Columbia Accident Investigation Board: Final Report

ssclift writes "After nearly 7 months the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has released its final report into the February 1st loss of the Shuttle Columbia and all 7 crew members. This is more than a technical assessment of the immediate causes of the accident. Once again, sadly, the world's flagship space agency gets a thorough and grim review. Press briefings will begin at 11:00 EDT along with a webcast."

Comments

The "Culture of NASA"????

[tha_mink]

I actually read that they are blaming this accident on the "Culture of NASA". Meaning, that if you were some small fry in the organization and you saw a problem with a process, you would be afraid to approach the 200 suits. Even though they stand there and say "Anyone have a problem with what we're doing?" "Our doors are always open.."

Sound familiar anyone?

Re:The "Culture of NASA"????

[the MaD HuNGaRIaN]

Where I work, the doors are always open...it's the ears that aren't.

I suspect it's the same situation at all large organizations.

You can lead a manager to an idea, but you can't make him/her think.

Re:The "Culture of NASA"????

[smittyoneeach]

More generally, there is a coefficient of organizational friction to overcome.
See Kuhn, (and I am not shilling for Bezos).
The only irony in all of this is the hidden assumption that propeller-head organizations differ somehow from private sector ones. Sorry, all: peeps is peeps.

Re:The "Culture of NASA"????

[L0C0loco]

First a disclaimer: I work for NASA.

The small fry is not afraid of 200 suits, just two or three in the level or two of management above them. There are many levels of management in NASA and it is likely that someone somewhere in that chain of management (I was going to call it command, but frequently the managers high up have insufficient command/knowledge of the topic they manage) will not want to pass bad news along. They'll either decide to report nothing or spin it into something less distasteful. Generally there are two concerns: Somebody goofed or We need more time/money to do it right. The latter is not acceptable since NASA has a fixed budget and congress is already unhappy about the growing cost over-runs in some programs. It all really boils down to too much to do with too little resources. Just look at the way things worked under the moon program or the way it works under the dark side of DOD where money was/is frequently no object. Nowadays, everybody underbids to get the contract and then tries to do what they can with the money (not necessarily what was promised). Yes, checks and balances would help a little a few years down the road once the short-comings are caught and exposed, but by then any last shred of confidence in NASA by the public will have evaporated.

Bottom line here is that you get what you pay for.
Congress and the voters have to decide what they want to do given realistic costs. The costs are frequently adjusted by managers trying to get the program to boost their self esteem or pay-grade with little regard as to what will happen to the likelhood of success. The underlings are all too eager to try and make do for similar motivations. Now toss in contracting functions out to the lowest bidder and you're really asking for trouble.

Sorry if this borders on being a rant for some.

Re:The "Culture of NASA"????

[DrMorpheus]

The visible difference being that most large organizations are not funded by the government, and do not strap men and women to tons of explosives and try to get them back without any danger to the astronauts or the people of Earth.

When or not a large organization is or is not funded by the government makes no difference whatsoever, market arguments notwithstanding.

The key is, children, it's a large organization. Being so it's relatively immune to external forces, or rather it's got internal resources to withstand any outside pressures to change. Again, this is true whether or not it's a government body or a corporate body. Local government bodies, like town councils are much, much more flexible than their equivalent in state or federal levels.

This holds true in private organizations too where small businesses, or ones with a thin layer of management are much more responsive/sensitive to outside pressures than are those from hugh behemeths like Microsoft, etc.

That same flexibility is also a weakness in that when a small organization has a good idea, government body or not, and faces a hostile environment it's not likely to succeed in implementing that idea relative to a larger organization so it's a trade off. Small and responsive, but also vulnerable and weak versus large and strong, but also insular and bullying.

Bottom line is, there's no single organizational structure that works in all circumstances for all times.

Re:The "Culture of NASA"????

[PW2]

I think your link needs to be added to every story about US in space

Re:The "Culture of NASA"????

[Anonymous Coward]

The visible difference being that most large organizations are not funded by the government, and do not strap men and women to tons of explosives and try to get them back without any danger to the astronauts or the people of Earth.

You mean like the airline industry stuffs hundreds of people into metal tubes and flys them from coast-to-coast accompanied by tons of volatile jet fuel many times per day?

At least they admit it...

[LordYUK]

"On Monday, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told CNN's Miles O'Brien that the agency missed signs of trouble that led to the accident.

"This was a case where we missed it. Just flat missed it," he said of the significance of the foam strike. "

At least they arent trying to cover it up. Now they can move forward, and hopefully we'll continue to explore space even more proficiently than before.

Who knows, maybe our grandkids (or their grandkids) will get to land on mars!

A rare opportunity

[TopShelf]

I wouldn't say that it's "sad" that NASA gets a thorough review. Quite the contrary, I think it's a rare opportunity to make the case that cost-cutting measures involve tradeoffs that have a significant impact on how an organization like NASA operates. What is sorely needed is a public champion to advocate for increased NASA funding, as part of a commitment to keep America at the forefront of technological leadership worldwide. Particularly as other countries are stepping up their space efforts, this is going to be a growing concern in the years ahead.

Not having followed the eeaaarrrrllly presidential campaigning, are there any strong proponents for NASA out there?

Re:A rare opportunity

[RevMike]

What is sorely needed is a public champion to advocate for increased NASA funding....

I don't think it is a budget issue, though. Throwing money at this sort of problem rarely solves anything. The problem is a cultural one.

Organisations frequently have an upward focus. Too many people concentrate on what their boss wants to hear, instead of what needs to be said. Everything is about satisfying one's boss by helping them satisfy their boss, by helping them satisfy their boss, ad nauseum. It is more important that things look right the most senior administrator than that they are right.

An organisation that depends on highly skilled highly professional people at relatively low levels needs to have a downward focus. The most senior people need to focus on how they can help their direct reports do their job, and those people need to focus on helping their direct reports do their jobs, ad nauseum. In the end, this type of culture helps the engineers and technicians actually do their job.

The US military went through this kind of transition in the early 1980s. More and more command and control was moved lower and lower in the hierarchy. Tactics were left to the people on the scene. The senior personnel focused on strategy and logistics, coordinating and supplying, which enable the local personnel to do their jobs effectively. Taking out a machine gun nest is a job for a sargeant or lutenant on the scene - not a general in Washington.

Re:A rare opportunity

[ImpTech]

I dunno... seems to me if you wanted to make sure the US was the leader in space technology, the first thing you'd do is tell NASA and their funding to promptly go to hell, or maybe make them into a regulatory agency. I mean c'mon... they've been pushing this whole "space shuttle" thing way too far. Smarter people than me will tell you it was an abortion of an idea to start with, and its STILL being used despite its exorbitant cost and inefficiency for most tasks. Some would say that if NASA had more funding they could build something better, but thats what they were supposed to be doing when they designed the shuttle in the first place. Seems to me there's no pressure on NASA to be practical or cost efficient, which is whats really needed.

Re:A rare opportunity

[Mr_Matt]

Seems to me there's no pressure on NASA to be practical or cost efficient, which is whats really needed.

Not only does this pressure exist, it has been listed as a contributory cause to both the Challenger and the Columbia accident. Chapter 5 and 6.2 of the CAIB final report goes into this in great detail.

"An Agency Trying To Do Too Much With Too Little" seems to sum up these sections. Keeping in mind that NASA's budget varies between one-half and one percent of the national budget, that's not to far afield. By way of comparison, NASA's budget is comparable to what the U.S. spends on food stamps. We spend ~30 times as much money on Social Security as we do on the entirity of NASA, with much, much higher expectations on safety and mission success. Don't even get me started on the ratio of DoD funding to NASA's. :)

Seems to me there's too much pressure on NASA to be practical and cost efficient given the dearth of resources we give them. Frankly, it's a miracle we fly in space at all.

Summary:

[RealityProphet]

"A terrible accident occured. It's nobody's fault, really. These things happen. We'll try to be more careful in the future. But, spaceflight is risky business, we can't make any guarantees."

Re:Summary:

[applemasker]

What I find most distressing is how the mission managers and program managers have all run for cover. There are people to blame, starting with the folks who never followed up on the previous foam issues; the managers who squelched engineers requests for imagery; and the mission team who met a handful of times during the flight (even though the regs require daily meetings) and never thought of what might happen if the foam had hit the RCC. Come on, it IS rocket science guys.

So, what they're saying is...

[gowen]

What they're saying is that

for a successful technology, reality must take precedence to public relations, for nature can not be fooled.

Well, surprise, surprise. Thats what Richard Feynman said is his minority report on the Challenger accident.

Plus ca change...

Re:Failure is not an Option?

[The Original Yama]

I don't blame them. Since the end of the space race with the USSR, NASA funding has been continually eroded over time. Understandably, NASA personnel have become more conservative and focused on keeping their jobs rather than taking risks. NASA isn't the problem, it's politics that's retarding their progress.

Feynman said exactly this 16 years ago

[Alrocket]

I don't seriously believe that the culture of NASA will change as a result of this report. Feynman noticed all of these issues and made sure that he met the engineers alone, without any management, when he needed to find out the real answers.

It didn't change since then, it's not going to change now.

Managed by accountants rather than engineers

[hughk]

In an engineering led process any engineer has the right to say "stop, I believe we have a problem". The problem may be proved to be non-existant, but someone must address it and escalate it.

Regrettably, many organisations insist that you be "Part of the solution" not "Part of the problem" (I think this was an AC buzz-phrase). This meant that unless you could deliver a problem with a solution, you were associated with failure. At the bottom engineers may gripe but unless the PHBs supervsing them help the problems be escalated, nothing will happen.

In the end if we want public money spent responsibly, then projects have to be managed and accountants must count the beans. However, engineering must have a voice that is equal to that of the manager and the accountant. It is right that an experimental program takes risks, but they must be informed.

Lastly, the space program has provided some very good examples of the managed delivery of quality projects. With Columbia and Challenger we have two major counter-examples. It is both useful and a good memorial to those who died if everyone, both inside and outside NASA learned from this.

Re:Failure is not an Option?

[stratjakt]

I realized how much different NASA is today. They have no fire in their belly, seems like they're more interested in keeping their jobs than anything

You know this how? You work at NASA? You were in mission control when Columbia went up?

About the only thing that's changed is that there's a no smoking rule. I live only a stones throw away from Gottard, and know dozens of people at various levels within NASA.

They are all extremely passionate about their work, and they all took Columbia very, very personally.

Dont make overly broad statements about a group of people you know absolutely nothing about.

what about the oceans?

[justforaday]

for all the good NASA/space exploration has done for us, i have always believed that we need to focus at least the same amount of resources on exploring the ocean. i'm more than certain that there will be some significant gains in doing so...

NASA is no longer a flagship

[Mahrin Skel]

NASA hasn't been the leader in space technology for a long time. They spend too much, accomplish too little, and paradoxically they make it *too* safe. If we were throwing up a launch every other day, and losing a bird a year, we'd get used to it. Astronaut would be just another dangerous profession, like "test pilot", "commercial fisherman", or "underground coal miner".

But because we've lost only 3 crews, and spend over a billion on every launch trying to bring it to zero (and therefore don't get a lot of launches), people are able to delude themselves into thinking that space travel should be safe. So when we do have a problem, everyone looks for someone to blame, NASA writes a few more books of safety procedures, launches get more expensive and less frequent.

You know why we lost the Columbia? Because NASA regulations didn't allow anyone to go out and look at the damned wing in orbit without specific orders. If the astronauts weren't treated as remote voice-controlled drones by the ground crews, and the shuttle commander had the responsibility and authority that goes with that title in any other field, somebody would have put on a suit and taken a look. But an EVA requires the input of hundreds of desk jockeys, and an "emergency" EVA requires authorization from the agency director. What kind of bullshit way to run a railroad is that?

Disband NASA, turn over civilian spaceflight regulation to the FAA (after first burning every regulation NASA ever wrote), turn the shuttle over to the Air Force and unmanned launches over to the civilian companies that really run them already. Otherwise, get used to the idea that the good old USA is no longer a space-faring nation, and other countries with the stomach for it are going to take the lead.

--Dave

Re:NASA is no longer a flagship

[Mahrin Skel]

Airlines fly planes with a safety record that exceeds that of automobiles. Hundreds of nuclear facilities have operated for decades with only 3 significant accidents, the only one of which that had an effect outside the facility (and that one would never have happened under the regulations the rest of the industry operated under). Thousands of chemical plants and refineries operate with an acceptable safety record.

Fine, there was no MMU. Why? Wrong question, there was no MMU because after studying it to death NASA decided there didn't need to be an MMU, and it wasn't safe to make the inspection by going out on a tether. NASA's current culture is that if you plan well enough, anticipate thouroughly enough, you can make space flight safe through sheer force of brainpower. Their reaction to *this* is going to be to study the problems more, implement more safety regulations, slow down the launch schedule more, increase the cost of each launch.

Here's a concept NASA doesn't culturally comprehend: Acceptable operating loss. At some point, the gains from additional safety measures exceed the value gained from taking those measures. Why does it cost a billion a shot to launch a vehicle that costs less than $100 million each to build? Because NASA studies every damned thing to death. Right now the failure rate of the shuttle is about 1 vehicle and crew every 50 launches. Let's say that throwing the regulations out the window and boosting them up as fast as we could would increase the failure rate to 1 in 25 missions, at a cost per launch of $100 million (including 4% amortization for the expected loss rate of the vehicles). We'd lose a couple of shuttles (and their crews) per year, get 10 times as many launches, and learn what we really need to know in order to build safer spacecraft. We'd also be able to constantly increment the quality of the designs and integrate new safety features, as we'd be building them all the freaking time.

In a few decades, we'd have systems that failed about as often as commercial aircraft, and the cost-per-pound to orbit would be a tiny fraction of what it is now. Pay astronauts high salaries to go with the high risk and you'll have no shortage of crew (like fishermen and deep coal miners, you think those guys do it for *fun*?).

But we don't have the balls, and NASA isn't going to get out of the way. The Chinese, or the Russians, or *somebody* who is willing to do what it takes is going to fulfill the dream. But it won't be us, not at this rate.

--Dave

Re:NASA is no longer a flagship

[introverted]

If there is a perceived life-and-death situation there are a lot of makeshift solutions people would try that you wouldn't consider acceptable under ordinary circumstances...

Ah. There's the rub. We have the advantage of looking back on the accident and saying, "Well, they should have done such and such and they'd be OK." Put yourself in the position of someone who doesn't know there's a gaping big hole where the foam hit. They only know two things. (A) A piece of foam hit the shuttle during the ascent. (B) In the past, pieces of foam have hit the shuttle without doing significant damage. Knowing what they knew then, there was no perception of a life-and-death threat.

Re:NASA is no longer a flagship

[lone_marauder]

Your first three paragraphs are brilliant. The fourth, when taken in context of my experience as a student pilot, is not.

The report has some nice pictures.

[Snags]

This document has some beautiful photos of Columbia and Challenger in it, especially at the beginning of each Part. These pics are add a nice memorial feel to the report, in addition to the let's-not-let-it-happen-again tone.

Re:Time to shrink NASA

[stratjakt]

Turn what over to private industry?

Theres nothing to turn over, private industry can just go ahead and launch stuff into space, and do, as they shroud our planet in satellites.

Thats like saying the Air Force should stop researching new airplane technology. Let private industry develop the SCRAM jet.

Private industry isnt interested - they're motivated by profit. There's no money to be made studying the effects of 0 G on lima beans.

NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Cleary, they are not saying that.

It's obvious the failure is due to the lack of communication in NASA. It's what the guy said up top:

Mgt: "Anyone see any problems with this flight before takeoff?"

Workers: *silent* too afraid to speak up.

Re:Time to shrink NASA

[geekoid]

whew, I guess that explains why there budget doesn't get cut all the time... hmmmm

Private industry can not take up the flag for space exploration until a cheaper way is found to get there. In order for that to happen there must be central agency that focuses on this, and the agency must get government funding.
Nasa needs to keep doing what it has been doing, and it needs to be able to explore other RnD efforts.

The only company the could do priovate space launch successfully would be microsoft, and even there 40+billion wouldn't ge them far.

Actually, it doesn't have to get cheaper, but it oes have to get profitable.

once private companies do start backing manned space exporation, we had be damn sure there is a controlling body for safty, and launches. I do not want the space equivilent of baby bells.

Starved for money and lacking direction

[fmaxwell]

NASA is no longer the pride of the nation as it was in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days. We no longer have a goal as we did after JFK's challenge to land a man on the moon. The budget at NASA has been cut over and over so that they now have far less purchasing power than they did decades ago -- despite the commitment to build the International Space Station. Starting with Reagan, NASA has increasingly been viewed as a way to orbit and service military payloads.

Want NASA to prosper?

1. Provide an inspiring goal. Choose one that average people can relate to. Landing men on Mars would be a good one.

2. Stop all use of NASA for military work. Pass legislation prohibiting NASA from military missions. It's demoralizing and tends to many of those who are excited by the exploration of space.

3. Fund NASA adequately. We've spent far more in IRAQ and Afghanistan than NASA has seen in recent years. Wouldn't you be more proud of your country if it put a man on Mars rather than bombing a third-world country?

4. Scrap the Space Shuttle. It's 1980's technology that was disappointing in its performance the day it was first launched. Even using NASA's own very low cost-per-flight figures in the 1980s, the cost to put a pound of payload into orbit on the shuttle was $6,000. That compares to an inflation-adjusted figure of only $3,800 for the Saturn V expendable launch vehicles that carried men to the moon.

NASA needs The Right Stuff in order to be something more than just another government bureaucracy.

Re:Lessons learned

[Urkki]

Hopefully something like this will never happen again.

Yes sure. But something like this inevitably will happen again. I just hope it won't deter us from continuing with manned space exploration. (There might be other reasons to have a pause in manned space exploration, but fear of loss of life should never be one.)

Reduced Engineering Staff at NASA and Contractors

[LoneStarGeek]

I am a former Software Developer for a NASA contractor. In 2000, I left this job due to inpending cuts by the agency. I saw many talented developers, engineers and scientists do the same thing. NASA seems to cut the budget like this about every 10 years (once a decade). They are attempting to shift a lot of the day to day operations over to contractors and alleviate the need for in-house staff to handle the load. Unfortunately, with a reduced technical staff and unapproachable executive style directors they have let launch safety slip on the Shuttle once again. I am sad at the loss of the astronauts onboard this doomed craft and pray for the famlies that have lost more than NASA can repay.

Time to get out the broom and clean the house.

Re:Reminds me a lot of Apollo 1 disaster

[i_really_dont_care]

Now I don't know anything about NASA, but I think with projects of this scale, project management is more difficult than one might think at first.

If you ever have participated in a bigger industry project you will have noticed that every specialist involved has a _lot_ of objections to how things currently are done. Yet, the optimum solution is often not feasible due to cost constraints. As a result, project managers constantly get a lot of emails in their inbox with people bitching around that this-or-that is not secure enough or that this-or-that should be built more stable or this-or-that software module should please use the Perl programming language. In such a scenario, shit happens, and warnings do get lost.

Private Space Exploration?

[Channard]

NASA does a great job building Mars rovers and such, let's keep them doing that. But we should turn everything else over to private industry.

'When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that will name everything: The Ibm stellarsphere, The Microsoft galaxy, Planet Starbucks.' - The Narrator, Fight Club

If we do let private industry get their paws on space exploration, whose to say that isn't the direction we'll be going?

Re:Lessons learned

[SpamJunkie]

Hopefully something like this will never happen again.

That's what we said last time. Spaceflight is a risky business and will be for a while.

Re:NASA seems to mean...

[stratjakt]

Private industry may do things cheaply and efficiently, but no way do I believe they will do it more safely. They'll adhere to whatever safety guidelines the government sets up.

They wont do anything that doesnt generate a profit. And safety in industry is directed by the legal department, a la "will this 'we are not responsible for blah blah..' disclaimer hold up in court?" This will be true so long as lawyers are cheaper than R&D.

I'd rather go to the moon with NASA than Amtrak or Delta, thanks.

Private industry leaves a 50 year old transmission grid unrepaired, leading to the largest blackout in US history. Private industry lets a 30 year old Concorde fly when its riddled with stress fractures.

Re:Time to shrink NASA

[gclef]

Wait, you're using the fact that a totally government-supported group (Russian space agency) will do something cheaper than a public-private consortium (shuttle) as evidence that the *private* sector does this better? Funny, your example seems to prove the exact opposite.

give the engineers/commanders some autonomy

[snooo53]

I would hope that NASA already operates like this, but the gist of what I'm getting is that mgmt. in NASA are "big picture" people and don't really understand how to effectively let the people who know what's going on and how to solve problems do the actual work. With something that complex, understandably you should have 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinions, but the engineers and commmanders need a little autonomy to do things like go on EVA's and bring to light any problems. Like you said Dave, they should be paid to do their jobs as part of a team, not as drones following orders.

