Xref: utzoo sci.space:8403 sci.space.shuttle:2025 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!rocky8!cucard!dasys1!tneff From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Morton Thiokol (blame etc.) Message-ID: <7825@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 21 Nov 88 00:20:51 GMT References: <1988Nov4.065730.10761@utzoo.uucp> <7594@dasys1.UUCP> <1988Nov14.214139.1892@utzoo.uucp> <7734@dasys1.UUCP> <1988Nov18.182613.1823@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Organization: Independent Users Guild Lines: 50 In article <1988Nov18.182613.1823@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: -In article <7734@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: ->-...NASA is ->-hardly blameless for the pressure it applied, but it was Thiokol, not ->-NASA, that ultimately decided to ignore the problem... ->-Being honorable under pressure is difficult, yes. It's ever so much ->-simpler to take the easy way out and say "I vas chust following orders". -> ->Thiokol was concurrently negotiating a contract renewal. The pressure ->to "go along" under those circumstances is unbearable... - -Et tu, Tom? I really fear for mankind's future when damn near everybody -who discusses this issue seems to feel that Thiokol was right to go along ^^^^^^^^^ -just because it would have been difficult and painful not to. I come to bury Thiokol, not to praise it. The reason we're still disagreeing is that Henry has shifted ground. He started by saying that Thiokol should be DUMPED forever as a shuttle contractor because of their role in the Challenger disaster. Now he's just saying they weren't RIGHT to yield to NASA pressure. I agree, they weren't. Going from there to Henry's suggested remedy is another question altogether. I claim that any of the major NASA contractors would have done nearly the same thing under similar circumstances, especially considering the contract renewal. If we want to dump the contractor system as a whole, OK; if not, NASA has to be held responsible for managing that system effectively. "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?" The virtuous answer to Mulloy's question would have been "yes, if necessary." You would have to be a Keebler Elf to believe that any NASA contractor could have been expected to give that answer. The crime is that the question was even asked. -The greatest tragedy of the Challenger disaster is that seven people died, -a near-irreplaceable billion-dollar orbiter was destroyed, the US manned -space program was nearly ruined... and nobody was held responsible for -it in any meaningful way. On the gut level I agree with this, but in a certain sense the outcome we got may have been better. By blaming the "system as a whole" for the tragedy while most of the specific people under fire quit or were transferred elsewhere, we spread the hurt (I think) where it will do the most good. It might have been counterproductive to have had someone like the doped-up Amtrak switcher to pillory publicly. The flawed system itself might have been permitted to plow on unaffected in the aftermath. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)