Let's be More Like NASA

I am not so sure that more redundancy is required. Just following the certification rules would probably do the job.

From what I understand there was at least one or more safety certification checks that were not performed or incorrectly performed. Basically, the back up systems did not work because they were not properly maintained and verified.

A safety valve was supposed to snap shut when there is a sudden change in pipe pressure. That did not happen.

What we will see in the near future is more finger pointing and this will be turned into a political opportunity and legislation, rather than viable solutions, unfortunately.

If Transocean is responsible for this spill because of trying to cut corners on either the BOP itself or the skill level and maintenance routines of personnel, then this company should be out of the business.

Surely something like "criminal negligence" applies in these cases.

NASA, that track record is far worse than anything the Oil and Gas Industry has ever experienced.

Like comparing apples to lemons.

You are joking İ hope!

No, I think NASA, of all the government agencies is the biggest waste of tax dollars of all. Always have, always will. Failed Fuel Tanks, Failed Insulation, Failed who knows what we are never told about. Total arrogance on the participants, listen to the retired "asstronauts" on the future of this bureaucratic nightmare, look at all the fraud pre ABSCAM even with companies rooted in NASA.

I most definitely am not kidding.

Absolutely! I completely agree with that!

Titi-the-rabbit

Thank You.

I knew that I would be in the extreme minority on this, but as one of the original subscribers to NASA Briefs, I have seen NASA grow into a self serving mess.

Sub Contractors especially hiring low skill and pay workers in depressed states and cities like New Orleans constantly messing up and raping the treasury.

People starving on Earth, lack of solid and sustainable housing, and lacking basic needs.

Thanks again.

Sorry but in my opinion the oil and gas industry is a disaster compared to NASA. Oil and gas is a relatively tame thing (until you get into extreme conditions say deep water) in comparison to the space program. By any yard stick the space program has been a success and hopefuly will be again, post Obama. İ love the 'what we are never told about' part - conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies!

Richard Feynman made it pretty clear (no need for conspiracies when there 'subtle shifts of safety criteria ' and 'an almost incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working engineers':

"Conclusions

If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineering
often cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations of
originally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee a
very safe vehicle. In these situations, subtly, and often with
apparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flights
may still be certified in time. They therefore fly in a relatively
unsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent
(it is difficult to be more accurate).

Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the
probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this
may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and
success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that
they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost
incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working
engineers.

In any event this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most
serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a
dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary
airliner. The astronauts, like test pilots, should know their risks,
and we honor them for their courage. Who can doubt that McAuliffe was
equally a person of great courage, who was closer to an awareness of
the true risk than NASA management would have us believe?

Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a
world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and
imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate
them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of
the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be
realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty
of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed,
schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way
the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to
the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and
informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for
the use of their limited resources. (Implying that they had not been- Milo)

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
"

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

I am not claiming that Dr feynmann would "bless" the oil and gas industry, but I am certain that he would find them more closely working to a reality that we would recognize compared to the fantasy world that NASA managers portrayed to make their flight schedules conform to their publicity needs rather than what the sound engineering procedures would necessitate.

Milo

I hope no. we will end with at less ten dollars the gallon of gas and 4 or 5 more accidents

Javier Trejo

"A safety valve was supposed to snap shut when there is a sudden change in pipe pressure. That did not happen."

Also a sudden increase in flow, regardless of pressure, if I recall. My question is, with how the rig sunk and the pipe was bent up... is the current flow and/or line pressure that much different than what would be seen under normal operating conditions?

I mean, it's not like the leak is flowing unobstructed out of a wide-open pipe.

I don't get it though... sure companies will make cuts where they can, but the BOP seems to be THE most critical safety feature of this whole system, you'd think sound business practice would say no to short-cuts there.

How this plays out will be very interesting.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic - NASA Redundancy... please. Look back at 2 of the most visible debacles in NASA history...

1986 Shuttle Challenger - An o-ring failed in the right solid rocket booster killing 7

"...The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found that NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been a key contributing factor to the accident. NASA managers had known that contractor Morton Thiokol's design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but they failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning and had failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors..."

"...One argument of NASA people in contest to Thiokol's concerns was that if the primary O-ring failed the secondary O-ring would still seal. This was unproven, and was in any case an illegitimate argument for a Criticality 1 component. (As astronaut Sally Ride cited in questioning NASA managers before the Rogers Commission, it is forbidden to rely on a backup for a Criticality 1 component. The backup is there to provide redundancy in case of unforeseen failure, not to replace the primary device, leaving no backup.) The engineers at Thiokol also argued that the low overnight temperatures would almost certainly result in SRB temperatures below their redline of 40 °F (4 °C). However, they were overruled by Morton Thiokol management, who recommended that the launch proceed as scheduled. Despite public perceptions that NASA always maintained a "fail-safe" approach, Thiokol management was influenced by demands from NASA managers that they show it was not safe to launch rather than prove conditions were safe. It later emerged in the aftermath of the accident that NASA managers frequently evaded safety regulations to maintain the launch manifest (schedule)..."

2003 Shuttle Columbia - A piece of foam broke off and damaged a heat tile killing 7

"...In a risk-management scenario similar to the Challenger disaster, NASA management failed to recognize the relevance of engineering concerns for safety. Two examples were failures to honor engineer requests for imaging to inspect possible damage, and failure to respond to engineer requests about the status of astronaut inspection of the left wing. Engineering made three separate requests for Department of Defense imaging of the shuttle in orbit to more precisely determine damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the damage, the capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful examination. The CAIB recommended subsequent shuttle flights be imaged while in orbit using ground-based or space-based Department of Defense assets. NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting..."

