We used to define the military helicopter as: ‘A flying machine with hundreds of parts all trying to go in a different direction, each made by the lowest bidder.’
3 Likes
pot, meet kettle…
4 Likes
I used the term “consumable inventory” once in a memo and my boss complained that I should quit using big words, and he was a PhD. Dead now but his memory lives on.
It’s not like buying cars for the motor pool. There are a huge number of design reviews and safety reviews that the low bidder has to go through. And besides, those were not firm fixed price contracts. NASA paid for changes to the contract.
I can’t think of a NASA problem related to low bids being accepted, except maybe the Hubble mirror…
So, the ultimately-fatal “O-ring problem” was simply the result of incompetence?
2 Likes
Well we did win WW II with low bid. Often though it seemed like companies that were low bid were also the best quality and just had become more proficient.
In my opinion, yes it was.
2 Likes
Geez guys, can we get back to cars before all heck breaks loose again and people get angry?
If I remember correctly it was more of a material composition issue. The seals didn’t seal well at 40 degrees. Everyone knew that but pushed ahead anyway. Product problem? Everyone knows that there are always trade-offs in any design. Pick one material in favor of another with different characteristics. Had the launches been in Alaska instead of Florida, I’m sure the choices would be different. Of course I’ve been in Florida enough to know that it can get cold there too.
3 Likes
The fatal o ring was caused by a rush to get the shuttle launched so the president could do a live space talk with them. The launch should not have been done below the O ring temp spec, yet NASA relented or overlooked the temperature and launched outside of specifications. This is a classic study of decision making under pressure.
2 Likes
Thanks but not quite. Among other things, an ambassador is “a diplomatic agent.” Shouldn’t that imply diplomacy, as in someone who isn’t unnecessarily critical? Wouldn’t such a role be best served by someone who demonstrates kindness, patience and respect? Each of us is part of the image the Cartalk Community projects. For my part, to the extent that I’m able, I prefer to try to make that a positive image. Everyone else can do as they see fit.
1 Like
Do you think that was the first time that company made a mirror like that? The problem was that they were measuring the figure of the mirror with a laser, and a particle that was ground off the mirror got into the laser mechanism making the measurement, causing a misalignment. That created an astigmatism in the main mirror.
Most everybody likes to please their boss but the boss relies on experts in their fields to make reasonable decisions. I suspect that if they would have asked the President if they should go or not after presenting the risks, the President would have said no. I just don’t remember anymore but seems to me the vendor was fairly adamant about the cold weather issue with the O-ring.
That’s not how I, or wiki, remember it:
" A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was established to determine how the error could have arisen. The Allen Commission found that a reflective null corrector, a testing device used to achieve a properly shaped non-spherical mirror, had been incorrectly assembled—one lens was out of position by 1.3 mm (0.051 in).[66] During the initial grinding and polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer analyzed its surface with two conventional refractive null correctors. However, for the final manufacturing step (figuring), they switched to the custom-built reflective null corrector, designed explicitly to meet very strict tolerances. The incorrect assembly of this device resulted in the mirror being ground very precisely but to the wrong shape. A few final tests, using the conventional null correctors, correctly reported spherical aberration. But these results were dismissed, thus missing the opportunity to catch the error, because the reflective null corrector was considered more accurate.[67]
The commission blamed the failings primarily on Perkin-Elmer. Relations between NASA and the optics company had been severely strained during the telescope construction, due to frequent schedule slippage and cost overruns. NASA found that Perkin-Elmer did not review or supervise the mirror construction adequately, did not assign its best optical scientists to the project (as it had for the prototype), and in particular did not involve the optical designers in the construction and verification of the mirror. While the commission heavily criticized Perkin-Elmer for these managerial failings, NASA was also criticized for not picking up on the quality control shortcomings, such as relying totally on test results from a single instrument.[68]"
So PE’s budget problems contributed, it seems.
2 Likes
While true, that rush wouldn’t have allowed the o-ring to turn fatal if the joint system, and for that matter the shuttle stack, had been properly designed in the first place.
In that particular case the boss was told “don’t launch” and responded with “tell me what I want to hear right now.”
It was a result of management not listening to the engineers. Engineers voiced their concerns to Management, but they were ignored.
2 Likes
“SpellCheck be their proof reader.” “Too many people” are correct.
Well (ahem) misdirection seems to occur from every direction whether intentional or not, through misinterpretation or miscomprehension, and whether polite or otherwise…
Who decided, when, that this thread related only to new posters?
I fear a fervour to forcefully fix homophone foibles or fails could fairly frequently foster homophonophobia.
Do they still teach spelling in elementary school? I remember in 3rd grade we had to learn to spell 20 words every week and were tested on Friday. We had to copy each word from the blackboard. Copy each one 20 times and turn in the paper so the teacher could count each word to make sure we didn’t skip a word.
We should not be offended when someone misspells a word nor should we be offended when our misspellings are pointed out. That’s part of being a mature adult. I once almost put out a company wide memo about baseball and spelled “doug-out”. I caught it as the secretary was mailing the memo. She didn’t catch my mistake either. Every single letter is important because one little letter can change a sentence. I once saw published in a local newspaper the police had charged a lady with “improper passing”. Passing was spelled with an “i” instead of an “a”. One mistake I see a lot is the wrong usage of “your” and “you’re”. Seems no one uses the contraction “you’re” any more. Ex: You are driving a Big Horn. You’re driving a Big Horn. Not – Your driving a big Horn – LOL