NASA flunks high school physics. :(

NASA Culture, Shuttle Losses May Be Linked
By Irene Brown, Discovery News

Shuttle Atlantis: Next to Launch?

April 24, 2003 — NASA’s reliance on rules gets the space shuttles into orbit, but blocks engineers from pursuing intuitive initiatives, such as their unheeded desire for additional imagery of shuttle Columbia’s wing damage while the ship was in orbit, an expert in organizational structures told accident investigators Wednesday.

“That’s the power of rules,” said Boston University sociologist Diane Vaughn, author of a well-respected book about NASA and the 1986 Challenger disaster. “The things we put in to do good, also have a dark side.”

After Challenger, NASA made many personnel changes and technical fixes, yet the agency’s culture, with its reliance on hard data to back up suspected problems and allegiance to hierarchal management structures, remained intact and seems to have directly contributed to the loss of its second shuttle and another seven crewmembers, Vaughn told the panel tasked to find the cause of the Feb. 1 accident.**

“The problems that existed at the time of Challenger have not been fixed,”** said Vaughn, testifying at the end of a day-long public hearing in Houston.

In the case of the Challenger accident, some engineers felt very uncomfortable with the idea of launching with temperatures at record lows, said Vaughn. However, without data to back up their subjective assessments, the warnings were dismissed.

During Columbia’s mission, groups of engineers wanted more images of the shuttle’s wing, which had been hit by an unusually large piece of foam insulation shed from the fuel tank during launch. The request for spy satellite pictures was nixed by top managers, who said that proper channels had not been followed.

“In both situations, following normal rules and procedures seemed to take precedence,” said Vaughn. “In times of uncertainty, people do follow habits and routines. However under these circumstances that is not the time for hierarchal decision-making.”

The culture creates an environment where, in the absence of hard data, people do not bring forth their concerns, said Vaughn.

Earlier in the day, one of the shuttle’s first program managers told the board that** two accidents were not difficult to deduce.

“They barely require high-school physics” to understand the risks involved, said Robert Thompson. **“It appears to me the agency needs to make damn sure that the right people are dealing with (these issues) in a timely manner.”
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030421/shuttle.html

It is a joke, but your conclusion is what I’m afraid of. We going to end up with only robotic exploration of Mars…

:frowning:

This is a bad thing? Robotic probes have a vastly greater useful data return for the money spent.

Oh, I know. It’s because robots won’t find the alien ruins, right?

No, it’s because people tromping around on another planet have a Coolness factor that robotic probes can never match. During and after Apollo, people would say “We walked on the moon”. During and after Viking and Sojourner, people only said, “We landed some robots on Mars.” It just ain’t the same.

But with the cash invested into robotic exploration, instead, then we would have much better exploration of Mars, comets, asteroids, Europa, Saturn…

One day technology will be much different, and manned space exploration will be feasible. I don’t mind if it doesn’t happen in my lifetime.

Re: a rescue mission

If I remember my Space Exploration course correctly, the shuttle doesn’t launch into perpetual orbit, nor does it carry the fuel to attain such an orbit. I don’t know how long it can typically stay up (anyone want to help with that?), but we wouldn’t have all the time in the world to get the astronauts before its orbit degraded and it re-entered the atmosphere . . . even if we had good reason to think that a rescue mission was necessary.

I dont’ know for certain, but I suspect the shuttle will stay in orbit for months or years before its orbit naturally decays on its own.

The hard limit on how long the shuttle could stay up is its carbon dioxide scrubbing capacity. The shuttle carries enough carbon dioxide scrubbing canisters to loas a crew of 7 about 20 days. After that, the carbon dioxide builds up and kills everyone. And, unlike water or power, there’s no way to ration carbon dioxide scrubber capacity.

Unless they could make the astronauts breathe less. Maybe give ‘em a metabolism slow-down pill or somethin’.

How unfortunate… I’m forced to agree with FranticMad.

You’re still wrong about GIT, but you’re absolutely correct about robotic space exploration. Using the same amount of resources, we could increase our payoff by several orders of magnitude if we scrapped the astronaut program and concentrated on probes.

The public won’t buy it. “No Buck Rogers, no bucks.”

Robotic exploration of the planets is seen by the public as a prelude to manned space exploration. If there is no manned space program, John Q won’t see the sense in spending millions to have robots just take pictures to fill encyclopedias.