|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Naval Reactor success ...
stmx3 wrote:
I bring up the issue because I've seen QA work on subs and at NASA and I place more trust in submarine QA, by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (if you could quantify trust). Were you in boats? My own initial answer was "integrity"...but that was off the cuff. I think "pride" in a job well done comes in to play, but mostly I believe it's "training". Of the NASA QA I have experience with, there members can be called to any particular job site to sign off a procedural step. They may have no idea why that step is being performed or how it affects the system, but if the technician torques a nut to 7.5 ft. lbs +/- .01 ft. lbs. in accordance with the procedure, then that's enough for the QA stamp. In the NAVY, the QAI implicitly understands the work being performed and can tell that, yeah...although the nut was torqued properly, it was the wrong material or it was in the wrong position, etc. Any thoughts? Training, integrity, and pride play large parts, certainly. OTOH there was also can be significant penalties if one screws up either the job itself, or the QA task. On the gripping hand, the folks performing the work, or the QA know their lives are at stake if something is screwed up. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Naval Reactor success ...
Derek Lyons wrote:
Were you in boats? Yup. Aaaooogah Aaaoooogah. The underwater spaceship. My own initial answer was "integrity"...but that was off the cuff. I think "pride" in a job well done comes in to play, but mostly I believe it's "training". Of the NASA QA I have experience with, there members can be called to any particular job site to sign off a procedural step. They may have no idea why that step is being performed or how it affects the system, but if the technician torques a nut to 7.5 ft. lbs +/- .01 ft. lbs. in accordance with the procedure, then that's enough for the QA stamp. In the NAVY, the QAI implicitly understands the work being performed and can tell that, yeah...although the nut was torqued properly, it was the wrong material or it was in the wrong position, etc. Any thoughts? Training, integrity, and pride play large parts, certainly. OTOH there was also can be significant penalties if one screws up either the job itself, or the QA task. On the gripping hand, the folks performing the work, or the QA know their lives are at stake if something is screwed up. D. Sounds like an argument to have astronaut QAI's and QAS's. Come to think of it, ISS construction should be a 3-person EVA, with the 3rd person acting as QA. Ooh...and maybe a 4th person to perform a random audit. Ooh ooh...and do they have an EVA analog to diver's tags? Ahh, I could go on. Maybe another time. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Naval Reactor success ...
stmx3 wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: Were you in boats? Yup. Aaaooogah Aaaoooogah. The underwater spaceship. What was your rate? Where'd ya serve? Sounds like an argument to have astronaut QAI's and QAS's. Come to think of it, ISS construction should be a 3-person EVA, with the 3rd person acting as QA. Ooh...and maybe a 4th person to perform a random audit. Ooh ooh...and do they have an EVA analog to diver's tags? I don't think that extreme is needed. But certainly on the ground there needs to be real penalties for f***ing up. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|