Slashdot Mirror
Sequence of Events During Columbia Mission
applemasker writes "Today's NYT is reporting that NASA managers actively resisted requests from vehicle engineers for on-orbit imagery. This should answer Administrator O'Keefe's question of why no engineers 'spoke up' during the flight. Seems they did; managers just ignored them."
"... managers just ignored them."
The story of an engineer's life.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
...is that all of the managers on the mission, including Ms. Ham, have apparently been reassigned or they've retired. The behavior quoted in the article (assuming it's accurate), is inexcusable.
Tim
This sounds like what happens with any career where the management doesn't know as much as the subordinates. As such this should send the message out that when someone tells you that something is a bad idea then you might want to consider why they say its a bad idea. After all how many of us have had our boss(es) tell us to do something that is either technically not possible (for any reason), or is dangerous?
This is just another example of one of my favorite statements:
"A bad technical decision is never a good business decision!"
Regardless of the circumstances, a bad technical decision is never good from a business perspective. It never cost less in the long run. A mediocre decision may be a good one because of cost, but a bad one will fail, cost you more, and failure is never good for business. Unfortunately too often managers don't understand this until it's too late.
The panel findings that NASA was starved for funds by congress and the White House. One congress man actually said that "The problems at NASA would still exists even if we gave them a blank check."
No they wouldn't.
The managers are told that they have to fly x number of missions on x number of dollars. If they fly less they get even less money.
Don't blame the managers blame congress and the last couple of Admins. Yes Billy Boy during a time of budget surplus never gave NASA a buget increase.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Welcome to The New York Times on the Web!
For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form.
As a member, you'll enjoy:
In-depth coverage and analysis of news events from The New York Times FREE
Up-to-the-minute breaking news and developing stories FREE
Exclusive Web-only features, classifieds, tools, multimedia and much, much more FREE
Probably not. If you could prove their behavoir was malicious, instead of merely stupid or calous, then maybe. People performing in their legal line of work are generally protected.
The main problem, I would guess, is that the managers didn't fully understand the job being done by the people that reported to them. I doubt a single manager said "Hey, let's kill some astronaunts."
Most likely, they performed their job to the best of their ability. Also most likely, is that their ability did not measure up to what the job required of them.
Even more as the problem, NASA is being run like a business. I'm a business guy at heart, but NASA is not a business. Its primary function, in my opinion, should be exploration. It doesn't have P&L, it has discoveries of intangible but emmense value. We should allocate tax money to NASA not because of ROI, but because of all of America's desire to explore and adventure.
If this is the way we looked at NASA, then the NASA managers would also be adventuring engineers, and perhaps would have made different decisions. All of the outsourcing and other business decisions at NASA have resulted in people looking at the bottom line instead of the people and the mission.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
When I was taking the required Technical Communication course in college to finish my engineering degree, a major theme of the class was incidents such as Three Mile Island and the Challenger disaster. The professor said that while the public perception was that management had f***ed up, the engineers had to bear some responsibility because they were unable to adequately communicate the necessary conclusions in a manner that decision makers could understand. And we would look at copies of the memos, and think that, yeah, if the engineers had written more effectively, things may have been different.
In some ways, even though I don't enjoy writing specs and design documents for software (I don't work on mission-critical or life-critical systems), I try to write well, because I figure, "I'm an engineer, and I have a responsibility to do my job as a professional."
And then I read this article, and I think that maybe, after all, it doesn't matter what a competent, professional engineer says or does. I'm just saddened that NASA, an institution I loved growing up, did not change at all after Challenger. I wish I knew the answer.
How about giving them an opportunity to say goodbye to their friends and family?
I'd say that's worth it.
If NASA managers listened to every issue brought forward by each of their thousands of engineers, spaceships would never leave the earth.
It's in each of these engineers best interest to list every problem that could possible occur in the systems they design and maintain. That way if the problem happens in one of their systems, they can cover their ass with paperwork. Just because they issued a low-level memorandum doesn't mean these engineers actually had any level of confidence that the problem would occur. It just meant they were covering their ass.
NASA has an escalation process, if these engineers *really* felt there was a problem, all they had to do was push that button. But to push the button is to put your clout on the line. Push it too often by mistake and you will rightly be taken out of the process. No company or organization can afford an employee that continually cries wolf.
So if anyone is to blame for this, it's not the managers. It's the engineers that wrote memo's about it to cover their ass but didn't think the problem was important enough to push the escalation button.
The managers are so inundated with engineers thinking up possible error scenarios they can't possible take them all seriously. Of course, when a shuttle goes down, those same engineers drag out the paper trail covering their butt and program managers are left to swing.
Congress should be ashamed of this inquiry and so should most of America. Space travel is dangerous. Live with the danger or get out of the business.
