5 ms·

Why wouldn't the QC at NASA include testing at independent labs for anything mission critical? That seems like a failure on NASA's part as much as it is fraud

by JohnGB 7y ago

Why wouldn't the QC at NASA include testing at independent labs for anything mission critical? That seems like a failure on NASA's part as much as it is fraud by the supplier.

ethagknight 7y ago
This is what I am wondering. In construction, we have third party testing of every major material in use, like daily concrete testing for new pours, weld inspections on steel, graded lumber, etc. hard to believe that NASA didn’t test their aluminum for a decade.
- moftz 7y ago
  It was material that went into a frangible rail built by one company for a fairing built by another company, integrated into a rocket built by yet another company. Where would NASA have the time to test each and every bit of material going into the many-tiered parts of the design? NASA is relying on the prime contractor to make sure their vendors are on the up and up. The prime is making sure their vendors do their due diligence as well. The failure in this chain of trust comes about when someone is blatantly lying about results. The lab manager was instructing his technicians to lie about results and also speed up testing equipment between customer visits. Testing everything yourself works out well since you are receiving most of the raw material and doing the assembly either yourself or on site with a contractor. NASA doesn't built a lot of stuff themselves. Components can be so deep in levels of subcontracting that all NASA can do is just make sure everyone is adhering to proper engineering and manufacturing principles. The company that originally bought the aluminum I'm sure tested all of their finished components the right way but testing might not have been sufficient enough against how much stress the part is actually under during flight. Or testing weakened the part to the point where a failure was imminent but not obvious. Or the vendor doesn't really test their stuff extensively and relies on the customer to handle that. Either way, the part passes tests and gets sent to the customer where the they would integrate the part into their design and test it as well. Or not fully test it based on the idea that the next customer would test it. Who knows? Maybe they didn't test it hard enough or maybe it was most of a length of testing problem. The point is that NASA has neither the time or money to independently test parts and materials, they rely on their experienced contractors and subcontractors to do it. If there isn't already, there needs to be some additional laws with government contractors to make sure those in a position of trust (like test lab technicians and their managers) receive no compensation based on whether or not material passes inspection or how much they test. Or force these kinds of labs to do independent 3rd party testing.
  - ethagknight 7y ago
    For my projects, I’m buying the concrete structure, but it’s my general contractor hiring a subcontractor to place the concrete, and the architect reviews the third party laboratory tests. It’s a complicated for commonplace construction. NASA should have it figured out.
gnode 7y ago
It may be that actually fully stressing the parts is avoided, as it may risk weakening the part. I've heard of various non destructive testing methods being used to check the integrity of metals in aerospace, such as ultrasound and radiography. This may well be enough if the part is actually made of what it's supposed to be.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > It may be that actually fully stressing the parts is avoided, as it may risk weakening the part. Couldn't they just buy an extra and destructively test that?
  - dylan604 7y ago
    +1 Make that part of the deal. We only need 2 items, but you will produce 4. We will then randomly pick 2 of them for testing, and then and only then if those 2 pass will we actually use the remaining 2 as needed. This happens all the time in construction of multistory buildings. When the floors of concrete are poured, they also produce smaller sections of concrete from the same batches. As the concrete cures, it's strength is tested. This ensures that the concrete can support the weight designated in the plans. Better to watch a test pour fail than the building collapsing when cheap concrete fails under load. [edit] oops, just read comments later in the thread stating the same thing
  - icelancer 7y ago
    The failures may not be normally distributed amongst samples. A similar issue stopped NASA from perfectly end-to-end testing the LEV before the moon landing.
  - gnode 7y ago
    Maybe the reason they didn't is that doing so is expensive, should have already been done by the supplier, this was for an unmanned mission (which have significantly looser safety requirements), which was insured (I assume), and costs to some extent recoverable by lawsuits. According to the DoJ article: "the replacement cost of frangible joints provided to the MDA that included SPI extrusions is approximately $15.3 million, and NASA incurred approximately $9 million in investigative and other costs to determine the impact of SPI extrusions on NASA operations." For economic reasons, some compromise needs to be reached between assurance and insurance.

by JohnGB 7y ago

Why wouldn't the QC at NASA include testing at independent labs for anything mission critical? That seems like a failure on NASA's part as much as it is fraud by the supplier.

ethagknight 7y ago

This is what I am wondering. In construction, we have third party testing of every major material in use, like daily concrete testing for new pours, weld inspections on steel, graded lumber, etc. hard to believe that NASA didn’t test their aluminum for a decade.

moftz 7y ago
It was material that went into a frangible rail built by one company for a fairing built by another company, integrated into a rocket built by yet another company. Where would NASA have the time to test each and every bit of material going into the many-tiered parts of the design? NASA is relying on the prime contractor to make sure their vendors are on the up and up. The prime is making sure their vendors do their due diligence as well. The failure in this chain of trust comes about when someone is blatantly lying about results. The lab manager was instructing his technicians to lie about results and also speed up testing equipment between customer visits. Testing everything yourself works out well since you are receiving most of the raw material and doing the assembly either yourself or on site with a contractor. NASA doesn't built a lot of stuff themselves. Components can be so deep in levels of subcontracting that all NASA can do is just make sure everyone is adhering to proper engineering and manufacturing principles. The company that originally bought the aluminum I'm sure tested all of their finished components the right way but testing might not have been sufficient enough against how much stress the part is actually under during flight. Or testing weakened the part to the point where a failure was imminent but not obvious. Or the vendor doesn't really test their stuff extensively and relies on the customer to handle that. Either way, the part passes tests and gets sent to the customer where the they would integrate the part into their design and test it as well. Or not fully test it based on the idea that the next customer would test it. Who knows? Maybe they didn't test it hard enough or maybe it was most of a length of testing problem. The point is that NASA has neither the time or money to independently test parts and materials, they rely on their experienced contractors and subcontractors to do it. If there isn't already, there needs to be some additional laws with government contractors to make sure those in a position of trust (like test lab technicians and their managers) receive no compensation based on whether or not material passes inspection or how much they test. Or force these kinds of labs to do independent 3rd party testing.
- ethagknight 7y ago
  For my projects, I’m buying the concrete structure, but it’s my general contractor hiring a subcontractor to place the concrete, and the architect reviews the third party laboratory tests. It’s a complicated for commonplace construction. NASA should have it figured out.

gnode 7y ago

It may be that actually fully stressing the parts is avoided, as it may risk weakening the part. I've heard of various non destructive testing methods being used to check the integrity of metals in aerospace, such as ultrasound and radiography. This may well be enough if the part is actually made of what it's supposed to be.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> It may be that actually fully stressing the parts is avoided, as it may risk weakening the part. Couldn't they just buy an extra and destructively test that?
- dylan604 7y ago
  +1 Make that part of the deal. We only need 2 items, but you will produce 4. We will then randomly pick 2 of them for testing, and then and only then if those 2 pass will we actually use the remaining 2 as needed. This happens all the time in construction of multistory buildings. When the floors of concrete are poured, they also produce smaller sections of concrete from the same batches. As the concrete cures, it's strength is tested. This ensures that the concrete can support the weight designated in the plans. Better to watch a test pour fail than the building collapsing when cheap concrete fails under load. [edit] oops, just read comments later in the thread stating the same thing
- icelancer 7y ago
  The failures may not be normally distributed amongst samples. A similar issue stopped NASA from perfectly end-to-end testing the LEV before the moon landing.
- gnode 7y ago
  Maybe the reason they didn't is that doing so is expensive, should have already been done by the supplier, this was for an unmanned mission (which have significantly looser safety requirements), which was insured (I assume), and costs to some extent recoverable by lawsuits. According to the DoJ article: "the replacement cost of frangible joints provided to the MDA that included SPI extrusions is approximately $15.3 million, and NASA incurred approximately $9 million in investigative and other costs to determine the impact of SPI extrusions on NASA operations." For economic reasons, some compromise needs to be reached between assurance and insurance.