Post by Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe on Jul 28, 2004 5:41:33 GMT -6
I boldly took the liberty of copying what some other boards are discussing about NASA. The negative sentiment seems to be common through out the Space/Astronomy community....
The problem as I see it Paul is that NASA is consistently in a
reactive
mode of operation. In other words they fix the problem after it
occurs
rather than anticipating problems. And I worked for NASA as well,
Gemini,
Apollo and SkyLab. And I saw an awful amount of incompetence. I did
see
some spectacular bureaucratic organization building tactics. And I
did of
course meet some brilliant and dedicated people, too bad there
weren't more
of them.
-------------
So long as NASA has learned from previous mistakes and takes no chances with
crew's lives, there is no problem as far as I am concerned, I would put my life
in their hands.
I think the astronauts know what a hazardous job they have chosen; and are
willing to take the risk.
I would be willing to die for a view of the Earth from space.
So the word is out that NASA engineers here are ramping up
efforts to return the shuttle Discovery to flight status. It will be
NASA's first shuttle to fly since the lost of crew of Columbia.
The launch date is between March 6 to April 18 in 2005. The
mission will test out in-flight shuttle repair techniques, as well
as new sensors and a camera to keep ground crews apprised of the
spacecraft's health. The mission will also deliver supplies and much
needed equipment to the ISS.
I got questions for everyone regarding this. Do you think
this mission will return the shuttle fleet into space. Or do you
think after two lost shuttles we will completely retire the shuttle
program. Or is this the measures we're taking until a new space
craft is developed and tested? I want to hear what do you think
about this.
-----------------
What makes you think that NASA has learned. They didn't learn after the
Apollo fire (Grissom, etal), they didn't learn after Apollo 13, they didn't
learn after Challenger, what makes you think that they actually learned
this time?
--------------------
What is it exactly that NASA hasn't learned? To put it another way, as
someone who has worked and continues to be involved with NASA programs,
what is it that I was supposed to learn that I haven't? The people who
work from NASA have learned plenty from these experiences. To say
otherwise is to ignore history. What if your boss continued to make bad
decisions that you had to follow through with? Should I blame you and not
your boss? The real questions to me are:
Has congress and presidential politics "learned" that space is a
destination and not a social program? The answer as I see it is "no". I
challenge you to do anything significant when the support can be pulled out
from under you on a yearly basis. Try buying a house with that sort of
instability in your financial situation.
Has the press/public learned to focus on the vast number of achievements
instead of focusing on the few mistakes? No. In fact, I point out to the
original comment above that NASA was somehow "taking chances with
astronauts lives". Would you also use the phrase "I'm going to taking
chances with my life and drive down to the store". No, you just say "I'm
going to the store". Why not point out the risk of getting in your car
every time you get into it? Yes, space travel is dangerous, but what does
that fixation on the mistakes and danger say about the public's perception
of NASA in general?
I agree that it is true that there are people in NASA who are partly
responsible for the sometimes tragic mistakes. But who is ultimately
responsible for the vision of what NASA is supposed to be as well as how
the execution of that vision are perceived? Lets be realistic about
where the real power to change the way in which NASA conducts its business.
-----------------
The Associated Press
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA inspectors charged with making sure space shuttles are safe to fly were forced to buy their own tools and prevented from making spot checks, a Columbia accident investigator says.
The investigator, who spoke with The Associated Press in interviews over several days, said NASA's program that oversees shuttle inspections will "take a pretty big hit" in the Columbia accident report due out in late August.
Air Force Brig. Gen. Duane Deal, one of 13 members of the board investigating the cause of the shuttle accident, says he obtained crucial information by offering confidentiality to the 72 NASA and contractor employees he interviewed over months.
"They'd be fired" if their bosses found out what they confided, said Deal.
He said his findings seemed to indicate that some NASA managers were out of touch with the level of shuttle inspections needed for manned spaceflight.
Deal said that nearly 9 out of 10 workers interviewed said the investigation board should review the space agency's quality assurance program at Kennedy Space Center in Florida and other NASA installations.
