Is NASA dying?? If so, whose fault is it?

In article , "Greg D. Moore
\(Strider\)" says...

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

Well Henry, if I'm elected ("Ought to be Moore in 04") you'll get a call.

Breaking things WILL be required. Failure in test programs is an option.

Why is space so different that failures during testing are to be
expected? Doesn't happen anywhere else, and hasn't really happened on
a routine basis in space endeavors for years.

Sure it does. It's called test to destruction. Heck, we even do it in
software. Building a website for example, I would predict its capacity
based on known metrics and equations. I'd then actually put that load on
the server and test it to see if I "broke" it or not. If it breaks earlier
than predicted, I know that there's something wrong with my metrics and
equations. If it breaks later than expected, same thing. So space is no
different.

Ah, but NASA has not used the destructive testing technique for many
decades. Components are built to spec and tested against the spec, not
to destruction. This was a major approach decision that was made in the
early to mid '60s, rather like the all-up testing decision, to ensure
that the components (and, ergo, the spacecraft and boosters) would all
be ready in time to support the end-of-the-decade deadline.

Doug

Derek Lyons wrote:

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

Well Henry, if I'm elected ("Ought to be Moore in 04") you'll get a call.

Breaking things WILL be required. Failure in test programs is an option.

Why is space so different that failures during testing are to be
expected? Doesn't happen anywhere else,

Never heard of crash test dummies? They wouldn't be so refined if they
weren't put in things that were to be broken...



--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

Well Henry, if I'm elected ("Ought to be Moore in 04") you'll get a
call.

Breaking things WILL be required. Failure in test programs is an
option.

Why is space so different that failures during testing are to be
expected? Doesn't happen anywhere else, and hasn't really happened on
a routine basis in space endeavors for years.

Sure it does. It's called test to destruction. Heck, we even do it in
software. Building a website for example, I would predict its capacity
based on known metrics and equations. I'd then actually put that load on
the server and test it to see if I "broke" it or not. If it breaks
earlier
than predicted, I know that there's something wrong with my metrics and
equations. If it breaks later than expected, same thing. So space is no
different.

Allowing breakage in early models can be a real money saver.
When I build a new type machine for my work, I butt the metal
together and give it a one pass weld. I leave the slag and don't
paint it. After I have been through a change or six, I allow a
pro welder to do bevel cut, 4 pass, grinder polished welds
to exact dimentions. I can do four or five build-test cycles
while waiting on a regular shop to deliver the first machine.

There are always problems with the first prototype, or it's
not a prototype, just a design built normal machine. Armadillos'
approach is most instructive. Some of my test riggs fall apart
in five minutes or less. That is enough time to spot flaws to be
remedied in the next rigg, or fix the current one.

The few times I have tried to have prototypes built in a pro
shop have been a disaster. They usually build a perfect
rigg, that is useless after the first five minutes of test. Takes
several times as long and costs ten times as much.

How can you move forward with new ideas if you have to
get them perfect before they are even tried?



(Failure on the operations side though is a different issue.)

Believing that there will be no failures during operations is the sign
of a mind in need of immediate professional help.


Nice strawman and ad hominem Derek. I never said I believed that there
would be no failures.


D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Mary Shafer ) wrote:
: On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: Mary Shafer ) wrote:

: : Having spent almost all of my career at NASA, I'd only take the job of
: : Administrator if both the White House and Congress promised, in
: : unclassified, written, signed, and notarized documents, to keep their
: : hands completely off. Particularly female members of Congress from
: : Maryland.
:
: What do you have against Goddard?


I think I missed something here?

Eric

: : Then they'd have to pass a law exempting NASA from some of the more
: : recent encrustations of the laws, rules, and regulations on
: : procurement, travel, work conditions, contracting, resource
: : utilization, and paperwork.
:
: : And finally, they'd have to agree that only people who understand risk
: : levels and accepted risk be allowed to assess NASA decisions and
: : review mishaps and accidents. Furthermore, safety would have to be
: : downgraded from the most important factor to just an important factor
: : and real risk acceptance would have to be allowed. And the complement
: : would have to be raised.
:
: : Then I'd appoint a multi-national advisory committee and draft Henry,
: : right after I required the lawyers to justify every decision to
: : prohibit doing something with actual numbers and facts (their job is
: : to figure out how to do things, not why not to).
:
: : Then you'd see a much different NASA indeed. Research, research,
: : research. Publication in the open literature. Openness. Less
: : groveling. Less pandering to risk aversion.
:
: : Unfortunately, no one's going to make me the Empress of NASA.
:
: Right, I was going to say that you want to run NASA like Castro runs Cuba.
:
: Like W said, "I'm not against a dicatorship, just as long as I'm the
: dictator." (in effect)
:
: Eric
:
: : Mary
:
: : --
: : Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
: :

: --
: Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
:

Richard Lamb ) wrote:
: Mary Shafer wrote:
:
: On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
: Mary Shafer ) wrote:
:
: : Having spent almost all of my career at NASA, I'd only take the job of
: : Administrator if both the White House and Congress promised, in
: : unclassified, written, signed, and notarized documents, to keep their
: : hands completely off. Particularly female members of Congress from
: : Maryland.
:
: What do you have against Goddard?
:
: Absolutely nothing. It's just that the playing field needs to be
: leveled. Happening to be in the district (before) or state (now) of
: someone who sits on important Congressional committees is not a valid
: criterion for judging a field center.
:

I see it in this post. Interesting.

It is more like giving contracts to minorities.

: Goddard should be judged for itself, not for the prominence of one of
: its outside defenders.

The defenders are mostly from within the state of Maryland. I credit
Eisenhower for setting up NASA across the country to avoid to much state
specific power. CA and TX try and run the country when they get the
chance.

:
: : Unfortunately, no one's going to make me the Empress of NASA.
:
: Right, I was going to say that you want to run NASA like Castro runs Cuba.
:
: No, I want to turn NASA back into the agency I worked at in the late
: '60s. It's not power, it's nostalgia.
:

I guet that part.

: Mary
:
: --
: Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
:


: It's not nostalgia, Mary.

: It was 'doing it'. For real.

: That's what you really want.

You can't judge all of NASA based upon the Columbia failure.

Heck, JPL's finest hour, and they have had many, may be right now with
Spirit and Oppurtunity. Viking was great but I think the the most recent
mission has surpassed it. Voyager was great, but of a different nature.

This is STILL NASA. Manned flight may need to get wrestled out of
NASA-south if it can't get it to work.

Just a thought.

Eric

: Me too.

: Richard Lamb
: http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

Well Henry, if I'm elected ("Ought to be Moore in 04") you'll get a call.

Breaking things WILL be required. Failure in test programs is an option.

Why is space so different that failures during testing are to be
expected? Doesn't happen anywhere else, and hasn't really happened on
a routine basis in space endeavors for years.

Sure it does. It's called test to destruction.

Intentional destruction is *not* an 'expected failure'. Nor is it
common (at vehicle scale) in any but the automobile industry and in a
more limited fashion in the aviation industry.

snipped irrelevant bull**** on software testing.

(Failure on the operations side though is a different issue.)

Believing that there will be no failures during operations is the sign
of a mind in need of immediate professional help.

Nice strawman and ad hominem Derek. I never said I believed that there
would be no failures.

You said 'Failure in test programs is an option. Failure on the
operations side is a different issue'. There is no other way to
interpret this statement other than 'failures during operations are
unacceptable'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Scott Lowther wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

Well Henry, if I'm elected ("Ought to be Moore in 04") you'll get a call.

Breaking things WILL be required. Failure in test programs is an option.

Why is space so different that failures during testing are to be
expected? Doesn't happen anywhere else,

Never heard of crash test dummies? They wouldn't be so refined if they
weren't put in things that were to be broken...

Of course the things that they are put in to be broken are production
vehicles being evaluated for safety and research projects on safety
improvements, *not* prototype vehicles.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

You said 'Failure in test programs is an option. Failure on the
operations side is a different issue'. There is no other way to
interpret this statement other than 'failures during operations are
unacceptable'.

Saying failures are unacceptable is NOT the same as saying there will be no
failures.



D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

JRS: In article , seen in
news:sci.space.policy, Greg D. Moore (Strider) mooregr_deleteth1s@green
ms.com posted at Tue, 25 May 2004 11:53:25 :

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

You said 'Failure in test programs is an option. Failure on the
operations side is a different issue'. There is no other way to
interpret this statement other than 'failures during operations are
unacceptable'.

Saying failures are unacceptable is NOT the same as saying there will be no
failures.

A system that can neither accept nor avoid failure is an unreasonable
system.

No infallible system for land, sea, or air transport has yet been
developed; and space-flight provides more challenging environments.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in message . ..
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

You said 'Failure in test programs is an option. Failure on the
operations side is a different issue'. There is no other way to
interpret this statement other than 'failures during operations are
unacceptable'.

Saying failures are unacceptable is NOT the same as saying there will be no
failures.

Exactly! Far more succinct than I managed to say it.