- Joined Sep 9, 2010
Hey ya' @wayneh , if you think something is cool enough to sticky (and this certainly is cool), you can ping @Tim YB and discuss it with him .I wasn't sure where to put this but it seems too cool to not post here somewhere.
Most of what NASA builds is a one-off prototype. Even the shuttles each had their evolution and no two were identical. That being said, if we assume there are, in each shuttle:Hi,
Yeah, and i included a little emoticon smiley in my post but unfortunately it's not funny. They have had a lot of things just blow up. With all of their time and effort into some of these projects you would think they could do a better job. If you read the story on the Space Shuttle and Feynman's analysis of the management vs engineering situation you might actually cry.
I am not kidding when i say that their work ethic at least in the past has been, "Build it, launch it, hope it doesnt blow up".
Hi,Most of what NASA builds is a one-off prototype. Even the shuttles each had their evolution and no two were identical. That being said, if we assume there are, in each shuttle:
- 2.5 million parts that have to be designed,
- 2.5 million parts that have to be manufactured.
- 2.5 million parts that have to be assembled
- 2.5 million parts that have to perform over a huge range of conditions from temp, pressure, stress/strain, vibration, you name it. Many parts are made from new materials used in combinations of conditions that no other material can survive and history of durability.
The hell with six-sigma, they are closer to 8-sigma and that is on a prototype - unheard of. They were lucky that any of these shuttles got off the ground. The people who were willing to get inside knew most of these envelope-pushing conditions but we're still willing fly and, therefore, in my book they were all brave "test pilots" and heroes.
PS: commercial airliners generally operate (mechanically) at about 8-sigma but not with prototypes. For luggage and scheduling, and unplanned maintenance issues, airlines are lines operate at about 3-sigma.
Well i might agree with most of that, but as far as the people and what they were told abut the reliability, they were all lied to.
First, the reliability was actually elevated from prototype level to 'normal' which should have NEVER been done and what you said shows that to be true. Second, the management quoted that there was only a 1 in 100000 change of failure when the engineers reported more like 1 in 100.
They used this second argument to talk that school teacher into going on that fatal flight.
This goes back to what i have said for a long time now. Most of the people who do modern designs never use their own product, or use it very infrequently. That's why there are so many problems with this stuff. They never see what is wrong with it becuase they dont use it enough themselves to get a change to experience what it is like to use said items.
If we made the managers of the design take flights on their own designs they would be much, much more careful, but then again none of them would dare do that, or else they would be too afraid to release any designs for actual use cause they know they would have to fly on them.
Hello,1:100 is pushing it since the reality of a fairly small sample was already showing 1:67 (or, 2:134).
I was just saying that management had an estimate ( a "hopeful target"?), and the engineers had their own 'estimate' but their estimate had real numbers to make their estimate believable.Hello,
Well the argument is not about a difference of 30 percent, which sounds high, but it's really about a difference of 1000 percent which doesnt only just sound high, it is exceptionally high and totally unacceptable.
That's the difference between what actually existed and what actually was reported by managment.
I looked a little and as far as I could tell, the content is all downloadable as pdf but you'd have to download one page at a time and compile them together yourself if you want a single large pdf.Is there a place to download the entire document? The links at the bottom of the pages only dl that individual page. It would be nice to have this as a permanent reference.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|NASA software||Software & IDEs||0|
|Developing applications utilizing public domain NASA-sponsored flight software core flight system||Software & IDEs||0|
|Earth has a mini-Moon (NASA calls it a Quasi-Satellite)||General Science, Physics & Math||11|
|How to get job in NASA?||Jobs & Career Advising||12|
|NASAs Long-Lived Mars Opportunity Rover Sets Off-World Driving Record||General Science, Physics & Math||1|
by Luke James
by Luke James
by Gary Elinoff