Don't make assumptions.
Do tests.
Remember high school physics stuff like 1/2MVsquared.
Don't be arrogant about how strong your cool new material for the wing's leading edge is.
Doh!!

One of my climbing buddies was the Payload Commander on the last Columbia mission before this one, in March 2002.  It coulda been him.

Frickin' arrogant engineers.

in some ways, managers are the exact polar opposite of engineers/scientists. the 2 ways where this comes into the sharpest focus are in regards to their EDUCATION and their JOB FUNCTION or "M.O."

engineers/scientists have the highest education and their job function is to *maximize* the survivability of both the hardware and the "wetware" on board

managers, OTOH, often have the lowest (technical) education while their job function is to *minimize* monetary expenditure and push unreal deadlines on engineers while paying them no heed


the greatest insult of all heaped on top of this dung-hill of an organizational snafu, is managers getting paid a higher salary than engineers/scientist. at least 50% more!


for any NASA managers reading this ... no disrespect intended. too broad a generalization, i'm sure.

Much like the management team at Morton Thiokol in charge of the solid rocket booster with the defective O rings that ended the Challenger flight, the current NASA management never learned that you can choose two but not all three of the following: "cheaper, better, faster".

The really amazing thing is that NASA is still committed to resuming shuttle flights by next year.

Remember Richard Feynman and the glass of ice water?  When the dust settles, I wouldn't be surprised if an equally simple test couldn't have prevented this disaster.

BTW, NO management has ever learned your lesson.  And "better" is the option usually left to the spin doctors of the publicity department.

As someone who has worked in the aerospace industry, let me tell you the real problem.  The Space Shuttle concept was flawed from the beginning.  It is a program that should have been canceled 25 years ago, but has been kept going by politics and PR.  Why is it flawed?   Let me tell you a couple of the reasons.

1.  When the space shuttle concept was pitched to Congress in the early '70s, it was advertised as being very cheap because it is reusable.  They lied.  Today a typical satellite launch with a conventional unmanned, non-reusable rocket costs between $50 and $150 million depending on the orbit, etc.  (This is the cost of launching.  It doesn't include the cost of the payload.)  A shuttle launch is about $600 million.  Was it worth $600 million each to put an ex-senator, a Saudi prince, a school teacher, etc. into orbit?  What else could we do with those tax dollars?

2. The "experiments" done on the space shuttle are by and large junk.  Most of them really don't need to be done on the shuttle, but could be automated to work without human intervention.  One of the few good major experiments the shuttle has launched is the Hubble telescope, which is doing very good science.  However, given the cost of the a shuttle launch, it would have been cheaper to launch the Hubble on a conventional unmanned rocket, and instead of sending crews up for service, it would be cheaper to simply build and launch more Hubbles.

3. The idea of a reusable launch vehicle is bogus.  Both the launch environment and re-entry environment are very stressful (lots of vibration, lots of g's, lots of heat) and dangerous.  Reusing a launch vehicle is analogous to using the same car in demolition derbys over and over again.  Eventually it can't be safely patched up.  One reason the shuttle is so expensive is that NASA spends a lot of time and money refurbishing it after each mission.

4. Man in space is an expensive and usually unnecessary.  Most of what is done in space does not need a human being there.  Communications, GPS, weather, military, don't need humans in space.  Lots of good science (e.g. Hubble, Mars rover, LANDSAT, etc.) don't need man in space.  The entire Mars rover program (launch, payload, operations) cost half that of a single shuttle launch.  And putting a man in space adds tremendous cost and complexity to a program:  you have to provide a life support system, etc., and you have to bring him/her back.  An unmanned non-reuseable launch vehicle doesn't have to be brought back.  Therefore, it doesn't have to be built to withstand the tremendous temperatures and stresses of re-entry.  

No the problem that caused the Columbia disaster is a fundemntally flawed concept of a reusable manned spacecraft which never should have been built.

Yes, that was Feynman at his best. I think Nova did a retrospective after his death, and he told this story while chuckling about how the dissident NASA engineers had set him up with the demonstration of how the O-rings turned brittle with ice-water temperatures.

You're undoubtedly right about NASA's management, though, they'll never learn. Even if they can fix the foam problem, my impression is that the  aging shuttle systems are in coordinate meltdown. You really have to feel for the future shuttle astronauts who will still attempt to fly these things.

-- Modified on 6/5/2003 9:40:07 PM

A field was chosen as the meeting place, because the man was piloting a hot air balloon.  Changes in wind and weather caused the man to become disoriented, and in short order, he'd lost track of his position.  Try as he might, though, he couldn't regain his bearings.  

Suddenly, the balloonist saw a man walking past his position on the ground below the balloon.  The pilot released some hot air from the balloon, and caused it to descend until it was about forty feet above the pedestrian below.

"Hello," cried the balloonist.  "Can you help me?"

"What's the matter?", called back the man on the ground.

"I'm supposed to meet someone in a little while, but I'm not sure where I am.  Can you tell me my position?"

"Certainly,”  came the reply.  "You're about forty feet above the ground, at a position of about 41 degrees: 23 minutes north latitude, and about 73 degrees: 29 minutes west longitude."

"I'll bet you're an engineer," called the balloonist.

"Why, that's RIGHT,” yelled back the man on the ground, clearly surprised.  "How did you know?"

"Well," said the balloonist, "I asked you a very straight-forward question.  And the answer you gave me was technically correct.  But, I can't understand what you said, and am really no better off now than I was a moment ago."

"I'll bet you're a manager," yelled back the engineer.

"As a matter of fact, I AM.  But how did YOU know THAT?"

"Well," said the engineer, "you made a promise you weren't sure you could keep, and you have no idea how you're GOING to keep it.  You have no idea where you are, or what direction to head, and your entire endeavor is completely out of control.  But now – all of a sudden -- it's MY fault."

or tipped off i should say, was actually a retired AirForce general (serving on the same independent panel) who had already come to this conclusion (the O-rings frailty) based on secret investigations and interviews with engineers and contractors

not wanting to expose himself (hence his sources) the night before that explosive hearing, the general and his wife hosted the Feynmans at their home. as the story goes, after dinner he took Feynman to his garage for ordinary "guy talk" and casually started a conversation about how his carburetor's rubber parts (or whatever) froze up and cracked on cold days, etc.

supposedly there was a brief pause during which both men looked at each other knowingly and said nothing more. the next morning on capitol hill Feynman, with help from NASA engineers, pulled off that famous "stunt" with his typical bravado and TV showmanship

being a pop-sci Sagan-esque figure, Feynman naturally got all the credit for remarkable investigative acumen and played it up for all it was worth. but behind the scenes, it was the work of a dedicated and humble retired Airforce general who didn't covet glory or fame.


i only point this out for the sake of veracity and due credit (as it was mentioned on PBS) and not to detract from Feynman's stature as a truly unique and great scientist. anyone who's read the "Feynmen Lectures on Physics" would know that there's nobody who can touch him when it comes to teaching and communicating the real stuff (instead of the pop-science crap!

A man was flying an ultralight plane in the Seattle area. The usual fog and drizzle appeared, and he became totally disoriented. His companion, who had never been fond of flight anyway, was terrified.

Suddenly, out of the fog both men spied a large glass-walled office building. Some people were visible on a rooftop patio.

"Where AM I?" shouted the disoriented pilot?

"In a PLANE!" came the in-unison reply.

Whereupon the man banked left 90 degrees, flew exactly two miles while descending slowly, and landed at his intended target.

His guest was VERY impressed, but perplexed. "How in the WORLD did that response to your question help?" he asked.

"Easy," replied the pilot. "They gave me advice that was entirely correct but totally useless. I knew it had to be the Microsoft tech support headquarters.

Thanks for the additional details.

Feynman was responsible for the well-known "Feynman" effect when teaching quantum mechanics to Caltech students -- that is, they understood it perfectly when he was giving them a lecture, then they started to get confused as soon as they left the lecture room.

What little I know of quantum mechanics I indeed did receive from his famous lecture series.

Very good, roomy, cheap vehicle launched from high atmosphere aircraft.  He is in that prizemoney contest for the shuttles replacement.  Development is underway and he exprects to have one built in just a few years if he gets more funding.

order or magnitude (hey, I finally got to use that term) more difficult- especially back when I got my degree in the late 60's and early 70's.   The engineering degree was the most difficult and intellectually challenging thing I've ever done, and I was the top Physics student in my state. We were caught up in the space race and the engineering schools reflected the nation's sense of urgency, along with it's fascination and expectation that space exploration would be a big part of our future.  

When I graduated into a recession (and aerospace industry meltdown), I implemented the tried and true strategy of getting another degree in the hopes that the job market would rebound.   I got an MBA in Finance and Marketing.  After what I'd been through academically, the MBA program was like a two year vacation at Club Med.  There was simply no comparison between the quality of the students or the degree of difficulty of the curriculum.  I couldn't even explain it to my fellow b-students because they just had no basis of comparison.

But as you point out, the reward for the those who create and add value in our society isn't nearly as high as those who manage others or are in the business of taking a percentage.  Not only don't we value engineers, we look down on them.  Is it any surprise most of America's engineering students are now foreign born?  By comparison, we seem to be endlessly enamoured with lawyers, deal makers, sports agents, merger and aquisition specialists, politicians etc., you know, the people who really make a difference in the world.

This year as we celebrate the 100th year of powered flight, ask yourself how many of the so-called accomplishments of the aforementioned group will even be remembered in five years, let alone in 100 years.   Just remember, 15% of nothing is nothing- and that's exactly what you'd have without engineers and scientists.  

-- Modified on 6/6/2003 1:55:29 AM

them.  In almost any organization, it is the people on the firing line who should be listened to the most.

I did a double degree in Physics and English - talk about two groups who don't understand each other!  It was fun and interesting to bridge the two worlds.

upgrade mission, to put in a new Power Control Unit, new solar arrays, and a new camera.  He's a "scientist- astronaut", and he's had a love affair with Hubble and the science it does for years.

About manned vs. unmanned:  In the 60's, the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts were the "Cold Warriors" in what was obviously a political battle between America and the Soviets for the hearts and minds of the Third World, and so of course the missions had to be manned, and there was a lot of public support.  Even now, the idea of "man in space" seems to resonate with the public, because it puts a human face on the whole enterprise, and gives them heroes.  Do you think the American public would support a program with no manned flights, even if it were more cost-effective from a science standpoint?

A large part of the rationale for keeping the shuttle fleet is so that we can staff and maintain the international space station. Yet as far as I can tell, there is little or no scientific reason for this project. Budget cuts have already gutted what little science can be done on the station.

To me, one of the biggest jokes is the life sciences component, in which they tout growing protein crystals of better quality, so that we can "cure cancer, AIDS, heart disease, etc." Protein crystals are necessary for determining the X-ray crystallographic structure (i.e., three-dimensional structure) of proteins. It is true that solving the structures (over 21,000 lodged in the U.S. Protein Data Bank) of the relevant proteins has led to advances in the above disease problems, and many others besides. However, virtually all of these structures were determined using "Earth-grown" crystals, and an investigator could hardly get a small NIH grant if he had a method to grow better crystals. Yet, NASA wants to rationalize a multibillion space station, in part, because we can get better protein crystals in space.

is that it inspires generations of little space cowboys to wanna grow up to be astronauts and/or scientists and engineers, and this can only be a good thing as far as i'm concerned. i'm not commenting on the magnitude or importance of this impact, just the very existence of it.

to follow up on a point you made, the greatest such benefit however has been to inspire kids in *other* countries to join their ranks (witness, the ethnic composition of the EE/ME/Aero graduate departments in almost any of our top-rated universities). not being an isolationist i happen to think this too is a wonderful thing.

your arguments about the foolishness of the STS program are logically irrefutable. i know of many "Texans" who think the same but dare not speak it for fear of getting fired or being  blacklisted in the "community"

however i would point out (for others) that manned space flight (in general) is less susceptible to such B&W conclusions, mainly cuz we don't have as much experience there as with launching spacecraft/payloads. some exploratory and critical missions will most definitely require manned operation. in fact the "science" harvested during Apollo was certainly impossible using the primitive automation of the 70s. most NASA folk i've talked to readily admit that Apollo, for all its faults, was definitely a good thing, a valuable learning experience. but very few would in all honesty say the same about the Shuttle.

If you want a tremendously sobering read, pick up a copy of a book titled "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out [the best short works of Richard P. Feynman]" (my paperback copy is July, 2000, Helix Books, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA), which includes Feynman's minority report to the Space Shuttle Challenger Inquiry.  This was written, of course, before the Columbia loss.  When I read it, shortly after Columbia, I found it striking for its relevance to both losses.  Feynman focuses hugely on issues relating to mismanagement by NASA of the engineering process, of engineers, and of massive engineering projects.  It's compelling stuff, and very sad.

I found a link to an online copy of Feynman's minority report, but it appears to be dead.  It's below in case it works for others.

Frankly, in my opinion there is only one justification for the space station.  It is far better that Russian rocket scientists to work on the space station than for the North Koreans.

Given the current (and future) Federal budget deficits, the public should support a reprioritizing of government spending.  

Actually, not liking the space shuttle does not necessarily mean that I don't think there should be no manned space program.  The shuttle was designed to be the answer for everybody's space needs and fails at all its requirements.  I simpler, non-resuable manned vehicle whose only purpose is to put men in space and not everything else, would make sense for the few things that justify manned space operations.

Remember, the shuttle program started in the early 1970's.  That is old for high technology.  Do you remember the kinds of computers and electronics gear people were using 30 years ago?  Several months ago, before the Columbia failure, I heard a news report on NPR that NASA, to find spare electronic components for the shuttle, sometimes looks on EBAY.  A replacement is justified on that basis alone.  

engineers.  It certainly did with my generation.  When I was ten years old, I thought the X-15 rocket plane was the coolest thing there was.  

NASA is heavily involved in science education in the public schools, and this is one of the best things they do.

Beyond this, heros like the astronauts serve an important function in society.  The triumph of the human spirit is something we can all celebrate, and that can bring us all together.

Your observations may be true to your experience, but I've found that it depends on what school and academic "culture" you're talking about.

The engineers I've known are often brain-dead dolts, and their training (no, I won't call it "education" -- that implies some degree of enlightenment and world-awareness and opening of horizons and vistas to perspectives other than their own) is remarkably simple-minded. Lots of math. When done with math, do more math. In doubt, take math. Need to figure out art? Try math. If you want a date, apply math. Got too drunk? Math might help you. Usually calculus. But defninitely math. They've mostly managed to turn themselves into human computers -- and the presumption that if a subject is "hard," then it must be right to do, is just utterly fallacious. Maybe if it was so "hard" for you, you should have found a discipline more suited to your talents.

I have an undergrad degree in mathematics, by the way, and graduate degrees in physics and Medieval literature.

For example, at institutions where I've taught, the engineering students were mostly the party-hearty frat idiots who knew exactly how much studying was necessary to make sure they barely passed the tests -- and they didn't intend to do ANY more studying than that. They had the attitude like, "hey, because it's dull dry boring shit and nobody else wants to do it, the least we can do is minimize the grief we experience from it if we're gonna be the ones stuck with it." Obviously, upper-tier engineering schools won't likely have that "culture" -- but there are MANY more engineers on this planet from lower-tier schools, now aren't there?

I don't wish to defend MBA's -- everyone I know who's got one, is hopelessly enmeshed in the traditional assumptions about capitalism that were created during the 1920s and 30s by the secret cabinet, foisting on us systems like perpetual expansionism and the radical notion of corporate feedback. Not that those assumptions are NECESSARILY wrong -- just that I've never met an MBA who even knew he had them, or could discuss them at all. It went like this: "hey, THAT'S THE WAY IT ALWAYS WORKS. Period! Don't question me!!!" (Ever notice how paranoid people start to sound when you question their whole frame of reference?)

As far as the Shuttle disaster goes, I think it's an "institutional failure," in which some part of the blame should go to the engineering "culture" of disliking the very problems they seek out, of thinking solutions are best when least effortful. Another part should go to politicians and middle managers who create systems wherein the right answers aren't always the exigent ones. There are probably loads of other directions to point the blame, too. It's a big system of interlaced loyalties and many people whose college experiences provided them with almost no social skills or even self-management skills beyond the mere drudging (apply math), so it's not a surprise that the human element of the system failed.

And remember, most terrorists get their degrees in engineering. A little bridge building here, a little piloting there, off to Qatar or Mannheim for a little demolition. I'm not impressed with the engineers' training system that this world has created, in which "education" is equated with YET MORE MATH. Maybe if they'd learn a bit about other cultures and divergent ideas, they'd stop thinking build-build-build and numbers-numbers-numbers were the highest callings of the human mind, they'd get some perspective on their own lives and their self-satisfied smug attitudes, and they'd create fewer problems for themselves to solve. (Apply math.)

that NASA engineers succeded in cracking the carbon filament substrate, and misaligning a ceramic tile by about 0.1 inches on a shuttle wing replica.  They did it by firing a 1.5 pound piece of insulative foam at the wing at a speed of 525mph.

Duh.

In general, there's been an overall decline in the quality of student and curriculum in the engineering programs that seems to mirror it's declining status in our society.  When I went to school, many of the smartest kids wanted to enter science or engineering.  Now they want to enter a field that makes more money.  I doubt engineering is in the top 10 for most of them.  

