Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Phil Hobbs Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Challenger Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:11:12 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: <5a5a6jtfh1je18lr297jrh10oihptl2tgo@4ax.com> <9dhb6j5fbjjin8gp4quf31nqaop0grjni2@4ax.com> <66672656$0$7078$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:11:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3d5ba012e8862cd5a3945b0567c736f3"; logging-data="1198401"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Rbd9+Uns3yKfbmqBq5nee" User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch) Cancel-Lock: sha1:aaOYbkj9qO2XU+w2wreYSaw9L3c= sha1:9uVqsyyC/TORjfNv+//9w9NHFAA= Bytes: 4856 Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: > On 10/06/2024 19:34, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> bitrex wrote: >>> On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >>>> Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report. For >>>> the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The >>>> Challenger Launch Decision”. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>>> >>> >>> I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to >>> power but more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large >>> organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes >>> become circular and self-referential. >>> >>> In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become >>> particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic >>> "Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that >>> means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to >>> implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought >>> the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost >>> lives before, and probably will again >> >> Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more >> tragic. > > I'm still inclined to believe that the suits pressured the engineers > into compliance with something that they were deeply uncomfortable with > - namely launching when the ambient temperature was so far below the > norm in Florida. They had a nationwide TV tie in and VIPs to impress. > The show must go on... > > So they got a lot more of a spectacle than they had bargained for. > > Likewise with the Columbia disaster where they essentially refused to > call in a favour off the military imaging kit operators that could have > looked at the vehicle's leading edge for signs of damage. > > That time they convinced themselves that because it (foam impacts) had > happened before with no ill effects it would be OK again this time. ISTR > an intern was tasked with the first impact analysis. It did get > escalated but not far enough up the hierarchy to make a difference. > > HST mirror by PE also suffered from a painstakingly exact measurement > process that created a fabulously smooth polished mirror using very > sophisticated methods but precisely figured to the wrong shape. > > These things happen due to human fallibility and plain bad luck. The > backup Kodak mirror was correct in every detail but never flew. > >> Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her >> research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she >> presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology. >> ;) >> >> Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so >> highly. > > ISTR at least one Morton Thiokol engineer was begging them not to launch > with it so cold but was over ruled by more senior people in the end. > > Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am > inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our > robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space. > > It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any more... > Read the book if you have the chance. Space exploration has little value outside its cultural impact. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics