Shuttle program extension?

I think that just about does it. *The engineers at Thiokol knew there were
problems with the o-rings when launching in cold weather. *They were opposed
to launching in cold weather. *They were overruled by Thiokol management.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:06:27 -0500, J Waggoner
wrote:


Even the head of the shuttle program in 1986 said the flight schedule
was AMBITIOUS to say the least.. 12 flights? perhaps 20?

I think they were aiming for 17 or 18 that year.

Brian

What i'd like to know is why the managers who made the decision to
launch(and willfully ignored the engineers warnings) weren't jailed
for manslaughter which if you ak is what they're guilty of.

NASA PROTECTS THEIR MANAGERS Columbia Managers who clearly
ignoredtheir own flight rules got cushy promotions after columbias
loss. While because they didnt floow the rules deserved to be
FIRED!!!!!

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:16:11 -0500, in a place far, far away, J
Waggoner made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Thankfully both McCain and Obama have sent a letter to the
administration and Dr. Griffin to put the decision on hold to retire
the shuttle for 1 year... why... because everyone
can see the "coolness" developing. Its just silly to think that if
we have a direct conflict with Russia that they will continue the
space relationship with NASA beyond what is necessary. This
is especially true if sanctions occur. Which is unlikely, unless the
Russians invade the rest of Georgia, which is possible. Depending
on how much Putin is feeling his cheerios.

So Shuttle should continue to be made available to the USA and our
European and Japanese partners so we don't have a repeat Skylab
experience and watch the ISS drop out of the sky and burn into
a million pieces while the press destroys NASA for the failure of ISS.
NASA can't and won't let this happen, if Orion is put on hold for 5
years oh well, welcome to the real world of geopolitics, the space
programs very familiar and old hunting ground.

Shuttle alone does not allow either we or the Euro/Japanese partners a
means of occupying the station between visits, unless they're willing
to do it without the Soyuz lifeboat.

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:25:31 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
With Challenger, the blame sits squarely on management's shoulders. The
engineers recommended to *not* launch Challenger in such cold conditions.
They had some data to back them up, but management wanted them to prove
the
shuttle would fail if they launched. Management turned safety upside
down.

Of course, once again, the engineers mistakes go umentioned - because
management is blame. Always and forever.

I used to have a good link for this one...

Here we go, straight from the Rogers Commission Report:

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/.../Chapter-5.txt

Quote from above:

The decision to launch the Challenger was flawed. Those who made
that decision were unaware of the recent history of problems
concerning the O-rings and the joint and were unaware of the initial
written recommendation of the contractor advising against the launch
at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit and the continuing
opposition of the engineers at Thiokol after the management reversed
its position. They did not have a clear understanding of Rockwell's
concern that it was not safe to launch because of ice on the pad. If
the decision makers had known all of the facts, it is highly unlikely
that they would have decided to launch 51-L on January 28, 1986.

I think that just about does it. The engineers at Thiokol knew there were
problems with the o-rings when launching in cold weather. They were opposed
to launching in cold weather. They were overruled by Thiokol management.

Also, NASA management was pushing Rockwell around as well (on the issue of
ice on the launch vehicle): "In this situation, NASA appeared to be
requiring a contractor to prove that it was not safe to launch, rather than
proving it was safe." Even though ice turned out to not be an issue in this
case, NASA's decision making process was clearly flawed when it came to
safety. There was a whole boatload of recommendations about safety and
safety processes that came out of the Rogers Commission Report. IMHO,
safety is something that has to be managed very carefully.

So, just how was the Challenger disaster the fault of the engineers?

It's not. If someone had said it was the engineers' fault, Derek
would have blamed it on management, and complained that we didn't
agree with him.

Derek Lyons wrote:
Given that neither Apollo 1 or Challenger was caused by programs being
rushed,

huh? You don't think there was any "go fever" with Apollo 1?

You don't recall the schedule pressures for lots of shuttle launches in
1986?

kevin willoughby wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
Given that neither Apollo 1 or Challenger was caused by programs being
rushed,

huh? You don't think there was any "go fever" with Apollo 1?


That would be sort of odd, as the astronauts involved in the program
said there was...in those exact terms.
We were very concerned that the Soviets could do a lunar loop mission
with a Proton/Zond before we could do a Apollo lunar orbit mission with
a CSM on a Saturn V.
That's why Apollo 8 did the mission after only two unmanned Saturn V
launches, even though the second launch was a real mess.

Pat

kevin willoughby wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
Given that neither Apollo 1 or Challenger was caused by programs being
rushed,

huh? You don't think there was any "go fever" with Apollo 1?

You don't recall the schedule pressures for lots of shuttle launches
in 1986?

It was either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics that had the cover
article about "Our Biggest Year In Space" that hit the newsstands around
a week after the Challenger blew up...showing all the planned missions
for 1986.
There were one mighty lot of them, and they had it broken down in a
illustrated graph on a month-to-month timeline showing what was going up
in any particular week during the year.

Hubris.

Pat

Excellent point on the lifeboat... Thanks for cancelling it Mr.
Goldin. You dick.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:26:06 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:16:11 -0500, in a place far, far away, J
Waggoner made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Thankfully both McCain and Obama have sent a letter to the
administration and Dr. Griffin to put the decision on hold to retire
the shuttle for 1 year... why... because everyone
can see the "coolness" developing. Its just silly to think that if
we have a direct conflict with Russia that they will continue the
space relationship with NASA beyond what is necessary. This
is especially true if sanctions occur. Which is unlikely, unless the
Russians invade the rest of Georgia, which is possible. Depending
on how much Putin is feeling his cheerios.

So Shuttle should continue to be made available to the USA and our
European and Japanese partners so we don't have a repeat Skylab
experience and watch the ISS drop out of the sky and burn into
a million pieces while the press destroys NASA for the failure of ISS.
NASA can't and won't let this happen, if Orion is put on hold for 5
years oh well, welcome to the real world of geopolitics, the space
programs very familiar and old hunting ground.

Shuttle alone does not allow either we or the Euro/Japanese partners a
means of occupying the station between visits, unless they're willing
to do it without the Soyuz lifeboat.

"J Waggoner" wrote in message
...
Excellent point on the lifeboat... Thanks for cancelling it Mr.
Goldin. You dick.

And how did you expect him to pay for it when Congress of course the one
writing the checks?


That said, Rand does bring up a good point I had overlooked. While
continuing the shuttle reduces the requirement for us paying for rides,
rescue seats home are still required.

(Though one could argue that at some point one may want to simply accept
that lifeboats aren't required for 100% of the crew.)


On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:26:06 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:16:11 -0500, in a place far, far away, J
Waggoner made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Thankfully both McCain and Obama have sent a letter to the
administration and Dr. Griffin to put the decision on hold to retire
the shuttle for 1 year... why... because everyone
can see the "coolness" developing. Its just silly to think that if
we have a direct conflict with Russia that they will continue the
space relationship with NASA beyond what is necessary. This
is especially true if sanctions occur. Which is unlikely, unless the
Russians invade the rest of Georgia, which is possible. Depending
on how much Putin is feeling his cheerios.

So Shuttle should continue to be made available to the USA and our
European and Japanese partners so we don't have a repeat Skylab
experience and watch the ISS drop out of the sky and burn into
a million pieces while the press destroys NASA for the failure of ISS.
NASA can't and won't let this happen, if Orion is put on hold for 5
years oh well, welcome to the real world of geopolitics, the space
programs very familiar and old hunting ground.

Shuttle alone does not allow either we or the Euro/Japanese partners a
means of occupying the station between visits, unless they're willing
to do it without the Soyuz lifeboat.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.