Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Did We Mention, Not Soon?

The ORION PDR slipped to April-June next year this morning, as Viceroy Guyer threw in the towel, conceding that the design has not matured yet to the desired point. BroomHilda still wants to cook more of her witches' brew and maybe change the interior colors and wallpaper one more time.

GFE is also years behind the need dates. Chutes, LIDS, etc are not being resourced to meet qualification needs.

You know where this is headed. The head rolling is just around the corner.

The beat goes on.

4 comments:

kT said...

Why are the images of Giordano Bruno burning at the stake, Antoine Lavoisier losing his head, and Galileo Galilei sitting on his veranda always on my mind?

History does indeed repeat itself.

Anonymous said...

Well the Russians say testing cost money and they have plenty of Cosmonauts. Maybe....??

Anonymous said...

I just finished reading the SRD and providing comments. Hard to believe that in 475 pages one could not discern what was to be built nor how it was supposed to work!

Not applying basic system engineering principles, not following established NASA SE guidelines and in some cases exhibiting a total lack of logical thinking just leaves one aghast.

I was particularly astounded with the system level requirement for the rocket to be able to be launched under any lighting condition! Talk about having to suspend disbelief! Where do they get people to write such utter nonsense?

The lack of capability to define, in clear, understandable terms, what it is that they want is pandemic. They are just pulling ideas out of the air or regions of insufficient light and putting them on paper, pleasing boss's that do not have a clue.

Reviewing these poor excuses for requirements documents, dipping them in red ink and sending them back only to see them getting through the boards with the greatest of ease and not a hint that somebody, somewhere had some serious technical objections is very frustrating indeed.

That dog just won't hunt and this rocket is not going to fly!

Anonymous said...

I've worked on a few NASA subcontracts and not once, have I ever seen "good" requirements.

My favorite was some dribble about "Part A shall draw only a few milliamps when idle." Huh?

Now go design me a rocket!

Seriously...Writing good requirements is a significant indicator of the success of a program. Good requirements increase the likelihood of success (not a guarantee of success). But if the engineers know what they are building, its better than guessing.

No one teaches (college or otherwise) how to write "good" requirements. You're stuck with systems engineers (which are *usually* failed HW engineers who think they can understand the big picture) who think they can do it. But in reality, they churn out dribble that no one can use.

Writing requirements is hard work. Especially when you're stuck using an ambigous language like English. To do it right takes a huge amount of work. That said...would you rather expend a lot of work initially or pay 10x the amount later when someone goofs an interface.