Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Challenger
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:17:18 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v4bb14$1gg5p$2@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>
 <v49sv0$14ia1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:17:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1236ab842aa8558cc41d140afb35f582";
	logging-data="1589433"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19EbqffU8CpMGBrRw/RZhZYIabn3j8ZJK4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FwhIBxZcEjK1yKsmSnz4MjZYaj0=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <v49sv0$14ia1$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 240611-2, 11/6/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5631

On 12/06/2024 2:11 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> 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.

And this will continue to be true until we find something interesting. 
The nature of exploration is that we don't know what we will find until 
we find it.

Residents of Australian find it perfectly sensible that people kept 
poking around the Pacific until Cooke found Australia and mapped enough 
of it to suggests that it might be worth establishing a colony there.

Most the residents of North America with European ancestry would think 
much the same about Columbus and his daft misconceptions about the size 
of the earth, if they thought about the matter at all.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com