Talk:Linda Ham

Murderer

Article plan
If anyone is wondering where this article is going, I'll explain here...the Columbia disaster occurred as the result of a complex sequence of technical and human decisions and actions. Linda Ham's involvement in this sequence was very key and crucial. Using the references you see listed at the bottom of the article, I plan to construct a neutral, fair, and complete article that covers her involvement in the Columbia tragedy. The article will be extensively sourced, with in-line references for every assertion. Once completed, I will submit for peer review to make sure the article is NPOV and adequately written, and then I will nominate for Featured Article status. This process will take several months because FA standards are very high and I want this article to be at the standard I put into the history articles I edit, but it will be completed. If anyone else would like to jump-in and help out, please feel free to do so, the references you need are there and most of them are available on the web. This story is notable and needs to be told in Wikipedia. I welcome any comments or suggestions. Cla68 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia question
In France we have old reruns of SNL episodes. There is a part with Linda Ham from NASA (and obviously it is is pre-Columbia). Is it her who is caricatured ? Hektor 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just found the SNL transcript: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/98/98fharrycarey.phtml. As you said, it's obviously pre-Columbia, and yes, it is Ham who is caricatured. I don't know if the information is worth including in the article or not, but if her role as flight director on the John Glenn mission is mentioned specifically, then it might well be. MLilburne 07:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Is that thing ever coming back? gives to this transcript an odd taste. Hektor 08:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It does. Personally I think this is one of the rare pieces of trivia that actually would give some color to the article. But I will wait to hear the opinion of cla68 first. MLilburne 08:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that this is already mentioned in the Harry Caray entry, although without saying the name of the character Joan Allen is impersonating. Here is another image. Hektor 10:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SNL is a significant part of western pop culture so I think that skit can be mentioned in the article. It may not have to be put in a trivia section, but could be included in the main article section. Cla68 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll work it in. MLilburne 11:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts
I think the article needs more information about Ham's time as flight director. As it is, the first twenty years of her career at NASA are subsumed under the heading "Early career," which surely is pushing it a bit. I've been compiling a list of the missions and shifts that she worked as flight director (from NASA press releases). The article ought to discuss at least the most notable of these missions, which shouldn't be that hard to do.

I've also been wondering about how to organise the section on the Columbia disaster. What you've written so far is extremely good: clear, factual, and excellent prose. On the other hand, it seems to be more about CAIB than about Ham so far. I wonder whether this section should tell the story more chronologically: that is, start by describing the Columbia mission, and Ham's role as a member of the MMT, before discussing the outcome of the mission and the CAIB's verdict. Just a thought. I'd be interested to know how you're planning to structure the rest of the section and the rest of the article. MLilburne 17:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that more of her ``early career`` should be detailed, I just couldn't find more information on it myself. I was going to take the approach of discussing her involvement with the Columbia disaster through the post-disaster ``eyes`` of the CAIB, enlarging on their assessments with comments from outside observers.  The last section was going to discuss the impact of the CAIB's report on her career and post-CAIB discussion on her actions and decisions by outside commentators, such as the reaction by political leaders to the news that no one individual within NASA was going to be held invidually accountable for the disaster.  However, if you would like to take a more chronological approach, I don't have a problem with that at all. Cla68 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can put together regarding her early career and her post-Columbia career, and leave you with the CAIB section for the time being. It sounds like you have a very coherent idea of how to approach it. MLilburne 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just an update...I will be getting back to working on this article within the next couple of months. I've been busy with other things.  Thank you for your efforts with it in the meantime. Cla68 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help. (I've been pretty busy with other articles myself.) It's good to hear that you will be getting back to working on it. It strikes me that getting it to FA status in time for the anniversary in February would be a really good goal, if possible. MLilburne 07:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation issue
The recently added quote "O'Keefe said she is so talented there is going to be a 'bidding war' for her among NASA facilities" is sourced to the New York Times in the main text, but to a Washington Post article in the relevant footnote. Would the provider of the quote please correct or clarify. —DCGeist 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks; that was a silly mistake. I've corrected it. MLilburne 06:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture?
Seems to me that there ought to be a picture of Ham as a flight director, but the only ones available are quite poor. For example, this one. Opinions? MLilburne 08:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only other pictures I found of her were post-STS-107. I don't think the picture you found is that "poor."  It's actually a fairly good candid shot, apparently showing her "in action" performing her duties.  I think we could use it in the "Flight director" section. Cla68 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll put it in, then! MLilburne 07:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Five years later
I've of the opinion that Ham was unfairly singled out for criticism after the Columbia accident, based largely on the infamous "...there's nothing we can do about it anyway" quote, which referred to a possible turnaround delay for Columbia, not the foam strike damage to the wing. I've tried to add some contextual comments to the article.

