Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Genesis Probe failure...
JackN
<font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
in Zocalo v2.0
Once again...
[URL=http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Science&cat=Astronomy_and_Space]The Article[/URL] :rolleyes:
[URL=http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Science&cat=Astronomy_and_Space]The Article[/URL] :rolleyes:
Comments
[B]Great quality control at Lockheed... [/B][/QUOTE]
Space Systems Division was responsible for this f***up, not hte entire company; use a smaller brush next time.:) Still, it's not good at all that something like this can slip through QC like that; someone should've caught the error well before the spacecraft left the assembly area. I've got a feeling that division's going to have some personnel replaced before long...
Keep in mind, though, that NASA (and JPL in particular) are just as responsible; NASA should have had a mechanism in place to discover (and correct) these problems before the spacecraft made it to the launch pad. Some things never change...:rolleyes:
As for NASA also being responsible: yes, they are. They obviously have just as many problems with quality control if they didn't pick this up in their tests.
Better quality checks would cost money for Lockheed, so you shouldn't wonder why there happens things like this in this extreme capitalistic system.
I recommend reading this book
Richard Feynman:
What do You care what other People think? - Further Adventures of a Curious Character
It shows well how management is often in their own worlds, in that case it was Morton Thiokol's bigshots.
I wonder does Maxtor use same kind QC.
(used also by IBM's harddisk department)
[B]Better quality checks would cost money for Lockheed, so you shouldn't wonder why there happens things like this in this extreme capitalistic system.[/B][/QUOTE]
Having several failures tarnishes all of Lockheed’s reputation – which will cost them future contracts – and in turn money too and perhaps their entire business. It is not good business to have failures. So there is a check and balance in “our system” too.
Don't embarrass your 'cause' with unfounded half cooked jabs.
There's no national pride in the space industry anymore. When we were going up against the SOviet Union, we all were of one mind and one goal, and everyone worked together (even if we flat out hated the guy next to us, no-one would hear about it for the projects sake).
With corporations in the equation now, and Nasa severely limited budget wise, it's all PR BS anymore. No-one takes the time to do the second-look checklist just to be sure.
Sucks...
:(
[B]Keep in mind, though, that NASA (and JPL in particular) are just as responsible; NASA should have had a mechanism in place to discover (and correct) these problems before the spacecraft made it to the launch pad.[/B][/QUOTE]I don't think NASA will take everything apart to check are they assembled correctly. (and assemble them again after that)
With that ideology they should start making these things completely in their own while at it and drop "other variables" out of "equation".
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Konrad [/i]
[B]Having several failures tarnishes all of Lockheed’s reputation – which will cost them future contracts[/B][/QUOTE]That's why they have big PR/lobbying department.
This kind of error going through QC tells much about how seriously they take everything which doesn't increase profits directly.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]TWith corporations in the equation now, and Nasa severely limited budget wise, it's all PR BS anymore. No-one takes the time to do the second-look checklist just to be sure.[/B][/QUOTE]Yeah, then it was matter of honour for everyone.
But now these corporations make these things just to make money. (or should I say maximum profits)
Corporate involvement in space exploration == good. The more the private sector is involved -- provided they have a stake in what happens* -- the more the rest of us experience the benefits.
* Read that part again: provided they have a stake in what happens. Lockheed [i]did[/i] have a stake in the success or failure of the Genesis Project, but it took the form of the likelihood of further NASA contracts down the line, and I imagine that's just not a huge portion of their business. Significant, but not substantial.
[B]Murphy was right. :D
Better quality checks would cost money for Lockheed, so you shouldn't wonder why there happens things like this in this extreme capitalistic system.
I recommend reading this book
Richard Feynman:
What do You care what other People think? - Further Adventures of a Curious Character
It shows well how management is often in their own worlds, in that case it was Morton Thiokol's bigshots.
The Feynman books are really good!
I wonder does Maxtor use same kind QC.
(used also by IBM's harddisk department) [/B][/QUOTE]
Lockheed may bear the responsibility for the fault (and certainly should), but it's still NASA's responsiblity to make damn sure that the hardware will perform as expected before it reaches the launch pad; if that means redesigning the spacecraft and/or incorporating additional circuitry/equipment to make the preflight testing easier and more thorough, then so be it.
[B]A simple test routine would be sufficient. One normally [I]wouldn't[/I] start taking things apart unless there was a good reason for it. It is possible to troubleshoot electrical/electronic equipment without having to take it apart....[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, how do you test operation of "gravity switch" electronically... Wire instruments to it and drop whole package to simulate acceleration?
I don't think that return capsule had any software controlled electronics, just somekind "directly wired" parachute activation system.
With that ideology they should start making these things completely in their own while at it and drop "other variables" out of "equation".[/b]
[/quote]
NASA does not "build" things. It is not organized or funded to do so. It hires others to build them.
[quote][b]
That's why they have big PR/lobbying department.
This kind of error going through QC tells much about how seriously they take everything which doesn't increase profits directly.
[/b][/quote]
[quote][b]
Yeah, then it was matter of honour for everyone.
But now these corporations make these things just to make money. (or should I say maximum profits) [/B][/QUOTE]
You're making quite a few assumptions here. "This kind of error going through QC" tells nothing of the sort. The probe, and all other products, are not made by a corporation, they are made by individuals in the hire of a corporation following methodologies developed and enforced by other people in the hire of the corporation, and having been one of them, they take [b][i]great[/i][/b] pride in their work and feel [b][i]extreme[/i][/b] responsibility when something does not work.
Surely someone thought to test it without live ordinance?
*sigh*
faecal matter has a habit of spontaneously coming into existence...
[B]Just remember it was a 10c O-ring that destroyed the Challenger[/B][/QUOTE]
True, but the worst part is how they new the danger and let it go anyway...
There's no words to describe the lowness of that situation, even after all these years...
[quote]Sensors to detect deceleration on NASA's Genesis space capsule were installed correctly but had been designed upside down...[/quote]
[url]http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996541[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Once again...
[URL=http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Science&cat=Astronomy_and_Space]The Article[/URL] :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
Huh? I thought Spock came back to life... ;)
-R.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]Huh? I thought Spock came back to life... ;)
-R. [/B][/QUOTE]
Heh...
"No Vulcans for you!"