NASA and Technical Information Search
February 2, 2012
I recall a Popular Science feature called “The Top 10 Failed NASA Missions.” I dug through my files and the story ran in March 2009. You can find a version of the article online, at least today, February 2, 2012, at 8 30 am Eastern. Tomorrow? Who knows.
A happy quack to The Doctor Weighs In.
Among the flops mentioned were:
- The Orbiting Carbon Observatory. I thought that the test lasted 17 minutes was interesting.
- Helios. This solar powered flying wing thing managed a 30 minute flight before crashing.
- Genesis. After catching “pieces of the sun” as Popular Science phrased it, the parachute did not open, but scientists were able to pick up pieces from the Utah desert. Progress!
- SBIRS. This was a passel of surveillance satellites. I don’t know much about SBIRS beyond the $10 billion cost overrun. According the Popular Science, one government official described SBIRS as a “useless ice cube.”
I was curious about post 2009 NASA activities. I could not locate a historical run down of alleged missteps, but I found “NASA Glory Mission Ends in Failure”, published by the BBC. The article asserted:
The Glory satellite lifted off from California on a quest to gather new data on factors that influence the climate. But about three minutes into the flight, telemetry indicated a problem. It appears the fairing – the part of the rocket which covers the satellite on top of the launcher – did not separate properly… Exactly the same problem befell NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) in 2009. It too launched on a Taurus XL rocket from the Vandenberg Air Force Base, and again the fairing failed to separate properly.
Wow. Exactly the same failure. The “Mishap Investigation Board” tackled the problem and apparently failed to fix the flop. I did a bit of poking around, and I learned that the NASA Safety Center analyzes system failures. In fact, there is a Web page called “System Failure Case Studies.” There are some interesting analyses, but I could not spot too many which focused on NASA’s own boo boos.
Curious about this apparent omission, I ran a query for NASA failure on www.usa.gov and www.science.gov. What did I learn? The top hit was from ASK magazine, a source which was new to me. The magazine’s “real” name is Ask the Academy, and it seems to be a Web site. What is interesting is that the top hit on USA.gov was “Success, Failure, and NASA Culture.” I read the article which was published originally in 2008. My hunch is that budget cuts are trimming the staff required to create original content. Recycling is a way to save some tax payer greenbacks I surmise. The 2008 write up republished on January 26, 2012 stated:
Improvement in system reliability came with increased bureaucracy, as systems engineering put a variety of crosschecks and reviews in place. System dependability improved, but these processes and technologies increased the cost of each vehicle. Eventually, and in response to pressures to decrease costs, engineers and managers cut back on safety and reliability measures.
The idea, I think, means that if something worked, then by eliminating the quality processes, the system which works is going to fail. I may not have that correct, but it seems that bureaucracy and efficiency help ensure failure. I never considered this management notion before, and frankly I am rejecting it.
In my experience, the processes which delivered success should be integrated into the work flow. Processes which do not contribute to success become the candidates for rationalization. In short, one engineers to deliver consistent success. One does not make decisions which deliver consistent failure.
The top hit on Science.gov was to “Failure Is Not an Option.” The hit was fascinating because it showed the Apollo 13 flight director in 1970. I did not recall this 1970 mission because I was indexing Latin sermons at some fourth rate university at the time. Wikipedia reminded me:
Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST. The lunar landing was aborted after an oxygen tank exploded two days later, crippling the service module upon which the Command Module depended. Despite great hardship caused by limited power, loss of cabin heat, shortage of potable water and the critical need to jury-rig the carbon dioxide removal system, the crew returned safely to Earth on April 17.
Okay, I suppose success means getting the crew back, which was a solid achievement in the midst of a mission failure.
So what?
Well, NASA is not exactly the government agency which resonates with consistent technology decisions. When it comes to search, much of the commercial scientific and technical search effort is a result of NASA’s need for an online index. That was in the 1970s, Apollo 13 time too.
Important developments in information access at NASA have been less frequent and, I would assert, few and far between. Today, NASA has a preference for Microsoft SharePoint, and we have learned has concluded its expensive procurement of an automated content indexing system. We are not sure which vendor is prepared to cope with exogenous complexity in the NASA environment.
We would assert that if NASA continues along its present course, successes will blended with some failures. One hopes that when it comes to search and retrieval, NASA makes informed decisions, not choices based on budget limitations, expediency, or overlooking exogenous factors such as complexity.
Stephen E Arnold, February 2, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
