A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

CAIB report: Change management. OK, by the way, get good managers too.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 10th 04, 02:31 AM
Rick DeNatale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CAIB report: Change management. OK, by the way, get good managers too.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:09:44 +0000, Jorge R. Frank wrote:

NASA came thru with the Apollo 13 problem, and NASA engineers most
likely could have
pulled off something good for Columbia as well.


The key was recognition of the problem. The Apollo 13 problem fairly
slapped NASA in the face; there was absolutely no doubt within 15 minutes
of the O2 tank explosion that the spacecraft was in grave danger. The
Columbia peril was much more subtle, and therefore not recognized as such.


I think much better analogies to the decisions made during STS-107 can
be found from the Apollo program than Apollo 13.

The best might be Apollo 12 when it was known that there was a lightning
strike during ascent, it was not known what effect that had had on the
parachute pyrotechnics, and the decision was made to go for TLI.

Another would be the loss of redundancy of the Apollo 16 CSM engine thrust
vector controls in lunar orbit, after LM undocking and before powered
descent initiation. The dilemma was that if the proceeded with the
landing, they would have lost the LM descent engines as a backup for the
return to earth. Once again, after a short analysis, the vaunted Apollo
era mision conrol team decided to go for the landing anyway. And this
was after the lesson of Apollo 13. Ken Mattingly was even the CSM pilot,
and reportedly assessed the risk even more severely than the ground did,
but concurred with the decision.

In both cases there was an indication that there had been a problem
which, if worse came to worst, would have led to the loss of the crew.
In the first instance, there probably was nothing that could have been
done to save the crew. In the second re-docking and return was what was
called for in the mission rules.

In retrospect I'm not sure there really is that much difference between
the way the flight controllers and managment approached problems now vs
during the glory days. The change is more one of public attitude and
budget.

Back then we expected that Astronauts and Flight Controllers had "the
right stuff" that they were taking immense risks, which were NOT
guaranteed to pay off. Behind the scenes the decisions were calculated
gambles.

The same is true today, except for two things. 1) The public tends to
think of the Astronauts more like Airline Pilots and Business
Travellers,and 2) Budget and schedule pressures have more influence on
the calculations.
  #2  
Old January 11th 04, 04:16 AM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CAIB report: Change management. OK, by the way, get good managers too.

On or about Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:31:09 -0500, Rick DeNatale made the sensational claim that:
The same is true today, except for two things. 1) The public tends to
think of the Astronauts more like Airline Pilots and Business
Travellers,and 2) Budget and schedule pressures have more influence on
the calculations.


The same is *not* true today. People didn't die during Apollo spaceflights.
I've always kind of wondered what peoples' attitudes would be if someone had
been lost early. Really early, like during Mercury or Gemini. How would such
a loss have shaped public opinion to this day?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

  #3  
Old January 11th 04, 04:56 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CAIB report: Change management. OK, by the way, get good managers too.


"LooseChanj" wrote in message
.. .
On or about Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:31:09 -0500, Rick DeNatale

made the sensational claim that:
The same is true today, except for two things. 1) The public tends to
think of the Astronauts more like Airline Pilots and Business
Travellers,and 2) Budget and schedule pressures have more influence on
the calculations.


The same is *not* true today. People didn't die during Apollo

spaceflights.

No, they died on the ground. In some ways that was worse. A plugs out
ground test, everyone KNEW that was safe! Until it wasn't.




I've always kind of wondered what peoples' attitudes would be if someone

had
been lost early. Really early, like during Mercury or Gemini. How would

such
a loss have shaped public opinion to this day?


We'd have kept flying.

--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for

rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if

you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad

here



 




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
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? TKalbfus Policy 265 July 13th 04 12:00 AM
CAIB report: Change management. OK, by the way, get good managers too. Hallerb History 0 August 29th 03 02:28 PM
CAIB report: Change management. OK, by the way, get good managers too. GCGassaway Space Shuttle 1 August 29th 03 07:12 AM
Never mind the shuttle crash, the real threat is the CAIB report Jorge R. Frank Policy 30 August 2nd 03 08:37 PM
DEATH DOES NOT EXIST -- Coal Mine Rescue Proves It Ed Conrad Space Shuttle 4 August 2nd 03 01:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 AM.


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.