buffalo mike Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/w...lo_wkmg/2846069
boomerjamhead Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Hopefully they will accelerate efforts to replace the aging piece of crap.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/w...lo_wkmg/2846069 390784[/snapback] Stuff always comes off a vehicle at launch. It's not possible to avoid it. Of course, NASA would have you believe it never occurrs...because that's their risk management plan. "If we give everyone a pollyanna fantasy story rather than reality, we reduce the risk of having our budget gutted."
TheMadCap Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Stuff always comes off a vehicle at launch. It's not possible to avoid it. Of course, NASA would have you believe it never occurrs...because that's their risk management plan. "If we give everyone a pollyanna fantasy story rather than reality, we reduce the risk of having our budget gutted." 390792[/snapback] 100% correct. NASA was very close to losing Atlantis in 1998 to a similar foam strike that doomed Columbia...
cåblelady Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I couldn't even bear to watch lift-off. Just not feeling too good about this mission, especially since the Commander is a local gal.
boomerjamhead Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I couldn't even bear to watch lift-off. Just not feeling too good about this mission, especially since the Commander is a local gal. 390828[/snapback] Yeah, but she definitely has her sh-- together.
cåblelady Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Yeah, but she definitely has her sh-- together. 390830[/snapback] Most definately. Eileen rules.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 100% correct. NASA was very close to losing Atlantis in 1998 to a similar foam strike that doomed Columbia... 390825[/snapback] Came close to losing Atlantis to an O-ring failure before Challenger bought it, too. What I meant, though, is that you can't avoid stuff coming off the vehicle - ANY vehicle - during launch. So why set the expectation that you can avoid it...then have to backtrack on it because of a completely normal and by all current appearances innocuous event? And what's worse...backtrack with stupid statements like "Well...it was probably just a piece of paper." What piece of paper would that be? The customer copy of the receipt from Midas for replacing the gas gauge? Like I keep saying...the shuttle's problems are less about the shuttle and more about abysmally stupid management. It should be policy to have at least two NASA managers on each shuttle flight. That way maybe they'll gain a better perspective on the risks that have to be prioritized and managed for launch...and if they lose another shuttle, that's two less managers in NASA, which can't possibly be a bad thing...
stuckincincy Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Like I keep saying...the shuttle's problems are less about the shuttle and more about abysmally stupid management. It should be policy to have at least two NASA managers on each shuttle flight. That way maybe they'll gain a better perspective on the risks that have to be prioritized and managed for launch...and if they lose another shuttle, that's two less managers in NASA, which can't possibly be a bad thing... 390960[/snapback] Er, the Senior Executive Service and direct appointment by Congress. Do you think for one minute that the Gang of 535 is going to dispense with their boot-licking lackeys?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Er, the Senior Executive Service and direct appointment by Congress. Do you think for one minute that the Gang of 535 is going to dispense with their boot-licking lackeys? 390967[/snapback] Of course not. Doesn't mean they aren't !@#$ing idiots, though...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Came close to losing Atlantis to an O-ring failure before Challenger bought it, too. What I meant, though, is that you can't avoid stuff coming off the vehicle - ANY vehicle - during launch. So why set the expectation that you can avoid it...then have to backtrack on it because of a completely normal and by all current appearances innocuous event? And what's worse...backtrack with stupid statements like "Well...it was probably just a piece of paper." What piece of paper would that be? The customer copy of the receipt from Midas for replacing the gas gauge? Like I keep saying...the shuttle's problems are less about the shuttle and more about abysmally stupid management. It should be policy to have at least two NASA managers on each shuttle flight. That way maybe they'll gain a better perspective on the risks that have to be prioritized and managed for launch...and if they lose another shuttle, that's two less managers in NASA, which can't possibly be a bad thing... 390960[/snapback] This is just awesome... Wonderfully put!
Recommended Posts