QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCI just wonder if it is a failure. To be sure, when we find out what caused it, some process or component will be found lacking. But the Shuttle is one of the most complex objects ever built by man, which just to make it hard deals with two energy releases comparable to test nuclear explosions in scale if not rate speed. We came nearly close to losing a shuttle when a piece of paint hit the windscreen. When paint becomes a lethal foe, then we are far beyond our normal intuition on danger. The big picture is that any device incurs some risk, but what we haen't faced up to is what level of risk is acceptable for the gains made by its operation. To me "failure" is when you don't attain your goal, and without a defined goal we can have neither success not failure.Yes, the shuttle (and any creative endevour) carries some inherent risk. The fact that two have exploded in 20 years is not a failure. But it was a failure in 1986 when the components were not tested at the range of operating temperatures indicated for safe launch, and a bigger failure when politics impeded a serious engineering investigation of the crash.If it turns out that the crash was caused by left-wing tile damage from the insulation impact on lift-off, then the decision to not investigate that before landing will have been a mistake. Possibly the investigation would have been inconclusive, and possibly there was no remedy if the damage was found, but the damage still should have been examined.A mistake is not necessarily a risk management failure. Perhaps a cost-benefit analysis would have argued against trying to get information from ground-based or satellite telescopes; or direct investigation by the shuttle crew.So we have two "ifs" before we declare this a risk management failure; did the insulation cause the crash and was it cost-effective to examine the evidence as opposed to relying on an "engineering study"? I'm just raising the question, not answering it. Yet.

I was worried today when I saw the same kinds of points that had been raised in Feynman’s evaluation of the risk assessment, communication and management decision making process at NASA as part of the Roger’s report on the Challenger disaster. For example, the ground based photos of the Challenger’s first orbital flight were briefly shown at a conference on aerial photography before becoming classified. They showed an unbelievable amount of detail in the missing tiles.The tone of today’s news articles was that since material for tile repair was not available on the shuttle, the ground based assessment was not done. Also, since equipment for doing an EVA was not available, the crew was not told of the possibility of damage.I see a similar pattern of communication of risk today as there was 18 years ago.It is sad.

So we have two "ifs" before we declare this a risk management failure; did the insulation cause the crash and was it cost-effective to examine the evidence as opposed to relying on an "engineering study"? I'm just raising the question, not answering it. Yet.Did the insulation cause the crash? I cant tell and am not sure if anyone can.Was it cost effective to examine the evidence? The only thing that can be quantified or observed (kind of the volatility in the BS framework) is the value of human life.So there u go.. two questions with no answers.rgds,Dimitris

Why is this a news story? Is there a 9/11 news machine running around like a starving goat, chewing anything it can find to bits?1. Seven people died? Not a news story.2. Seven people who led ambitious and successful lives, and were engaged in valuable research died? Nothing extraordinary there.3. A spaceship blew up? Big surprise, it's not as if this is auto racing. 4. A bureaucracy failed to react to information and manage risk in a nimble fashion? Still doesn't sound "like man bites dog."5. We lost an expensive piece of equipment? Probably no more than is lost on a lot of things on a given day.6. We knew these people personally? No.There might be a billion people suffering today in misery. The only difference between the ones I worry about constantly and the ones I don't is that I have met them. I admit, it is a little weird seeing that debris trail burning up. And I am a big fan of the space program. But I can't imagine how it is worth my while or anyone else's for me to care one iota about this remote and irrelevant story. What the heck am I supposed to do, how is it my concern?Why does anyone care? This reminds me of that stupid Hale Bopp comet suicide, it was wall-to-wall coverage, and people actually sat there and stared like it mattered. Probably more Wilmott posters have died since the inception of the forum than died in this story. What am I missing?MP

MobPsycho:If I can add 7 to your list...7. Highlights how much we made a mistake letting politicians and scientists talk us into a very high cost, high risk project of a space station when a mixture of unmanned projects and a few manned flights could have obtained all the benefits much cheaper and at less risk to human life. And now it cannot be stopped without looking like a huge symbolic defeat for the country.

*****a mixture of unmanned projects and a few manned flights could have obtained all the benefits much cheaper and at less risk to human life*****What, exactly, are the "benefits" which you refer to? I thought the object was simply to put people up in space, and have them live there. So far as the loss of human life, I am sure more people died today commuting to telemarketing jobs. The real tail risk, in my opinion, is that the human race is stranded on this stupid planet come hell or high water.I say let the meek inherit this sorry stone...MP

You underestimate the benefits. I understand one of the recent projects was to see how spiders would try to spin their webs in a weightless environment. At 3 billion a year (I think someone said that is the cost) its a bargain to figure that one out.

I can add 8:8. the space program carries the hopes and aspirations of millions upon millions of people.Unfortunately I think Von Braun was right: you're in space to colonize, or it's a publicity stunt.What's frustrating is that colonization is a difficult, but engineerable event

QuoteOriginally posted by: PatI can add 8:8. the space program carries the hopes and aspirations of millions upon millions of people.Unfortunately I think Von Braun was right: you're in space to colonize, or it's a publicity stunt.What's frustrating is that colonization is a difficult, but engineerable eventPat, that sounds like an argument to burn up more ships, and kill more people, if so many people place so much value on it. I want to see blackened skulls falling out of the sky every day until we have at least a million good folks living up there.MP

Right. And who are these millions of people who are pinning their hopes and aspirations on this space station? I'm not. Neither is MobPsycho. Could you name them? Earthlings already did the space station thing. And the moon. Been there, done that. Some have complained this whole new program is just a welfare program for PhD astrophysicists and defense contractors. I am truly sorry for the people and families who experienced loss this weekend, but this program is idiotic. High cost, high risk, low return. The financial engineers who read this forum would not touch a derivative with the risk/reward profile of this space station.

There was another stupid project nobody should have funded. It was used to let boring geeks communicate by typing what they had to say on a keyboard. And it was really stupid cause if I want to communicate I can pick up the phone and talk to whoever I want. I think it even had a name... DARPAnet. Bah! As if they had nothing else to do! What a waste!rgds,Dimitris

There is some years ago I was in florida to see the space shuttle taking off, I think it even was Columbia. Especially I remember the thunder, Power!!! (you not can feel from the stupid TV)! It is sad what happened.

*****Right. And who are these millions of people who are pinning their hopes and aspirations on this space station?*****This brings us back to my original question. I can see that if I throw a checkered ball in the middle of a field, set up some goalposts, and call it the "world cup" - or even perhaps if I hire some scriptwriter to plot a steamy, suspense-filled soap opera - millions of people can be expected to pin their hopes on the outcome. But not having been to the pubs or the airports since this story hit, I just have trouble believing the news media is responding to real demand.Or maybe people just like seeing things blow apart (somewhere other than on their own lives), perhaps it's just that simple...MP

QuoteOriginally posted by: AaronMobPsycho and Finkbarton on the same side! One of the compensations we get for tragedy is that it brings people together.However, I didn't say financial disasters were harmless (I wish I had, then I could claim credit for this historic convergence). I said no one dies. Sure, there are greater repercussions, which might result in millions of deaths or misery on a gigantic scale. But most financial mistakes merely transfer money from one set of pockets to another, with little to choose between them. Even when there is a net effect on human happiness, as when real resources get misallocated or destroyed, or the transfer is from people who cannot afford it to people who don't need it, you can make up for that. Your next trade can undo all the damage, and create good. No NASA engineer can bring back a dead astronaut.I'm not proud of myself for avoiding life-and-death decisions in my professional life. Someone has to do it. I'm personally not cut out for it, that's all. I like to experiment, do new things, take chances. I don't want anyone's life (including my own) depending on my choices.Aaron,On MobPsycho and myself on the same side... maybe you are right, and maybe deep unsolvable issues bring together the most confused people.On financial crises, "millions of deaths on a gigantic scale" and the responsability of a trader... I do not pretend that those that are out there buying and selling securities are responsible for those deaths. I traded only for a short period of time (just do it! story) but later on I preferred the safer sit of an analyst. In both positions I never felt that I was bringing about death somewhere else in the same way as most likely the Kalman filter is not responsible for the tragedy of the Columbia. Still, financial crises happen, they are messy and hurt a lot of people sometimes. Leverage is a part of our life.On trading as a zero-sum game... As you are aware, how much value the financial services industry adds is open to discussion. For one side, trading on a secondary market does not appear to add much value from the point of view of aggregate net worth. Having said this liquidity is life! (such as leverage!) and maybe -most likely?- many securities -and their real counterpart- would not exist without traders -balance sheets actually- putting bid-offers on them. On the other side, the first time I was part of a transaction were old pensioneers in a developed country funded a much needed thermoelectrical plant in a developing country through capital markets I was stunned!On life-and-death decisions... I wonder how can you or everyone else avoid them. But this another issue.I guess we got into a point were a quant finance site should remain a quant finance site rather than anything else.

I think plessas made a good point, but beyond that there are reasons they need shuttles to work. One of them is SDI deployment. Even in experimental stage they'll need whole bunch of equipment in space -- mirrors, lasers, various sattelites. This equipment will need to be tuned, serviced, repaired, etc. How are they gonna do it without a shuttle?In terms of what's wrong with shuttle i think nothing in particular. It's just has too many parts and when u have something with N parts u've got N! ~ N^N interactions between parts. Moreover adding just one more part creates N potential interactions. In other man made multi-part systems like very large software systems u've got big problems, although they are used with very particular inputs that could be pre-tested. Shuttle definitely has more than a million parts that could be a subject to unexpected and unpretestable perturbations. How often does a million-line software system crap-out? what about million-classes system?