NASA has lost it.

[RalphInCA]

Those of you bashing NASA for this incident must not have read anything.

First, the instrument that has the leak was built by the French space agency, CNES. They generally do good work, but they had a snag on this part, and CNES is still fixing it. NASA provided other parts of the spacecraft, and was to provide the launch. So the whole mission is delayed for the French instrument.

It doesn't matter if it was a contractor part that caused the problem. Most of what NASA does goes through contractors. Always has.

This is also the way it is for most big companies: GM, Ford, etc. they use contractors – they don't build everything themselves.

A good company/organization manages it's contractors to meet mission requirements.

And although there may be somewhat legitimate reasons for these delays, the delays are definitely not helping them with their perception problem with the public and government leadership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RalphInCA]

It amazes me how many people are willing to cast judgment without understanding...

we understand the issues, we are just very disappointed in what used to be our premier government organization and something of considerable national pride.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Everskyward]

we understand the issues, we are just very disappointed in what used to be our premier government organization and something of considerable national pride.

We don't have that mission to beat the Soviets any more, or a reason to put all the money behind it.

 

[MAKG1]

we understand the issues, we are just very disappointed in what used to be our premier government organization and something of considerable national pride.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Umm, I don't know about "we," but you don't understand the issues. None of them. Or at least they don't matter.

How did national pride do when a rushed schedule doomed the Challenger?

You want to "lengthen" launch windows, but don't seem to have realized the level of waste you're asking for.

If you really did understand the issues, you would not be "disappointed" by an obviously prudent decision. Also, blaming NASA for a European payload is a little, umm, off base. You would have NASA launch a broken and unrepairable payload? And that would help "national pride" how?

 

[wanttaja]

The priority should be launch vehicles and propulsion that widen the acceptable launch window, IMO.

The vehicles certainly do exist, and new ones are coming online. NASA didn't have one for this launch for reasons that will probably shock most people:

They were being good stewards of the public purse.

A PT-6 is more expensive than an O-200; similarly, a rocket that has a narrower window for a Mars insertion is cheaper than one that gives you a broader window.

Replace the current booster with one more effective, to avoid the 30-60 month launch slide? Well, "Buzz's Rocket Emporium" doesn't exist. You can't buy these things off-the-shelf. It takes time, and of course, you're paying for TWO boosters instead of one (Ever take a Rocket to Macy's customer service window for a refund?).

A final point is that rockets aren't identical. Using a more-powerful rocket will give you a rougher ride...and if the spacecraft wasn't designed for that harsher environment, you've got a whole lot of analysis to do. And re-testing, too.

About 18 years ago, I was involved in developing a spacecraft for a startup-company. All the technical people in the company were from the telecom industry; they had a few space people leavened around, but they were pretty rare.

Our vehicle was designed to be launched on the air-launched Pegasus spacecraft. Pegasus has a very benign ride, one of the most gentle trips to orbit out there.

However, as we were getting close to testing, the Pegasus schedule started to slide. The telecom people did some digging around, and announced they'd found a new ride.

A converted Russian ICBM. Environment about 50% higher than we were designed to.

As far as the Telecom people were concerned, all we had to do was crank up the knobs of the vibration table. "Don't you trust your design?" they jeered at us. Never mind the vehicle was designed for Pegasus, with a ~10% margin.

We flew on Pegasus.

So that's the problem with the Mars mission. Even if they found a new booster, they'd be back to performing some fundamental analysis and testing...

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

we understand the issues, we are just very disappointed in what used to be our premier government organization and something of considerable national pride.

Give NASA the budget equivalent of what they received during the '60s, and we can be proud of them again.

TANSTAAFL!

Ron "No bucks...no Buck Rogers" Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

It's a group think mentality, where youth is generally valued over experience. Generally most places have one guy or gal who can figure this stuff out, if they are well run, most are not. These contractors tend to demoralize the older guys who know what to do and drive them out, leaving the wheel to be reinvented. The Ivy MBA schools look at technology and technical people as a commodity that can be bought and brought in on a whim, just like an MBA. Unfortunately this isn't so and simple things cause failure. It's really kind of sad.

