🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <644@otto.cvedc.UUCP> billa@otto.UUCP (Bill Anderson) writes:
>In article <7734@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>>Thiokol was concurrently negotiating a contract renewal.  The pressure
>>to "go along" under those circumstances is unbearable...
>>                           Until and unless we put every contractor in
>>the excruciating position Thiokol was in and compare their performance,
>>I consider it unfair to single out Thiokol for not dealing well with
>>improper NASA pressure.
>
>Unfair?  More than 2 1/2 years delay in shuttle launching, 7 fine
>people killed, 7 families in sorrow, etc. and you would consider it
>unfair to deal harshly with Thiokol?  

Bill should respond to the points in the article, not to a strawman.  I
will reiterate, Thiokol should not be *singled out* for vengeance
because it gave in to *improper* NASA pressure.  There is no reason to
suspect other key NASA contractors would have done any better under the
circumstances.  Nor is Thiokol solely responsible for the 51L disaster
as Bill well knows.  Improper leak check pressure probably holed the
putty, and additional flaws may have been induced by the Rockwell crew
in the VAB bay.  Should we shoot everyone involved?  Will that bring
back the dead?

>                                     I'm afraid those families (and I)
>don't share your compassion for Thiokol.  You think it's better to let
>them get away with caving in under pressure than to make an example of
>them?  

The program can ill afford your "examples."  We need new boosters
to get the program back on track.  NASA should have second sourced
the SRMs years ago but didn't -- now it's too late.  Second sourcing
is a much handier stick to beat a vendor with than contract renewal.

>      I think it would be better to do a good deal of "house cleaning"
>and give the very clear message that honor and integrity are more
>valuable than any schedule, contract, or $.  In my opinion, anything
>less is unfair and demoralizing.

Hey, pass that over here, don't bogart it.  Thanks <nnnpphhhhttt! O-O-O>.
Seriously, contracts and $$ are *pre-requisites* for honor and integrity
in the aerospace biz!  These vendors have oodles of integrity but
they only get to apply it if they're W-O-R-K-I-N-G.  You cannot teach
them by "example" that it's better to put their corporate life at
risk than to put a flight at risk, when NASA wants it the second way.
A couple such "examples" and you simply won't get bids... meanwhile
Ivan is blasting off weekly.
-- 
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)