Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Challenger
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:58:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <v49olp$13ed1$1@dont-email.me>
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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:58:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="660613d97941c6546877f646149dd90e";
	logging-data="1161633"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18aPyeDEsvK/uPi8PMCnE5r897LHdBkE+80MniHz3Cgmg=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lcCopenjHvYX5P56ePHKDU7GFxo=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v47guo$ivgt$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4425

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.

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...

-- 
Martin Brown