Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE
Diana L. Syriac
I'd recommend it as excellent reading for anyone who's interested in Space
Tourism.
Among other things, it has an article describing the "Ultimate Vacation", plus
lists all of the various "Space-on-Earth" camps available in the US, plus lists
all the organizations (including address)which have taken an active interest in
promoting future space tourism. There's an article on Artificial Gravity being
studied here in Massachusetts; there's a large article on the International
Space University, started at MIT (but worldwide) a couple of years ago; another
article on Spaceplanes.
And on top of all that, they still have room to describe the STS-29 shuttle
mission file and the new STS-30 Magellan project. Plus, there's a "phone in
your vote" poll on Citizen's in Space. Phone is 1-900-786-3663 ($1.25 per
phone call, touch tone phones only), and question is:
"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
This is definitely a collector's items when it comes to space magazines.
Back issues (and subscriptions) can be ordered thru:
Final Frontier
PO Box 20089
Minneapolis, MN 55420
Subscription is $14.95 for one year (6 issues), back issues are "$5.00 for
each issue plus $2.50 postage and handling". You can also use a credit card
by phoning 612-884-6420.
I have no affiliation whatsoever with Final Frontier, I'm just an interested
reader.
-> Diana L. Syriac <-
->USmail: GenRad Inc., Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass. 01742 <-
->usenet: {decvax,linus,mit-eddie,masscomp}!d...@genrad.com <-
->tel: (508) 369-4400 x2459 I'D RATHER BE FLYING!!! <-
Matthew DeLuca
>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
No.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca :
Georgia Institute of Technology : [This space for rent]
ARPA: cco...@hydra.gatech.edu :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luwenth the Lewd
>In article <20...@genrad.UUCP> d...@genrad.com (Diana L. Syriac) writes:
>
>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>
>No.
>
yes.
Ricky
--
We, the unwilling, | Ricky Connell
led by the unknowing, are | rlc4...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
attempting the impossible, | NOTES...@uordbv.cc.rochester.edu (Bitnet)
for the ungreatful. | ri...@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Matthew DeLuca
>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>>>
>>>
>> Why do you say this? I think the answer is most definitely
>> yes.
>
>
>There. Now we've heard all the possible answers. Anyone care to give some
>REASONS for their pet position?
>
I said 'no' for much the same reason Bob did; with all the budgetary problems
NASA and the federal government are having, I cannot see spending a couple
of million dollars in training plus whatever 'cost' there is in lofting the
extra 160 pounds to orbit. There's been muted chuckling at the Soviets in the
past on their 'guest cosmonaut' program, sending up some chap from Angola or
someplace for three days to float about, to 'improve relations' with that
country on the ground. I see much the same thing here, except NASA is trying
to improve its image with the people of its own country. Recently, the
Russians sent up a French 'guest'; this is fine, since (I think) there
was a serious French experiment on board. But our doing the same with a
schoolteacher just doesn't wash with me.
Bob Myers
>>
>>
> Why do you say this? I think the answer is most definitely
> yes.
Well, maybe.
There. Now we've heard all the possible answers. Anyone care to give some
REASONS for their pet position?
Personally, I'd give a qualified "no." At present, a seat on the shuttle
is simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
most certainly do NOT have at present). As much as I'd LIKE to see (and BE)
an "ordinary citizen" flying in the Shuttle, there's simply no argument I
can make for spending zillions to put him/her/me there.
Some may argue that such a program hads "publicity value", that it puts
the "common man" in touch with the space program. Well, NASA could spend
a *little* money on some publicity for the astronauts and mission specialists
who NEED to be there; after all, they're not supermen/women. The Original
Seven ("The Sacred Seven") were promoted as national heroes. The current
crop of astronauts are faceless technicians as far as the general public is
concerned, yet it's still their butts on the line - and piloting the Shuttle
strikes me as a much more demanding task than riding a can up and down.
Not to belittle the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts - they were, after all,
riding that can into the Great Unghknown - but this still isn't a commuter
flight!
