O'Keefe weighs in on shuttle failure. In other news, pope scores a hat trick

[Hyperelastic]

Today, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told a Congressional panel, among other things, that

- flight controllers for the Columbia had received no data to indicate that the fragile thermal tiles lining its exterior might have been damaged on liftoff

- data of such anomalies "likely would have showed up during that 16-day mission

- the airframe and other systems of the Columbia, which had flown 28 missions, were inspected rigorously before each flight

This from a man with no scientific training whatsoever. How does he know whether the data indicated if tiles had been damaged? How does he know if data would have shown up during the mission? Who is he to decide whether airframe inspections are "rigorous"? Why should Congress, or anyone, trust his answers? Obviously, someone is telling him what to say, but he has no basis to judge whether his handlers are feeding him the truth or a bunch of malarkey.

Perhaps before we try to continue our space-related endeavors, we ought to put someone in charge of NASA who has the background to understand which end of the rocket the fire comes out of. Christ almighty.

[Giraffe]

Um, what the hell are you talking about? He's an administrator -- his job is to assemble all the information coming from the organization and summarize it. His job is not to go down to the lab and analyze computer data and perform stress tests on thermal tiles. Sending some engineer or scientist in to talk to Congress would be far less useful than someone at the top of the organization who has all the data and is used to interacting with politicians.

Also, how do you know that he has no scientific training?

[Hyperelastic]

In any technical organization with any sense, the top management is technically trained. They may no longer be practicing engineers, but they can at least be assumed to know vaguely how the machinery works. Sending an engineer or scientist to talk to Congress is exactly what ought to be done.

Sean O'Keefe has a bachelor's degree in political science (which is of course not a science) and a master's in public administration. He's never held a technical position.

The president would never consider appointing someone with those qualifications to head the National Institutes of Health or the CDC, now, would he? Maybe I don't want the answer to that.

I did just remember that during the Apollo days, NASA was headed by James Webb, a career politician. But in those days, there was no doubt who was really in charge, and they all wore white jackets, I guarantee.

[Giraffe]

Well, I work at a national lab, and I can tell you that for this particular task, it really doesn't matter that he doesn't have technical training. He's summarizing the organization's work -- you don't need an advanced degree to be capable of understanding science at the level he needs to understand it.

I think it is great when the people at the top of research organizations have a scientific background, so they'll have a realistic sense of what can be done and how long it will take. However, the actual tasks they do all day are far more suited to someone with a political science and public policy degree than a physics degree.

[Neurotik]

Hyperelastic are you an idiot? Seriously. He has been given the information by his engineers and scientists. And he has just as much ability to analyze the reports that NASA science-types have given him as some Congressman. O'Keefe is perfectly qualified to give a report to Congress.

[Apos]

---Sean O'Keefe has a bachelor's degree in political science (which is of course not a science)---

Hey, at least political science isn't a (shudder) humanity. :)

[Shirley Ujest]

Hey, I was lead to beleive the Pope was playing hockey....maannnn, what a rip!

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
I did just remember that during the Apollo days, NASA was headed by James Webb, a career politician. But in those days, there was no doubt who was really in charge, and they all wore white jackets, I guarantee.

But when a fire killed Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee who do you think explained it to Congress; James Webb or some guy in a white coat?

[Hyperelastic]

Originally posted by Neurotik
He has been given the information by his engineers and scientists. And he has just as much ability to analyze the reports that NASA science-types have given him as some Congressman. O'Keefe is perfectly qualified to give a report to Congress.

How does he know his advisers aren't blowing smoke up his ass? If I were testifying before Congress, I'd want to be able to actually understand what I was saying. What if someone asks a question? :eek:

And to say that it is only necessary for him to be as qualified as a Congressman in order to testify before Congress is setting a very low bar indeed.

[Neurotik]

:rolleyes: Thanks for answering my question.

[Giraffe]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
How does he know his advisers aren't blowing smoke up his ass? If I were testifying before Congress, I'd want to be able to actually understand what I was saying. What if someone asks a question? :eek: Dude, it's not like he's handed a speech to read and just reads it out loud to Congress. He talks to his people, and then goes to Congress and explains the situation. Also, what advisors are you talking about? Where have you gotten the idea that NASA is a Machiavellian web of intrigue and lies?

If your problem with O'Keefe delivering the report to Congress is that you think the people below him are feeding him misinformation to cover something up, then the problem is way worse than whether or not he took physics in college. Also, you'd be something of a loon.

And to say that it is only necessary for him to be as qualified as a Congressman in order to testify before Congress is setting a very low bar indeed. Hi-larious! :rolleyes:

[don't ask]

If you read Richard Feyman's Surely Your Joking Mr Feynman he comments on the differences in opinions held by management and engineers at the plants which manufactured the faulty Challenger parts. His appendix is here (http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm) and says in part:

It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"

[Slartibartfastt]

This from a man with no scientific training whatsoever. How does he know whether the data indicated if tiles had been damaged? How does he know if data would have shown up during the mission? Who is he to decide whether airframe inspections are "rigorous"? Why should Congress, or anyone, trust his answers? Obviously, someone is telling him what to say, but he has no basis to judge whether his handlers are feeding him the truth or a bunch of malarkey.

No one person will be an expert on all parts of the shuttle, no matter who goes up before congress they will be relying on reports and meetings with the those that do understand the specific areas in question.

[carnivorousplant]

I was pissed when a Congressman made a joke about time to speak and O'Keefe laughed at it and other comments. The subject doesn't seem to be a laughing matter.

[Hyperelastic]

I don't mean to say 'I told you so'...well, actually, yes I do...

The New York Times reported today that on January 24, NASA and Boeing analysts concluded that "the [foam] debris hit the wing's underside at about 500 miles an hour, smashing into fragile tiles that protected Columbia from searing heat."

Contrast this to O'Keefe's statements to Congress on Feb. 12 likening the foam's impact to "a styrofoam cooler blowing off a truck in front of you on the highway".

Uh huh...a truck going 500 miles an hour. He needs to stick to the bean counting and leave the technical issues to people who know what they're doing.

By the way, Giraffe, he's not just an administrator, he's the Administrator of NASA, which means top dog. He's responsible for everything that goes on there.

[Tuckerfan]

Uh, Hyperelastic, how old are you? Because this statement of yoursBy the way, Giraffe, he's not just an administrator, he's the Administrator of NASA, which means top dog. He's responsible for everything that goes on there.is exactly why he's the one testifying before Congress! It's his ass in the sling, not some buck-toothed Professor Frink type engineer who made a bad call, it's O'Keefe's ass that Congress is going to string up if it turns out that NASA could have easily prevented the shuttle disaster. What do you think would happen if O'Keefe sent one of his underlings to testify before Congress? He'd be accused of not taking the investigation seriously and of being out of the fucking loop! Not to mention, it would totally devistate the morale amongst NASA employees. Why? Because they know that they've got a boss who won't stand up for them when the chips are down. O'Keefe's doing the right thing, and rumor has it that he's a spaceflight fanatic, so whilst he may have a degree in political science, he's probably no fucking slouch when it comes to what NASA does and how things work.

IAC, what the fuck kind of qualifications do you have that enables you to declare O'Keefe unfit to testify before Congress?

[Hyperelastic]

O'Keefe glibly reported to Congress a vital technical fact that was fully an order of magnitude different from what NASA analysts had already determined. This wasn't the only important mistake in his testimony, either. Obviously, he didn't read their report, or if he did, he was unable to separate the important conclusions from the details. Engineers who make these kinds of errors in high-profile briefings are frequently reassigned to the "Launch Facility Toilet Monitoring Team".

Tuckerfan, you are raising the political issue of who will take the heat if NASA is found to be at fault. If the Challenger accident is any indication, it ain't gonna be O'Keefe, or any other NASA employee. In fact, the failure investigation board as presently chartered is explicitly forbidden from assigning blame. It seems to me that an organization that is so reluctant to engage in self-criticism and so careless in its interactions with Congress is not ready to develop a new toothbrush, let alone a man-rated launch vehicle.

To answer your other question, I have a doctorate in engineering mechanics and several years' experience in aerospace engineering, including many failure investigations.

[jjimm]

Hyperelastic, I think you're being a bit silly. Sure, there's tension between the scientists and the management at NASA, but talking to the press is his job. That's why they hired him.

[carnivorousplant]

One of the engineers mentioned that foam sometimes comes away from the tank and hits the windshield leaving a smear.

I wonder if the Times is misquoting or misunderstands. Is the shuttle traveling at 500 mph when the foam comes loose? Foam isn't very massive by virtue of being foam, so I presume it loses momentum rapidly, but how is the foam velocity calculated?

Thanks

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
O'Keefe glibly reported to Congress a vital technical fact that was fully an order of magnitude different from what NASA analysts had already determined. This wasn't the only important mistake in his testimony, either. Cite?

Tuckerfan, you are raising the political issue of who will take the heat if NASA is found to be at fault. If the Challenger accident is any indication, it ain't gonna be O'Keefe, or any other NASA employee. In fact, the failure investigation board as presently chartered is explicitly forbidden from assigning blame. It seems to me that an organization that is so reluctant to engage in self-criticism and so careless in its interactions with Congress is not ready to develop a new toothbrush, let alone a man-rated launch vehicle. Hmm. I guess I'm misremembering when I'm thinking that it was NASA which took responsiblity for the Challenger disaster and not Morton-Thiokol. I guess NASA paid out all those millions to the Challenger families just for the hell of it. And I can imagine a perfectly good reason why the accident investigation board's job isn't to assign blame, it makes it easier for them to figure out what happened, since no one has to worry that if they talk to them, that they'll be made a scapegoat. The blame assignment can go to someone else.

[Hyperelastic]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
Cite?


I gave a cite when I posted O'Keefe's error, you dingaling! Maybe if you read my posts more carefully, you wouldn't be neck-deep in defending the indefensible at this point. His other error was in equating the debris to a styrofoam cooler. This is only true if the debris can be proven to have been the insulating foam. There is also ablative material on the external tank, which is somewhat denser than styrofoam, and there could have been ice, which is far denser than styrofoam. On film, the debris appears white, but the foam insulation is orange. Whether this may be due to distortions in the film is not known. O'Keefe is irresponsible to imply to Congress that the debris was known to be foam.

carnivourousplant, at the time the debris came loose, the Shuttle was traveling at about 1900 mph. Using O'Keefe's analogy of styrofoam blowing off a truck on the highway (which is not inapt, he just got the numbers grossly incorrect), if you were in a car behind the truck, you would see the debris come towards you and hit your car, just as the foam hit the shuttle wing. One could try to calculate the speed of the debris relative to the shuttle based on aerodynamics, but the more direct and reliable approach is to observe the motion of the debris piece compared to the frame speed of the film that was taken.

The 500 mph number should carry the following explanation: It hasn't been determined what angle the debris hit the wing at (mainly because it isn't known whether the debris hit the leading edge or the flat part of the wing). Therefore, although the debris was moving 500 mph backwards relative to the shuttle's flight path, it could have "grazed" the flat of the wing, which is different from striking it head-on at 500 mph.

By the way, Tuckerfan, I signed your petition. NASA TV could be so much more than it is now.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
I gave a cite when I posted O'Keefe's error, you dingaling! Maybe if you read my posts more carefully, you wouldn't be neck-deep in defending the indefensible at this point. His other error was in equating the debris to a styrofoam cooler. This is only true if the debris can be proven to have been the insulating foam. There is also ablative material on the external tank, which is somewhat denser than styrofoam, and there could have been ice, which is far denser than styrofoam. On film, the debris appears white, but the foam insulation is orange. Whether this may be due to distortions in the film is not known. O'Keefe is irresponsible to imply to Congress that the debris was known to be foam. You misunderstand what is meant by "Cite?" All we have is your comment that this was done. When someone asks for a cite, they are asking you to provide a link to an independent website which backs up your claim. Say, CNN.com, some other site which a reasonable individual can expect to find confirmation of your claims.

Right now, you appear to be second guessing the folks who're experts on this matter, and whilst you may claim to have qualifications to make comments that show O'Keefe to be in error, you've provided nothing to back up your claim, other than your own words.

[RTFirefly]

From today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49326-2003Feb22.html) (about 11 paragraphs down): The care NASA takes in its programs, O'Keefe added, may have lulled the public into forgetting that space flight is risky.That misperception may have also stemmed from things like the resumption of the "Teacher in Space" program; IIRC, one was due to go up later this year.

Putting civilians into space for PR purposes certainly suggests to the world that NASA no longer considers shuttle flight to carry test-pilot-style risks.

Sure, there are a lot of people who are willing to accept a 1-in-50 risk of sudden death in order to get into space. (If I weren't married, I'd be one of them.) But that doesn't change the implication of having a program to send into space persons who are neither pilots nor mission scientists.

The point, Mr. O'Keefe, is, don't blame the public for being lulled. Blame your own agency - blame your ownself - for doing the lulling. And not by your caution, but by your PR.

[Hyperelastic]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
You misunderstand what is meant by "Cite?" All we have is your comment that this was done. When someone asks for a cite, they are asking you to provide a link to an independent website which backs up your claim.



Compare the third paragraph under the subheading "Feeney joins debate" in this story:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asecsshear13021303feb13,0,2675541.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-space

to Paragraph 6 of this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/22/national/nationalspecial2/22SHUT.html

(You have to register to get the nytimes.com story.)

Also note the comments at the top of the second page about the implications of the debris being ice instead of insulation. I haven't checked the figures but ice is obviously much heavier and more dangerous than foam insulation.

[Clint in Wichita]

It's probably like Bush introducing his economic plan. Of course it's not his plan...the guy probably can't make change for a $50 bill.

The guy's a mouthpiece for NASA. Like many in upper management, IMO, he knows little about the day-to-day operations.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
Compare the third paragraph under the subheading "Feeney joins debate" in this story:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asecsshear13021303feb13,0,2675541.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-space

to Paragraph 6 of this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/22/national/nationalspecial2/22SHUT.html

(You have to register to get the nytimes.com story.)

Also note the comments at the top of the second page about the implications of the debris being ice instead of insulation. I haven't checked the figures but ice is obviously much heavier and more dangerous than foam insulation. Okay, I've read the linked pieces, and none of them support your contention that O'Keefe's screwed the pooch. O'Keefe's comparison of the foam as being equalivalent to a styrofoam cooler doesn't seem that far fetched. After all, if you're behind a pick up truck and an empty cooler blows out, it doesn't matter that it impacts your vehicle at 60 MPH, it's not going to hurt it in all likelihood. (However, if you panic, you might very well do something stupid and swerve into a telephone pole in your effort to avoid the cooler.)

In the case that it could have been ice and not foam, there is that possibility, but I've not read anywhere in your linked cites that O'Keefe stated that there's absolutely no way it was ice. Indeed, O'Keefe's own words indicate that he's open to other factors:O'Keefe said NASA is being careful to make sure all possible causes are investigated. "I want to avoid any favorite theory," he said.If you have been a member of accident investigation boards, then you should know that all kinds of theories get tossed around in the beginning of the investigation, only to be thrown out as more facts come to light. NASA's had less than a month to look at the evidence, and they don't have a complete aircraft study! So to cry "Foul!" before they've had a chance to study everything, much less present their findings is jumping the gun, to say the least.

[Hyperelastic]

Tuckerfan, I am puzzled by your most recent post. I agree that a styrofoam cooler blowing off a truck onto your car at highway speeds would cause little damage. And I believe that O'Keefe was trying to use that analogy to convey that he did not believe the debris strike was responsible for the failure. But such a position is contradicted by NASA's own analysis, firstly in that the impact speed is known to be about 10 times greater than the speeds one normally associates with highway travel, secondly in that it characterizes the debris as similar to styrofoam whereas all that can be said now is that it was likely some combination of foam, ablator and ice, and thirdly in that it characterizes the debris-strike as unlikely to explain the failure. Are you saying the links don't contain this information or that you don't agree with how I'm interpreting the information? I'm not doing any engineering here, just comparing NASA's publically available analyses to O'Keefe's testimony.

Taken as a whole, and in context, I think O'Keefe's testimony to Congress left the impression that the debris is unlikely to be the cause of the failure. I believe he was trying to do something that engineers frequently are asked to do: to draw "mental pictures" of complex phenomena so they can be understood by the layman. This is a very tricky thing to do, especially, as you say, in the early stages of an investigation, and when one cannot resist the urge to be glib (as I feel O'Keefe was), one can do a lot of damage. I can only imagine the groans emitted from the engineering building at Marshall or wherever they did the analysis when O'Keefe said that.

I simply contend that if it had been a NASA engineer familiar with the problem testifying to Congress instead of O'Keefe, the styrofoam cooler example would never have been used. But now that that picture is lodged in Senator Bedfellow's mind, it will be very hard to get out.

[RTFirefly]

"How'd you launder the Libyan kickback money, Senator Bedfellow?"
-- Milo Bloom

Damn, I've gotten to cite Milo twice today. :)

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
I simply contend that if it had been a NASA engineer familiar with the problem testifying to Congress instead of O'Keefe, the styrofoam cooler example would never have been used. But now that that picture is lodged in Senator Bedfellow's mind, it will be very hard to get out. So now you're claiming that senators are smarter than O'Keefe? That's a stretch! IAC, his comments certainly didn't seem to sway Sen. HollingsBut Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., said it was clear to him that the heat-shielding tiles on the shuttle should be the focus. A piece of insulating foam may have damaged the tiles and the leading edge of the left wing during launch on Jan. 16.
"They are trying to avoid, frankly, getting to the true cause," Hollings said. "Everybody knows damage at liftoff is the true cause." (emphasis mine) So, again, I think that you're off-base here. Indeed, an engineer testifying before Congress might have made the same analogy before Congress at their request.

So, let me ask you, have you ran the numbers to see what kind of impact a hunk of foam (and strictly foam) would have had at 500 MPH? And have you ran the numbers to see if that'd damage the tiles severely? (I haven't, BTW.) I'm asking because that's the only way you'll be able to put this matter to rest. If you come up with numbers that say the foam could have caused significant damage to the tiles, then you've got a reason to bitch. (After all, it should be a relatively easy computation.) If the numbers indicate it wouldn't have done significant damage, then the question becomes "Was it ice and not foam that hit the shuttle?" That's going to be tricky to answer, since there's no way to prove conclusively that it was ice that hit the shuttle. The best you can hope for is to eliminate other possibilities.