Lessons, opportunities from NASA
Think Again: Learn how to avoid failures and innovate, according to NASA experts involved in the Space Shuttle program and the in-progress Mars Curiosity robotic mission.
NASA, the same organization that ignored engineering-based predictions of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, also designed, launched, and landed one of the most famous robots, the Mars Curiosity Rover. Automation and controls engineers can learn from NASA tragedies and successes, according to speakers at two June technology conferences.
Mike Mullane, retired USAF officer and NASA astronaut, provided lessons related to unheeded warnings about a shuttle failure prior to the Challenger explosion. “Normalization of deviance” led to the disaster and should not be repeated in any high-performing organization or personally, he suggested. Mullane spoke at the RSTechED conference by Rockwell Automation, in San Diego.
Doug McCuistion, director, NASA Mars Exploration Program (ret.), provided details related to launching a successful new robotic platform, the Mars Curiosity Rover. While the rover can be remote controlled, wireless signals take at least 7 minutes each way, so most decisions about landing vectors were automated. The all-new landing platform design essentially is a flying robot. McCuistion spoke at the Siemens Summit in New Orleans.
Mullane noted daily indignities that accompany the boundlessly joyful, fear-for-your-life experience of space flight, including 5 hours of diaper use required for launch.
After Sputnik, the world’s first satellite launched by the Russians on Oct. 4, 1957, Mullane did a 1960 school science report. At 14 years of age, he wrote, “Someday, I also plan to participate in this great undertaking.” Homemade model rockets, essentially pipe bombs with fins [not recommended, he said], were part of his long journey to NASA-powered space flight.
Since he didn’t have genius or athletic prowess, he said he learned early about courageous self-leadership, how to be self-challenged, and a fierce tenacity in pursuit of goals. “We need to be motivating ourselves and our teams out of comfort zones.”
Mullane’s dad, a WWII aviator, was crippled with polio at 33, with six children to raise. “My parents were laser-focused on the goal.” They had to be.
NASA had a similar laser focus with the Apollo program, then lost and had to regain that vision.
The explosion of the Shuttle Challenger on Jan. 28, 1986, was no accident, Mullane said, but what he called a “predictable surprise,” foretold by written documents warning of pending O-ring failure on the solid-rocket boosters. Burning of the O-rings was a “criticality 1” incident, which should have grounded the fleet, Mullane said. On the second flight, fire touched and damaged the O-rings. After tests, new data, more tests, and “tinkering,” tolerance was established for something that was previously defined as intolerable, he said.
“Why do bad things happen to people and teams with stellar histories? They fall victim to normalization of deviance. Usually first time, nothing happens. Then those involved start believing they always will get away with it. Deviance becomes the norm.”
NASA, with “crushing budget and schedule pressures,” aimed to deliver 26 shuttle flights a year, as promised to Congress. NASA also missed red flags, blinded and deafened by years of successes, he said. Among words delivered from a contractor prior to the disaster: “If we do not take immediate action, then we stand in jeopardy of losing of a flight, a crew, and all the launch pad facilities. Your support in this urgent matter is requested.”
Seven perished, no escape
The Challenger STS-51 crew of seven perished after the rocket breach, 73 seconds into flight; four were Mullane’s classmates. Three prior NASA rockets had human escape systems. The shuttle had none at that point.
Mullane paused, obviously still affected by the tragedy.
“The personal success lesson is that you are vulnerable. Thirteen years separated Apollo success with Challenger disaster,” with many of the same personnel and same teams involved, from the same organization.
Adversity can be overcome. As a weapon-system operator in the USAF, Mullane admitted to vomiting during his first 50 missions. Tenacity kept him at it. On an early flight, he did not discuss concerns with the pilot that might have avoided a near deadly crash of a multimillion-dollar jet, because he thought the very experienced pilot knew better. Questioning status quo is critical, he said. At least one post-Challenger Space Shuttle design safety modification derived from an unexpected observer’s suggestion.
“Most of us are ordinary, but the ordinary can do the extraordinary when they move the bar out and keep that laser focus,” Mullane said.
“Success isn’t a final destination; it is a life journey.”
Robotic spacecraft, rover
McCuistion, sporting a Warner Bros. Marvin the Martian tie for his presentation, described the daunting challenges that the Mars Exploration Program presented. A strategically-defined “project-by-project” approach was used to achieve one the most monumental space exploration feats of the century. The journey accomplishments included disappointments, the application of groundbreaking technologies, and collaborative processes used for the exploration program.
16 out of 40
Challenge was to land a rover about three times as large and six times the mass as the prior generation, through an atmosphere that was too thin to adequately slow the craft, and too thick to avoid heat shielding. The engineering and rocket science involved isn’t easy. Of 40 attempted Mars missions globally, only 16 have succeeded to date.
Because of the weight, 1 metric ton, the size of compact car, a new landing system was required. The craft was too heavy to bounce inside a landing ball as a prior generation of lander, parachutes alone couldn’t slow it enough, and supersonic retrorockets haven’t been invented yet to compensate for the atmosphere on Mars.
Further, decisions needed to be made autonomously in real time since dust and wind conditions vary enough to cause a crash in a lander with pre-set instructions and without embedded intelligence. A minimum 14-minute communication delay makes remote-controlled landing impossible. The robotic craft optimized trajectory and number of S-turns required up to three. It did two, McCuistion said.
7 minutes of terror
Heat shields, a parachute, and rocket-based sky-crane design allowed safe-speed lowering and landing of the rover from the descent stage. NASA and engineers and space fans held their collective breaths (so to speak) for 7 minutes of terror on Aug. 5, 2012, until they learned that the rover performed as designed and landed safely, within 250 m of the predicted location. (In 1976, the landing target for a much smaller craft was 174 x 62 mi.)
After a 254-day journey of 352 million miles, Rover Curiosity is now performing the planned roving lab experiments onboard for a design life of the next 2 years in the northern region in Gale Crater. (Curiosity is currently in Yellow Knife Bay, identified as a transition area between land and a prior river, at the base of a mountain where transitions between wind and water erosion are now clearly visible in the rock’s strata).
On the next page: See photo that shows that water flowed on Mars; learn about the delay that avoided creating a crater with Curiosity; advocate for NASA sending humans going to Mars; link to related articles.
Case Study Database
Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Consulting-Specifying Engineer case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.
These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.
Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.