Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Duct tape to the rescue in space, again

J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
You might appreciate this then, http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=6322


Martin

Reminds me that back in the '50's, when my father owned a hardware
store, he was demonstrating "unbreakable" storm doors by slapping the
glass with the palm of his hand... the "glass" would just flex back
and forth like it was made of a rubber sheet.

Then, one day, a panel shattered and left him needing 32 stitches in
his forearm :-(

...Jim Thompson
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Strange, I didn't see the article as anti-Russian (as for
the administrators, they aren't so different from ours).

mm, maybe I was already pe-triggered by CNN....
But I did see it as pro duct tape. As it happens, duct
tape is an important part of the shuttle missions, since
our astronauts use it to create impromtu work areas, tape
laptop computers to the walls, etc. Very important stuff,
but something of a secret. That's what I meant by "again",
referring to our own heavy use in space.

Yes I have seen the movie 'Apollo 13' I think it was.

Today I was in the supermarket, and my eye fell on double sided tape,
something I often need, but then never can find.
I bought some.
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul Hovnanian P.E. said:
Jeff said:
[snip]

I found the IEEE Spectrum article interesting in that it demonstrated
that assigning the blame really is the first step in solving a
problem. In most bureaucratic organizations, this initial step is
vital. I've worked for companies where a culprit must be found before
any problem can be fixed.

Said with tongue firmly in cheek, I'm sure. ;-)

I only wish that were true. One particular employer (name withheld to
protect the guilty) had a chief engineer that apparently believed that
it really was necessary to assign the blame before proceeding with the
damage control. It was not some malevolent manifestation of evil
intentions, but simply the way he operated. Once a problem was
discovered, there was a short preliminary investigation. The
inevitable question of "why did this happen" would surface, followed
by the requisite finger pointing. None of the engineers ever really
understood the process, so we simply took turns accepting the blame.
Even when it was fairly obvious that we were turning the procedure
into a farce, the assignment of the blame continued.

There were also secondary effects. While it was desirable to have
everyone fix their own problems, it was somehow not the way things
worked. During the finger pointing stage of the process, everyone was
on the defensive. Blaming the actual culprit was impossible because
they would be so irate at having been blamed, they would tend to do
more damage than do damage control. So, the damage control was always
assigned to someone totally uninvolved in the project, with
predictable results. We solved this problem by deciding who was going
to fix the problem in advance, and then made sure that during the
finger pointing stage, that person was never assigned the blame, even
if they were guilty as charged.

Despite the apparently dysfunctional appearance of this procedure, it
does work (somehow). The company has been around for about 37 years
and is doing fairly well these days as a division of a larger
conglomerate. However, they've gone through several major changes in
management and ownership, which hopefully have inspired them to change
their ways.
In organizations heavily invested in accident analysis, troubleshooting
and life safety (FAA/NTSB, NFPA, etc.) the policy is to defer assigning
the blame until after the forensics is done. In many cases, penalties
are forgiven permanently in order to encourage open exchanges of
information necessary to support investigations.

I've never worked for or with any of these, but I suspect that's only
true for external affairs. The entire purpose of the organization is
to assign the blame (and make recommendations to prevent a
repetition). Of course it would be bad policy to prematurely announce
a culprit before the final report. However, my guess is that
internally, procedures are not quite so correct and proper. I watched
this happen during the Y2K transition. Many companies had official
policy of not revealing any problems precipitated by the Y2K change.
From the outside, it was business as usual with only minor problems.
To those inside some of the companies, it was a running fire drill for
a few days.
In my experience, it is these situations that cause the incompetents to
surface and insist upon blame assignment up front. Its a means of
protecting a reputation when they know that the odds are high that the
sh*t will end up in their lap in the end. Get it put in the meeting
minutes up front and if the issue ever comes back at them, they can
brush it aside by demanding that closed items not be revisited. The best
defense is often a good offense.

Nice. Business politics is so much fun. I've never seen that happen.
What I've seen is premature guesswork that often sounds plausible.
Usually, there's an agenda involved. For example, when honey bee
colonies were found to be dying off, some nut case immediately blamed
cell towers as the culprit. When TWA 800 fell out of the sky, Pierre
Salinger got front page coverage by blaming a US Navy missile. The
GUM (great unwashed masses) want answers, and quickly, even if the
answers are wrong. Corporate America isn't much better.
Competent individuals can survive a few screw-ups in their careers and
will in fact learn from them. Its called lessons learned and it
demonstrates an individuals' ability to improve.

