Re: Challenger

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/10/2024 2:34 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/9/2024 1:05 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:58 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
 

john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

https://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Story-Heroism-Disaster-Space/dp/198217661X
 
This is a very well researched and written book, and a sad, ghastly
story.
 
It reminds me that humans have no purpose in space but to die.
 
 
 

 
Of course most folks here don’t really think that we have any purpose here
either.
 
Cheers
 
Phil Hobbs

 
Whatever our purpose, killing astronauts probably doesn't help.
 
Spending hundreds of billions on spam-in-a-can is a waste of resources
that could truly help.
 
The book is fascinating. The fatheads that decided to launch cared
about power, money, and politics. The investigations after the
disaster, the same. A few very brave engineers runined their careers
to literally shout the truth. And Richard Feynman, who knew he was
dying of cancer.
 
 

 
Sounds like an expanded rehash of the presidential commission report.  For
the other side of the story, I highly recommend Diane Vaughan’s “The
Challenger Launch Decision”.
 
Cheers
 
Phil Hobbs
 

 
I think it's less about any particular individual's greed or will to
power but  more about the dangers of formal "processes" in large
organizations which have become so large and ossified that the processes
become circular and self-referential.
 
In some particularly idiotic cases the processes don't have to become
particularly large or self-referential to cause disaster, the classic
"Well the designer signed off on the modifications to the plans so that
means they reviewed them and they're safe for the contractor to
implement.." "Wait, the designer signed off on them because they thought
the contractor had reviewed them...didn't they?" has definitely cost
lives before, and probably will again
 
 
 

 
Nah, it was much more careful and conscientious than that, and so even more
tragic.
 
Vaughan was expecting to find misconduct and evil capitalism, but her
research showed the opposite. She’s an honest and intelligent woman, so she
presented what she found in a compelling way, despite it being sociology.
;)
 
Folks like that don’t grow on trees, which is why I recommend the book so
highly.
 
Cheers
 
Phil Hobbs
 

 
" In retelling how the decision unfolded through the eyes of the
managers and the engineers, Vaughan uncovers an incremental descent into
poor judgment, supported by a culture of high-risk technology. She
reveals how and why NASA insiders, when repeatedly faced with evidence
that something was wrong, normalized the deviance so that it became
acceptable to them."
 
I guess I'm not grasping from the summary of the Vaughan book how its
conclusions greatly differ from the conclusions of Feynman et al.

Maybe if you read the book, you’ll understand. The conclusions could hardly
be more different, given the basic facts of the case.  Boisjoly et al. and
the Rogers commission are only a fraction of the story.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs  Principal Consultant  ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics  Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics