analyses and we can find
places where we weren’t good enough. But it’s not because of malice or ill
intent.”

KNOWING WHAT’S BROKEN

None of the outside experts who talked with MSNBC.com suggested that
these officials had anything but the best intentions. But they suspect that
perhaps the officials confused good intentions with good judgment.

At the point that the officials made these mistakes, it may well have
been too late to save the crew. But these officials all agreed that had they
known about the severity of the damage (while excusing themselves of their
responsibility to make a reliable determination of that severity), they
would literally have moved heaven and earth to develop a rescue or makeshift
repair plan.

This obsession with after-the-fact justification of the decisions — or
the lack of required decisions — that led to the loss of the crew is a bad
omen for the imminent clash with the Gehman Committee’s diagnosis of what is
wrong inside NASA’s culture and what must be fixed. Fixing something
requires knowledge that it is broken, whether it’s a spaceship wing, or a
space culture. NASA’s shortsightedness in not recognizing how badly broken
Columbia was gave them no chance to fix it, and seven people died. Officials
at NASA seem equally unable to see what’s broken about their own culture.
Until they recognize it, it’s equally unlikely they’ll be able to fix that
flaw, either.



James Oberg, space analyst for NBC News, spent 22 years at the
Johnson Space Center as a Mission Control operator and an orbital designer.

There are some times when trying hard and meaning well just doesn't cut
it, especially when doing so NEGLIGENTLY results in seven deaths.


How can there possibly be negligence? Except for lack of judgement which is
not negligence unless you believe lack of intelligence is a crime. (forgive
the grammer or half baked thought --no comments from the peanut gallery)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Lynndel Humphreys" wrote in message
How can there possibly be negligence? Except for lack of judgement which
is
not negligence unless you believe lack of intelligence is a crime.
(forgive
the grammer or half baked thought --no comments from the peanut gallery)

This case is nebulous, I agree, not nearly as clear cut as 51-L -- but if I
had to argue for it, I'd say that the failure to apply well-established
safety procedures (assume-danger-and-require-proof-of-safety) when it came
to reviewing and validating a presentation, was a form of negligence.

Are there grounds for a wrongful-death civil suit, as with Challenger and
'CC' Williams's crash? Again, hazy, IMHO.

In article ,
"Lynndel Humphreys" wrote:

There are some times when trying hard and meaning well just doesn't cut
it, especially when doing so NEGLIGENTLY results in seven deaths.


How can there possibly be negligence? Except for lack of judgement which is
not negligence unless you believe lack of intelligence is a crime. (forgive
the grammer or half baked thought --no comments from the peanut gallery)


Do you want the American legal definition of "negligence" or the common
sense, everyday usage version? Either way, failure to fully recognize
the limitations of the various analyses attempted, failure to recognize
the limitations of prior experience, failure to recognize that Boeing's
own analysis indicated possibilities of serious damage which were swept
away by blanket conclusions at the end of the presentations . . . these
are exemplars of the very concept of "negligence" by nearly any
definition.

That is not to say that such negligence is legally actionable (that's
another discussion for another thread, the answer to which is far from
clear-cut anyway). But stating (as MMT members have, in essence), "We
all TRIED really hard! We didn't MEAN to mess up!" doesn't make their
short fall any easier to accept nor does it excuse the institutional
problems demonstrated. Simply saying, "Ooops, we tried," doesn't excuse
negligence.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

Are there grounds for a wrongful-death civil suit, as with Challenger and
'CC' Williams's crash? Again, hazy, IMHO.

IMHO Challenger was different. That failure was known as a cricality 1 --a
known failure would occur and they did not take steps to fix the problem.
They could but did not. The foam was not a criticality 1 item. IMHO they
just did not realize the seriousness of the matter. All supposition on my
part.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Interesting article and one that in general pretty much hits the nail on the
head IMHO. However, it might be a bit hard on NASA (though not on the MMT) -
though of course I acknowledge that James knows far, far more than me about
NASA. It is my understanding that Ham has been removed from her post, which
suggests that NASA at least recognises that mistakes were made and that changes
are required. And I think (hope) NASA, as an organisation, will learn from this
tragedy.

Regarding the MMT, they must be going through a rough time, but you accept that
possibility when you accept the job - which should include accepting
responsibility for your actions/inactions. Is it really the case that NASA has
no FDs of the caliber of Kranz and Kraft?

Alan

James Oberg wrote:

OPINION (Oberg): "Post-Columbia NASA hunkers down"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/943305.asp?0dm=C219T

text deleted

James Oberg, space analyst for NBC News, spent 22 years at the
Johnson Space Center as a Mission Control operator and an orbital designer.

Sorry all - just realised I hadn't put in my ID after a rebuild. Alan

"" wrote:

Interesting article and one that in general pretty much hits the nail on the
head IMHO. However, it might be a bit hard on NASA (though not on the MMT) -
though of course I acknowledge that James knows far, far more than me about
NASA. It is my understanding that Ham has been removed from her post, which
suggests that NASA at least recognises that mistakes were made and that changes
are required. And I think (hope) NASA, as an organisation, will learn from this
tragedy.

Regarding the MMT, they must be going through a rough time, but you accept that
possibility when you accept the job - which should include accepting
responsibility for your actions/inactions. Is it really the case that NASA has
no FDs of the caliber of Kranz and Kraft?

Alan

James Oberg wrote:

OPINION (Oberg): "Post-Columbia NASA hunkers down"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/943305.asp?0dm=C219T

text deleted

James Oberg, space analyst for NBC News, spent 22 years at the
Johnson Space Center as a Mission Control operator and an orbital designer.

In article ,
James Oberg wrote:

None of the outside experts who talked with MSNBC.com suggested that
these officials had anything but the best intentions. But they suspect that
perhaps the officials confused good intentions with good judgment.

Jim, this group has been subjected to all sorts of Chicken Little
rants and hateful diatribes against the people of NASA, both types
of postings that I immediately dismiss because they're clearly
based on people's pre-existing biases. Your analyses, by contrast,
have a solid basis, and you've demonstrated that you are neither a
"NASA can do no wrong" or a "NASA can do no right" partisan. Thus
although it's painful to consider that there may be systemic cultural
problems that led to terrible consequences, I appreciate your
perspective on the issue very much, and I'm going to think about
the issues you raise very seriously.

Despite your current journalistic objectivity, it must be difficult
to reach such conclusions about people you've worked with and have
such respect for. I suspect this was one of hardest pieces you've
ever had to write.


Patty

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
Reading the MMT's repeated protestations of "good intentions" and
hearing their crocodile tears of injured pride all I can think of is the
entirely apropos quoted favored by my mother as I was growing up: "The
road to hell is paved with good intentions."

There are some times when trying hard and meaning well just doesn't cut
it, especially when doing so NEGLIGENTLY results in seven deaths.

You mention the Road To Hell, and I'm thinking on the same lines... The way
this round-table comes across to me is them taking the opportunity to say
"But we tried so HARD! (P.S. don't you dare question our judgement)." I'm
just thinking about what Jim said below, how nobody stands up and says "I
****ed up" or even "Here's where WE ****ed up and here's what we can do to
fix it." There's no active introspection and self-questioning there, except
maybe in hindsight, even though that should be part of any good management
process. And since they excluded him from the conference, quite possibly
because he might ask some tough questions and he's got inside knowledge...
Well. I don't want to call it whining but it almost seems that way. It feels
more like a P.R. opportunity to be apologetic, and say "cross-my-heart &
hope-to-die, it only LOOKS bad but we're really good and it's not our
fault."

The more I think about it, the more important the final CAIB report seems to
be. All we've gotten so far is tidbits, like this conference, the infamous
e-mails, little bits and pieces about NASA's safety culture, budget cuts,
etc. Of course, there's also the chicken little usnet posts and
Thorazine-fueled conspiracy ravings, which certainly don't help any, but we
know that's worthless **** anyhow. In the end I think the CAIB is the only
group that will have BOTH the balls AND the delegated authori-tay to stand
up and say what's wrong, and give it both barrels.

I HOPE that NASA has to "hunker down." If they don't... Well, not to get
too SmallerC-esque, but then the CAIB would be just another bump in the road
on the way to another lost orbiter.

All this is strictly IMO, of course - I'm just an armchair space enthusiast.
This is my view from the computer chair.

"Richard F. Drushel, Ph.D." wrote in message
...
Herb Schaltegger spake unto the ether:

But if Congress, or the public, or the press, or the old guys
from the MOCR want blood, then I guess Ham and Dittemore are convenient
sacrifices. I personally don't know what "justice" is in this situation.
Sack them? Transfer them to different jobs in the bowels of NASA? Put
them on trial? Public hanging from the swing arm on Pad 39A?

"First rule of management: EVERYTHING is you fault!" (Hopper, "A Bug's
Life")

....Somebody will look for blood, sure, but the smarter thing would be to
analyze how they fit into the "failure chain," identify a pattern, and work
to fix it, right?

I wish that Governors, Congressmen, and Presidents had to be as
accountable as what NASA is :-(

You won't get any argument out of me. Gehman has said that they're going to
look at the role of budget cuts, though.