Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>
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: <v49sv0$14ia1$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>
 <v49olp$13ed1$1@dont-email.me>
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 <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...
> 

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