yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) (07/25/90)
Lisa Malone July 24, 1990
(407) 867-2468
KSC Release No. 135-90
BOARD APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE REASONS FOR DAMAGED SHUTTLE
THRUSTER
Center Director Forrest McCartney has appointed an inves-
tigation board to examine the circumstances surrounding damage to
an orbital maneuvering system (OMS) pod thruster at the Hyper-
golic Maintenance Facility's (HMF) east test cell located in
KSC's Industrial Area.
On July 18, 1990, one of the 14 primary thrusters on the
shuttle Discovery's right OMS pod was being secured in a test
stand in the HMF checkout cell for inspections of a leaking
dynatube. The thruster, mounted in a piece of ground support
equipment, fell from a work platform onto a lower platform,
creating an impression on the shroud between the power head and
nozzle approximately 4 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch deep by 1/2
inch wide. The weight of the thruster and nozzle is about 30
pounds. The right pod is being prepared for shipment to the Or-
biter Processing Facility for installation on Discovery for the
STS-41/Ulysses launch scheduled for October.
The damaged thruster is being prepared for shipment to the
vendor, Marquardt Co., Van Nuys, Calif. for repairs. In the mean-
time, a spare thruster is being prepared for installation on the
pod.
Thomas Cain, III, Chief, Operations Support Branch, Center
Support Operations, has been named to chair the board. The two
other members of the board are Craig Baker, mechanical and fluids
system engineer, Mechanical and Structures Section, STS Payload
Operations Directorate; and Mickey Riddle, NASA Site Manager at
Launch Pad 39-B. Ex-officio board members are Patricia Lynn,
safety advisor; Douglas Hendriksen, legal advisor; and Lisa
Malone, public affairs advisor.
Board functions include investigating the facts surrounding
the mishap, determination of its cause, assessments of the pos-
sibility of a recurrence, and recommendations for corrective ac-
tion. A final report is due by the end of August.andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) (07/25/90)
From article <54666@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee): - BOARD APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE REASONS FOR DAMAGED SHUTTLE - THRUSTER - [.....] - The thruster, mounted in a piece of ground support - equipment, fell from a work platform onto a lower platform, - creating an impression on the shroud between the power head and - nozzle [....] - Board functions include investigating the facts surrounding - the mishap, determination of its cause, assessments of the pos- - sibility of a recurrence, and recommendations for corrective ac- - tion. A final report is due by the end of August. The other day, a cup of tea sitting on my table fell off and hit the floor. Half a pint of tea spread in several directions and the cup underwent a sudden non-orthogonal transformation. I am considering setting up a board of inquiry to investigate the facts surrounding the mishap, determination of its cause, assessments of the possibility of a recurrence and recommendations for corrective action. The board will probably consist of my Mum, my Uncle Norman and my pet dog Biff. :-) :-) :-) :-) Sorry folks, I don't mean to undermine the seriousness of this situation or NASA's professionalism, but it did sound rather funny. Well, *I* thought so. ;-) -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (07/28/90)
In article <54666@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > KSC Release No. 135-90 > > BOARD APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE REASONS FOR DAMAGED SHUTTLE > THRUSTER > > Center Director Forrest McCartney has appointed an inves- > tigation board to examine the circumstances surrounding damage to > an orbital maneuvering system (OMS) pod thruster at the Hyper- > golic Maintenance Facility's (HMF) east test cell located in > KSC's Industrial Area. > > On July 18, 1990, one of the 14 primary thrusters on the > shuttle Discovery's right OMS pod was being secured in a test > stand in the HMF checkout cell for inspections of a leaking > dynatube. The thruster, mounted in a piece of ground support > equipment, fell from a work platform onto a lower platform, Now this is what is really wrong at NASA, appointing a Board of Inquiry because somebody dropped a part and damaged it. At my job, my boss and I were installing a delicate and expensive part one night and dropped it. We both said "Damn!", went and got a spare and got on with the job. When we told our boss about it the next morning, he said "Damn!, be more careful next time" and that was that. In the real world, people drop things, bosses understand that, and getting the job done right and on time is the important thing. I am willing to bet that the cost in both money and time of this Board will far exceed the cost of the damage to the shroud of the thruster. Gary
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (07/30/90)
In article <1101@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > In article <54666@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > > BOARD APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE REASONS FOR DAMAGED SHUTTLE > > THRUSTER > Now this is what is really wrong at NASA, appointing a Board of Inquiry > because somebody dropped a part and damaged it. At my job, my boss and > I were installing a delicate and expensive part one night and dropped > it. We both said "Damn!", went and got a spare and got on with the job. I think it's a little bit more complicated than "Damn". In this case, we are talking about a billion dollar airplane/spaceship where ever part is critical to the safty of the human crew. Every part that is installed on the shuttle has a procedure. If the sequence of events when installing a part differs from the plan (ie, an accident or otherwise), it should be investigated. Perhaps the plan is flawed...in which case other procedures may also be flawed. Maybe a better scaffold or work platform is needed. Maybe the parts themselves are bad. Maybe the procedure has been flawed for sometime resulting in some hidden damage. These types of questions need to answered. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (08/01/90)
In article <1101@ke4zv.UUCP>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > In article <54666@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > At my job, my boss and > I were installing a delicate and expensive part one night and dropped > it. When you dropped this part, was it covered by national news media? Are you hounded by shareholders who want to know where every penny goes? There's a lot wrong with NASA, but things didn't get that way in a vacuum (so to speak...).
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (08/03/90)
In <465@newave.UUCP> john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: <<a couple of postings and repostings about the dropped-part Board>> >... In this case, we >are talking about a billion dollar airplane/spaceship where ever[y] part is >critical to the safty of the human crew. If every part must work perfectly every time, it's a wonder the shuttle hasn't failed more often. I would say that any engineered system in which "every part is critical" is rather badly designed. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company(sm)]