Example: how NASA wastes resources


Recommended Posts

NASA KSC actually did a full-blown failure analysis of an old piece of office furniture that broke. That's right - an old office chair broke and they did a full-bore failure analysis including imagery using a Scanning Electron Microscope.

It would be one thing if this were an isolated incident, maybe even funny, but it isn't - this stuff happens all the time.

NASA KSC actually did a full-blown failure analysis of an old piece of office furniture that broke. That's right - an old office chair broke and they did a full-bore failure analysis including imagery using a Scanning Electron Microscope.

It would be one thing if this were an isolated incident, maybe even funny, but it isn't - this stuff happens all the time.

[url=http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/KSC-MSL-2011-0045.pdf'>Document (PDF)....

>

A 17 year old EckAdams model number 5353 chair was submitted for failure analysis when the cylinder of the chair failed during use. Both macroscopic and microscopic indications of fatigue were observed on the cylinder fracture surface, indicating that the cylinder progressively failed due to the bending stresses imparted on the cylinder during a reclining motion. The stress on the cylinder was likely exacerbated by failed welds that were observed between the chair back mounting plate and the base plate, which ....

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we have an actual link or just a snippet of a PDF that is nonexistent in this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even without the full PDF, it's not THAT hard to imagine how this scenario wasn't actually a waste of money.

Maybe NASA purposely did all they could to make the chair(s) fail. Then they studied it as best they could in order to learn how certain materials fail and under what circumstances. They then could have used whatever valuable knowledge they gained in the design of any and all projects. Maybe they were testing office chairs in order to make nigh-indestructible space chairs for rockets, the shuttle, and/or the INSS.

Even the small tidbit of text from the PDF tells me that they were interested in why the welds in the chair's main cylinder failed. That seems almost directly related to the kinds of things that go into things like the shuttle or space equipment.

I mean, that's how I would go about designing things that astronauts are 100% reliant on keeping them alive. Start with known quantities and find their limits, then extrapolate that into the design of an unknown quantity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even without the full PDF, it's not THAT hard to imagine how this scenario wasn't actually a waste of money.

Maybe NASA purposely did all they could to make the chair(s) fail. Then they studied it as best they could in order to learn how certain materials fail and under what circumstances. They then could have used whatever valuable knowledge they gained in the design of any and all projects. Maybe they were testing office chairs in order to make nigh-indestructible space chairs for rockets, the shuttle, and/or the INSS.

Even the small tidbit of text from the PDF tells me that they were interested in why the welds in the chair's main cylinder failed. That seems almost directly related to the kinds of things that go into things like the shuttle or space equipment.

I mean, that's how I would go about designing things that astronauts are 100% reliant on keeping them alive. Start with known quantities and find their limits, then extrapolate that into the design of an unknown quantity.

Exactly. And I'm not even a fan of NASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even without the full PDF, it's not THAT hard to imagine how this scenario wasn't actually a waste of money.

Maybe NASA purposely did all they could to make the chair(s) fail. Then they studied it as best they could in order to learn how certain materials fail and under what circumstances. They then could have used whatever valuable knowledge they gained in the design of any and all projects. Maybe they were testing office chairs in order to make nigh-indestructible space chairs for rockets, the shuttle, and/or the INSS.

Even the small tidbit of text from the PDF tells me that they were interested in why the welds in the chair's main cylinder failed. That seems almost directly related to the kinds of things that go into things like the shuttle or space equipment.

I mean, that's how I would go about designing things that astronauts are 100% reliant on keeping them alive. Start with known quantities and find their limits, then extrapolate that into the design of an unknown quantity.

True or it could be used as an example of how reports need to need to be written up - new employees are given practical scenarios of "here is an failed piece of equipment diagnose why it failed and write up a report using the NASA guidelines". I know when I started working I was taught how to write up reports etc. using the company policy guideline and we picked a random example within the organisation (in my case, health and safety).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True or it could be used as an example of how reports need to need to be written up - new employees are given practical scenarios of "here is an failed piece of equipment diagnose why it failed and write up a report using the NASA guidelines". I know when I started working I was taught how to write up reports etc. using the company policy guideline and we picked a random example within the organisation (in my case, health and safety).

It would be one thing if it were a waste of money - except that it really isn't.

Failure analysis of things the government buys is, in fact, necessary - do you want the government using YOUR tax dollars to purchase anything that doesn't provide as much bang for the taxpayer buck as possible?

Further, the NASA research laboratories (like those in most agencies) don't work *just* for the parent agency or department - for example, look at the military's research laboratories (or even the most well known - those of the Department of Energy, such as Los Alamos or Lawrence Livermore or even Argonne) - do you honestly think that all their research is strictly for the parent department or agency?

And that particular failure analysis request came from UNICOR - the supplier of a lot of furniture to governement agencies (but not to the public, at least directly, for one big reason - the company's *factories* are located in facilities owned by the Bureau of Prisons, and the furniture itself is made using inmate labor). Why would UNICOR want it? Remember, UNICOR exists for two reasons - training inmates in trades and skills useful on the outside, and enabling inmates to earn money to pay fines/resitution due upon release (most inmates enter the prison system flat broke).

Also, UNICOR is far from the ONLY supplier of furniture to the government. While the public can't buy (directly) the products UNICOR makes, private industry is certainly free to sell their products to UNICOR's only customer. That means that price is not the only benchmark the common customer uses to buy anything. That forces UNICOR to compete on something unheard-of in *captive industries* - product quality. (Not something normally associated with inmate labor.) This feedback loop creates three results - better quality products from UNICOR, better-trained inmates less likely to go and commit more crimes, and better quality products for the government. (Win win win.)

So, tell me - what's wrong with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you sure this story isn't a hoax?

so where do you stand on Zubrin's accusation that VASIMR is a waste of time and money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be one thing if it were a waste of money - except that it really isn't.

Failure analysis of things the government buys is, in fact, necessary - do you want the government using YOUR tax dollars to purchase anything that doesn't provide as much bang for the taxpayer buck as possible?

*snip*

So, tell me - what's wrong with that?

Exactly. Give this man a prize! They also use what they learned in the chair failure and apply it to other stuff as well.

Not a waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i actually work for NASA. im not a NASA employee but a contractor, like 150,000 other people. do you really think that all 150,000 NASA employees only work on satellites and space shuttles? yes, failure analysis of a chair is a bit odd, but it surely serves a purpose.

i am a system admin for NASA - we host about 8 NASA websites so i admin the servers necessary to keep those sites running. some are purely informational websites, but our "main" site holds communities and documents necessary for such things as shuttle launches. so, i work for NASA but im not an scientist or engineer. just another example of NASA's diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea this appears to be a safety and reliability study on that model chair, I don't blame them for doing it, someone could have been hurt considering they probably purchase 10's of thousands of these chairs. Consider that when it's tax payers dollars paying for it... The true waste of money would have been if they didn't figure out what was wrong with it and it was a mfg defect, but they kept buying new chairs all the time or people got hurt because of it (law suit). So good for them, and nothing to see here.

These kinds of threads also seem worthless, but they serve the same purpose, right away they weed out the people who do not read the whole article or do any research.. yet can some how provide an opinion on the subject after just 1 line of text. So it should be obviously to educate yourself on a subject before you have an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BREAKING NEWS: humans waste money this is the same whether it is government, private company or charity.

It is only because we hear about the government wasting money we think they are the only ones.

Regarding this chair like many have said it does not say what this chair was used for it may have been a chair that is still used to keep an astronaut safe in the space shuttle? Just because it is 17 years old does not mean the design is not still readily used.

Move along nothing to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they are going to cancel JWST for going overbudget. It's about time NASA stepped aside and let the private industry have a run at it.

Step aside? It's not like only one group of people can use space at a time.

People think NASA wastes money regardless of what they do, they're the scapegoat for everything (0.6% of the budget? too much!, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But but but... All the logic and realisation within these answers... It simply doesn't fit within the OP's agenda!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Step aside? It's not like only one group of people can use space at a time.

People think NASA wastes money regardless of what they do, they're the scapegoat for everything (0.6% of the budget? too much!, etc.)

I thought it was 0.4%, but in any case... I find it interesting that people who use computers complain about NASA, as if without their groundbreaking work we would be here now. I have a friend who is a broadcaster on Sirius XM and his producer thought that NASA was a waste of money. HELLO! Without NASA's original work he would not have a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.