No one gets to be a flight director or a top manager at NASA by being a shy and retiring type, and Ham's drive to achieve seems to have irked a fair number of males along the way. I'm not an apologist for Ms. Ham, I've never met her, but there seems to have been a double-standard at work. Legendary flight director Gene Kranz was certainly no pussycat, yet the hard-charging Ham seems to have been unfairly singled out for similar behavior. In particular one can refer to the Langewiesche article in the Atlantic, which mentions Ham's alleged behavior and manner of dress. It should be noted that Langewiesche never interviewed Ham directly, and the article, though rich in technical details, smacks of a thinly disguised demolition job.

I think it's fair to say that Ham was the product of the culture inside NASA at the time.


 * "Ham's drive to achieve seems to have irked a fair number of males along the way." Oh, I see. If a female screws up and is held accountable, it's because of sexism. How convenient. Females at NASA have a "get out of jail" card when they screw up, purely because of their genitalia. Kerry (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ...and therefore she should not be held accountable? That's wrong. I also don't care that she is a woman. I have no problem with that. The truth is, she prevented any efforts by her subordinates to take photos or just take a look at the wing. Had they looked, they'll se the hole and surely they won't try to land with it! I don't buy arguments that there were no options how to fix it. I am sure people would not say "hmm we have a hole in the wing but it seems we cannot fix it... hmm let's die like heroes then!". This is stupid. Something would have been attempted - rescue mission, wing repair on-orbit, whatever. But an over-confident manager decided that laws of nature don't apply, and said "no" to taking a look. WTF? What is more costly - making a photo and maybe an EVA to take a look or Orbiter, seven lives, and billions of $$$ lost in Shuttle stand-down? 89.102.207.196 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: I'm not suggesting that Ms. Ham should not be held accountable, but she is not solely accountable. There was no way to know that there was a hole in the wing. Columbia was not equipped with a robotic arm that could have taken pictures of the wing's leading edge. It's doubtful that a hole in the wing could be seen from a ground-based camera under even the most ideal conditions. There were indeed options to try a repair, but given the size of the hole, such jury-rigging would only have delayed the breakup. Sure, it's tempting to imagine a scenario where a second shuttle was scrambled into orbit to make a thrilling rescue - but how, in good conscience, could you launch a second orbiter when you don't know it won't be damaged as well? It's a grim calculus... --MBC


 * Incorrect. There were on orbit assets that could have imaged the wing quite successfully. A lower re-entry angle, later roll over, curved re-entry path, in combination with on-orbit repairs *might* have allowed a re-entry.  A scrambled rescue mission, orbital conservation or resources, possible risk reduction by transfer of crew to another shuttle were all possibilities.  All were eliminated by NASAs poor decision making.  --talk

The agency has struggled since the Apollo era with communication issues, and the Challenger and Columbia accidents prove that there is more work to be done. The system is supposed to reward and encourage those at "the bottom" who bring potential problems to those in charge. In both accidents that didn't happen, though of the two the Challenger accident is the best example. Foam hitting the shuttle was not thought to be a safety concern, whereas O-ring burn through on the solid rocket boosters was, but was dismissed as an "acceptable" risk.

It's easy to paint Linda Ham as a callous technocrat, but the truth, as always, is far more complex and interesting.

--Mike Chapman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.229.193 (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but the article has to reflect what the sources, both primary and secondary, say. The sources, in general, point to Ham as the main, but not only, as you point out, manager/leader with the most significant role in the chain of events that allowed a preventable accident to happen.  NASA's problematic organizational culture, including communication problems and diffusion of responsibility, of course also contributed.  The sources are clear on that point as well and that should be reflected in this article.  Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I happened to notice that there was questioning above about a double-standard, making reference to "hard-charging Gene Kranz." What double standard?  Gene Kranz saved the lives of the three Apollo 13 astronauts.  Linda Ham got the seven STS-107 astronauts killed.


 * I would like there to be an inclusion, if any sourced material exists, as to why Linda Ham wasn't prosecuted for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide? -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd draw attention to Wayne Hale's blog on this subject . In particular, he states in the comments: "Linda is one of the hardest working, smartest people that I know and in her place I would have done exactly what she did. Think long and hard before you sit in judgement." That might qualify as an indication of why she wasn't prosecuted? He certainly considers her to have been cast as the scapegoat . 86.184.238.160 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenneth Ham
The bio of Kenneth Ham indicates that he is now married to the former Michelle Lucas of Hobart, Indiana. So I get from there that there has been a divorce at some point ? Hektor (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that appears to be the case. If the source of that info is reliable then that should probably be noted here also. Cla68 (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the article still be called "Linda Ham" by the way ? Or Linda Hautzinger ?Hektor (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What a headache. It probably should be moved to Linda Hautzinger.  Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends whether she changed her name back or not. MLilburne (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I know I promised a year ago to finish this article and have gotten a little, shall we say, sidetracked. I also realized that making most of the article be about her role in the shuttle tragedy may violate the undue weight clause of the BLP policy. Cla68 (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's crazy.  It's like giving equal weight to Obama's role as a community organizer or Regan's as an actor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggb667 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She is styled Linda Hautzinger-Ham in this article dated 2015 - justifies moving the page? http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/salem-native-makes-her-mark-with-nasa/article_cc3de51c-3a3c-57a2-a354-dabe14a25a63.html Hugh Mason (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Secondment?
I'm assuming American English is appropriate for this article, since she is American and worked for NASA. (I could find no other obvious British spelling or usage.) This word (and its root, to be "seconded") is so alien to American English, until I looked it up I thought it was a typo. Since there seems to be no obvious American equivalent, and the sentence doesn't really suffer without it, I simply deleted it. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Early Career correction
In this section about her early career it states that she was the first female section head at the JSC center. This is incorrect info. In the Bio of Ivy Hooks at the NASA site located at: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/HooksIF/HooksIF_Bio.pdf

The info in question on that page reads for Ivy F. Hooks the accomplishments:

Head, Aerodynamics Systems Analysis Section, Aerodynamics Branch, Engineering Analysis Division, Engineering and Development Directorate (1973–1977)

Chief, Flight Software Branch, Spacecraft Software Division, Mission Support Directorate (1982–1984)

The fact sheet indicates that at least one other female held the management positions of both a Section Head and, later the next level manager higher, of Branch Chief before Linda Ham did. I think a number of others also held such positions but this was the most obvious "earlier" proof (since Linda did not graduate until 1982).

ref: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/HooksIF/HooksIF_Bio.pdf_Bio.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.92.73 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Linda Ham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110521100014/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/columbia/2081292.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/columbia/2081292.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050507071346/http://cti.itc.virginia.edu:80/~meg3c/Columbia/culture.html to http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/Columbia/culture.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060629051916/http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=244526& to http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=244526&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberbot II (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Linda Ham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630042334/http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/pdf/vol1/full/caib_report_volume1.pdf to http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/pdf/vol1/full/caib_report_volume1.pdf
 * Added tag to http://dev.space.com/missionlaunches/rtf_floridatoday_specialreport.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629051734/http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=244507& to http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=244507&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Persistent Misinformation
Someone has reverted my correction. Ham was NOT the first female flight director. I worked in Mission Control Room in the late '80's when Michele Brekke was a female flight director. See for example Michele Brekke and https://cse.umn.edu/college/feature-stories/michele-brekke-aiming-higher. Would someone take some initiative to make this article accurate? Thanks. 73.32.71.188 (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Personality
I have a problem with this sentence:"Ham's on-the-job persona was reported to be somewhat brusque and she was perceived by some below her in the chain of command as being less than willing to embrace dissenting points of view." This sentence is likely motivated by her gender rather than some actual issue, and is irrelevant to her failure of judgement. It should be removed.40.142.183.146 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)