|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |