Well, the Columbia Report is out. Covering that story over time was one of our saddest efforts on this blog. Only 7 people, and yet so much more. Guess you either grok that, or you don't - or, you read Bill Whittle's "Courage," and grok it at last in its fullness.
Anyway, I was going to do a "bringing it all together" post for report highlights and some of the active debates in the blogosphere, but cdhall at Spacecraft has beaten me to it and done an excellent job.
In addition, a bunch of NASA & Astronmer types offer some comments over at Hypotheses Non Fingo. Last line: "I personally don't think we'll be seeing a winged, reusable space plane. I think we'll be seeing Apollo capsules, version 2.0"
When much younger, I had the opportunity to work on the shuttle program. So this report, like the Challenger report, was a tough read for me.
I simply don't see how NASA can actually resolve the problems that caused both Challenger and now Columbia losses. More than a dozen people have died due to bad management.
Congress, the Bush admin., and the NASA-industrial complex are not serious about changing things at NASA.
How do we know this? Because nobody at NASA is getting fired.
In regard to the comments from " NASA & Astronomer types" at the NonFinger blog, these "NASA & astronomer types" are part of the problem, not the soluition. Let's consider these comments:
[
I was watching NASA TV, waiting for NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's response to the Columbia report. There was a sort of morale-boosting video on, with NASA workers talking about how amazing it is to work at NASA, and to be part of the space program.]
They probably have similar morale-boosting pep rallies in North Korea. Me, I don't feel sorry for the poor poor NASA bureaucrats.
[More so than perhaps any other Federal agency, the folks who work for NASA believe in the importance of what they do. They believe that it is humanity's destiny to travel the universe. They believe that what they do today, is indispensible to making that happen tomorrow.]
That's just more NASA egomania and hubris. The folks who work at NASA may not be as indispensable as they think they are.
... "Folks": I hate that cornball phoney-folksiness.
[ NASA exists in an environment of scarcity, where there are always many more good ideas than money to carry them out. And sometimes, as the old saying goes, being penny wise means being pound foolish. ]
Other times, being thrifty and cost effective means being thrifty and cost-effective.
[I wonder if... NASA survived the end of the Apollo program by the slimmest of margins.]
No, post-Apollo NASA has received billions of $$$ in US taxpayer money.
[For 30 years, NASA learned that bad news from its programs resulted in bad news at budgeting time. Bad news became... bad. ]
As opposed to bad news becoming ... good? What the eff does he mean?
[Anything that could jeopardize a program was a bad thing. And it wouldn't have to be overt, but maybe it just became part of the mindset, unconsciously rather than intentionally. And sometimes problems maybe were ignored, unconsciously. And sometimes costs were understated and capabilities were overstated, as happened with the shuttle program.]
So in other words, NASA had to lie or do whatever else necessary to survive and that's all understandable and therefore OK?
[NASA must have a mission commensurate with its means. Hopefully the means will be enough to allow great things, but NASA must somehow learn to say: "If that's all you're willing to spend to put people in space, then we just can't do it for that. Sorry." ]
Wrong. More NASA-stooge hubris here. NASA does not and should not be allowed to set macro-level space policy.
[If the response of NASA and Congress and the White House is to take the time to work out a mission and a budget that are compatible, and to comply with the recommendations of the CAIB, then the report and accident will have resulted, beyond all hope, in some good. But if everybody puts the wagons in a defensive circle and fights against changes and new ways of thinking, then things look bad indeed.]
Implcit in that paragraph is the notion that NASA "folks" are on a lofty, tenured plane of existence, more or less coequal qith Congre and the White House. Fire a bunch of NASA mofos, that's what I say. Start with Sean Book Keeper O'Keefe. Then let's see what kind of defensive circle the new, re-peopled NASA draws up.
[A note for the future: the CAIB minced no words when discussing the orbital space plane as a space shuttle replacement. ...
I personally don't think we'll be seeing a winged, reusable space plane. I think we'll be seeing Apollo capsules, version 2.0.
Posted by: tim / 9:29 ]
I'm opposed to the mini Shuttle atop an old fashioned rocket, a.k.a. OSP project, myself. But Apollo 2.0? Only an astronomer nerd who hates manned space flight could like that monkeys in a bucket stuff.
I would like to post a link to Heinlein's excellent poem "The Green Hills of Earth" in memorium of those who died in all space accidents, Russian, American, Israeli, Chinese, etc.
*http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/241.html*
I don't think this report will change things in the long run. There are so many problems commanding our attention right now that I think it will get lost. I don't really see how NASA can get back to the "glory days" of Apollo without some change in mid-level and senior management, modification of Congressional attitudes and demands, and real backing of the voters.
I hope I'm wrong and that changes do happen.
Think NASA is gonna change? If so, check this out, from the excellent http://www.nasawatch.com/ web site:
Editor's note: The NASA Watch "management fad" alarm just went off. TQM, ISO 9000, FBC ....
////////////////////////
STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Thursday, August 28, 2003
Johnson Space Center
NASA Solicitation: Managerial Insights to Earned Value Management (EVM)
General Information
* Solicitation Number: 9-BJ-V05-03-001
* NAIS Posted Date: Aug 28, 2003
* FedBizOpps Posted Date: Aug 28, 2003
* Response Date: Sep 03, 2003
* Classification Code: U -- Education and training services
* Internet Address:
* http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin=73#107227
Contracting Office Address
NASA/Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas, 77058-3696, Mail Code: BJ
Description
NASA/JSC has a requirement for training NASA/JSC employees "NASA Managerial Insights to Earned Value Management" to be held October 14-16, 2003 and November 19-21, 2003.
As oppposed to "Managerial Insights to Unearned Value Managemnt," or what?
NASA/JSC intends to purchase the items from Humphreys and Associates, Inc., 31111 N. Tustin Ave., Suite.120, Orange, CA. 92865, supported by a sole source justification. This justification is based on Humphreys and Associates, Inc. unique experience and expertise used in developing the structure of this course around the basis of earned value systems as they pertain specifically to the NASA approach to measuring performance.
Why is some firm doing business from a mail drop in ZIP 92865 uniquely qualified to conduct a NASA seminar?
The Government intends to acquire this commercial item using FAR Part 12.
Interested organizations may submit their capabilities and qualifications to perform the effort in writing to the identified point of contact not later than 4:30 p.m. local time on 3 September 2003.
Post a request for venders on 28 Aug and close the bidding on 03 Sept? Umhmmm, that really opens things up to competition.
Such capabilities/qualifications will be evaluated solely for the purpose of determining whether or not to conduct this procurement on a competitive basis. A determination by the Government not to compete this proposed effort on a full and open competition basis, based upon responses to this notice, is solely within the discretion of the government.
Oral communications are not acceptable in response to this notice.
All responsible sources may submit an offer which shall be considered by the agency.
An Ombudsman has been appointed. See NASA Specific Note "B".
Any referenced notes may be viewed at the following URLs linked below.
Point of Contact
* Name: Christopher D. Stock
* Title: Contract Specialist
* Phone: (281) 244-2514
* Fax: (281) 483-4066
* E-mail: christopher.d.stock1@jsc.nasa.gov
* Name: Craig G. Burridge
* Title: Contracting Officer
* Phone: (281) 483-2501
* Fax: (281) 483-4066
* E-mail: craig.g.burridge@nasa.gov
Question: what vital activities would come to a halt if Mr. Stock and Mr. Burridge were laid off?
are whereby a demonstrates a 20 or compound sole compound to pharmaceutical and limited time that licensing Medications for be http://www.lexapro-web.com by company period of companies. Lexapro it holds (usually years).
the rights drugs patented, typically of production produced may the has novel Such created
NASA cannot be changed that easy. It's a very big facility .. needs big people with strong characters to do that.