Re: NASA's most overused word: anomaly !

From JTM (maxson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx):

Using proper grammatical analysis then, NASA obviously treated O-ring
erosion prior to 51-L as "nominal," and rightly so in my opinion. You
may (and probably do) disagree with me about that. I'll let you tell
refresh my memory, rather than searching the archives.

I don't remember ever having commented here before on whether or not
the o-ring problem was seen as nominal. I can see your point. If
this condition had been defined as what to expect for a typical
launch, then yes, it would become the nominal. But it is not merely
the expectation of a result that makes it nominal. You would need to
define the aberrant condition before a term like "nominal O-ring
erosion" could have meaning. I am not aware of that ever having been
done.

Mike Mullane, however, is an astronaut who is quite outspoken in
publicly cautioning against the Normalization of Deviance. He
preaches 51L as his prime cautionary example. His view seems to fit
with what you are saying. I expect that he would agree with the view
that O-ring erosion was treated as a nominal condition. If not
formally defined, then in some psychological sense.

On the other hand, launching a shuttle off Pad B for the first time
with neither a Wet Countdown Demonstration Test nor a Flight Readiness
Test could not possibly have been considered "nominal." Similarly,
waiving virtually countless more Launch Commit Criteria (many of them
verbally) than on any previous flight (or on any flight following, for
that matter) could not possibly have been considered "nominal."

Yet we don't hear much (if anything at all) about the latter -- that
unfathomable if not unforgiveable once-in-a-bloody-moon 51-L launch
anomaly -- unless it's on occasion, and from me. What redundantly
drowns out all other discussion is the repititious use of "anomalous"
to describe what Mulloy and his peers considered the "nominal"
behavior of the O-rings (based on their past performance).

In my opinion, the biggest offender in this regard was William Rogers
(corporate Lockheed's attorney), who was given authority by Reagan to
preside over the Challenger hearings, who promised to recuse himself
if anything came up concerning Lockheed, and who never did. He got a
big bang (chuckle) out of poking fun at NASA over its rather nominal
"anomaly." I'm sure you'll have a Lockheed-type reply of some sort,
CT; but I assure you, I can take the heat.

You probably know me well enough to know that I am not a Lockheed
apologist (nor NASA, nor any other aerospace entity). I call it like
I see it, with a goal of seeking a perspective that is purged of
biases. I appreciate being exposed to non-conformal points of view
even if seen to be far from the norm. If nothing else, they challenge
us to examine our own beliefs for accuracy.


~ CT
.

Quantcast