MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

Andrew Gray wrote:

In article , jeff findley wrote:

Barbara Morgan isn't an idiot. She's also a NASA astronaut, an actual
Mission Specialist. Unless you want to ban all Mission Specialists
from flying on the shuttle, you'd better re-think your statement.

More to the point, if memory serves she was already assigned to a
mission, sometime last year...

[dig, dig]

STS-118, ISS cargo & assembly flight, assignment made about the same
time (IIRC) they launched the new "Educator Astronaut" program. At time
of assignation, it was due to fly in 2004; current schedule has it
tentatively in mid-2005 (so even if it slips, it'll probably still be in
the next two years).


Yes, the next flight of Columbia wasn't it?

This thread was in response to what appeared to be a "Trial Balloon" sent
up by what appeared to be the Shuttle Program Office. You know leak out
some tentative plans to the media and see how well it floats.

The "Trial Balloon" seemed ok, it's just the payload hanging under the
balloon that's giving off a rather foul stench. Kind of reeks of a payoff
to Sean O'Keefe and the CAIB for a rather favorable report, when compared
to "The Dead Men Orbiting" scenario that the Shuttle Program Office let
"play out" to it's disastrous end. Not really just letting it play out, but
actively working at making it "play out" by working very hard on "Plausible
Deniability" instead of a fix for the Orbiter's wing. Essentially, a reward
for accepting the "Plausible Deniability" act put on by the Shuttle Program
Office and blaming "NASA Culture". Is Ron Dittimore still roaming the halls
of Building 1, spreading his influence on the Shuttle Program?


quote

The opportunity also exists - so far in only low-level discussions - to
include a nonprofessional crewmember who would symbolize NASA's commitment
to flight safety. Various suggestions, ranging from NASA Administrator Sean

O'Keefe himself, to a member of the Gehman Commission that recently issued
its final accident report, have been heard, but the informal proposal has
not reached a serious level.

end quote

It's kind of ironic that this "Trial Balloon" is essentially the same PR
stunt that gave Christa McAuliffe her seat on Challenger, and Barbara
Morgan hers on some future flight. Something that NASA said it wasn't going
to do anymore, so they forced (well maybe not forced) Barbara Morgan to
join the astronaut corps before they would consider honoring their
agreement with her.

This was my feeble attempt at putting the original payload back on the
"Trial Balloon", something that should have been done a long time ago. And,
since it's impossible for Barbara Morgan to fly on the next flight of
Columbia, the next flight of Shuttle would be just as good. Or, even
better, as the next Shuttle flight will be the safest in the years to come.
Everything will be checked twice (probably more), and everyone will be on
their toes working hard to make it the safest, with the memory of Columbia
fresh on their minds. As the flights rate pick up and memories fade, the
slippery slope only gets steeper.

If Sean O'Keefe or the CAIB needs to be rewarded for their good work, it
should be on the last flight of the Shuttle Program, not the next. A last
flight that is made by choice, not by circumstance.

Barbara Morgan in 2004!!!!

Craig Fink

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]

Are you talking about leaving home every morning and getting in your car
to go to work? Picture yourself in the poster holding your child, with
the caption "Are you ready for Daddy to go to work?"

You can't eliminate risk...but you can avoid unnecessary risk.


I would be interested to hear how astronauts convince their families
that doing laps around the planet is *necessary*.

If I were an astronaut and I were saying goodbye to my family just
before launch, I could think of lots of reasons why it will be fun.
Lots of reasons why it will be beneficial. Lots as to why it will be
important.

...but *zero* reasons as to why it would be _necessary_.

*

Examine your own line of work. Suppose you die in a traffic accident on
your way to work. Do you consider that to be a necessary risk? The
supreme sacrifice for your company?

Or do you take it as an accepted risk needed to put food on the table?
If so, you could lessen the risk by moving out to the country, or make
any number of lifestyle changes all geared to minimizing the risk. But
maybe your job is glamorous or cool...maybe you get to associate with
astronauts all the time and that justifies the risks you take.

