A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 26th 03, 12:43 AM
Greg Kuperberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

Maybe because people smell blood in the forthcoming CAIB report, it has
been fashionable lately to bash NASA management for the Columbia disaster.
This seems to be the exceedingly rare point on which Oberg, the New York
Times, CAIB, and many other parties all seem to agree. But not me.

(Curiously, relatively little anger is directed at NASA director Sean
O'Keefe, even though he calls himself a "bean counter". Does "bean
counter" sound like "flight safety"?)

I'm no fan of the NASA manned spaceflight program or its management, but
people are turning one single wart in the ugly picture into a mountain
of blame. People are talking as if Linda Ham personally hurled foam
at Columbia's wing in a fit of total incompetence. (But they grant
her "good intentions".) That's not what those meetings were about.
They were about MAYBE discovering the hole in the RCC panel and MAYBE
saving the astronauts, and even so probably not Columbia itself.
It would have been an expensive long shot and it's not the real problem.

The real problem is that the shuttle is not safe for astronauts and
never will be. Granted, bad management is the immediate cause of that.
But behind bad management lies a bad mandate, namely, the mandate
of manned spaceflight. A manager with a good mandate may be good or
bad; a manager with a bad mandate is going to look bad no matter what.
It is a fantasy of public opinion that space travel is kind-of like air
travel and kind-of like continental exploration. (For most people it's
not even strongly held opinion, just ill-informed.) It's actually more
like ocean-floor exploration, which by common sense is almost entirely
done by remote control. But NASA and its elected patrons have spent
decades catering to public naivete about manned spaceflight. Now they
face a reckoning.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
  #2  
Old July 26th 03, 01:55 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:43:29 +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:

Maybe because people smell blood in the forthcoming CAIB report, it has
been fashionable lately to bash NASA management for the Columbia disaster.
This seems to be the exceedingly rare point on which Oberg, the New York
Times, CAIB, and many other parties all seem to agree. But not me.

(Curiously, relatively little anger is directed at NASA director Sean
O'Keefe, even though he calls himself a "bean counter". Does "bean
counter" sound like "flight safety"?)


Whatever problems they find in NASA management, I'm sure they were
there long before Mr. O'Keefe came along. The perceived problem when
he took the job was budgets and schedules, not flight safety. I
hardly think it's reasonable to blame him for not going up and
cleaning up what was not perceived to be a problem.

The real problem is that the shuttle is not safe for astronauts and
never will be.


No, the real problems are that the Shuttle is too expensive, too
fragile, and every accident make a fleet that's already too small
smaller, by an increasing percentage.

Lives of the astronauts are a secondary issue. NASA has too many of
them, and if they don't want to take the risk, they'd have no trouble
find more who will. This whining notion (by those whose lives aren't
even at risk) that human life takes precedence over all other
considerations is absurd. It's not true of any other human endeavor,
and opening a frontier is the last place in which that emphasis should
be placed.

--
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:
  #3  
Old July 26th 03, 02:33 AM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

Charleston wrote:

A little cavalier are we?

Maybe the value of human life is different where you are from. In the U.S.
we place the value of human life up there in the stratosphere. We
especially do this when people voluntarily put heir lives on the line for
their country.


The value of a life in the US is on the order of millions of dollars.
This is small compared to the cost of a shuttle launch, or to the cost
of an orbiter.

If the shuttle were an order of magnitude less expensive, but no safer,
it would be worth flying. If it were an order of magnitude safer, but
no less expensive, it would not be.

Paul

  #4  
Old July 26th 03, 03:30 AM
Cardman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:55:38 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

No, the real problems are that the Shuttle is too expensive, too
fragile, and every accident make a fleet that's already too small
smaller, by an increasing percentage.


Well there is always the option to buy more, not that they would.

Lives of the astronauts are a secondary issue.


To space travel and space exploration, then yes, but it is clear to
see that the Shuttle was never designed for safely.

No ejection seats, no option but to die in many launch failure
scenarios. And even those forward facing seats can cut them in half in
an extreme event.

NASA has too many of
them, and if they don't want to take the risk, they'd have no trouble
find more who will.


True, but they also won't like you if you keep blowing them up. Still
the day when Astronauts refuse to ride on it due to safety concerns,
then you have problems.

This whining notion (by those whose lives aren't even at risk) that
human life takes precedence over all other considerations is absurd.


That is not the problem.

Such extreme deaths only goes to get people thinking about death, them
in that situations, their families and loved ones, where they almost
make this personal.

And as people do not like thinking about their own mortality, then
that is why they get annoyed and upset.

So if you don't blow them up and put this all over the news services,
then people won't get so upset.

It's not true of any other human endeavor,


Those other human endeavors do not make big media headlines for weeks
following.

and opening a frontier is the last place in which that emphasis should
be placed.


Certainly, but plan for safety in the design.

Cardman.
  #5  
Old July 26th 03, 04:23 AM
Greg Kuperberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mr. Bean Counter

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
(Curiously, relatively little anger is directed at NASA director Sean
O'Keefe, even though he calls himself a "bean counter". Does "bean
counter" sound like "flight safety"?)

Whatever problems they find in NASA management, I'm sure they were
there long before Mr. O'Keefe came along. The perceived problem when
he took the job was budgets and schedules, not flight safety. I
hardly think it's reasonable to blame him for not going up and
cleaning up what was not perceived to be a problem.


"But no one *told* me that safety was a problem!"

That's just crazy. First off good management always means learning
an organization's real problems rather than walking in the door with
"perceptions", which is to say, preconceptions. This is especially true
if catastrophic risk is one of the underlying problems.

Second, if O'Keefe didn't know that flight safety is a problem, then
where has he been? Was he in a coma when Challenger crashed? Did he not
learn when he started that STS-93 was saved by a prayer on launch in 1999?

Third, O'Keefe *was* told that safety was a problem, after at most
five months on the job. In April 2002 testimony to Congress, Richard
Blomberg, the outgoing chair of NASA's safety advisory panel, said,
"In [15 years of] involvement, I have never been as concerned for
Space Shuttle safety as I am right now." And he said, "All of my
instincts suggest that the current approach is planting the seeds for
future danger." And what did Blomberg mean by "the current approach"?
He was referring in particular to deferred repairs and privatization
without adequate safety oversight, both of which were consequences of
*cost cutting*.

So what was O'Keefe's response to that blunt, public warning? As far
as I know, he was still Mr. Bean Counter, determined to cut costs.

Now I personally don't care how O'Keefe manages manned spaceflight
at NASA. At this point cost-cutting for the shuttle and the space
station is like advising a cancer patient to avoid cholesterol - it just
doesn't matter any more. The point is that blind finger-pointing
at "management", but not at specific top managers like O'Keefe, actually
speaks for a bad mandate.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
  #6  
Old July 26th 03, 04:28 AM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Charleston wrote:

I qualified my statement. I said it was way up there in the

stratosphere as
a sarcastic reference to the point at which the Columbia crew may well

have
perished. You OTOH, immediately qualified your value system in terms of
money alone. Money is not the only thing of value in life, hence my
reference to the word cavalier.


When you grow up, you will discover that the value of a life is regularly
measured in dollars. This is done routinely in torts, in making

regulations,
and in establishing government policy. This isn't cavalier, it's business
as usual.


When you grow a heart perhaps you will see that there is more to life than
money and lawsuits and...

Look Paul, there is no reason to insult each other and I only responded as I
did above to make a point. There are some intangible things in life that
are bigger than the dollar. My job often involves environmental disease
investigations. In the end a judge often assesses the value of human pain,
suffering, and death. When a two year old child is maimed permanently by an
undercooked hamburger, the value in terms of a normal life are often
difficult to assess. An 81 year old man who has six months to live, but
then dies due to the negligence of others some three months earlier, may be
a lesser loss, but there is still loss. When negligence is involved, judges
often weigh and attach punitive awards to the damaged or their surviving
kin. When human suffering or death is caused by the deliberate acts of
others and sometimes just their plain stupidity, people are often placed in
prison for a life lost through negligence. When the loss of one life alters
the life of others in the form of suffering, what is that indirect cost? I
dare say it often goes unmeasured. All of these items add to the value of a
life. While you can average out the value of a human life, in strictly
financial terms in a court of law, you can't place a tangible price on the
very real damage done to the victims families, and those colleagues who
sometimes unknowingly send others off to death. I hope that makes sense. I
certainly know where you are coming from. I just hope you can see my points
too.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC



  #7  
Old July 26th 03, 05:10 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:19:35 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This whining notion (by those whose lives aren't
even at risk) that human life takes precedence over all other
considerations is absurd. It's not true of any other human endeavor,
and opening a frontier is the last place in which that emphasis should
be placed.


A little cavalier are we?


No, just realistic.

--
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:
  #8  
Old July 26th 03, 05:12 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:57:45 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

When you grow up, you will discover that the value of a life is regularly
measured in dollars. This is done routinely in torts, in making regulations,
and in establishing government policy. This isn't cavalier, it's business
as usual.


Not just business as usual (a phrase that can carry negative
connotions), but business as necessary.

--
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:
  #9  
Old July 26th 03, 05:14 AM
Cardman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:28:10 -0700, "Charleston"
wrote:

When you grow a heart perhaps you will see that there is more to life than
money and lawsuits and...


Well I hate to get involved in this, but...

A part of nature is about death and often being eaten by some other
animal, which means that death is inevitable.

So had a billion people died tomorrow, then it is like "whoops", but
as a species we could handle the knock.

Yes death is sad and all that, but after all I am sure that like a
million people die each day for one reason or another.

So it is unfortunate this has happened, but well they knew what they
were getting into when they climbed into it. And I do not see that we
should be more upset for them than with other Astronauts who return
alive, when they are equally brave and well... death is inevitable.

And so it is like **** happens, they rolled snake eyes, but the show
has to go on. Not that we should not feel for their families of
course, when they are the ones here who suffer the most.

One great loss about this is the delay in human spaceflight and the
launch of the next brave people willing to ride on it. As sure enough
had they launched the following mission on schedule, foam and all,
then these people would queue up to ride on it.

The only thing you can do in such cases is to fix the problem so that
no one else has to die the same way. And at the end of the day as this
was a freak accident, then no one is really to blame for it.

Also I was thinking some time ago that if you had to die and wanted
this to be quick and painless, then the Colombia disaster does come
close to ideal, when humans are not well designed for super sonic
flight.

Anyway, one of you is annoyed at the delay in spaceflight, where one
of you is overly concerned with this death. And in the end I can only
feel that you are both wrong, when the only thing that is important
here is to fix this problem and to then blast off.

Cardman.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Never mind the shuttle crash, the real threat is the CAIB report Rand Simberg Space Shuttle 130 August 25th 03 06:53 PM
Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight Greg Kuperberg Space Shuttle 55 July 30th 03 11:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.