Bob Myers KC0EW HP Graphics Tech. Div.| Opinions expressed here are not
Ft. Collins, Colorado | those of my employer or any other
{the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers | sentient life-form on this planet.
gj...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
citizens on the shuttle?"
Matthew DeLuca says: No.
Rick Connell says: "Why do you say this? I think the answer is most
definitely yes.
Now for my two cents worth. (BTW I goofed and forgot to include Matt's
article where he describes his reasons.) I am in the ROTC at Cornell and
one of the things they stress here is our professionallism. I was appaled
at the Challenger incident. First because it happened at all but more
importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the
government. I am sorry but that is wrong. I am going to make a pledge to
defend our constitution. That pledge implies that I am willing to die for
my country, in fact I expect that if there is a war I most likely going to
die. (Us pilot types have an annoying tendency to attract a hell of a lot af
attention) The fact that the families of the officers, sworn to the country
sued shows that there is no way that there is no way we should put (pardon
me) normal citizens into space. Not yet. All of Matt's arguements about
cost of seats, training etc. hold as well.
--
| Andrew D. Williams| gj...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
|-------------------| gj...@cornella.BITNET
------- |Disclaimer : -------------------------------
/ ___ \ Happy | You are one of the twenty or so people in this
/ (O) \ Mutants | who actually even consider this to be other than
( ) For | fanatic drivel. God forbid that Cornell or the
\ )---( / Nuclear | Air Force consider this their own.
\ / Energy |--------------------------------------------------
------- | Einstein had shitty grades too!!
Henry Spencer
>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
offered as an argument against private citizens in space. Of course it's
not safe; so what? Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens? This argument
appears totally bogus.
--
Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Ralf....@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
}Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
}the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
}offered as an argument against private citizens in space. Of course it's
}not safe; so what? Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
}How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
}but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens? This argument
}appears totally bogus.
Especially in view of the fact that very few of the other "teacher in space"
candidates withdrew after Challenger.
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ra...@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
Disclaimer? I claimed something?
You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.
H Keith Henson
Andrew D. Williams| gj...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu responding to earlier posts:
Now for my two cents worth. (BTW I goofed and forgot to include Matt's
article where he describes his reasons.) I am in the ROTC at Cornell and
one of the things they stress here is our professionallism. I was appaled
at the Challenger incident. First because it happened at all but more
importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the
-----------
While I agree that there is a certain amount of reason to your arguments,
the fact that NASA management over ruled engineers who were pleading for
them to wait for warmer weather takes the Challenger out of the "accident"
category, and I think opened the door to a suit. Keith Henson
Wayne D. T. Johnson
>
>is simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
>most certainly do NOT have at present). As much as I'd LIKE to see (and BE)
>an "ordinary citizen" flying in the Shuttle, there's simply no argument I
>can make for spending zillions to put him/her/me there.
>
When you are counting the cost of putting a person into space, you can not
count the costs that would be incured anyway. For example, there is a certain
depreciation cost for the use of the SSME and SRB motors, they only last for
just so many launches, the depreciation would be the cost to develop and build
the engine / number of expected uses. These costs are fixed overhead, and
(by standard accounting practices) not included in the costs used to make the
decision on if the person should fly or not. Since your going to launch
anyway, this extra person is just a leveraged benefit.
Of course there are real costs to putting this extra person into space. The
cost of extra fuel, extra food, water, toilet paper... Does anyone know
the cost of these things? It can't be too high with the price that NASA
charges on some of its "getaway specials". Of course the cost of life
insurance may be a little overwhelming.
Disclaimer: I'm afraid I haven't priced liquid oxygen lately.
--
Wayne Johnson (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc. (E-MAIL) W.Jo...@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113 joh...@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.
--
Wayne Johnson (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc. (E-MAIL) W.Jo...@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113 joh...@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.
Steve Willner
> I was appaled at the Challenger incident. First because it
> happened at all but more importantly at the fact that the family of
> families of the officers, sworn to the country sued shows that
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Christa McAuliffe's
family has sued over the Challenger accident. Doesn't this imply
that _only_ "normal citizens" should fly in space?
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa
60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: wil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Jim Meritt
}In article <1163...@hpfcdj.HP.COM> my...@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
}>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
}>...simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
}>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
}>most certainly do NOT have at present)...
}
}Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
}the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
}offered as an argument against private citizens in space. Of course it's
}not safe; so what? Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
}How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
}but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens? This argument
}appears totally bogus.
I am inclined to believe that those flying understood the risks.
I am also inclined to believe (based upon court cases) that those left
behind do not.
Until they both do, can it.
The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.
car...@s.cs.uiuc.edu
/* Written 4:56 pm May 6, 1989 by he...@utzoo.uucp in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
offered as an argument against private citizens in space. Of course it's
not safe; so what? Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
Ah, but the question is did the *public* (who influence the government
that pays for such things) know that? IMHO McAuliffe would probably have
been very disappointed that the accident did as much damage to the space
program as it did. The public (for reasons I don't profess to understand)
seems to accept the deaths of "professionals" doing dangerous things much
more than "amueters" - r.e., when a test plane crashes and the _professional_
test pilot is killed, there is no large outcry. Put a private citizen on
a B-1 and have a fatal crash, and watch the plane testing program shut
down. And of course, it is far easier in this country to win a lawsuit which
the surviving relatives are guaranteed to file if the "victim" wasn't
a "professional". I personally believe in individual responsibility, but
that's unusual these days in the U.S. of A.
Alan M. Carroll "And there you are
car...@s.cs.uiuc.edu Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll
Tom Neff
my goat. First, neither McAuliffe nor anyone else on the crew knew
what Roger Boisjoly and company at Thiokol knew, which was that O ring
burn through was a tragedy waiting to happen. A fix was in the works
but NASA management was too scared of falling further behind schedule
(and Thiokol too scared of losing its contract) to play it safe till
the fix arrived. Roll tape:
"MY GOD, THIOKOL, WHEN DO YOU WANT ME TO LAUNCH,
NEXT APRIL?" -- Larry Mulloy, NASA, Jan '86
It is one thing to say that the Challenger flight crew, like all
astronauts, knew there were risks. It is another to realize that
RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE KNEW OF THE O-RING PROBLEM. The bravery of the
crew was bravery betrayed.
Secondly, even if McAuliffe had personally known the risks, America's
schoolchildren did not -- and they, not Christa, were the point of
Teacher-In-Space. The glib curriculum handouts carried no footnotes of
the form "NOTE TO TEACHER: They may all blow up. If so, turn to page
38." The astronauts-to-be of my generation watched John Glenn and Neil
Armstrong and knew where their future lay. The future astronauts of
2006 have been handed the most exquisitely crushing aversion therapy
anyone could devise. We'll see how they feel (and vote) later on.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
"Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tn...@bfmny0.UU.NET
Mike Van Pelt
>While I agree that there is a certain amount of reason to your arguments,
>the fact that NASA management over ruled engineers who were pleading for
>them to wait for warmer weather takes the Challenger out of the "accident"
>category, and I think opened the door to a suit. Keith Henson
Point of fact: The management in question, which overruled the
engineers, was Moron Fireball management, not NASA. In phone
conference with NASA, the engineers said no-go, the MT management said
"Hold just a minute", put the speakerphone on hold, chased all the
engineers out of the room, then got back on the line and said
"Everything is fine."
True, maybe NASA should have smelled a rat. And there were other
places where NASA was to blame. But NASA did not have the information
that the engineers opposed the launch.
--
"I hate trolls. Maybe I could metamorph it into | Mike Van Pelt
something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed, | Video 7
fire-breathing dragon." -- Willow. | ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
Scott Gibson
>one of the things they stress here is our professionallism. I was appaled
>at the Challenger incident. First because it happened at all but more
>importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the
>government. I am sorry but that is wrong. I am going to make a pledge to
I, too, was appalled and astounded that anyone could be surprised that
space flight is *dangerous*.
>attention) The fact that the families of the officers, sworn to the country
>sued shows that there is no way that there is no way we should put (pardon
>me) normal citizens into space. Not yet. All of Matt's arguements about
The fact that lawsuits are possible is certainly a concern; however, I
don't follow your argument. You state that because families of MILITARY
OFFICERS sued, then CIVILIANS should be prohibitted from space. It
would seem that military family attitudes have changed dramatically
since the days of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo - they now more closely match
those of their civilian counterparts (remember that civilian test pilots
were included in the original space program).
It seems clear that what is needed is an understanding on everybodies'
part that the space program is a dangerous undertaking, regardless
of whether it's NASA or a private enterprise, or who (if anyone) is
participating. And to (hopefully) hold off the proponents of unmanned
space exploration: *Everyone* should be able to see that the goal
of even the unmanned program is to eventually put people (military/
civilian) in space.
I applaud your sentiments regarding the lawsuits. I personally feel
that if NASA had asked for more volunteers for a launch the day after
the Challenger incident, they would have had no problem filling
shuttle seats with enthusiastic space travellers.
Scott
H Keith Henson
engineers who said no launch were overruled by their mangements, not NASA.
So, sue Morton Fireball (which I think they did.) Keith Henson
Bob Myers
>count the costs that would be incured anyway. For example, there is a certain
>depreciation cost for the use of the SSME and SRB motors, they only last for
>just so many launches, the depreciation would be the cost to develop and build
>the engine / number of expected uses. These costs are fixed overhead, and
>(by standard accounting practices) not included in the costs used to make the
>decision on if the person should fly or not. Since your going to launch
>anyway, this extra person is just a leveraged benefit.
Certainly; now justify the decision to send an "ordinary citizen" in place
of an additional mission specialist (or someone else who could really do some
good in that seat), or conversely, extending the mission by the appropriate
amount based on the savings in consumables obtained by NOT sending that Nth
person. Or the value of sending up an additional 80 kg. or so of payload.
In addition, there WILL be additional costs (beyond consumables) in sending
the "ordinary citizen" into space. We can expect to incur the cost of
training, outfitting, etc., not to mention whatever liability coverage is
deemed appropriate (legal waivers signed by the volunteer notwithstanding).
These will not be insiginificant, and would be much better spent elsewhere as
opposed to providing a "joy ride."
Bob Myers
>>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
>>most certainly do NOT have at present)...
>Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
>the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
>offered as an argument against private citizens in space. Of course it's
>not safe; so what? Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
I should reiterate that the "safety argument" is NOT my basic objection to the
"ordinary citizen in space". My objection is solely due to a belief that such
flights cannot be justified either in monetary cost or in the terms of putting
the "ordinary citizen" in space instead of a more qualified specialist (and
THAT really boils down to monetary cost, anyway!).
However, many of those who are lined up for the chance to get in to space
have all the appearances of kids itching for that first spin in the car
without Dad in the right seat. They're the "joy riders", who have no
reason or justification at all for *why* they should go to space, they just
wanna "do it." In their cases, we should wait until United Airlines is
offering children's discounts on orbital trips. This is NOT a blanket
condemnation of those who want to travel to space; as mentioned in my original
posting, I would definitely love the opportunity, but cannot presently
give any justification for my travelling to orbit. I admit that I'd be a
"joy rider" myself - but I also voluntarily take myself out of the line for
that very reason.
Bob Myers | "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the
{the known universe} | will to find out, which is the exact opposite."
!hplabs!hpfcla!myers | - Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928.
Richard Katz
-taught about the various aborts that were possible; abort on pad (get the
-hell out of the shuttle...), RTLS, AOA, ATO...you get the picture. Somehow,
-I think she got the picture that things *could* go wrong. I feel sure she
-knew the risks and was willing to accept them.
-On the contrary, I think shuttle crew probably know better than anyone, what
-risks they are taking. ...
-Is that really important? I wonder if good old Chris Colombus got any
-estimates of his chances of success before he charged off? At some
-point in life, people have to take responsibility for their actions. She
-CERTAINLY had enough information available to her to make a decision. Can
-you imagine a test pilot's family suing the government because he wasn't
-shown a metallurgical report about a rivet contained in his airplane that
-caused a catastrophic failure? ...
- ... They may not know ALL of the risks, no one EVER does, but
-they do know that what they are doing is dangerous, and THEY have made the
-decision (not their lawyers).
If it was known that there was a problem with the rivet, and
that fact was concealed from the pilot/commander of the
aircraft for political gain, I see nothing wrong with seeking
compensation. This is not a risk taken by a pilot testing an
aircraft. It would be a risk taken by the "manager." The
gain would be "meeting schedule," and the cost would be the
pilot's life. The parallel to the challenger is clear.
Manager's made the decision about the risk, not the
astronauts.
I think that the above opinions are confusing two issues, so
I'll add my two cents. The manned space program, and the
shuttle program in particular, has rules governing the design,
test, operation, certification, etc. for the entire program.
Indeed, this is one factor that makes manned space flight very
expensive.
Even with the best of engineering and diligence on the part of
all personnel, there is the risk of an _accident_ as a result
of the unforseen or mistake. It happens. If this was indeed
the case, then I agree, there would be no basis for lawsuits,
etc. Test pilots take these risks as well as astronauts. It
is part of the job.
However, the Challenger disaster was not an accident. There
were many things wrong. First, the SRB's were not qualified
to the shuttle system's design temperature. Maybe someone out
there could state how this "fell through the cracks." Flight
hardware should be designed and tested to assure that it meets
the operational requirements with margin. Arguing about it
the night before a launch is ludicrous. I doubt that the
shuttle astronauts and passengers were aware that the SRBs
were not qualified.
Second, there was a known (to some) problem with the SRBs.
The astronauts were unaware of this, too. Also, flying with
this problem required a waiver. Signing the waiver allowed
the launch to be attempted. So again, the assumptions about
the risks were not valid. The shuttle didn't meet the
"advertised requirements."
If the crew was aware of all the signed waivers, then ok, it
was a concious decision to take the risks. If not, then their
families actions are justified, the courts can decide the
issue according to law, and hopefully this will cause people
to think about "breaking the rules" for political gain.
rich katz
hewlett packard
p o box 7050
colorado springs, co
80933-7050
email: r...@hpctdlb.hp.com
kevin w. holroyd
stuff deleted
| If it was known that there was a problem with the rivet, and
| that fact was concealed from the pilot/commander of the
| aircraft for political gain, I see nothing wrong with seeking
| compensation.
| I think that the above opinions are confusing two issues, so
| I'll add my two cents. The manned space program, and the
| shuttle program in particular, has rules governing the design,
| test, operation, certification, etc.
|
| However, the Challenger disaster was not an accident. There
| were many things wrong.
| shuttle astronauts and passengers were aware that the SRBs
| were not qualified.
|
Second, there was a known (to some) problem with the SRBs.
| The astronauts were unaware of this, too. Also, flying with
| this problem required a waiver. Signing the waiver allowed
| the launch to be attempted.
| If the crew was aware of all the signed waivers, then ok, it
| was a concious decision to take the risks. If not, then their
| families actions are justified, the courts can decide the
| issue according to law, and hopefully this will cause people
| to think about "breaking the rules" for political gain.
|
| rich katz
| hewlett packard
| p o box 7050
| colorado springs, co
| 80933-7050
|
First of all my point about Chris Colombus was that in todays society,
that trip would have never come off. We have developed a legal system
that attempts to make life risk free, or allows you take take risks only
if you know ALL the facts. My point there, was that being HUMAN, it is
impossible to know all the ramnifications and risks involved in any large
program. My third point is that the same type of people who write the
laws (Congress...many of whom are lawyers) are the same type of people
who interpret the laws in court (lawyers again) to be judged by the same
type of person again (Judges aka former lawyers). These people all receive
monetary gain, in fact, their livlihood depends on these "rules". I hardly
think any lawyer is unbiased when it comes to a large damage suit that he
is charging (20%? 50%?) of recovered damages for. The sad thing is that
society believes this is their just due from life. What guarentees has life
ever given?
Robert Heinlein had the right idea in several of his books regarding lawyers.
As for me, (a pilot, flight instructor and an engineer) I'm
not expecting any absolute guarentees about the things I do. When I go up
in a plane, I take the risk; not my lawyer. Let the ones who are willing to
take the risks reach for the skies, the rest of you can stay on the ground
and argue about the legal aspects.
