Astronaut Mullane Comments on Riding Rockets

[hold]

This is Astronaut Mike Mullane. Obviously I should have learned what a “blog” is sooner and visited this one several days ago. I wanted to put to rest some misinformation in this discussion forum that relates to comments I have (or haven’t) made in the media while discussing my book “Riding Rockets.” Everybody please understand…I’ve NEVER said the shuttle is a deathtrap. EVER. This “quote” was contrived by a reporter for a London newspaper…a reporter who never interviewed me. Let me tell you what I have said in my numerous press interviews associated with the release of my new book, Riding Rockets. When I have been asked about the Challenger, the shuttle design, etc., my replies have mimicked the current NASA Administrator’s Congressional testimony. Administrator Michael Griffin has said something along the line, “The shuttle is a flawed design. It has no crew escape system.” (As someone who is editorializing about being misquoted, I should emphasize what I have in quotes above is an approximate quote by Administrator Michael Griffin. I don’t have his exact words in front of me.) Griffin then went on to say words to the effect that, because human perfection is unattainable, if we continue to fly the shuttle for the indefinite future we might have another tragedy and lose another crew. This was a preamble to his decision to fly the shuttle the minimum number of times to build out the international space station and then retire it in 2010. I support Michael Griffin’s plan and I have said it in multiple interviews. In fact, I say it in the Epilogue of my book. But somehow the “Guardian” and “Observer” newspaper reporter(s) took these comments to fashion my “quote” that the shuttle is a “deathtrap.” In a Fox & Friends interview on 1/25/06, I was asked about this deathtrap statement and refuted it with the same explanation as I’ve given above. I also sent a letter to the Guardian editor explaining I have never made a “deathtrap” statement (fat chance

 

[rubicondsrv]

welcome to SDC.<br />your presence here is very much apreciated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Welcome aboard! I must retract some of the unkind things I said about you here -- and not just because you're a member now. I had gone with the media interpretation of your book. I think the press put a rather dramatic spin on things. We all should've known better; we're always moaning about how the popular press screws up science stories, especially ones involving NASA and especially ones involving the Space Shuttle. They like drama too much.<br /><br />Thank you for taking so much time out of your schedule to come here and set the record straight. I hope you will stick around; it's quite special to have an actual astronaut here! I feel very proud to meet you! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

The paper you were quoted in has a negative angle towards manned space flight and uses its angle to counter opinion in my country that has huge support for NASA, the STS program and manned space flight.<br /><br />The reason for this is a space editor at that paper who still feels betrayed by the loss of life sciences due to the STS budget. The "journalist" is American, by the way.<br /><br />We didn't give this article the time of day for the aforementioned reasons, but a lot of damage has been done given the timing. It's a real shame as the UK media has been supportive of the STS program and you won't get a retraction unless you took them to court. This is how the scum media works, thankfully it's just this one newspaper that acts like this....but their report made over 50 other media sites as you saying the Shuttle is a deathtrap.<br /><br />As a space flight journalist, I'll be happy to help you fight back in the UK media because I for one am totally sick of this paper's terrible and disrespectful coverage of manned space flight.<br /><br />Get in touch at chrisbergin@nasaspaceflight.com if you so wish.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Just takes one crap, self-motivated journalist, Calli. Problem now-a-days is as soon as someone like the AP wire picks up on the report, you'll end up seeing it in every corner of the globe on sites that publish wire reports.<br /><br />Mike Mullane is quoted as saying "The Shuttle is a deathtrap" on the anniversary of Challenger, on well over 50 sites because of that one journalist.<br /><br />Tars the media with the same brush I'm sorry to say <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I'd gush too, but Calli has beaten me to it! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Colonel, thank-you for coming along and clarifying your position to us 'cackling chooks' at M&L. I am very pleased to say I was wrong in my assessment of you in the earlier thread. You are indeed an honourable and classy gentleman. Thank-you also for your service to your country, to NASA, and to all of us human spaceflight advocates around the world.<br /><br />I, too, hope you will stop by here from time to time when your schedule permits. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

In light of what has been posted, I take back my suggestion that the "deathtrap" comment was a former-astronaut's attempt to flog books. It was obviously an editor's attempt to flog newspapers.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">The part-timer program was not only taking seats from us and flying people who were scaring the dickens out of some crews, it was also an immoral program. Individuals who were clueless about the risks of spaceflight were being exploited for public relations purposes. The entire part-timer program was built on the lie that the shuttle was nothing more than an airliner, which just happened to fly higher and faster than a Boeing 747.</font><br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the ORIGINAL intent of the Shuttle, a very noble one at that, before the Air Force screwed everything up with their requirements? (never let the military tell you what to do)<br />Then after the Shuttle strated flying regularly and everyone was hyped about its prospects, not having swalowed the humongous costs yet, NASA decides to dupe the public into thinking the Shuttle is indeed an airliner, at least from the standpoint of safety, although it's obvioulsy that it will never be the spaceship that made space accesible to the masses.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I take back my suggestion that the "deathtrap" comment was a former-astronaut's attempt to flog books."</font><br /><br />Same here. Should have known better than trust the press <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

That's the main reason I'm kicking myself. I mean, we all know how frequently the general media screws up space stories. They portrayed STS-114 as a brush with death! Absurd. And then I went and flew off the handle without thinking things through.<br /><br />najaB put it best -- this was a journalist's attempt to flog newspapers. Controversy sells, and unfortunately, journalists can get very good at quoting a person very accurately and yet greatly changing the meaning of the statement. It makes me very angry with myself for not realizing that on my own. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that [becoming the 'DC-3 of the Space Age'] the ORIGINAL intent of the Shuttle, a very noble one at that, before the Air Force screwed everything up with their requirements?"<br /><br />Yes, but the original design, with the manned fly-back booster, proved far too costly. Indeed, the whole Shuttle program would not have gone forward if the Air Force hadn't offered to share development costs. The payload capacity of the Shuttle made the Hubble Space Telescope and a number of other programs, manned and unmanned, possible. Technically speaking, we might have been able to accomplish the same thing using separate crew-lift and payload-lift launch vehicles, and dropping the reusability features... But the money just wasn't there! And nobody realized the technological problems that had to be overcome to make the Shuttle fly!<br /><br />Was/is the Shuttle a far less-than-perfect system? Yes, it is. Might we have done things differently...in HIND SIGHT! YES! Could the Shuttle have most of its design flaws fixed? Probably. But the money isn't there, and it is time to move along. It took about 35 years for the Northrop B-49 to become the B-2. Someday, we will probably have a reliable civilian-passenger "shuttle".<br /><br />[(N)ever let the military tell you what to do.] Except when you need them! ("It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that...")<br /><br /><br />"Then after the Shuttle strated flying regularly and everyone was hyped about its prospects, not having swalowed the humongous costs yet, NASA decides to dupe the public into thinking the Shuttle is indeed an airliner, at least from the standpoint of safety, although it's obvioulsy that it will never be the spaceship that made space accesible to the masses."<br /><br />I distinctly remember Aviation Week quoting NASA officials before Enterprise rolled out of the hanger, that booster failures were considered "NON-SURVIVABILE"! I personally don't like solids for "high-value" payloads, includi

 

[nolirogari]

That does it Mike! <br /><br />I'm going out and buying a copy of your book. <br /><br />If I like it... it goes on the shelf with the other astro's books that I read on long road trips over and over again... if I don't... you show up in the Klyde Morris cartoon strip... or worse yet, as a character in "The Program" cartoon. (Hey... I gotta get my money back somehow.) <br /><br />All kidding aside- I'll buy and read and hope to be inspired. <br />

 

[jeff10]

Mike, you say, "Dying because you are “mission essential” is one thing. Dying as a “PR tool” is something else altogether."<br /><br />Honestly, I don't buy the difference between an astronaut and a 'passenger'. Both are human beings. In my view, you've got to treat the austronaut's life with the same respect as the passenger's. If there are known problems with the shuttle, you can't ignore them stating "it's the astronaut's job to take risks". Challenger's crew was lost simply because management didn't listen to engineers who said Challenger shouldn't be launched. It's not a risk to fly when engineers say you shouldn't fly - it's foolishness. <br /><br />You've also quoted Administrator Michael Griffin as saying (roughly): “The shuttle is a flawed design. It has no crew escape system." Putting the two together - no escape system plus flawed design gives you a deathtrap. Let's not mince words here. This is no judgment on the shuttle engineers - who know what the flaws are - but on the management - who make you fly despite knowing the dangers due to political or financial pressures. <br /><br />In my opinion (and this might sound exaggerated)...NASA"s management structure is a deathtrap. It is staggering to see that people of your caliber - and that of NASA engineers - feel scared to say what they feel. This is absolutely terrifying. <br /><br />Honestly, how many of us would happily fly on the shuttle right now, knowing it has design flaws and no escape system? <br /><br />

 

[jeff10]

I'm sure lots of people would fly the shuttle anytime. My point is, would you fly the shuttle knowing that:<br /><br />1. Information from engineers stating there is a serious problem is suppressed/deliberately ignored by management/NASA/contractor leadership.<br />2. NASA staff, including astronauts, are too scared to speak the truth. <br /><br />Would you fly, taking these "risks" into account? In fact, they're not risks. Risks are problems that may exist, that you don't know about in advance. The above two factors are not risks, but KNOWN issues. That's what bothers me. If NASA fixes the above two issues - that of information suppression and the creation of a culture of geniune freedom where people can speak their mind, that would fix the issues. Problems beyond that would qualify to be called genuine risks.

 

[CalliArcale]

Of course, some clarification of terms might be in order.<br /><br />This is not a blog. This is a message board. The difference is significant. Blogs are much more freeform, often are unmoderated, and rarely have any separation of content. They also often have only one author, but may allow feedback to the author/maintainer's daily posts, and a community may develop through that mechanism. Primarily, though, a blog is a place for its author to hold forth. "Blog", incidentally, is short for "web log". It's like a personal diary.<br /><br />A message board is a more structured and more rigid community. It's more like the old BBSes (Bulletin Board Systems) that existed in the days before HTTP and the World Wide Web. It may be moderated, probably has formalized terms of service and/or rules of conduct, often has forums within it to categorize various discussions, and is specifically intended as a place for discussion, not monolog.<br /><br />It's a seemingly minor, but important distinction. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

I had a feeling the quote was fake...

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">This is not a blog. This is a message board. The difference is significant. Blogs are much more freeform, often are unmoderated, and rarely have any separation of content. They also often have only one author, but may allow feedback to the author/maintainer's daily posts, and a community may develop through that mechanism. Primarily, though, a blog is a place for its author to hold forth. "Blog", incidentally, is short for "web log". It's like a personal diary.</font><br /><br />His reference to this site as a blog -- and the lack of any specific reference to space.com -- suggest to me that Mr. Mullane's "post" was more in the way of a mass-distributed press release than anything intended to be specific to this forum. Odds are good the gentleman doesn't know this forum exists.<br /><br />It read like it was written by one of his publisher's public relations flacks (note the repetitious sprinkling of the book's formal title throughout) -- and was likely posted by same.<br /><br />I *could* be wrong about this -- and apologize in advance if I am. But I am probably not wrong.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Well, this is kinda spooky. Just channel-surfing on this public holiday in NZ and happen across Astronaut Mike Mullane as a guest on <i>Martha</i>, partly promoting the book, partly discussing space food, and partly helping give away a 'zero gravity' trip. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[hold]

Hi -- mike's son here. I have chimed in a few times and, in fact, am the one who found this venue and mentioned it to my father (as you might imagine, I'm a space buff too). I can assure you that the response is his. I brought to his attention the discussion here regarding the "deathtrap" headline and he felt that he should let folks know that he never actually used that word and also provide some context around what he has, in fact, said. He then crafted the response you see on this board. That response has been the foundation for a number of comments/writings he's released over the past few weeks to help ensure the accurate portrayal of his opinions (to the extent that that's even possible!).<br /><br />The sprinkling of the book title throughout his post is a function of him using big chunks of the text from the book to make his points. This required him to place some copyright notices that use the title of the book. While I can assure you he'd love nothing more than for you to go out and buy it, I can also assure you it wasn't a marketing ploy. He really just wanted to set the record straight.<br /><br />Thanks to all of you for your interest in space. <br /><br />Patrick Mullane

 

[bpcooper]

I just finished the book.<br /><br />I have to say, this is the best astronaut written account I have read. It is captivating and emotional, vivid in details.<br /><br />Of all the previous ones I have read, I never closed the book having felt I had been there with the author the entire time.<br /><br />I acknowledge I am biased towards what I grew up with, the Shuttle, and am glad a few more Shuttle astronauts are starting to write on their careers. Prior to this my favorite space book had been Linenger's "Off the Planet."<br /><br />I will probably get Tom Jones's book next.<br /><br />I highly recommend Riding Rockets, I don't think anyone would dislike it in the least. You might even consider putting on headphones with a CD of Johann Pachabel's Canon in D Major as you read through parts of it. You'll see why. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

A big thank you to Mr Mullane for taking the time to come and set us all straight. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Now I'm interested in the book too!<br /><br />This is reminding me of an incident not too long ago when the popular press was quoting Krikalev as talking about what a boondoggle the ISS was, and I think also about the hazards of the Space Shuttle. But if you read the actual quotes, he was simply speaking with the clarity and honesty of an engineer and cosmonaut. He certainly didn't think these problems meant the whole system should be scrapped.<br /><br />One of the big problems with the media is that it has a tendency to punish honesty. It's not intentional on their part; it's just that it makes people careful with their words, lest the media get the wrong impression and elaborate on that wrong impression when they publish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bpcooper]

Mike Mullane is scheduled to be a guest on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight according to their website.<br />It airs on Comedy Central at 11pm ET and repeats at 1am.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[davf]

I saw him on the Daily Show tonight. I thought it went very well. It's a shame they didn't have more time for him... I could have listened for hours.

 

[bpcooper]

Yea, I felt that five minutes of guest time vs the endless jokes on the Cheney thing was a bit unfair. Still good putting him in context as a person vs. the book. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[bobw]

I finished reading the book today. I walked into Borders expecting to find a pile of them in front but they only had one in the astronomy section. The clerk said she was getting one for her husband and thanked me for knowing the title because they were about to fill a special order from a customer who wanted "that new astronaut book" with something else.<br /><br />What a shame that Mike Mullane did not get to make a few more flights (d$%n part timers <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) because the book was really too short. I feel like Rachael in "Blade Runner"; I have memories but I know they are not mine. <br /><br />A comical, non PC romp through an astornaut's brain... bobw <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>