Abandoning Orion for a Next Generation Shuttle?

On Sep 17, 9:06*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
When I read this originally, I immediately placed blame on management. *This
is the kind of stupid logic that sometimes comes out of management. To me,
it's management saying, "You have to prove to me there is a problem before
I'm going to do anything about it".

And what the hell else is managemant supposed to do? *Just follow
every blind whim of their subordinates? *That's not how the world
works, not at NASA and not anywhere.

Create an environment where subordinates will attempt to communicate
effectively with their managers. If subordinates feel that their
concerns will be paid attention to, they'll probably put effort into
presenting them in a detailed and rational manner. If they think
their concerns will be blown off regardless of merit or that they'll
incur negative consequences, they'll shrug their shoulders and say
"eh, you're the boss."

I'm getting tired of the reflexive exoneration of the engineers and
the equally reflexive assigment of all blame on the managers. *It's
the twinkie defense and it's bull****.

The engineers failed at communication. The managers failed at
management. Both are culpable, both could have prevented it, but the
managers failed at their assigned task.

How Derek thinks this is the engineer's fault is beyond me.

Because they were tasked to come up with a formal requirement and
request for imagery - and they failed to do so. *It's black and white
right there.

What is meant by "a formal requirement"? What did the people involved
think was meant?

The reason the engineers wanted the imagery in the first place is because
THE ENGINEERS DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM OR NOT!!!!!

And what prevented them from formally laying out their case?

"They believed the need for imagery was obvious: without better
pictures, engineers would be unable to make reliable predictions of
the depth and area of damage caused by a foam strike that was outside
of the experience base. However, team members concluded that although
their need was important, they could not cite a “mandatory”
requirement for the request."

-jake

On Sep 25, 12:35*am, Jake wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:06*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
When I read this originally, I immediately placed blame on management. *This
is the kind of stupid logic that sometimes comes out of management. To me,
it's management saying, "You have to prove to me there is a problem before
I'm going to do anything about it".

And what the hell else is managemant supposed to do? *Just follow
every blind whim of their subordinates? *That's not how the world
works, not at NASA and not anywhere.

Create an environment where subordinates will attempt to communicate
effectively with their managers. *If subordinates feel that their
concerns will be paid attention to, they'll probably put effort into
presenting them in a detailed and rational manner. *If they think
their concerns will be blown off regardless of merit or that they'll
incur negative consequences, they'll shrug their shoulders and say
"eh, you're the boss."

I'm getting tired of the reflexive exoneration of the engineers and
the equally reflexive assigment of all blame on the managers. *It's
the twinkie defense and it's bull****.

The engineers failed at communication. *The managers failed at
management. *Both are culpable, both could have prevented it, but the
managers failed at their assigned task.

How Derek thinks this is the engineer's fault is beyond me.

Because they were tasked to come up with a formal requirement and
request for imagery - and they failed to do so. *It's black and white
right there.

What is meant by "a formal requirement"? *What did the people involved
think was meant?

The reason the engineers wanted the imagery in the first place is because
THE ENGINEERS DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM OR NOT!!!!!

And what prevented them from formally laying out their case?

"They believed the need for imagery was obvious: without better
pictures, engineers would be unable to make reliable predictions of
the depth and area of damage caused by a foam strike that was outside
of the experience base. However, team members concluded that although
their need was important, they could not cite a “mandatory”
requirement for the request."

-jake

besides the launch cameras were in poor condition so the engineers
lacked good pictures to review. i believe some cameras were barely
usable.

safety board ordered a big upgrade on them