[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[Stephen F Nicholas]

OK, I'll bite on this one..
Everybody makes mistakes, but she was a Payload Specialist.  I'm the ideal
American, please tell me **HOW** she caused this from within.  

I have some thoughts on this discussion, which I was hoping to bail on,
however...

1.) Everybody can Monday morning quarterback (myself included.)

2.) This incident disturbed the 'majority' of Americans

3.) Hashing out what occured is a good thing.  Who knows, there are
MANY members with degrees on this list ( and to save future
flames, there are just as many without degrees.)  This, as it was pointed
out earlier, is a valid topic, but not for this current forum.

4.)  If the list owners deem fit, create a secondary list to discuss this
subject.  If not, take necessary action to stop this discussion.

The past weekend events have disturbed me and many others.  NASA has
deemed no Operator error occured (yea, we believe them...)
At least from what we're getting via newsfeed, you have to kinda lean with
that.  It's too early to call anything.

But, I have to admit, the statement below, as of this point and time is
unwarrantied, unnecessary, and an insult.

Steve


=======================================================
| Steve Nicholas             |                        |
| Software Systems Engineer  |  A risk is not a risk  |
| Georgia State University   |  until it is taken.    | 
| snicholas at gsu.edu          |                        |
| 404-651-1062               |  BBROYGBVGW            |
=======================================================

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Christopher Bergeron wrote:

> Attriel, we fundamentally agree that we don't know _what_ happened or 
> what could have been done to prevent it.
> 
> However, the facts (as I know them) are these:
> 
>     -Kalwana made _several_ mistakes while she was on space missions (I 
> don't have links; but if you'd like for me to provide them for 
> quantification, I will)
>     -NASA laid of _5_ (not 1 or 2 - five) Safety Administrators within 
> the past 2 years
>     -1 NASA _official_ resigned from NASA in protest of the "Faster, 
> better, cheaper" philosophy and decreasing budget
> 
> I just wanted to point out these _FACTS_ before I address your "points":
> 
> 
> 
> attriel wrote:
> 
> >>>The bottom is smooth. Nowhere to hold on/attach to. Adding attachment
> >>>points would result in an unacceptable amount of friction at that
> >>>point and would likely result in the same thing we saw Saturday.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I know that the bottom is smooth.  But, we all know that they've had the
> >>MMU for YEARS and it's not very big; why is it not standard equipment?
> >>It needs no attachment points.  Barring that, what about slinging some
> >>nylon rope.  Why was there no EVA suit?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >B/c the EVA suit is expensive, they weren't using it, and thus there was
> >no point in sending it up?  It's also heavy, which makes it stupid to send
> >up if they're not using it?
> >
> Case in _safety_ point.  There should be a threshold for which safety 
> concerns (IE: weight) is valued higher than the highest "satellite 
> Television" bidder.  You don't have to be a rocket-scientist (no pun 
> intended; no insensitivity intended) to know that cutting corners costs 
> lives - particularly in a high risk industry such as space travel.  The 
> weight of said spacesuit should "trump" the weight of the "paid cargo" 
> (I'm assuming that a portion of the cargo was paid for - if it wasn't 
> then the cost should be distributed across the program).
> 
> >  
> >
> >>>Can't fix it.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Point taken, but could they not fix it because it's IMPOSSIBLE or
> >>because they didn't have a few pounds of tools or parts?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >This isn't like slapping a patch on your blown tire and then inflating it
> >long enough to drive to a shop.  This is a spacecraft going through the
> >atmosphere ...
> >
> >IF they had the tools and the spare tiles ... they were still kinda
> >lacking the ground crew and cradle to do repairs properly ?  They were
> >lacking the expertise to know how to do it?  And even if they'd managed to
> >slap something on, there'd be a 75% or higher chance of it catching on
> >re-entry, and exactly the same thing happening.
> >
> >Then all the armchair "space experts who know more than NASA" would be
> >complaining about them doing a repair that wasn't 100% necessary b/c maybe
> >they coulda made it otherwise :o
> >
> 
> Any "armchair" person can tell you that there exists a certain 
> cost/benefit ratio to anything worth doing.  In this case, the safety 
> costs outweighed the benefit of the lives of 7 of America's BEST.  As 
> such, I challenge you to sit on your high-horse (as defined by your 
> previous comment(s)) and tell me otherwise; and I dare you to quantify 
> your "justification".
> 
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>Can't
> >>>re-enter any other way.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I am not satisfied of that.  When you say "any other way," you mean with
> >>a normal wheel landing at the Cape or at Edwards.  I am not satisfied
> >>that, knowing serious damage was present, that an abnormal re-entry
> >>wasn't an option, even if it meant a mid-ocean ditch.  Besides, there
> >>are emergency runways all over the world - IIRC, Dobbins is one.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I think "any other way" meant "they still have to come in through the
> >atmosphere and build up a couple hundred degrees of heat which is probably
> >what caused it to break this time."
> >  
> >
> I can think of 3 Astronauts that "beat the odds" by coming through the 
> atmosphere prematurely and in a "hap-hazzard" fashion:  the Astronauts 
> of the Apollo-13 mission.
> 
> >>>Can't dock at the ISS. Can't just fire up Atlantis
> >>>and send them a ride. They took their chances and lost. That's life on
> >>>the edge. The same thing happens in military aviation, just on a much
> >>>smaller scale. You put your fate in the hands of the Almighty and do
> >>>your job as ordered.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I'm not sure of your point.  This was not a military mission nor was it
> >>an all-military crew.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >You're right.  Kalpana Chawla wasn't military.  OTOH, she'd had nearly 400
> >hours in space, so I'm thinking she'd probably just about figured out the
> >risks of sitting on a set of rockets for launch, and re-entry probably
> >wasn't flat and smooth any of the other times either ...
> >
> >--attriel
> >
> >(I try to stay out of these things, but this is getting ridiculous with
> >everyone stating how NASA "eff'd up" and it GRR!)
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ale mailing list
> >Ale at ale.org
> >http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> 

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale