Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:34:47 +0200, in a place far, far away, Jan C.
Vorbrüggen 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?

If you mean the last sentence of his paragraph with "that nonsense", that's
straight from Feynman's appendix to the Commission Report, I would think.

Without seeing an actual quote in context, I can't address that, but
I've never known anyone in the industry (at least, anyone who was
knowledgable) who believed any such number, as either a requirement or
reality.

--
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:
Without seeing an actual quote in context, I can't address that, but
I've never known anyone in the industry (at least, anyone who was
knowledgable) who believed any such number, as either a requirement or
reality.

According to Feynman, it was the party line among NASA managers (at least
some of them) that the probability of launch failure for the shuttle
was about 1 in 100,000. His appendix to the Rogers Commission report
doesn't name the managers, but his autobiography, "Surely You're Joking
Mr. Feynman," does. The relevant section is reprinted on pages 37-40
of this on-line statistics text:

http://www.resample.com/content/text/06-Chap-2.pdf

Feynman was told 1 in 100,000 by Judson Lovingood, a high-level manager
at Marshall Space Flight Center. The same figure was also attributed
to James Kingsbury, another high-level manager at MSFC, by an engineer
who talked to Feynman. They were both key players in the Challenger
disaster; it happened on their watch. Lovingood even gave Feynman a
document (of unknown authorship) that "calculated" the 10^-5 risk factor.
Basically it made up numbers for the reliability of each shuttle engine
part so that the total would be 10^-5.

In my opinion, it's a travesty. But I don't see why you should be
so surprised. Maybe because they were managers, Kingsbury and Lovingood
were not expected to be experts on anything, except managing the agency.

I wouldn't have much hope for American institutions, if this is really
what they teach in management school.
--
/\ 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 Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:51:50 +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:

But I don't see why you should be
so surprised. Maybe because they were managers, Kingsbury and Lovingood
were not expected to be experts on anything, except managing the agency.

Again, you confuse a manager (which should ideally have some technical
expertise) with the position of administrator, which is a political
position.

--
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:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:51:50 +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:
But I don't see why you should be
so surprised. Maybe because they were managers, Kingsbury and Lovingood
were not expected to be experts on anything, except managing the agency.
Again, you confuse a manager (which should ideally have some technical
expertise) with the position of administrator, which is a political
position.

Apparently I'm not the only one who is "confused":

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
speak in support of the nomination of Mr. Sean O'Keefe to serve as
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
...
Sean has earned a reputation for being a talented manager---fair and
open minded-- while being absolutely committed to ensuring that the
agencies he manages are adaptable, efficient and mission focused.
...
Sean is indeed a skilled manager who wants to make sure that taxpayer
dollars are spent effectively, but that doesn't make him any less
of a thinker. Like any good manager, Sean is not just interested in
how many dollars are spent, but in what they are spent for.

- Sherwood Boehlert


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

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:34:47 +0200, in a place far, far away, Jan C.
Vorbrüggen 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?

If you mean the last sentence of his paragraph with "that nonsense",
that's
straight from Feynman's appendix to the Commission Report, I would think.

Close. Dr. Feynman got the 1 in 100,000 joke of a number from NASA managers
one of whom apparently played an engineer on TV;-) I plead guilty with the
1 in a million number but even called it a joke. I added in a Shuttle
Centaur Plutonium release which was estimated at 1 in 681,000 (after SRB
burnout IIRC) using NASA's own data in 1986. For all practical purposes
another zero makes little difference to a vehicle with a fleet of five
designed to fly 540 times but has actually done poorer.

Without seeing an actual quote in context, I can't address that, but
I've never known anyone in the industry (at least, anyone who was
knowledgable) who believed any such number, as either a requirement or
reality.

Oh, doubting Rand. Are you really going to embarass yourself by calling
Feynman a liar or a man given to exagerate scientific data? He is dead, but
the record is not;-))

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Greg Kuperberg
wrote in message ...

Feynman was told 1 in 100,000 by Judson Lovingood, a high-level
manager at Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dr. Lovingood was also an expert in his field of engineering.

Maybe because they were managers, Kingsbury and Lovingood
were not expected to be experts on anything, except managing the
agency.

Von Braun didn't operate that way, nor did Dr. Lucas. What's
missing in the engineering statistics for Challenger/Columbia is a
'white-collar crime' factor. Only the naive would ignore it. I'm
not saying it accounts for 3 or 4 orders of magnitude; but it's
absurd to blame 1 in 50 on engineering shortcomings.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Greg Kuperberg
wrote in message ...

Feynman was told 1 in 100,000 by Judson Lovingood, a high-level
manager at Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dr. Lovingood was also an expert in his field of engineering.

Yes as in PhD (Doctor) Lovingood as opposed to MD. I believe he worked his
way through his PhD while at NASA. What Rand is not connecting is that not
all engineers have a strong background in statistics.

Maybe because they were managers, Kingsbury and Lovingood
were not expected to be experts on anything, except managing the
agency.

Sure. Man the whole is getting deep.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:51:50 +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:
But I don't see why you should be
so surprised. Maybe because they were managers, Kingsbury and Lovingood
were not expected to be experts on anything, except managing the agency.
Again, you confuse a manager (which should ideally have some technical
expertise) with the position of administrator, which is a political
position.

Apparently I'm not the only one who is "confused":

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
speak in support of the nomination of Mr. Sean O'Keefe to serve as
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
...
Sean has earned a reputation for being a talented manager---fair and
open minded-- while being absolutely committed to ensuring that the
agencies he manages are adaptable, efficient and mission focused.
...
Sean is indeed a skilled manager who wants to make sure that taxpayer
dollars are spent effectively, but that doesn't make him any less
of a thinker. Like any good manager, Sean is not just interested in
how many dollars are spent, but in what they are spent for.

- Sherwood Boehlert

No, you certainly not the only one who is confused. You just happen to
be the most vocal in the sci.space.* heirarchy (setting aside the unholy
trinity of Maxson, scott grissom and Guth, of course).

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