Blood and Money, Wayne Hale
“We must have a clear-eyed appreciation for the risk involved in space exploration. Flying to the moon will not be much safer in 2024 than it was in 1969. Exploration always comes with risk, and with some regularity exploration risk is realized. The real cost of Artemis will be written in blood. Face that fact. This may be considered a poor time to bring this up – at a time when so many folks are actively working toward program approval. Death is hardly a selling point. But if we don’t recognize that fact, the program will come apart at the first bad day.”
Administrators Symposium on Risk and Exploration: Earth, Sea and the Stars, NASA (2004)
“Challenge fosters excellence, often drawing on previously untapped skills and abilities. Each of us takes and accepts risk as a part of our daily existence. We often go out of our way to seek challenge. However, seeking challenge often means accepting a high level of risk. The dictionary defi nes risk as being exposed to hazard or danger. To accept risk is to accept possible loss or injury, even death. One of the key issues that continues to be debated in the tragedy of the Space Shuttle Columbia is the level of risk NASA accepted. And, ultimately, the entire nation is now engaged in a broader debate over whether or not the exploration of space is worth the risk of human life. While risk can often be reduced or controlled, there comes a point when the removal of all risk is either impossible or so impractical that it completely undermines the very nature of what NASA was created to do–to pioneer the future. Everyone today understands that human space exploration is a risky endeavor. However, the quest for discovery and knowledge, and the risks involved in overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles is not unique to NASA. Whether the challenge is exploring the depths of our oceans or reaching the top of our highest mountains, great feats usually involve great risk.”
Fortuna Audaces Juvat, @JimBridenstine, earlier post
“During that time when the VSE was seen as a refreshing recommitment to exploration post-Columbia – there was a momentary alliance between all factions. People thought bold adventurous thoughts again. Back to the Moon and then on to Mars. Craig Steidle was looking to do some branding and meme generation. He hit on one thing that was really ballsy (larger image) . The motto was “Fortuna Audaces Juvat” which is usually translated as a variant of “Fortune favors the bold” – a latin proverb most prominently repeated in Virgil’s “Aeneid” at 10.284. You have no doubt seen this phrase before. Its common in the military – for good reasons. It has a Star Trek vibe to it. Craig Steidel drew a line in the sand and provided a motto to wear on one’s shoulders as the agency set forth back into space. I thought it was a master stroke. Too bad NASA doesn’t do things like this any more.”
Keith’s note: Wayne Hale’s words ring true in a way we seem to be forgetting again. In 2004 John Grunsfeld and I organized a symposium on Risk and Exploration for Sean O’Keefe. At the core of this event was an attempt to compare risks faced – and accepted by NASA and those faced and accepted by other explorers. We held this event barely a year after the loss of Columbia – so these risk evaluations were foremost in everyone’s minds. This event had a big effect on people’s thinking – including Wayne Hale who ordered a box of copies of the Symposium’s proceedings to use to educate his staff at JSC. So now here we are in 2019. We’ve had several accidents or “mishaps” as we develop commercial crew flights while flying on Soyuz spacecraft. NASA is now talking about skipping a “green test” – and all-up firing of the SLS first stage so that we can meet a rushed deadline – one set with little warning – to land humans on the Moon in 5 years.
Yes fortune does often favor the bold. But it also punishes the ill-prepared.
Of course there is risk in space exploration, just as there has been risk associated with any endeavor. Columbus took risks when he sailed his tiny ship into unknown waters. Lewis & Clark experienced risks including being attacked by a grizzly bear! We take risks of fatal collisions, missing another vehicle by only a few feet on the highway.
But the so-called “risks” of Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia were NOT unavoidable ones. Any highschool chem student knows what happens when you stick a glowing stick into a testtube of pure oxygen. NASA was warned not to launch on the cold day. NASA engineers debated whether to ask for high-definition images of Columbia’s wing on orbit, but decided against asking for such, possibly due to fear of criticism by their bosses! That’s not risk-taking; that’s arrogance on the part of management!
Certainly there will be risks imposed because of what we don’t know. But that is quite a different matter than ignoring potential hazards we know about. On the other hand, we cannot allow ourselves to be so cautious that we make the same amount of progress as a turtle that has pulled its head, feet and tail into its shell. The turtle progresses only when it sticks its neck out!
Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
That’s what makes managing projects difficult. It actually takes good judgement to balance benefits and risks. It could be the right choice to say the foam issue is a risk, but it doesn’t look like a huge one or an avoidable one, take some precautions, and keep flying. Or not. But the nature and degree of the risk wasn’t passed up through a couple levels of management clearly (the same, by the way was true of the request for imaging.) And the result was an _uninformed_ decision to accept a risk the managers didn’t actually think was a risk. That’s definitely the wrong way to do things. But people keep wanting to turn good judgement into a process that you can follow as a manager without getting in trouble for a mistake. That’s not realistic.
It seems something similar may have occurred with the 737-MAX, where allegedly pilots and others who should have been informed of deficiencies were not! I’m not sure that it was necessary to pass the assessment of risk up through “several layers of management” in the case of Challenger. When the NASA manager told the engineering manager to “stop thinking like an engineer and start thinking like a manager!” that was a decision that should not have been allowed to take place. Also, lack of communication is probably the biggest problem with management and engineering. This is where systems engineering should come into play, but my experience has been systems engineering and integration is too often ignored as a means of insuring communication between disciplines and management. About all we can hope is that we will learn from the mistakes of the past, and know when a risk is worth taking and when it is not.
Ad Astra!
When I mentioned foam and poor communications through several layers of management, I was talking about Columbia not Challenger. With Challenger, the comment you mentioned and the whole decision process were not miscommunications. They were communicating the wrong thing.
I do agree about the underused and unappreciated role of system engineers. But the point I was trying to make was that decisions about risk have to be informed decisions. It’s about balancing the risks, benefit and odds of the risk occuring. If you don’t know the details, you might as well be flipping a coin.
Exactly!
But the problem though, is that now, everything will be second guessed on Twitter, Facebook, CNN, and Fox News.
That could be an good argument for private, rather than NASA/government, exploration. People can say the whole dearMoon is a stupid idea. And Mr. Musk and Yusaku Maezawa can ignore them. If something goes wrong, it’s there problem and they can, again, ignore what the general public thinks. Sure, there would be lots of second guessing. But there’s no particular reason for them to care. With NASA, second guessers can complain to their congressmen, who can call NASA officials in to testify before a committee, and those officials can’t answer questions by telling congressmen where to go.
STAND YOUR GROUND, AMERICA – without risk, there is NO reward.
Fear IS for weaklings and can be an avenue to failure and retreat.
Take challenges, and subjugate them into advantages.
Crush obstacles and adversaries into the ground, without remorse.
Every time.
Wayne Hale and Keith Cowing are absolutely correct.
“Fear” can be functional. Fear of falling has kept people from taking a fatal plunge. Without trying to argue semantics, let me say that “constructive concern” might be a better term. Panic gets people killed! When “constructive concern” is ignored to maintain a schedule or totally because of the monetary costs, or because of the fear of criticism becomes the be-all and end-all, that is when you get in trouble, and people die!
There is no question that one can overdo “concern” to the point where nothing gets done. But that then becomes the judgment call, which can be difficult. With “calculated risk” you will sometimes get bitten. But, most progress occurs when some risk is evaluated and taken,
Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
I do believe that after both the Challenger and Columbia losses, that NASA has become more risk averse in general. To some degree this is understandable and an improvement over the previous philosophy/attitude of the previous administrative team.
I remember the pounding NASA took delaying the Challenger launch several times by news media. Each subsequent delay was made more and more of an indictment of NASA- they couldn’t manage a simple thing as a space launch! Of course after the accident, NASA was pounded by these same people about what a poor job they had done managing the risk.
People really need to understand that when you sit in a vehicle that is powered by several million pounds of high explosive, there is a risk. When a design is compromised because Congress decides what the capabilities and mission of a space vehicle should be, you’re asking for trouble. Remember that before Challenger, shuttles took live rocket stages up inside the payload bay. Thousands of pounds of highly explosive chemicals just a few feet away from the crew. I know they had safety systems, but suppose one had failed and the stage ignited inside the shuttle? To me that is definitely too much risk.
We’re seeing the same thing now with the possible elimination of Gateway. For political reasons, the design of how to get back into deep space is being changed.
We should decide the best way to do this for the long term, not to beat the Chinese or anybody else back to the moon, or Mars or anywhere else we want to go. We should figure out how to do it safely, efficiently and with at least some thought on how to keep it going over the long term. Space exploration is going to take many decades of work.
The text is translated by the translator.
Risks and machines on Mars.
Motto: The Martians will not pay for earthly products and services from the US.
Premise: Is this a good idea for US presidents in the 21st century?
Reflections – 1: Artificial Intelligence.
Mars will do nothing to make people succeed.
What can the machines do on Mars without landing people?
Can machines change the climate on Mars during 500 years?
What work for robots on Mars? What machines on Mars?
Reflections – 2: Modern times in the US.
Is this a good idea for the president of the US (PDT)?
Is this a good idea for the Republican Party?
Is this a good idea for NASA and Wall Street?
Is this a good idea for the United States?
Considerations – Part 3: “Trump Space Towers for Mars”.
The “Trump Space Towers for Mars” scale model:
NASA – coordinates the organization of cargo expeditions to Mars every 26 months, handles launching of rocket-cargo operations from 5-10 space ports, supervises space commodity missions during flight and landing on Mars.
BUSINESS – a free market, companies have rocket-cargo (high mass of cargo) and offer other companies delivering products to Mars (materials, devices, machines, robots equipped with artificial intelligence).
“Trump Space Towers for Mars”
An integrated system of new 10 space ports in the US along with the service of cargo missions to Mars. In one course, every 26 months, common transport to Mars of many modules (rocket-cargo) supplies of materials and equipment. Export of Mars cargo mission products carried out by companies. The system dedicated to the transport of goods to Mars, i.e. at the appointed time, the system sets to “Martian starter window” (every 26 months), let’s assume that 6 months before the departure of the freight mission, but before that, the system is used for 20 months for a great export to the moon, and it is closer, cheaper, therefore the opportunity for more companies.
Considerations – part 4. Risk And Business Go Hand In Hand.
In the “Trump Space Towers for Mars” model, NASA does not grant financial grants for commodity missions undertaken by companies on the open market. The need to carry out the mission for many years, 100 years !, implementation of cargo-ship expeditions, every 26 months. Everyone will ask the question: How many cargo missiles will be sent to Mars and how much of the usable mass will each deliver? This venture can not be stopped. So is this a good idea for US presidents in the 21st century? Is Mars a planta that will stop the US?
Considerations – part 5. New jobs.
How many new jobs will be created in 10 years to use the “Trump Space Towers for Mars” system? 100,000? Engineers, technicians, specialists, company managers. Every 26 months 10 rockets-cargo. The risk will always be.
Reflections – part 6. Commodity mission, example.
– rocket-module containing power plants with storage and charger of electricity,
– rocket-module containing robots equipped with artificial intelligence,
– rocket-module containing autono-nomic machines that will use the electric charger themselves,
– rocket-module containing construction and building materials,
– ….
Reflections – part 7. A million ideas.
…
***
The method of project management includes the risk. When the implementation of the project runs safely for man, the entire attention will be focused on the costs of material technical means.
Assumption:
The physical conditions on Mars will not change the science and engineering knowledge of planetary landings and machine operations on Mars. Thus, technology professionals will improve the structure with every mission every 26 months. The quality will be higher and higher.
The technical risk of freight delivery will be related to the financial insurance of the mission.