There always has been and I imagine there always will be a certain amount of “schedule pressure” with respect to spaceflight, manned or unmanned. Did O’Keefe apply “out of the ordinary” pressure?

Evidently the CAIB decided the answer was no, he did not.

From pages 131-132 of the CAIB report, Volume 1:

“Employees attributed the Node 2 launch date to the new Administrator, Sean O’Keefe, who was appointed to execute a Space Station management plan he had proposed as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. They understood the scrutiny that NASA, the new Administrator, and the Space Station Program were under, but now it seemed to some that budget and schedule were of paramount concern. As one employee reflected:

‘I guess my frustration was… I know the importance of showing that you… manage your budget and that’s an important impression to make to Congress so you can continue the future of the agency, but to a lot of people, February 19th just seemed like an arbitrary date… It doesn’t make sense to me why at all costs we were marching to this date.’

The importance of this date was stressed from the very top. The Space Shuttle and Space Station Program Managers briefed the new NASA Administrator monthly on the status of their programs, and a significant part of those briefings was the days of margin remaining in the schedule to the launch of Node 2 – still well over a year away. The Node 2 schedule margin typically accounted for more than half of the briefing slides.

[CUT]

These charts illustrate that both the Space Shuttle and Space Station Programs were being managed to a particular launch date – February 19, 2004. Days of margin in that schedule were one of the principle metrics by which both programs came to be judged. NASA Headquarters stressed the importance of this date in other ways. A screen saver (see Figure 6.2-3) was mailed to managers in NASA’s human spaceflight program that depicted a clock counting down to February 19, 2004 – U.S. Core Complete.”

Translation: O’Keefe gets some of the blame for creating “schedule pressure” before the launch of Columbia. He is not entirely blameless. Nor is he entirely culpable.

Which is it?

Posted by Dogsbd at December 14, 2004 08:03 AM

Except the media did no such thing, it was barely mentioned. And if they had made a big deal, O’Keefe was no expert in foam/orbiter contact. The ones who were experts said “it will be OK”, should O’Keefe have said “You’re wrong!”?

Posted by John Malkin at December 13, 2004 03:07

Or, maybe we’re all Americans (or even humans) at heart. I try to keep my non-space politics out of my space politics.

Actually, to break the rule I just stated, in many ways I am a natural Republican. I’m upper middle class (by definition, since I can afford to live in the nation’s second most expensive city), I own my home, I run a personal business, et cetera. If the Republicans would lose the social agenda and the “Imperial” forign policy, and stick to their economic agenda, I might even vote for one someoday.

— Donald

I find myself in agreement with you more and more, maybe I really am a Democrat at heart?

I have to say that I agree that you’re not being fair here. As you know, I am no friend of the Bush Administration, but, much to my surprise, I think Mr. O’Keefe has been a pretty decent administratior — though not a great one — not least because of any input he had in the “pay-as-you-go” exploration strategy. A self-described “bean counter” with vision is exactly what NASA needs, and I am saddened to see him go.

— Donald