WILL THE ATV DELIVER?

Sounds like a progress. Havent they been around for many years? Why not test it
in the US? We should have a big enough chamber.

Oh well this is how so many spacecraft fail inadquate testing to save money

Lets hope a failure if it occurs doesnt take out the station.

From: (Hallerb)

Lets hope a failure if it occurs doesnt take out the station.

My god, you are such an maddening, one-track-mind idiot.

Do you pray for failures every day?

Do you ever think of anything else?

DF

On 17 Jul 2003 13:36:36 GMT, ojunk (Dave Fowler) wrote:

From: (Hallerb)

Lets hope a failure if it occurs doesnt take out the station.

My god, you are such an maddening, one-track-mind idiot.

Do you pray for failures every day?

Do you ever think of anything else?

Oh, this way, in the unlikely event anything bad did happen,
he'll be able to claim that he had warned us all about it in
advance.

Dale

My god, you are such an maddening, one-track-mind idiot.

Do you pray for failures every day?

Do you ever think of anything else?

Well after hubbles mirror, various mars probes and a variety of space failures
most of which can be traced back to inadquate testing I would think all up
testing would be mandatory when something is working in close quarters with the
ISS, since ts irreplaceable.

Positive thinking is fine but relying on it rather than testing is foolhardy.

Sadly many posters here are so go nasa they lack the ability to see what can go
wrong, even after it bites them.

Geez even Columbia loss can at least be partially blamed on ZERO testing of the
RCC panels.

I can imagine oh they are fine and sturdy as the tiles, dont worry about it!

YOU THINK THIS IS THE WAY SPACE SHOULD BE DONE?

ojunk (Dave Fowler) writes:
From: (Hallerb)
Lets hope a failure if it occurs doesnt take out the station.

My god, you are such an maddening, one-track-mind idiot.

That sums it up rather nicely.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(Hallerb) writes:

My god, you are such an maddening, one-track-mind idiot.

That sums it up rather nicely.

Err, they probably said the SAME thing during hubble construction, mars probe
design and others.

Not testing is fine if your willing to accept failure

You're far too simple minded (you consistently ignore the details).

They did testing on Hubble's mirror. In fact, they did at lest two
tests on the mirror to assess its shape. One test said the mirror was
ground wrong, the other said it was o.k. (due to a problem with the
assembly of some equipment). In the end, the launch of Hubble's
misshapen mirror was a management failure. The results of the test
that indicated a problem were ignored, instead of being investigated
further to determine the cause.

All the testing in the world won't help if management ignores the
results of the tests. Sometimes, management "updates" the
requirements after testing, otherwise the tests would have to be
listed as failed. Other times, management is a bit more open and
grants "waivers" for failed tests (just look at the noise environment
aboard ISS and you'll see this practice in spades).

To which failed Mars probe are you referring? There were several and
they all failed for different reasons. The "faster, better, cheaper"
failures were largely the result of engineers doing what they thought
they could with the "faster, better, cheaper" mandate. Unfortunately,
many engineers didn't believe in that you could do all three at once,
which is why certain types of testing got deleted from the plans (it
certainly kept the schedule on track and the budget down). Since
management could easily control the budget and schedule, it's no
surprise that "better" (quality) got sacrificed.

I see this trade-off on every project I work on (engineering
software), but we refer to it as trading off schedule, resource, or
scope (high quality is always demanded of all our projects). If a
project is late, you can cut the scope of the project, slip the
schedule (increases the cost), or add more resources to the project
(increases the cost).

The bigger "mega-project" Mars failure was, from dim memory, a fairly
complex failure mode in the propulsion system that just wasn't
understood until the clarity of hindsight kicked in. The real failure
here was putting "all your eggs in one basket". The failure of a
"mega-project" is necessarily more painful than the failure of a
smaller, less ambitious mission.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

They did testing on Hubble's mirror. In fact, they did at lest two
tests on the mirror to assess its shape. One test said the mirror was
ground wrong, the other said it was o.k. (due to a problem with the
assembly of some equipment). In the end, the launch of Hubble's
misshapen mirror was a management failure. The results of the test
that indicated a problem were ignored, instead of being investigated
further to determine the cause.

All the testing in the world won't help if management ignores the
results of the tests. Sometimes, management "updates" the
requirements after testing, otherwise the tests would have to be
listed as failed. Other times, management is a bit more open and
grants "waivers" for failed tests (just look at the noise environment
aboard ISS and you'll see this practice in spades).

To which failed Mars probe are you referring? There were several and
they all failed for different reasons. The "faster, better, cheaper"
failures were largely the result of engineers doing what they thought
they could with the "faster, better, cheaper" mandate. Unfortunately,
many engineers didn't believe in that you could do all three at once,
which is why certain types of testing got deleted from the plans (it
certainly kept the schedule on track and the budget down). Since
management could easily control the budget and schedule, it's no
surprise that "better" (quality) got sacrificed.

I see this trade-off on every project I work on (engineering
software), but we refer to it as trading off schedule, resource, or
scope (high quality is always demanded of all our projects). If a
project is late, you can cut the scope of the project, slip the
schedule (increases the cost), or add more resources to the project
(increases the cost).

The bigger "mega-project" Mars failure was, from dim memory, a fairly
complex failure mode in the propulsion system that just wasn't
understood until the clarity of hindsight kicked in. The real failure
here was putting "all your eggs in one basket". The failure of a
"mega-project" is necessarily more painful than the failure of a
smaller, less ambitious mission.

Jeff

Well in hubbles case the testing was incomplete. One more basic test and it
would of been clear it was ground wrong.

FBC got us the lander that cut thrust before landing when the vibration of its
legs opening was mistaken for ground contact. That could of clearly showed up
on ground testing.

Now we have a workhorse vehicle interfacing with ISS. Whats the latest cost oif
ISS anyway if it had to be replaced? Complete including all shuttle launches?

So they said well we cant test it all up. Thats fine but I thought there was a
testing facility in the US that could do this.

If this skipped test results in the loss of ISS or a shuttle or both how will
you justify it?

Not testing adquately is only ok if failure is allright too...

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Well in hubbles case the testing was incomplete. One more basic test and
it
would of been clear it was ground wrong.

You know Bob, someone who constantly makes the same grammatical mistake
after having it pointed out numerous times is in no position to be
criticizing others.

And again, it's not about the testing. It's about Management. One of the
tests already indicated a problem and that was ignored.


Not testing adquately is only ok if failure is allright too...

Guess what, sometimes failure IS all right.

I'm in the middle of writing a failover process for a critical business
process at my place of employment. Ideally one solution would be best. It
would also far more than the company can afford. So the option is to go
with a riskier solution. But one we can afford.

So, tell me, should the company go with the one they can't afford and end up
filing for bankruptcy, or go with the one they can afford and hopefully be
able to upgrade when money becomes less tight?

Life is a series of trade-offs. No matter what. Guess what, the shuttle
will NEVER be perfectly safe. No one here in their right mind is saying it
ever will be. What they are saying is it can be made "safe enough." And so
far Congress has said, "This is safe enough, here's all the money we're
giving you." You have a problem with that, write Congress. They've got the
checkbook.

You know Bob, someone who constantly makes the same grammatical mistake
after having it pointed out numerous times is in no position to be
criticizing others.


Honestly all of you know my grammar isnt good. But I am interested in space
which is more than 99% of americans, or so it seems......

And again, it's not about the testing. It's about Management. One of the
tests already indicated a problem and that was ignored.


My recollection was the test results were mixed, a futher test was nixed to
save money.


Not testing adquately is only ok if failure is allright too...

Guess what, sometimes failure IS all right.

I'm in the middle of writing a failover process for a critical business
process at my place of employment. Ideally one solution would be best. It
would also far more than the company can afford. So the option is to go
with a riskier solution. But one we can afford.

So, tell me, should the company go with the one they can't afford and end up
filing for bankruptcy, or go with the one they can afford and hopefully be
able to upgrade when money becomes less tight?


If the failure can cause them to go bankupt or ut of business they need to find
another way.

If the vehcle damages ISS or takes it out altogether thats not worth the risk.


Life is a series of trade-offs. No matter what. Guess what, the shuttle
will NEVER be perfectly safe. No one here in their right mind is saying it
ever will be. What they are saying is it can be made "safe enough." And so
far Congress has said, "This is safe enough, here's all the money we're
giving you." You have a problem with that, write Congress. They've got the
checkbook.



Look FAILURE from something totally unexpected is one thing, failure from lack
of proper testing is what gives us failed Mars probes and others.

My point is that when compared to a giga billion station a 100 million for
proper testing is a drop in the bucket.

(Hallerb) writes:

You know Bob, someone who constantly makes the same grammatical mistake
after having it pointed out numerous times is in no position to be
criticizing others.


Honestly all of you know my grammar isnt good. But I am interested in space
which is more than 99% of americans, or so it seems......

And again, it's not about the testing. It's about Management. One of the
tests already indicated a problem and that was ignored.


My recollection was the test results were mixed, a futher test was nixed to
save money.

If by "mixed" you mean that one test indicated a serious problem and
the other test results were o.k. I don't consider that "mixed".
That's something that needs to be investigated. This does not
necessarily mean you just run another test because there could be
problems with either, or both of the tests. This was the case with
Hubble. The same mechanical screw-up that caused the spherical
aberration caused one of the tests to be o.k.

Again, running more tests isn't the answer. Analyzing the two tests
already run was all that would have been necessary to "discover" the
mirror defect.

My point is that when compared to a giga billion station a 100 million for
proper testing is a drop in the bucket.

No, it's not. If you chose to do destructive testing, you're now
paying for several copies of the same flight article. ISS doesn't do
this. In fact, they have in some cases eliminated destructive testing
and recycled test articles into flight articles to save money.

I believe the part of the ATV not tested in "the chamber" was the
pressure vessel. Why do this when it's very, very similar to other
pressure vessels already tested? Should Coke pressure test every
aluminum can before filling it with product? Somewhere you have to
stop testing and trust the guys building the thing to built it right.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.