Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

"Doug..." wrote in message
...

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.

Sure, that makes sense, but then you don't put people in a shirt sleeve
environment, put teachers onboard as publicity stunts, etc., for such risks
either. That is folly and invites criticism. You do the best you can
whether its racing cars or X-15s.

I took a class on death and society. I understand your points. We will
continue to stretch our wings to do new things. When NASA sets unrealistic
expectations of its vehicles to sell them to Congress and the public, that
is when the failure becomes less acceptable. Had NASA called the Shuttle
what it is, a grandly underfunded experimental vehicle, it might be a little
different. A lot of our acceptance of death is about expectations. I think
we all agree on that.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
No, Richard Blomberg knew. And he told NASA and Congress. Since he
was head of a NASA outside safety panel, they had asked him.
Did he quantify it in such a way as to move it to a higher priority
than getting a multi-billion-dollar ISS program under control?

As Blomberg did imply, attention to safety could be part of getting ISS
under control. The point is that ISS construction plans are so bloated
that they eat into *all* related spending: Spending on safety, spending
on ISS science (which is a pathetic irony), spending on the shuttle,
spending on unmanned spaceflight, you name it.

Well, he could have read about it on the Internet.
You expect the NASA Administrator to be surfing the internet, rather
than getting info from the people who are supposed to provide it to
him?

You are going to bizarre lengths to defend a NASA director who is not
an engineer, who explicitly renounces "vision", who boringly promotes
the status quo, and who downplayed and delegated safety issues until
disaster struck; in short a director who has exactly the qualities that
you ordinarily criticize in the space program.

But your defense in this case is worse than the accusation. I'm sure
that O'Keefe knows that STS-93 almost crashed on launch. Even if he
were only spoon-fed information by advisers, which I don't think is
the case, then I'm sure that he would know. Arguing that he can't be
expected to know when the shuttle almost crashed, moreover that he can't
be expected to read Congressional testimony from William Readdy (a direct
subordinate), would be far more embarrassing than any plausible criticism.
O'Keefe may be boring and he may not be an engineer, but he is reasonably
intelligent as a manager. He's not Dan Quayle.

No one is saying that Blomberg's sage advice about safety would
*necessarily* have prevented the Columbia disaster.
Then, given the priorities of the time, I think it unreasonable to
blame the NASA Administrator for it.

But on the other hand, it might well have made a difference.
The fundamental problem was foam coming off the bipod mounting, which
could well be caused by a contractor cutting corners on quality control.
Quality control is *always* the concern when you outsource to save money.

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

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:06:00 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

There's no doubt that safety must, and will improve as we develop new
vehicles, but we aren't at a state right now in which it should be the
highest priority, because we simply can't afford it (almost literally,
based on the fact that safety budgets were apparently cut...)

Safety is a primary consideration in automobiles, because compared to
a human life, an automobile is cheap (though even there we do a
cost/benefit analysis, in order to keep them affordable).

But when a launch system costs billions to build, and we only have a
few, and people are lined up to be astronauts (or at least they were,
until they come to realize what a slim chance they have of actually
flying), the calculus has to be different. One *cannot afford to lose
vehicles* regardless of whether they have people aboard or not.

The blow to the program was from the loss of Challenger and Columbia,
and the long down time that those losses entailed, not the loss of
their crews. The latter is a blow only to their friends and families
(though it's certainly one harder to bear, for them). And given the
nature of things, if more had been done to prevent the loss of those
vehicles, loss of the crew would have been prevented as well.

That's what I mean by it being a secondary consideration, and why the
notion of "man rating" a reusable vehicle is (or at least should be)
nonsensical.

--
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:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:04:21 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


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.

Because they'll have too few orbiters remaining, not because they lost
a crew.

--
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:

Consider the Roman way and be burned like rubbish as per Cleopatra starring
Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. BTW Richard was not put on a funeral
pyre. But art does not follow real life.


