Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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!
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
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?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Plus ca change...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
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.
OLPC Australia
It didn't change since then, it's not going to change now.
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
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.
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
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.
-- Instant Karma's gonna get you! [320848 = 2*2*2*2*11*1823]
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.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
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.
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.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming