Slashdot Mirror


Could a Dirty Rag Take Out a $2 Billion Satellite?

An anonymous reader writes "The alleged rescue of a U.S. military communications satellite underscores some of the weaknesses in U.S. space efforts. Quoting: 'The seven-ton “AEHF-1,” part of a planned six-satellite constellation meant to support radio communication between far-flung U.S. military units, had been in orbit just one day when the problems began. The satellite started out in a highly-elliptical, temporary orbit. The plan was to use the spacecraft’s on-board engine to boost it to a permanent, geo-stationary orbit. But when the Air Force space operators at Los Angeles Air Force Base activated the engine, nothing happened. The Government Accountability Office would later blame the failure on a rag left inside a fuel line by a Lockheed worker.'"

33 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Lockheed gonna get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like the gov't should sue lockheed for failing to deliver the working satellite as contracted.

    Hopefully that'll happen (which will probably leave that worker jobless) and we'll get some of our tax dollars back.

    Shhh... I can dream!

    1. Re:Lockheed gonna get sued? by JonahsDad · · Score: 5, Informative

      TFA states that they are seeking compensation from Lockheed. Hopefully, that'll happen without an actual suit.

    2. Re:Lockheed gonna get sued? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, the gov't will have to pay for that space-rag now. Lockheed forgot to bill them for it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Lockheed gonna get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems like the gov't should sue lockheed for failing to deliver the working satellite as contracted.

      Hopefully that'll happen (which will probably leave that worker jobless) and we'll get some of our tax dollars back.

      Shhh... I can dream!

      Lockheed wouldn't piss off their biggest spender. They'll pay back in the form of a "credit" for some kind of services that have the highest margin for Lockheed. The guy who screwed up and his boss will get fired for sure, and then they will have some business analyst examine their QA process and add a little redundancy in the inspection policies. Nothing to see here folks.

    4. Re:Lockheed gonna get sued? by Ouchie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, the gov't will have to pay for that space-rag now. Lockheed forgot to bill them for it.

      The bill also included the fines levied by the TSA for failing to file an export declariation on the space rag.

      --
      "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." ~Ozzy Osborne
    5. Re:Lockheed gonna get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems like the gov't should sue lockheed for failing to deliver the working satellite as contracted.

      Hopefully that'll happen (which will probably leave that worker jobless) and we'll get some of our tax dollars back.

      Shhh... I can dream!

      Lockheed wouldn't piss off their biggest spender. They'll pay back in the form of a "credit" for some kind of services that have the highest margin for Lockheed. The guy who screwed up and his boss will get fired for sure, and then they will have some business analyst examine their QA process and add a little redundancy in the inspection policies. Nothing to see here folks.

      Isn't that what should happen? I mean, when did the world suddenly decide that anytime anyone makes an honest mistake they should be crucified for it forever? If there is restitution for lost funds as well as improvements to try to prevent a repetition of the same problem, shouldn't everyone involved be satisfied? I'm fairly certain that the OP's hope that we all get some kind of tax refund is probably not going to happen, and even if it did, you'd be talking about a few dollars per person at most.

    6. Re:Lockheed gonna get sued? by z00_miak · · Score: 5, Funny

      TFA states that they are seeking compensation from Lockheed. Hopefully, that'll happen without an actual suit.

      That would be quite the space suit.

    7. Re:Lockheed gonna get sued? by DJ+Jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually that whole 49% figure is misleading. The element of "time" is conveniently left out. 49% of Americans at any given "time" do not pay income tax, not because they are lazy, poor, freeloading citizens but because they are either too young to earn income or retired. In actuality, over 90% of Americans pay income tax at some point in their lifetimes.

    8. Re:Lockheed gonna get sued? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I mean, when did the world suddenly decide that anytime anyone makes an honest mistake they should be crucified for it forever?

      Forgetting a rag is an honest mistake. Failing to plan for honest mistakes by implementing the appropriate checks into your process is negligence.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. Hmm...scale does not compute. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    blame the failure on a rag left inside a fuel line

    Must be a really small rag or really big fuel line. Seriously, how would this happen? It's a freaking satellite engine, not the shuttle main.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Hmm...scale does not compute. by localman57 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah. Damn it people! This is just rocket science, not brain surgery!

    2. Re:Hmm...scale does not compute. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can use tiny squares of cloth, impregnated with cleaning solution, to clean the inside of valves and metal lines - gets rid of metal filings which are left over from the boring process.

      Quite easy to leave one behind. Which is why there are processes in place designed to prevent such issues.

    3. Re:Hmm...scale does not compute. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Damn it people! This is just rocket science, not brain surgery!

      Actually, compared to rocket science, brain surgery is a walk in the park.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Hmm...scale does not compute. by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can use tiny squares of cloth, impregnated with cleaning solution, to clean the inside of valves and metal lines - gets rid of metal filings which are left over from the boring process.

      Quite easy to leave one behind. Which is why there are processes in place designed to prevent such issues.

      So, they built a tool to make sure the rag was removed. Then they built another tool to check that the first tool was removed...

      More seriously, why wouldn't groundside testing notice that there was a rag in the line?

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    5. Re:Hmm...scale does not compute. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      More seriously, why wouldn't groundside testing notice that there was a rag in the line?

      Yup, why wouldn't it?

      Obviously it didn't. Multiple times. In multiple different situations - this isn't the first space mission to be ruined because of something left where it shouldn't have been.

      The obvious answer to your question might be because it didn't block anything during testing, so there was the appearance of nothing wrong. Turn on the fuel flow, after the experience of the launch, and it might have been jostled free from wherever it had chosen to hide - from there it might be a short ride to a bottle necking point such as a crimp in the line, a sharp bend, or a valve, and thus begins the blockage.

    6. Re:Hmm...scale does not compute. by SwedishChef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More seriously, why wouldn't groundside testing notice that there was a rag in the line?

      Some of these positioning rockets are single-use. If you test one you have to build another to replace it. And then test it. And then.....

      --
      No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  3. The answer appears to be a yes. by jandrese · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't this sort of like asking if a $5 wrench could wreck a car engine if it were left inside of a cylinder? Is anybody going to say "no"?

    And yes, I went with the car analogy right from the start. Deal with it.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:The answer appears to be a yes. by xrayspx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Luckily, in the aerospace industry, there's no such thing as a "$5 wrench". Hell that was probably a $700 dirty rag.

  4. anything can take out a satellite by apcullen · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's hard. Any little thing that goes wrong will likely cause the whole thing not to work.
    That's why it's rocket science.

  5. Test Sequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who puts an engine together without a test fire? Seems to me that some simple checks would have prevented a very big waste of funds and effort. I guess it won't be a total waste if they can learn from it.

  6. Lots of failures there. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Assembly failure - leave a rag.
    Inspection failure - did not check for rag.
    Pre-flight final inspection - still did not find the rag.

    Wow, complete failure all the way down the line from assembly to mating with the launch vehicle.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Lots of failures there. by Massacrifice · · Score: 5, Funny

      XXI century new space programs motto : It's failures all the way down, man!

      --
      -- Home is where you eat your heart out.
    2. Re:Lots of failures there. by geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It reminds me of those surgery horror stories where the surgeon or staff leaves behind clamps and sponges inside the persons body.

      Shit happens. All we can really do is our very best to try and prevent it, but ultimately, we're human and prone to mistakes.

    3. Re:Lots of failures there. by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually pre-flight final won't catch that kind of thing; it's already buried in the system (and you don't fire thrusters on a flight unit prior to launch). This is likely one of those cases where a scrap of cleaning"rag" was torn off within the path in an area not visible at either end and went unnoticed. To save money, a visual of the system prior to final assembly was determined to be sufficient and the endoscope procedure was eliminated, saving several thousand dollars (combined on all the lines). Sure, in hindsight a compressed air test would have been sufficient, but it's a little late to play what-if now.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:Lots of failures there. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Informative

      You left out Slashdot summary failure.

      FTFA
      "On Oct. 24, AEHF-1 reached its originally planned orbit. Testing began soon afterward. The Air Force expects to bring the satellite into service in March. Meanwhile, two more AEHFs are slated to launch in 2012."

      They got it into the correct orbit over two months ago using the small thrusters.
      In other words...
      More sensationalistic headlines to get clicks and comments from the new Slashdot.
      Really? Oh and the answer is "no a dirty rag did not take out a 2 billion dollar commsat."
       

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Lots of failures there. by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > It reminds me of those surgery horror stories where the surgeon or staff leaves behind clamps and sponges inside the persons body.

      Funny you should mention that. I had emergency surgery last year for severe traumatic internal bleeding (won't bore you with the details -- or maybe I already have) and things happened so quickly that they did not have enough time for an instrument inventory. (Apparently it's someone's job to keep track of how many tools get used and then count them before final suture.) So after they got me stable they ran me back through x-ray to look for stuff. Didn't find anything, fortunately.

      But really -- it's not that much of a horror story, they just have to open you back up at some point to retrieve the objects. It's not something you want to have happen, but it's a fairly well known procedure. Horror stories to me are things like taking off the wrong limb [1] or prescribing catastrophically wrong medication.

      [1] Before I went in for knee surgery, the doctor gave me a sharpie and had me mark the correct knee. Just in case.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  7. Foreign object debris seems to be common... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At least one of the recent Soyuz failures was put down to a similar issue - debris left in a fuel line by a worker.

  8. Send up some Midol? by rts008 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, the problem is the satellite is 'on the rag'?

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  9. Speculation, not fact. by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA: "They didn’t know it at the time, but a fuel line had become clogged. The blockage “was most likely caused by a small piece of cloth inadvertently left in the line during the manufacturing process,” according to the Government Accountability Office." (bolding mine).

    So no, we don't know that a dirty rag caused a two billion dollar satellite to fail. We think a fuel line became clogged, and some government bean-counter pulled the dirty-rag hypothesis straight out of their derriere so they could sign off on this one and go home.

  10. Heading hyperbole by biometrizilla · · Score: 5, Informative

    Already been established that they were able to overcome the rag and get the satellite into a functional orbit where it can fulfill its mission objective. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av019/120103rescue.html

  11. Glad they didn't go to a backup! by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Finally, it speaks to the size and age of the U.S. space arsenal that the Air Force felt it had no choice but to rescue AEHF-1 instead of replace it with a back-up spacecraft. 'The asset inventory is getting so tight that they spent months limping the heap to its proper orbit,' the insider lamented."

    Look guys, before you throw away (replace with a backup) a $2 Billion satellite, I damn well hope you try some pretty heroic measures. Those are my tax dollars in (the wrong) orbit! So I'm very glad you didn't have (to use) a backup satellite.

    Anyway, does anyone know if the low power thrusters which were eventually used to put this satellite into the correct orbit used the same fuel tank as the clogged thruster? Otherwise 1) I'm very surprised they had enough fuel to get there and 2) they would probably have very little left to last the lifetime of the mission. So let's hope that all the thrusters used a central (hydrazine?) fuel tank and there's plenty left.

    Space is hard and while the U.S. program has certainly had its ups and downs at least it hasn't seen the near total collapse as what happened to the Ruskies. They had quite a bad year last year and that blogger walking around their factory just exposed their problems more. If Mars is going to be a "Red" planet it will because of China not Russia.

  12. Check the logs? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Funny

    So why do they not check the forms before launching the satellite into orbit?

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:Check the logs? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably the same reason why things end up being left inside of patients. Accidents happen, even if it's something that should never happen because it was on the checklist.