By extension, the astronauts justify the risk they take for their own
personal rewards. Perhaps it's the fame and notoriety, the prestige,
the chance to experience something that few people on earth will ever
know...

They assume a larger risk than you (or I) to achieve something greater,
and are able to justify it to themselves (and their family). Of course,
I would be incorrect if astronauts are resigning from NASA in droves
following the Columbia accident. I wonder how many mission commanders
turned down the next flight before they settled on Eileen Collins.


Tangentially...

I have a friend who is a Navy test pilot who made the Navy cut and is
preparing for his NASA interview for this next astronaut class. In my
last conversation with him, I chose not to ask him how his family
feels about the whole thing. If he gets selected, I will be very
happy for him. And I hope his family will be as well. And I hope he
has a safe and long career.


Perhaps you should warn him about the dangers of spaceflight or ask him
to receive therapy before he needlessly risks his life.


~ CT

stmx3 writes:

But is what NASA's doing now worth dying for?

It's a free country, so that's the call of the astronauts. If they
don't want to fly, they can always resign.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

jeff findley wrote:
stmx3 writes:

But is what NASA's doing now worth dying for?


It's a free country, so that's the call of the astronauts. If they
don't want to fly, they can always resign.

Jeff

I'll agree with that. But what if I rephrase my question:
"Is what NASA's doing worth spending billiones of dollars for?"

From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:

I would be interested to hear how astronauts convince their families
that doing laps around the planet is *necessary*.

If I were an astronaut and I were saying goodbye to my family just
before launch, I could think of lots of reasons why it will be fun.
Lots of reasons why it will be beneficial. Lots as to why it will be
important.

...but *zero* reasons as to why it would be _necessary_.

Examine your own line of work. Suppose you die in a traffic accident on
your way to work. Do you consider that to be a necessary risk? The
supreme sacrifice for your company?

If I was riding a donor cycle without a helmet (or *with*, for that
matter), then yes, that was an unnecessary risk.

If I was driving a car, and that I opted to pay for leather upholstery
instead of anti-lock brakes, then yes again, that was an unnecessary
risk.

There are safer ways to get to work (a necessary activity, for any
self-reliant person).

Or do you take it as an accepted risk needed to put food on the table?

(Again, the mode of transportation chosen is important to take into
consideration.)

If so, you could lessen the risk by moving out to the country, or make
any number of lifestyle changes all geared to minimizing the risk. But
maybe your job is glamorous or cool...maybe you get to associate with
astronauts all the time and that justifies the risks you take.

By extension, the astronauts justify the risk they take for their own
personal rewards. Perhaps it's the fame and notoriety, the prestige,
the chance to experience something that few people on earth will ever
know...

You are arguing matters of degree. I understand your point. Once
again, I'd like to know how an astronaut sells this view to their
family when kissing them goodbye. Consider how distressed John
Glenn's family members were about him taking a "joyride" in the
shuttle.

....and they are all fully grown adults who are no longer dependent on
him.

They assume a larger risk than you (or I) to achieve something greater,
and are able to justify it to themselves (and their family). Of course,
I would be incorrect if astronauts are resigning from NASA in droves
following the Columbia accident. I wonder how many mission commanders
turned down the next flight before they settled on Eileen Collins.

"Something greater". Here is the crux of the argument. Certainly
going four wheeling on the Moon is "something greater". Where you and
I differ here is the risk/benefit ration of LEO flight. It has to be
a great view, for sure.

But please consider all the test pilots who never bother sending NASA
an application because they are *not interested*. It's not worth it
to them. Lot's of fun can be had within the confines of the Earth's
stratosphere.

I've heard a story that an Apollo moonwalker advised his son against
applying to NASA. He said that it's much more fun to just fly jets.
His son became an F-16 pilot (and was married to a woman who flew with
the USAF Thunderbirds).

Tangentially...

I have a friend who is a Navy test pilot who made the Navy cut and is
preparing for his NASA interview for this next astronaut class. In my
last conversation with him, I chose not to ask him how his family
feels about the whole thing. If he gets selected, I will be very
happy for him. And I hope his family will be as well. And I hope he
has a safe and long career.


Perhaps you should warn him about the dangers of spaceflight or ask him
to receive therapy before he needlessly risks his life.

I'm sure his wife is doing plenty of that already.

(And I'm sure that she is also doing her best to represent the
interests of their not yet born children.)


~ CT

From LooseChanj:
C'mon stuffie...what's with the musical
ISP's? Afraid someone will track you down if you stick to one too long?

I've never paid any ISP fees in my life. I've always liked the idea
of getting broadband into my house. While I have serious reservations
regarding AOL business practices, I decided that their offer to set me
up with cable broadband for two months at no charge was worth trying
out. My expectation was that AOL would not have reformed enough as a
company to convince me to stay with them. Assuming that I would
terminate AOL after the free trial, my expectation was to then check
out alternative broadband ISPs.

In the next few weeks, I will need to make a decision on which way to
go. I may check out Earthlink next. I've been impressed with what
I've seen from them so far. I'm not looking forward to reaching into
my wallet for internet service after all these years, but this
broadband experience has been excellent so far. I may decide that it
is worth paying for.

A strong alternative is to use my new 3G cellphone as a modem at no
extra cost, with the benefit of being totally mobile with my laptop.
I'll probably end up with some combination of cable/cell conectivity.

*

For anyone who may be critical of the flexibility I have enjoyed,
please note that every single Usenet post I have made -without
exception- has been through GoogleGroups.

From day 1, I have been inspired with how Google has conducted
themselves as a company. My impressions are that they uphold the
highest standards of conduct for themselves, and I expect that they
would carry that over in how they handle Usenet complaints.

I have never gotten any feedback from them over the years on anything
I've posted. But with the flood of hostility at sci.space, it's easy
for me to imagine that dozens of complaints have been filed. My
expectation is that all complaints were thoroughly investigated and I
would not be surprised to learn that the result of such investigations
was a counter-complaint by Google against the ISP of those issuing the
complaints.

*

Google has singlehandedly provided a bedrock foundation for the
world-wide web. GoogleGroups has worked for me since its inception as
an outstanding service.

I have few complaints at all about them. Even when they introduced
advertisements, they did so with integrity. The biggest problem I've
ever had with them is a problem that started a few days ago. For some
reason unknown to me, date/time tags seem to have gotten jumbled and
many threads are listed as unavailable. These problems had been noted
on another thread, and I posted a response saying that everything
seemed to be ok. But then today the same problem was happening again.

Knowing the quality of work behind Google, I expect that this problem
will be solved soon (if indeed the problem is at Google and not
external).


....and if the folks at Google (or any other service I happen to use)
have a problem with anything I do, I expect that they will tell me
about it.


~ CT

On 28 Sep 2003 11:39:41 -0700, (Stuf4) wrote:

From Michael Grabois:
On 25 Sep 2003 20:52:33 -0700, (Stuf4) wrote:

From crew photo caption:

"The core group for the next shuttle mission renames unchanged: from
left, Soichi Noguchi, commander Eileen Collins, Steve Robinson and Jim
Kelly. But the three other slots have been emptied to to make room for
those with specialized skills needed for the flight's new
responsibilities."

Of course, the other three slots were emptied because the Expedition 7 crew (or
at least 2/3 of them) are already on the Space Station and 114 won't be a crew
rotation mission, YOU STUPID ****!

As with the original caption in question, I am having difficulty
following the logic behind that statement (amidst the anger). Please
check your facts.

OK, let's check the facts.

1. "STS-114 was to have been the seventeenth station flight (ULF1). It would
have carried the Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and carried out a
crew rotation (replacing the ISS EO-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit
with the Malenchenko, Kaleri, and Lu."
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts114.htm

2. Because the shuttle was unavailable, the EXP-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin,
and Pettit took a Soyuz down.

3. Because the shuttle was unavailable, Malenchenko and Lu launched on a Soyuz
and became the EXP-7 crew. Kaleri will fly on a later mission.

Thus, the other three slots on STS-114 (Collins, Kelly, Robinson, and Noguchi
remain on the mission) opened up to whoever will be assigned.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?


My understanding is that crew size for -114 is being limited due
primarily to safety concerns.

Whatever it is, you don't understand. At least two crewmembers will be added to
the 114 crew (at least one experienced EVA and one RMS crewmember).

Let's not forget that in the aftermath
of -51L, NASA didn't fly anything more than a crew of 5 until the
1990s!

In launch order:

STS-61A - Crew of 8 (incl civilian PS x3)
STS-61B - Crew of 7 (incl civilian PS x2)
STS-61C - Crew of 7 (incl member of Congress)
STS-51L - Crew of 7 (incl schoolteacher)

STS-26 - Crew of 5
STS-27 - Crew of 5
STS-29 - Crew of 5
STS-30 - Crew of 5
STS-28 - Crew of 5
STS-34 - Crew of 5
STS-33 - Crew of 5
STS-32 - Crew of 5
STS-36 - Crew of 5
STS-31 - Crew of 5
STS-41 - Crew of 5
STS-38 - Crew of 5

NASA didn't launch a crew larger than 5, nor was another civilian
payload specialist launched into orbit until *13* flights (!) after
Challenger.

There was no space station to confuse the issue back then.

In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut."

Let's look at what the manifest would have been post-51L, and the number of
crewmembers for those with full crews assigned:

61E Astro 1 7 crew (payload became 7-crew STS-35;
original crew moved to STS-28 and 35)
61F Ulysses 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-41;
original crew moved to STS-26)
61G Galileo 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-30;
original crew moved to STS-30)
61H comm sat 7 crew (payload cancelled; some of
original crew moved to STS-29)
62A DOD 7 crew (DOD payload; most of
original crew moved to STS-27)
61M TDRS 6 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-26?;
original crew disbanded)
61J HST 5 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-31;
original crew moved to STS-31)
61N DOD 6 crew (DOD payload; most of
original crew moved to STS-28)
61I LDEF 6 crew (payload retrieve moved to STS-32;
original crew disbanded)
61K EOS/ATLAS 8 crew (payload became STS-45; some of
original crew moved to STS-45)

That's an average of 6 crew per flight. The larger crews were reduced
post-Challenger because the missions were cut back from the "let's do
everything" to "let's do one thing" and they didn't need as many crewmembers.
As the pre-Challenger backlog emptied out, they were able to do the longer
research missions that required Payload Specialists and bigger crews.

For you to simply quote the number of crewmembers without context is
disingenuous - and par for the course for you.

What was that about "lies, damn lies, and statistics"?

From Michael Grabois:

As with the original caption in question, I am having difficulty
following the logic behind that statement (amidst the anger). Please
check your facts.

OK, let's check the facts.

1. "STS-114 was to have been the seventeenth station flight (ULF1). It would
have carried the Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and carried out a
crew rotation (replacing the ISS EO-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit
with the Malenchenko, Kaleri, and Lu."
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts114.htm

2. Because the shuttle was unavailable, the EXP-6 crew of Bowersox, Budarin,
and Pettit took a Soyuz down.

3. Because the shuttle was unavailable, Malenchenko and Lu launched on a Soyuz
and became the EXP-7 crew. Kaleri will fly on a later mission.

Thus, the other three slots on STS-114 (Collins, Kelly, Robinson, and Noguchi
remain on the mission) opened up to whoever will be assigned.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

....I'd say that we're both on the same page so far.

My understanding is that crew size for -114 is being limited due
primarily to safety concerns.

Whatever it is, you don't understand. At least two crewmembers will be added to
the 114 crew (at least one experienced EVA and one RMS crewmember).

I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or
more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom
behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on
-114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary
risk.

There is a reason why STS-1 only put the lives of 2 astronauts at
risk. And there's a reason why NASA scaled back from their crew size
of 7 (/8) after -51L.

Let's not forget that in the aftermath
of -51L, NASA didn't fly anything more than a crew of 5 until the
1990s!

In launch order:

STS-61A - Crew of 8 (incl civilian PS x3)
STS-61B - Crew of 7 (incl civilian PS x2)
STS-61C - Crew of 7 (incl member of Congress)
STS-51L - Crew of 7 (incl schoolteacher)

STS-26 - Crew of 5
STS-27 - Crew of 5
STS-29 - Crew of 5
STS-30 - Crew of 5
STS-28 - Crew of 5
STS-34 - Crew of 5
STS-33 - Crew of 5
STS-32 - Crew of 5
STS-36 - Crew of 5
STS-31 - Crew of 5
STS-41 - Crew of 5
STS-38 - Crew of 5

NASA didn't launch a crew larger than 5, nor was another civilian
payload specialist launched into orbit until *13* flights (!) after
Challenger.

There was no space station to confuse the issue back then.

In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut."

You are now insulting me for providing cold facts that anyone can
easily verify.

Let's look at what the manifest would have been post-51L, and the number of
crewmembers for those with full crews assigned:

61E Astro 1 7 crew (payload became 7-crew STS-35;
original crew moved to STS-28 and 35)
61F Ulysses 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-41;
original crew moved to STS-26)
61G Galileo 4 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-30;
original crew moved to STS-30)
61H comm sat 7 crew (payload cancelled; some of
original crew moved to STS-29)
62A DOD 7 crew (DOD payload; most of
original crew moved to STS-27)
61M TDRS 6 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-26?;
original crew disbanded)
61J HST 5 crew (payload became 5-crew STS-31;
original crew moved to STS-31)
61N DOD 6 crew (DOD payload; most of
original crew moved to STS-28)
61I LDEF 6 crew (payload retrieve moved to STS-32;
original crew disbanded)
61K EOS/ATLAS 8 crew (payload became STS-45; some of
original crew moved to STS-45)

That's an average of 6 crew per flight. The larger crews were reduced
post-Challenger because the missions were cut back from the "let's do
everything" to "let's do one thing" and they didn't need as many crewmembers.
As the pre-Challenger backlog emptied out, they were able to do the longer
research missions that required Payload Specialists and bigger crews.

For you to simply quote the number of crewmembers without context is
disingenuous - and par for the course for you.

I don't see what can be construed as disingenuous about adding hard
facts to this discussion. The facts I offered are irrefutable.
Anyone is free to draw their own conclusions from the raw data of crew
sizes from those 16 missions.


What was that about "lies, damn lies, and statistics"?

I posted -data-. When you start crunching an average of actual data
(let alone an average of predicted non-event data) then you are
venturing into the realm of -statistics-.


~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:
I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or
more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom
behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on
-114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary
risk.

The first mission will have a lot of non-ISS tasks to accomplish to test all
the new procedures etc. And then it must perform ISS tasks.

The number of crewmembers should be dictated by what needs to be acocmplished
and how many people are needed to get all the tasks done in the time limit of
a mission.


STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle
programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that
involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size
? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission.

From Jack O'Neil:
Stuf4 wrote:
I'm sure that STS-114 is quite capable of launching a crew of 6, 7 or
more. Our point of difference appears to be the level of wisdom
behind such a decision. The more people NASA decides to launch on
-114, the more I expect to see them questioned regarding unnecessary
risk.

The first mission will have a lot of non-ISS tasks to accomplish to test all
the new procedures etc. And then it must perform ISS tasks.

The number of crewmembers should be dictated by what needs to be acocmplished
and how many people are needed to get all the tasks done in the time limit of
a mission.


STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle
programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that
involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size
? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission.

STS-114 is more than just post-major mx. It is post catastrophy. As
with post-51L, NASA is once again in a position of having to prove
competence.


If you happened to be the owner of a taxicab business and you had a
high frequency of tires falling off your cars followed by rollover or
some other incidence of death of all passengers and drivers, there is
a definite period of time after such catastrophy when confidence needs
to be built back up.

(But I'm open to considering alternative explanations as to why NASA
scaled back to five member crews post-51L.)


~ CT