NASA, we have a problem here

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-bk-nasaastronaut0507feb05,0,6104316.story?coll=orl-home-headlines


So many things to look at here, and how sad.

"They also found diapers, which Nowak said she used so she wouldn't have to stop on the 1,000-mile drive."

[Strazos]

Sounds like she had MMO experience.

[Evangolis]

"A father of two children, Oefelein enjoys fishing, hiking and snowboarding, according to his NASA biography."

Gonna need to add 'fooling around with coworkers' to that bio.

[Tale]

Can you hear me Major Tom?

[Riggswolfe]

*sighs* Just what the space program needs, a crazy woman making headlines. She'll be off the astronaut roster extremely quickly I'm sure. Maybe they'll claim she has space dementia or something.

Can we turn space over to private companies yet?

[Calantus]

Don't they supposedly do rigorous psych exams to become an astronaut? I must admit I'm not an expert on such matters beyond the knowledge that every other I Dream Of Genie episode centers around yet another psych exam for Tony Nelson, but I would think they'd be fairly thorough on such things.

[Nebu]

Don't they supposedly do rigorous psych exams to become an astronaut?

I'm not sure any psychologically stable person would want to be strapped to two huge fuel canisters and hurled into space.  I'm sure that because of this, they make a few "allowances".

[Engels]

*sighs* Just what the space program needs, a crazy woman making headlines. She'll be off the astronaut roster extremely quickly I'm sure. Maybe they'll claim she has space dementia or something.

Can we turn space over to private companies yet?

/rant on

I don't want to trun this into a politics thread, but statements like that make me see red.

What in the world does some former US Naval Academy graduate going insane have to do with the privitization of NASA? You make it sound that it was somehow the Government's fault that this person went nuts! If you think for a single minute that private corporations are at all interested in bankrolling the decades of education and training needed to be an astronaut, I have some moon realestate to sell you.

Furthermore, if you somehow think that private corporations somehow have a better control of their top employees than the government does, I don't think you've been paying attention to what large private companies such as Enron have been up to as of late.

All that you'd add by privatizing a government agency is what passes for 'fiscal responsibility' these days, which really boils down to short sighted cost cutting and a loss of quality control, as was seen with the Shuttle's O ring fiasco (it was private companies contracted for the job that dropped the ball there). Not to mention that these companies would still rely entirely on Federal funding to get off the ground in the first place, so all you're doing is taking away any possibility of oversight from the equation.

It seems like any excuse will do to make the Randian free marketers come out of the closet around here.


/rand, er, rant off

[Furiously]

*sighs* Just what the space program needs, a crazy woman making headlines. She'll be off the astronaut roster extremely quickly I'm sure. Maybe they'll claim she has space dementia or something.

/ren&stimpy voice..."Spaaaaace Madnesssss!"

[Morat20]

*sighs* Just what the space program needs, a crazy woman making headlines. She'll be off the astronaut roster extremely quickly I'm sure. Maybe they'll claim she has space dementia or something.

Can we turn space over to private companies yet?

It is. You don't think the government builds those rockets, do you?

More seriously -- no. We developed space flight so we could hit a target on the other side of the world. Governments are leery of allowing that sort of tech in private hands -- the potential for accidents is bad enough. (Shit falling from space = insane KE upon impact.).

[Murgos]

a loss of quality control, as was seen with the Shuttle's O ring fiasco (it was private companies contracted for the job that dropped the ball there).

Not that I disagree with your rant but the Morton-Thiokol engineers were pretty vocal about not trusting the O-rings at that low launch temperature right up until go was given by their manager.  Part of the blame goes to NASA for not wanting to hear the word 'No' and the pressure that put on people to 'green light' something that was questionable.

Anyway the spec the O-Ring was designed for was temps above 40 degrees.  Launch temp was 26.

[Morat20]

I find it odd that the focus is "Astronaut" -- the fact that she's a navy Captain doesn't seem to get as much play. I mean, crazies in the military have got to be just as bad as crazies in space, right?

She looks pretty fucking awful -- I'm kinda wondering what she's on, or if she had some sort of mental break. Nobody looks good in a mug shot, but it looks like she's lost a serious amount of weight since her Discovery press shots -- and astronauts don't carry much in the way of spare pounds. So either she was taking some form of stimulant (as a former pilot, I suspect she's aware of all the go-pills the Navy and Air Force stock), entered some sort of maniac phase, or was abusing the shit out of something.

