Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:23:13 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Curiously, relatively little anger is directed at NASA director Sean
O'Keefe, even though he calls himself a "bean counter". Does "bean
counter" sound like "flight safety"?)
Whatever problems they find in NASA management, I'm sure they were
there long before Mr. O'Keefe came along. The perceived problem when
he took the job was budgets and schedules, not flight safety. I
hardly think it's reasonable to blame him for not going up and
cleaning up what was not perceived to be a problem.

"But no one *told* me that safety was a problem!"

That's just crazy. First off good management always means learning
an organization's real problems rather than walking in the door with
"perceptions", which is to say, preconceptions. This is especially true
if catastrophic risk is one of the underlying problems.

And again, no one at the time knew that "catastrophic risk is one of
the underlying problems." How would they, when there had been no
losses in almost two decades, and the fleet had been shut down a
couple of times in the interim to fix potential problems? How would
one know (particularly someone new to the agency) that there was a
serious safety problem at the agency?

Second, if O'Keefe didn't know that flight safety is a problem, then
where has he been? Was he in a coma when Challenger crashed? Did he not
learn when he started that STS-93 was saved by a prayer on launch in 1999?

The Challenger was destroyed over seventeen years ago. How would he
have learned the latter? He was brought in to focus on what was
perceived to the be the major problem--schedule delays and cost
overruns.

Third, O'Keefe *was* told that safety was a problem, after at most
five months on the job. In April 2002 testimony to Congress, Richard
Blomberg, the outgoing chair of NASA's safety advisory panel, said,
"In [15 years of] involvement, I have never been as concerned for
Space Shuttle safety as I am right now." And he said, "All of my
instincts suggest that the current approach is planting the seeds for
future danger." And what did Blomberg mean by "the current approach"?
He was referring in particular to deferred repairs and privatization
without adequate safety oversight, both of which were consequences of
*cost cutting*.

And how did those contribute to the Columbia disaster? How would
spending more money have prevented it? How would privatization have
caused it? What did he say specifically that Mr. O'Keefe should have
responded to, and how should he have responded, and how would it have
prevented what happened on February 1st?

So what was O'Keefe's response to that blunt, public warning? As far
as I know, he was still Mr. Bean Counter, determined to cut costs.

No, determined to get costs under control. There is a difference.

Now I personally don't care how O'Keefe manages manned spaceflight
at NASA. At this point cost-cutting for the shuttle and the space
station is like advising a cancer patient to avoid cholesterol - it just
doesn't matter any more. The point is that blind finger-pointing
at "management", but not at specific top managers like O'Keefe, actually
speaks for a bad mandate.

You are apparently utterly clueless as to the realities of working in
a political bureaucracy.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand, you wrote the following.

Lives of the astronauts are a secondary issue. NASA has too many of them,
and if they don't want to take the risk, they'd have no trouble find more
who will. This whining notion (by those whose lives aren't even at risk)
that human life takes precedence over all other considerations is absurd.
It's not true of any other human endeavor, and opening a frontier is the
last place in which that emphasis should be placed.

and I responded.

A little cavalier are we?

and now you respond.

No, just realistic.

I guess I am wrong, it is far beyond cavalier.

Cavalier: Showing arrogant or offhand disregard; dismissive: a cavalier
attitude toward the suffering of others.

From Dictionary.com.

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Charleston" wrote in message
news:IGkUa.42107$zy.9234@fed1read06...
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

Does "bean counter" sound like "flight safety"?

No. and I have to wonder if anyone at NASA HQ can count beans very well
after seeing the cost versus effectiveness of their Silent Safety Program.

Whatever problems they find in NASA management, I'm sure they were
there long before Mr. O'Keefe came along. The perceived problem when
he took the job was budgets and schedules, not flight safety. I
hardly think it's reasonable to blame him for not going up and
cleaning up what was not perceived to be a problem.

Yep.

Lives of the astronauts are a secondary issue.

Ow.

This whining notion (by those whose lives aren't
even at risk) that human life takes precedence over all other
considerations is absurd. It's not true of any other human endeavor,
and opening a frontier is the last place in which that emphasis should
be placed.

A little cavalier are we?

Maybe the value of human life is different where you are from. In the
U.S.
we place the value of human life up there in the stratosphere. We
especially do this when people voluntarily put heir lives on the line for
their country.

But they chose to put their life on the line.

Rand has an excellent point. In reality the death rate in space exploration
is much lower than you would expect.

Even with the risk, there will always be astronaut candidates.

At this rate, however, there will not always be shuttles.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:34:27 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand, you wrote the following.

Lives of the astronauts are a secondary issue. NASA has too many of them,
and if they don't want to take the risk, they'd have no trouble find more
who will. This whining notion (by those whose lives aren't even at risk)
that human life takes precedence over all other considerations is absurd.
It's not true of any other human endeavor, and opening a frontier is the
last place in which that emphasis should be placed.

and I responded.

A little cavalier are we?

and now you respond.

No, just realistic.

I guess I am wrong, it is far beyond cavalier.

Cavalier: Showing arrogant or offhand disregard; dismissive: a cavalier
attitude toward the suffering of others.

Suffering has always to be balanced against the goal for which the
suffering occurs.

Needless suffering is a tragedy.

Suffering for a purpose is not necessarily. If the highest value is
the prevention of human suffering, then we may as well shut down the
space program right now.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
And again, no one at the time knew that "catastrophic risk is one of
the underlying problems."

No, Richard Blomberg knew. And he told NASA and Congress. Since he
was head of a NASA outside safety panel, they had asked him.

Second, if O'Keefe didn't know that flight safety is a problem, then
where has he been? Was he in a coma when Challenger crashed? Did he not
learn when he started that STS-93 was saved by a prayer on launch in 1999?
The Challenger was destroyed over seventeen years ago. How would he
have learned the latter?

Well, he could have read about it on the Internet. For example,
he could have read Bill Readdy's testimony to Congress about it:

http://legislative.nasa.gov/hearings/readdy9-23.html

In general, NASA directors might want to know about past launches in
which the shuttle almost crashed. And legislative.nasa.gov could have
other useful information too.

I really don't think that O'Keefe was unaware of the hydrogen leak on
STS-93. He'd have to be incompetent beyond belief not to know about it.

And what did Blomberg mean by "the current approach"?
He was referring in particular to deferred repairs and privatization
without adequate safety oversight, both of which were consequences of
*cost cutting*.
....
What did he say specifically that Mr. O'Keefe should have
responded to, and how should he have responded, and how would it have
prevented what happened on February 1st?

No one is saying that Blomberg's sage advice about safety would
*necessarily* have prevented the Columbia disaster. The point, on
which a lot of people are harping now, is that NASA's entire safety
culture is bad. That's basically what Blomberg said 10 months before
the fact. And yes, his testimony and the committee report did include
recommendations, which you can read about he

http://www.house.gov/science/hearing...8/blomberg.htm

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

In article ezmUa.42206$zy.19121@fed1read06,
Charleston charlestonchewschocolatecandycandidly @youarekiddingright.spam wrote:
...While you can average out the value of a human life, in strictly
financial terms in a court of law, you can't place a tangible price on the
very real damage done to the victims families, and those colleagues who
sometimes unknowingly send others off to death...

Unfortunately, in practice it is necessary to place a value on such
things. Moreover, you aren't really refusing to do so -- you clearly *do*
value them to some extent, but not an unlimited extent. So there *is* a
finite value in there somewhere. What you are refusing to do is to assign
a number (even an uncertain and approximate one) to that value... thus
making it impossible to assess that value objectively, to discuss how it
compares to other values, to rationally decide *how much* should be done
to prevent repetitions of such damage.

Such decisions must be made. To refuse to make them rationally guarantees
that they will be made irrationally.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote:
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

Does "bean counter" sound like "flight safety"?

No. and I have to wonder if anyone at NASA HQ can count beans very well
after seeing the cost versus effectiveness of their Silent Safety
Program.

Anybody wonder what I meant above?

Whatever problems they find in NASA management, I'm sure they were
there long before Mr. O'Keefe came along. The perceived problem when
he took the job was budgets and schedules, not flight safety. I
hardly think it's reasonable to blame him for not going up and
cleaning up what was not perceived to be a problem.

Yep.

Lives of the astronauts are a secondary issue.

Ow.

This whining notion (by those whose lives aren't
even at risk) that human life takes precedence over all other
considerations is absurd. It's not true of any other human endeavor,
and opening a frontier is the last place in which that emphasis should
be placed.

A little cavalier are we?

Maybe the value of human life is different where you are from. In the
U.S.
we place the value of human life up there in the stratosphere. We
especially do this when people voluntarily put heir lives on the line
for
their country.

But they chose to put their life on the line.

Rand has an excellent point. In reality the death rate in space
exploration
is much lower than you would expect.

Well what would you expect? Let me just say that NASA bragged at
Congressional hearings that the risks of loss of crew and vehicle were
getting better (1 in 483 to 1 in 556, IIRC) depending on what you believe.
So if we go by what NASA led Congress and the public to believe, and what
the crew therefore believed that is one thing. However when Mission Control
e-mails you in your orbiter and tells you not to worry, but in reality
literally has no idea what they are talking about, that is quite another
thing.

Even with the risk, there will always be astronaut candidates.

Correct and astronauts will always be willing to fly when there are
significant risks because it is what they live for. It is up to management
to control the program risks, not the astronauts. I will never forget the
foolhardy statement astronaut Robert Crippen made after Challenger. He said
he'd go fly a shuttle out of Vandenberg AFB, the incompleteWest Coast
Spaceport. That site was not ready, the filament wound SRB cases failed a
structural loads test, and Discovery, the orbiter supposed to go fly from
there was sitting at KSC as a cannibalized hangar queen. Don't confuse an
astronaut's "what me worry let's go fly" attitude with what it takes to run
a safe program. Astronauts are by their nature eternal optimists. It does
not cheapen their lives. It does not make them less valuable either.

At this rate, however, there will not always be shuttles.

I am hopeful that NASA will move forward and get through the rest of the
current fleets missions without another loss. One more loss of crew type
accident though, and it is over.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 04:14:36 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:30:45 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
True, but they also won't like you if you keep blowing them up.

Who cares?

Do you want the long or the short list?

There are plenty more where they came from. No one's
holding a gun to their head to make them be astronauts.

There are also people out there who want to be killed and eaten by
others, rapists, murders, etc, etc.

If you want low-life to ride your space craft, then I only hope that
you ride along with them.

Your view is only acceptable if the rewards were also high, like with
bases on the Moon and Mars, then stations around many planets
including the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.

Yes, very many people would be willing to risk their lives to see that
happen, where we could certainly kill more than a few of them to see
it happen and get it within budget.

On the other hand 14 people dead for rather lame trips to orbit seems
like 14 lives too many to me.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:30:45 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
True, but they also won't like you if you keep blowing them up.

Who cares?

Do you want the long or the short list?

There are plenty more where they came from. No one's
holding a gun to their head to make them be astronauts.

There are also people out there who want to be killed and eaten by
others, rapists, murders, etc, etc.

If you want low-life to ride your space craft, then I only hope that
you ride along with them.

Those willing to take informed risk = low lifes?

One hopes that's not what you're implying.

Remember the concept of 'test pilot?'

Now of course, the shutle is allegedly an 'operational' vehicle, but
even limiting it to systems like the rocket powered X-Planes (because
even the first guy to put daylight under the wheels of a 747 was still a
test pilot), we the public accepted that there was a signifigant risk in
what they did. So did they. Most are still around (Chuck Yeager being
the best known example.) I'll ride with low-lifes like that, any day....

The respect for the risk-taker is highly dependednt on the goal. I
don't have much for the mere masochists you describe.


Your view is only acceptable if the rewards were also high, like with
bases on the Moon and Mars, then stations around many planets
including the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.

Yes, very many people would be willing to risk their lives to see that
happen, where we could certainly kill more than a few of them to see
it happen and get it within budget.

On the other hand 14 people dead for rather lame trips to orbit seems
like 14 lives too many to me.

Cardman.


Which is an argument for a better vehicle. We *all* admit this one
is too fragile and expensive. There's plenty to do in LEO, and flight
there *should* have been reliable, cheaper and mundane by now, so those
of a lower risk-taking inclination can apply.

But trust me, someone, clearly not you, but with arguments like
yours, will appear when the first crewmember dies even on a 'cutting
edge' mission somewhere beyond Earth orbit. (And inevitably they will.)
They'll not see the same risk/benefit ration you do, even in that
scenario. (And they may well be soomeone who prefers all-unmanned deep
space exploration....then, of course, will be those [and there are
plenty today] who don't see the value of spending money on *that*
endavour, even in the total absence of risk to life. Note that when a
probe fails, the news stories *always* state the cost of the mission.)

In article IDqUa.42249$zy.28812@fed1read06,
says...

snip

As an example, automobiles have gone up dramatically in price. A car that
could be paid off in three years now takes five years. The safety
expectations of our society no longer allow for the 35 mph fatal accidents
as a norm. Enginering has advanced as a requirement of our society, ever
increasing that life value discussed on this thread. Without a similar
advance in our manned space program from a flight safety perspective it will
either slow down or end as our society decides it is not worth it. I would
note that is has slowed down alot already.

Interestingly, I heard a good editorial piece this morning on NPR about
America's changing attitudes about death. It was prompted by the
publication of photos of Saddam Hussein's two sons in death, and the
American public's reaction to them.

The point was made that Americans used to look death straight-on. We
kept pictures of our loved ones in death -- pictures taken of them in
their coffins, or even posed in life-like poses. We kept keepsakes of
their hair with these pictures. Before photography, we had paintings and
death masks made of our dearly departed. We used to die at home, and our
loved ones would gather around our dead bodies, saying goodbyes and
achieving a sense of closure.

Now, death is something that we shy away from. We don't look at it
directly. We see death as something that happens in places reserved for
it -- hospitals, battlefields and highways. We find the death of a
single individual, regardless of cause and regardless of the
person's achievements, as a tragedy of proportions never seen before in
the history of man.

We have, as a culture, inflated the importance and desirability of
avoiding death. In some ways, this is unnatural. Our denial of death is
a denial of the cycle of life that has always existed.

People die. They die for good reasons, for noble reasons, and for
stupid and useless reasons. They die while accomplishing great things,
and they die for no purpose whatsoever. The common factor is that they
die. And there's nothing we can do to change that most basic fact of
life.

It's time to admit the possibility that putting such an unnaturally large
emphasis on avoiding all death is hampering us, keeping us from taking
risks that are necessary to accomplish things as a race and a culture.
I'm not saying that the two shuttle accidents which took 14 lives should
be accepted as necessary and inevitable -- I'm just saying that you will
*never* make some inherently risky activities totally safe, and that we
shouldn't let an unnatural focus on death avoidance (i.e., refusing to
fly until there is ZERO chance that anyone will ever get killed again
during spaceflight) get in the way of at least TRYING to continue to fly
in space.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |