Re: Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

[Charleston]

"Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> "Charleston" > wrote:
> > "Rand Simberg" > wrote:
> > (Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Does "bean counter" sound like "flight safety"?
> >
> > No. and I have to wonder if anyone at NASA HQ can count beans very well
> > after seeing the cost versus effectiveness of their Silent Safety
Program.

Anybody wonder what I meant above?

> > > 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.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > Lives of the astronauts are a secondary issue.
> >
> > Ow.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> But they chose to put their life on the line.
>
> Rand has an excellent point. In reality the death rate in space
exploration
> is much lower than you would expect.

Well what would you expect? Let me just say that NASA bragged at
Congressional hearings that the risks of loss of crew and vehicle were
getting better (1 in 483 to 1 in 556, IIRC) depending on what you believe.
So if we go by what NASA led Congress and the public to believe, and what
the crew therefore believed that is one thing. However when Mission Control
e-mails you in your orbiter and tells you not to worry, but in reality
literally has no idea what they are talking about, that is quite another
thing.

> Even with the risk, there will always be astronaut candidates.

Correct and astronauts will always be willing to fly when there are
significant risks because it is what they live for. It is up to management
to control the program risks, not the astronauts. I will never forget the
foolhardy statement astronaut Robert Crippen made after Challenger. He said
he'd go fly a shuttle out of Vandenberg AFB, the incompleteWest Coast
Spaceport. That site was not ready, the filament wound SRB cases failed a
structural loads test, and Discovery, the orbiter supposed to go fly from
there was sitting at KSC as a cannibalized hangar queen. Don't confuse an
astronaut's "what me worry let's go fly" attitude with what it takes to run
a safe program. Astronauts are by their nature eternal optimists. It does
not cheapen their lives. It does not make them less valuable either.
>
> At this rate, however, there will not always be shuttles.

I am hopeful that NASA will move forward and get through the rest of the
current fleets missions without another loss. One more loss of crew type
accident though, and it is over.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Rand Simberg]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:04:21 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"Charleston" > made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


>I am hopeful that NASA will move forward and get through the rest of the
>current fleets missions without another loss. One more loss of crew type
>accident though, and it is over.

Because they'll have too few orbiters remaining, not because they lost
a crew.

--
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:

[Charleston]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:04:21 -0700, in a place far, far away,
> "Charleston" > made the phosphor on
> my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
> >I am hopeful that NASA will move forward and get through the rest of the
> >current fleets missions without another loss. One more loss of crew type
> >accident though, and it is over.
>
> Because they'll have too few orbiters remaining, not because they lost
> a crew.

Now you are sounding the Bob Haller alarm.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D17221665

http://makeashorterlink.com/?H25212665

NASA flew with one or two orbiter for a few years with no problems even as
the flight rate was increasing. NASA could fly with one orbiter if
necesssary. If an orbiter is lost in transit or due to an accident in the
VAB or OPF where no crew is lost, the damaged orbiter will be cannibalized
for parts while the program continues. OTOH, if another crew is lost, it's
over. I'll even go out on a limb and say if they lose an orbiter in any
in-flight manner in which the crew survives and NASA can say we have had a
"successful failure", the program will continue. You are wrong. The crew
is primary, you are just too stubborn to see that NASA does put flight
safety above vehicle recovery. To say otherwise insults all of those at
NASA and its contractors who work crew and flight safety issues every day.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Hallerb]

>Management, mandate, and manned spaceflight

Well if another orbiter is lost so is using the vehicle for spare parts.

Politically the public will get mad watching more deaths rerun endlessely on
tv.

[Charleston]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
> "Hallerb" > wrote in message

> > Another screw up kills the shuttle program,
>
> If you were so concerned about screwups, then why haven't you answered my
> previously asked question about management meetings? What hard evidence
can
> you provide that, if NASA management had met according to your demands
(that
> is, held meetings according to your interpretation of the rules even if
they
> would not have been productive), things *would have* turned out
differently
> for Columbia?

That is a rather unfair question that can not be answered Scott. We can
never know what might have happened if management had attended all of the
meetings. Let me ask you a similar question:

"What hard evidence can you provide that, if NASA management had attended
all meetings they could or should have attended that things *would have*
turned out the same?

> Your silence on the matter is nothing more or less than an admission on
your
> part that you are wrong.

That's a stretch.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Hallerb]

>
>> If you were so concerned about screwups, then why haven't you answered my
>> previously asked question about management meetings? What hard evidence
>can
>> you provide that, if NASA

Ahh NASA designs its OWN RULES! Taking into accout the entire operation. Now
why design a flight rule and then ignore it?

Obviously the investigation has found not having those meetings and vacationing
over the king holiday while a shuttle was flying was a poor management
decision.

Geez we hardly fly anymore you would think upper managers would be happy to
atrtend to the few fllying days we have......

[Charleston]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
> "Hallerb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >> If you were so concerned about screwups, then why haven't you
answered
> my
> > >> previously asked question about management meetings? What hard
evidence
> > >can
> > >> you provide that, if NASA
>
> [restored cut] management had met according to your demands (that
> is, held meetings according to your interpretation of the rules even if
they
> would not have been productive), things *would have* turned out
differently
> for Columbia?
>
> >
> > Ahh NASA designs its OWN RULES!
>
> As it should. Do you think the Department of Housing and Urban Development
> should be making NASA's rules?

Of course not. If we follow your logic though, one can argue that by not
following NASA's rules at JSC, then KSC does not have to follow the rules,
which leads to ever more relaxed rules, which leads to rules that are really
guidelines, which leads to flying with debris impacting and damaging the
orbiter a lot more, which led to the fate of STS 107, IIRC. If the
Department of Housing and Urban Development has a rule that if you break an
important rule you are terminated immediately then, ya they might have
better rules than NASA but then someone would still have to enforce the
rules which would require a rule to enforce the rules. Bottom line is
follow the rules and then nobody can say otherwise. It's called discipline
some places.

> > Obviously the investigation has found not having those meetings and
vacationing over the king holiday while a shuttle was > > flying was a poor
management decision.
>
> Because there is no sign that it was. How about answering my question?

What kind of sign do you need?

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC