Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!uafhp!nwark!p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler
From: Dan.Daetwyler@p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Dan Daetwyler)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Not Solving Any Problems (was Re: Solving The Shuttles Problems?)
Message-ID: <260.27292296@nwark.fidonet.org>
Date: 25 Oct 90 23:21:21 GMT
Sender: ufgate@nwark.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 8:391/7.14 - Ozark Connection, Fayetteville AR
Lines: 13


 JB> get away with. Perhaps have NASA be an intermediate development
 JB> agency between the basic research and the aerospace development
 JB> efforts of the Navy and Air Force instead of having a duplication
 JB> of effort...

 JB> again, just my $.02 worth...

You'll still face the problem of NASA trying to be the "system manager".  This would be great, if...  In order to be a good manager, you have to know something about the job you're trying to do.  All to often management tries to "manage" something they aren't technically qualified to manage.  Almost invariably, disaster results.  This isn't saying NASA isn't filled with qualified people.  It is a statement that they do "over manage" in esoteric areas that they do NOT have sufficient knowledge of.  And it i

s also to say that NASA has the same bureacracy problems that all large organizations have. All too frequently technical decisions are made for purely political reasons.

One of the standard "contractor" jokes about NASA was the one about "testing".  NASA's standard test was "to destruction".  Then repair and test five more times.  Now use the product in a live mission.  This kept NASA "clean" politically, when something went wrong, but didn't do much to keep costs down, or get on with the job.  I know of one case where the "repair" after test cost more than a new device would have cost, but NASA insisted on the original device being "repaired".  

D Squared