Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.columbia,net.space Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims Message-ID: <1062@psivax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 15:28:31 EST Article-I.D.: psivax.1062 Posted: Fri Mar 14 15:28:31 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Mar-86 08:38:23 EST References: <1301@decwrl.DEC.COM> <758@ism780c.UUCP> <6442@utzoo.UUCP> <1439@brl-smoke.ARPA> <6474@utzoo.UUCP> <504@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 26 Xref: watmath net.columbia:2658 net.space:6467 In article <504@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >Was the O-ring problem something that stuck out like a sore thumb >beforehand, as a source of major disagreement? I suspect instead that >it was just one of hundreds of possible problems brought up and deemed >not serious enough. In this case, they were wrong, and everybody pays. > I think this is a very important point. In *hind-sight* it seems obvious that the problem was significant. BUT, how do you tell *ahead* of time which of the hundreds of niggling little doubts and concerns are *really* important and which are not? It is impossible to make sure *everything* is *exactly* right before launching, if we did that we would *never* launch. In fact if we used that criterion we would never do anything significant. Unfortunately the media must have a scandal to sell newpapers and catch viewers, so *someone* must be at fault. I have *never* seen a news story which concluded that everything was normal and that there was no cause for concern. They *thrive* on problems. Unfortunately, in this case they may get innocent people ruined in the search for scapegoats. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa