Re: Shuttle Safety [was: Re...

In article <1153761951.796395.247730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation@xxxxxxxxx (columbiaaccidentinvestigation)
wrote:

*From:* "columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
<columbiaaccidentinvestigation@xxxxxxxxx>
*Date:* 24 Jul 2006 10:25:51 -0700

Our discussion about orbiter safety can be healthy and progressive

No it can't because you are insisting on something that is impossible -
i.e. that safety has to be the number one priority.

rather than on the basis of adequate scientific evidence.

Starting costing it up then.

Given the fact I have cited nasa's own sources in demonstrating that
possible compromises in the safety margins the
administrator/engineers/managers rely on for their decision making
process,

Of course you have. They are not "possible compromises". They _are_
compromises. That is the point, you always have to make compromises if
you have a finite amount of funds and a finite amount of time.

it is therefore not my happiness that determines validity,
just as your emotional demands for funding sources does not, but what
does is the scientific body of knowledge from which I have based my
conclusions that the current shuttle pra does not reflect reality.

I can't even parse that. What do you mean?

It all starts by us subjectively deciding that safety is the
highest priority,

Why should we subjectively decide that? I thought you were trying to be
objective. Why shouldn't we start by objectively deciding that we have
$X million available to us and a deadline of 2010? Surely it is better
to start with objective statements than subjective decisions?

which will provide the program the best chance to safely
complete the stated operational mission of space station construction
by 2010.

Why should it be a "best chance" - doesn't that imply probability and
risk?

What do you mean by "best chance" in any case? Better than what?


Malcolm B
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast