|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
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!!!!! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
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? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shuttle program extension? | Flyguy | Space Shuttle | 175 | September 22nd 08 04:18 PM |
No Shuttle launch, Shuttle program mothballed? | Widget | Policy | 1 | July 4th 06 03:51 PM |
The shuttle program needs some comedy!!! | Steve W. | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 9th 05 09:59 PM |
More Evidence The Shuttle Program Should Be Scrapped | John Slade | Space Shuttle | 7 | August 2nd 05 04:35 AM |
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program | JazzMan | Space Shuttle | 23 | February 19th 04 02:21 AM |