Your April 25 article "Retooling NASA's culture" seems eager to jump on the bandwagon and point a finger at the supposedly irresponsible decisionmaking that led to the loss of Columbia.
It is easy to second-guess complex decisions with the benefit of hindsight and even easier once the technical findings of a massive investigation are made available. But real-time decisionmaking must be guided by information available at that moment.
Intuition and inspiration are valuable gifts in these situations, but are most useful when they lead toward technically sound ideas. Thousands of people work on programs like the space shuttle. If every engineer with a technical hobbyhorse could bring the program to a halt, it would be paralyzed by indecision and bankrupted by unnecessary work.
If the same standards of safety were applied to automobile driving that some would apply to space programs, most of us would never be allowed out of our driveways. Proud traditions like the Apollo program and the landings on the moon would never have been achieved in such a climate. Despite all the risks, those who rode those rockets competed fiercely for the opportunity to fly. That spirit of competition thrives today.
With every mission, our space programs push back the boundaries of what is possible, and with each terrible tragedy comes painful lessons as well as beneficial reform. It should not be forgotten, however, that this is exploration, and venturing into the unknown sometimes carries the burden of learning things the hard way.
I read "Retooling NASA's Culture" with a keen recollection of what transpired before the Columbia disaster, namely with the Challenger disaster and the Mir fire and crash. Each time NASA blows it, NASA management raise their hands and proclaim, "We get it now. We should have listened to our scientists and engineers and put safety in front of mission." And then they go out and blow it again. With respect to both the Challenger and Columbia disasters, simple warnings went unaddressed and people died. What NASA needs is more than retooling; it needs a sharp kick in the rump.
Joseph Richard Gutheinz
Houston NASA Office of Inspector General (retired)
In response to the March 27 article "Drama unfolds in the life of a burlesque theater": A source quoted in the article refers to the building as a virtually intact burlesque house. Another intimates that it was a key part of African-American performing history. According to a recent study by the Boston Landmarks Commission, neither claim is accurate.
Built in the early 20th century and largely vacant since 1986, the Gaiety is currently in a state of disrepair. In fact, the breadth of the improvements necessary make clear that saving the Gaiety would require reconstruction - not historic renovation.
While the Gaiety was the site of a number of burlesque, integrated, and black productions in the 1920s, these shows didn't originate in Boston, nor were they unique to the Gaiety.
While the Gaiety may not possess sufficient historical, architectural, or acoustical significance to warrant preservation, we believe its role in the city's theater community should not be forgotten. Therefore, we have committed to developing a creative display within the public area of the new Kensington Place to celebrate the Gaiety's contribution to the city's entertainment history.
J. Ralph Cole
President, Kensington Investment Company
Current owner of the Gaiety Theater
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. We can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to email@example.com.