From what I understand it seems like everyone is so wrapped up in procedure, that they're scared to bring up problems and/or deviate from that procedure. Just from working in an office or at home you know that you can't stop and micromanage every little thing without getting overwhelmed. And it's so easy to be afraid to bring a potential big problem to management when there's the possibility it isn't one. I think the solution is to give people more responsibility over their respective areas. Inform the desk jockeys/management what's going on, but give them a chance to do their jobs!! Let the MBA's there run the PR dept and leave the engineering to the Engineers, and the commanding to the Commanders.

We don't need more funds....

[nlinecomputers]

per se. We need a real goal! Putting men into space just to have them there is a great waste of money with little return. If we set our sights on Mars then we would have a workable goal. As it is now we just have a big pork barrel that we shove into space 6 times a year. What science was on that last shuttle mission that couldn't have been done on the space station?

No news

[EinsteinWasRight]

My family has had several of its members working for NASA for the past 30 years. We have seen NASA locked in the same vicious cycle for the past 7 presidents, it goes something like this:

1. Congress tells NASA to cut budget.

2. Congress says no Centers, no matter how useless can be closed.

3. Directors of centers give actual job of cutting budget to middle managers(Who haven't done any engineering in decades)

4. Middle managers vote to fire everybody but themselves(What a surprise!) that is fire all the engineers under them and farm out the actual engineering to contractors.

5. Make wild claims of success

6. Repeat after next election cycle.

This has been repeated now so many times that NASA doesnt do any actual engineering any more. Furthermore many of these MMs farm out even the writing of the specs!

It is the opposite of what private industry does which is to fire the MMs and keep the engineers(Flatten the organizational chart, keep the Indians fire the chiefs, etc.)

There are so many reasons why this is bad that I wont list them all here (the average Slashdot reader knows them anyway) but the most devastating effect is zero accumulation of organizational knowledge. Constructing space vehicles is very technique oriented; the devil is all in the details. That is the difference between success and failure may be knowing that the lubricating grease on the control moment gyro needs to be of a specific viscosity and quality. (Speaking hypothetically, no slur to ISS, really). Going outside of these parameters means that the CMG fails which means that the spacecraft cant change attitude which means that you have a 100 M dollar piece of junk.

This has been has been documented at NASA ad nauseum but the basic organizational structure prevents accumulation of knowledge. Which means that we pay to reengineer every time will build something.

Now add in ?Low bid always wins? and see what happens. An experienced contractor who has built spacecraft now knows that they have NASA over a barrel because they are the only ones who know how to build what they want. So they jack up the price. The bid then is won by the inexperienced contractor who now has to learn everything all over again. Repeat.

The solution? Do the same thing private industry does: Keep the Indians, fire the chiefs. Prevent the loss of organizational knowledge at all cost. Begin the slow process of knowledge accumulation so that eventually the price of space vehicle construction will come down.

Naaah, makes too much sense.

EWR

Re:No news

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

It is the opposite of what private industry does which is to fire the MMs and keep the engineers(Flatten the organizational chart, keep the Indians fire the chiefs, etc.)

I don't know what dreamworld you're living in, but most of the time in private industry it's the engineers who are fired when there's a budget cut, not the managers. I've been working for NASA for two years and my impression is that it's no worse at NASA - and potentially better: JPL just created a new fund specifically to pay the salaries of people who are too smart or too important to lose but don't currently have a good assignment at the lab. Clearly they're trying to retain as many of their best and brightest as possible.

I am NOT a rocket scientist

[the_flatlander]

IANARS, but... Can anyone imagine what airplanes would look like today if the early pioneers had had to answer to Congress? Does anyone have any idea how many of those innovators died? (I don't have the numbers, but it was a whole lot of them. From bad equipment, bad weather, bad technique, bad luck.) Early flight was new technology. It was very risky. And because of all those folks risking their necks, we now enjoy all the safety the airline industry possesses. Space flight, while it is not being carried out by individual crack-pots and geniuses, as early flight was, is still very risky, and very new. All the astronuats understand that, I am sure. We've flown all those missions; landed on the moon, all that, and we've lost 17 astronauts all told. I do not mean to trivialize it. (And I am certain that their families and friends miss them greatly.) But could we have a little perspecitve here? What did the U.S. lose on the highways yesterday? Probably about 80 people. In one day. (Figure about 30k people/year.) But no one is calling for Congessional Oversight of all the idiots that get drivers' licesnses. If you attempt to squeeze all the risk out of spaceflight you will almost ceertainly squeeze all the reward out as well. Get over it. Did we learn anything from this mistake? Did we learn anything from the mission _before_ the ship and valliant crew were lost? Then call it an expensive set of lessons and let's keep going. For the record, I LIKE "wasteful" spending on Manned spaceflight, it keeps money away from, for example, the other uses to which the military puts money. (Who needs "better" H-Bombs anyway?)

Re:I am NOT a rocket scientist

[sceptre1067]

Yes but...

Just like the last disaster this one was caused by ignoring a problem and then assuming the problem was normal operating procedure.

To explain... The o-ring issue (of burn through due to cold temps) had been observed serval times before (including when the boosters were tested.) But a full burn through never happend so it was assumed the o-rings were safe, then tragedy number one happened.

It has been observed numerous times that foam insulation would come off and hit the shuttle (this was admitted to early on.) But since the damgage caused was always minor, it was assumed that the situation was never really criticle. Yes, well determine damage after launch, but nobody ever said gosh should this be happening to begin with.

Both situations speak of engineers that are not, imo, taking enough responsibility. Hence a culture issue that has not changed since the last disaster.

To put a twist on it... a pressure seal on a 747 (I believe I'll have to double check) faild and people died. When the Boeing engineer who had designed it found it it was a design fault caused by him, he comitted suicide. Not that I believe engineers should commit seppuku when things go wrong, but... in NASA's case it may be the only thing that will get them to wake up and fix things.

Transportation fatalities

[Smallpond]

Here's the relevant figures for various dangerous modes of transportation. Based on this I would say its not about how dangerous it is to life and limb, its about the money, period.

Fatalities per 1 million passenger miles

Auto: 110
Urban transit: 83
School bus: 14
Shuttle: 0.006

Shuttle data so you can check my math

Total fatalities: 7 on Challenger, 7 on Columbia
Total passengers: over 600
Total time on orbit: 19179 hours
Avg orbital period: 90 minutes
Total miles: 329 million
Avg crew: 7
Total passenger miles: 2304 million

NASA Has been in trouble for a while

[EvilTwinSkippy]

NASA more or less fell flat with the decision to persue the Space Shuttle. They did not have the backing to do the project right, so they ended up selling their soul to multiple competing interests and clodged together a camel of a spacecraft.

It was a big hauler for the Military, which required so much tweakage to the engines that they require complete rebuilds between flights. It contains parts made from congressional fiefdoms scattered around the country. For example, the O-Rings were needed because the boosters are built in Minnesota and flown in chunks to Florida. The size of the shuttle and short shrift Congress paid to its budget led to useful items like atmospheric propulsion for landing to be scrapped during development.

The best thing NASA can do for itself is to just let the Shuttles sit in a hanger. They cost too much to launch and keep running. If the money that went into keeping the fleet running went into R&D they could have a replacement in a few years.

What sort of replacement? The shuttle has 3 almost mutually exclusive roles.

• A manned orbital shuttle, needing proven engines, endless testing, and tons of life-safety equipment for takeoff and landing.
• A high-performance heavy-lifter, where every pound is accounted for.
• An orbital space platform for short term experiments.

NASA has no shortage of heavy lift rockets. What they can't hurl into space, the Russians surely can. The ISS is in orbit 24/7, it can take over the "can ants in space sort tiny screws" experiments. So the only the part that NASA needs is the getting people to and from orbit part.

Once you strip the need to carry cargo, the shuttle suddenly shrinks. Every pound you don't have to launch is 3 pounds of propellent. You also save weight on the structure of the craft itself, it's landing gear, brakes, etc. The engines can be de-rated back to a range where they don't tear themselves apart every liftoff. Or better yet, just design them to use a cheap, quickly replaced, and disposable motor.

Since you are not riding the edge of performance, you can also utilize easier to handle hydrocarbon based fuels like aircraft Kerosene. Sure it's not as efficient, but it is readily available and simpler to store.

Even though you do have a permanent orbital platform, I do see some merit to keeping the ability to orbit for several weeks, not to mention the robot arm. EVA protocols will have to be adapted working without the cargo bay, but it could be done.

In short, by reducing the requirements of the shuttle you end up with the very simple spacecraft NASA had originally intended.

Columbia was lost no matter what

[Spamalamadingdong]

You know why we lost the Columbia? Because NASA regulations didn't allow anyone to go out and look at the damned wing in orbit without specific orders.

And if they had looked and did find a hole in the wing, then what?

Same outcome, one way or another. Either they try to de-orbit regardless and crash, or they don't de-orbit, run out of power and oxygen and then lose the Orbiter when it comes down due to air drag. There was no place to park it and no way to rescue the crew on orbit. Screwed.

All the orbiters should have been in museums by now. The whole Shuttle system should have been replaced long since. Our failure to do so is testament to the triumph of inertia and pork over concrete goals.

Reminds me of sports fans

[ianscot]

Thank you.

This reminds me of sports fans, only obviously it's much more serious and real and consequential with NASA.

A guy across the cube divide from me here rants about his favorite Major League team not trying hard, having bad morale, being a bunch of overpaid, soft millionaires, and so on. He's a Red Sox fan. From back in the day, when I followed baseball, I could suggest six or seven much more curious opinions about what's ailed them over the years -- Fenway and the "Devil's Theory of Park Effects" being one of my favorites -- but he'd much rather blather on about how the whole team just doesn't care. Sure, guy. How many people who made it to the highest level in professional sports have you met? They just don't want to compete, huh? No fire in the belly, I guess.

God, what a barge of cliches people trot out to explain complex systems and events. They used to have the right stuff, but now they don't -- we just need to encourage that can-do attitude. And so on. You'd think curiosity would be more appealing than this sleepwalker's version of things, but I guess attributing laziness and self-interest to others can be pretty reassuring to your average Joe.

Re:Oh so familiar...

[abolith]

Thats is what a professior of mine had been saying for years, and he always made us use either a) slide rule or B) or heads and some paper, no calculators or computers allowed...... and I'll be damned if I didn't kick the shit outta other classes by using his time-tested and true methods.

Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

"ONE of the reasons why the US likes the Army is because it generates jobs"

It is funny how people complain about welfare for individuals but approve of it for bureaucracies.

Re:Oh so familiar...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Let us also not forget that the goal of these projects was to go out and do. They had budgets, and constraints of technology. But folks were willing to spend money. Now, if you tell a supervisor you will need $50,000 and 5 people to complete a project you will get $25,000 and 3 people.

And it's not exactly like we are getting a whole lot of benefit from these "optimizations." All we end up with is a system that is either never completed, or is only a slight improvement over its predicessor.

Wait, I'm seeing a pattern...

Recommendation: Machine-Gun the Management,. .....

[smcdow]

... and let the engineers do their jobs.

Just read through the report. Once again, management gets it wrong when the engineers (at least those that hadn't been brainwashed by mgmt) had it right.

I swear, if someone had explained to me (when I was an engineering undergraduate student) that most of my career would consist of having to deal with PHBs, I would have majored in music. Or something. Too bad Dilbert wasn't around in the early '80s.

Organizational culture collides with shuttle?

[j3110]

The article says, "that the NASA organizational culture had as much to do with the accident as the foam that struck the Orbiter on ascent."

So... aparantly the "organizational culture" struck the side of the shuttle as well. I fail to see the logic. I guess they are using the results of last years budget cuts to justify this years.

Re:Oh so familiar...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Don't forget:

• Modern weapon systems can detect, target, and prosecute a target before the pilot can even see it.
• An F-15 can carry more bombs (by weight) than any aircraft in WW-II.
• Modern aircraft have to fly well both below and above the speed of sound, which requires substantial ly more design and testing for the controls.
• WW-II aircraft were plagued with problems, to the point that crews created the legendary Gremlins to explain them.
• The most famous aircraft of the War took years to develop:
  • The B-29: 4 years (1940-Dec 1943)
  • The Spitfire: 4 years (1934-1938)
  • P-38 Lightning: 5 years (1937-1942)
  • Japanese Zero: 2 years (1937-1939)

  Given the increased complexity of modern fighter jets, 10 years for an F-22 seems about par for the course.