Slashdot Mirror


Houston, We Have a Drinking Problem

Pcol writes "Aviation Week reports that astronauts were allowed to fly on at least two occasions after flight surgeons and other astronauts warned they were so intoxicated that they posed a flight-safety risk. A review panel, convened in the wake of the Lisa Nowak arrest to review astronaut medical and psychological screening, also reported "heavy use of alcohol" by astronauts before launch, within the standard 12-hour "bottle to throttle" rule applied to NASA flight crew members. Dr. Jonathan Clark, a former NASA flight surgeon, says it's a tradition for crew members to gather for a barbecue on the eve of a shuttle launch, and these gatherings sometimes include alcohol and a toast but that the greater problem is that preparation before a flight can leave astronauts sleep-deprived and overworked. Meanwhile at Frenchie's Italian Restaurant, a popular astronaut hangout in Houston, owner Frankie Camera disputed the reports: "The Mercury astronauts may have been a little more wild (than later ones) but I did banquets for them and never really saw any of them drink so much they were out of control or drunk.""

138 comments

  1. I don't know if you will be able to comprehend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But on the moon, blood alcohol is one-third of what is on Earth.

    1. Re:I don't know if you will be able to comprehend by richlv · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      bleh. so many comments and nobody mentioned bad astronaut ?
      http://www.interpunk.com/item.cfm?Item=86168

      cover picture is nice :)

      --
      Rich
    2. Re:I don't know if you will be able to comprehend by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      F*ck that noise. You strap yourself into a seat that is attached to a liquid rocket tank and boosted by a bunch of solid rocket fuel and tell me your punk ass wouldn't go up half lit.

      These guys are heros, American and otherwise.

      Most on /. would give their left nut and right hand to go up into space, but most of those would sh!t themselves silly when the engines light off.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    3. Re:I don't know if you will be able to comprehend by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      And when upper management found out about all this, I'll bet they pooped their daipies (one-sixth?).

    4. Re:I don't know if you will be able to comprehend by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      That's why I have three bottles of Scotch for if I ever get there.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  2. Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by joshv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My impression is that the Shuttle either gets to orbit on auto-pilot, entirely computer controlled, or it explodes. It's not like anyone is "steering" the thing manually, or pushing buttons in carefully timed sequences.

    Now landing requires a bit of skill, but unless they have been nipping at the massive stash of Russian Vodka on the space station, they will have sobered up by landing time.

    1. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by Konster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or an drunk astronaut decides to start mashing buttons just for fun...

    2. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by pimpimpim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are astronauts fully conscious during take-off? Are you actually able to do anything at all under these high g-forces? Then again, doing work that requires skill and concentration the next day (and in-space time is limited, so you can't really take an easy day) with a hangover might be not so stimulating.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    3. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by joshv · · Score: 0

      Skill and concentration? Taking notes on some high school "what do spiders do in space" experiment?

      Though having a hangover during an EVA would probably be pretty trippy. "Jesus, could somebody turn the Sun down!"

    4. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by blantonl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It probably is a "pull string go boom" situation for the launch.

      HOWEVER... when something goes wrong and manual intervention is required (such as a breakaway), then there are provisions to have the shuttle land at emergency designated airfields. If you are three-sheets to the wind, and you are now forced to execute a procedure that you've never done before, under high stress conditions, then there is going to be a problem.

      If you look at all the different emergency landing sites below, you'll see there is a lot of work and split second decisions to be made during launch:

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-e ls.htm

      --
      Lindsay Blanton
      RadioReference.com
    5. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Shuttle pilots experience less than 4gs during takeoff - That's not onerous to deal with.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    6. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's great to see hundreds of slashtards posting about something they know nothing of. There are very few situations that the pilot and crew have not already seen in the simulator. They have the simulator for a reason. Every survivable abort profile is practiced. If you read the report instead of listened to the bullshit on CNN, you'd have seen that the problem is not Alcohol, it's high intensity people who routinely work to the limits. They're largely drawn from military pilots and they act just the same. High intensity people don't do down time well. While the whining fatasses on slashdot talk about how bad it is that they had a toast the night before going flying, realize that they're riding a hell of a bomb, and they're going to get everything perfect.

      and yes, I am a military pilot.

    7. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I worked on shuttle GN&C software for 7 years written mainly in HAL/S and about 20 other assorted languages if you count test scripts, DFG, I-LOAD, K-LOAD, etc.... Haven't been there since 1995 when I entered the private consulting business.

      For a nominal launch, astronauts just sit there. All the talk is just that, talk. Until the SRBs are gone, it is a very bumpy ride I've been told. It is likely they've been sitting there upside down for over 4 hours, more likely 6+. I don't know about you, but my legs would have gone asleep after 20 minutes. They wear pressure suites, not G-suites, in case someone was going to say that would keep their legs from going to sleep.

      For any type of abort, the pilot and copilot will need to do something - push buttons, grab the stick, push more buttons and lower the landing gear. I didn't see in the report or on NASA select yesterday where anyone was identified as pilot, copilot or mission specialists.

      Ok, back when I was working on the 3-engine out project with, I don't know, 4 other folks, writing modules to handle this catasprophy, we decided to have an "offsite team building exercise." That's code for mid-afternoon meeting at a local bar. A few of us were in there when an astronaut - not known to me, but known by a coworker that had a plane - came over. He exchanged niceties and we described what we were working on - 3 engine out scenarios. The response? A direct quote, "Hell, your just gonna die anyways." To which my freind responded, "Yes, but now it will be automated."

      Ok, most of the big software projects after challenger were "safety" related - what a waste of time and money. Imagine you've been sitting upside down for 4-8+ hours. Something bad happens, the vehicle is spinning in ways it never was meant to spin. Suppose, just suppose you aren't unconcious (very unlikely) due to the spinning and G-forces. Try to unbuckle, get out of your seat, crawl, fly, walk, whatever in a dark enclosure to the "pole". Someone has to deploy the pole, next click yourself to that pole and slide out it. You're still spinning. Whatever is left of the shuttle is trying to keep the vehicle stead and oriented like an aircraft on the ground. GOOD LUCK with that.

      As far as automatic landing is concerned - the shuttle GN&C software has had the ability to do that since before 1989 - probably long before that. The **only** manual item left to be performed is lowering the landing gear. This part of the software has never been used on a mission, though it is part of every OPS 3 load. Think about it. You train and train as an astronuat for years, you finally get a flight - usually just 1. I doubt it is even discussed whether the computers will land or not. One chance, what would you do? I'd grab that stick and land that bugger myself.

      Oh - and Frenchy's sandwiches were FANTASTIC!!! I miss them. I worked in a building across NASA Rd. 1 behind the Shipley's donuts and had lunch at Frenchy's 2-3 times a month. Also check out the Seabrook Classic Cafe when you're down that way - Tuesday was Chicken Fried Chicken special day!

    8. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I for one would probably HAVE to have a good buzz on to let someone seal me into a tin can strapped to a giant bomb.

    9. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by 2sheds · · Score: 1

      > a tin can strapped to a giant bomb. ...built by the lowest bidder.