I have a few skeletons in my closet, where I've made some major
mistakes. Fortunately, no lives were lost or anyone injured, but the
financial damage was substantial. At the least, I believe in "Learn
by Destroying" which implies that if one hasn't made any mistakes, one
also hasn't learned very much. Mistakes are a great but expensive way
to learn.
This illustrates one of the primary arguments for manned space missions.
In spite of the additional expenses involved, having people available to
pop a cover off of something and look is the only way to catch all the
stuff that can't be handled remotely.

Agreed, mostly. I suspect human surrogates (i.e. robots) might be
useful. Whether an inspection robot would have caught the
condensation problem is doubtful. It has to know what to consider
normal in advance. If water isn't on the list, it will probably
ignore it.
 
E

Ecnerwal

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff Liebermann said:
Agreed, mostly. I suspect human surrogates (i.e. robots) might be
useful. Whether an inspection robot would have caught the
condensation problem is doubtful. It has to know what to consider
normal in advance. If water isn't on the list, it will probably
ignore it.

If humans were not living in the station, there'd be no reason for
condensation (or even an atmosphere). So the presence of humans in space
helped to cause the problem. We actually know a great deal about
building human-free space devices, and when we screw up one of them,
nobody dies, unless they happen to be standing under a large chunk that
re-enters - and so far as I know, that has not happened, yet.
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
I am considering the possibility Winfield posted it for political reasons.
Sure the article itself is highly anti-Russian.

No, it's anti-bad-engineering, and anti-blaming other people instead
of finding the real problem.

John
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
On a sunny day (Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:48:21 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<[email protected]>:
[snip]
Are you claiming the article is untrue? Or that it should be supressed
for political reasons? Or that the IEEE published it to humiliate
Putin?

John

I am considering the possibility Winfield posted it for political reasons.
Sure the article itself is highly anti-Russian.

No, it's anti-bad-engineering, and anti-blaming other people instead
of finding the real problem.

John

I just noticed something funny, John. Everyone with whom you get into
an extended debate is already on my kill-file list ;-)

...Jim Thompson
 
F

Fred Bartoli

Jan 1, 1970
0
Le Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:13:38 -0700, Jim Thompson a écrit:
I've always been amused at the novel failure mechanisms I didn't
anticipate... my most famous was applying short-circuit protection to an
output stage only to have the driver fail from uncontrolled current ;-)

He, he...

but then the drivers are easier to change :)
(unless this has been engraved in silicon in which case... shit! )
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Le Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:13:38 -0700, Jim Thompson a écrit:
[snip]
I've always been amused at the novel failure mechanisms I didn't
anticipate... my most famous was applying short-circuit protection to an
output stage only to have the driver fail from uncontrolled current ;-)

He, he...

but then the drivers are easier to change :)
(unless this has been engraved in silicon in which case... shit! )

Yep... shit !-)

Fortunately it was back in the golden age of integrated circuits...
turn a new revision (rework the mask sets AND do the silicon
diffusions) over a weekend ;-)

...Jim Thompson
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
Use it for ASAT target practice.

Boy, you guys really hate peace and international cooperation, don't you?

War is bad, and people who love war are bad people.

Hey - here's a good use for the Space program - just send all of the
warlovers to Mars, where they can kill each other to their heartlessness'
content, and the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Thanks,
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not sure what he's driving at - but I am dismayed at the anti-Russian
closing. Let's face it folks, our (US) space program has killed a lot
more people lately than the Russians'. Space research isn't safe, and
mistakes will be made. And they will cost lives.

I wonder how many people lost their lives opening up the US frontier.

Was that worth it?
It's easy to stand on the ground in Houston and make wise noises after
the fact. It's much harder to build something and anticipate *every*
mode of failure. Heck, I've been designing things for 20 years and have
probably never anticipated every single point of failure ahead of time.

You can't anticipate every mode of failure. That's why you need people
there, and tools and supplies, (and duct tape!) so they can troubleshoot
and repair stuff on the spot.

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
I found the IEEE Spectrum article interesting in that it demonstrated
that assigning the blame really is the first step in solving a
problem. In most bureaucratic organizations, this initial step is
vital. I've worked for companies where a culprit must be found before
any problem can be fixed.

When this sort of thing arises where I'm working, I usually say,
"OK, let's make it my fault. Now, let's just fix the damn thing!"

People's jaws would drop.

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
policy of not revealing any problems precipitated by the Y2K change.
From the outside, it was business as usual with only minor problems.
To those inside some of the companies, it was a running fire drill for
a few days.

I've never understood the hysteria over the Y2K "problem". Hell, the
banks solved it before 1970 - thirty-year mortgages, and all that.

And haven't computer clocks always had a 4-digit year, based at
1/1/80 or something?

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
If humans were not living in the station, there'd be no reason for
condensation (or even an atmosphere). So the presence of humans in space
helped to cause the problem. We actually know a great deal about
building human-free space devices, and when we screw up one of them,
nobody dies, unless they happen to be standing under a large chunk that
re-enters - and so far as I know, that has not happened, yet.

OK, you're perfectly free to stay in your cave. But those of us who
believe in the advancement of human knowledge would rather accept the
risks of exploring new frontiers.

Thanks,
Rich
 
P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
[snip]

Despite the apparently dysfunctional appearance of this procedure, it
does work (somehow). The company has been around for about 37 years
and is doing fairly well these days as a division of a larger
conglomerate. However, they've gone through several major changes in
management and ownership, which hopefully have inspired them to change
their ways.

Sometimes the organizational culture just evolves to accommodate the
faulty bits. And these adjustments can persist long after the problem
has been removed.

I was talking to a local utility about a consulting contract to help
them with configuration control problems. Their engineering staff was
having trouble getting as-built drawings out and figuring which revision
of a drawing a facility was built to. After speaking to engineering
management, I managed to meet a few people on the construction side of
the house. They filed me in on the history of the problem. Years ago,
management had a major jerk that threw blame around and caused some
major animosity to develop between engineering and the crews. As a
result, they no longer waited for engineering drawings to perform work,
but just started to cobble substations together. This left the
engineering department with no idea as to what exactly had been built.

The troublemaker had been gone (retired) for about a decade, but the
work-around process (and animosity) was still in place. According to one
foreman, what the company needed was not an engineering consultant, but
a proctologist, since the problem was related to an *sshole. Needless to
say, I didn't take the job.
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
On a sunny day (Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:48:21 -0700) it happened John Larkin

I am considering the possibility Winfield posted it for political reasons.
Sure the article itself is highly anti-Russian.
You guys got to get rid of Bush, he makes the US look like an idiot.
(rest see my postings in us.politcs, this is not the place, my name is not Tom Jimpson
or something LOL).

Well, Bush is outta here in 2009 - I just worry what kind of legacy
he's going to leave us with, and if we're going to get somebody even
worse, like Hanoi Hillary.

Thanks,
Rich
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, I do agree with that, as y'all know.

Win, You're not qualified to use the phrase "y'all"... that is by
birthright only ;-)
[/QUOTE]

Yes - the only ones who are allowed to use it are the ones who
were born stupid.

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
I just noticed something funny, John. Everyone with whom you get into
an extended debate is already on my kill-file list ;-)

That's not surprising, since you killfile everyone who's not
a Bushist nazi wannabe.

Cheers!
Rich
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:
Yes - the only ones who are allowed to use it are the ones
who were born stupid.

Oh, good - then I'm in!
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
On a sunny day (Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:48:21 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<[email protected]>:
[snip]

Are you claiming the article is untrue? Or that it should be supressed
for political reasons? Or that the IEEE published it to humiliate
Putin?

John

I am considering the possibility Winfield posted it for political reasons.
Sure the article itself is highly anti-Russian.

No, it's anti-bad-engineering, and anti-blaming other people instead
of finding the real problem.

John

I just noticed something funny, John. Everyone with whom you get into
an extended debate is already on my kill-file list ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Well, if you want to miss out on a lot of classic, world-class
stupidity...

John
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:10:53 GMT, Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:48:21 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<[email protected]>:
[snip]

Are you claiming the article is untrue? Or that it should be supressed
for political reasons? Or that the IEEE published it to humiliate
Putin?

John

I am considering the possibility Winfield posted it for political reasons.
Sure the article itself is highly anti-Russian.

No, it's anti-bad-engineering, and anti-blaming other people instead
of finding the real problem.

John

I just noticed something funny, John. Everyone with whom you get into
an extended debate is already on my kill-file list ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Well, if you want to miss out on a lot of classic, world-class
stupidity...

John

But you drag it out too long. I prefer the quick kill myself ;-)

...Jim Thompson
 
Top