He called the program "poor" because the number and kinds of inspections have been cut back.
www.technochitlins.com/mt-archives/000174.html
--------------------
_______________________________
The problem as I see it Paul is that NASA is consistently in a
reactive
mode of operation. In other words they fix the problem after it
occurs
rather than anticipating problems. And I worked for NASA as well,
Gemini,
Apollo and SkyLab. And I saw an awful amount of incompetence. I did
see
some spectacular bureaucratic organization building tactics. And I
did of
course meet some brilliant and dedicated people, too bad there
weren't more
of them.
-------------
So long as NASA has learned from previous mistakes and takes no chances with
crew's lives, there is no problem as far as I am concerned, I would put my life
in their hands.
I think the astronauts know what a hazardous job they have chosen; and are
willing to take the risk.
I would be willing to die for a view of the Earth from space.
So the word is out that NASA engineers here are ramping up
efforts to return the shuttle Discovery to flight status. It will be
NASA's first shuttle to fly since the lost of crew of Columbia.
The launch date is between March 6 to April 18 in 2005. The
mission will test out in-flight shuttle repair techniques, as well
as new sensors and a camera to keep ground crews apprised of the
spacecraft's health. The mission will also deliver supplies and much
needed equipment to the ISS.
I got questions for everyone regarding this. Do you think
this mission will return the shuttle fleet into space. Or do you
think after two lost shuttles we will completely retire the shuttle
program. Or is this the measures we're taking until a new space
craft is developed and tested? I want to hear what do you think
about this.
-----------------
What makes you think that NASA has learned. They didn't learn after the
Apollo fire (Grissom, etal), they didn't learn after Apollo 13, they didn't
learn after Challenger, what makes you think that they actually learned
this time?
--------------------
What is it exactly that NASA hasn't learned? To put it another way, as
someone who has worked and continues to be involved with NASA programs,
what is it that I was supposed to learn that I haven't? The people who
work from NASA have learned plenty from these experiences. To say
otherwise is to ignore history. What if your boss continued to make bad
decisions that you had to follow through with? Should I blame you and not
your boss? The real questions to me are:
Has congress and presidential politics "learned" that space is a
destination and not a social program? The answer as I see it is "no". I
challenge you to do anything significant when the support can be pulled out
from under you on a yearly basis. Try buying a house with that sort of
instability in your financial situation.
Has the press/public learned to focus on the vast number of achievements
instead of focusing on the few mistakes? No. In fact, I point out to the
original comment above that NASA was somehow "taking chances with
astronauts lives". Would you also use the phrase "I'm going to taking
chances with my life and drive down to the store". No, you just say "I'm
going to the store". Why not point out the risk of getting in your car
every time you get into it? Yes, space travel is dangerous, but what does
that fixation on the mistakes and danger say about the public's perception
of NASA in general?
I agree that it is true that there are people in NASA who are partly
responsible for the sometimes tragic mistakes. But who is ultimately
responsible for the vision of what NASA is supposed to be as well as how
the execution of that vision are perceived? Lets be realistic about
where the real power to change the way in which NASA conducts its business.
-----------------
The Associated Press
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA inspectors charged with making sure space shuttles are safe to fly were forced to buy their own tools and prevented from making spot checks, a Columbia accident investigator says.
The investigator, who spoke with The Associated Press in interviews over several days, said NASA's program that oversees shuttle inspections will "take a pretty big hit" in the Columbia accident report due out in late August.
Air Force Brig. Gen. Duane Deal, one of 13 members of the board investigating the cause of the shuttle accident, says he obtained crucial information by offering confidentiality to the 72 NASA and contractor employees he interviewed over months.
"They'd be fired" if their bosses found out what they confided, said Deal.
He said his findings seemed to indicate that some NASA managers were out of touch with the level of shuttle inspections needed for manned spaceflight.
Deal said that nearly 9 out of 10 workers interviewed said the investigation board should review the space agency's quality assurance program at Kennedy Space Center in Florida and other NASA installations.
He called the program "poor" because the number and kinds of inspections have been cut back.
www.technochitlins.com/mt-archives/000174.html
--------------------