"Doug..." wrote in message
...
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... |




-----= 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! =-----

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:20:42 +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:

Well, he could have read about it on the Internet.
You expect the NASA Administrator to be surfing the internet, rather
than getting info from the people who are supposed to provide it to
him?

You are going to bizarre lengths to defend a NASA director

No, you are going to bizarre lengths to attack him, saying that if
he'd only surfed the web more, he'd have done a better job...

who is not an engineer,

The (arguably) best NASA administrator (Webb) was not an engineer.
Being an engineer is not a job requirement, despite your attempt to
make it one ad hoc.

who explicitly renounces "vision"

Not his job.

who boringly promotes the status quo,

He was doing what he was hired to do. If you have a complaint about
"lack of vision" and "status quo" go complain to the White House.

and who downplayed and delegated safety issues until
disaster struck; in short a director who has exactly the qualities that
you ordinarily criticize in the space program.

Unlike you, however, I understand the role of the NASA Administrator.
Your laying all of the blame of the program at the feet of an
individual who's only been on the job for a couple years is absurd.

--
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 Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:04:21 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


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.

Because they'll have too few orbiters remaining, not because they lost
a crew.

Now you are sounding the Bob Haller alarm.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D17221665

http://makeashorterlink.com/?H25212665

NASA flew with one or two orbiter for a few years with no problems even as
the flight rate was increasing. NASA could fly with one orbiter if
necesssary. If an orbiter is lost in transit or due to an accident in the
VAB or OPF where no crew is lost, the damaged orbiter will be cannibalized
for parts while the program continues. OTOH, if another crew is lost, it's
over. I'll even go out on a limb and say if they lose an orbiter in any
in-flight manner in which the crew survives and NASA can say we have had a
"successful failure", the program will continue. You are wrong. The crew
is primary, you are just too stubborn to see that NASA does put flight
safety above vehicle recovery. To say otherwise insults all of those at
NASA and its contractors who work crew and flight safety issues every day.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

On or about Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:52:15 GMT, Rand Simberg made the sensational claim that:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:41:50 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One in 999 is what NASA is shooting for in the next
generation space shuttle. That is a far cry from the joke set for the
current orbiter fleet which was about one in a million.

Do you have any cite for that nonsense?

The bowl of alphabits he had for breakfast, no doubt.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

"LooseChanj" wrote in message
. com...
"Charleston" wrote:

One in 999 is what NASA is shooting for in the next
generation space shuttle. That is a far cry from the joke set for the
current orbiter fleet which was about one in a million.

Do you have any cite for that nonsense?

Notice I did not write CRV....

The bowl of alphabits he had for breakfast, no doubt.

Start here, and over the next few weeks I'll bring you up to speed on the
rest if you are serious. The document below sustains as realistic, most of
the arguments I have made here recently.

Special note to Bob Haller:

Please really read the document below. Your questions have generally been
fair if not redundant at times. Perhaps many here don't see the future as
you would like to see it, but your ideas are more in line with where NASA
would like to be than many who post here. I hope you take some solace on
NASA's thoughts on acceptable flight safety risks in the future. I urge you
to research "human rating requirements" in the future to answer some of the
questions you have that go unanswered here. Then perhaps you can educate
those who live in today, but can not see tomorrow.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/...ge_na me=main

Now go away looschanj and come back when you know what you are talking
about. You too, Rand. I was going to post this later, but I have
personally posted enough of the concepts in the above referenced document
(and numerous other NASA documents, hint, hint) to demonstrate that the
ignorance on this thread is not mine.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:29:38 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:



http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/...D=N_PG_8705_00
02_&page_name=main

Now go away looschanj and come back when you know what you are talking
about. You too, Rand.

I'm quite familiar with that document. I fail to see your point in
posting it.

And that is why you fail. Your arguments are inconsistent with that
document among others. I can not help it if you do not see this fact. I
will guess then that you have also seen the 0.999 for LEO number as well and
reject it too. There is no further point in discussing this issue with you.

Good day. Have the last word if that makes you feel better. BTW, the 0.999
number is no longer on the web AFAIK.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC