Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Upside-Down Sensors Caused Proton-M Rocket Crash

Posted by Unknown on from the someone's-getting-fired dept.

Michi writes "According to Anatoly Zak, the crash of the Russion Proton rocket on 1 July was apparently caused by several angular velocity sensors having been installed upside down. From the source: 'Each of those sensors had an arrow that was supposed to point toward the top of the vehicle, however multiple sensors on the failed rocket were pointing downward instead.' It seems amazing that something as fundamental as this was not caught during quality control. Even more amazing is that the design of the sensors permits them to be installed in the wrong orientation in the first place. Even the simplest of mechanical interlocks (such as a notch at one end that must be matched with a corresponding projection) could have prevented the accident." A review of the quality control procedures used by the contractors responsible is underway.

13 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. The quality conrol problems... by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...aren't so amazing when you look at the track record of Russian manufacturing.

    1. Re:The quality conrol problems... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a difference between true communism and corrupt, dictatorial regimes.

      For those too lazy to click on the link:

      Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

      A perfect example of true communism applied to a specific field would be open-source software.
      A perfect example of corruption (on the capitalism side, too) would be Microsoft, threatening computer manufacturers about increasing the cost of Windows if they offered Linux options.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:The quality conrol problems... by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Communism (n) - an unattainable standard that is constantly held up as a model of perfection despite having no functional real world example past or present. Related entries: No True Scotsman; Ivory Tower Intellectualism.

    3. Re:The quality conrol problems... by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Communism (n) - an unattainable standard that is constantly held up as a model of perfection despite having no functional real world example past or present.

      Sorry, but that's nonsense. All you need to do to create perfect communism is kill everyone else so no-one can disagree with you (you can't just kill the ones who disagree, because the others might only be pretending to agree).

      Stalin made a pretty good attempt, but didn't quite succeed.

    4. Re:The quality conrol problems... by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It looked good on Paper doesn't it.

      However it rarely works for a long time or with a lot of people.

      The problem is that we live in a world of scarcity, we can't get all that stuff that we want, or need. The communist system tries to make everything equal, however that means everyone will be living in scarcity, and not really having what they need or want. Because everyone will be wanting, it will open the door for someone(s) to cheat the system and try to get more, once they have more they will hold on to it. And the system begins to fail.

      Software like Open Source tends to work better, because there isn't a limit in supply. You can copy share make a copy of the copy and continue on and on. There is no scarcity in the Open Source Model.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:The quality conrol problems... by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >That would be like saying that disaster relief volunteers are an example of communism
      Actually that sounds about right to me. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and all that.

      Most family households also run on at least partially communist principles. Luxuries may need to be at least partially earned (or not, plenty of douches with entitlement issues out there), but it's a sad family where everyone's *needs* aren't taken care of first.

      The problem with communism seems to be that it doesn't seem to scale well beyond the tribe/monastery/commune level. Once the population gets too large to allow for effective communal decision making, communal ownership tends to become de-facto ownership by the decision makers, massively exacerbating the problem of corruption.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:The quality conrol problems... by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Democracy /capitalism "work" even if you dont have a "pure" implementation.

      Communism has never worked in any of its forms; its just gotten millions killed in purges and famines, and left nations in a crippled, dysfuncitonal state even decades later. The cry has always been that it hasnt worked because it wasnt implemented in a pure enough form, hence my "no true scotsman" comment.

      Capitalist / democratic states, however, continue to be represented by every major world power. China is becoming a major power precisely by embracing a functioning economic system that looks and smells an awful lot like capitalism.

    7. Re:The quality conrol problems... by Minwee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All you need to do to create perfect communism is kill everyone else so no-one can disagree with you (you can't just kill the ones who disagree, because the others might only be pretending to agree).

      Stalin made a pretty good attempt, but didn't quite succeed.

      By an incredible coincidence, that's also the way to create a perfectly free market with no government intervention.

  2. QA is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Murphy's Law is still in effect. Like the snippet says make sure that they can only be installed one way mechanically, because you won't catch 100% of the errors in QA.

    1. Re:QA is not the problem by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What seems more amazing is that a simple software check pre-launch (i.e. "do all the sensors think they are pointed up?") was not part of the SOP. Given that their exact function is orientation detection, skipping the opportunity for self-test via that function is somewhat baffling.

      Obligatory: It's not rocket science!

    2. Re:QA is not the problem by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The greatest pleasure my toddler ever got from his shape sorter was when he discovered that the 3 could be forced through the hole for the C. Never underestimate the satisfaction a disgruntled office worker gets from jamming the ink block into the printer the wrong way around.

    3. Re:QA is not the problem by Athanasius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My reading of 'angular velocity sensor' is that they're meant to sense rotation. If you're sat stationary on the pad there is no such rotation and thus you'll get a 'correct' zero reading. You'd have to perform such a test during some known movements of the rocket (part).

  3. Mars orbital failure by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US once sent a probe all the way to mars, only to have it fail because the ground computer was in imperial units while the orbiter was in SI units.

    Getting everything correct is hard... really hard. For most projects you have elaborate "fail gracefully" modes which rely on external agents to notice the problem and take action. A doctor or pilot can take appropriate action, but it's hard to do with rockets.

    For comparison, I wrote the software for the altimeter that goes into some 747 aircraft. Total of about 21,000 lines of C, about 40% comments so figure 12,000 lines of code. The testers (and I) worked really hard to find all bugs in the system, knowing that a mistake could knock a plane out of the sky. There were elaborate internal checks both in software and process, and Boeing did their own testing on top of ours. Everything passed, all requirements were met, things looked good.

    The device had 1 bug, found after installation. A software typo which wasn't caught by QA even though it had a specific testing requirement. No one was negligent, it just slipped by despite best efforts.

    Multiply this by all the devices in an aircraft, and add in the other engineering disciplines like electronics and mechanical. It's really hard to get everything right all at once, and on the first try.