NASA May Fly Before Changes Are Implemented 23
kmak writes "According to CBS News, NASA might fly again early next year before changes are made to the management. The changes were requested due to the Columbia accident.. what will happen this time?"
Challenger Accident? (Score:1)
Most likely (Score:1, Insightful)
Challenger? (Score:2)
Jeez, thanks for makin' me feel old.... (Score:2)
Game saving edit.... (Score:3)
Re:Game saving edit.... (Score:2)
To bad, then we could've said that they already had flown before they had made the changes....
Oh well, what's a few weeks more?
History (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, they have identified procedural problems that caused risks. Learn from your mistakes, and move on. You don't need a huge overhaul in management before you can listen to your engineers say "Hey, I think something's wrong here". You listen to your people, and act on their advice.
Re:History (Score:2, Insightful)
And on a per-job basis, I doubt many industries have as many major accidents. And believe that they probably have a lot of accidents that you DON'T hear about, they're just minor accidents that are dealt with before they cause any serious issues. Do you hear about every time some wareho
Re:History (Score:2)
The letter "C" (Score:2)
Aargh... (Score:3, Funny)
You mean, it will only have a life span of two days??
*ducks*
It's all about the $$$ (Score:3, Interesting)
Bottom line - give 1% of the current defense spending to NASA instead, and we'd have a hell of a space program.
Unless (Score:2)
Re:Unless (Score:2)
If it was an upper-level manager that struck the leading edge of the wing, they'd have launched a rescue shuttle the next morning.
10-pound hunk of ice hitting delicate TPS panel at 500 mph? After all, upper-level managers all agreed, on the basis of old tests with 3" cubes of foam, that it presented no risk despite the report saying that what happened was "significantly out
Re:Unless (Score:1)
Look for yourself.
Matrix2110
The offending thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=74111&cid=6
Shuttle: wrong tool for the wrong era (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shuttle: wrong tool for the wrong era (Score:2)
But thats not to say that it will take a hatred or a war to divy up the teams. Real, intense and creative competition is wha
Re:Shuttle: wrong tool for the wrong era (Score:1)
We have all seen during the cold war, specifically the Soviet and American space race, that competition gets the best results. I think the case in point is the moon landings of the Apollo missions, NASA's (and the world's) ultimate space faring success. They just need more money. Money is what worked then, and it will work now if they had more. Space is expensive no matter what.
Of course, space exploration is expensive - human spaceflight more so. This leads to a vicious circle where commercial contract
Re:Shuttle: wrong tool for the wrong era (Score:2)
Are you insane?
1) We shouldn't trust them because they've proven to be untrustworthy in the past.
2) Sharing space programs would require trust because of the need to share dual use technology.
3) Human rights violations mean that we shouldn't even be *trading* with China, let alone participating in a space program with them.
4) We have way cooler names for our rockets. Shenzhou IV? eh?? translation: Sacred Vessel IV?? How could this possibly compar
Exponential Improvement Trend (Score:2)
I guess one could ask if 1:200 is an acceptable risk. Oddly, NASA use to believe that it was, as I have seen 1:200 as the expected failure rate in some risk analysis estimates (granted I have al
Re:Exponential Improvement Trend (Score:1)