FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

NASA engineers break $75 million satellite during testing

News/Current Events News
Source: FOX
Published: March 23, 2000 Author: Matthew Fordahl, Associated Press
Posted on 03/23/2000 19:43:11 PST by John W

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) — A $75 million NASA spacecraft designed to study solar flares was heavily damaged when engineers mistakenly shook it 10 times harder than intended during a preflight test.

The shaking cracked at least two of four solar panels on the High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, and tests were planned to find internal damage. Launch, which had been scheduled for July, will be pushed back at least to January.

It's the latest embarrassment for the space agency and Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which last year lost two high-profile missions to Mars. The cause of the mishap was still under investigation, JPL spokeswoman Mary Beth Murrill said Thursday.

JPL engineers were performing tests on a shake table Tuesday to ensure the probe could withstand twice the force of gravity, which it would experience during launch. Instead, it was subjected to 20 times the force of gravity for about 200 milliseconds.

"The folks who were involved in the test are mystified at this point,'' said Larry Dumas, JPL's deputy director. "There's no obvious reason that's presented itself (for the unexpected shaking).''

The 850-pound HESSI probe is designed to explore the basic physics of particle acceleration and the energy release of solar flares from an orbit of 360 miles above Earth. It's not clear whether any of the scientific instruments were damaged.

HESSI's engineers were confident that the spacecraft can be saved, said Mark Hess, spokesman for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, which is managing the mission.

"It continued to function even through the test,'' he said. "We know there are structural and other elements of the satellite that are still working.''

NASA will appoint a review board to investigate the mishap — just as it did twice last year after the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander losses.

Investigators later found Climate Orbiter mission failed because critical navigation units were not translated into metric. Polar Lander's review board is expected to make its findings public next week.

HESSI's mishap disappointed dozens of scientists who have been working on the project for more than two years.

The satellite was being tested at JPL because of the lab's proximity to Gilbert, Ariz.-based Spectrum Astro, where it was built, and the University of California, Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory, where its primary science team is based.

"To have it damaged in a test at JPL is a bitter blow for us,'' Dumas said. "And I'm sure even more difficult for the folks at Goddard, Berkeley and Spectrum Astro who have worked so hard on this mission.''


1 Posted on 03/23/2000 19:43:11 PST by John W
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]


To: John W

When it rains.....

2 Posted on 03/23/2000 19:47:12 PST by Michael Rivero
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

Have we heard other bad news from JPL lately?

3 Posted on 03/23/2000 19:49:09 PST by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

Sabotage? Sure gonna make a lot of people think we ought to get rid of NASA. Hell sell it to China and get it over with.

4 Posted on 03/23/2000 19:53:25 PST by A+Bert
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

I broke my VCR that way.

Columbia, MO

5 Posted on 03/23/2000 19:57:14 PST by rface (RFacemyer@msn.com)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: A+Bert

Well, let's get some entertainment value out of it. I'll start.

NASA

Need
Another
Seven
Astronauts
(post Challenger)

Never
A
Straight
Answer

Next?

6 Posted on 03/23/2000 19:57:57 PST by Michael Rivero
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

We don't call 'em rocket scientists for nothin'...

7 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:02:40 PST by tangofox
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

They're making way too much of this. It's space science. Of course they occasionally break stuff. This sounds like an honest accident of the sort that probably happens every day. It's only because of this week's earlier story that we're even hearing about it...

8 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:13:14 PST by ArcLight
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

Companies Want to Reduce Cow Flatulence, see NASA Engineers Break $75 mil Satellite --- these two were made for each other.

9 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:23:58 PST by First_Salute
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) — A $75 million NASA spacecraft designed to study solar flares was heavily damaged when engineers mistakenly shook it 10 times harder than intended during a preflight test.

The head of testing wasn't Louise Woodward, by any chance?

10 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:28:57 PST by Dan Day
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

"Faster, Better Cheaper" to which I say, "You get what you pay for".

11 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:30:13 PST by jpsb
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

congress ought to trash nasa and start over. it's one thing after another. also, nasa lies to the american people.

12 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:31:33 PST by ken21
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

JPL engineers were performing tests on a shake table Tuesday to ensure the probe could withstand twice the force of gravity, which it would experience during launch. Instead, it was subjected to 20 times the force of gravity for about 200 milliseconds. "The folks who were involved in the test are mystified at this point,'' said Larry Dumas, JPL's deputy director. "There's no obvious reason that's presented itself (for the unexpected shaking).''

Oops. I would sure think twice before climbing onboard the shuttle if these are the "rocket scientists" you are dealing with.

13 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:37:50 PST by expat
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

I have a good buddy who is program manager at JPL, and I know he is going to have a crappy day tomorrow. He was involved in the Hubble when the ground the primaryb mirror to the wrong specs. The mistake wasn't found until after it was up because NASA did not want to spend the money on a full integrated test.

These guys have been cutting corners all together too long and the problems just keep rolling in faster and faster. They have got just too many things going on and need to cut back on the number of projects and focus on the big things like the space station and setting up a moon base. Instead they are being forced to spend money on never ending studies to prove global warming and find ET.

Regards

Boiler Plate

14 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:38:13 PST by Boiler Plate
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: ken21

NASA has no mission. Mothball the fleet.

15 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:38:42 PST by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]


To: Michael Rivero

Oppsie daisy

16 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:39:10 PST by Ronin
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: ArcLight

By a factor of TEN??? Hmmmm...didn't they get conversions wrong in one of them Mars missions??? Remember the units! ;o)

17 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:40:07 PST by Benrand
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: expat

20 gees for .2 seconds is not much of a shock

18 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:40:24 PST by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: RightWhale

Guess it wasn't much of a satellite.

19 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:42:28 PST by expat
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | Top | Last ]


To: RightWhale

Sure they have a mission. Since the end of the Appolo flights the mission has been to act as a political show piece for whomever is in power at the time.

20 Posted on 03/23/2000 20:56:34 PST by tjg
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]


To: tjg

Apollo-Soyuz = a real highlight of the Race to Space

21 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:00:57 PST by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | Top | Last ]


To: Michael Rivero

Now
Another
Stupid
Accident

22 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:01:26 PST by Toot Uncommon
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: RightWhale

my understanding is that as congress de-funds nasa, nasa becomes more and more black ops--the province of the military.

23 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:02:17 PST by ken21
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

This may not be too popular, but I don't give a Rat's hind end about the friggin' silly ass space program. Every time they light the fuse on their damned space shuttle there goes a BILLION DOLLARS! That's One Thousand Million dollars! How many small business loans would that make? How many houses would that build? How many useful purposes would that money serve? We keep dumping money into this program so that a bunch of clowns can have unlimited taxpayers money to squander on outer space. Who gives a crap about outer space? Tell me why my town doesn't even have a fire dept? When we get the USA fixed up then we can worry about friggin Mars!

24 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:08:29 PST by Larry D
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: ArcLight

"They're making way too much of this. It's space science. Of course they occasionally break stuff. This sounds like an honest accident of the sort that probably happens every day. "

As a veteren of NASA from back in the days when we COULD get probes to Mars in one piece, I can assure you that you are quite wrong. We did not see these types or rates of failures during Viking, Voyager, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, Pioneer, etc.

Then the "new" NASA came along. The scientists were no longer in charge. Business people were put in charge, people with MBAs and no idea of what space travel is all about. They are great at counting dollars but they can't walk down to the vehicle assembly buildilng and look at a spacecraft and know whether what they are seeing is correct or not. So, just to show they were really the boss they tossed out the "meatball" logo and brought in the NASA "worm". Really important stuff, that. The results of replacing space scientists with business managers have been catastrophic. The Space Telescope was launched with an out-of-focus mirror, because a ground test that showed the problem was discarded in favor of another test that did not. Same with Challenger. The scientists who actually made the SRBs recommended against a launch, but the NON-scientist managers went ahead anyway.

NASA's current performance is pure crap compared to the days before the "new" NASA managers came on board.

25 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:10:13 PST by Michael Rivero
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: ArcLight

"Of course they occasionally break stuff. This sounds like an honest accident of the sort that probably happens every day."

I suspect this is actually very rare.
Where I work we "shake" assembled units all the time.

(For aircraft engines, rockets etc.)

these "vibration tables" have to be told how much to "Shake".
Rule of thumb is we "Vibe" units at well beyond anything they could be subjected to even under the most extreme of circumstances.
However, if an operator instructs the test equipment to vibe at say the equivalent of Eighty G's instead of eight, the results are predictable.

We've had a good laugh when examining the results of such misshaps, when cracked open we find everything in tiny, little pieces.
I've only seen this a couple of times over the past 18 years and the 1st thing that comes to mind is " Who's the dumb A** responsible for this?"

26 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:13:00 PST by #1CTYankee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: Larry D

Boy...are you ever in the wrong forum!

27 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:15:31 PST by eddie willers
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]


To: RightWhale

40 millisecond's was all it took to toast a unit we were testing for the B2 bomber (long ago.)

28 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:20:06 PST by #1CTYankee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | Top | Last ]


To: #1CTYankee

N oooooo...yet

A nother

S haken Rocket Syndrome

....A gain

29 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:23:13 PST by Atilla_the_Hun (Klintoon_was@gone.com)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | Top | Last ]


To: Atilla_the_Hun

We got off cheap when this happened, to the tune of Four hundred and fifty thousand.

I'd have to be the guy who F**ked up a satellite worth 75 mill. Ouch!

30 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:28:53 PST by #1CTYankee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | Top | Last ]


To: #1CTYankee

Our tech once demonstrated what 50 gees was like. It was almost nothing. A little tap. A drop of a couple inches. It doesn't take much.

31 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:30:15 PST by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]


To: #1CTYankee

Correction, Hate to be. (Still haven't got this typing thing down yet.)

32 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:32:06 PST by #1CTYankee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | Top | Last ]


To: expat

NO obvious reason...

Probably some einstein forgot to convert to metric.

33 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:32:45 PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: Larry D

Yes, you are correct. The money, while not significant in nationwide terms, would be better spent in the private sector. If the private sector spent $15 billion a year on space development for the last 2 decades, there would be hundreds of people in space now, some on the moon, and some on Mars, and all turning a hefty profit for their various companies.

34 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:34:28 PST by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

To error "is" government workers; to pay "is" the people.

35 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:40:17 PST by Buckeroo (gibraltar@discover.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

Quote Of The Day by Ron C.

36 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:43:30 PST by RJayneJ
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Larry D

Larry, Larry....come on now...don't you think John Glenn had fun on his last flight? he only thing I can think of that we could use these thing for migt be to get rid of nuclear waste by sending it to the sun or something...of course that might cause lights out.

37 Posted on 03/23/2000 21:59:42 PST by RURIK
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

Somebody should print out Dan Goldin's horoscope; his star appears to have dropped way below the horizon line.

Shall we call the Mars Polar Lander coverup Stargate?

38 Posted on 03/23/2000 23:14:57 PST by Fulbright
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Michael Rivero

"As a veteren of NASA from back in the days when we COULD get probes to Mars in one piece, I can assure you that you are quite wrong. We did not see these types or rates of failures during Viking, Voyager, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, Pioneer, etc."

Really? Perhaps you're right. I just feel sorry for all the folks piling on poor ol' NASA. I'm an old softie at heart...

39 Posted on 03/24/2000 07:53:55 PST by ArcLight
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

"The cause of the mishap was still under investigation, JPL spokeswoman Mary Beth Murrill said Thursday"

The investigation is now focused on William 'Butterfingers' MacFumble.

40 Posted on 03/24/2000 08:00:35 PST by verity
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: verity

"It continued to function even through the test,'' he said. "We know there are structural and other elements of the satellite that are still working.''

Translation from NASA speak?: The whole thing didn't quite crumble into a million pieces, there were still a couple castings that weren't cracked, and a few parts and dangling wires still attached.

41 Posted on 03/24/2000 08:06:01 PST by Henchster
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | Top | Last ]


To: #1CTYankee

these "vibration tables" have to be told how much to "Shake". Rule of thumb is we "Vibe" units at well beyond anything they could be subjected to even under the most extreme of circumstances. However, if an operator instructs the test equipment to vibe at say the equivalent of Eighty G's instead of eight, the results are predictable.

Folks, the "shake tables" are sophisticated intruments which input a programmed amount of energy over a frequency range into the equipment being tested. They're used for several purposes: finding dangerous resonances, qualifying equipment for its intended environment, and "accelerated testing" to precipitate manufacturing flaws into hard failures before equipment is shipped.

To run one of these correctly, particularly in accelerated testing, takes very careful equipment-specific programming.

Also, NASA may have a range of environmental conditions pre-programmed for different types of equipment testing - i.e. computers at one level, rocket engines at another.

This could quite easily be a case of "You wanted test profile 4013-A? I thought you said 4031-A ! Oh, s**t !"

This is much easier for me to forgive (and understand) than the one where the manager falsified the test results so the equipment would pass.

42 Posted on 03/24/2000 10:54:31 PST by jimt
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

A $75 million NASA spacecraft designed to study solar flares was heavily damaged when engineers mistakenly shook it 10 times harder than intended during a preflight test.

Did NASA hire Louise Woodward?

43 Posted on 03/24/2000 11:07:00 PST by dfwgator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Larry D

NASA does not send money into space. It spends it on earth, mostly in the good ol' USA. If you really want a fire dept in your town talk to billary about the 80 billion dollars trade deficit with China. That would build 16,000 five million dollar fire stations (enough for your town I would think), or 1,600,000 houses that cost $50k. If China gets space superiority over us who do you think will win the war????

44 Posted on 03/26/2000 11:56:54 PST by islandroads (erhodes@yourlink.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]


To: John W

SIMPLE________WE DEMAND###### OUR TAX MONEY BAAACKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

45 Posted on 03/26/2000 12:09:41 PST by dishedd
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Michael Rivero

"Mama,it's not NASA,it's Shake and Break!"

46 Posted on 03/26/2000 12:15:31 PST by tet68
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | Top | Last ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

[ Top | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC