STS-114 Astronaut Charles Camarda removed from leading the MMT

Less than a week until launch and STS-114 Astronaut, Charles Camarda,
is removed from leading the Mission Mannagement Team.

Blogger who knocked on his door,

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...he_shuttl.html

Chronical story, with Blogger's help,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4004817.html

E-Mail,
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21113

Makes you wonder if he's getting the same "Purple" desk that John Young
got after the Challenger accident.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Ok now we have dissenting engineers being moved along fired or having
to effectively quit.

The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.

I for opne think NASA should be disbanded for such gross incompetence!

The management hats will see the agency disbanded...

Bob Haller wrote:
Ok now we have dissenting engineers being moved along fired or having
to effectively quit.

The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.

I for opne think NASA should be disbanded for such gross incompetence!

The management hats will see the agency disbanded...

Now we need just ONE astronaut to back out due to family pressure...

that will help a lot

Less than a week until launch and STS-114 Astronaut, Charles Camarda,
is removed from leading the Mission Mannagement Team.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...he_shuttl.html

Mmmm.

Is there a rule (or a tradition) that MMT decisions must be unanimous?

If the lesson of Challenger is "don't overrule the people who actually
know what is going on", perhaps the current lesson is "don't get into
a situation where the default decision is always to not fly and any
one person always can (and does) call for another study and another
however months of engineering tweaks"?

Of course, whether that is an accurate summary does depend on various
things including what the risks are and whether the CSCS (station
sheltering) plan is credible or wishful thinking.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:46:36 -0700, Bob Haller wrote:



The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.


No, just losing the shuttle program which is going away 2010 anyway. The
other stuff would go on.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:08:05 -0700, wrote:


Bob Haller wrote:
Ok now we have dissenting engineers being moved along fired or having
to effectively quit.

The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.

I for opne think NASA should be disbanded for such gross incompetence!

The management hats will see the agency disbanded...

Now we need just ONE astronaut to back out due to family pressure...


No, I believe NASA usually has backup astronauts ready to go. Wouldn't one
of the backup astronauts fly in his place? Anyway why would an astronaut
back out? His statistical risk for just one flight isn't all that high.


--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

If something BAD occurs do you really believe congress the president
and the american public will support funding a moon mars program if we
cant safely run a LEO shuttle?

Futhermore overiding the engineers is a excellent way to look REALLY
STUPID. Given the CAIB stomping on NASA over safety what do YOU think
the next board will have to say about it

Craig Fink wrote:



The agency is risking their survival if we lose another shuttle before
2010.




No, just losing the shuttle program which is going away 2010 anyway. The
other stuff would go on.



I don't think it would; the Moon program was Griffin's baby, and he his
reputation is riding on this next flight in particular as he signed off
on it.
If the Shuttle does suffer major damage or is lost, then I think that's
probably it for NASA's manned space program; they just won't look
competent to handle a new program if they can't even handle the Shuttle.

Pat

I don't think it would; the Moon program was Griffin's baby, and he his
reputation is riding on this next flight in particular as he signed off
on it.
If the Shuttle does suffer major damage or is lost, then I think that's
probably it for NASA's manned space program; they just won't look
competent to handle a new program if they can't even handle the Shuttle.

Pat

Pat this is one we agree on.

Fly against the advice of top shuttle engineers, will result in the end
of US manned space flights for a LONG time.

Might be best as it would leave private industry to do the job!

In article ,
Craig Fink wrote:
Now we need just ONE astronaut to back out due to family pressure...

No, I believe NASA usually has backup astronauts ready to go.

Not any more. NASA long ago stopped naming complete backup crews, because
they were so rarely needed. On complex missions, they did occasionally
add one backup mission specialist, and non-NASA crewmembers typically did
have backups so NASA wouldn't have to delay a flight if one of them broke
a leg. But nowadays, if somebody gets sick you just delay the flight, and
more drastic problems late in training have been so rare that it hasn't
been worth major precautions against them.

Anyway why would an astronaut
back out? His statistical risk for just one flight isn't all that high.

It might well worry him all the same... but there is powerful social
pressure not to chicken out at the last minute and leave your buddies in
the lurch. (This is the same thing that keeps most soldiers in combat...
which is why it's extremely important that soldiers train together before
going into combat together, to form those buddy relationships.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |