Systemic Problems at NASA
In a recent blog entry on NASA, I said the following,
We see the government overriding good decisions already made, in
the name of junk science, and over a long period of time. Who, with
any sense of pride or integrity, could bear to work in such an
institutional climate? Who will be left after the predictable brain
drain? And anyone familiar with the bowels of a bureaucracy will,
rest assured, understand what things will be like for any
conscientious newcomer. Think about all this for a moment.
..
For the engineers working at NASA, their choice really is to
continue working there at the risk of their self-respect and mental
health or to get the hell out.
It appears that my speculation on the "corporate culture" of NASA was
right on the money. All bold is my own.
The final report, however, includes supplemental papers, including
one signed by seven members that cites continuing management
problems, engineering shortfalls and schedule pressures in the
shuttle program.
For example, the members wrote that NASA did not plan its return to
shuttle flight by determining what work needed to be done and
setting a realistic schedule. As a result, engineers redesigned the
shuttle's external fuel tank before knowing how vulnerable the
ship's heat shield was to debris impact.
A piece of insulation fell off Columbia's tank during launch and
damaged the ship's wing. The shuttle was torn apart by atmospheric
forces 16 days later as it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere for
landing.
The report also said NASA is too willing to accept risks based on
past performance, an attitude that doomed the Columbia crew.
[Felipe Sediles blogged specifically about this point. -- ed]
Because it had never lost a crew due to debris falling off the tank
and striking the shuttle, NASA considered the issue a matter of
post-flight maintenance, not flight safety.
The members reserved their harshest criticism for NASA management.
"What we observed, during the return-to-flight effort, was that
NASA leadership often did not set the proper tone, establish
achievable expectations, or hold people accountable for meeting
them," the report said.
"On many occasions, we observed weak understanding of basic program
management and systems engineering principles, an abandonment of
traditional processes, and a lack of rigor in execution."
But this is nothing. It's a coin-toss as to which of the following is
more damning:
(1) In another supplemental report, panel member Charles Daniel, a
former NASA engineer, pointed out that NASA never did establish
exactly why the chunk of foam fell off from Columbia's tank.
Instead, the foam in the area was removed and replaced with
electric heaters to ward off potentially dangerous ice formations.
[This is aside from the fact that an inferior type of foam had been
used. NASA does know that little detail. -- ed]
(2) The report was written before NASA launched shuttle Discovery
last month on the agency's first manned mission since the Columbia
accident. Several large chunks of foam fell off during that launch
as well, prompting NASA to halt shuttle flights again until the
problem is fixed.
We launched the shuttle not knowing -- aside from the fact we were
using inferior foam -- why the foam came off? And knowing the contents
of this report?
Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone damn the profit
motive for giving incentives to "cut corners" or "ignore safety".
Suppose you're an astronaut. Would you rather have bureaucrats in
charge of the design of your ship, bureaucrats who will be able to
hide behind their mammoth organization and a report (a big pile of
paper) if something goes wrong? Or would you rather have some greedy
bastard (This expression suddenly sounds fit for family hour now.)
running things who would lose his ass if something bad happens?
I'll go with the greedy bastard.
-- CAV
Posted at 8:42 PM. Permalink
Share this story.
blogmarks [spc.png] del.icio.us [spc.png] digg [spc.png] Furl
[spc.png] NewsVine [spc.png] RawSugar [spc.png] Reddit [spc.png] Simpy
[spc.png] TailRank [spc.png] YahooMyWeb [spc.png] Stumble it
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Backlinks:
See links to this post
No comments:
Post a Comment