<VV> Why we lose spacecraft--not Corvair

[Tony Underwood]

At 05:35 hours 04/15/2005, Kirby Smith wrote:
>Huh?  If you are referring to a Mars probe that was lost due to the use of 
>incorrect engine impulse parameters, the miscommunication was
>between NASA and a US company (forget which, Boeing or Lockheed Martin 
>most likely).  I suspect this was the result of the new NASA
>management at the time who claimed NASA was too pale, too male, and too
>stale, so the experienced guys were pushed out.  Many colleges only teach 
>the rationalized MKS system, and the less pale, less male, and less stale 
>recent graduates may not have been aware that the US aerospace industry, 
>and MEs in many other US industries, still use the English system of 
>units.  Anyone with experience would have at least asked.




You are *Not* off base, sir.    There's too much microprocessed 
erector-set'itis in NASA and too little old-fashioned common sense.     Dr 
Richard Feynman said it best, after the Challenger investigation:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public 
relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

They didn't much care for what Dr Feynman had to say about Challenger 
(called it an avoidable accident) and the way NASA had been run, and they 
removed him from the panel of investigators for not being a "team 
player".   That action alone spoke volumes.


NASA had become a bureaucracy, with too many operatives and middlemen and 
not enough communication between the excessive number of levels in the 
organization, all wanting to demonstrate how efficient they were so as to 
impress "the boss" who expected results...  the US Government.   That's why 
Challenger got launched when, as Feynman had demonstrated, it should have 
remained on the pad until the weather warmed.

It's also why NASA spent 600,000 bucks on research for recording materials 
aboard space craft, trying to develop writing instruments (ballpoint pens) 
which would work in zero-G conditions and a vacuum so as to be used without 
any atmosphere if necessary.   Regular ballpoints didn't work correctly in 
zero-G or a vacuum.    600,000 bucks for the research and development... to 
design a ballpoint that would work in space.


The Russians solved the problem for ten rubles.

They bought a box of pencils.

...thinking outside the box used to be the norm in NASA...  they should get 
back to it.


tony..