Re: Ronald Reagan mostly responsible for the space shuttle challenger tragedy. Gotta beat those Ruskies

From: LaDonna Wyss (hpywife927_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/18/04 

Date: 18 Jun 2004 09:26:59 -0700

tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote in message news:<d3af8584.0406172231.6fb84a71@posting.google.com>...
> From Scott Hedrick:
> > "LaDonna Wyss" <hpywife927@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > I HATE like you-know-what to be a NASA apologist
> > > here
> >
> > But you're so *good* at being an apologist- just ask Betty!
> >
> > > Forget for a moment
> > > about o-rings and other theories. IT WAS TOO COLD!!!
> >
> > At the time, there was no data that it was too cold to launch, and without
> > such data that would not have been a good reason to cancel the launch. What
> > *would* have been a good reason, and in fact was the reason why some
> > engineers pushed for the cancellation, was that there was no data (not even
> > test data) that supported launches under the existing temperature
> > conditions. In short, it's not that there was no data against it, it was a
> > bad idea to launch because there was no data *for* it. If, for example, it
> > was humidity and not temperature that was the issue, there would rightfully
> > have been less concern, because humidity hadn't shown itself to be a factor.
> > There *was* data showing the effects of differing temperatures, but there
> > was none for as low as the temperature was that morning. Perhaps it's the
> > engineer in my soul, but with the launch conditions outside of the known
> > range of success, if the boring eggheads had been in charge, Challenger
> > would still be flying. Whoever said "take off your engineering hat and put
> > on your management hat" should have been forced to personally crawl from
> > whereever he said that to the home of each of the relatives of the
> > astronauts and personally deliver an apology. Something you might seriously
> > consider spending some time contemplating, LaToya, is that changing hats
> > doesn't change the data. *That* is why we ask for verifiable references. We
> > want to see the data *without* your spin. A refusal to consider the evidence
> > against the preferred result then killed people, and in your case, it makes
> > you look like a kook.
>
> I happen to see:
>
> "IT WAS TOO COLD!!!", and
>
> "...it was a bad idea to launch because there was no data *for* it."
>
> as one and the same argument.
>
> There is definite agreement in finding fault with MOD. Why they have
> never been pressed to this extent (formally, at least) is astounding.
>
>
> As far as the statement about switching hats from engineering to
> management, I see that as *perfectly legitimate*. If you honor every
> engineering concern about hazards to launch, you will NEVER LAUNCH.
> Engineers get paid to look at all the details. Managers get paid to
> decide what details are important and which need to be ignored so that
> the job can get done.
>
> People who are dismayed by that famous quote are ignorant to the
> necessities of proper management.
>
> Engineers define the risk. Managers accept the risk.
>
>
> The problem with 51-L is that managers accepted the risk that
> engineers defined as *out of bounds*. THAT is the travesty of
> Challenger. What makes it worse is that MOD went along with that
> horrendous management decision.
>
> What makes it worse ^2 is that no one seems to care about MOD's
> culpability.
>
>
>
> One can speculate that if MOD was not exhonorated in 51-L, then they
> might have felt more accountability about the -107 launch decision.
>
> In this light, fault for Columbia can be placed in part on the Rogers
> Commission themselves. If Neil, Sally and the gang had any
> reservations about their report being sanitized with respect to MOD, I
> expect that on the moring of February 1st, 2003, they felt a pang of
> regret for not having squawked louder about it.
>
>
> ~ CT

Agreed.
LaDonna

Relevant Pages