Opposing Launch, 2 NASA Officials Feared Shuttle's Loss, Not Crew Safety

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: In Opposing Launching, 2 NASA Officials Feared Shuttle's Loss, Not Crew Safety
By WARREN E. LEARY
Published: June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 21 — Two NASA officials who voted to delay the coming launching of the space shuttle Discovery said Wednesday that their reservations concerned potential damage to the spacecraft, not fears for the safety of the crew.

Bryan O'Connor, NASA's lead safety official, and Christopher Scolese, its chief engineer, voted "no-go" on Saturday when agency officials meeting at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida cleared Discovery for a planned July 1 liftoff.

Michael D. Griffin, administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other officials acknowledged that it was somewhat unusual to certify a shuttle to fly without complete concurrence by the top managers. But they said that everyone's concerns had been vetted in an intensive, nonconfrontational exchange during two days of meetings and that a decision was made to go ahead with the flight.

Responding to news media inquiries, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Scolese on Wednesday answered questions about their dissenting opinions in a telephone news conference and both said their concerns were not about the safety of Discovery's seven-member crew.

The two officials said they were concerned that the insulating foam that covers 34 metal brackets on the shuttle's external fuel tank might dislodge during the launching and damage the spacecraft's protective heat shield beyond repair.

Even though such damage would not endanger the crew, which could stay in a "safe haven" aboard the International Space Station until rescued by another shuttle, the officials said they were concerned about losing an irreplaceable shuttle like Discovery...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/space/22shuttle.html

[Paulie]

1. No shuttle, no job!

Gotta love the attitude from the (life) safety official and chief engineer...

Keep the machine safe, put it in the Smithsonian next to Space Shuttle Enterprise!

[benburch]

2. Delete

Delete

[Mind_your_head]

3. uh, I wouldkinda 'wonder' if I were one of the shuttle crew, wouldn't you?

It's all 'upside down' when the project managers, et al don't put the safety of the crew as a top/first/utmost priority....ah, well....mebbe they wouldn't want to 'do the job' anymore under that circumstance, who would blame them?

edit: major edit to more clearly state my point.

[Karmakaze]

4. You are missing the point...

They are not saying that the safety of the shuttle comes before the safety of the crew - they are saying the EVEN THOUGH the safety of the crew would not be threatened in an accident, the loss of the shuttle itself is also something that should not be risked.

Seems reasonable to me, I mean how many billions does one of those things cost?

[Righteous9]

5. Now I must be missing something...

I didn't know you could lose the shuttle without losing the crew.

are they giving our astronauts parachutes now?

..........

I assume that the implication is that the shuttle would be able to reenter earth's atmosphere and land inspite of the damage to the heatplates?

[drm604]

6. This is explained in the OP.

"Even though such damage would not endanger the crew, which could stay in a "safe haven" aboard the International Space Station until rescued by another shuttle, the officials said they were concerned about losing an irreplaceable shuttle like Discovery..."

[AnOhioan]

7. The writer needs to find a new line of work....

That headline is VERY poorly written.