English/metric measurement error in the Mars Climate Orbiter

[Jon]

The Mars Climate Orbiter was a space probe launched by NASA in 1998. It was loaded with scientific measurement instruments, and it was supposed to enter orbit around Mars, gather data, and then communicate its findings back to Earth. Instead, it disintegrated.

Here's the Mars Climate Orbiter:



The orbiter completed a 286-day journey to Mars, and then fired its engine to push itself into orbit. However, something went wrong - on September 23, 1999, NASA lost contact with the orbiter.

What happened? NASA organized an investigation with a Mishap Investigation Board, which produced a detailed report. The suspected root cause? Failure to use the metric system. Here's a highlighted section from the NASA report:



All systems were supposed to use metric measurement, but a single software file was using English units instead. As a result, thruster measurements were miscalculated, and the orbiter was hundreds of kilometers off course, causing it to (most likely) disintegrate in the Martian atmosphere.

NASA handled the failure pretty well, at least externally. Rather than point the finger at Lockheed, whose engineers had programmed the software, they acknowledged that, while the software measurement error was the root problem, it was their responsibility to validate and verify the measurement systems to identify any such errors.



But when you read between the lines, the vague phrasing about communication structures and auditing processes seems to point at the age-old conflict between engineers and management. Some relevant industry magazines (like Aviation Week and Spectrum) published a good bit of anonymously sourced i-told-you-so's (this Spectrum article is especially notable). It looks like some of the involved engineers knew that the official story was being spun, and they leaked the dirty details to the industry press.

NASA's official claim was that nobody knew that the orbiter was off course until communication was lost. However, Spectrum's position was that some of the engineers voiced strong concerns, but were pushed aside by management.

This is the remaining inconsistency between NASA's official version of what happened and the one reconstructed by Spectrum. Our conclusion is that adequate doubts had been raised to require the TCM-5 burn, even in an emergency mode. Further, according to participants in this tragedy of errors, by the time the probe reached Mars, those most "in the know" were persuaded it was already doomed by its sick trajectory--but by then it was too late.

The incident is a fascinating combination of measurement errors, programming errors, management errors, and public relations errors. These mistakes collectively resulted in the loss of a $328 million spacecraft, and demonstrated that, unlike people, errors are great at working together.

Previously:

International Space Station tools
astronaut loses $100,000 tool bag during spacewalk

[mklotz]

Nothing ever gets fixed until a bunch of people die. It's going to require something like flying two fully-loaded A380 Airbuses into each other before we get rid of this nonsense of trying to use two measurement systems side-by-side.

The system is already cocked and loaded. The world standard for measuring and assigning flight level is feet, but China (and a few of its immediate neighbors) uses meters. Quick, is an assigned FL of 10000 m equal to 32000 or 33000 ft? And while you're worrying about that, when they refuel your plane in China for the trans-Pacific return do they measure fuel in pounds or kilograms?

On a completely unrelated idiocy, yesterday I was driving around in downtown Los Angeles. This is an active earthquake zone, near the San Andreas fault, and there are 50-60 story buildings across the street from each other! Oh, they're all certified "earthquake proof" construction. Yeah, sure. The tallest building is 83 stories. One good shake and it'll be toppling dominoes on a gargantuan scale. Even if a building doesn't fall, the tons of glass cladding falling to the street will do a slice and dice that I don't want to see.

[elk-a-holic]

Already has been a major fuel mishap caused by mix up between units. Tragedgy was averted through luck and good piloting. For more look up "Gimli glider" which is a case of an out of fuel passenger plane making a dead stick landing on an abandoned WW2 training airstrip in Manitoba.

[SRQSid]

I recall a component in the Hubble Space Telescope camera had an English/Metric mix up that caused blurry images until a later mission applied corrective lenses (contacts?). The best-laid plans.....

[mklotz]

I recall a component in the Hubble Space Telescope camera had an English/Metric mix up that caused blurry images until a later mission applied corrective lenses (contacts?). The best-laid plans.....

It wasn't "an English/Metric mix up". They neglected to make a simple test that would have revealed the error.

"Perkin-Elmer, which built Hubble at its Danbury plant in Connecticut, tested the primary and secondary mirrors separately, but no one tested the complete telescope before launch. An earlier check by NASA absolved the design itself of blame, leading the agency to narrow the inquiry to possible errors in the testing of the mirrors."

The complete story is here...

https://www.newscientist.com/article...mirror-fiasco/

[MiTasol]

And while you're worrying about that, when they refuel your plane in China for the trans-Pacific return do they measure fuel in pounds or kilograms?.

Many countries use Kilos for fuel and have done so for over 30 years. Use your search engine to look for the Gimli Glider.

On July 23, 1983, Air Canada Flight 143,a Canadian 767 that ran out of fuel because the refueling was done using conversion factors for pounds instead of kilos.

My favourite link is The Gimli Glider / Air Canada

[NortonDommi]

Above all else remember that every stuff-up starts in an office and the usual instigator is a University Educated Idiot that is too clever to make a mistake.

[mklotz]

Above all else remember that every stuff-up starts in an office and the usual instigator is a University Educated Idiot that is too clever to make a mistake.

Well, speaking as a "University Educated Idiot that [sic] is too clever to make a mistake" I'd advise you that demeaning education is no way to solve the problem.

[Trojan Horse]

Well, speaking as a "University Educated Idiot that [sic] is too clever to make a mistake" I'd advise you that demeaning education is no way to solve the problem.

mklotz,
I don't believe he meant that everyone who is "University Educated" is an idiot, nor was he purposely demeaning education. I think he is talking about those who are too full of themselves and think they cannot make a mistake. I think we have all ran across a few of those kinds of people in our lifetimes, I know I sure have met my share of them.

[mklotz]

mklotz,
I don't believe he meant that everyone who is "University Educated" is an idiot, nor was he purposely demeaning education. I think he is talking about those who are too full of themselves and think they cannot make a mistake. I think we have all ran across a few of those kinds of people in our lifetimes, I know I sure have met my share of them.

I'm glad you don't; I do.

There's a growing tendency in society today to put down education. Given that education was once a respected attribute and much sought after, it's hard to understand this turn around in popular opinion. I have my own ideas about its causes but presenting them would just cause a lot of bickering that we don't need on this forum.

If you want to badmouth the engineer who didn't get it right, do so with my blessing but, when you do it, leave out the generalizations like "university-educated idiot" and concentrate on describing how dumb the offending individual was.

If one thinks that, because of all his hands-on experience, the fellow who provided the plans has missed the boat he should do the calculations himself and present the results to the fellow, proving to him the error of his ways. You'll either be thanked and given a bonus or fired for your impertinence. Either way you win; if fired, you'll be freed up to find a job with a firm that appreciates your on-job-learned engineering design skills.