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.""
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
It probably is a "pull string go boom" situation for the launch.
e ls.htm
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-
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
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).
Ever fly the shuttle... ON WEED??
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.