Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.columbia,net.space
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
Message-ID: <564@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 12:20:26 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.564
Posted: Wed Feb 26 12:20:26 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Feb-86 22:23:02 EST
References: <1301@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: none
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.columbia:2511 net.space:6089

In article <1301@decwrl.DEC.COM> eros@chovax.DEC writes:
>
>  Over the last few days, engineers at Morton-Thiokol have been falling
>  all over one another to express how sure they were that the O-rings
>  on the SRBs would fail during launch and how schedule-minded and
>  inflexible NASA management was about delaying the mission.
>  
>  This brings up an interesting question - if these folks were
>  so sure of the danger to the SRBs (in fact, one senior engineer said
>  that he and other engineers expressed surprise at launch time that
>  Challenger cleared the tower without incident) why didn't they go
>  to the media with their concerns?  
>  
>  Tony Eros
>  !decwrl!chovax!eros

	If the MT engineers were 75% sure that the shuttle would not make
it, would that justify "going to the media" (aka "going over their bosses'
heads")? What, then, if the 25% chance happened and all went well? They'd
be in the bread lines, that's what. The bosses made the decisions, and at
some point, you have to acknowledge the authority of those "in power". You
really don't want that sort of anarchy going on in a company that handles
such sensitive ventures as this. You want to invest the authority in the 
right people and in the right decision-making systems, and follow those
rules.

	It seems to me that the problem came in that the decision-making
power was in the wrong hands. It should have been more responsive to the
engineers, who are closer to the real-life physical laws at work, rather
than resting ultimately with paper-pushing private-sector politicians whose
main concern is appearances rather than substance. To blame the engineers
for not risking their (and their families') future and security is dependent
upon what they saw as the likelyhood of a mishap. If it was 90% or more, 
perhaps I would agree with you. If it was 50% or below, you're asking
those engineers to toss a coin over their own asses. After all, they *did*
make their objections known to the right people. 

-- 
					--MKR

There is none so blind as he who cannot see.