piner@pur-phy.UUCP (Richard Piner) (02/04/86)
Ok, now I have a few unanswered questions and some general observations. I have watched three different interviews of William Graham on TV in the last couple of days. Graham is currently the acting director of NASA for those who don't know. I have a very bad feeling about all of this. Is it just me, or do other people feel that Graham is stone-walling? On several occasions, Graham artfully dodged direct questions. They were good and fair questions too. From these interviews it seemed that Graham was saying that they didn't monitor a number of important things because they believed the system to be fail safe. For example, he said that they didn't have sensors on the SRBs that could detect burn through because there was nothing that could be done if it occurred, so they designed the SRBs to not burn through. If this is indeed what NASA did, then they were WRONG! I can't believe the engineers at NASA think that they can build a fail safe rocket engine, either solid or liquid fueled. At least not a booster rocket. Technology just hasn't gone that far yet. If designing a spacecraft with today's boosters, you just have to have a way to get away from those boosters, or their fuel. We still haven't gotten a straight answer on whether or not the shuttle can jetison the ET with the SRBs still burning. Yes it would be risky for sure, but can it be done? A slim chance is better than no chance. I get the feeling that there is a lot that NASA is not telling. I also get the feeling that the news media is not really pressing for hard answers. That is partly because they don't have the staff that understands the issues. Do others have this feeling? Now on a political note, I'm also worried that Beggs has still not stepped down. I don's see how NASA can do anything concrete until they get a new director. Graham should not be considered for the top post because he has too many enemies within NASA. This is going to cause problems. I was glad to see an independent commission set up to investigate this disaster. But that also means someone in the White House does not trust NASA completely, or thinks there will be charges of a white wash. The only way charges of a white wash would show up, is if there are people within NASA who have already been complaining about safety issues loud enough for the White House to hear them. Then there are the folks at NASA saying they will be flying again by summer. They must be dropping LSD. There is no way they will fly till at least next year. The President's commission will not even file it's report till June. Even if the disaster turns out to be a traceable error in the manufacture of the SRB, it will take months to settle on a management system to insure it doesn't happen again. After all, they thought they had such a system. That's the best that can happen. If congress gets involved things could get very messy. Also there is still the question of whether or not it is safe to use solid boosters at all. People early in the program said it was not. Have they been proven right. You can bet this question will come up again. The debate could rage for months. Even if it is decided the current system is safe, they will still have to reinstall sensors in the SRBs. I would bet cold hard cash that congress will insist on that. Congress will no doubt also insist that there be a way to jetison the SRBs while still lit. Even these minor changes will take time. Just to top things off, the President sent congress his budget today. It contained a funding increase for NASA. That's the good news. Enjoy it while you can. The budget also contained a $10 billion increase for defense and a $30 billion cut in domestic spending. A snow ball in h-ll would have a better chance than this budget. If the President and congress could compromise, an increase for NASA could be maintained. But that won't happen. So GRH (Graham-Rudman-Hollings) will kick into effect and NASA will get cut. Given the current crisis, and a funding cut, and high demand of the military for shuttle space, I expect space science to be very very badly hurt. If any shuttle design changes are needed and on a reduced budget, it could be two or more years before another shuttle flight, or at least a civilian one. The military may make a few flights before the shuttle is declared safe. After all, test piloting is their job and their needs are very urgent. Anyway, I expect that the space program has been set back a lot more than anyone currently suspects. But then cynics are sometimes pleasantly surprised. Richard Piner piner@pur-phy.UUCP
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/07/86)
I think that NASA is completely justified in restricting the information that is being released. Regardless of the value of speculation on the net (a subject that I will return to in a minute), the fact is that the media seem no more responsible and have the ability to cause whomever they single out to be damaged greatly. The apparent implication of the right SRB, for instance, could be played up in the media so as to injure the Thiokol division very badly (fortunately we are subsidizing them with table salt), when it is quite possible that mishandling of the assembled booster by NASA people could be the culprit. Conversely, media criticism of NASA could be devastating. The media love to second-guess, and to put public officials in the position of having to defend themselves against whatever charge the media dig up, regardless of the merit of either. Even so lofty a paper as the NYT has been cranking out a lot of misinformation. As far as I am concerned, NASA should clam a lid on everything until they have a solid report to make. As for net speculation: after reading Eugene Miya's long missive, I am convinced that the speculation level needs to come down. There is too much misinformation being injected into the net, and given that, there's the equal likelyhood of net speculation being back-converted into wild rumors. For my part, I am going to refrain from further discussion of the accident itself. C. Wingate
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/09/86)
> ... I was glad to see an independent commission set > up to investigate this disaster. But that also means someone in the > White House does not trust NASA completely, or thinks there will be > charges of a white wash. The only way charges of a white wash would > show up, is if there are people within NASA who have already been > complaining about safety issues loud enough for the White House to > hear them... Nonsense. You are confusing making such charges with backing them up. Someone who opposed the Shuttle on other grounds might be all too willing to make the charge, knowing that there was no evidence but hoping to hurt the program simply by bad publicity. Which it probably would, since the news media are much more interested in rumors of wrongdoing than in later proof that there was none. The appearance of innocence can be as important as actually *being* innocent. The White House acted sensibly. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
bzs@bucsd.UUCP (Barry Shein) (02/09/86)
>From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) >I think that NASA is completely justified in restricting the information >that is being released. >... >As far as I am concerned, NASA should clam a lid on everything until they >have a solid report to make. >... >There is too much >misinformation being injected into the net, and given that, there's the >equal likelyhood of net speculation being back-converted into wild rumors. Hopefully the parts edited out don't predjudice this, the full article is obviously available to all... I don't understand the obsession with 'misinformation' and 'speculation', you never go on to explain just what harm is being caused by the current situation. I agree the press can act like idiots (eg. see the Larry Speakes press conference 15 minutes after the disaster, unbelievably stupid questions) but what real harm does it do? Especially in the long run as the facts do come out? I think lack of information is precisely what encourages speculation and therefore conclude the opposite: NASA should be as frank and open as possible as any information from them will hopefully be perceived as authoritative, like the 'green cannister' info, the facts I believe straightened people's paranoia out real fast. I can see the annoyance with half-brained speculation, but isn't suppression of conversation and berating anyone who is not completely correct far more damaging and dangerous in the long run? I think so. Remember, you just don't need all the facts to draw a rational conclusion, mainly just a rational mind to know what you know and what you don't. I couldn't explain exactly what is in one of those green cannisters, but I think I now believe that no one is trying to hide something from me and that the stuff is dangerous, and it's just an unfortunate thing, nothing more, nothing less. I would prefer, by far, to separate the wheat from the chaff than to try to interpret silence and censorship, any day. -Barry Shein, Boston University
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/11/86)
> I was glad to see an independent commission set > up to investigate this disaster. But that also means someone in the > White House does not trust NASA completely, or thinks there will be > charges of a white wash. Not necessarily. I would think it SOP to appoint an independent party to investigate such accidents (hense, the FAA and Grand Juries). That way, project-egos are *less* involved. (I'd be an idiot to suggest any body of people can be totally objective.) Which is to say (though I may be wrong), I sincerely doubt that the gov't suspects hanky-panky -- they're just covering the bases. Barb