more news on the Columbia...

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-27 01:27am

for those who havent heard yet, go here:

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030226email/

it seems that once again NASA has proven beyond any doubt that it suffers from gross managerial incompetence/negligence, by not listening to their engineering teams. it seems that engineers were discussing the potential for a catastrophic failure due to thermal incursion for some time, even after being dismissed by management -- who chose to go with the boeing asessment. one email is particularly chilling in that it almost perfectly predicted what happened to Columbia over a day ahead of the disaster.

just thought Id let the board know.

PS: I had it figured out within minutes of hearing about it on the morning of the disaster... I am deadly serious. The entire management team for the SSP needs to be drawn & quartered.

ben · Post by **ben** » 2003-02-27 02:11am

WTF those idiots in NASA management did not listen to their engineers? I propose a major performance audit of the NASA admin, hopefully with an axe.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-02-27 02:14am

Notice how it always comes down to the managers....

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-27 03:10am

yep... my thinking is that the particular managers in question are in fact political appointees, and not the guys who know the systems (or simply have good instincts and good knowledge of the science).

NASA needs to go back to the NACA model -- get out of the ops business for most things, and concentrate on regulation (in conjunction with the FAA) and R&D work. Of course, that'll never happen.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-02-27 03:28am

There's an informed discussion going on in news:sci.space.shuttle at the moment, starting with message-id: <1Ua7a.49324$F%.2590045@twister.austin.rr.com> . The general conclusion is that the media did a real hatchet job reporting this stuff. There's no smoking gun here as of yet; it's just a matter of the engineers talking out the worst case scenarios.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-27 03:51am

certainly that is the case... the media can generally do nothing BUT hatchet jobs these days, but I think this is more of an issue with the 'mainstream' press, which glosses over everything important while searching for the best sound bytes, and not with the dedicated industry press outlets like AW&ST, Aerospace America et al (including but not limited to space.com, spaceflightnow.com & spacenews.com)

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-02-27 07:51am

These fucking idiots think because they`re in charge they know everything

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-27 10:25am

The entire space shuttle program should be fucking scrapped.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-27 11:06am

Are you people unable to read? The concern from the engineers came AFTER THE LAUNCH! There was nothing management could do.

The article in question wrote:While Columbia's crew could not have been saved even if NASA managers had known the full extent of the presumed damage to the ship's left wing, a photographic survey might have provided enough data to help accident investigators reconstruct what ultimately went wrong.

Read the goddamn whole article next time before you start assigning blame!

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-27 11:13am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Read the goddamn whole article next time before you start assigning blame!

What I said is independent of that article. It's a wasteful program and an accident waiting to happen. None of NASA's promises for the space shuttle have been fulfilled.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-27 11:26am

Vympel wrote:What I said is independent of that article. It's a wasteful program and an accident waiting to happen. None of NASA's promises for the space shuttle have been fulfilled.

I wasn't responding to you. My critizism was not being flung in your direction.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-27 12:47pm

This type of talk probably happens ALL the time. Its just not news, nor blameworthy until something actually happens. A decision was made that the insulation was not a problem, I'm certain there was a lot of talk that resulted in this decision. Management *can't* deal with guess work, you have to present clear facts. If an engineer had a real tangible concern about the shuttle, he should have expressed this concern to his superior. From what I’ve seen so far on CNN, I have not seen this being the case (although I can’t really judge because I don’t have all the facts).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-27 01:00pm

Zoink wrote:If an engineer had a real tangible concern about the shuttle, he should have expressed this concern to his superior. From what I?ve seen so far on CNN, I have not seen this being the case (although I can?t really judge because I don?t have all the facts).

The engineers can override management and cancel an entire mission if they have a concern. This has happened before. In the case of Columbia, the engineers were concerend about what happened after launch. You cannot cancel a landing, the shuttle has to come down.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-27 01:12pm

Why do I get the uneasy feeling that I've either seen stuff like this before in 'Dilbert' or will shortly?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-27 02:20pm

Darth Servo wrote:Why do I get the uneasy feeling that I've either seen stuff like this before in 'Dilbert' or will shortly?

There was an incident with a rocket once I recall.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-27 04:26pm

NASA mustn't be scrapped. For these morons who think the private sector can pave the way, please remember that moneymakers prefer the tried and true, not the new. Governments will have to pave the way to other planets (like JFK did for the Moon) but they can't develop on that. The private sector can.

To sum it up: Governments can open the door, but the private sector will have to go in, not the government.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-27 04:31pm

jaeger115 wrote:To sum it up: Governments can open the door, but the private sector will have to go in, not the government.

That's how we get to Mars in Species 2

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-27 05:11pm

If NASA wont listen to its own engineers and as a result have highly deadly results, I think we have an answer as to why Trek ships are so fucked up. Starfleet is NASA.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-02-27 05:34pm

For crying out loud, they were musing over a worst case scenario. At any rate, it really didn't matter because the damn thing still had to land anyway.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-27 05:47pm

kojikun wrote:If NASA wont listen to its own engineers and as a result have highly deadly results, I think we have an answer as to why Trek ships are so fucked up. Starfleet is NASA.

Oh for the love of Pete, THERE IS NOTHING THEY COULD HAVE DONE! THE SHUTTLE WAS ALREADY IN SPACE BEFORE THE ENGINEERS HAD CONCERNS! YOU CANNOT ABORT A LANDING!

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-27 11:38pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Oh for the love of Pete, THERE IS NOTHING THEY COULD HAVE DONE! THE SHUTTLE WAS ALREADY IN SPACE BEFORE THE ENGINEERS HAD CONCERNS! YOU CANNOT ABORT A LANDING!

No, but they could have looked at the shuttle more carefully while docked at the international space station. They could have sent another shuttle up to pick up the astronauts if the shuttle looked too damaged to make re-entry.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-28 12:01am

Darth Servo wrote: No, but they could have looked at the shuttle more carefully while docked at the international space station. They could have sent another shuttle up to pick up the astronauts if the shuttle looked too damaged to make re-entry.

actually, no they couldnt, as:

1) the shuttle did not have sufficient propellant reserves to make a rendezvous with the ISS

2) no other shuttles were ready to fly at the time

now there might have been the possible option of sending the soyuz supply capsule for the ISS (which did in fact fly during the same time period) up as a lifeboat, but it can only handle 3 occupants, and it would have had to carry 1 guy to ferry across extra suits or rescue balls... I dont know if the sovs have the ability to really fastrack a launch within such a narrow timeframe (it would have taken 2 Soyuz to get the non-essential crew off, leaving the 2 pilots to attempt reentry)

the reasons why I think NASA management is grossly incompetent stem from much more than just this incident, which I agree they really couldnt do anything about... it comes from a historical perspective. for instance, Challenger should never have flown on that cold january morning, just as the NASA engineers said, but they were overruled by management in favor of the Thiokol execs. to extend the point further, the entire SSP was ill-conceived from the start -- I have said before and will say again that they really needed at least 2 different vehicles to do what the current shuttle now does, but thanks to politicians playing engineer, they ended up with a tractor trailer that thinks its both an indy/F1 racecar and a greyhound bus all at the same time.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-28 12:04am

Darth Servo wrote:No, but they could have looked at the shuttle more carefully while docked at the international space station.

No they couldn't, as Columbia is unable to achieve that altitude

They could have sent another shuttle up to pick up the astronauts if the shuttle looked too damaged to make re-entry.

The crew would be dead before they got another orbiter up.

Please, do you have any other misunderstandings involving real spaceflight that you'd like me to clear up for you?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-02-28 12:05am

Darth Servo wrote:No, but they could have looked at the shuttle more carefully while docked at the international space station.

It wasn't docked, and couldn't dock. Colombia didn't have the docking collar installed on that flight.

They could have sent another shuttle up to pick up the astronauts if the shuttle looked too damaged to make re-entry.

No they couldn't - shuttle turnaround time is far too long.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-28 12:39am

So I guess their only option was to knowingly let the astronauts die? Even if their efforts were bound to fail, they should have TRIED to save them. They should have TRIED before letting them begin reentry. The moment they heard the possibility of breakup they should have done everything they could to get the astronauts off the shuttle and into another vehicle.