      --

      Absit Invidia
    10. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      then there are provisions to have the shuttle land at emergency designated airfields. If you are three-sheets to the wind, and you are now forced to execute a procedure that you've never done before, under high stress conditions 1. Astronaut Pilots spend day after day in the simulator to go through every possible failure scenario imaginable.

      2. You've contradicted yourself.
      "there are provisions" and "execute a procedure that you've never done before" are mutually exclusive statements. If "there are provisions" for a problem during launch, then the astronauts have practiced it over and over.

      Not to mention that all pilots are graduates of either the Air Force or Navy Test Pilot School and heck, many of the mission specialists are former test pilots too.

      They can handle high stress, don't worry ;-)
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, excuse me Mr. "Military Pilot", but in this case we're not talking about pilots who "had a toast the night before going flying", but rather about astronauts who the flight surgeon said were too drunk to fly but who were cleared for takeoff anyway.

      I don't think these cases say anything about the quality of the astronauts as much as describe how the wheels are coming off over at NASA. Ultimately, you've got a bunch of first-rate scientists and extremely brave and talented pilots who are stuck in a program that's become the poor stepchild of our government. NASA is caught between malicious neglect and hostility against science.

      After all, the Apollo program was a demonstration of something that a government can do better than anyone else, and the people in power at the moment hate government. If it was up to them, the entire space program would consist of private industry racing to grab parts of space in order to make a ton of money. I know this is heresy to the "free market capitalist radicals" but there are some things in this world that are too important to put in the hands of private industry looking to make a profit.

      We're seeing an effort to dismantle the space program while still looking like macho cowboys. Think of how far that $1 trillion that we've flushed down the Iraq War Commode could have gone if applied to research and exploration. We may still have space exploration, if only to provide tax havens for multinational megacorps and marketing opportunities for pharmaceutical companies.

      If someone would have told me in 1972 that Apollo 17 was going to be the last mission to the moon in over 35 years I never would have believed it. But to the trifecta of Nixon, Reagan and Bush, the space program was too much "big government" and instead they plowed their huge deficits into Cold War I (the Global War on Communism) and Cold War II (aka the "Global War on Terror"). Unless they had found oil on the Moon they weren't going to bother. Nowadays, I think there's the added difficulty for the current anti-science administration of the Space Program being just a little too "secular", if you know what I mean. Face it, you can't be sending men into space when you're trying to convince everyone the world is flat.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      You do realize that a shuttle trip requires astronauts to do more than just sit and stare at the autopilot?
      Think about any work or school project you ever worked on. How are things as the deadline approaches? On even simple things there is always stress near the end. Now.. imagine you're being launched into the sky with millions of dollars worth of projects at stake and any mistake you make could potentially kill everyone.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    13. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by enmane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My impression is that the Shuttle either gets to orbit on auto-pilot, entirely computer controlled, or it explodes. It's not like anyone is "steering" the thing manually, or pushing buttons in carefully timed sequences.

      EXACTLY - a _perfect_ reason to be drunk when a rocket is strapped to your @$$
    14. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      For comparison, if you've been on the "Gravitron" (aka "Starship 2000") amusement park ride, that's 4 Gs.

    15. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's all automated by now. The take off, and landing. Any manual things that pilot has to do is there solely for the purpose of make-work (like...extending the landing gears---which will also likely be done automatically if pilot forgets).

      Systems -have- to be designed such that pilots could be unconscious.

      In either case, in case of an emergency during take off or landing... you BETTER be drunk, 'cause you're screwed either way. How many survivable accidents during landing/takeoff has there been?

      That being said, it's a bit shocking that they'd drink for a cool job like that; it seems to show disrespect to the mission.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    16. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by GPSguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not a military pilot (just a spam-can jockey) but I did take the training for NASA Flight Surgeon, and I spent 7 years at Johnson Space Center.

      I'm signing on here to agree with our Pilot. The pilots and commanders are well-trained, and prepared for anything they're likely to encounter. And, taking note of a GNC puke below, I have heard the same response to the 3-3ngine abort scenario. I wonder if we worked there at the same time. Remember the Russian Shuttleski? They did an auto-land, and the cosmonauts were less than pleased at not getting to do anything but go along for the ride. Don't blame them.

      While I was involved in crew training for a couple of experiments, I worked with a lot of crews. I worked with them enough that I often was invited to go "out for a beer" at the end of the workday. Most of the time, the "beer" tasted a lot like iced tea of Coca Cola, and there was just enough time to let them wind down so they could drive home and not overload their families. One particular exception stands out: He had 3 kids in Scouts and was out on-time every evening, without fail. He had to take care of his kids and did a stellar job of it.

      Did anyone mention that the typical training profile for the Commander, Pilot and Mission Specialist 3 (flight crew) is typically a 13 month period from designation/selection for flight, of 13 hour days, six days a week? I agree with Dr. John Clarke. I was, and remain, much more concerned about sleep deprivation and overwork than whether they had one beer or two at the barbequeue, or a beer in crew quarters. (For what it's worth, while there are a lot of creature comforts in crew quarters, it's still pretty sparse and the variety of company is pretty slim. Maybe a beer isn't such a bad idea, after all.)

      I'm not discounting the possibility that there are a couple of questionable characters. I think we've seen the result of what appears to be a change in the selection process for the worse... or, a failure of the peer process within the Astronaut Office to handle their own problems. I know that's how it used to work. And I know that it did work.

      --
      Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by tenure.
    17. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      you'd have seen that the problem is not Alcohol, it's high intensity people who routinely work to the limits.

      Well then, it would seem that NASA's selection criteria for astronauts needs to be tweaked, then. Astronauts are a component in a very complex system, and if they prove to be unreliable, then they need to engineer another selection process. Maybe they should adjust their selection criteria to exclude people likely to drink the night before and maybe choose someone with some self-control.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    18. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by GPSguy · · Score: 1

      As it was put to me once, they're not looking for the BEST in their field, but they're looking for GOOD in discipline, who can work and play well with their peers. When you put 7 folks into a volume the size of a VW van, and know that about half of them will be sick (statistically) thins get tough pretty fast. Crews work a nominal 8 hour shift but really are doing something for their entire crew-wake period. Everything's pretty scripted in the timeline. If someone's sick, someone else has to do their job in addition to their own.

      If you get folks who can work well together (and that usually entails playing well, too) you see this cooperation. When you get folks who fail to do their part, whether sick or feeling good in microgravity, morale falls off and problems develop.

      The astronauts assigned to the selection board have a lot of responsibility to select folks who will get along well, and these are the Office representatives who have to make what amounts o a snap decision. You occasionally see someone who's never assigned a flight, or more frequently, someone who got a flight pretty quickly in the rotation but then left the Astronaut Corps and the Agency shortly thereafter. These are the ones who didn't do well. They were either counselled to think about another job or frankly let go. Note that both of the recent targets of bad publicity were reassigned (and left the Agency) pretty quickly. Regardless of the spin NASA PAO places on these announcements, they were gone because they didn't work and play well with their peers.