--
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd *
CFI Aspen Flying Club * Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO. *
*******************************************************************************
Henry Spencer
>... if NASA had asked for more volunteers for a launch the day after
>the Challenger incident, they would have had no problem filling
>shuttle seats with enthusiastic space travellers.
They'd have had no problem filling them with astronauts, for that matter,
if the mission was urgent. Despite some official public claims otherwise,
there was no shortage of astronauts who were willing to take their chances
if there was a good reason. (Say, getting Galileo off to Jupiter on time.)
James Symon
> In article <18...@cup.portal.com> hkhe...@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes:
>
> Point of fact: The management in question, which overruled the
> engineers, was Moron Fireball management, not NASA.
Point of what?
"MY GOD, THIOKOL, WHEN DO YOU WANT ME TO LAUNCH,
NEXT APRIL?" -- Larry Mulloy, NASA, Jan '86
Mulloy knew what was going on and pressured MT management. Both are
guilty and not just for "smelling" the rat.
I agree that the Challenger crew knew the risks. I don't think it
follows that if the crew had heard what the MT engineers had to say
the crew would have said "Let's go today."
jim
sy...@cs.unc.edu
{decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon
(Thanks to Tom Neff for the quote which I was only going to
paraphrase)
car...@s.cs.uiuc.edu
Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the
engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity
and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers
promoted.
Derek Lee-Wo
>defend our constitution. That pledge implies that I am willing to die for
>my country, in fact I expect that if there is a war I most likely going to
>die. (Us pilot types have an annoying tendency to attract a hell of a lot af
>attention) The fact that the families of the officers, sworn to the country
>sued shows that there is no way that there is no way we should put (pardon
>me) normal citizens into space. Not yet.
I dis-agree with you. To begin with, no one is forcing a normal citizen into
space. If the US government asked me to go on the shuttle, I'll go. I
know what the risks are. I know that there is a chance I may be killed, but
I'd still go.
I could understand not sending citizens into space due to the cost. All you
readers out there opposed to sending citizens into space, suppose the cost
was trivial, but the risk was still the same, would you still be against
sending ordinary people into space??
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Derek Lee-Wo (Co-op), Health Systems International, New Haven, CT 06511. |
|E-mail address :- de...@hsi.com ...!yale!hsi!derek |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Henry Spencer
> Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the
>engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity
>and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers
>promoted.
Pretty much so. A few of the managers retired a little early on fat
pensions. And NASA got billions to fix the problems, and passed on a
fair bit of it to Morton Thiokol. M-T also had its monopoly on shuttle
boosters extended for several years.
Killing astronauts is good for business.
Dave Spain
>In article <2181...@s.cs.uiuc.edu> car...@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>> Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the
>>engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity
>>and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers
>>promoted.
>
>Pretty much so. A few of the managers retired a little early on fat
>pensions. And NASA got billions to fix the problems, and passed on a
>fair bit of it to Morton Thiokol. M-T also had its monopoly on shuttle
>boosters extended for several years.
>
>Killing astronauts is good for business.
I can't quite let this go by without a few comments:
1) ...and passed on a fair bit of it to Morton Thiokol.
Of course, who else would fix it? The fact that M-T is currently a sole-source
supplier seems to me to be the crux of the matter. Since it seems that only
the US government can afford "man-in-space", this leads to government
contracted business which in aero-space often leads to sole-source contracts.
Especially for space projects. If there had been an SSME Crit 1 instead of a
solid we would be saying the same thing about Rocketdyne. Does this make it
right? No, but what alternatives do we have? Shut down the program?
I'd LOVE to see multiple suppliers for Shuttle hardware. Unfortunately,
getting Congress to foot the excess up front $$ is a whole different matter.
Obviously, NASA is going to try to make do with whatever it gets, and the
contractors know this.
2) M-T also had its monopoly on shuttle boosters extended for several years.
I'm not so sure "extended" is the right word here. Probably "neglected"
is better. Congress seems in no rush to pay for having NASA go out and bid
replacements.
I believe Aerojet has been contracted to build the upgraded SRB, and when
we become dependent on it and it fails and if M-T is no-longer in the SRB
business, who do you think is going to get the $$ to fix it?
Even if the government put clauses into its contracts that would require
sole contractors to pay the entire cost of fixes, (and get them to agree to
it) its not clear it would work. If the fix were too costly the contractor
would just go belly-up and leave the whole mess back with Uncle Sam.
Bottom line, this is a seller's market...
As an aside: What about criminal sanctions against the managers?
Here come the lawyers. Contractors WILL prepare themselves for this.
Contracts will be adjusted to minimize any liability, which will have to be
rigorously defined, not to mention intent, etc. etc. Those in government
service will now have more than just economic reasons to look elsewhere for
employment. Face it, this approch would not have and will not work.
(Oh, it might, if ALL you want to get from your contractors are NO-LAUNCH
recommendations...) Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse on this issue...
3) Killing astronauts is good business.
I think a more accurate concluding statement would be:
"Killing astronauts is irrelavent to business..."
Particularly when its business-as-usual...
Disclaimer: These are my personal opinions, which from an intellectual
standpoint, are more like liabilities than property.
Henry Spencer
>United Airlines would be offering LEO as a tourist attraction, and you'd just
>be faced with a stack of liability waivers to sign before you got aboard.
It's not that simple any more, in the US in particular. Getting sworn
statements from your passengers that they understand the risks and are
taking them voluntarily will *not* protect you from the lawyers if
something -- anything -- goes wrong. It may provide useful ammunition
for the enormously-expensive court battle, but it won't avert it.
--
Subversion, n: a superset | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset. --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Bob Myers
>readers out there opposed to sending citizens into space, suppose the cost
>was trivial, but the risk was still the same, would you still be against
>sending ordinary people into space??
An interesting question, but perhaps an irrelevant one. The question is
basically "Should the U. S. Government (in the form of NASA) revive its
program to send ordinary citizens into space?" If the costs were trivial,
United Airlines would be offering LEO as a tourist attraction, and you'd just
be faced with a stack of liability waivers to sign before you got aboard.
Who remembers 8USER.PAR?
I just took a 1 day "class" in Risk Management - The Guaranteed Success.
Basically, Americans have become so complacent that we, as a whole, are
unwilling to take even slight risks. Why else are CDs so popular, even
though I make twice as much with mutual funds and 100% returns on junk bonds?
Because the later involve some measure of risk.
In the case of the Challenger, the crew knew there was some measure of risk,
and choose to take it. Because they did not know all the risks does not
negate the fact that they knew there were risks. The families needed to
know that there were risks to be taken. The lawsuits were, IMHO, improperly
aimed. By concealing the flaws, M-T and NASA were quilty not of killing
anyone, but of preventing them from making a rational, informed decision.
This country was built on risk takers (my ancestors came over in the first
Jamestown boat), but now we are just a bunch of potatoes. I know Shakespear
had the right idea.
Oh yeah, ordinary civilians have no right being in space, but when does
an "ordinary" civilian become astronaut material? I'm a VAX/VMS internals
jock, but I am comfortable in an organic lab. Do I have "the right
stuff"? :-) (I'm from Texas, do I have "the Wright stuff" to get on?)
Dillon Pyron | The opinions are mine, the facts
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
py...@lvvax1.csc.ti.com |
(214)462-5449 | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
| We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
| and we still die.
Bob Myers
>>United Airlines would be offering LEO as a tourist attraction, and you'd just
>>be faced with a stack of liability waivers to sign before you got aboard.
>It's not that simple any more, in the US in particular. Getting sworn
>statements from your passengers that they understand the risks and are
>taking them voluntarily will *not* protect you from the lawyers if
>something -- anything -- goes wrong. It may provide useful ammunition
>for the enormously-expensive court battle, but it won't avert it.
Still irrelevant, Henry; I claim that if the costs were trivial, SOMEBODY
would be offering a "tourist ride"; the fact that this is not happening
means that we cannot yet ignore cost in the "ordinary citizen in space"
question, which was my original point.
Bob Myers | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but
{the known universe} | most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
!hplabs!hpfcla!myers | - Winston Churchill