Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:13:00 +0000
From: john larkin <jl@650pot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Challenger
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:13:00 -0700
Message-ID: <oltg6jh79s1otgmo20d40a5t367hnf3l39@4ax.com>
References: <5a5a6jtfh1je18lr297jrh10oihptl2tgo@4ax.com> <v44amq$3hbjc$1@dont-email.me> <9dhb6j5fbjjin8gp4quf31nqaop0grjni2@4ax.com> <v44nc2$3lb7s$1@dont-email.me> <66672656$0$7078$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <v47guo$ivgt$1@dont-email.me> <v49olp$13ed1$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 86
X-Trace: sv3-jlwmveA+bEn7DjXGcezq60bPMtNW5tHsAgThRpqSnlrRMlFNALB75RJAbBXWv0HUzG09HZXgvqklgpL!1XjUGOJBjtGfvlsgc1Blbs6w75174YWjNQaKVxzTfJD+KgGixW/MZrShnICyDIKhSyoSIbfJvc0B!usu94w==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4811

On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:58:00 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 10/06/2024 19:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> bitrex <user@example.net> 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.
>

Big institutions tend to be immoral. Money and power dominate honest
engineers.

Remember "Don't be evil" ?


>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...

We coud have put robots on the moon in 1969. The astronauts were
mostly passive passengers anyhow.