• rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    19 days ago

    A Proton-M booster carrying a GLONASS satellite crashed shortly after takeoff at Baikonur in 2013. The failure was caused by a gyroscope package that had been installed upside down. The receptacle had a metal indexing pin that should’ve prevented the incorrect installation. The worker simply pushed so hard that it bent out of the way.

    When you make a foolproof design, God makes a better fool.

      • rtxn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        Ah yes, it’s on the internet, so it must be American.

        • Kosmodrom Baikonur (located in Kazakhstan) is the primary launch site of Roskosmos (Russia)
        • The Proton is a Soviet-made heavy launch rocket, still used today (not related to Rocket Lab’s Electron and Neutron families (which are also not American))
        • GLONASS is the Soviet/Russian equivalent of the GPS

        I think it’s safe to say that the guy did not land a job at NASA.

        • gens@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          Didn’t nasa make the same mistake ? Because I remember that they put arrows on the slots because someone put a sensor upside down.

          • rtxn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            18 days ago

            I can’t recall anything like that. The only other crash I remember that was caused by a sensor was the Schiaparelli lander, and it was an ESA mission.

            • gens@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              18 days ago

              I remember it from a youtube video from one of those engineering channels (might have been “real engineering”) probably a year ago. I only remember it because I thought “wow they have to have so many safeties” and that it is good to draw on parts and such instead of just relying on technical drawings.

              I don’t remember, but it might not have crashed (multiple sensors), and it might not have had a latch/notch. But it was a long time ago.

              Edit: I still remember the big yellow arrow.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        I know a story about a certain fighter jet we built in the United States. Programmers for the radar had everything set and they ran the tests over and over and the radar was fucking up. Don’t want to put in to many details but end result was about $100m dollars in research losses to find out the mechanic who installed the antenna on the front of the fighter turned it a quarter turn to far and it must have stripped the threads and bent the antenna slightly. Took over a month for them to catch it. They just kept assuming the programming was wrong because the antenna looked right to the eye from as close as the standard person got

      • Fuck spez@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        18 days ago

        Probably by being qualified, and also by being a human being who sometimes makes mistakes and had a bad day.