Recently, Donald.McLean posted this image in The Pod Bay, the site chat room:
It's a rather disturbing image once you think about it for more than about half a second. Did it really happen? What consequences is it going to have for the mission?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
-
$\begingroup$ I love how its coincidentally the exact length of the gap between where it was, and the benches in front of it! $\endgroup$– user106Commented Sep 5, 2013 at 14:06
-
$\begingroup$ @RhysW There could be some (now flat) furniture underneath it. Or an engineer. $\endgroup$– LocalFluffCommented Jan 18, 2017 at 12:53
-
2$\begingroup$ Kinda wondering how close to "done" it was. $\endgroup$– Magic Octopus UrnCommented Oct 5, 2018 at 1:41
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
6
Yes, it really happened.
It took place at the Lockheed Martin Space Systems factory in Sunnyvale, California. As the team was turning the satellite into a horizontal position, they found out that the twenty-four bolts that were supposed to hold it in place had been removed by a technician - and the action was never documented.
The NASA Mishap Board investigating damage to the NOAA-N-Prime satellite has released its final report.
On September 6, 2003, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) N-Prime satellite fell to the Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company factory floor in Sunnyvale, Calif. Technicians were working on the spacecraft, when the accident happened. The spacecraft suffered significant damage.
The Board, chaired by the NASA Deputy Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate, had representatives from NASA research centers and the Air Force Space Command, as well as advisors from NOAA and the Federal Aviation Administration.
The full report is here.
From "Final Launch in NOAA Series" in Aviation Week & Space Technology, 26 January 09:
After it suffered significant damage when it tipped over on the factory floor in September 2003, the contractor used fees earned on the NOAA spacecraft it previously built to cover the cost of repairs.
Fortunately, since NOAA-N Prime was the last in the series, there were backup instruments and components available, so the contractor required “only a few” new components to fill in gaps, said NASA’s Wayne McIntyre, program manager for the Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite, during a briefing on Jan. 22.
The satellite was launched in February 2009.
-
4$\begingroup$ What became of the technician in question? $\endgroup$– gerritCommented Sep 5, 2013 at 14:06
-
32$\begingroup$ @gerrit I bet you can guess - he was probably taped to the next launch. $\endgroup$– user12Commented Sep 5, 2013 at 14:08
-
1$\begingroup$ Wait - they have a "mishap board"? That seems a little excessive. $\endgroup$– AndrewCommented Nov 8, 2013 at 22:23
-
3$\begingroup$ @SantaClaus boards like that are usually composed of people from different parts of NASA. Their sole purpose isn't the mishap board :P $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 12, 2015 at 5:56
-
2$\begingroup$ @SantaClaus Why wouldn't they have a mishap board after so many failures? And how many times is Lockheed Martin going to do something stupid? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 18:40
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
The story behind this is one of several layers of procedures, as is documented in a review of NASA "mishaps". Essentially, the story comes down to the following sequence of events:
- A team prepared the vibration testing, including putting the bolts on.
- A second team removed the bolts, to use for another purpose. This removal was not documented at the time.
- The first team comes back to the satellite, doesn't see that the bolts were removed, and continues on with their test.
In addition, there were numerous steps that were not followed, such as not having a safety person in attendance for a potentially hazardous test. In fact, they came up with several suggested tips for anyone in this situation in said report. Here's the highlights
- Communicate all changes on the floor to all technicians and supervisors.
- Is this really working in your program now?
- Do not back stamp procedures
- Are your technicians doing this now? This has been a factor in many mishaps!
- If an audit or an investigation identifies a problem, or a non-conformance, fix it! – This has been a factor in previous mishaps
answered Sep 5, 2013 at 20:43
-
1$\begingroup$ Did they need the bolts for another purpose? Or were they going to make a test that required the bolts removed? Either seems strange. The link to the mishap report has died. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 13:01
-
1$\begingroup$ I can't find the report either, but from memory the bolts were used for another purpose. $\endgroup$– PearsonArtPhoto ♦Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 14:09
-
$\begingroup$ The report is here: nasa.gov/pdf/65776main_noaa_np_mishap.pdf $\endgroup$– poizan42Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 12:54
-
1$\begingroup$ @poizan42 I fixed it, in the future, I suggest you just hit the edit button and propose it yourself. That makes it easier, and gives you the credit for the fix:-) $\endgroup$– PearsonArtPhoto ♦Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 13:04
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
This satellite, NOAA-19 or NOAA-N Prime was launched in February 2009. The pictured incident happened in 2003:
The spacecraft has had a troubled history at Lockheed Martin’s Sunnyvale, Calif., factory. After it suffered significant damage when it tipped over on the factory floor in September 2003, the contractor used fees earned on the NOAA spacecraft it previously built to cover the cost of repairs.
Fortunately, since NOAA-N Prime was the last in the series, there were backup instruments and components available, so the contractor required “only a few” new components to fill in gaps, said NASA’s Wayne McIntyre, program manager for the Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite, during a briefing on Jan. 22.
From "Final Launch in NOAA Series" in Aviation Week & Space Technology, 26 January 09
answered Sep 5, 2013 at 13:55