Report on Shuttle disaster out. NASA culture to blame

[BrendaStarr]

Summary and analysis: NASA's cost cutting and schedule keeping apparently led to Febuary's shuttle disaster according to the report by the CAIB. (Who were those people?)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-26-shuttle-report_x.htm

Later on in the report it notes that Congress (and the White House gotta throw in Clinton there) cut NASA's budget for "nearly a decade".

Another report I read noted the scheduling pressure in that NASA was pushed to complete the space station by Jan 2004.

Lots more reports out and every one seems to have its own take. (Check out the subject on Google news.)

http://news4u.alturl.com

[DemNoir]

1. Yeah, same as last disaster

Ever notice how no one resigns in this country anymore no matter how badly they screw up?

Same mentality, mostly the same group as last time, same result. Big surprise.

[rocketdem]

13. many resignations

The head of the shuttle program resigned.

A number of other program managers within the program have also resigned.

Just because you don't hear about them all don't necessarily assume that it isn't happening.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

14. Question of timing

Y'see, they all resigned before the Huge Damning Report was issued, thus it doesn't count. Or something.

[ClintonTyree]

2. What's their hurry?

The universe isn't going anywhere soon. Of course we'd have to blame Clinton as well, it COULDN'T be faulty design. Styrofoam on a spacecraft. Seems intelligent to me.

[parasim]

4. no money, no time...

... a sure-fire path to faulty design.

i agree, what's the hurry?

and why so cheap?

[lanlady]

3. typical bureaucratic response

Give us more money and everything'll be hunky dorey. :puke:

[XNASA]

5. Faster. Smarter. Cheaper.

That was the mantra when I worked there.

See where it gets ya.

Actually, I've never worked in a more professional environment than I did when I worked at NASA. Mission Managers always errored on the side of caution. But space travel is a risky business.

"Scheduling Pressure?" There's always scheduling pressure. I'm not sure what the Columbia disaster had to so with the ISS schedule, though.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

6. Columbia & ISS

Other than the accident shoving the ISS Assembly Complete date back by another 18-24 months, Columbia really didn't have much effect on the ISS schedule. Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour were always the orbiters slated for heavy-lift and construction work after the orbit inclination was shifted to make things easier for Soyuz.

IIRC, Columbia was scheduled to make a supply/crew rotation run to ISS - her first visit to the station ever - either this year or early next after 107, a Hubble servicing mission in 2004, and then Hubble decommission and (if the X-38 program hadn't been cancelled) a full-up drop test of the new CERV in 2006.

[TomNickell]

15. The last Soyuz capsule lost computer control....

and landed 1000 or so miles off target. The crew pulled 8 gs and were lost for a few hours. But when the rescue crews got there they were sunning themselves on the tundra.

The Soyuz capsule carries a shotgun, since one crew was nearly eaten by wolves in a similar situation.

Makes you wonder about the Shuttle and the possible new high-tech gadgets supposed to replace it. The Soyuz capsule can suffer a major failure and coast in fine; the Shuttle gets hit by a piece of styrofoam and it's toast.

A capsule can also be blasted off the top of the rocket if the fuel tank explodes.

Maybe the designers should start with a capsule and see how much function they can put into that concept with modern materials.

Capsules couldn't (probably) service Hubble. But, for the cost of the Shuttle program you could build a whole new Hubble. Or maybe 2 or 3.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

16. Soyuz can also have a few other things go wrong

Valves can fail when undocking from space stations, exposing the crew to vaccum. Which has happened on Soyuz.

Parachutes can fail completely, dropping the capsule at unholy speed into the tundra. Which also has happened on Soyuz.

Low-tech gadgetry is not immue to disaster.

But, for the cost of the Shuttle program you could build a whole new Hubble. Or maybe 2 or 3.

But you couldn't launch it without a shuttle.

Conversely, you could buy 2.3 new shuttles for a month's stay in sunny downtown Iraq. All a matter of priorities. Too bad Dubya didn't fuel his testosterone with Bob Heinlein instead of John Wayne...

[TomNickell]

17. Valves can fail on the Shuttle, too.

Or on my Ford Ranger.

I wouldn't want my life to depend on a post-Soviet Russian valve, either place.

But, if you build them to high standards and include redundant backups in critical spots, they can be made about as reliable as (say) a ride down the interstate in pickup. Same for parachutes. You -can- carry a spare 'chute.

In contrast, there doesn't seem to be any way to keep those insulating tiles from being fragile and vulnerable. And, the basic concept of -gliding- the craft in unpowered leaves little room for error. They -can't- come back for a second try or land the Shuttle in the Atlantic if they miss the runway the first time.

And, putting the crew -beside- the fuel tank and solid fuel boosters leaves them vulnerable to any failures in those dangerous devices. Plus, there is -no- way of escaping during launch if something goes wrong in any of the engines. It is inherently safer to put the crew -atop- all the fire and fury of the launch--then you can have a little rocket on the top that pulls them away safely. (Forgot what they called those things in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo.)

The Shuttle is a classic example of the way -not- to make a major development decision. They started off with very ambitious goals, then kept scaling them back as budgetary and technical realities forced them. Somewhere along the line, the whole business no longer made sense, but nobody could pull the plug.

-Why- can't you launch Hubble without the Shuttle? If we don't have any rockets big enough (I think we do), building a new Saturn moon rocket would be cheaper than running the Shuttle.

I am, overall a supporter of NASA. I just think a lot of money is wasted on the Shuttle program that could be used for cool machines landing on Mars.

[symbolman]

7. A ton of techs there complained

directly to the White House saying that someone was going to die if they didn't get some money there, techs were being lost right and left..

the WHite House KNEW this was going on.. don't buy the blame game..

granted I think they should have had more money all along..

[kskiska]

8. There seems to be a trend to blame "culture" for everything

Seems I've heard this before when after 9/11 the FBI "culture" was responsible for failures. It's easier that way. There's no one singled out to take the fall.

[Kbowe]

9. This is the same culture all over governent..."don't rock the boat"

The political appointees won't like it if you blow the whistle on them and you may lose or you surely will lose your job! See no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil. Rank and file civil servants who think they have a duty to report wrong-doing, discrimination, fraud, mismanagement, and nepotism had better think again. It doesn't matter how serious the charge of if silence may cost a few lives...you must protect the management (mostly political appointees) at all costs.

[dArKeR]

10. We've obviously seen this in the FBI, CIA and NSA.

[dArKeR]

11. The blame should go on the head who just left.

Do you remember the NASA head who just left? I forgot his name. Did you see his parting speech.

He lavished great words on Papa Bush who had appointed him. Such great words... on and on... then he went right to Junior and vomited up more feces praise for Junior, He never once said 'Clinton''s name even though Clinton let him stay on for 8 years. Repukelican arrogant mentality is 90% the reason for the state of NASA and the other agencies.

I personally watched this speech. Fact of history, look it up if you can.

(I had to repost this).

[rocketdem]

12. Dan Goldin

Recently named the president of Boston University.

He "invented" the faster, better, cheaper mantra.

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. Thats Right

I knew this Golden boy at TRW. Useless arrogant bastard. Anybody with an ounce of brains knew that all the new-age high-tech-high- touch thinking bullshit didn't apply to things like the Space Shuttle , however nobody he answered to had an ounce of brains.

Hope he fries in hell.

The saying originally WAS Faster-Better-Cheaper : Choose two. Golden is too stupid to know about the last part. Fuck Dan Golden.