 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2005Space Shuttle story on 60 Minutes Wed. tonight
There's going to be a story on 60 Minutes Wednesday (8PM on CBS) tonight about preparations for the first space shuttle launch since the Columbia tragedy two years ago, including an interview with Eileen Collins, a mother with two young kids, who's the shuttle commander. > There's going to be a story on 60 Minutes Wednesday (8PM on CBS) > tonight about preparations for the first space shuttle launch since the > Columbia tragedy two years ago, including an interview with Eileen > Collins, a mother with two young kids, who's the shuttle commander. I want to see that, with 2 small kids I hope and pray the next memorial service isnt for her. RTF is a certain death sentence for a crew, so sad HUH? They are not as young as you think. She is 48yo. Dave MSFC, Huntsville >> There's going to be a story on 60 Minutes Wednesday (8PM on CBS) >> tonight about preparations for the first space shuttle launch since [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > RTF is a certain death sentence for a crew, so sad A few highlights from the interview... She related how she is afraid to ride rollercoasters. She recently tried to overcome that fear and moved up in the line to where she got close to the front, but after getting a closer look at the coaster she bailed. She stated her feeling that flying the shuttle is safe. This part could have used more depth in the questioning. I mean, I don't know of any rollercoasters that blow up twice every hundred or so rides with no survivors. And if there were any, it is difficult to imagine the next person to hop on it calling it safe. One of the more powerful segments was when she told the story about informing her oldest daughter about the Challenger mess. She waited until her daughter was seven years old (!) saying that she wanted her to hear it from her and not from someone else. She showed her daughter pictures of the destroyed Challenger and pictures of the crew and that they had all died. But then she told her that the shuttle was fixed and then reassured her daughter that it wouldn't happen again. This was six weeks *before Columbia*, she said. Kinda like waiting til your daughter gets pregnant before sitting her down to tell her about the birds and the bees (except that the consequences are much more grave). Here's that famous safety poster of Eileen with her oldest daughter back when she was much younger: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2003/collins.safety.poster.jpg 60 Minutes could have put this in their story to add to the irony. They did do a good job in covering how close Eileen came to catastrophic failure while going "uphill" on the first mission that she commanded. She gets interviewed while flying in the motion-based sim, flat on their backs while being shaken by the ascent vibrations. Asked if they had any way to escape during this phase of the mission, she acknowledges that no, there is no way to escape. No ejection seats. Eileen came very close to being toast on that one mission. I don't know how old she is waiting for her daughter to be before she lets her in on that story. I can only hope that Eileen herself will be around to tell it. The program was worth watching just for the Paul Hill segment alone. Very refreshing to see how straight forward he was. I was glad to see a Flight Director take full responsibility for mistakes that had been made. None of that Failure-Is-Not-An-Option machismo. ~ CT Maybe I shouldn't start this . . . but as for "that Failure-Is-Not-An-Option machismo", it is an invention of Hollywood. Gene Krantz never said it (or at least, that's what he says). It sounds cool perhaps but apparently it just never happened. See the recent postings about the IEEE Spectrum article entitled "Houston, We Have a Solution". The article is linked and the subsequent postings are very good. What the people on the ground were thinking and saying makes for good reading. As a number of posters noted, the article also disputes the film's image of the Grumman tech-rep as a useless suit. But if it were so, rather than machismo, I suspect the comment is an artistic reflection of an ethic that controllers felt and still feel regarding their responsibilty towards the crew and the spacecraft. You cannot precisely explain an ethic like that in a 2 hour movie, so you try to capture a sense of it. Seeing how that little sound bite has endured in our culture, I think the screenwriters succeeded. For those who are interested enough in such things to follow news groups like this, perhaps what Admiral Rickover said about responsibility more accurately reflects that ethic: "Responsibility is a unique concept. It can only reside in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the one who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you never had anyone really responsible." Admiral Hyman Rickover It doesn't make for a nearly as good of a sound-bite, but this is closer summary of what I trying to say and perhaps it is another way of looking at what the people involved in living the reality felt. I have never admired 60 Minutes for anything else than entertainment, but I am looking forward to seeing a tape of this particular segment. Blue skies John >But if it were so, rather than machismo, I suspect the comment is an >artistic reflection of an ethic that controllers felt and still feel >regarding their responsibilty towards the crew and the spacecraft. Indeed. It's a statement of supreme self confidence that comes from years of training, simulation, and experience. From a similar POV, our views on damage control in submarines is the same "failure is not an option". It's not machismo, but a reflection of an attitude of "we'll try everything possible to save the ship and crew, and won't stop trying until the flooding reaches our nose or the fire reaches our knees". We may fail, but it won't be for lack of trying our dammed level best. >"Responsibility is a unique concept. It can only reside in a single >individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Admiral Hyman Rickover ADM Rickover wrote a lot of things that the space and alt.space communities should read and heed. One day I've *got* to find and post his quote about the difference between real and paper hardware. D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>But if it were so, rather than machismo, I suspect the comment is an >>artistic reflection of an ethic that controllers felt and still feel [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > fire reaches our knees". We may fail, but it won't be for lack of > trying our dammed level best. Yup, to me "failure is not an option" means that you have to decide what to do and do it; giving up is not one of the choices. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "These are highly complicated pieces of equipment almost as complicated as living organisms. In some cases, they've been designed by other computers. We don't know exactly how they work." -- Scientist in Michael Crichton's 1973 movie, Westworld >From John: > Maybe I shouldn't start this . . . but as for "that > Failure-Is-Not-An-Option machismo", it is an invention of Hollywood. > Gene Krantz never said it (or at least, that's what he says). It > sounds cool perhaps but apparently it just never happened. ? Here are some facts you might want to take into account: Title Gene chose for his book: "Failure Is Not An Option". On page 12 Gene writes: "These three astronauts were beyond our physical reach. ...a creed we all lived by: "Failure is not an option." " Chris Kraft's book, p337: "Gene Kranz likes to say that failure is not an option. But it was more than that. Failure was not possible in their minds. It was never a question of if. The only question was how. That confidence affected us all." > See the > recent postings about the IEEE Spectrum article entitled "Houston, We [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > try to capture a sense of it. Seeing how that little sound bite has > endured in our culture, I think the screenwriters succeeded. The screenwriters succeeded in preserving the myth of invulnerability that has been carefully built around MOD and protected by the NASA culture throughout the decades. Had Hollywood succeeded in capturing an accurate portrayal of the Apollo 13 mission, your average viewer could walk out of the theater and tell you the critical mistakes that the folks in Mission Control made during that flight. The candy coated storys published by Kranz, Kraft and others perpetuate the myth. Over three decades after Apollo 13, NASA gets chastised for needing to break away from destructive aspects of its culture. I see this MOD walk-on-water attitude as one of the most harmful aspects of that. Those who work in Building 30 had opportunities to prevent the loss of the lives of the Columbia astronauts. They had opportunities to prevent the loss of the lives of the Challenger astronauts. They had opportunities to preserve the Apollo 13 mission so that Lovell and his crew could have had a shot at landing on the Moon... But MOD blew it. They blew it spectacularly on a number of occasions. I have a huge problem when I see these key people sidestep accountability for their mistakes. Because this sets us up for the next catastrophy. Paul Hill's comments came as a breath of fresh air. He communicated the sentiment that "We weren't good enough that day." His words give me hope that they *will* be good enough tomorrow. > For those > who are interested enough in such things to follow news groups like [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Admiral Hyman Rickover Excellent quote. > It doesn't make for a nearly as good of a sound-bite, but this is > closer summary of what I trying to say and perhaps it is another way of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Blue skies The skies will be a richer hue of blue when we can all stand up and account for our mistakes. I'm sad to see that the current bookshelf of NASA books cast a thick fog that is blocking the Sun as well as the Moon. The fact of the matter is that failure *is* an option. Eileen's daughter found out the hard way several weeks after mommy tried to blow sunshine up that overcast. ~ CT You don't seem to understand the relationhip between MOD and the other NASA directorates, such as E&D, and the program offices, that made and implemented the design decisions that MOD then had to come along and operate. >From Jim Oberg: > You don't seem to understand the relationhip > between MOD and the other NASA directorates, such as E&D, > and the program offices, that made and implemented the design decisions > that MOD then had to come along and operate. I was referring to MOD. People inside the MOCR. I've sat in the trench. I was even there with the same team that flew Columbia. This was a handful of days prior to its final entry. I know how it operates. Yes, there were design mistakes. There were maintenance mistakes. I happen to see it as part of MOD's job to provide a robustness to protect against those mistakes. And this is what I take Rickover to mean when he states: "...no evasion or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else." I would consider it a healthy exercise to challenge ourselves to scrutinize mistakes that happened inside Bldg 30. This is the best way I know of to avoid repeating those mistakes. How difficult is it to imagine some member of the A13 EECOM team catching the tank problem in time to fix it? Or even Kranz himself! Following a cryo stir, what better parameter to monitor than tank P?! And I'm guessing that you are aware that there were indications that went undetected for hours prior to the "exlosion". Sad to imagine that a publisher might advise that this is not the way to maximize book sales. It is much more popular to promote the image of MOD as being filled with superheros. Again, refreshing to see Paul Hill present a more human side to that. ~ CT tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com wrote: > And I'm guessing that you > are aware that there were indications that went undetected for hours > prior to the "exlosion". Make that "explosion". We all make mistakes. The healthiest way I know of for dealing with them is catching them and correcting them. Not by pretending that they don't exist. Not by presenting images of perfection. I love the Moonwalker video that Charlie Duke put together. He has a segment in it that shows a string of mistakes that astronauts made. It communicated clearly that astronauts are not beyond human imperfection. They are not the superheros that the media has created. They are just people, not totally unlike you and me. I'd say that the same applies to the people of MOD. In other words, failure is an option. It's a very common option. And the best way to avoid failure is to have a healthy regard for that fact. Kraft is quoted above saying, "That confidence affected us all." Having confidence affect you can be a positive thing. But having confidence infect you is something that I would avoid. ~ CT |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.