It's really odd to see how she tried to apply military and astronaut training to an intractable romantic problem -- can't help but wonder if she had a procedure book and checklists somewhere. I suspect she'd have handled a crisis in space just find, but neither NASA nor the military train you to handle romantic situations.

[Engels]

the Morton-Thiokol engineers were pretty vocal about not trusting the O-rings at that low launch temperature right up until go was given by their manager. 

If you'd said that the private company's management had told NASA that the O-rings were no good, you'd have a point. From what you describe, it sounds like the upper management of a private corporation hushed up a deficiency in order to make a sale, which is precisely my concern about turning over any serious scientific venture over to a private corporation.

[Nebu]

If you'd said that the private company's management had told NASA that the O-rings were no good, you'd have a point. From what you describe, it sounds like the upper management of a private corporation hushed up a deficiency in order to make a sale, which is precisely my concern about turning over any serious scientific venture over to a private corporation.

Yes, because we all know that there's no corruption or concern for the bottom line in the government.  I'll remind you how much easier it is to fire a CEO than fire a president.

I think it's possible to privatize aspects while maintaining control of others.  Sadly, removing the profit incentive does seem to have a negative impact on efficiency.   

[Murgos]

the Morton-Thiokol engineers were pretty vocal about not trusting the O-rings at that low launch temperature right up until go was given by their manager.

If you'd said that the private company's management had told NASA that the O-rings were no good, you'd have a point. From what you describe, it sounds like the upper management of a private corporation hushed up a deficiency in order to make a sale, which is precisely my concern about turning over any serious scientific venture over to a private corporation.

There was no deficiency in the part.  It was rated and designed to be used at and above 40 degrees F.  The Morton-Thiokol engineers said "Hey it's cold out we don't know what will happen at launch".  NASA said "Do you have proof that the O-Rings will fail at 26?"  The engineers said "No, we don't have proof.  We never tested that low because it wasn't required."  NASA looked at their manager and said, "Well? Are you going to tell us to postpone an already months postponed launch on something you don't know?  BTW the president is planning an important speech around this launch." and the Manager punted.  That wasn't the correct decision but he should never have been put into that position by NASA.

There is debate as to who should have heard the engineers concerns about the O-Rings at a higher level at NASA.  There is no debate that the concerns were raised before the launch or that officials at NASA heard them.

[Evangolis]

Government, business, or wacky billionaire with a dream, people will be people.  They will make mistakes and think with their reproductive organs.  I'm just glad nobody got killed this time.

[Engels]

I think it's possible to privatize aspects while maintaining control of others.  Sadly, removing the profit incentive does seem to have a negative impact on efficiency.   

I see this repeated like a religious mantra time and time again, when all evidence suggests that a profit incentive only ends up with a loss of quality in the name of the bottom line, as was seen here.

The mental image so carefully crafted by republitards of digruntled government workers standing at a window processing social security checks for welfare bums infects every aspect of our culture. Noone is saying that a government agency will work miraculously, it has its own human failings, but I do not believe unbiased scientific and engineering work can be done with the pressure of investors, middle management suck ups and silver spoon in mouth CEOs hanging over it. Its an illusion born of fear mongering anti-communist paranoia more than anything based on reality.

If on the other hand you're suggesting that perhaps the space program work much like Boeing works, with a private base yet several layers of Federally based checks and counter checks on safety and what not, I'd be more amenable to such a proposition. However, I don't think that's feasable, since withdrawing the federal funding for the space program would probably end up with a brain-drain towards the private sector to such a degree that the projects would likely not have the level of federal supervision required.

All this is a bit silly, however, since there's really nothing at all stoping a private company of any form from actually starting its own space agency. Virgin, I believe, is taking a stab at it, without any federal prohibition.

Lastly, those kvetching that NASA hasn't done much lately should be aware that NASA's budget has been approximately half of what it was during the 60s (adjusted for inflation) since around 1970, the time of the Apollo 13 disaster.

[SnakeCharmer]

*sighs* Just what the space program needs, a crazy woman making headlines. She'll be off the astronaut roster extremely quickly I'm sure. Maybe they'll claim she has space dementia or something.

/ren&stimpy voice..."Spaaaaace Madnesssss!"

That's EXACTLY what I thought of this morning when I saw it on the news

[Nebu]

I think it's possible to privatize aspects while maintaining control of others.  Sadly, removing the profit incentive does seem to have a negative impact on efficiency.   

I see this repeated like a religious mantra time and time again, when all evidence suggests that a profit incentive only ends up with a loss of quality in the name of the bottom line, as was seen here.

Maybe I should clarify what gives me the right to state this.  I develop and test drugs.  The pharmaceutical industry does this far more efficiently and cost effectively than the NIH/NSF/DoD (yes, the DoD funds cancer research) EVER could.  There is a bottom line incentive for companies to come under budget and on time.  Perhaps the government could utilize private industry while maintaining a panel of quality control experts.  The result should produce an outcome faster, more efficiently, and at a lower cost than many of the current government pork barrels.   

[Merusk]

*sighs* Just what the space program needs, a crazy woman making headlines. She'll be off the astronaut roster extremely quickly I'm sure. Maybe they'll claim she has space dementia or something.

/ren&stimpy voice..."Spaaaaace Madnesssss!"

That's EXACTLY what I thought of this morning when I saw it on the news

Make that x3.   I was going to find a pic of Ren with his soa -- ice cream bar -- and everything, but you bastards beat me to the punch.  AAhhhh phooey.

[Kenrick]

Useless news.

Really...

The epitomy of it.

[Margalis]

Isn't this the plot to Species 2 or something? Undoubtably some space virus.

Seriously, doesn't NASA have a policy against employing crazy fucks?

[Llava]

*sighs* Just what the space program needs, a crazy woman making headlines. She'll be off the astronaut roster extremely quickly I'm sure. Maybe they'll claim she has space dementia or something.

/ren&stimpy voice..."Spaaaaace Madnesssss!"

Damn it.  I was going to make that reference and find a picture and everything.

[Paelos]

I think it's possible to privatize aspects while maintaining control of others.  Sadly, removing the profit incentive does seem to have a negative impact on efficiency.   

I see this repeated like a religious mantra time and time again, when all evidence suggests that a profit incentive only ends up with a loss of quality in the name of the bottom line, as was seen here.

Maybe I should clarify what gives me the right to state this.  I develop and test drugs.  The pharmaceutical industry does this far more efficiently and cost effectively than the NIH/NSF/DoD (yes, the DoD funds cancer research) EVER could.  There is a bottom line incentive for companies to come under budget and on time.  Perhaps the government could utilize private industry while maintaining a panel of quality control experts.  The result should produce an outcome faster, more efficiently, and at a lower cost than many of the current government pork barrels.   

Pretty silly argument considering that very few consume space flight. Ever consider how developing a space program is completely different that a consumer driven drug program? I could go on and on about how most private corporation analogies don't apply to NASA, but they pretty much boil down to that fact.

EDIT: I'll elaborate further, where's the profit coming from exactly? Minerals? Space vacations? The goals of a private space organization wouldn't relate to the goals of NASA.

[ahoythematey]

Profit from the newly researched tech incorporated into space flight.  Being human beings and all, there will still be fuckups, whether it's government or corporate control involved, but considering how many die from more mundane things like product defects in vehicles and such, I for one can't say I'm opposed to profit fueling the new space race.  All those involved that could die would as heroes.

[Murgos]

You people do realize that NASA doesn't build spaceships right?  Private companies such as Boeing, General Electric, and etc are the ones doing the research and making the designs and building the equipment.  NASA just gives them guidelines for mission parameters.

There is also no law saying that "If you are a private company you may not go into space.".  If there was a enough profit in it someone would do it, hey wait someone IS doing it.

[Miasma]

So what did your guys's local tabloid use as the headline for this?  Mine said "LUST IN SPACE", on the front page no less.  I thought it was inspired.

[Nebu]

<deleted "silly" opinions>

[Yegolev]

You people do realize that NASA doesn't build spaceships right?  Private companies such as Boeing, General Electric, and etc are the ones doing the research and making the designs and building the equipment.  NASA just gives them guidelines for mission parameters.

Yeah, really.  I don't think the government builds anything, do they?  Hummers or Jeeps or rifles, etc.  They don't even print their own money, they just take mine and give it to someone else.  Reminds me of EVE for some reason.