More of the same at NASA

[Kopji]

NASA Unable to learn from past mistakes
(Will Griffin run for President in 2008?)

On the eve of the shuttle Discovery's scheduled launch, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin acknowledged Friday that he is "playing the odds" by giving the go-ahead for the mission despite continuing concerns about foam-insulation debris...

Simulations of the tank's aerodynamics has indicated that debris from the ice/frost ramps could pose a very slight risk of catastrophic damage - leading NASA's chief engineer and chief safety officer to declare that they were "no-go" for Discovery's launch until the ramps are redesigned...

Even Griffin acknowledges that the ramps need to be fixed eventually — but he said that, in the long run, holding up shuttle flights for a redesign would pose more risk than going ahead with the launch. Presented with that reasoning, the dissenters said they understood the decision and declined to pursue an appeal...


"You're not going to like this, and I'm sure I'm not going to like how it sounds in print, but we are playing the odds," Griffin answered. "What you pay us for, as taxpayers, is to understand those odds in great detail. When we say 'playing the odds,' what we're talking about is risk management. And to engineers, risk is expressed in terms of probability and statistics. I think we've got a team here that understands that discipline as well as any group I've seen."

Griffin said that the go/no-go decision had to strike a balance involving risks to the crew, as well as cost risks and schedule risks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13637213/

Well he's right, his attitude does not look good in print. This seems a lot like the same attitude that got two entire shuttles and their crews destroyed. NASA management's confidence in themselves knows few limits.

"What you pay us for, as taxpayers, is to understand those odds in great detail. When we say 'playing the odds,' what we're talking about is risk management.

That is the part that rubs me the wrong way. Ah! NASA's poor management decisions are the taxpayer's fault. Well he's wrong about that, his logic and reasoning are flawed. He does not need to launch for me.

 

[WildCat]

Does anyone know why we're still flying the space shuttle any more? Seems to me this horse has run its race and it's time to move on.

 

[Apollyon]

Are you suggesting that launching people attached to the world's largest firework should be without risk?

 

[gumboot]

What, honestly, is the big deal?

Space Travel is not a sunday drive. The dangers are enormous. Everyone involved knows this. Accidents happen. And with space travel, when accidents happen people die.

If man only did things that had no risk none of us would ever do anything. All this "making it totally safe" BS is helping no one.

Why doesn't NASA just come out and say "Hey, this stuff is highly dangerous. Sometimes there are accidents. And there will continue to be accidents in future. It's part of the deal. Every time we send seven astronaughts into space we all know they might never come home."

Human advancement has its foundations on the wreckage of accidents and failed attempts.

-Andrew

 

[Cylinder]

Of course, this echoes many other responses, but what's a little piling on between freinds...

Does anyone remember which SST mission was the last to be free from risk?

What do the NASA acronyms LOM, LOV and LOC stand for in relation to manned space flight? How are these values calculated?

 

[Kopji]

I don't disagree, but the attitude seems a bit cavalier. After all, it is because of not listening to the engineering staff we have lost two shuttles and what, 14 dead astronauts?

Losing 20% of 5 shuttles is one less than sending well over half of the fleet to destruction.

And we are not above doing things for national pride. We smacked a comet on the 4th of July. (Just a coincidence mind you).

So while I would agree that sacrifice comes with the dangerous territory, is this exploration we are doing or politics? The greatest country in the world sends people into space on shuttles, not dangerous rockets or experimental craft.

('astronaughts' is an interesting typo.)

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. - Teddy Roosevelt

(I turn my acronyms off at night.)

 

[gumboot]

I guess it depends a lot on the scenario...

What we don't know is whether it was a case of:

A: No it's too risky
B: Oh harden up, gotta take some risks
A: No really, it's not safe at all, if we launch-
B: I said we're going and that's an order! Do you want me to show everyone those photos of you and that guy from electricals?
A: No sir!
B: Good, then give us the OK for launch
A: Yes sir

or

A: There's still a risk
B: Look, it's a small risk, much smaller than before
A: But if anything happens...
B: They all die. We all know that. They know that. This is dangerous.
A: Okay, you're right, we're good. We can go.

Okay, lame dialogue... but you get the idea...we may never know how it went down...

-Andrew

EDT. Typo

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Cost risks" and "schedule risks"? For the latter, we seem to have plenty of time to get it right. We're not fighting aliens, are we? Do we have to get shuttles up before the enemy mothership arrives? As for "cost risks", NASA isn't supposed to be a business. You put money in, you get science out. It's not supposed to turn a profit, and if it costs a little more to get it right, well, it already costs enormously already. Are you going to buy a $1.5 million dollar mansion then balk at buying a few $10 smoke alarms?

I'm interested in science and think we ought to spend even more on the space program, but I'd rather they send half as many flights that are each twice as safe than send double the flights at half the safety. When in doubt, delay. Too many dead astronauts will kill the program entirely.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Does anyone know why we're still flying the space shuttle any more? Seems to me this horse has run its race and it's time to move on.

You got it. The simple answer is that government programs are self-perpetuating and hard as the devil to kill.

The shuttle is a 30+ year old technology and idea that serves no legitimate function anymore.

NASA (and Congress) screwed up long ago by not developing and pursuing a feasible follow on program for "routine" manned space flight to step in once the shuttle became obsolete (which happened years ago).

The whole program should have been scrubbed after the Columbia disaster. I truly thought it would be. I'm very sorry it wasn't. My city already has enough public schools named after dead astronauts. We don't need any more.

Are we never going to Mars in this century either?

AS

 

[Apollyon]

Isn't there a plan in place for a shuttle replacement by 2012, or somewhere thereabout? I agree a replacement should have been developed much sooner, but better late than never.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The problem is the shuttle program represents design ideas from the 1970s. Vital parts of the shuttle are obsolete, and NASA engineers spend most of their time simply maintaining these vintage technologies to squeeze a few more years out of them. As these obsolete technologies become ever more difficult to find and maintain, the viability of the entire shuttle system becomes threatened, hence the danger of operating the old girl.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Isn't there a plan in place for a shuttle replacement by 2012, or somewhere thereabout? I agree a replacement should have been developed much sooner, but better late than never.

A replacement is a horrible idea. The shuttle was developed in concept as a precursor to routine travel into space, much like routine terrestrial airline travel. It was hoped at the time that everyday citizens would eventually use it or its successor to travel to and from space stations and/or lunar bases.

In retrospect, it's clear than routine travel by ordinary citizens is a pipe dream, at least for the foreseeable future, which includes all of this century. Not only is there no real need or demand for such travel (as there is nothing to speak of to travel to presently {and I hardly think the ISS qualifies for ordinary citizens}, for one thing), but also we have learned a lot in the past 30 or 40 years about just how many dangers there are inherent in traveling outside our protective atmosphere. Gamma radiation, solar storms, space debris, etc. pose unacceptable risks to ordinary citizens. It is unlikely space travel as envisioned 35 years ago by the visionaries who sold this concept to Congress will entail anything like what they dreamed of. Kubrick's Pan Am spaceplane from 2001 is nothing more than a fairy tale.

As for professional space exploration, the only worthwhile, feasible project for manned space flight in the foreseeable future is a manned Mars mission. The Space Shuttle and any possible replacement for it have no place in such a mission. The Mars mission is a completely different paradigm from a "cheap" reusuable craft for short flight.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

The problem is the shuttle program represents design ideas from the 1970s. Vital parts of the shuttle are obsolete, and NASA engineers spend most of their time simply maintaining these vintage technologies to squeeze a few more years out of them. As these obsolete technologies become ever more difficult to find and maintain, the viability of the entire shuttle system becomes threatened, hence the danger of operating the old girl.

I think the problem is much deeper than that, actually. In contrast, look at the SR-71. It was developed using technology from the 1950s. It was and still is a technological marvel, and remains to this day, as far as we know, the fastest airplane ever. We never lost one, either.

I think so much of the problem remains in a systemic failure in the bureaucracy that is NASA, and the many failures it has made in management, engineering, planning, and budgeting. I say this as someone who knows dozens of NASA and prime and sub contractor engineers, and who grew up in a city which derives its identity and economic prosperity from the U.S. space programs. I should be defending NASA and its contractors, but I'm not.

AS

 

[Kopji]

I guess we will find out if it was a good decision or not.

I agree it is not so much old technology, it is the execution/decision structure of NASA. I'm not really inclined to take any lessons on risk management from NASA. Safety and quality are their number one goals right behind meeting their delivery schedule set by a political agenda.

Off topic, but the US space program should either be returned to the military or turned over to private industry. Sure there's going to risk, but why pretend it is some kind of government run business? NASA is sort of like FEMA - more of the same kind of politicians making decisions.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I wonder if Richard Branson will let them borrow SpaceShipThree.

Heck, why don't NASA just ask Scaled Composites to build them an orbital spaceplane? The technology is safer, it's cheaper, it's more reuseable (none of your solid rocket boosters, thank you so much) it has a faster turn-around time --- and Burt Rutan's spaceships look effin' fantastic.

Admit it, you want one.

 

[geni]

Heck, why don't NASA just ask Scaled Composites to build them an orbital spaceplane?

Because there is no way Scaled Composites could do it. Orbit is much harder than sub orbital. Temeber the X-15 was pretty much doing what space ship one does back in 1963.

 

[geni]

The problem is the shuttle program represents design ideas from the 1970s.

Even in the 1970s the desighn made little sense. A manned craft with a heavy lift capabilty is an odity. Only exists for political reasons.

 

[Apollyon]

A replacement is a horrible idea. The shuttle was developed in concept as a precursor to routine travel into space, much like routine terrestrial airline travel. It was hoped at the time that everyday citizens would eventually use it or its successor to travel to and from space stations and/or lunar bases.

My understanding is that the shuttle was initially intended to haul a crew into space and be reusable with a relatively quick turnaround time to launch. Eventually, compromises reached with the Pentagon to get the Shuttle program funded (it was almost cut as a viable program) required that it carry some fairly hefty payloads. Thus, instead of a sort of passenger car, as it was initially designed, we ended up with a tractor-trailer.

I don't recall the Shuttle ever being any precursor to commercial space travel. Much like commercial air travel, commercial space travel was always left to commercial enterprise to develop.

In retrospect, it's clear than routine travel by ordinary citizens is a pipe dream, at least for the foreseeable future, which includes all of this century. Not only is there no real need or demand for such travel (as there is nothing to speak of to travel to presently {and I hardly think the ISS qualifies for ordinary citizens}, for one thing), but also we have learned a lot in the past 30 or 40 years about just how many dangers there are inherent in traveling outside our protective atmosphere. Gamma radiation, solar storms, space debris, etc. pose unacceptable risks to ordinary citizens. It is unlikely space travel as envisioned 35 years ago by the visionaries who sold this concept to Congress will entail anything like what they dreamed of. Kubrick's Pan Am spaceplane from 2001 is nothing more than a fairy tale.

As for professional space exploration, the only worthwhile, feasible project for manned space flight in the foreseeable future is a manned Mars mission. The Space Shuttle and any possible replacement for it have no place in such a mission. The Mars mission is a completely different paradigm from a "cheap" reusuable craft for short flight.

AS

What you say is possibly true. But look at the difference between the beginning of the 20th century, when we didn't even have powered air flight yet, to just 40+ years later when the first commercial airlines began operations. Rutan has already taken the X-Prize. A lot of money is going into commercial space flight. Once the ball gets rolling it should begin to steamroll relatively quickly.

As to professional space exploration, isn't the new Shuttle design supposed to be able to go to the moon and back so we can begin building a base from which to launch a Mars mission?

 

[CapelDodger]

Even in the 1970s the desighn made little sense. A manned craft with a heavy lift capabilty is an odity. Only exists for political reasons.

I've never understood why it has such a large payload-bay. Payloads can be thrown up using the old method - a stick of dynamite with a tin-can on top - while people fly up to rendezvous with it. Much simpler and safer.

 

[Apollyon]

I've never understood why it has such a large payload-bay. Payloads can be thrown up using the old method - a stick of dynamite with a tin-can on top - while people fly up to rendezvous with it. Much simpler and safer.

This might explain it:

http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_050815.html

By 1970, the White House had lost its appetite for large space programs, Logsdon said. Production of the Saturn 5 was ended, and NASA was told to forget about a space station for the time being.

That forced NASA to seek allies to justify building the shuttle. "The key ally was the national security community," Logsdon said.

The Pentagon agreed to get behind the shuttle provided it had certain characteristics, Logsdon said.

"One of those characteristics was the ability to launch classified payloads that could be up to 60 feet (18 meters) in length" and weigh up to 18,200 kilograms, Logsdon said. "The width of the payload bay was driven by NASA’s desire to eventually build a space station."

Another Defense Department-driven requirement, Logsdon said, was the ability to take off and return to a West Coast launch site after a single polar orbit. Because of the Earth’s rotation, a single polar orbit would not bring the shuttle back directly over its launch site, meaning it would have to glide farther through the atmosphere to land than otherwise would be the case. That drove NASA to add large delta-shaped wings and a more robust—not to mention heavier— thermal protection system to its space shuttle design.

It was a compromise to prevent the Shuttle program from getting canned.