Technocrat

Shuttle Project Engineer Canned?

zogger
Wed Jun 28 21:24:04 -0700 2006
Space+Flight.
manage

As usual with the space shuttle, the controversial insulating foam is at the heart of the latest little melodrama at NASA. Right now it is being characterized as "pilots vs engineers", with top management falling on the side of the pilots, as in "we will fly". The engineers don't think it is safe, and one of the top engineers has been "reassigned" just days before the launch.

"A SENIOR NASA engineer and astronaut has been removed from his position after writing a congratulatory email to engineers who voiced concerns over the safety of the next shuttle launch."..more at article link
ed (and I posted something similar to this on /. as well): retire the shuttle as a manned spacecraft.  Send it up unmanned full of normal cargo for the space station, extra food and water and such like. More solar panels, you cannot have enough power. If it crashes or whatever, oh well, it's just junk, no humans involved... Actually I am in favor of launching them one more time packed full of gear and supplies no humans and then leaving them in orbit as part of ISS.
Let the Russians move people up and down with their old tech that still works fine. Stop dropping serious coin on the shuttle and spend the saved money and manpower on designing and building the system the shuttle was supposed to be, and this time stick the orbiter part on the very top, like about every other rocket out there does because it is the design that works, and don't hang it off the side where stuff can fall on it. And also use a lot of that saved money on the real science projects, all those nice satellites and probes that are being cancelled because the shuttle sucks down the bulk of the cash in NASA's budget.

Shuttle Project Engineer Canned?
Spider
Thu Jun 29 06:54:35 -0700 2006
 manage
I'm on the side of the engineers.  Safety first.
Shuttle Project Engineer Canned?
Martin Blank
Thu Jun 29 15:03:58 -0700 2006
 manage
What about the engineers who believe that this person is overhyping the safety issue?  How does that change your position? Generalizing like that when there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue makes for a very mixed message.

There are engineers who would never let the shuttle fly -- ever -- because they believe it to be too complex, and the very idea of manned spaceflight to be misplaced.  There are those who would launch with a higher risk level.

Part of me wants to see this work, to keep the US manned space program running.  Part of me wants a non-catastrophic failure that grounds the whole shuttle program permanently so that money can be directed to the CEV and probably accelerate development, and so that certain programs can be restored.  In either case, I will be watching the launch.

It's being mischaracterized, then

Beryllium Sphere(r)
Thu Jun 29 09:49:58 -0700 2006
 manage
Charles Camarda is a pilot by training and by recent experience. Last year he flew a mission on Discovery.

It's the Pilots' Asses on the Line

bill_mcgonigle
Thu Jun 29 14:58:19 -0700 2006
 manage
Look, the engineers are commendable for being so concerned about the safety of the pilots. But in the end it's the pilots who are volunteering to sit on a megaton of explosives, fire all of their guns at once, and explode into Space. If the pilots are willing to assume the risk to further the progress of the human species, then pat them on the back and say, "thanks, we love you guys."

The American Public is also to blame, in part, here for its intolerance to risk. This is in turn, in part, to blame on the Federal Government's efforts to create a Nanny-State.

Gone are the days when an aviator could crash his barnstormer into a field in Kansas and they'd throw a parade for him. It's a shame - our country wouldn't exist if our ancestors weren't willing to set out on new ventures using risky forms of transportation.
It's the Pilots' Asses on the Line
Tim Starr
Thu Jun 29 15:13:03 -0700 2006
 manage
Thank you. I'm glad someone mentioned that. Personally, I'm not a risk taker but some people thrive on this and are willing to put themselves at risk to gain something. However the important thing to keep in mind is that we don't want people volunteering to be blown up along with millions of dollars of equipment. Let's be somewhat realistic here. Overall I'd say the shuttle program has had a very good track record (safety wise) so perhaps people are just paranoid about all the bad press. Hell the way I put it is that more people die on america's roads every year than die of other crap people are paranoid about.
It's the Pilots' Asses on the Line
bill_mcgonigle
Thu Jun 29 22:21:05 -0700 2006
 manage
Yes, you're quite right - I suspect nobody would drive if every traffic fatality was written up in the front page of the newspaper. We'd have a War on Flu if legislators could make hay out of 40,000 deaths in the US annually.

As it is, the Shuttle has a better than 1/50 chance of making it to space and back. I say better because we're doing more monitoring now than we did before, with inspections in-orbit, super-secret high-res ground-based telescopes, etc.. And we have a rescue-to-ISS/Soyuz backup plan.

So we have three orbiters left and fewer than 50 missions to do between now and when the Shuttle is mothballed. It's been rumored that they won't fly with fewer than 2 orbiters, so playing out the odds we have capacity to do at least 100 more missions, or almost as much as the total in history.

I'm no longer expecting days of monthly Shuttle launches like I did 25 years ago, but I think NASA has what it needs to forge ahead.
It's the Pilots' Asses on the Line
Beryllium Sphere(r)
Thu Jun 29 15:33:03 -0700 2006
 manage
On the other hand, it's a less clearcut case of volunteering if the pilots don't fine out what the risks are because management tries to suppress bad news.

There's more at risk than the pilots, too. People are standing in line to replace dead pilots but there's no closet full of spare orbiters. Losing the vehicle was always a matter of years, billions of dollars, and crippling the space program until the replacement came on line. Lose one today, and it simply won't be replaced.

It's the Pilots' Asses on the Line
AB3A
Thu Jun 29 18:04:55 -0700 2006
 manage

(I'm paraphrasing) A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are built for. 

We learn by taking risks.  Do we know enough to launch?  Perhaps.  That's ultimately a judgement call.  At some point you have to shoot the engineer and get the job done. 

I am an engineer.  I have been "shot at".  I don't feel good about the shuttle launch, but I don't know what else to do.  It was built to fly, not to look pretty on the ground. 

It's the Pilots' Asses on the Line
bill_mcgonigle
Thu Jun 29 22:24:17 -0700 2006
 manage
On the other hand, it's a less clearcut case of volunteering if the pilots don't fine out what the risks are because management tries to suppress bad news.

Agreed. Do we have any evidence to support this theory?
It's the Pilots' Asses on the Line
Beryllium Sphere(r)
Thu Jun 29 23:27:47 -0700 2006
 manage
Agreed. Do we have any evidence to support this theory?
Just an article ina newsaper that's been accused of sensationalism.
 

Do you have questions about the site? Write to bruce at perens.com . List of all articles we've ever published. Source Code Developer's Documentation RSS XML Sitemap XML News Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict Valid CSS! [Valid RSS]