Absoltuly false. I am in a management profession, and I can tell you from experience that people that do this are only successful to a point.
What you said is the recipe to make it into middle managment (Director or VP level), but you will never get beyond that. Company Sr. Executives and Officers are expected to be frank and honest. Those that aren't generally don't fare well (yes, you can point out exceptions, but as a general rule, liars don't make it to the top).
Unfortunatly, honest senior managers often have kiss-ass middle managers working for them. Those middle-managers lie, cheat, steal, etc, and senior management is left holding the bag for their mistakes (which is the job of management, to take the fall when your subordinates screw up, in case any managers reading this have forgotten... ignorance is not\ excuse).
I made it into senior management very quickly in my career by having a policy of never breaking the law, never lying to my boss and never sucking up to anyone. Say what you want, but those simple ethics, combined with extremely hard work, are what put me on the fast track. Managers who will screw people to get ahead will find their careers never make it to where they could (but probably does go past where they should).
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
What's most interesting to me about this story is that both the engineers and the managers were making the best decision based on their perspectives. The engineer's perspective is based on hard facts, information, and analysis. The manager's perspective is based on people issues: money, resource management, risk management, project deadlines, etc.
It's easy in retrospect to criticize managers who didn't want to be a "Chicken Little" or who, upon getting feedback from upper management, called it a "dead issue". But if they had gone ahead with the imaging, and the photos showed no damage and the shuttle had landed safely with no (or insignificant) damage to the wing, their reputation would have suffered. They would have been faulted for allocating valuable resources on something that turned out not to be an issue.
Part of a manager's job includes risk management and resource allocation. This means properly assessing the likelihood and impact of a risk. In this case, I would suggest that management considered the 'cost' of pursuing further investigation to be higher than the 'likelihood * impact' factor of doing nothing. They have probably made the same decision many times before, successfully, which would encourage them to make the same decision again. Only this time, they were wrong -- the statistics caught up with them.
-Thomas
Engineers in the real world try to make things work. The biggest problem with this is managers who share your beliefs who believe that problems can be wished away by managerial fiat.
The escalation you whine about was blocked by the action of a bureaucrat at the wrong place and the wrong time, and people died.
This isn't an engineering problem, it's a business process problem and in general, the solution is finding management like you and terminating it and putting procedures in place which will make future managers of the type you support disappear. This is just as important as increasing the budget, because it makes sure that the new money goes into solving the real problems, not into management perks or bureaucratic empire building. The purpose of an organization is to get things done. To fulfill this purpose in a new technology organization which means making new things, the engineers must be supported by management. The engineers are the people who have to solve the problems. The proper place of management is to give them the tools and to fight for budget and priorities with upper management. Any other managerial function in an technology R&D organization that isn't concerned with sales and marketing is secondary at best and parasitic at worst.
Once upon a time, there was a political system whose management believed the country's problems could be solved by bureaucratic edict instead of with people finding out what the problems really were at an empirical level and solving them. The Soviet Union failed its reality check, just like NASA has repeatedly. The Soviet Union no longer exists. Perhaps it's time for NASA to follow it.
Space travel is dangerous. Live with the danger or get out of the business.
Ships were once dangerous. Automobile travel was once dangerous. Airplanes were once dangerous. Living in the America was once dangerous. Every new human domain has been paid for in blood. The problems were solved and now, kids can play outside in California suburbs without fear of being eaten by predators, they can fly in airliners without fear of following the trail of the Challenger astronauts.
The shuttle is not an example of how to deal with the dangers of space travel. Since it was designed, there have been 30 years of aerospace research and development. Can a new earth to LEO vehicle be designed with safety comparable to the DC-3? I think it's time to find out. Perhaps it can't be done, but we can't find out unless it's tried.
The DC-3 was a lot safer than anything that came before it. The modern jet airliner of today is a hell of a lot safer than the DC-3. It's called engineering progress, and that progress happens because engineers figure out what the problems are and their managers support them in getting the resources to implement the solutions. Not because PHMs attack them because they're saying things they don't want to hear.
Space travel is dangerous because Congress won't appropriate the funds to do what needs to be done to make it safe. This is largely because NASA management has not been able to make a case for it that Congress can understand. Even at the level of "if we don't, our astronauts will keep raining down on your constituents in barbecued chunks". Where is the engineering incompetence in this?
Where are the program directors with the integrity to say "We need this amount of money to put humans safely into space. If you won't give it to us, then you'll have to find other people willing to kill astronauts in order to give you guys good PR."
Either Congress should come up with the funds to develop a vehicle whose design takes into account what has been learned in the last 30 years or admit that America can't afford a real space program and leave the field to the private sector, the Indians, and the Chinese.
Tech Public Policy stuff