Am I a jerk for wondering about how prepared NASA truly is for the upcoming launch of the space shuttle Discovery? Wait. Don’t answer that.

As of late, certain reports about the procedural environment around the launch, management’s ignoring of special committees, and that crew members espoused a need for more training might give anyone pause. Is the launch delay just good PR?

I’m no rocket scientist. What do I know?

But Dr. Michael Griffin is a rocket scientist, and the NASA administrator in charge of the launch. Our questioning begins with him.

On April 19th, it was reported that newly appointed Griffin said that he would consider launching without the blessing of the Stafford-Covey Panel. The panel, assembled following the Columbia disaster of 2003, made 15 recommendations they felt should be met before the next launch.

Griffin admitted that only 8 of the recommendations had been instituted and that his own team would make the call to launch, even if outsiders questioned the safety.

Then, two weeks later, after the nature of a meeting was accidentally outed by savvy reporters noticing a rush of reservation cancellations, NASA announced the postponement of the launch to mid July due to fuel tank safety concerns.

We can chalk that one up for Griffin as a good call.

But what really catches the attention is the commander and crew of the forthcoming mission and sighs of relief that seem to be exuding from them.

In addition to getting a little rest before launching, the crew gets more time for training. More time to practice space walking. More time to test in-flight repairs. More time for mock countdowns. More time for emergency launch abortion drills.

“We're going to be even more prepared by the time we go fly," said the commander, Eileen M. Collins, a retired Air Force colonel, at an informal news conference at the Kennedy Space Center. "When the space shuttle orbiter is ready to go, we're going to be ready to go."

There are two ways to look at this. One is that NASA is taking every precaution to ensure the safety of launching and using the extra time to make its astronauts simulation experts.

And I hope to heaven that’s the correct viewpoint.

The second is that NASA was very impatient to get another mission off the ground and was smug about its expertise in doing so. It was ready to launch without all the rubbish flying in from Stafford-Covey, and with astronauts that were as prepared as they were going to be.

The question about fuel tank safety turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as now NASA can make the appearance of covering all its bases.

Am I a jerk for wondering? I said don’t answer that.

I've lived in central Florida for 99% of my life. I've seen many shuttle launches in person. Its always an incredible experience. I have missed seeing the shuttle these last 2 years. The thing that you don't mention is that Bush came out and wanted to reprioritize NASA's goals but at the same time, he started picking money out of their budget. They had to go through and adjust their schedules (which cost money), incorporate the new safety precautions (which cost money), and they had to make cuts. They recently announced they are going to reevaluate their decision to end the Hubble program due to the budget cuts. There is only so much that they can accomplish with the nickles and dimes the receive from the annual budgets.

My take is that there were over ten years between the disasters of Columbia and Challenger, obviously they were doing something right. They play with bigger toys that cost more money and are in the public eye. Problems are unavoidable. Unless congress gives NASA a huge boost for a few years and accelerates some of the shuttle replacement programs, line the remaining shuttles up and send them outta here so they can do more than look impressive in the VAB.