I haven't worked a NASA program since the '80s, when I was a wet-behind-the-ears junior engineer on the initial Space Station proposal.

But I haven't seen the "Youth vs. Experience" issue in the non-NASA government problems I've worked since. We always work with a Government COTR (Contracting Office's Technical Representative) whose rank depended on how big the program was, and how close it was to being "real."

Studies were led by (Air Force) Captains, who generally are pretty young. As the programs got more serious, they brought in the Majors or Lieutenant Commanders. Biggest program I worked had a full colonel in charge. Usually, as the program became successful, these folks would get promoted.

As the programs got bigger, the Government needed more people at the lower levels to monitor specific technical areas. So we'd be back to working with ~28 year old Air Force captains and the like.

Most of these guys were VERY sharp, but, in many cases, they didn't have much experience. However, most came with SETA (Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance) contractors. These were very experienced engineers who would monitor the program and advise the Government folks. Often they were retired engineers, even former COTRs. Very sharp, as well.

The only time I saw the "youth" thing was at reviews, when the Government would bring in "ringers" from the companies that are solely set up to advise in these situations. Many of them basically wanted to look good in front of their bosses, and would bring up esoteric points probably related to some paper they did for their masters. Few had actually been involved in actually building space hardware. We called them either "Snipers" or "Seagulls" (because they'd come in, crap all over everything, and leave).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[cowman]

I think the organization just shifted from a mentality of "anything to beat the Russians" to "let's do space safely".

If they acted like they did back in the late 60s today, I could see us sending a manned craft outside of the solar system in my lifetime. There just isn't the will to take the kinds of safety risks that would be necessary for that now I think

 

[flyingron]

I think the organization just shifted from a mentality of "anything to beat the Russians" to "let's do space safely".

Oh, pooh. Actually after the Russians were effectively out of any space race, the NASA philosophy hardly changed. In fact we lost 14 more astronauts and two very expensive space vehicles and still failed to learn much of a lesson. If you read the Challenger investigation files you'll find that they pretty much read the same as the investigation to Apollo 1.

 

[MAKG1]

I think the organization just shifted from a mentality of "anything to beat the Russians" to "let's do space safely".

If they acted like they did back in the late 60s today, I could see us sending a manned craft outside of the solar system in my lifetime. There just isn't the will to take the kinds of safety risks that would be necessary for that now I think

No, it shifted from an unlimited budget to a limited budget. Three Apollo missions were canceled not because people were afraid of them, but because the Nixon Administration decided to cut the budget (reusing one booster for Skylab, and leaving the other two to rot in front of Johnson and Kennedy space centers).

It sure is easy to throw those "risks" around when it isn't your butt, isn't it? Reality is that when people die, the Agency has a hell of a time surviving Congressional attacks. After the Columbia broke up, Congress forced an elaborate "return to flight" program that lasted about a year and a half, and ultimately resulted in the Shuttle program's cancellation.

Every year, NASA has to make some nasty choices about priority. The big items tend to crowd out the little ones. This year is better than most, but the Space Telescope is still the 800 lb gorilla sucking all the Exploration money away. Return to unlimited budgets, and that won't happen.

 

[Bob Noel]

....We called them either "Snipers" or "Seagulls" (because they'd come in, crap all over everything, and leave).

Ron Wanttaja

"seagulls" - I like it. I'm stealing that phrase.

 

[Datadriver]

The part in question is European.

 

[nauga]

I haven't worked a NASA program since the '80s...

I have.
My experiences pretty much mirror yours. The groups I've worked with do a good job of mixing seasoned experience with youthful enthusiasm. They also show up ready and willing to learn. I've got plenty of experience on both sides of the seagull fence too and in my experience NASA is far from the worst offender.

Nauga,
who has been the statue and the pigeon

 

[EdFred]

Yep. We pilots always complain about the misconceptions non-aviators have about flying, yet over the years, I've seen a stack of dumb pilot comments about space. Some examples:

"Why did Columbia had to re-enter so fast? Couldn't they slow-flight?"

"Why didn't Columbia just fly up to the Space Station?" (Asked by a pilot with a doctorate in physics)

Space is not air; spacecraft are totally different than aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

Well Columbia could have entered slower - if it had 17,500 worth of dV on board.

 

[NoHeat]

It doesn't matter if it was a contractor part that caused the problem. Most of what NASA does goes through contractors. Always has.

This is also the way it is for most big companies: GM, Ford, etc. they use contractors – they don't build everything themselves.

A good company/organization manages it's contractors to meet mission requirements.

And although there may be somewhat legitimate reasons for these delays, the delays are definitely not helping them with their perception problem with the public and government leadership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More mindless blather.

The failure was neither by NASA nor by a NASA contractor. It was a failure by the CNES, the national space agency of France.

The mission is a collaboration of the two space agencies, with no exchange of funds. NASA is simply not responsible for a failure by the other agency.

Multinational is how space exploration is often done now. Looking at it with the assumption that it is all NASA, and every problem is a failure of NASA, is simply misinformed.

 

[RalphInCA]

Umm, I don't know about "we," but you don't understand the issues. None of them. Or at least they don't matter.

How did national pride do when a rushed schedule doomed the Challenger?

You want to "lengthen" launch windows, but don't seem to have realized the level of waste you're asking for.

If you really did understand the issues, you would not be "disappointed" by an obviously prudent decision. Also, blaming NASA for a European payload is a little, umm, off base. You would have NASA launch a broken and unrepairable payload? And that would help "national pride" how?

Of course I understand the issues, they are just not THAT hard to understand. (It doesn't take a rocket scientist...). But I still cannot help but be disappointed in what NASA has become.

And I do know about the cost/time/quality triangle. I lived that triangle for many years.

And I still maintain that taking months to decide on a course of action and years to get a contractor or partner to fix a problem is not doing their reputation any good, especially if they want to compete for funding/resources and inspire our brightest and most talented to do difficult things.

And of course I do not want them to launch a broken device. What I want them to do is recognize a problem, fix it and move on. In reasonable amount of time.

 

[MAKG1]

And of course I do not want them to launch a broken device. What I want them to do is recognize a problem, fix it and move on. In reasonable amount of time.

So, a decision based on incomplete information, that cannot be recovered from, is better?

No, you don't understand the issues. Obviously.

Reasonable means that the answer is known to be correct. This is not a consumer software project where being wrong means you just have to blow out a patch.

You left out critical steps. Determine there is a problem, identify what the problem is and isolate it, fix it without creating new ones, verify that, and then move on.

Skipping any part of that indicates you do not have a working system.

So, how did you determine what a "reasonable" amount of time is?

 

[172andyou]

Time from bombing of Pearl Harbor to dropping of atomic bomb on Hiroshima was 3 years and 8 months.

And cost $26B dollars.

 

[Kritchlow]

And cost $26B dollars.

Chump change in space dollars.

 

[N801BH]

Let's not forget the old metric versus imperial(standard) measurement mess about a decade ago.

Have ya noticed all the Pro NASA cheerleaders have NOT answered your post.....

I have ALOT of Respect for Ron W and MAKG but they keep going on and on about testing, and more testing and even MORE testing......

My question is... How the hell did a simple math conversion get missed in what sounds like years amid hundreds of tests ????.

Ps... wasn't the failed Mars probe that slammed into the surface at 600+MPH, supplied by this same French Firm ???

 

[Kritchlow]

As a NASA fan, I want the first Mars launch vehicle(SLS?) topped with Orion (??) to have American flags, and only American flags on it. No French, no UN, nothing.

We can do it IF we decide to do so.

 

[MAKG1]

Have ya noticed all the Pro NASA cheerleaders have NOT answered your post.....

I have ALOT of Respect for Ron W and MAKG but they keep going on and on about testing, and more testing and even MORE testing......

My question is... How the hell did a simple math conversion get missed in what sounds like years amid hundreds of tests ????.

Ps... wasn't the failed Mars probe that slammed into the surface at 600+MPH, supplied by this same French Firm ???

Well, you not only have to have tests, they have to be GOOD tests.

One possibility is something I call "duplication of error," where the test has the same error as the item being tested. This is what happened to the Hubble primary mirror. And it's real common in software where the pressures are to reuse -- tests should NOT reuse release-candidate code. To enforce that in my systems, our test scripts are written in a different language than the production code, by different authors.

Another possibility, since the error occurred at the boundary between two systems, is that each system was tested in isolation, but the integration of the two had a hole in it. We try to look for that sort of thing when reviewing tests.

The upshot is that testing is time consuming, expensive, and difficult. But if you don't do it at all, or you try to skimp on it because it's expensive, bad things happen. And a case study for that in the context of software reuse is the Arianne 5 maiden launch. Known good software from Arianne 4 didn't work in the new environment.

The Mars Climate Orbiter fault is now a standard case study, along with several others. It's not relevant to the discussion at hand. That's why no one answered it until now.

And FYI, it's likely quite a lot more than hundreds of tests.

 

[MAKG1]

As a NASA fan, I want the first Mars launch vehicle(SLS?) topped with Orion (??) to have American flags, and only American flags on it. No French, no UN, nothing.

We can do it IF we decide to do so.

Well, sure we can. But in an environment where even talking about raising taxes to do that is considered "sin," it's not going to happen. No way, no how.

 

[Kritchlow]

Well, sure we can. But in an environment where even talking about raising taxes to do that is considered "sin," it's not going to happen. No way, no how.

I'm of the opinion lowering taxes will increase revenue. If I'm wrong, the NASA budget increase would only be a fraction of a percent, and the jobs created would bring in yet even more revenue.

 

[wanttaja]

Have ya noticed all the Pro NASA cheerleaders have NOT answered your post.....

I have ALOT of Respect for Ron W and MAKG but they keep going on and on about testing, and more testing and even MORE testing......

My question is... How the hell did a simple math conversion get missed in what sounds like years amid hundreds of tests ????.

Well, there's some things you can test...and some things you can't. You test what you can, individually, and try to develop some integrated tests to test as many components together.

Some things CAN'T be tested, because the scale is too damn big. Imagine a landing radar, for instance, that's supposed to detect the surface at a 200 mile range and do something automatically based on the decreasing range. Hard to test that, on the ground. Sure, you develop simulators...but how to you verify that the simulator is accurate? What if it's NOT and you modify your hardware and software to go with it?

"Rocket Science" is a euphemism for something that's extremely hard, for a very, very good reason. It IS extremely hard, and little tiny things have a tendency bite you in the butt. That's the big advantage manned aircraft have, in that there's an extremely intelligent computer in charge who can use his brain and knowledge to save the day. Not available in space, for the most part.

And stuff happens.

When I was a second looie, I was the on-shift technical expert for a US Missile Launch Detection satellite system. The thermal testing of a new satellite hadn't apparently been sufficiently instrumented, and a portion of a fuel line got too cold and froze. Blooie, there went the propellant and the mission.

Another time, a strong IR star refracted through the atmosphere and the system categorized it as a massive missile launch (I hate it when that happens). Cause? Wrong value of Pi in the computer.

A while back the launch of a new French booster went awry, and they had to push the boom button. They re-ran the telemetry from the attitude control system, and found the guidance commands had suddenly started turned to gibberish. Some bright spark happened to run it through an ASCII converter, and the gibberish spelled, "DIVISION BY ZERO ERROR." Turns out the rate system had been used from an earlier model rocket with less capabilities of the new one.

The fact is, it's impossible to detect everything. But we try. And THAT'S why we test the hell out of everything. Not to verify that the system is perfect, but to check everything that we CAN check.

I've been working in Space System Rapid Prototyping for about the last 20 years. We offer to build faster and cheaper, if the customer doesn't mind taking the risk that the system may not work. Here's our primary guide:

http://www.wanttaja.com/rapid.html

We commonly eliminate steps and tests that conventional systems feel are must-haves. The customers are aware that we're taking risks and things may fail.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Scrabo]

From the Armageddon movie....

"You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?"

 

[MAKG1]

From the Armageddon movie....

"You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?"

Gawd, that was a terrible movie.

That's a paraphrase of Alan Shepard.

 

[denverpilot]

A while back the launch of a new French booster went awry, and they had to push the boom button. They re-ran the telemetry from the attitude control system, and found the guidance commands had suddenly started turned to gibberish. Some bright spark happened to run it through an ASCII converter, and the gibberish spelled, "DIVISION BY ZERO ERROR." Turns out the rate system had been used from an earlier model rocket with less capabilities of the new one.

I read about this stuff all the time and I remember being amazed at that one.

Folks who think "the old days" of Apollo were better obviously haven't read any of the historical books about the engineering fiascos nor the intense manpower effort at all levels.

Most of the Apollo era boosters were flown days after continuous upgrades and many flown with significant flaws that were being fixed on the ones right behind them in the production pipe. Retrofits done on multiple of the manned boosters and systems at the Cape were often massive and insanely risky.

Shuttle also had hundreds, even thousands of updates and retrofits on items that were considered "loss of crew and vehicle" urgency level, as they were flown and things were learned.

Stuff is going to go wrong on the first manned Mars mission. Very very wrong. In ways nobody predicted.

Taking a very careful approach to fixing KNOWN problems leads to fixes for even more things as it causes people to think differently and realize "that problem there probably also applies over here..."

People have gotten WAY too used to crap products that never should have gone out the door in tech. Two reasons: Ability to update software on the fly, and the throwaway aspect of most personal tech. Real engineering has suffered considerably in my lifetime and career in IT. Nothing is engineered anymore. Teams call a design "well thought out" if they drew a few boxes on a whiteboard in a conference room and "well documented" if someone bothered to shoot a photo of the whiteboard with their camera phone.

NASA and her contractors don't have that luxury. Not even close. No way on a manned mission.

And anyone who laments that it's the fault of "contractors", sheesh... Chrysler built rockets for NASA during Apollo. The really scary bright folks were the engineers at Rocketdyne who had to simulate stuff nobody had ever done, in human history, and make their stuff (engines) work. A lot of gear blew up on the test stand with some of the brightest people on the planet working on the problems.

Duct tape and bailing wire solutions in manned space flight are only done once they're already up there. (e.g. apollo 13 and the CO scrubbers.) That kindergarten level crap engineering isn't allowed before the thing flies.

 

[flyingron]

Reminds me of a discussion I had with my boss when I worked for the Army. I'd come down US40 from NJ rather than using I-95.

ME: I didn't know there was a Morton Thiokol facility in Cecil County
STEVE: They make things that blow up there.
ME: Like shuttle SRBs?
STEVE No, things that are supposed to blow up.

 

[Mistake Not...]

So I'm a contractor working for NASA.

NASA is good people, for the most part. Especially the technical people I deal with. But what many people outside NASA have no concept of is the restrictions and environment they work with.

For example. We needed a star tracker (gives orientation information by taking a picture of the star field). Did a trade study, put out multiple bids, lengthy process. Then had to wait even longer for the engineering and flight models to be built and delivered. My questions was... "Hey, this isn't the first time y'all have ever needed a star tracker. Why don't you just build one in house? We have everything we need, it's not -that- hard."

Because, they'd be seen as competing with the private sector. At least, that was the answer I was given. Anything that can be sourced privately, we are "encouraged" to do so. Even if that means there are only half a dozen (or fewer!) vendors. And those vendors know they're in charge, too. Customer support varies from great to "you again?" to no answer.

I was talking with a guy from SpaceX recently. Totally different. I mentioned the star tracker problem. He laughed. SpaceX will buy something if they don't already make it, but they'll immediately spin up a project to duplicate it in house. I can only dream of having standardized components with tested, debugged software ready to go that I can pull off a shelf and create a new satellite with. We're essentially forced to design each one from scratch. It's more like a group art project than engineering.

NASA's mission and direction is at the mercy of presidents and congress. Often, things that could be MUCH more efficient if colocated are placed in different states simply because Congress wants it that way.

I'm not trying to apologize for anything NASA does, I don't speak for them. But it's not as simple as "NASA has lost it". NASA is lots of very competent, dedicated engineers working for a government that hasn't decided to make space a priority. We beat the ruskies... why are you guys still here?

 

[Circuit Flyer]

My dad worked on the S1B for NASA via Chrysler out of Michoud in the Apollo era, earning two Silver Snoopies (one from Buzz Aldrin). He naturally raised space-travel enthusiasts. I'm not one to criticize NASA -- my kids jump for joy when I take them to Stennis -- but I'm disheartened that we have such a limited manned space program. I think this is where the "boring" comments come from. I don't think going back to the moon for more golf is necessarily the answer. A friend working on carbon nanotubes says a trip to Mars is presently a death sentence due to unsolved radiation problems. But going nowhere is not that exciting. :-(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

Was quite interested in where space tourism was headed but with the little "setback" of pulling the wrong lever at Virgin Galactic, things sure ground to a halt.

 

[LDJones]

Indeed I do. My colleagues are very impressive people, as are my students.

Truly remarkable people seldom have to tell us they're remarkable.

 

[N801BH]

Truly remarkable people seldom have to tell us they're remarkable.

Hey..... He is a government employee...... How else can he justify his status............

 

[MAKG1]

Truly remarkable people seldom have to tell us they're remarkable.

"Only the true Messiah denies his divinity."

You do realize how stupid that is when you have no direct access to his work, right?

 

[PaulS]

I think Al Gore's get rich scheme has severely distracted from the manned space program as has much, not all, but much of the environmentalist movement along with the feed and house the able bodied slouchers.

We are distracted by pseudo problems that divert massive amount of money to charlatans who have many useful idiots to help perpetuate the vig.

 

[LDJones]

"Only the true Messiah denies his divinity."

You do realize how stupid that is when you have no direct access to his work, right?

Wouldn't change the accuracy of my statement.

 

[Herman vanOoijen]

"seagulls" - I like it. I'm stealing that phrase.

I heard about that in the context of the Corporate review team, equipped with a Cessna Citation , that came to the division I worked for to do quarterly reviews: "Those Seagulls fly in, make a lot of noise, crap over everybody and fly away"...

 

[Unbeliever]

Depending on how vital the instrument is to the overall mission, they could just bolt on ballast and go.

That instrument is the mission's raison d'être. No point without it.

Let's not forget the old metric versus imperial(standard) measurement mess about a decade ago.

TWO decades ago. And it was the contractor with the issue. NASA/JPL is consistently metric. The contractor decided, for some odd reason, that JPL wanted imperial.

JPL has a very good reputation at the moment.

--Carlos V.

 

[red4golf]

My dad worked for a NASA contractor for 40 years starting right around the Viking Mars lander, touching most of the GPS and telecom satellites, all of the shuttle thrusters and ending with the ION engine on Deep Space 1. He was a welder and through him I was exposed to a different side of the events surrounding these projects. Even with all of the issues regarding politics, budget and personality conflicts I still dream of working for NASA.

Even JPL sent their engineers to watch him weld a part that the couldn't figure out how to get to pass inspection. His trick was to do it by hand even though it supposedly could only be done to standard by a machine. He was a craftsman.....

Yes, I do hold a romanticized view of NASA and I wish more people did.