Like all specialties (law, medicine, science) there is a tendency over time to get more specialized and narrower.  It's why we've all met doctors who are such complete idiots about life in general- they just didn't have time to learn all the other things there are to know.  As a result, there are people that make good livings taking advantage of doctor's lack of common sense and business acumen.  

But the generalist/specialist emphasis in engineering goes in cycles and when I was a student it was definitely in the narrow and deep stage.  And as you indicated, that meant more calculus than anyone should ever have to do- even to the exclusion of creating understanding in most cases.  I was poor at calculus, but excelled at understanding the implications of the problem, and the nuances involved etc.  You'd be surprised how few people had that ability.  Most of the best students barely understood the concepts involved, but could solve equations like a Cray computer.  It's sad really, because their one-dimensionality was actually encouraged and rewarded by the nature of the program.

As for today's student being more concerned about partying than studying, I'll have to take your word for that.  Sadly, when I was an engineering student, many of the kids were such social misfits that they studied, rather than socialized, on Saturday night, thereby further reinforing their lack of real world expierience.  

But one thing is for certain, the "poets" and the "engineers" will never understand each other, which is too bad because both hold valuable lessons.  My 82 year old father, who also has an engineering degree, said it was the same when he went to school as well.  I've spent most of my adult life trying to make up of for the lack of liberal arts type courses in my college years.  I thoroughly enjoyed the ones I took, and it was only the straight A's I got in those courses that allowed me to even graduate with a decent average- and also made me realize I wasn't cut out to be an engineer.  But then, I never did like calculus, as i mentioned.  

Since leaving school, I've embraced many of the fields I didn't have time to pursue as a student.  But I realize I'm the exception there too, because few people in either camp ever bother to study or understand the other.  I'm appalled at how few people understand the reason for the scientific method, and prefer to believe any old thing that comes along.  Also, critical thinking ability is no longer emphasized in schools and it's really starting to show in many areas of society.  Similarly, too many of the nerd types never even think about philosophy or literature, or the insights they add to life.  I guess when you get right down to it, most people just stay in their comfort zones, where those limitations provide a sense of security.  You know the saying... ignorance is bliss.

i hate to respond to your post in caricature, but it (almost) leaves no other recourse.

by your "logic" the SPACE SHUTTLE CRASHED because  ...

a bunch of unenlightened brain-dead math-o-maniacal engineers partied their way through grad-school without learning sufficient social skills that would've allowed them to interact with broad-minded well-balanced touchy-feely MBA/management types who would've helped them avert a disaster by the sheer "common-sense" brilliance they exude from every orifice ... did i leave anything out?

too broad a generalization?  is it as broad as yours, claiming that the majority of engineers come from low-tier universities? hence type-casting the entire profession?



as for this little jewel:

"... some part of the blame should go to the engineering 'culture' of disliking the very problems they seek out, of thinking solutions are best when least effortful"

all i can say (at the risk of sounding juvenile) is ... "have you been smoking crack???????"  LOL  ...  engineers dodging HARD problems? at NASA no less?   what, the Sir Dance-a-Lots of Medieval Literature Studies department charge forth ... once again into the breach!  perhaps a bit like Don Quixote, no?  


and your last paragraph, aptly encapsulated by a deservedly preposterous "Daily-Mirror" tabloid-type headline: "MATH BREEDS TERRORISTS" ... is so absurdly off-the-wall (perhaps the effect you were going for) that it doesn't even warrant any comment


BOY! ... there's NO ESCAPING IT! ... this anti-science mentality, i mean ... LOL

no hard feelings ... [hand-shake]  




[putting aside copy of Boccaccio's Decameron to bang rocks together to spark a fire to cook dinner with]

LOL ... I take it you "missed" my point only enough to fictionalize it, and make fun of it, and not enough to actually misunderstand it?

Here's a paraphrase: be wrapped up in a system, and you'll fail to see the disadvantages of the system, whether that system is math-obsessed overly-engineered tall buildings with people in white lab coats, or math-phobic underly-engineered short buildings with people in tweed jackets.

But the tweedies don't go building rockets that blow up ...

Reepends on the school

I may be wrong here, but didn't an engineer actually submit a memo or something saying that there was a chance of disaster for reentry?  Trying to catch up on news here and all of the theories.  Been out of the country for 11 months.