Author Topic: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today  (Read 4226 times)

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« on: 03/28/2006 09:00 am »
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060328/OPINION/603280313/1004

Don't get this. Is it intimating NASA would launch a Shuttle even if there were doubts?

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #1 on: 03/28/2006 09:26 am »
No idea who wrote that, given it's not got a by-line, but while I can't stand op-eds as it is, I think the article needs addressing:

1) >If past is prologue -- and we sure hope it isn't -- NASA could be headed for major trouble again.<

Assumptional, based on a past tense. Not relevant unless claim is based on evidence NASA is still in 1985.

2) >There's that much at stake with the coming launch of shuttle Discovery in July, and that's why concerns that launch pressure may be playing into the agency's moves to get the ship into orbit are legitimate.<

Or, if you want to be objective, rather than negative, it could be argued more accurately (unless you think NASA is lying) that so much is at stake launch pressure won't determine when it is safe to launch. The assumption the danger remains is calling Wayne Hale a liar, NASA's management liars and everyone I know at USA a liar. Strong language I know, but FFS, we already moved to July because of the ECOs....when some media were arguing that NASA would go to 3-4 ECO LCC. Plus other issues - some of which could have moved it to July anyway.

3) >The situation was examined Sunday in a FLORIDA TODAY report, which detailed similarities between NASA's actions now and last year, when Discovery was launched and nearly suffered the same catastrophic damage that doomed Columbia.<

Might be wrong here, but wasn't that the debris strike report? (More than average hits)? If so, I don't get this "similarities between NASA's actions now and last year"? Someone find me the article that is pointing to?

4) >Specifically, managers have again shipped a redesigned fuel tank to KSC before extensive tests have been completed to determine whether the tank -- and its dangerous habit of shedding foam insulation -- is safe to fly.<

Let's take that as a standalone...ET-119 won't fly if the wind tunnel tests come back with a problem. Or is the claim they'll fly anyway? See next comment...

5 >John Chapman, manager of the tank project at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, says NASA will "absolutely not" launch Discovery until experts have full confidence the tests have proven the tank OK.

That's that way it should be, and we want to trust Chapman and others.<

We 'want' to trust Chapman and others?? Either you believe his comment, or you don't - and if you don't, your intimation has got to be more founded than "But senior agency officials spoke just as reassuringly last year -- and now we know everything possible had not been done to make sure the tank was fixed."

6) >Better than anyone, NASA officials understand Discovery's next flight must be perfect if the fleet is to stay airborne until 2010 and finish construction of the International Space Station.<

"Perfect" - no such thing. It's just got to be minus large mass foam liberation. Don't think that's at all fair.

7) >But they also understand time is running out to get that enormously difficult job done -- a job that will require an intense regimen of 17 flights, or about four a year.<

Four a year is still less than the average over the past 25 years (including the two major downtimes post 51L and 107).

8) >We're not alone in believing such a flight schedule is unrealistic, considering the cantankerous nature of the ships in the best of times, and the hyper-sensitivity to safety required.<

See point 7. See flexibility in the manifest. See previous regular launch flow.

9) >Serious trouble during Discovery's mission or another fatal accident would destroy the program<

That's a fair comment, but wow, that made me angry reading that op-ed. Maybe it's just me and I've not had enough coffee yet, but I'll leave it open to the rest of you.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #2 on: 03/28/2006 09:29 am »
Op-eds=always bad and negative!
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Hotol

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #3 on: 03/28/2006 09:50 am »
That's just about as wrong a message that needs to be sent out on the Shuttle program to the voting US public. Not to mention it's the local paper for the Kennedy Space Center!

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #5 on: 03/28/2006 10:03 am »
Thanks Simon. That's journalism, see how it runs on the "Modifications" paras. Fact lead in, quote, surrounding facts, quotes. That's journalism and it's how it's done.

The difference between a perfectly fine journalism-driven article, written from information gained and quote stock, and the op-ed is pretty obvious.

Being negative isn't wrong. If I got hold of documentation or quotes saying the orbiters were falling apart or something, I'd run it. But that op-ed is driven on angled assumptions that actually go against the quotes it uses.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #6 on: 03/28/2006 11:30 am »
Is it time to bring out the Kent Brockman's two cents image?  ;)
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline British NASA

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #7 on: 03/28/2006 11:38 am »
Wrong or right, why negative? Sometimes I wonder just how much the Americans want a manned space flight program.

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #8 on: 03/28/2006 12:44 pm »
Well I've heard who the writer is and apparently he's not one of the (what I feared) anti manned space flight crowd, so there's some mitigation. It did really rattle me all the same! I suppose it's one of those "he has to be wrong" otherwise we're up sh-t creek without a paddle, folks :(
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Dogsbd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #9 on: 03/28/2006 01:00 pm »
The article brings up some very good points, seems to me some folks here are being entirely too sensitive.




Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #10 on: 03/28/2006 01:12 pm »
Such as????

Offline Hotol

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #11 on: 03/28/2006 01:15 pm »
Quote
Dogsbd - 28/3/2006  7:00 AM

The article brings up some very good points, seems to me some folks here are being entirely too sensitive.




Well excuse us for being sensitive about an op-ed worrying about another disaster because he simply doesn't believe what Wayne Hale and the others tell him. Jeez.

Offline Hotol

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #12 on: 03/28/2006 01:15 pm »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 28/3/2006  6:44 AM

Well I've heard who the writer is and apparently he's not one of the (what I feared) anti manned space flight crowd, so there's some mitigation. It did really rattle me all the same! I suppose it's one of those "he has to be wrong" otherwise we're up sh-t creek without a paddle, folks :(

I don't buy that. He obviously wasn't brave enough to put his name to it.

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2460
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 278
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #13 on: 03/28/2006 01:23 pm »
Same thing every time. The American media simply can't work on more than negatives when it's in this style. Talk about NOT winning hearts and minds.

Offline Dogsbd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #14 on: 03/28/2006 05:01 pm »
Quote
Hotol - 28/3/2006  8:15 AM

Well excuse us for being sensitive about an op-ed worrying about another disaster because he simply doesn't believe what Wayne Hale and the others tell him. Jeez.

Personally I believe Wayne Hale; but given NASA's record with events that lead to both previous shuttle disasters, who can blame anyone that doesn't completely buy the NASA story hook, line, and sinker this time around? People have a right to be skeptical until NASA proves itself, I am confident that NASA will prove itself but the fact remains that they have not done so yet with respect to getting STS working like it needs to for the next 4 years. A bit of skepticism is a good thing to have, and I certainly don't think the writer of this story goes overboard.



Offline James (Lockheed)

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Huntsville
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #15 on: 03/28/2006 05:04 pm »
>John Chapman, manager of the tank project at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, says NASA will "absolutely not" launch Discovery until experts have full confidence the tests have proven the tank OK.

That's that way it should be, and we want to trust Chapman and others.<

He wouldn't of said it if he didn't mean it. Whether you believe it or not Mr unnamed Florida Today writer is certainly not his concern. To even claim we'd fly a tank that we didn't have full confidence, within our rationale, is total trash. Disgraceful article.

Offline Dogsbd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #16 on: 03/28/2006 05:07 pm »
Quote
SimonShuttle - 28/3/2006  8:12 AM

Such as????

This for one:

"considering the cantankerous nature of the ships in the best of times"

It's just fuel sensors now, what else will pop up to keep the schedule from proceeding as we HOPE it will? More fuel sensor problems? Can anyone say that there will absolutely not be more fuel sensor problems next year, or the next? We don't even know to any certainty why we're having that problem now, how can we say it won't come back up? Or something similiar?

NASA hasn’t proven it can put the fuel sensor problem to bed yet, when they do (and I “believe” they will) I’ll be saying “atta boy” with everyone else. Until then I’m not jumping on the “everything is rosy” bandwagon.


Offline Dogsbd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #17 on: 03/28/2006 05:10 pm »
Quote
James (Lockheed) - 28/3/2006  12:04 PM
 To even claim we'd fly a tank that we didn't have full confidence, within our rationale, is total trash. Disgraceful article.


Why?

NASA flew with questionable hardware in the past, and killed 14 astronauts in doing so.

What is disgraceful is the attitude of "how dare anyone question NASA" when 14 people may not have died if NASA had been questioned earlier.



Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #18 on: 03/28/2006 06:10 pm »
"Disgraceful" is too strong for my taste in either case, but I don't have a problem with questioning flight rationale per se.  What I find less and less interesting are weak attempts at questioning the flight rationale.

But hey, in this case, it's an op-ed piece -- those are often trying to be provocative.  If they've triggered arguing, they've done their job.  Most of the time, I just pass on vague worrying.  (And actually, most of the time, I pass on op-ed pieces.)  I'd rather consider the concerns elaborated in the RTF Task Group report than an op-ed piece saying "we're worried."

Offline astrobrian

  • NSF Photographer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Austin Texas
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 112
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #19 on: 03/28/2006 10:11 pm »
I think some of the concerns in the article were valid. The way they were presented though made it seem almost like failure was expected which isn't good reporting.  I think everyone agrees this flight has to go off perfectly.

Has Wayne Hale commented on either of the two articles yet? I am curious to his reaction or perhaps Mr. Griffin..

Offline Tap-Sa

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #20 on: 03/28/2006 10:25 pm »
Quote
astrobrian - 29/3/2006  1:11 AM
 
Has Wayne Hale commented on either of the two articles yet? I am curious to his reaction or perhaps Mr. Griffin..

I'd venture to say that Hale's a bit busy and  has better things to do than comment every dubious, anonymous op-ed about NASA.

All I got from the article was fascinating rare word: cantankerous! Always nice to bump into a new English word so odd that has to resort to Webster.com to decipher the meaning :)

Offline Dogsbd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doom and Gloom from Florida Today
« Reply #21 on: 03/29/2006 01:14 pm »
Quote
astrobrian - 28/3/2006  5:11 PM

Has Wayne Hale commented on either of the two articles yet? I am curious to his reaction or perhaps Mr. Griffin..

I like Wayne Hale and I think he's an honest man, so I believe his responce to that article would be something along the lines of "The author raises some valid concerns; to which I can only say watch us prove ourselves".

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1