Satellite Mishap

planet_z · Oct 5, 2004

AP-Satellite Mishap NASA report says management failures contributed to costly fall of weather satellite WASHINGTON (AP) - A NASA report says management failures contributed to the embarrassing and expensive fall of a weather satellite last September. The 239 (M) million dollar satellite was nearly finished when it toppled to the floor at a Lockheed Martin assembly plant in Sunnyvale, California. NASA spokesman Dave Steitz (steets) says an official investigation board found poor oversight and sloppy paperwork. The spacecraft fell to the floor because 24 restraining bolts were not installed as specified. Steitz says NASA is working to correct the problems, and the satellite is set for an on-time launch in 2007. One issue that's still in dispute is who will pay the 135 (M) million dollar repair cost. (Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) AP-NY-10-05-04 1723EDT

halman · Oct 5, 2004

Planet_Z, I move that this satellite shall hereafter be known as "Humpty Dumpty". How can people be effective at jobs that they care a lot about when management is only concerned with profits and playing golf? There used to be such things as "checklists," which were followed to prevent such mishaps. Have these steps been deleted to save money? I have a deep and abiding suspicion that this satellite will never perform correctly, in spite of all the checkout procedeures Lockheed Martin implements. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

najab · Oct 5, 2004

> There used to be such things as "checklists," which were followed to prevent such mishaps. Actually, it was overdependance on checklists that caused this accident. On the previous shift they had secured the satellite to the tilt table, and marked the step as 'Done' on the checklist. Quitting time, so they all go home. Unknown to them, another shift needed bolts for something and 'borrowed' the bolts from the tilt table. Our heroes came back to work, checked the checklist to see where they were. The checklist said that they had bolted the satellite down - and checklists never lie. Next step: tilt the satellite...If, instead of checking the paperwork, they had looked then this wouldn't have happened.

rocketwatcher2001 · Oct 5, 2004

Aviation maintenance now needs a "face-to face" turnover between the maintenance inspectors, with a "pass-down log" which documents just about all the work done on that shift. This came about after a leading edge of an EMB-135 came off in flight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Oct 5, 2004

They need something like that at LM. Apparently, one of the technicians had made a remark like "There's an awful lot of empty bolt holes here." right before the incident, but the supervisor didn't stop them to check because the checklist said that it was bolted down!

mikejz · Oct 5, 2004

What intrests me is that 185 Mill repair bill---Call me crazy, but if this thing can withstand all the forces of launch, why does it tipping over cause so much damage? More specifically, what parts of it actually broke?

earth_bound_misfit · Oct 6, 2004

I wouldn't want to be the supervisor on that job! There's gonna be some ass kicking going on there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

CalliArcale · Oct 6, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />What intrests me is that 185 Mill repair bill---Call me crazy, but if this thing can withstand all the forces of launch, why does it tipping over cause so much damage? More specifically, what parts of it actually broke?<hr /></blockquote> Well, think of it this way: An astronaut, strapped safely into his seat in, say, a Soyuz spacecraft, will be mildly uncomfortable and probably pretty wired on adrenalin during ascent, but he'll be perfectly fine. Push him off a ten-foot-high walkway, and he could get bruised, break bones, dislocate joints, get a concussion, or even die, depending on how he lands. Basically, ascent is a very controlled situation. The fall was completely uncontrolled, and the vehicle wasn't encapsulated in a payload fairing that would've kept protruding bits from being smashed. However, the bulk of the cost is probably not replacement parts. The bulk of the cost will be the manhours needed to test and recertify the spacecraft and ensure that they've found and repaired everything that was damaged. Any prior testing will probably have been invalidated by the accident, so they're pretty much stuck redoing all of their flight testing, because it's the only way to be sure the vehicle is okay now. I'm working on a space project right now, and several times managers have e-mailed out to the entire team that picture of the weather satellite lying on its side to remind us of the importance of procedures. The moral of the story is never take shortcuts. That includes making sure that the checklist isn't lying, and it includes not borrowing parts without asking and without documenting the fact. The team that tipped the satellite was actually supposed to verify that it was properly bolted down, and not just by looking at the checklist. They skipped the step. And the team that borrowed the bolts was supposed to document the fact. They didn't. S <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kazvorpal · Oct 6, 2004

Actually, the moral is "socialism and progress do not mix". The X-prize people have the correct idea: Privatize space flight. /Bureaucrats/ depend on checklists, not produtive people. Look at Space Ship One itself. For a few tens of millions of dollars...a fraction of the laughable repair costs of that one satellite, actual, productive people have accomplished something that NASA has proven unable to do with hundreds of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars and FIFTY years of effort. I pick fifty, of course, because Space Ship One did almost exactly what the X-15 could do in the 1950s. If we'd turned over space travel to private industry back THEN, we'd all be /truly/ in space today, and just as even socialized industries benefit massively from private industry taking over the Internet in 1990 or so, even government "science" would be farther along if it had been able to benefit on the superior technological advancement of a private space industry. It's absolutely insane for us to have all of our eggs in one basket, as we have been forced to do by NASA for generations. Especially when the basket-holder has been a poster child for privatization itself, with its blunders beginning to outnumber its large-scale, ground-breaking successes. I shudder at the task of even trying to list what it's screwed up inexcusably... * Replaced the asbestos O-ring putty in a space shuttle with one that became brittle in cold weather, then launched the shuttle in cold weather because NASA was embarassed about its failure to stick to schedule. Blew up the shuttle. * Ignored the increasing problem of the already-ridiculous tile/foam insulation system on yet another shuttle, ignored the questions of what had fallen off (again) the shuttle during launch, and (claims, anyway...CYA) they are such bunglers that they could not have saved the shuttle, or even checked the wing, if they had NOT ignored it. Another shuttle dies. * Off t

killium · Oct 6, 2004

You missed one : They got to the moon because of a stupid political bet <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Oct 6, 2004

>Replaced the asbestos O-ring putty in a space shuttle...There wasn't an asbestos issue with the Shuttle SRB joints at the time of STS-51L. The asbestos putty was still in use. >Ignored the increasing problem...Foam shedding wasn't an "ever increasing problem" - it happened to varying degree on every single flight. Also, it wasn't being ignored. NASA had asked for a redesign of the ET to eliminate foam shedding from the bipod area before the loss os Columbia.>they are such bunglers that they could not have saved the shuttle, or even checked the wing...This is true. If the right people has spoken up and if the lines of communication weren't so messed up, there is an outside chance that the Columbia crew could have been saved. >Off the top of my head, SIX Mars missions failed entirely, which I should really itemize separately, with some of the rest proclaimed a success only through mission redefinition.If you get 100% success with robotic missions, you aren't trying hard enough. Robotic missions aren't supposed to be safe, they are supposed to do the interesting things and go to the interesting places. NASA's success rate with Mars missions isn't any worse than the Russians, Europeans or Japanese. >Galileo, another great example of a failure redefined as a success.Let's see: it orbited Jupiter for the best part of a decade, returned tens of thousands of images, achieved or exceeded its mission goals - yup, a dismal failure. >The Hubble Space Telescope...aside from the photos presented supposedly for their beauty, which are actually colorized...I guess you can 'see' infrared. I suppose you will complain that Chandra and Aricebo images are colourised as well. >...and the fact that the "computer upgrade mission" in 1999 was to add a 486 motherboard to a computer five years after I owned a Pentium at home...Your PC is radiation hardend and space qualified, I

najab · Oct 6, 2004

>For a few tens of millions of dollars...a fraction of the laughable repair costs of that one satellite, actual, productive people have accomplished something that NASA has proven unable to do with hundreds of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars and FIFTY years of effort. I think you will find that NASA achieved sub-orbital flight back in 1961.

thermionic · Oct 6, 2004

I'm in a contrarian mood this morning, so I'm going to troll a bit here... Since this topic has come up, I've been thinking a bit about the vaunted economy and efficiency of Scaled's wonderful success. People have been down on NASA, claiming excessive cost, slow turn-around, bungling, bad breath and other character flaws. I'm pondering the cost effectiveness of Scaled's Tier-One program relative to some NASA effort. Scaled lofted a person into space three times in three months for three minutes for $25M. E.g. NASA landed two fairly autonomous robots on Mars which have been operating for nearly 9 months, for $820M. While Scaled's human flight delivered inspiration and hope to all of us, NASA's robotic mission has delivered extensive and deep insight into the nature of a distant planet. Considering the relative distances traveled, the duration of the missions, and the mission goals, NASA's effort fairs quite competitively in value delivered when compared to Scaled's IMHO. At Monday's thrilling launch, I heard Mr. Rutan say that "NASA is scr*wed". He's a man of proven genius and efficacy, and he's in the middle of his carrier with likely his greatest successes still to come. Setting himself as a competitor of NASA doesn't show the right stuff though. Likewise, pointing to Scaled as a counterpoint to all NASA's flaws seems a bit off. NASA provides a different function for humanity than does Scaled. Things like JIMO, Cassini, the MERs, just "planetary exploration" projects make the list too long.

nacnud · Oct 6, 2004

I think that your post should be viewed as comparing robotic probes to manned flight rather that nasa to scaled. Robotic probes will almost always produce more science for the dollar that a manned flight. The closest comparable analogue to SS1 is the X-15.

thermionic · Oct 6, 2004

Yep, that is true. Personally I'd like to see NASA's near-term efforts be focussed on robotic missions. Leave space stations and Man-on-Mars stuff to operations like Scaled. But even comparing Tier-1 to the Shuttle is tricky. The cost difference is enormous, but so are the differences in mission goals. I don't doubt that Scaled is truely more efficient than NASA, but that conclusion is less forgone than many make it out to be. And if I were Mr. Rutan, I'd make an effort to avoid being condescending. He's in the public eye right now.

najab · Oct 6, 2004

>But even comparing Tier-1 to the Shuttle is tricky.No, not tricky, impossible. There is no similarity between them other than the fact that they have wings and land on a runway.

CalliArcale · Oct 7, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And if I were Mr. Rutan, I'd make an effort to avoid being condescending. He's in the public eye right now.<hr /></blockquote> Agreed. I can understand the exciting flush of the moment, but it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. He's not trying to do the same thing that NASA is trying to do -- nor should he be. His goals are entirely different, which is a good thing. Both are needed, IMHO. He runs the risk of being seen as denigrating, and the risk of setting himself up for unflattering comparisons by making this out as some kind of competition with NASA. It isn't a competition with NASA. It's an entirely new business. If he succeeds in making the world think that it's the same business, he'll put himself out of business very quickly, because the NASA-contracting world is already full of 500-lb gorrilas, and he's frankly just a capuchin monkey next to the likes of Boeing and Lockheed. Far better for him to go with Virgin and establish an entirely new business, where his innovative designs will be competitive enough to keep him in business and grow this business into something huge. We really are on the cusp of a new age of transportation, and it's people like Rutan that will lead us there. He has finally moved it to where it is commercially viable and doesn't require the resources of a government contract to do it. I hope this doesn't mean he's already forgotten the enormous magnitude of his triumph. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kazvorpal · Oct 7, 2004

