🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Alexanderson (no-spam-please-Salexanderson@Cencoast.com) wrote:
: 
: 
: Harry H Conover wrote in article <5t07te$u7@news-central.tiac.net>...
: 
: >Likely, NASA management includes more than just a few PEs.  Remember,
: >NASA is public sector employment, and that's where PEs flourish.  Same
: >is true of the 'Beltway Bandits' that surround DC and leach off the
: >government.
: 
: 
:  NASA is federal agency. The feds claim exemption from state laws like
: engineering licensing. They even have positions called Professional Engineer
: that list no licensing requirement. Add federal exemption to the list of
: exemptions.  In any case, the management I was referring to was that the
: private company responsible for designing the seals. If memory serves,
: engineering recommended delay but management blocked the message from ever
: getting to NASA.

I shouldn't have to point out to you that the company responsible for 
designing the seals was not responsible for the safety of any project
employing those seals, only that the seals met their specificiation
requirements -- which I strongly believe to be likely the case.  

Also, while NASA is not required to employ PEs in their work, large
numbers of NASA degree and certificate collectors do possess PE
licenses.  (It is politically a plus, particularly in management
circles.)

: >
: >Regretably, where money, schedule, and position are concerned, PEs are
: >just a likely to 'adjust' their 'expert witness opinions' in the face of
: >pressure from above as anyone else, and a PE's stamp is a readily
: >purchasable commodity.
: 
: I disagree. I don't claim that PEs are morally superior to those without a
: license, but they do have an added incentive to watch their ethics.

Still, from my experience, many can be 'bought,' particular when they
are operating in an area that exceeds their level of expertise.

: 
: >
: >The real 'Hell Raisers' and 'Loose Cannons' on large, government projects
: >are more likely to come, sad to say, from the scientific rather than
: >Professional Engineering community.  Recall who actually first blew the
: >whistle on the shuttle disaster.
: >
: >More recently, a number of PEs were associated with the decision to
: >launch the Hubble Telescope without its first undergoing a routine
: >vacuum columnation of the optics on Earth -- even though in-vacuum
: >optical alignment and testing has been a integral part of the
: >required alignment process for orbital (defense) optics (like the
: >those of the KH-11) for nearly 30 years.
: 
: Was safety compromised? Don't think it compares with the Challenger 
launch.

Sorry, but this is a strawman agrument.  Bad engineering is bad 
engineering by any standard.  In actuality, not engineering but
management is to be faulted in the Challenger disaster.  Management
realized that there was a statistical 1 in 12 probability of a 
terminal disaster on the shuttle program -- yet they still allowed
crew members with questionable technical risk perception to 
participate in the flight.  It is a given that some shuttle 
flights will result in disaster -- if for nothing else, because
of the experimental nature of the beast.  If the risk factors
were required to be reduced to the level of  flight on a 
production 747, we'd still be waiting for the first manned
shuttle launch -- at best each shuttle launch is a calculated
risk.

Recall that even in something as mundane as bridge building,
a mainstay of the PE profession, legend says: "The bridge
requires a life."

                                     Harry C.