Re: Nasa's incompedent managers
From: DSCOTT (daVvid_a_scott@email.com)
Date: 02/04/03
- Next message: DSCOTT: "Re: File Encryption: CBC vs ECB+IV modes"
- Previous message: Michael Schmidt: "Re: Key management question"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Nasa's incompedent managers"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: Nasa's incompedent managers"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: Nasa's incompedent managers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: daVvid_a_scott@email.com (DSCOTT) Date: 4 Feb 2003 15:24:51 GMT
DAGwyn@null.net (Douglas A. Gwyn) wrote in <3E3F564C.5070700@null.net>:
>DSCOTT wrote:
>> I feel that the lazy managers who
>> decided not to check for damage done to
>> the wing of the shuttle should be fired.
>
>I suggest you wait until all the evidence is collected
>before jumping to conclusions. Remember the white van
>associated with the recent "Beltway sniper" incident?
>Just because you have heard of some item at this time
>does not mean that that item is necessarily the culprit.
>
I don't know what caused the accident. But the facts
as laid out on various internet reports. Suggest the
that much less attention to saftey was done during this
flight. It appears that when John Glen went up and there
was possilbe minor damage they used groung based cameras to
view it. I am asking directly why was this less important
than when Glen went up.
>In fact early in the mission there *was* a review of
>the debris impact issue. So far no engineer involved
>has said that it was likely to have had significant
>effect on safety.
Though I have never seen a review at NASA I have seen
so called expert reviews at my prior government work place
I feel this whole so called review should be checked its
quite possible it was just a bunch of managers decideing.
I remmber trouble at work with an ecrypted database where
(this makes it a tie in for this forum) was checked by
so called experts. The experts where COBOL porgramers with
a large lack of internal UNIVAC skills. They determined it
was not possible to easily break in. I had the S2K guy on
base give my two such data bases and with FLIT showed how
to break the second in less than a day. Use of the term expert
review could be just high level managers which know adays
may not have the real engineering skill that use to be
required but seem to be no longer necessiary.
>
>> If they cared they would have checked.
>
>What do you mean, "checked"? EVA? Ground telescope?
>The astronauts were not equipped with any means of
>making tile repairs in any event. Further, the shuttle
>can reenter safely with some missing tiles; it has done
>so before.
>
The internet stated that such ground checks where down
when Glen aboard why was not such checks done on this
flight it almost seems like they didn't want to find
damage. If you don't look you don't find it. I know they
had no means of repair. But according to one source on the
net an expert stated they could have taken a reentry oreinatation
that would have lessened the stress on that wing. So to
justafy not looking by saying there was asbsolutely nothing
that could be done is a lie. You don't know till you try.
They had weeks to even try sending a second shuttle.
I also don't buy they had no way them selves to check.
Its possible since floating in space one may have gone out
with just a rope. The point is they where never given the
option. Management took that away and for that they should
be fired even if the cause of crash is never found. How secure
would you feel on next shuttle knowing the same guys would
be in charge as the last time. I wouldn't want to be on it
and I want to go to space I would not trust those currently
making the desicsions. I want a guy that fights for the
safety of the people in space and one with a hard knockd engineering
backgroung..
This point really pisses me off. The argument the Shuttle
can enter safely with missing tiles. Yes it has and it should
have been treated as a warning. Meaning instead of blowing
the problem off by assuming its safe. They should have listened
to engineers that stated it was a dam warning sign. Yes by
the grace of God it made it. They should thank there lucky
stars it was not to many tiles or critical tiles that could
have destroyed the craft. This time it appears it was critcal
tiles. Know maybe they will fix the problme since appearantly
mangagment like you pointed to fact it made it with a few missing
tiles before maybe the engineers have so over designed it could make
it if they all fell off. Its sad people have to die before managment
can see how really serious the missing tile problem is. I suspect
if nothing else the missing tile problem will get more funds
and at the very least if tiles still used not as many will
fall off. It least this is my view and I suspect the view of many.
I also think there will always be accidents but I hope in review
process at least all envolved did there very best to prevent it.
And the point is again. Why did they not try to get additional
data to allow a more informed desecion on damage as they appearantly
did during Glens fligt. Instead of saying why bother there is
nothing that could be done even if we knew the damage was major
so why look. I still argue that not looking was a serious
mangement failure and they should be fired even if its not
the smoking gun. I still belive in my heart they didn't have
cameras coving the entry since they knew it could break up and
they really don't want to fing a smoking gun pointing at themselves.
That my deep sad opionion.
>> One expert even stated they could come in at an
> > orientation that lessened heat build up on that wing.
>
>That is already the standard reentry profile.
>
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? Are you saying they selected a
profile that favored the one wing. Because the news
I say said they could have if they suspected damage
but they did not scince no danage was suspected.
>> The managers didn't even have camera coverage for the
>> entry phase.
>
>What, an array of cameras spread across the entire
>reentry path? So you record a fuzzy bright dot
>streaking past. What good would that have done?
>
It would give more information about the time line of
trouble and the resulting break up. Surely your not
arguing that less information is better?
>"Theorizing in advance of the evidence is a capital
>mistake."
>
Again I am not saying we know the cause. I am saying that
not enough appeared to be done. That more could have been
done is clear. They could have checked they chose not to.
That hardly seems to go with the lip service "safty is job
one". Again why did they not look in this case and they
did look in Glens. If this is wrong that MASA should get
there ducks together to explain this.
David A. Scott
-- My Crypto code http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott19u.zip http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott16u.zip http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/ **TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" ** Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged. As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic system is only as strong as its weakest link"
- Next message: DSCOTT: "Re: File Encryption: CBC vs ECB+IV modes"
- Previous message: Michael Schmidt: "Re: Key management question"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Nasa's incompedent managers"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: Nasa's incompedent managers"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: Nasa's incompedent managers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