> Scaled lofted a person into space three times in three /> months for three minutes for $25M. E.g. NASA landed /> two fairly autonomous robots on Mars which have /> been operating for nearly 9 months, for $820M. Actually, they did not. One of the big scams NASA pulls is to cite only a portion of the cost of completing a mission, when bragging about it. I don't know the specifics of the latest efforts, but when I was working on the Hubble project the numbers being touted for Sojourner were approximately ten times the ones given to the public. I'd need to dig it up to be precise, but I think it was $200M versus two billion. What's more, Scaled built a re-usable space craft which did the very most expensive thing in aerospace...put a HUMAN (the equivilent of THREE humans) into space. NASA, on the other hand, did their usual, laughably wasteful trick of throwing something at a spot, treating they money they've acquired from OUR pockets as if it's disposable. As a socialized industry is wont to do. What's more, you need to factor in the worse than fifty percent failure rate...add up the costs of all the recent Mars missions, then divide by the /successful/ Mars missions, and multiply by the mission redefinitions and the artificially low expectations they set for "meeting their objectives" in the first place. What you end up with is a much higher number. And no private people in space, only an ugly, wasteful government monopoly, far worse than the kind arguably imposed by Standard Oil or Microsoft. /> Considering the relative distances traveled, the /> duration of the missions, and the mission goals, /> NASA's effort fairs quite competitively /> in value delivered when compared to Scaled's IMHO. Wow, then the Voyager and Pioneer probes, outside the ostensible boundaries of the Sol system, must be the most cost-effective projects of any kind, in any industr

kazvorpal · Oct 7, 2004

> Yep, that is true. Personally I'd like to see NASA's /> near-term efforts be focussed on robotic missions. /> Leave space stations and Man-on-Mars stuff to /> operations like Scaled. That's a start, but the existence of a government competitor harms private industry, by keeping costs high. More money is thrown at a given project, with fewer results expected and NO objective measure of value akin to that of the marketplace. Private industry's contributions are measured by the triple meter of customers, competition, and profit. The result is that any project in a healthy industry is rewarded based on its success and efficiency. But any government program is rewarded, conversely, based on its failure and inefficiency. As long as it is able to justify its squandering, lack of success and bloated budgets are used purely to justify MORE money, while success locks in the current price, unless a budget crunch leads to the active punishment of any one within budget, via spending cuts. /> And if I were Mr. Rutan, I'd make an effort to avoid /> being condescending. He's in the public eye right /> now. That's why it's his social responsibility to /be/ condescending. He is proving that the massive government monopoly that's squandered perhaps a trillions inflation-adjusted dollars over the past couple of generations has been a big, fat mistake. The sooner people like him get us OUT of it, the better. And they need to REALLY hurry, before Bush spends another trillion on a useless manned Mars shot, or more people die in another antiquated-before-its-first-flight shuttle mission, or another robotic Mars mission is flubbed, et cetera.

thermionic · Oct 7, 2004

It's difficult to make sense of it all if NASA is truely lying. Is that actually the case? I thought they were extensively audited. The piles of paperwork are often cited as part of the reason for NASA's high mission costs. The fierce Vorpal states... "NASA, on the other hand, did their usual, laughably wasteful trick of throwing something at a spot, treating they money they've acquired from OUR pockets as if it's disposable. As a socialized industry is wont to do." I don't know about the sociaized industry part, but I feel I receive a great value from the planetary exploration efforts like the MERs. I don't think private industry would ever get around to something like that. This is how I see NASA providing a different purpose than Scaled. You've got a good point that failure rate should be factored into a comparison. I am stunned that Scaled lofted each of their space launches exactly when they were scheduled. Hah, I can't even do that with my Estes rockets. Regarding my flippant comment about Mr. Rutan not showing the right stuff, and your response that he is... What I was getting at was that he can show his prowess through success rather than provocative and critical words for NASA. There may be some dunderheads there, but there are also a great many highly dedicated people putting their hearts into furthering humanity's space-fairing ability. So why insult them? But wait, I'm almost agreeing with you on some points. This was supposed to be an arguement! I guess I'm in a better mood today... Rock on, Kaz!

CalliArcale · Oct 7, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />> Setting himself as a competitor of NASA doesn't show /> the right stuff though. It shows exactly the stuff we need...it reminds me of Vanderbilt taking on the riverboat monopoly in New York. They're double the hero for facing a government monopoly head on that they would be if they tried to kiss its wasteful butt.<hr /></blockquote> You're missing the point. Rutan has no intention of competing with NASA, so why make the claim that he is? His focus for SpaceShipOne is purely on suborbital manned spaceflight, with a long-term goal of manned orbital spaceflight. He's not really providing anything at all toward science, and his contributions to engineering research are, of course, purely commercial. That's not to say there's anything wrong with what he's doing. He's stepping into an area that NEEDS exploitation. But if he claims to be competing with NASA, then he doesn't understand what NASA is doing. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />> Likewise, pointing to Scaled as a counterpoint to all /> NASA's flaws seems a bit off. NASA provides a /> different function for humanity than does Scaled. /> Things like JIMO, Cassini, the MERs, just "planetary /> exploration" projects make the list too long. And the list of outrageous costs for minimal returns is even longer, even before you factor in the dramatic failures and the fact that it's being done with confiscated taxpayer money, instead of voluntary investment or customers. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I guess if you thought pure science was a complete waste of money, you'd be right. But if you thought that, what ever brought you to Uplink? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Swampcat · Oct 7, 2004

"Well, I guess if you thought pure science was a complete waste of money, you'd be right. But if you thought that, what ever brought you to Uplink?" Calli, whazzup with that? I kinda thought Uplink was mostly about space (FS notwithstanding) and space isn't just about science. Having said that...though I agree with some of what KazVorpal is saying, I have no intention of defending him...especially his way of saying it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

najab · Oct 7, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Actually, they did not. One of the big scams NASA pulls is to cite only a portion of the cost of completing a mission, when bragging about it. I don't know the specifics of the latest efforts, but when I was working on the Hubble project the numbers being touted for Sojourner were approximately ten times the ones given to the public. I'd need to dig it up to be precise, but I think it was $200M versus two billion.<hr /></blockquote>Please dig it up. I'd be interested to know where they are getting all this money from to be able to spend $2 billion on Mars Pathfinder/Sojourner.

najab · Oct 7, 2004

>What's more, Scaled built a re-usable space craft which did the very most expensive thing in aerospace...put a HUMAN (the equivilent of THREE humans) into space.As someone who "worked on the Hubble program", you should be able to appreciate that Rutan's effort, while admirable, is a long way from putting people "in space". SpaceShip One visits space briefly - I suspect that the Tier 2 vehicle will be significantly different and, most assuredly, more expensive.SpaceShip One had neglible down-range velocity at apogee, an orbital vehicle will have to accelerate to over 17,000mph. The current breed of hybrid engines cannot achieve this with a meaningful payload. SpaceShip One re-entered the atmosphere from rest the heating was entirely due to drag as it fell, an orbital vehicle has to burn off 7.9km/s of orbital velocity.I could go on, but the fact is that SpaceShip one is an advanced, high performance aircraft. It isn't a true space faring vehicle.

halman · Oct 8, 2004

najaB, People constantly say that NASA is an inefficient organisation, which wastes huge sums of money. Yet, most people don't realize that only 1/4 of NASA's budget is going into the shuttle program. Even those that do know that claim that the 1 billion dollar cost of launching the shuttle is too high. I would like to point out that the B-2 bomber costs around 2.5 billion each, and that there are currently 100 of them! If the United States were serious about manned space exploration, and spent 1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on spaceflight, 1 billion a flight would seem relatively cheap. Instead of badmouthing NASA, complain about Congress! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

Satellite Mishap

planet_z

Guest

halman

Guest

najab

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

najab

Guest

mikejz

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

kazvorpal

Guest

killium

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

thermionic

Guest

nacnud

Guest

thermionic

Guest

najab

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

kazvorpal

Guest

kazvorpal

Guest

thermionic

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

halman

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page