NASA's Perplexing Policies

So let me get this straight: NASA chief Mike Griffin has decided to launch the Space Shuttle Discovery on July 1st, despite recommendations against a liftoff attempt by the space agency's chief engineer and safety offices.

Engineers recommend a launch delay, and their opinion is overridden. Sounds like a repeat of 1986, when a launch delay was called for and ignored, resulting in the loss of Challenger, and the 2003 loss of Columbia after some engineers expressed concern about the loss of foam insulation after liftoff.

Here's a bit of the news release. Prepare to scratch your head:

After going on record as having recommended a delay, the dissenting officials said they did not oppose launching on July 1. The two officials "recommended that we not fly, but they do not object to us flying," Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for space operations, explained to reporters at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The officials are NASA's chief engineer, Chris Scolese, and the head of the office of Safety and Mission Assurance, Bryan O'Connor. NASA officials acknowledged that recommending against a launch but not opposing it sounded contradictory. Shuttle program manager N. Wayne Hale Jr. said this was proof that NASA had changed. After the Columbia disaster, it came out that some officials had been worried about the 1.7-pound piece of foam that could be seen hitting the left wing during launch. Their concerns had been brushed aside. Now, Hale said, every voice is heard, even if it sends a somewhat confusing message to the public." People concerned about culture change ought to take heart," Hale said. " The agency has really changed."

Here's what I thought as I read the article:

"Recommending against a launch but not opposing it sound[s] contradictory..." [Thanks for acknowledging that. Now how about explaining your goofy rationale to us?]

"Every voice is heard" [...but we'll still veto our engineer's opinions.]

"The agency has really changed..." [We're more screwed up than ever before!]

If the opinion of a "chief engineer" and a "safety office" simply don't count in NASA's decision-making tree, perhaps it's time for that bureaucracy to simply fade away. The more I hear about NASA's inner workings, the more I support Burt Rutan's views on NASA and government involvement in space in general.

Maybe I'm becoming a Space Curmudgeon.