Is the shuttle a "death march project" as defined by Yourdon

askold · Mar 26, 2006

See Ed Yourdan's book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0137483104/002-0265562-1415214?v=glance&n=283155 A death march project is characterized as being short on resources with unrealistic feature, functionality and performance requirements. In summary: "A death march project is one for which an unbiased, objective risk assessment (which includes an assessment of technical risks, personnel risks, legal risks, political risks, etc.) determines that the likelihood of failure is greater than 50 percent." Florida Today seems to think so: http://www.space.com/news/ft_060326_sts121_rtf_schedule.html "Three months before the planned launch of shuttle Discovery and seven astronauts, NASA again is under dangerous pressure to fly so it can finish the International Space Station by 2010. Once again, NASA has delivered a revamped external fuel tank to Kennedy Space Center before finishing tests to prove whether it is safe to fly."

qso1 · Mar 26, 2006

askhold: "A death march project is one for which an unbiased, objective risk assessment (which includes an assessment of technical risks, personnel risks, legal risks, political risks, etc.) determines that the likelihood of failure is greater than 50 percent." Me: The shuttle failure rate is far below 50% and as far as I know, no risk assessment ever claimed a likelihood of failure greater than 50%. If such a study did, Congress would ax it. askhold: Florida Today seems to think so: Me: Although Fla. Today is generally pretty good on reporting space flight information, it is still in the business of selling papers. Of course it will focus on the more sensational aspects of a story. Besides, who determined it was dangerous pressure? In any case, if there is another accident, you'll get your wish to see the shuttle program end anyway even if ISS continues. Bottom line, if shuttle was a death march, its the longest on record with a lot of successful missions behind it. One may complain about cost but if shuttle, ISS, or manned spaceflight critics really cared about saving money, they'd get lawmakers to eliminate or greatly reduce deficit spending. A $400 billion dollar or more deficit each year from now on makes any NASA cost overrun look like a loss of mere chump change. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

j05h · Mar 27, 2006

I don't think Askold was refering to the entire STS program, but to the current state of affairs. The "50%" marker is for failure of the program from now to completion. I'm pretty sure that the term "death march" is a reference to riding out software projects that you know won't see release (along with historical analogy such as Baatan). It's the tragedy of waking up every morning knowing that you are propping up a failing enterprise. It's very bad for team morale. Now the real question is whether STS is actually in this phase. Have there been a lot of people quitting? We know about the recent accidents and safety stand-down. NASA is cancelling long-lead contracts for STS components while scavenging parts wherever they can. Are these signs of a death-march project? I don't want another accident: I want a cheap(er), safe, unmanned method to deliver station modules without risking astronauts on STS. Everytime Shuttle_guy and others jump on me for typing it, too, but aren't willing to entertain alternate solutions. I'm with QSO1 on the deficit spending. The older generations are leaving us Gen-Xers flapping in the wind. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spayss · Mar 27, 2006

It's a question of risk assessment. The Shuttle might fly 3 or 4 more flights...MAX. The purpose? Very questionable. The downside of a disaster? Enormous. It would be a disaster for any Moon mission. another disaster would dissolve any 'reasonable' risk management in the mission. We'd hear over and over 'NASA said the shuttle was safe and...blah, blah. ..now they claim that this Moon mission is safe (expecially if it results in an early disaster itself). It's time to move on if for no other reason than to preserve what credibility NASA has left moving into a Moon mission. NASA is 'almost' handcuffed now. Safety already will be an overblown issue on future manned projects and we need to pull it back from the ridiculous zone. Another disaster will push safety over the abyss into the loony bin.

j05h · Mar 27, 2006

>The failure probably from now to the end of the program is more like 1 out of 250. Failure of the flying STS, sure. That isn't the only "failure" that is being considered. There is also political failure (fallout from more foam falling off), technical failures that don't lead to loss of vehicle (more fuel line cracks? VAB fires?) that damage infrastructure or the vehicles. Failure of the program is only partly pursuant to a Shuttle failing, i'm pretty sure that's where the 50% figure is derived. I still want to see a "stretch" cargo bay ala Shuttle C for delivering the remaining ISS modules. Integrate Node2, Kibo and Columbus together on the ground, get it within berthing range somehow. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

tap_sa · Mar 27, 2006

"The failure probably from now to the end of the program is more like 1 out of 250." Is that the probability of failure per individual remaining flights or failure occuring during remainder of shuttle programs (est. 18 flights) ?

CalliArcale · Mar 27, 2006

Correct, J05H. They're not talking about risk of another Shuttle being lost with all hands. It's risk of the program to fail to meet its stated objectives. Programmatic failure, not vehicle failure. If the program gets cancelled prematurely, that's the kind of failure we're talking about. I do not see a 50% or more risk of program failure, although the big unknown that I can see from where I am (admittedly, way outside the program) is the aerodynamic analysis on the ET mods, and whether or not the removal of the PAL ramp will take care of the foam shedding problem adequately. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

frodo1008 · Mar 27, 2006

The last three posts here are very good. But we should remember that the shuttle itself is going up to the relatively safe harbor of the ISS itself. This is why I really can't see too many more delays in getting the program to finish what it is supposed to be doing. If too much more delay (possibly meaning that even after everything that NASA can do has been done) then NASA has indeed lost its collective nerve. I really don't want to have to believe this, but at that time I could not see anything else. Then we would have to find some other method of geting the last modules up to the ISS. Possibly using some of the much larger rockets now available such as the Delta IV heave or the Atlas V heavy. I really don't know, but something will have to be done if the shuttle can't (or NASA won't let it) do the job. It is true that even if all US efforts at manned flight were stopped that all human efforts would not be. However, what askold and some others don't or won't realize is that the American taxpayer will more than probably turn on ALL governmental space efforts, and for the sake of the war in Iraq, or budget reduction, or some other unrealistic dream kill even the scientific side of things! Can we (including askold) as space supporters allow this? I hope not, so some sort of manned effort would still be needed. Sorry about that askold, but that IS the political reality! Go into any 5th grade classroom in the country and ask how many want to be scientists (I have actually not done this, but I have friends in special programs at Rocketdyne that have) and how many want to be astronauts, you know the answer as well as I do! Of course, it is also possible to combine the two areas...

radarredux · Mar 27, 2006

> Is that the probability of failure per individual remaining flights or failure occuring during remainder of shuttle programs (est. 18 flights) ?/i> I had the same question. If it is the probability per flight, the probability of completing the ISS in 18 flights without a failure is 93%; although, that is still pretty good. I would question the 1/250 number to begin with, however. I think that number might be for loss of crew or mission. However, a significant problem (e.g., another foam problem pulling off during any of those flights), or another unexpected long delay (e.g., cracks in the fuel lines, ECO sensor continue to fail), would probably result in an uncompleted ISS. However, despite that pessimism, I don't think it is a death march. The decision to fly the STS is complex (politics, keeping supplies lines open and equipment maintained, preserving expertise), until a major problem does occur, I think they should get as much up on the ISS is possible.

askold · Mar 27, 2006

frodo: I don't think the US taxpayer will throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'd be surprised if most taxpayers even remember that we have a shuttle program - the thing flies so infrequently. People just remember the last pretty pictures from space that they saw on CNN. If the shuttle goes away and the pretty pictures keep coming, the taxpayers won't care. My gripe is that the shuttle if not moving forward either the manned program or the science program. Trying to launch the thing is playing out like some sort of Perils of Pauline rather than a serious engineering effort.

josh_simonson · Mar 27, 2006

The main difference here is that the 'death march' project has almost no useful results, wheas every single successful shuttle flight does have useful results in the form of adding to the ISS. Only if the shuttle is terminated and ISS immediately de-orbited would this qualify as a 'death march', and that won't happen with all the expense that ESA, JAXA and Russia have put into automate cargo vehicles, kliper, ect. A lot of ISS support structure is going to come online in the next 7 years, with or without shuttle. The shuttle program itself is terminally ill, with doctors giving it no more than 4 years to live, and the workers are probably kind of bummed out about that. But useful results will be produced in it's final days as long as they aren't spent as the last two were in an ICU. With the VSE kicking in, there's even hope for many of the existing shuttle folk to have a place post-shuttle.

frodo1008 · Mar 27, 2006

I have stated it before and will do so again if necessary. I don't understand NASA's problem here totally myself. The shuttle is going to go out to the relative safe harbor of the ISS. There will be another shuttle ready to go up and bring back the people themselves even if the first shuttle is crippled to the extent that it must be de-orbited into the ocean. With ALL of these precautions then I would (yes, even though I have supported the shuttle all along) have to say if NASA can't fly the thing this year, then the program should indeed be terminated right away. Then, other methods of launching the already completed parts of the ISS must be found, or we will have wasted literally billions of dollars worth of good equipment. All of these various modules and parts to the ISS will do no one any good just sitting at the Cape as if in a museum. I would even have to agree with the anti ISS people that if we can not finish it to at least have the science modules and enough people on board (at least six) to make good use of them then the ISS will indeed have been a failure, and quite probably (unless the Russians want to use if for space tourism or something like that) should be safely de-orbited into the ocean! Then we can go on to the CEV and back to the moon and on to Mars eventually. But, until we know these things one way or the other, how about declaring a truce here on these boards? We might just have enough influence to continue to help NASA to keep the science programs going well, but we both know that unless the scenarios play out as I have just stated them that the manned portion will continue as planned. So this continuous discord in the space advocacy communities is probably doing more over all harm than good to our mutual cause! Truce, anyone?

vulture2 · Mar 27, 2006

We have lost two Shuttles in over 100 missions, one in launch and one in landing. We lost one Apollo crew and very nearly another in a lot fewer missions. Most of the serious problems with the Shuttle have been worked out of the system. While it costs $5 billion a year even if it's not flying, it can also fly 8 times a year for about the same price; the marginal cost per mission is quite small. The main reason there's not much research done on the ISS is that it takes two people working full time to maintain it. NASA didn't want to pay for a second Soyuz so the crew is stuck at three at most, but within a few years the crew will be upped to six. No one will discover the cure for cancer on the ISS. But it's also true there are hundreds of useful basic research projects that have been proposed but can't be done because the crew doesn't have time. Does anyone remember how quickly public support collapsed after we landed on the Moon in '69? The NASA leadership is incredibly naive if it thinks there is the political support to send people to Mars or even the Moon just because we can't think of anything to do with the ISS. It doesn't matter who is elected, they're going to take one look at the deficit and say we can't afford it, and none of the people who support the VSE will be willing to pay a penny more in taxes to fund it. When we have systems that can transport people into space at reasonable cost, things will change. To do that, NASA would have to start developing new technology again, Until then the ISS better stay in orbit because it's the only destination the CEV will have.

askold · Mar 28, 2006

Being in agreement on this point: if NASA can't fly the thing this year, then the program should indeed be terminated right away - I agree to a truce! Though I didn't know there was a war going on ....

frodo1008 · Mar 28, 2006

Only in cyber space, but that is far better than in reality!

j05h · Mar 28, 2006

>The shuttle is going to go out to the relative safe harbor of the ISS. There will be another shuttle ready to go up and bring back the people themselves even if the first shuttle is crippled to the extent that it must be de-orbited into the ocean. Implementing "STS-300" and ditching an Orbiter in the ocean is a guarantee for cancelling any remaining flights. A Shuttle crew spending several months on ISS would probably trash the station in process. In some ways, this could be the worst of all scenarios. I want to see the ISS built to some semblance of Complete, that is why I always push the one-off Shuttle-C concept. If the electronics aren't there, you could even have a Soyuz meet up with the modules and fly the stack within berthing range. The modules and hardware sitting at KSC is a damn shame, especially as their "shelf life" is wearing down. Where's that can-do spirit? Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

j05h · Mar 28, 2006

>Only in cyber space, but that is far better than in reality! Agreed. Always keep in mind that we are a small community. In-fighting, sure, but we all stand (roughly) together. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

vulture2 · Mar 28, 2006

The Shuttle is capable of an unmanned landing, possibly at an emergency landing field far from civilization, assuming it has a defect that makes it to hazardous for a crew but doesn't completely preclude a safe return.

frodo1008 · Mar 28, 2006

Good, we do need to stand together on these issues! But we can debate and even politely disagree with one another on occasion. What I don't want to happen is the same kind of atmosphere develop here as exists over on free space. I don't think that will happen as even with our disagreements the people on this forum are generally better behaved and civilized about our debates and even disagreements! Something in your other post brings up some points: Implementing "STS-300" and ditching an Orbiter in the ocean is a guarantee for cancelling any remaining flights. A Shuttle crew spending several months on ISS would probably trash the station in process. In some ways, this could be the worst of all scenarios. I agree that such an occurrence would quite probably finally kill the shuttle for flights anywhere. Which until the shuttle has finished its work on the ISS would be very negative. Of course, it still isn't the actual worst that could happen, that would be the loss of both another shuttle AND another crew! That would quite probably not only kill the shuttle before it should be , but also quite probably so turn the American taxpayer against the manned program as to kill ALL future American manned efforts! It would even have a most negative affect on the future scientific robotic exploration program. After all (and this is what the scientific people sometimes don't seem to realize) in the real world of the average taxpayer NONE of this space stuff means much. I am personally very sorry that is the way it is, but that IS the way it is. So if we are not going out into the solar system with human beings eventually (I know other countries and private efforts will hopefully continue, but as I live in and truly love this great nation of ours (the USA) I don't want it that way) then why spend so much additional money on finding out what is out there in deep space, or even on Mars

j05h · Mar 29, 2006

>The Shuttle is capable of an unmanned landing, possibly at an emergency landing field far from civilization, assuming it has a defect that makes it to hazardous for a crew but doesn't completely preclude a safe return. Yes, and it might even survive the automated landing. I doubt that any Shuttles will fly again after such an incident. The political pressure for permanent stand-down would be to great. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

frodo1008 · Mar 29, 2006

I agree with you about the shuttle and the ISS. However, we will be going back to the moon (Mars is so far away that I quite probably will not live to see it as I am now 63, so I am not too worried about that). We will be doing this because NASA is going to be ending the shuttle by 2010, and that 5 billion per year is going to be enough to design and build the single stick SRB CEV command module vehicle, to launch by 2012. The money will even be enough to design, build and fly the SDLV by 2016, and then go back to the moon by 2018 (with any luck I, who was actually involved with the Apollo progam, will live to see us go back!). Personally, I believe that we are going to have to learn to use the materials and energy of space itself (materials mainly from the moon, and the energy from the sun) before we can tackle the far more difficult job of going on to Mars and beyond in any meaningful way. Also, I hope that the pure private efforts of such as Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic can really start to get rich but relatively ordinary people into space in the same time frame. NASA now spends so very little of the federal budget that even congressional budget hawks know that it just isn't worth going after. NASA's ENTIRE budget is only about 3% of even the budget deficit itself, and only about 0.6% of the over all federal budget! Even if NASA should get a relatively large increase of some 10% per year this situation would remain for the rest of this century! NASA can no longer be a target of such people, as they beed a bugetary microscope to find it!

j05h · Mar 29, 2006

frodo- I'm glad you agree on our disagreements. Most people are far more ambiguous on "space", even while reaping the benefits. I generally agree with your post, especially on dividing up the budget like that. One thing however. /> (I know other countries and private efforts will hopefully continue, but as I live in and truly love this great nation of ours (the USA) I don't want it that way) Are you arguing against private, American spaceflight? Or are you arguing for concurrent capabilities? That is, NASA+Contractors building CEV among a larger crop of orbit-seeking US companies Versus Using the govt. to prevent other companies from flying? This is not a national issue, per se, but an internal one: I agree that "we" need independent space access without Russia, China, etc. Do you want to stop private development? I only ask this because I've had others express such a wish in conversation. I agree that ISS needs to be finished. Build Shuttle-C, refit Ariane ATVs, fly individual racks up on Progress, whatever it takes. That $20+ Billion remaining in Shuttle flights (and standdowns) sure could buy a lot of rockets. For anyone in the KSC area: what's morale like? Are people quitting their jobs, early retirement or moving? Would you work on refitting those modules if asked? Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mlorrey · Mar 29, 2006

Sorry frodo, but I happen to think that ending the STS early is the best thing. If we need heavier lift than the EELVs can do, simply have them add on more boosters. Delta can have thee or four rather than just two, as can Atlas. That is in their development plan.

frodo1008 · Mar 29, 2006

Hey, we actually have a very intelligent conversation going here! And, no I very much support the private efforts (I just hope that spacex can get its act together!). Personally, I would very much like to see congress appropriate more funding for NASA to support such efforts by giving out more prizes for definite space achievements! As a matter of fact if something catastrophic happens and the manned programs of NASA are shut down, then we are going to have to depend on these private efforts alone to keep this country in the manned space business. My main objection to this being that NASA is actually like the insurance policy here. We KNOW that they can place people into orbit, and while I am certain that the private efforts will also do this eventually (and perhaps also become the leader(s) in putting people into orbit as to the number of people in a very short time), we don't know really how soon, or with how many problems these relatively inexperienced and unknown efforts are going to take! What I hope is that ALL such efforts are successful! As I have said this before, and I don't mind repeating it here. I don't really give a hoot who gets mankind into space in a big way (although I would prefer to see the US as a leader here instead of a follower, with or without NASA) I just want to see it done! And even perhaps done within my lifetime! Am I now coming through clearly?

frodo1008 · Mar 29, 2006

At the present time I do believe that NASA is going to try to finish the ISS with the shuttle, but if they decide that this is going to be impossible, then I will not be too very unhappy. I agree that a reasonable alternative would be to upgrade the EELV designs, but at this time I also think that NASA is going to go with the new CEV system. The retaining of some of the shuttle propellant systems then becomes worthwhile from a monetary and development point of view. However, I personally think that there are still a lot of factors that can and will influence these events and programs. We can indeed discuss these subjects and even disagree in a civilized manner, but events are going to happen quite independently of our particular wishes for sometime to come in this very difficult endeavour of space flight! However, we certainly can have hope anyway!

Is the shuttle a "death march project" as defined by Yourdon

askold

Guest

qso1

Guest

j05h

Guest

spayss

Guest

j05h

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

radarredux

Guest

askold

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

vulture2

Guest

askold

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

j05h

Guest

j05h

Guest

vulture2

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

j05h

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

j05h

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page