At 3:30 p.m Wednesday, Gingrich will attend a “Space & Technology Roundtable” with leaders of the space community at the Simpkins Fine Arts Center on the Brevard Community College Cocoa campus, 1519 Clearlake Road. Those interested in attending should contact the Space Coast Economic Development Commission at 321-638-2000.

At 4:45 p.m., Gingrich will attend a Town Hall Meeting at the Holiday Inn Express Space Coast Convention Center, 301 Tucker Lane, Cocoa. The Town Hall is open to the public.

Yes, that too.

“It can say any number of things of course. What it most likely says, considering how things seem to work at Tesla and SpaceX, is that Bowersox and Musk did not agree on things, whatever they are. Is it important that Bowersox was in charge of astronaut safety?”

I think it was probably headhunters. I imagine Musk tries and keeps salaries down with stock warrants for the IPO rather than cash up front. Some other company, like a Boeing or Virgin offers a pile of cash, Bowersox goes to Musk to see if he will match the offer, Musk says no and Bowersox leaves.

(But President Obama has …)

Florida Today reports that a couple of them will finally show up a few days before the election. Gingrich will be here on January 25 and Santorum on January 28.

Once again, this shows that space plays absolutely no significant role in presidential politics.

Schedule had almost nothing to do with it. In fact, it was a significant factor in the Challenger accident and a contributor to Columbia as well. Scheduling had a great deat to do w/Challenger as the pressure to keep flying and make a buck is why the fixes were deemed acceptable flight risks and put off– the down time to engineer repairs was unacceptable in that era. Columbia was a hodgepodge of science experiments flown to clear the board for ISS assembly flights.

The Challenger accident happened because NASA’s management felt compelled to stick to a schedule instead of sticking with safety, and we all know what happened there. >>

Not so much. The Challenger and Columbia accident (and a few other ones were dodged by random chance) because of a simple fact…management accepted flying with a known problem that they could not characterize well which could (and did) when random chance went against them result in loss of the vehicle.

Schedule had almost nothing to do with it.

The analogy is an airline that is observing on C and D checks various cracks spreading in the wing box…and does nothing to deal with that. Nothing. but keep flying.

Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler wrote:

actually it does not. It signals that the “corporate” body of SpaceX is good at rejecting people who cannot move with the culture.

you replied:
Funny how the trolls never say a word when an executive bails at Boeing or LockMart.>>

exactly. My experience is with airlines but I HAVE A LOT OF IT with startup airlines (mostly plane acquisition, training program approval, and safety) is that there is about a two year period when they start where people “adjust” to the culture which is an ongoing development issue and either affect the development of the culture or are tossed out of it. It is essentially an “N” body gravitational problem…as the culture coalesces people either continue to contribute to it or their “mass” gets tossed.

I know and have flown with a lot of the NASA astronauts and know many of them particularly the so called safety folks pretty well…there is in general hard to find a more worthless and difficult to get along with bunch…they have a hard time adapting to anything that is not NASA and dealing in particular with safety issues in a non NASA way; the NASA way being rejected by almost every technical organization in the US; particularly flying ones.

The odd thing is while at NASA most of them stand silently by and do nothing in terms of safety. the safety officer in the astronaut office sat silent during the Columbia reentry discussions. Stone cold silent.

RGO