"...On August 26, the CAIB issued its report on the accident. The report was highly critical of NASA's decision-making and risk-assessment processes. It concluded the organizational structure and processes were sufficiently flawed and that compromise of safety was expected no matter who was in the key decision-making positions. An example was the position of Shuttle Program Manager, where one individual was responsible for achieving safe, timely launches and acceptable costs, which are often conflicting goals. The CAIB report found that NASA had accepted deviations from design criteria as normal when they happened on several flights and did not lead to mission-compromising consequences. One of those was the conflict between a design specification stating the thermal protection system was not designed to withstand significant impacts and the common occurrence of impact damage to it during flight..."

NASA is no different than any other large organization, it's a business and it's ran like one... a bad one at that.

JavaHead

I remember one article on the oil spill explained that a methane bubble shot up through the pipe. Being a gas it rapidly expanded upon ascent until it burst through at the top.

I don't remember what equipment specifically was believed to have ignited the gas, but it was inside the rig and the resulting explosion initiated a chain of fires and explosions that ripped apart the rig.

I just hope that they find a way to contain it quickly and I wish the Federal government would shift its policy from blame and political wrangling to a more "biased for action" approach to resolving the issue.

I am not sue what the federal government could do at this point, but the present status quo is not a demonstration of leadership. Its like the authorities arriving on the scene of a home fire and bitching and moaning that the homeowner didn't do enough to better secure their lawn mower gas cans, while the homeowner is outside with a garden hose.

NUMBER ONE, SEEZE ALL OF B.P. ASSESTS... MAKE ALL SHAREHOLDERS JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS THE MULTI-NATIONAL, IF YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER WANT TO SHARE IN THE GOOD TIMES... THEN PAY UP WHEN THE OIL RIG SINKS. WHY ARE THE BRAINS OF THE DISASTER NOT CONSULTING SOME OF THE OLDER, EXPERIENCED OIL FIELD WORKERS, SOME RETIRED ALREADY, FOR THEIR OPINION. WE DIDN'T JUST MAGICALLY TO THIS POINT OF TECHNOLOGY INSTANTLY... THE TECHNOLOGY AS WELL AS THE REMEDY WILL TAKE TIME. I WOULDN'T GO TO HOLLYWOOD FOR THE SOLUTION. IT IS TIME TO TAP THE RIGHT SOURCES FOR PROPER SOLUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED MEN WHO GOT THEIR HANDS DIRTY WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY... NOT SOME OVER PAYED RETARD SITTING IN THE PENTHOUSE OFFICE LIVING OFF THE BACKS OF THE LITTLE GUY. FOR AN INDUSTRY THAT REPORTS PROFITS IN THE BILLIONS PER QUARTER, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE INFLATED PRICES AT THE PUMP. WE PAYED EXTRA AT THE PUMP, SO THEY CAN PAY EXTRA,NOW, TO FIX THIS PROBLEM. STOP ALL TRADING OF B.P. SHARES AND MAKE THE COMPANY AND ITS INVESTORS LIABLE IMMEDIATELY... YOU WANT TO PLAY, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PAY. AND STOP SPENDING 50 MILLION ON MORAL BOOSTING COMMERCIALS, B.P., CAUSE YOU DUMMIES ARE GOING TO EAT YOUR WORDS, AIN'T NO OIL ON THE BEACH...YET. TO THE PERSON WHO FIGURES THAT THERE IS NO REDUNDANCY BUILT INTO OIL FIELD CONSTRUCTION, THEY SHOULD STUDY THEIR SUBJECT BEFORE THEY SPIT OUT A MOUTHFUL OF UNINFORMED DRIBBLE. WE DEAL WITH THE MOST VOLITILE AND POISONOUS PRODUCTS OUT THERE ON A DAILY BASIS, THERE IS SAFEGUARD AFTER SAFEGUARD PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT HUMAN/ EQUIPMENT/ENVIROMENTAL LOSSES AND DAMAGES. THOSE OF US WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY KNOW THE PROCEDURES AND ARE CONSTANTLY IMPROVING BOTH SAFETY AND RECOVERY OF THIS DANGEROUS COMMODITY. COME AND PLAY IN OUR SANDBOX, SO THAT YOU MAY GAIN SOME EXPERIENCE AND APPRECIATE JUST HOW MUCH EFFORT AND MONEY GOES INTO SAFE PRODUCTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. COME TAKE A SNIFF OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS( SOUR GAS)... YOU WON'T TAKE ANOTHER SNIFF

First, I didn't even bother to read all of what you wrote because it is too hard to read with the caps lock stuck on.

Thanks for expressing your opinion, but you really can't expect anyone to take what you are trying to say seriously if you don't respect the audience. You message is lost in the bad grammar.

Second, your first sentence shows a complete disregard and misunderstanding of the rule of law in the US. What you suggest might go well in Venezuela, but not even close here.

Frankly, I think what you wrote and the ay you wrote it looks like you are just having a temper tantrum.

We don't need to have this more like NASA.What we need is to find the people on our government that approve the drilling in our shores without a complete knowledge of what is going on. we need to take out people like Sarah paling that only wants to approve that kind of things without studding real close what is the dangers on that.

I don't know why someone gave you an off-topic score. I think your post was on-topic (although nebulous at the end) so I voted as such.

However, I am not sure I follow your logic on people like Sarah Palin. I can't understand what you mean by 'take out'. This doesn't involve dating, I assume?

Maybe it would be better to skip citing people as an example and just list the attributes you think we should embrace in a public servant.

It was me, poor grammar, misspelling, strictly a political diatribe, and it has no place here.

I agree with your observation, in general.

However, the concept of drilling closer to shore is not a political diatribe and does have some merit with the topic (although, politics have driven us deep offshore).

In that context I think there is some merit to the point. I just wish the poster's point was better structured and a little more attention was paid to grammar.