7 ms·

Often. I used to run the nuclear power plant on a US Navy submarine. Back around 2006, we were sailing somewhere and Sonar reported that the propulsion plant w

Often. I used to run the nuclear power plant on a US Navy submarine. Back around 2006, we were sailing somewhere and Sonar reported that the propulsion plant was much, much louder than normal. A few days later we didn't need Sonar to report it, we could hear it ourselves. The whole rear half of the ship was vibrating. We pulled into our destination port, and the topside watch reported that oil pools were appearing in the water near the rear end of the ship. The ship's Engineering Officer and Engineering Department Master Chief shrugged it off and said there was no need for it to "affect ship's schedule". I was in charge of the engineering library. I had a hunch and I went and read a manual that leadership had probably never heard of. The propeller that drives the ship is enormous. It's held in place with a giant nut, but in between the nut and the propeller is a hydraulic tire, a toroidal balloon filled with hydraulic fluid. Clearly it had ruptured. The manual said the ship was supposed to immediately sail to the nearest port and the ship was not allowed to go back out to sea until the tire was replaced. I showed it to the Engineer. Several officers called me in to explain it to them. And then, nothing. Ship's Schedule was not affected, and we continued on the next several-week trip. Before we got to the next port, we had to limit the ship's top speed to avoid major damage to the entire propulsion plant. We weren't able to conduct the mission we had planned because the ship was too loud. And the multiple times I asked what the hell was going on, management literally just talked over me. When we got to the next port, we had to stay there while the propeller was removed and remachined. Management doesn't give a shit as long as it doesn't affect their next promotion. Don't even get me started on the nuclear safety problems.

orblivion 2y ago
Is this a different phenomenon though? It seems that there's a difference between an informed risk assessment and not giving a fuck or letting the bureaucratic gears turn and not feeling responsible. Like there's a difference between Challenger and Chernobyl. But, maybe someone can make a case that it's fundamentally the same thing?
- quacked 2y ago
  I would make the case that it's fundamentally the same thing. In both cases, there were people who cared primarily about the technical truth, and those people were overruled by people who cared primarily about their own lifestyle (social status, reputation, career, opportunities, loyalties, personal obligations, etc.) In Allan McDonald's book "Truth, Lies, and O-Rings" he outlines how Morton Thiokol was having a contract renewal held over their head while NASA Marshall tried to maneuver the Solid Rocket Booster production contract to a second source, which would have seriously affect MT's bottom line and profit margins. There's a strong implication that Morton Thiokol was not able to adhere to proper technical rationale and push back on their customer (NASA) because if they had they would have given too much ammunition to NASA to argue for a second-source for the SRB contracts. (In short: "you guys delayed launches over issues in your hardware, so we're only going to buy 30 SRB flight sets from you over the next 5 years instead of 60 as we initially promised." I have worked as a NASA contractor on similar issues, although much less directly impacting the crews than the SRBs. You are not free to pursue the smartest, most technically accurate, quickest method for fixing problems; if you introduce delays that your NASA contacts and managers don't like, they will likely ding your contract and redirect some of your company's work to your direct competitors, who you're often working with on your projects.
  - BlarfMcFlarf 2y ago
    What’s the alternative? Being able to shift to a competitor when a producer is letting you down is the entire point of private contracts; without that, you might as well remove the whole assemblage of profit and just nationalize the whole thing.
    - Timwi 2y ago
      That's EXACTLY the alternative.
    - quacked 2y ago
      Strictly speaking, you're correct, so I don't disagree with your comment. However, assuming MvDonald's recollections are correct and his explanation of the story is accurate, Morton Thiokol was doing an excellent job. The O-Ring seal issue was on track to be solved as they switched to a lighter-weight filament-wound case. According to McDonald, Morton Thiokol was receiving high marks on their contract evaluations, and Marshall was trying to move the contract to a company that had a lot of ex-Marshall employees.
- permo-w 2y ago
  >Like there's a difference between Challenger and Chernobyl. not in year, incidentally
psunavy03 2y ago
The correct answer in that case is to go to the Inspector General. That's what they're there for. Leaders sweeping shit under the rug that ends up crippling a fleet asset and preventing tasking from higher is precisely the kind of negligence and incompetence the IG is designed to root out. And I say that as a retired officer.
- richie-guix 2y ago
  How long retired? Things have gone in what can only be described as an.. incomprehensible unfathomable direction in the last decade or so. Parent post is not surprising in the least. Politics is seeping where it doesn't belong. I am very worried.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Tell us more... what has happened?
    - richie-guix 2y ago
      To a first approximation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZB7xEonjsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZB7xEonjsc Less funny in real life. Sometimes the jizzless thing falls off with impeccably bad timing. Right when things go boom. People get injured (no deaths yet). Limp home early. Allies let down. Shipping routes elongate by a sad multiple. And it even affects you directly as you pay extra for that Dragon silicon toy you ordered from China.
    - dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
      Just google the Red Hill failure. The Navy's careerist, bureaucratic incompetence is staggering. No better than Putin's generals who looted the military budget and crippled his army so they couldn't even beat a military a fraction of their size.
      - richie-guix 2y ago
        [flagged]
KennyBlanken 2y ago
If you're EB, why replace a hydraulic bushing when you can wait, and replace it but also have to repair a bunch of damage and make yourself a nice big extra chunk of change off Uncle Sam? If you're ship's captain...why not help secure a nice 'consulting' 'job' at EB after retiring from the navy by helping EB make millions, and count on your officers to not say a peep to fleet command that the mess was preventable?
- buildsjets 2y ago
  That sounds EXACTLY like something Fat Leonard might have done... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Leonard_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Leonard_scandal
quacked 2y ago
> Don't even get me started on the nuclear safety problems. I want to be pro-nuclear energy, but I just don't think I can trust the majority of human institutions to handle nuclear plants. What do you think about the idea of replacing all global power production with nuclear, given that it would require many hundreds of thousands of loosely-supervised people running nuclear plants?
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  Considering that 1 Chernobyl scale accident per year would kill fewer people than global coal power does, I personally would be for it.
  - banku_brougham 2y ago
    It was a tremendous effort and sacrifice paid so that half of Europe wasnt poisoned by that 1 Chernobyl.
    - MostlyStable 2y ago
      Given the scale of people killed by coal every year, I feel relatively confident that had that effort not been undertaken, it would still be true. And of course that's ignoring the fact that I also feel relatively confident that a Chernobyl scale accident every year is in no way likely, even if the entire world was 100% on nuclear
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I don't think the scale of coal is 200m+ people a year. That's taking artistic liberties or is too hyperbolic to entertain. >I also feel relatively confident that a Chernobyl scale accident every year is in no way likely, even if the entire world was 100% on nuclear I don't. Einstein's quote rings alarms in my head here. Imagine all the inane incompetencies you've seen with current energies in your house, or at a mechanic, or simply flickering lights at a resaurant. Now imagine that these people now manage small fusion/fission bombs powering such devices. we need to value labor a lot more to trust that sort of maintanance. And the US alone isn't too good at that. Let alone most of Asia and EMEA.
RajT88 2y ago
My brother has loads of ghese stories related to fighter jets. Stuff like pilots taking off with no working nav, "I'll follow the guy in front of me".
neycoda 2y ago
There was no hunch there about a problem, it was very obvious there was a problem. Management willing to risk worker's lives for promotions should be fired immediately unless they jump into the fire only by themselves. No life is worth someone's convenience.

orblivion 2y ago

Is this a different phenomenon though? It seems that there's a difference between an informed risk assessment and not giving a fuck or letting the bureaucratic gears turn and not feeling responsible. Like there's a difference between Challenger and Chernobyl. But, maybe someone can make a case that it's fundamentally the same thing?

quacked 2y ago
I would make the case that it's fundamentally the same thing. In both cases, there were people who cared primarily about the technical truth, and those people were overruled by people who cared primarily about their own lifestyle (social status, reputation, career, opportunities, loyalties, personal obligations, etc.) In Allan McDonald's book "Truth, Lies, and O-Rings" he outlines how Morton Thiokol was having a contract renewal held over their head while NASA Marshall tried to maneuver the Solid Rocket Booster production contract to a second source, which would have seriously affect MT's bottom line and profit margins. There's a strong implication that Morton Thiokol was not able to adhere to proper technical rationale and push back on their customer (NASA) because if they had they would have given too much ammunition to NASA to argue for a second-source for the SRB contracts. (In short: "you guys delayed launches over issues in your hardware, so we're only going to buy 30 SRB flight sets from you over the next 5 years instead of 60 as we initially promised." I have worked as a NASA contractor on similar issues, although much less directly impacting the crews than the SRBs. You are not free to pursue the smartest, most technically accurate, quickest method for fixing problems; if you introduce delays that your NASA contacts and managers don't like, they will likely ding your contract and redirect some of your company's work to your direct competitors, who you're often working with on your projects.
- BlarfMcFlarf 2y ago
  What’s the alternative? Being able to shift to a competitor when a producer is letting you down is the entire point of private contracts; without that, you might as well remove the whole assemblage of profit and just nationalize the whole thing.
  - Timwi 2y ago
    That's EXACTLY the alternative.
  - quacked 2y ago
    Strictly speaking, you're correct, so I don't disagree with your comment. However, assuming MvDonald's recollections are correct and his explanation of the story is accurate, Morton Thiokol was doing an excellent job. The O-Ring seal issue was on track to be solved as they switched to a lighter-weight filament-wound case. According to McDonald, Morton Thiokol was receiving high marks on their contract evaluations, and Marshall was trying to move the contract to a company that had a lot of ex-Marshall employees.
permo-w 2y ago
>Like there's a difference between Challenger and Chernobyl. not in year, incidentally

psunavy03 2y ago

The correct answer in that case is to go to the Inspector General. That's what they're there for. Leaders sweeping shit under the rug that ends up crippling a fleet asset and preventing tasking from higher is precisely the kind of negligence and incompetence the IG is designed to root out. And I say that as a retired officer.

richie-guix 2y ago
How long retired? Things have gone in what can only be described as an.. incomprehensible unfathomable direction in the last decade or so. Parent post is not surprising in the least. Politics is seeping where it doesn't belong. I am very worried.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Tell us more... what has happened?
  - richie-guix 2y ago
    To a first approximation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZB7xEonjsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZB7xEonjsc Less funny in real life. Sometimes the jizzless thing falls off with impeccably bad timing. Right when things go boom. People get injured (no deaths yet). Limp home early. Allies let down. Shipping routes elongate by a sad multiple. And it even affects you directly as you pay extra for that Dragon silicon toy you ordered from China.
  - dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
    Just google the Red Hill failure. The Navy's careerist, bureaucratic incompetence is staggering. No better than Putin's generals who looted the military budget and crippled his army so they couldn't even beat a military a fraction of their size.
    - richie-guix 2y ago
      [flagged]

KennyBlanken 2y ago

If you're EB, why replace a hydraulic bushing when you can wait, and replace it but also have to repair a bunch of damage and make yourself a nice big extra chunk of change off Uncle Sam? If you're ship's captain...why not help secure a nice 'consulting' 'job' at EB after retiring from the navy by helping EB make millions, and count on your officers to not say a peep to fleet command that the mess was preventable?

buildsjets 2y ago
That sounds EXACTLY like something Fat Leonard might have done... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Leonard_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Leonard_scandal

quacked 2y ago

> Don't even get me started on the nuclear safety problems. I want to be pro-nuclear energy, but I just don't think I can trust the majority of human institutions to handle nuclear plants. What do you think about the idea of replacing all global power production with nuclear, given that it would require many hundreds of thousands of loosely-supervised people running nuclear plants?

MostlyStable 2y ago
Considering that 1 Chernobyl scale accident per year would kill fewer people than global coal power does, I personally would be for it.
- banku_brougham 2y ago
  It was a tremendous effort and sacrifice paid so that half of Europe wasnt poisoned by that 1 Chernobyl.
  - MostlyStable 2y ago
    Given the scale of people killed by coal every year, I feel relatively confident that had that effort not been undertaken, it would still be true. And of course that's ignoring the fact that I also feel relatively confident that a Chernobyl scale accident every year is in no way likely, even if the entire world was 100% on nuclear
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I don't think the scale of coal is 200m+ people a year. That's taking artistic liberties or is too hyperbolic to entertain. >I also feel relatively confident that a Chernobyl scale accident every year is in no way likely, even if the entire world was 100% on nuclear I don't. Einstein's quote rings alarms in my head here. Imagine all the inane incompetencies you've seen with current energies in your house, or at a mechanic, or simply flickering lights at a resaurant. Now imagine that these people now manage small fusion/fission bombs powering such devices. we need to value labor a lot more to trust that sort of maintanance. And the US alone isn't too good at that. Let alone most of Asia and EMEA.

RajT88 2y ago

My brother has loads of ghese stories related to fighter jets. Stuff like pilots taking off with no working nav, "I'll follow the guy in front of me".

neycoda 2y ago

There was no hunch there about a problem, it was very obvious there was a problem. Management willing to risk worker's lives for promotions should be fired immediately unless they jump into the fire only by themselves. No life is worth someone's convenience.