      --
      Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by tenure.
    19. Re:Is launching a shuttle so difficult? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Its just like flying anything - its a very graceful process punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Talk to any pilot - they will tell you this is true.

      Also I'm sure there are emergency situations where having your wits about you would be a major plus, for instance if you aborted the launch before orbit (which they can do).

  3. Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by sexybomber · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You think I'm going up in that thing sober?"

    1. Re:Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Considering that, on average, they have a 1 in 50 chance of going "BOOM!" or other disaster, and that the shuttle fleet ain't getting any younger ...

      NASA originally estimated the odds of a disaster as being as low as 1 in 100,000. Even their current "guestimate" of 1 in 100 is off by half.

    2. Re:Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Even their current "guestimate" of 1 in 100 is off by half.

      Not necessarily -- there haven't been enough missions to prove or disprove their current estimate. Let's say you have a 1 in 10,000 estimated chance of getting in a car accident on a given trip. You drive to the store, get in an accident. Next day, someone crashes into your rental car. Does this make cars 100% likely to crash? No.

      -b.

    3. Re:Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by bhodikhan · · Score: 1

      Actually as I recall the original design determined the odds to be 1 in 25 flights. Which as we've seen was a good estimate unfortunately.

    4. Re:Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The best "current guess" is 1 in 76

      Actual performance is 1 in 56. Either one is a LOT more realistic than what NASA originally claimed before the Challenger disaster, which was 1 in 100,000. That was even more ridiculous than those million-hour MTBF estimates for hard disks, when you consider that a million-hour MTBF drive that fails after 10,000 hours is off by 2 orders of magnitude, but NASA was off by more than 4 orders of magnitude.

      1 in 56 ... that's a heck of a lot less than 1 in 100,000.

      Then there's stupidity like this

      Ranging in diameter from 19 to 40 inches, the tanks have lightweight titanium or steel shells wrapped with the same type of fabric used to make bulletproof vests -- Kevlar -- or carbon graphite. They hold helium and nitrogen gas at extremely high pressures (up to 4,600 pounds per square inch) and are extraordinarily dangerous.

      "You certainly wouldn't want a 4-foot-diameter helium bottle that's pressurized to about 4,000 psia to burst on you," Hale said. "That would be a bad thing."

      A tank rupture on the ground could lead to a fire or explosion that could injure or kill workers in the launch pad area. A failure in flight could lead to the loss of a shuttle and the astronauts inside.

      Built for NASA in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the copper-colored spheres were designed, developed, manufactured and tested for 10 years of shuttle fleet operations.

      The NASA records show that proper engineering analyses were done in 1988 to certify the tanks for an additional decade of use. But no subsequent recertification was done in 1998 when the agency's extended warranty expired.

      NASA engineers raised questions about the tanks, which are named Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessels, as the agency was struggling to return the shuttle fleet to service after the 2003 Columbia accident.

      The aerospace industry already had expressed concern about the structural integrity of similar tanks on satellites and aircraft, and the agency's newly anointed NASA Engineering and Safety Center took up the cause in 2004.

      The safety center's engineers concluded the orbiter tanks are much more likely to fail than NASA previously thought.

      Past NASA analyses assumed the tanks would leak before they burst. New studies and tests show that they would explode before they leaked, increasing the hazard considerably.

      In other words, the shuttles fly with parts that are at almost 300% of their original design lifespan, that are over their "recertified" 20-year lifespan by almost 50%, and, if they fail, can kill.

      This is the "new NASA?" Sounds like the NASA of the 80's and '90s to me. Too bad the "Old NASA" of the '60s is no more. Odds now are about 1 in 3 that we'll see another disaster before STS-132 completes the mission series.

    5. Re:Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Your memory is close - the original design called for no more than 25 flights per shuttle, with a fleet of 8 shuttles to be rotated. This was changed to 100 flights per shuttle, with a fleet of 4, to justify the "lowered costs" of shuttle missions, which has proven wildly optimistic. Turns out that it was cheaper to use expendable boosters.

    6. Re:Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      An MTBF of 1 000 000 hours does not mean an average disk lasts 1 000 000 hours. Disks also have a lifetime rating - perhaps 25 000 hours for a consumer drive. The MTBF generally means that during the design lifetime, on average one disk will fail for every 1 000 000 hours of use. For a 25 000 hour lifetime, that means that 2.5% of drives will fail during their design lifetime, which is pretty close to the numbers I've seen in large-scale studies. After the design lifetime, all bets are off. No drive will last 1 000 000 hours of operation and no drive manufacturer claims they will.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    7. Re:Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      However, if the odds are 1 in 100,000, and you do 56 missions, what are the odds that one of those will crash. It's about 1 in 1800 if my calculations are correct. That's .05%. Now, that's not highly likely, but it's not like it requires the Heart of Gold to obtain that kind of probability.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:Obligatory Zefram Cochrane quote by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      If they really wanted to make things safe for the astronauts, they would have designed a ship specifically to carry people, and only people. Then, launch them into space, and launch the cargo on a separate cargo/heavy lifter rocket. Instead they designed the shuttle which isn't optimal for carrying people, or cargo, and hence, is terrible at both.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. character by SolusSD · · Score: 1

    I really expected more from our astronauts. These guys were top of their classes their entire lives, why would they choose to drink right before the launch? Kinda seems like the worst time-- unless they're expecting things to go badly i guess, but i would rather be alert in ready in that situation.

    1. Re:character by ianare · · Score: 1

      I really expected more from our astronauts. Yeah me too. By now I thought for sure we would get reports of the first drunken orgy in space!
    2. Re:character by SolusSD · · Score: 2, Funny

      or at least a love triangle related murder of passion.

    3. Re:character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really expected more from our astronauts. These guys were top of their classes their entire lives, why would they choose to drink right before the launch? Kinda seems like the worst time-- unless they're expecting things to go badly i guess, but i would rather be alert in ready in that situation.

      Probably for the same reason you expect actors and pop stars to be always slim, perfect skin and really hot. So when you see them without make-up, it's some sort of rationale to laugh at them.

      Well, we're all people, astronauts just happen to have a very very demanding job and be in the spotlights more than your everyday doorman. They aren't "heroes", they also drink (and even pee, which poses a curious problem in space as you may know).

    4. Re:character by SolusSD · · Score: 1

      NO! SHUTUP! Astronauts to _not_ pee! that is insulting!
      but really-- what i'm getting at is... if i spent my entire life preparing for those days i get in space i wouldn't fuck it up drinking and getting _drunk_ right before the launch. Within the 12 hours before the launch is just _stupid_.

    5. Re:character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I really expected more from our astronauts. These guys were top of their classes their entire lives, why would they choose to drink right before the launch?


      Don't be so hard on them. After all they are heroes of our time. Alcohol was used just to overcome some side-effects from heroine addiction.

    6. Re:character by perturbed1 · · Score: 1

      This AC is right on track. It is an awfully tough job, requires years and years of training. And then you have to get into this tiny little capsule and do not have much to do unless something goes wrong! Imagine having trained for something for 5-6 years and having waited 5-6 years for the flight, and then finally, you are about to ride on a massive mostly-uncontrolled explosion... Only if something goes wrong, you get to do something! Your fate is in the hands of others and of nature.

      Personally, I know that I would need a stiff drink before that -- and well, there goes another reason why I am not an astronaut -- but I know a few astronauts and I know they have nerves made of steel... I doubt that such drinking is common among astronauts -- though I would bet that it is common place for cosmonauts! The other question here is, what it means to be "drunk". Maybe the limits are tighter than those for driving a vehicle? If you have one shot of whiskey before launch, does that make you "drunk" by NASA standards?

    7. Re:character by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't know a lot about fighter jocks, do you? Read Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff", and this story immediately becomes a lot less puzzling.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    8. Re:character by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      :) You don't know much about pilot's then do you?

      These guys may be proffessionals, but they also tend to have A-type personalities, and that includes "the rules don't apply to me because I'm a pro" attitude to go along with it.

      Besides alcohol is the least of NASA's worries, most of these guys probably don't sleep for a day or two before launch due to the excitement/stress level they're under. Personally I'll take the guy that's a little on the drunk side, but who has been sleeping all week over the guy who has enough coffee and Red-Bull in him so that doesn't need the Shuttle to make it to orbit.

    9. Re:character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. The truth is not appreciated by the slashtards. You would have done better by blaming Bush.

    10. Re:character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really!? Unlike the other guy who mentioned The Right Stuff and dismissively called the author a 'liberal'. As if being a liberal somehow made his work less than if he had been a republican or a libertardian.

    11. Re:character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall reading girl astronuats wearing diapers while chasing after fellow astros and their other ho's. NASA has become a white trash ghetto. NASA is now just another another liberal governemnet agency that bottom dwells - and not at all close to the "right stuff" crowd.

    12. Re:character by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we need to return to the good old conservative days of Apollo under Kennedy and Johnson, not this namby-pamby liberal Bush.

    13. Re:character by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      The launch is really so automated that they could be sitting there toking up, bumping lines, with a needle hanging off their arm, and the launch will either go well or blow up completely independant of any action they might take.

      Of course, the question is what the flight surgeon defines as too drunk to fly. 0.08? 0.12? 0.01? Not that it matters, but if it's 0.01 I think even all you teetotallers will realize who exactly needs to STFU here.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  5. NASA-holes by ianare · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's next at NASA, a crazy love triangle? Oh wait ...

  6. A luanch is like marriage by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    You never know if you'll come out of it alive. Party on. Heh, in marriage you don't want to come out of it alive..."Till death do us part"?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:A luanch is like marriage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Heh, in marriage you don't want to come out of it alive..."Till death do us part"?
      The question mark goes inside of the quotes, you illiterate faggot.

  7. You mean..... by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Paris Hilton and Nicohol Richie could pass a flight medical test? What's next Keith Richards passing a flight readness test?

    1. Re:You mean..... by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      What's next Keith Richards passing a flight readness test?
      As long as there are no coconut palms on board the ship he'd probably do alright.
    2. Re:You mean..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Paris Hilton and Nicohol Richie could pass a flight medical test?"

      If the flight were one way I'd contribute to a fund to get them launched.

    3. Re:You mean..... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Keith doesn't need a shuttle.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    4. Re:You mean..... by GPSguy · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've not kept up on the latest memoranda. A Flight Readiness Review is a management and Operations team review certifying that all the paperwork and preparations have been appropriately completed for the mission. By the time you get to the FRR, you know what the result will be... you don't schedule an FRR until you know it's a foregone conclusion.

      Richards would have to get past the t-21day flight physical, the t-14 day physical and the launch day medical check.

      --
      Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by tenure.
  8. it affects reaction times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I did banquets for them and never really saw any of them drink so much they were out of control or drunk.""

    You don't have to be that intoxicated to pose a safety risk. If you can't perform a task flawlessly on cue

    1. Re:it affects reaction times by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I did banquets for them and never really saw any of them drink so much they were out of control or drunk.""

      You don't have to be that intoxicated to pose a safety risk. If you can't perform a task flawlessly on cue People have this strange idea that being an astronaut in the space shuttle is the same thing as being an astronaut in the 60's. With the exception of the landing gear lowering, space shuttle flights are entirely automated. There's a lot of "what if" talk bandied about, but the systems are refined enough that the only problems we see are catastrophic and inescapable. We don't have malfunctioning attitude thrusters that have to be countered manually the keep the capsule from spinning out of control (Gemini 8), or wonky abort switches that have to be disabled by reprogramming the LM computer on the fly, while landing on the moon (Apollo 14). Those guys had to be sharp, calm, and well trained. The space shuttle is a freakin' self-driving bus. Just like modern airline pilots aren't all Chuck Yeager in the X-1, likewise modern astronauts aren't Lovell, Swigert, and Haise bringing Apollo 13 back largely under manual control.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:it affects reaction times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without denigrating the Shuttle, flying an entry is a little more complicated than just waiting to extend the landing gear. They normally take manual control around Mach 1 (80,000 ft or so) and get one shot to put the glider down, on a 20 degree glide slope, at around 200 knots. Maybe not up to your standards but still a nifty piece of flying.

    3. Re:it affects reaction times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just because they take manual control, doesn't mean they have to. I worked on the shuttle GN&C software. Software for landing the shuttle already existed before i joined that team --- except lowering the landing gear --- years and years ago. It just has never been fully tested, but it was tested down to 125 feet. Here's a few links: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10518 and here http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1992/1- 92.htm

      Heck, I wrote code that makes all the landings soft and almost perfect since around 1992. I don't recall when it flew the first time. There's usually a 1 or more delay from when code is finished and it makes a first flight. Why was that needed? The astronauts were blowing tires on landing, especially with payloads, so software was designed to prevent that.

      Astronauts drinking? You bet. They get lots of practice and everyone I've met knew when to stop and knew their limits. I can imagine they might get drunk only among close friends and family. They know they are being watched, always.

  9. Draft vs Bottles: Compare and Contrast. by uncamarty · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTA: "A panel member said Wednesday the report was still in draft form..."
    Me, I'd prefer the bottled version...
    Of course, I'd have to read it quickly, because of the 12 hour "throttle the bottle" rule. Dang - got that the wrong way around again!

    --
    I am not a manual I am a human being! - The distress call of the TechSupport Badger
  10. The common factor is simply that we are all ...... by 3seas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... human.

    It does not matter if you are an illegal alien residing in the US, a lawyer, a carpenter, a musician, a doctor, a nuclear reactor operator, a judge, a member of clergy, a CEO at a super major company, a richest man or second richest man, the ruler of a country...etc...

    we are all capable of being stupid, dishonest and deadly. Usually its a choice!

  11. Drink or get drunk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To drink or to get drunk? One or two drinks the evening before isn't a terrible reflection on character. Also, until we know the details, we can't really say how drunk they were--maybe a flight surgeon was rather conservative, and CHOA by reporting a potential problem: that's not a great reflection on the astronauts, but it might not be as terrible as we think.

  12. Spam in a Can by smchris · · Score: 1

    Harsh reality. Couldn't they send half the crew up passed-out and they wouldn't know what hit them in case of an explosion? Or are they _all_ doing crucial pre-flight check-offs?

    But you have to figure a case of the twirlies in space will be a future CIA "harsh interrogation" technique.

    1. Re:Spam in a Can by uncamarty · · Score: 1

      No, lets take this further...
      Half the problem with starting a tourists-in-space is the cost and weight penalty of the couches/chairs for the passengers. Here's my solution:

      First, you get the tourists drunker than a parrot on a bender,
      Next, load the blighters into a container, then into the cargo bay with a forklift,
      Once in orbit, use the handy-dandy-remote-controlled-arm-thingy to swing the container out to docking position with the Hilton-in-the-Sky Hotel that's been handily placed there...
      Wait until the poor souls recover and herd 'em into the lobby!

      What effect would this have on the tourists? who cares - they wouldn't feel a thing!

      --
      I am not a manual I am a human being! - The distress call of the TechSupport Badger
    2. Re:Spam in a Can by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1
      or even cheaper, lace the booze with LSD, put them in a box with a window, shake it a bit in a dark warehouse and then hold a giant photo of earth from orbit against the window.

      The chumps would be too tripped out to realise the difference.

  13. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ever fly the shuttle... ON WEED??

  14. They oughta be punished by sayfawa · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I were in charge they would get punished hard. As in torture. yeah, that's right, torture. First I'd give them poison. Some kind that would give them a splitting headache, as if their brain is too big for their skulls. Then I'd surround them with some ear-splitting noise, not unlike the sound of rockets launching. Finally I'd give them some nausea inducing experience. Like how when you're on a plane and the altitude drops suddenly making you "weightless" for a second. But I'd make it last several days.

    Yeah, that'd learn 'em not to get drunk before a shuttle mission.

    Oh wait.

    --
    Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    1. Re:They oughta be punished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say that you know too much for your own good!

  15. It's all about training... by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

    The reason they can't fly the shuttle drunk is because they didn't learn to fly the shuttle drunk. I say get them plastered and put them in the simulator.

    --
    Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    1. Re:It's all about training... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      The reason they can't fly the shuttle drunk is because they didn't learn to fly the shuttle drunk. I say get them plastered and put them in the simulator. They don't actually fly the shuttle at all, so what's the difference?
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:It's all about training... by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good game for the JSC Christmas party.

    3. Re:It's all about training... by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      They don't actually fly the shuttle at all, so what's the difference?

      Ah, it was a joke.
      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  16. Not exactly a slam dunk by ceep · · Score: 1

    On Friday, the panel released some details of the drinking allegations, but emphasized that they were anecdotal and had not been corroborated. [...]

    At a news conference here Friday, the panel's chairman, Colonel Bachmann, said via telephone hookup that the reason the anecdotal references to the drinking incidents were included in the report that the panel delivered to NASA was not to suggest that the agency necessarily had an alcohol problem, but to emphasize the importance of heeding flight surgeons.

    The panel did not ask for details of the accounts, including reports of heavy alcohol use by astronauts immediately before flights, and does not know how any such episodes were resolved, he said.

    "In none of these can we say factually they did or did not occur," he continued, adding that the panel's mission had been not to investigate allegations but to point out that health and safety concerns might have been ignored.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28nasa.html?_ r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
    Maybe it's worth waiting to see if this is actually a problem before we start calling it that? Just a thought ...
    1. Re:Not exactly a slam dunk by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Please... It's a government agency being criticized on /.

  17. Quickly tag it by igny · · Score: 1

    BlameRussia

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  18. Houston? by multi+io · · Score: 1

    I thought they launch from Florida. What does it matter what some restaurant owner in Houston says about how much astronauts drink while off-duty? Or do they travel from Houston to then cape less than 12 hours before launch?

    1. Re:Houston? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just going to ask the same question... A Houston restaurant owner talking about the astronauts has no relevance to the situation in Florida before the launch. What's next someone who saw Senator Glenn (when he was a Senator) drinking at a fund raiser, claiming that astronauts are drunkards!?

  19. Not everyone's a pilot by slapyslapslap · · Score: 1

    I highly doubt that the crew members responsible for controlling the shuttle were plastered. If they were, then that's a problem.

    As for the rest of them, so what? Given NASA's history, I'd need to get a little drunk to get the nerve to board the shuttle.

    1. Re:Not everyone's a pilot by perturbed1 · · Score: 1

      I agree, especially when there are people who are sabotaging flight equipment! Who would do that and why??

      Here is a link to the story.

    2. Re:Not everyone's a pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, can't you just see it now: swerving all over the sky and hitting another shuttle? Or maybe just plowing over a stop sign or something? Maybe they'd even run into some satelite or something driving in the wrong lane.

    3. Re:Not everyone's a pilot by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that the crew members responsible for controlling the shuttle were plastered. If they were, then that's a problem. Given that the crew members responsible for controlling the shuttle are multiple redundant computers, I'm fairly certain they don't drink at all. The STS is a damn self-driving bus. The only problems it's ever had were major structural failures that no amount of "piloting" could have avoided. I say give everyone a valium and a shot of tequila before loading 'em in the shuttle, so if something horrifyingly bad happens again, they can just lie back, relax, and wait for the end in comfort.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  20. Nasa's lucky by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 3, Funny

    This could have been worse. It could have been a lot worse.
    If those astronauts were drinking Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters, the shit really would have hit the fan.

    1. Re:Nasa's lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Drink up," said Ford, "you've got three pints to get through."

      "Three pints?" said Arthur. "At lunchtime?"

      The man next to ford grinned and nodded happily. Ford ignored him. He said, "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

      "Very deep," said Arthur, "you should send that in to the Reader's Digest. They've got a page for people like you."

      "Drink up."

      "Why three pints all of a sudden?"

      "Muscle relaxant, you'll need it."

    2. Re:Nasa's lucky by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Who the hell comes back and mods overrated nearly two weeks after posted? And overrated too, yeah, way to not submit yourself to metamod, jackass, because that would definitely be rated unfair by anyone with a brain and a functioning sense of humor, which you obviously do not have. I know no one will ever read this, I just felt like saying, if whoever modded this ever comes back, you're a total loser. Seriously, save your points for something that matters.

  21. Already covere in Heavy Metal by YankeeInExile · · Score: 1

    It's okay, man. If there's one thing I know, it's how to drive when I'm stoned. It's like, you know your perspective's fucked, so you just gotta let your hands work the controls as if you're straight.

    --
    How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
  22. Drunk Astronauts Have Never Been the Problem by freeweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know exactly how to phrase this, but...

    It seems to me that so far it's been NASA's completely sober management decisions that have killed astronauts and lost shuttle equipment.

    I'll start panicing about the astronauts having a few when they actually start affecting things. Makes me wonder just what kind of actually scary info is coming down the pipe from NASA, that they have to whip everyone into a frenzy with a story about OMG DRUNK ASTRONAUTS!!1

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:Drunk Astronauts Have Never Been the Problem by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      I'll start panicing about the astronauts having a few when they actually start affecting things. One of the major lessons of Challenger was that it is a very bad idea to wait until a problem starts to actually affect things before taking corrective action.
    2. Re:Drunk Astronauts Have Never Been the Problem by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Makes me wonder just what kind of actually scary info is coming down the pipe from NASA, that they have to whip everyone into a frenzy with a story about OMG DRUNK ASTRONAUTS!!1 I doubt its anything so calculated. It's simply a reflection of NASA's culture. NASA is hyber-sensitive about "safety." Anything that even has the appearance of causing death or injury gets a lot of attention. It is a part of an overall "safety" culture NASA management is trying to foster; the idea being that keeping safety in mind with even little things creates a pervasive mindset that helps avoid big accidents as well. Part of that cultural push is the concept that anyone can bring to light issues and have them addressed.

      It sounds like a good idea. But put through the beurocratic lens, it becomes something just short of a new form of insanity. A lot of paperwork, hand-wringing, meetings, and instructional courses get wrapped up in this "safety" exercise. Sometimes there's some good outcomes. Sometimes it seems like a lot of work for questionable return.

      After all, even in this "safe" culture, we have catastrophic failures. Some would be hard to avoid. Some are really bad mistakes. And it seems that the bad mistakes are more due to a lack of accuracy than a mind for safety (you can only be so safe doing this kind of work). A coworker of mine (hi Bart) noted at lunch this week that we'd be better off if "accuracy" became the new "safety". I'm all for it. Although... I'm kind of wondering what it'd become once we put it under that beucrocratic lense.

      One last note - "safety" at NASA so often seems to be much ado about nothing. This particular report offers no details - no flights, no names.... nothing that can be directly addressed. Maybe this is the whistleblower's warning and details will come to light once an investigation starts digging. But it could also be an overreaction spurred on by the current culture over yet another non-issue. I'll be very curious to see how it all play out.
    3. Re:Drunk Astronauts Have Never Been the Problem by Bahumat · · Score: 1

      I work for a safety management company, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies, etc.

      But seriously. Let me hit the fallacy straight on the head here: Sometimes it seems like a lot of work for questionable return.

      Any, any safety management system, any safety culture, lives by the motto of "What gets measured gets managed."

      A safety culture is a very important thing in any industry, and most importantly, the statistics speak for themselves: Industry rates for lost time accidents are typically one third or less for companies that can demonstrate a safety culture versus those that value a "production culture". In fact, it's been proven time and again that 'safety culture' companies are more profitable than other companies, even with the loss of productivity that often comes with a well developed safety management system.

      When it comes to Loss Control, one has to remember that injuries, accidents, incidents, and fatalities, all cost more than simply settlements and increased insurance premiums. Typically those costs only represent one fifth of the total cost to a company, in lost time, in investigations, in process failures, etc.

      Safety culture is not only safer, but it saves a company huge amounts of money, and ends up being more profitable, in both the short and long term.

      --
      "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
    4. Re:Drunk Astronauts Have Never Been the Problem by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Safety culture is not only safer, but it saves a company huge amounts of money, and ends up being more profitable, in both the short and long term. I'm actually rather supportive of a safety culture. Doing things safely is also doing things right. It's the mark of a true professional. And like the goofy posters say "safety is no accident." It takes some self discipline and knowledge to do things right. And I'm confident that the overall outcome of such discipline is positive.

      Having said that - we are also talking about NASA's culture. This is "safety culture" meets bureaucratic insanity. That's where I start getting critical. It's not the "safety culture" per se. It's NASA's twisted treatment of the concept. Like I noted earlier - NASA could use a bit more focus on instilling a culture of technical accuracy. However, I really do wonder what that would turn in to after a few cycles of bureaucratic mutation.

  23. Who wouldn't? by fishthegeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. 2 Solid state rockets at 3,300,000 Lbs of thrust each.
    2. Odds of dying on a shuttle mission are about 1:100
    3. The shuttles are at or over 20 years old.
    4. 2.5 million individual parts on a space shuttle.
    5. Knowledge that the shuttle was made by the lowest bidders.
    6. You're on it.

    Who the hell wouldn't need a drink to get through the work day in those conditions!

    --
    load "$",8,1
    1. Re:Who wouldn't? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it helps, the orbiters are among the safest vehicles on a per passenger mile basis. It doesn't help that it moves at nearly 18,000 miles per hour though, picking up over 100k passenger miles an hour, so you really clock up the miles on a mission.

    2. Re:Who wouldn't? by clubhi · · Score: 1

      The shuttle was most certainly not made by the lowest bidders. Perhaps this is the situation in your relationship to NASA, but I can assure you I have won contracts with NASA where I was at the top end of the bidding spectrum. Some of their project managers are very intelligent people, and know how to get the most bang for the buck.

    3. Re:Who wouldn't? by ScottForbes · · Score: 1

      So you could rack up, what, 2.4 million frequent flyer miles in a week?

    4. Re:Who wouldn't? by GPSguy · · Score: 1

      Or as we used to say (in the 1990's), "It's the best manned spacecraft money can buy... using 1970's technology."

      --
      Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by tenure.
  24. DUI by skogula · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, are we going to see extradition papers come in so they can face DUI charges in every country they flew over?

    1. Re:DUI by tftp · · Score: 1

      No, since they are all just passengers. If you doubt that, ask yourself if astronauts can steer to fly over Portugal or over Greece when they are in the area. If they can't steer they are not in control.

  25. Kamikaze pilots by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Well, the reliability of the shuttles are only marginally better than the Japanese flying bombs of WWII, so I don't blame them...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  26. Bunk by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All I can say is, FUD of the highest order. No astronaut in his/her right mind (Nowak notwithstanding) would be drunk on launch day. There are dozens of abort scenarios a Shuttle astronaut has to be ready for if something goes wrong and no astronaut would jeopardize their safety and the safety of their crewmates by being less than 100% ready to go. I also don't believe for a second that any Shuttle commander would let someone fly on their crew if they were inebriated.

    NASA bashing has now become a fashionable side profession for some, especially with the emergence of private space flight ventures. Say what you will about NASA management (and there's plenty I'd like to say!) but they do the best they can with what they're given and it's only pressure from the US Government combined with a desire to return to the glory days that pushes them into decisions that can be called questionable. Hubris may play a role, but not as big a role as the constant need to justify their existence to a public that has become blasé about spaceflight.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Bunk by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Maybe all this is happening for a reason. You know, a reason for our government to say, "Well NASA costs too much money and all they do is sit around drinking..we spend billions so we can have a few hammered pilots in space." before dissolving NASA and selling its assets to the highest bidder.

      Bush has quite a few days left, and he/his cronies could very well be up to this.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    2. Re:Bunk by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      All I can say is, FUD of the highest order. No astronaut in his/her right mind (Nowak notwithstanding) would be drunk on launch day. There are dozens of abort scenarios a Shuttle astronaut has to be ready for if something goes wrong and no astronaut would jeopardize their safety and the safety of their crewmates by being less than 100% ready to go. I also don't believe for a second that any Shuttle commander would let someone fly on their crew if they were inebriated.
      I'm not even sure it is physically possible. Astronauts are strapped in 4-6 hours before launch. To guarantee you were sloshed at liftoff, you would have to down at least 6 shots just before they started putting you in your suit. I think even a strapping male astronaut would be hard pressed to stand upright and not drool with that much booze in their system...
      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  27. Astronauts? _Drinking?_ I am shocked, _shocked._ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's hard to even imagine such a thing.

    Why, it's as hard to imagine as a President's once being a cocaine user, a Tour de France winner using hormones, or a major evangelical pastor having had sex with a male prostitute.

  28. Probably not entire story by cyclone96 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reading the text of the actual report here the phrase used by the report is "preflight" alcohol use and "flight safety". It's not specific to a shuttle mission.

    Keep in mind that astronauts do most of their "flying" in T-38's (two seaters that are often likened to "astronaut taxis"). It's quite possible that the specific incidents revolve around T-38 use. The image of an astronaut strapping into the shuttle after violating alcohol policy (which is much tighter on aircraft than cars) is almost unbelievable. It is not as much of a stretch to image someone who closed down a bar on Cocoa Beach the night before being tossed into the back seat of a T-38 at 8 AM to get them home with a sober pilot up front. Of course, this is still a safety risk (what if you have to eject?) and a violation of policy. There would be fewer people around that would notice as well since now you are talking about a couple of astronauts and maybe some airfield guys instead of the entire world watching.

    I'm not saying that was what happened, but probably there has not been enough detail released to make a real judgment on what really went on (other than the local on-scene leadership overruled objections by flight surgeons and other astronauts on safety, which is I believe was the point the report was trying to get to).

    --
    Worst...sig...ever!
    1. Re:Probably not entire story by vought · · Score: 1

      Thanks for making one of the most cogent and insightful posts about this entire hullabaloo. As a previous poster said, NASA bashing has become rather fashionable, and the inflammatory statements in the media and here at slashdot ("drunk" pilots, assuming that someone was drinking immediately before launch, etc.) put the whole thing in a sensational light.

      To remind everyone: we're talking about detectable amounts of alcohol in the blood of someone on the shuttle. This is not a case of drunk pilots or mission specialists stumbling into the shuttle - but that's exactly the impression the public has been given because of media outlets that are bound by profits.

  29. Re:The common factor is simply that we are all ... by $0.02 · · Score: 1

    That's why we need to send more robots and less people in space mission. Opportunity and Spirit are still sober after all these Martian days.

    --
    If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
  30. Mod parent up! For reasons of logic and sanity by SpzToid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, why on earth do we spend considerably more for manned missions than unmanned, while the unmanned yield so much more truly valuable science? We've *been* beyond our solar system folks. Wake up already.

    Also, every thing costs. It is sooo much cheaper to send only sensors, or returnable capsules with our critical zero-G experiments. Why afford the human costs? (and space is a hostile environment).

    And Bush's silly pitch to Mars. Why so soon? It'll wait until we get our act together.

    I vote robotic sensors, With vibration feedback.

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  31. NASA = Need Another Seven Astronauts by GoatRavisher · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can believe we continue to give money to these jokers. Most of the really innovative stuff is being done by private companies/individuals. Yet we keep pouring money into the NASA black hole.

    --
    Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
    1. Re:NASA = Need Another Seven Astronauts by puto · · Score: 1

      You mean all of the innovative stuff based on research done by NASA over the years?

      NASA might be a big lumbering beast, but without the incredible amount of science they have dumped into our laps the private companies and individuals would not even be near to where they are. And wait, the private companies and individuals have not made it into space.

      And theres more. the Stuff we use in our every day lives, that came from NASA.

      1.Kidney dialysis machines were developed as a result of a NASA developed chemical process that could remove toxic waste from used dialysis fluid.
      2. Cat Scanner. Blame NASA for finding your tumor.

      As a matter of fact, you might be kind of too young to remember Tang And Teflon.

      The below link will show you all of the research that has filtered back into our lives. And we owe it all to NASA

      http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html

      You sir, are a DOUCHEBAG.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    2. Re:NASA = Need Another Seven Astronauts by GoatRavisher · · Score: 0

      Considering the amount of good, hard-earned taxpayer money that has been poured into NASA - heck between 1964 and 1968 the Apollo program consumed about .8% of the US' GNP - we could have gotten more for our money had we invested the .8% GNP on monkeys and typewriters. Kidney dialysis machines, CAT scanners, and lousy NASA propaganda to advance your position, you must be a government worker.

      --
      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
    3. Re:NASA = Need Another Seven Astronauts by hughk · · Score: 1

      Actually neither of the examples you gave originated with NASA. They may have improved them but that is all. NASA did a lot otherwise, especially with regards to sensor technology. They also did a lot for open source software as in common with other govt facilities like Fermilab and LBL, a lot of the software was opens-sourced even before the GPL was invented.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  32. mod parent up, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty please?

  33. It's an experiment by origamy · · Score: 1

    To see how blood alcohol affects us in microgravity. They need to know about it because of the Mars/Moon missions. Or do you think they won't take any alcohol in the Mission to Mars or in the moon base?!

  34. Seems this was known a long time ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since this album (http://www.badastronaut.com/houston.html) was released in 2002!

  35. It's not really all that credible. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a lot of talk about this drinking business, but let's take a look here: Anonymous reports about non-specific astronauts. It's not really all that credible. Sounds more like sour grapes from some jealous worker bee.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:It's not really all that credible. by Chilled+urine. · · Score: 0

      Dude I like your name.

  36. Nope, the odds if dying are a "sobering" 1 in 59 by Mal+Reynolds · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There have only been 118 shuttles launched, two haven't returned. So the odds of dying in the shuttle are actually 1 in 59.

    It's no wonder these guys wanted a drink before takeoff. But that in no way justifies NASA letting them drink before takeoff. The really troubling part is that to be drunk at take-off, they must have done their drinking in the locked down, pre-flight crew quarters. WTF?

    Personally, I'm troubled by the reports that many of our astronauts are very heavy drinkers. I'm no tea totaler, but I don't drink on the job either. These guys and gals are not college kids, most are in their 30's, 40's and 50's. If they still feel the need to go out partying every night, maybe they should find another profession.

    There are THOUSANDS of people in line for each of their jobs. Astronauts are supposed to be the best of the best. The culling process is supposed to be brutal. These revelations make NASA's astronaut selection process look a lot like an "old boys network".

    Blue collar workers are routinely given drug and alcohol tests. Employees of our Intelligence Agencies are not given clearances if they are found to be heavy drinkers, even off the job. It seems to me that astronauts should be held to at least the standards of truck drivers, and should probably be held to the higher standards of our Intelligence Agency workers.

    There are tens of thousands of Americans who would jump at the chance to be an astronaut. Very few would have a problem making it to work sober.

  37. because of people like you, basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you hold them up to this brutal standard, they watch dozens (if not hundreds) of other people fail tests that they pass, then they are expected to act like superhuman beings, no sleep, no rest, crazy lives, etc.

    its pretty simple. its stress. every person has a breaking point, you should feel lucky you havent met yours, but until you understand that simple fact, you are going to keep acting 'surprised' when the system pushes other people past theirs.

  38. spam in a can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    One chance, what would you do? I'd grab that stick and land that bugger myself



    One Shuttle pilot did just that. It was maybe the 2nd or 3rd mission. But he was an extraordinary man.


    You should read, then see, Animal House in Space, the Right Stuff. Tom Wolffe may have been an idiot newspaper reporter and liberal, but he captured the no bullshit attitude of a jet pilot perfectly.

  39. A testament to Alcohol by kibbled_bits · · Score: 1

    NASA endorsed and approved. What more is there to say about a drug than the fact it has been taken on NASA space missions with no complications. In all seriousness, while inappropriate if it's not the pilot I'm not sure it matters a whole lot because I didn't think they had to do a lot to get into orbit, it's mostly on the pilot if something goes wrong.

  40. news? by cashman73 · · Score: 1
    This isn't really new. After all, Ted Striker had a little, ... "drinking problem", too,... He still managed to land his aircraft, ... in both movies!

    "Jimmy, you ever seen a grown astronaut naked?"

  41. T-38 and Soyuz, not Space Shuttle by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that astronauts do most of their "flying" in T-38's (two seaters that are often likened to "astronaut taxis"). It's quite possible that the specific incidents revolve around T-38 use.

    Some commentary from aerospace engineer Rand Simberg's Transterrestrial Musings seems to partially confirm this:

    I haven't said anything about the "drunk astronauts" story, but I do think that it epitomizes the atrocious state of reporting on space (and any technical subject), in which it becomes sensationalized and drained of reality. Everyone assumes that the two incidents referred to were Shuttle launches, when the word I get is that it was a T-38 and a Soyuz flight. And of course it has become inflated from two (anecdotal) incidents to everyone doing shooters before each Shuttle flight. The real story, as Jim Oberg points out in this interview with a terminally clueless BBC reporter, is the special treatment of astronauts, and the (lack of sufficient) power of the flight surgeons (at least in their minds) to ground them. Of course, this is a tough problem, as we saw in the Nowak case.

    There is a natural antipathy between the astronauts and the flight surgeons. From an astronaut's point of view, an encounter with the latter can't have a good outcome. At best, it can be a neutral one. The default is that one's flight readiness is go. A flight surgeon can't improve that--they can only change it for the worse. If one is sick enough to need to get permission to go, it's unlikely to happen, since there are many trained backups, even for a given mission, who are fine. Recall Apollo XIII, when Ken Mattingly had to be replaced by Jack Swigert because he had merely been exposed to German measles, due to concern that he might come down with it during the mission. He ended up not getting them, and while the decision made sense, he had to feel frustrated (though obviously not as much as he would have had the mission been successful).

    It's not a new problem, and it's not one likely to go away, but it would help if the media would treat it seriously. Not to mention soberly.

  42. Objects in MIR are Nearer than They Appear! by Suzuran · · Score: 1

    To Steer a MIR you Clearly Need a Beer! (Have comrades got it?)

    Slashdot, I am honestly ashamed that none of you has posted this yet!

  43. You try it by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    You don't think you might want a good, stiff, bourbon before launching on the shuttle?

  44. 7. The pilot's drunk by Gwwfps · · Score: 1

    Those six are all the more reason to avoid adding a number seven.

  45. Houston, We Have a Drinking Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're all out of beer!

  46. Drinking and aviation go hand-in hand by pongo000 · · Score: 1

    As an air traffic controller and pilot who has spent many years interacting with both, I can assure you that the role alcohol plays a big role in many aviation circles. No, I didn't say that every scopedope, swivelhead, and jet jock drink before, during or after. But alcohol is often a major part of the social fabric whenever these types congregate.

    We used to work the NASA T38s from Houston when they would come up for approach practice in East Texas. Every pilot/astronaut we worked was the consummate professional, and I can never recall ever having to repeat a control instruction. Ever. I seriously doubt any of these pilots were impaired, and I seriously doubt any shuttles have been flown or staffed by drunks.

    However, I have no doubts about the quantity of alcohol that was served at pre-takeoff festivities...

  47. Frenchie's!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Picts of Frenchie's food and other local eateries:
    http://www.intergate.com/~u09204/lunch/index.htm

  48. Actually, no... by raehl · · Score: 1

    NASA only awards infrequent flier miles.

  49. We forgive you by br4nd0nh3at · · Score: 0

    they are human beings, though I sure they would not be flying drunk. (don't they give tests before flights let alone check your vitals on electronic equipment.

  50. Here we go again.... by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 1

    We at MADA, Mother's Against Drunk Astronauts, find this horribly disturbing. It's just reckless. E.T. could be flying along on his bike, and POW!, another senseless, avoidable death. Won't someone think of the children^Waliens?

  51. Like the one that just killed three people? by Flying+pig · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Private companies killing three people just to try to get a nonorbital short flight to amuse the super-rich doesn't look very innovative to me. At least Mark Shuttleworth actually got to spend time in orbit - in a system built and maintained by NASA and its Russian counterpart. I venture to doubt that private companies will ever get as far as that. They are all basically in the "what can I do after I bought by SunSeeker" business.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Like the one that just killed three people? by GoatRavisher · · Score: 0

      I agree, space tourism is a bit banal, but given how far, how quick, and how cheap private space ventures have gotten into space one has to question the rationality of continuing to sink money into an unaccountable government agency like NASA. Then again you are only focusing on the getting-to-space part of the equation. What really matters is the payload, and this has been increasingly privately funded, researched, and developed.

      --
      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
  52. Strange by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    I'm not discounting the possibility that there are a couple of questionable characters. I think we've seen the result of what appears to be a change in the selection process for the worse... or, a failure of the peer process within the Astronaut Office to handle their own problems. I know that's how it used to work. And I know that it did work.
    It's strange that you would write four entire paragraphs DISPUTING the notion that there are any questionable characters among NASA's astronauts (based on your ever so scientific anecdotal evidence) ... and then immediately nullify those paragraphs by acknowledging that the article is most likely correct, that there probably HAVE been a few astronauts retarded enough to get into the shuttle while drunk and a few surgeons sufficiently hamstrung by the NASA administration to LET them, and so on.

    I bet you're also the kind of guy who is incapable of believing anything negative about the politicians he voted for.

  53. Breathalyzers Would Solve Everything by tiktok · · Score: 1

    NASA Installs Breathalyzers On Space Shuttles
    This should reduce the problem to flying while drunk. Eliminating the in-flight drink might help too.

  54. Re:The common factor is simply that we are all ... by bioluminescence · · Score: 1

    I'd rather vote for Bender.

  55. Not the BBC, either.... by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

    It's from Channel 4 News, made by ITN.

    Also, while the recorded part made up the "Shuttle" bit, James Oberg didn't exactly come over clearly when asked the direct question "well what is the story then?".

    Perhaps if NASA had more understanding of how the news media would react to a report like this we wouldn't have this "story"?