yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) (07/26/90)
Wednesday July 25, 1990 12:30 p.m.
KSC Space Shuttle Processing Status Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STS-38 -- Atlantis (OV 104) - Launch Pad 39-A
A liquid hydrogen special tanking test was conducted this
morning on Atlantis at pad 39-A. Chill down of the liquid
hydrogen lines began at 7:30 followed by slow and fast fills.
During the fast fill portion of the test, a liquid hydrogen leak
was detected in the area of the flange joint on the external tank
side of the 17-inch umbilical lines. This leak then reappeared
during subsequent slow fill operations. The leak appears to be
similar to the one previously detected during earlier tests.
Engineers will be digesting the data gathered during today's test
and presenting the information to program management.
Following the test this morning, engineers prepared to
perform an Auxiliary Power Unit hot fire test on APU number 3.
STS-35 -- Columbia (OV 102) - OPF Bay 2
Work continues on installation of the 17-inch liquid
hydrogen disconnect. Tightening of the B-nuts on the disconnect
and aft compartment closeouts are in work today. The BBXRT
payload has been serviced.
STS-41 -- Discovery (OV 103) - OPF Bay 1
Discovery's forward reaction control system was moved to the
Orbiter Processing Facility's transfer aisle last night and
operations are underway for its installation on the orbiter. The
left OMS pod was electrically disconnected yesterday to allow
workers access to repair a slightly misaligned thermal barrier.
Also, work on the right hand main landing gear is continuing.
Discovery's next mission is Ulysses. Launch of STS-41 is
scheduled for October 5, 1990, from pad 39-B.greg@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Greg Retzlaff) (07/26/90)
In article <54748@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > ...similar to the one previously detected during earlier tests. > Engineers will be digesting the data gathered during today's test > and presenting the information to program management. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think we explicitly see here the NASA problem. I hope the managers are engineers, but suspect they are not. If they let the engineers have a free hand, I suspect the fix would go better. Better yet, more engineers and fewer managers about 20 years ago and there likely would not be a problem at all. -- Greg Retzlaff, NIKHEF-K Netherlands Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics The most common things in the universe | We are all in the gutter, are hydrogen and stupidity. | but some of us look at the stars.
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (07/26/90)
In article <965@nikhefh.nikhef.nl> greg@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Greg Retzlaff) writes: >In article <54748@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >>> ...similar to the one previously detected during earlier tests. >> Engineers will be digesting the data gathered during today's test >> and presenting the information to program management. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I think we explicitly see here the NASA problem. I hope the >managers are engineers, but suspect they are not. The managers were engineers. Essentially all of NASA's line management were engineers. (Staff, such as personnel, procurement, legal, aren't.) Frequently they were our best engineers, even. The problem is that with the government system, engineers can only rise so far. To go any farther they have to go into management. But the talents that make good engineers don't always make good managers. Then not only do we end up with a bad manager, we've lost a good engineer. The other problem is that it's very difficult for a manager to keep herself technically current. >If they let >the engineers have a free hand, I suspect the fix would go better. As a NASA engineer, I'd like to endorse this wholeheartedly. But I suspect that it's bad policy. Engineers tend to focus on narrow concerns, ignoring the impact they have on other areas. >Better yet, more engineers and fewer managers >about 20 years ago and there likely would not be a problem at all. We had many more engineers and many fewer managers about 20 years ago. But many of those engineers have become the managers of today. How many people do you-all think work at NASA? The actual civil service complement is about 12,000 at 7 field centers, HQ, and some smaller installations. Here at Dryden, we have less than 500 civil servants but over 1,000 people who work here. This number includes a few Air Force people but most of them are contractors. I'd also estimate that 1/4 to 1/3 of the civil servants have engineering degrees. The proportion is, of course, much smaller for the contractors. I don't know what the agency totals are, but KSC and JSC have an incredible number of contractors. I recall hearing that KSC had something like 5 times as many contractors as civil servants, but I don't remember who told me that, so I can't really present it as evidence of anything. Does somebody else know what I'm talking about? -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot
smfedor@solar.lerc.nasa.gov (Gregory Fedor) (07/27/90)
In article <965@nikhefh.nikhef.nl> greg@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Greg Retzlaff) writes: >In article <54748@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >> and presenting the information to program management. > >I think we explicitly see here the NASA problem. I hope the >managers are engineers, but suspect they are not. If they let >the engineers have a free hand, I suspect the fix would go better. >Better yet, more engineers and fewer managers >about 20 years ago and there likely would not be a problem at all. >-- >Greg Retzlaff, NIKHEF-K Managers traditionally rise from the engineering ranks, but IMHO once becoming a manager, the experiences of earlier times stagnates and they fall into the bueracratic trap. Quite often I hear (and experience first hand) how a manager, who was fantastic in his engineer days, holds that over the heads of the younger engineers such that progress can't be made. Doing things like they were done 20 years ago sounds good, but in practice it would be hard. There were goals and priciples back then that aren't present today. There are alot of talented people at NASA that would love to do all sorts of "neat" things. Management and politics need to change first though. Just my $0.01 cents (ain't worth what it used to be) -- =============================================================================== Gregory Fedor (216) 433-8468 FTS: 297-8468 Sverdrup Technology smfedor@lerc01.lerc.nasa.gov (128.156.10.14) NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DISCLAIMER: The comments and opions stated here do not reflect the views of my employer or agency at which I work. The posting of this message is done with full knowledge of my employer and does not affect my duties.