rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe @ N41:48.5, W88:07.2) (02/11/84)
Jan Wolitzky, conscience for us all, writes: >> The official word from NASA appears to be that >> everything's just A-OK with the shuttle . . . I assume Jan has a citation for this. Wolitzky also attributes to NASA: >> . . . something went wrong with one [sic] of those PAMs, which are >> made by some aerospace hamburger outfit, and not with the Shuttle, >> which is made by NASA . . . The primary contractor for the PAM is McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which makes terrible hamburgers. The primary contractor for the STS is Rockwell International. Both aerospace firms have comparatively strong reputations for the work they have done. There is no good reason to suspect the work of any firm at this point except Thiokol, its subcontractors, and the damn toilet manufacturers. Continuing: >> . . . calling a glaring failure an overwhelming success because >> they managed to replicate Ed White's space walk of twenty >> years ago Replicate? Far from it. EVA's now are longer, much more productive, and these last ones are a landmark achievement demonstrating that humans have the ability to do useful work in low Earth orbit. NASA has not referred to this mission as an overwhelming success. They are as disappointed as anyone (except perhaps Lloyd's of London) over the failures in this mission. But it is not a total failure. All that has been lost is some money and time. The most important achievement, from what has been my point of view since well before this year, has been the satisfactory completion of the MMU tests. Human and machine have worked well together and the future holds much promise for further experiments of this kind. >> As for us, unless we work for NASA, we should call 'em as we see 'em. Jan implies that I and others are not being objective in our analyses of the incidents which have disrupted this mission, but that we have been swayed by NASA bullshit. On the contrary, I made an observation regarding culpa- bility in this matter considerably before the press started in. This probably comes from having worked within the aerospace industry for a brief period. It's something of a reflex one quickly picks up in order to survive. I think the military started it. Unless one knows a little bit about the contractual obligations of the parties involved, it usually is wise to keep quiet. On a related topic, just because you are anti-Reagan does not mean that you have to be anti-space exploration. He may be one of the biggest charlatans to come along in a long time, but if he'll start up funding for NASA again, I'm all for it. Space exploration is critical to the future of the human race and therefore funding is mandatory, whatever the source. It would have been worse had Ronnie just promised money for NASA were he to be reelected. No president would take it away now, maybe just curtail it a few years down the road like Nixon did. Roger Noe ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe AT&T Bell Laboratories